The case for abortion.

[PeterMaclellan]

Let me start by saying I do not support the practice of abortion and I would sincerely encourage any woman considering it to carry the baby to term and put it up for adoption. That said I am still pro-choice for the following reasons...

There is a misconception among opponents to abortion (as well as opponents of marijuana legalization and prostitution) that making abortion illegal will somehow make abortion stop. The simple fact is criminalizing abortion will not prevent abortions, all it will do is force desperate teens to take matters into their own hands, either attempting to self abort or by going to a black market, unregulated abortion clinic (which believe me, WILL spring into existence the second Roe v Wade is overturned). So what would making abortion illegal accomplish other then compromising the safety of the many young women and teenagers who would seek to have abortions preformed as well as the billions of dollars enforcing and imprisoning those that would preform abortions or having abortions preformed on them.

Secondly I believe no person should be forced by law to sacrifice or grant the use of their body to anyone against their will. Should a mother be forced against her will by law to give her dying son a kidney? Certainly we would hope that the mother would do such a thing, perhaps we would condemn the mother as selfish and immoral, but we do not legally require her to give up a part of her body to save anyone, likewise while we may sincerely hope a pregnant mother would choose to carry the baby to term, we have no logical justification for making her decision not to illegal.

 

[Voegelin]

The simple fact is criminalizing abortion will not prevent abortions

Eliminate all laws then. They don't work.

Secondly I believe no person should be forced by law to sacrifice or grant the use of their body to anyone .

So you have no problem with partial birth abortion either then? One minute before a baby is born, its OK to kill it? No obligation to take care of a baby after its birth by that criteria either.

 

[Picture.Of.Obedience]

Should a baby created by the mothers lack of responsibility (abstinence, birth control) be killed against its will?
I would love for it to be illeagle everywhere. Babies dont ask to be made or killed. I dont see how anyone can justify it.

 

[levi501]

Secondly I believe no person should be forced by law to sacrifice or grant the use of their body to anyone against their will. Should a mother be forced against her will by law to give her dying son a kidney? Certainly we would hope that the mother would do such a thing, perhaps we would condemn the mother as selfish and immoral, but we do not legally require her to give up a part of her body to save anyone, likewise while we may sincerely hope a pregnant mother would choose to carry the baby to term, we have no logical justification for making her decision not to illegal.

This is the point the anti-choice crowd continues to ignore. Like a petulant child with their fingers in their ears they're too blinded by emotion to address this. No one has the right to live inside another with out their permission.

 

[realitychick]

I think if abortions were illegal there would be a push to find other ways to abort, ways that can't be targeted by the pro life crowd. I'm practically convinced that government officials feel the same and are waiting for those other methods before moving against current abortion laws. That way they can win votes and not REALLY change anything. But that's just my own personal opinion.

 

[HumanisticJones]

When abortions were illegal, such black market abortions did occur, and quite a number resulted in infertility, illness or death. This is due to the septic conditions in which they occured, the fact that those performing them were not usually trained in human physiology or surgery, and that the tools used were butcheresque in comparison to clinic tools.

Making them illegal again will fix nothing for those against Roe v Wade, it will just result in danger to the lives of many more women.

Besides, the bible says that life is in the blood, so abortion shouldn't matter until the fetus' cardiovascular system begins funtcioning and circulating its own blood. Until then it has no blood and thus no life by that description.

 

[kopilo]

Should a baby created by the mothers lack of responsibility (abstinence, birth control) be killed against its will?
I would love for it to be illeagle everywhere. Babies dont ask to be made or killed. I dont see how anyone can justify it.

Red herring, topic is on abortion not killing born children.

 

[Steezie]

Should a baby created by the mothers lack of responsibility (abstinence, birth control) be killed against its will?
I would love for it to be illeagle everywhere. Babies dont ask to be made or killed. I dont see how anyone can justify it.

The OP's point is that if you prohibit abortion, you're not going to get it to go away. You're simply going to drive it underground and end up with a MUCH worse situation than you have now.

