Abortion

[OldSchooler]

---

Members do not see this ad.

.

 

[Jacobian78]

Fetuses aren't considered human when it's convenient for the discussion of abortion. You're feelings on the issue really mean nilch, woman who are pregnant don't often speak of their unborn child as a non-human POC. In addition, if a woman is involved in an accident and loses the child, it would be a bit asinine to tell her that her baby didn't actually die but in fact it was yet to even be alive.

 

[Hyperstudyosis]

I don't necessarily believe in things that can only be proven...but I also wouldn't base a logical argument off of something that wasn't rooted in fact. Faith is tricky b/c it's not the same for any 2 people so using it to convince someone else what you believe doesn't really work.

That's the tricky thing about this whole abortion debate...a lot of us have beliefs that are based on our personal faith or religion/moral beliefs. And you're right- you can't really convince someone that your faith is right since you both don't believe in the same sources of authority.

 

[OldSchooler]

.

 

[foster033]

Firstly, I would appreciate you not referring to my as being 'ridiculous.' I am attempting to help you understand the oppositions view, something that will improve your ability to defend your own.
My point is that you are making a claim that a mother is responsibe to care for a being that can survive outside of the fetus, but not when its inside. Caring for a new born takes tremendous sacrifice and time, and yes, giving up some 'rights.' I'll repeat this again, since it doesn't seem to be sinking in, many people hold the fetus in the same regard as a new born. Neglecting to keep the fetus alive, to them, is the same is neglecting to nurish and keep a new born alive.
You seem to posture that since the methods of keeping a fetus and newborn alive differ that somehow voids my argument, I do no see how it does.
My point is that most people believe that killing humans is wrong, so the question should be is the fetus a human or not.

I understand the opposing view...I get it, I just don't agree with it....It's not my job to make their argument for them, I dont' know why you think it is? They tell me their side, I listen and try to refute it while telling them my side, they try to refute that....I thought this was how debates went..Am I confused here??

The point you seem to be so happy of making, that I'm making a distinction between the fetus and a newborn might be valid if I said that I thought that fetus was a human life...but I didn't say that, I don't know if I think it is, I don't really care, I'm saying it doesn't matter one way or another ....that's sort of the beauty of the argument...
besides, the point isn't even valid...the fetus and newborn are not different...the fetus would die without the support of the mother's body with the same exact care as a newborn, you're giving them the same things, in the same environment and the fetus would die while the newborn world not...
it's not that you don't have a responsibility to provide for them it's that you don't have the responsibility to let them leech off your body....

killing humans is sometimes wrong...

to me, that's not the debate...it's about a women having the