In high school I did a debate report on abortion. I had to find both sides of the argument and I found a website that showed pictures of an underground abortion clinic in central Africa that had been raided by police. The pictures I've seen of aborted fetuses dont even come close to how scary those pictures were. They were using everything they could get thier hands on to do the surgery. There was a table with a machete and a piece of broken glass on it, those were tools that were used in the surgery. There was NO sanitation at all and no sterilization. Only one of the people performing the procedures was an actual doctor, the rest were just farmers or other trademen who had no previous medical training. It was a scene out of the worst horror movie you've ever seen. That is a truly frightening scenario to me, MUCH more so than abortion.

 

[NeTrips]

Abortion is seriously morally wrong.

Why? Because abortion involves killing. But, what is wrong with killing. Killing robs a being of a natural property which is of great, if not the greatest, value.

What is this natural property of which a being is robbed? It is the property of having a future, a future-just-like-ours. To be killed deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.

To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do, and since it is wrong to deprive us of our futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them.

 

[Pheehp]

Abortion is seriously morally wrong.

Why? Because abortion involves killing. But, what is wrong with killing. Killing robs a being of a natural property which is of great, if not the greatest, value.

What is this natural property of which a being is robbed? It is the property of having a future, a future-just-like-ours. To be killed deprives one of all the experiences, activities, projects, and enjoyments that would otherwise have constituted one's future. Therefore, killing someone is wrong, primarily because the killing inflicts (one of) the greatest possible losses on the victim.

To describe this as the loss of life can be misleading, however. The change in my biological state does not by itself make killing me wrong. The effect of the loss of my biological life is the loss to me of all those activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments which would otherwise have constituted my future personal life. These activities, projects, experiences, and enjoyments are either valuable for their own sakes or are means to something else that is valuable for its own sake. Therefore, when I die, I am deprived of all of the value of my future. Since fetuses have the same kind of future that we do, and since it is wrong to deprive us of our futures, it follows that it is wrong to kill fetuses and thereby rob them of what is of the greatest value to them.

so fetuses dont count as people but should be seen as potential and be given protection for that potential? well thats all well and good BUT you now need to fight as strongly to stop men getting sterylised, masturbating and not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] more than one sperm when attempting to make a child as that would be wasting and KILLING potential lives and experiences..

your arguement is based on ikk-factor not truely your points otherwise you would have mentioned the aboves. ppl who are prolife need to stop interfering with other ppls lives, live as you wish but dont try to dominate other ppls.

 

[jayem]

A word that sadly, is rarely heard in this issue: Compromise.


When a fetus is naturally viable (meaning when it can be expected to survive outside the uterus without intensive, artificial life support--- ca. 25 weeks) it should be considered a "person" in the legal sense, and has rights independent of its mother. States can restrict abortion, if they wish.

Before 25 weeks, a fetus is not a "person," in the legal sense (it is then what it is--a fetus) and abortion is a private medical matter between a woman and a physician.

This is a reasonable, and practical balancing of two legitimate, but competing interests: the right of a developing person to an undisturbed gestation, and the right of a woman to her bodily autonomy. But the absolutists on either side will never accept it, which means it's probably fair.

 

[Picture.Of.Obedience]

If it were outlawed, it would still happen, sure, just like any law in the world. That is a poor argument.

 

[NeTrips]

so fetuses dont count as people but should be seen as potential and be given protection for that potential? well thats all well and good BUT you now need to fight as strongly to stop men getting sterylised, masturbating and not [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] more than one sperm when attempting to make a child as that would be wasting and KILLING potential lives and experiences..

your arguement is based on ikk-factor not truely your points otherwise you would have mentioned the aboves. ppl who are prolife need to stop interfering with other ppls lives, live as you wish but dont try to dominate other ppls.

enough straw here for a whole herd.... and the generalized ad hom supports othing as well.

Never said a thing about fetus' not counting as people.
Sperm does not have a future just-like-ours.
Never came close "ikk" either.

Let's debate what's been written shall we?

 

[NeTrips]

By me sitting here right now, doing homework and typing on the forum, and not trying to get pregnant, I am changing the future. My future, my families future, and the future of the child who won't be born. By waiting another year to have babies, there's at least one baby who's future will never happen. By wanting only 3 or 4 babies, that's dozens and dozens of babies I could have had being denied a future by my actions. By not having as many babies as possible, I'm denying the value of life.

What we do changes our future and our families future. Unless you want to obligate people to having as many babies as often as possible, saying abortion prevents the future of a baby is a worthless argument...

And that's without even exploring the philosophical argument of maybe it was the future of that pregnancy to not continue until birth, that the intended future of that fetus was abortion. For those of us who believe God is all powerful, all knowing, and omnipotent, that seems like the more logical answer to that question.

The argument is based on a future just like ours of the fetus, not your future, your family's future, etc. Abortion does not change the fetus' future, it denies a future to a fetus. It steals it's future.

For example, take a person who is dying of AIDS. The suffering from the effects of the disease is bad enough to prompt our deep sympathies, but it is the loss of the person's future that indicates that an untimely death is the real tragedy.

 

[jayem]

The problem I have with criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy is that it is an untenable expansion of government power into one's personal life. I believe there is a sphere of privacy into which the state should not intrude except perhaps only in extreme and compelling circumstances. And two of the most private areas are clearly matters of one's own body and one's medical care. Of course, a fetus is a genetically unique individual, but it occupies a woman's uterus, and it makes an obligatory demand on her heart, lungs, kidney, etc. I don't buy that the act of becoming pregnant implies that a woman gives automatic consent to allow her uterus and organ systems to be used for nine months. Using the police power of the state to enforce such is a completely unacceptable violation of a woman's right to her bodily automony, and her right to make decisions regarding her health care. (Important qualifier: I'm not saying she has a "right" to have an abortion performed on demand. Only that if a woman and qualified medical provider agree that a termination can be done, then the state has no business interfering.)

And as I stated earlier, her right to bodily autonomy is not absolute, and there is a point where a fetus also has rights that must be respected. That occurs when a fetus is naturally viable. Then the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the life of another person.

Abortions are tragic and I'd agree that terminating a healthy pregnancy for less than very compelling reasons (mainly medical conditions, IMO) is morally suspect. But I don't completely trust government, and I don't want to give the state more authority to inpugn our privacy. Bad as abortion is, allowing government to intrude into one of the most personal and intimate aspects of anyone's life is simply a worse evil.

 

[NeTrips]

And again, me not being pregnant right now is stealing the future of a fetus.

What fetus? Abortions are not performed on hypothetical fetus'.

And again, it doesn't answer the possibility that the intended future of the fetus was abortion.

a future just like ours automatically rules out a future of abortion.

 

[NeTrips]

.... so women dying wouldn't be a concern.

can you substantiate this with anything other than your personal feelings?

 

[chaz345]

This is the point the anti-choice crowd continues to ignore. Like a petulant child with their fingers in their ears they're too blinded by emotion to address this. No one has the right to live inside another with out their permission.

That permission was granted the moment the mother engaged in actions that could lead to pregnancy. Besides pregnancy is temporary, abortion is permanent. What makes the mother's right to live as she wishes more important than the baby's right to live at all?

 

[chaz345]

Of course, that's not what a late-term abortion is...

Then what exactly is it?

 

[chaz345]

Not to mention, that solution is what is outlined in Roe vs. Wade.

If that is the solution that is outlined in RvW then why is there so much opposition to any restrictions on abortions at any time during the pregnancy? Why is a ban on partial birth abortions met with cries that it is an erosion of RvW? I've heard the objection that partial birth abortions are only done when the mother's life is in danger. If that's the case then give me an example of one single life threatening condition that would allow a woman to deliver a baby 90% of the way but that would cause her harm for the baby to be completely removed.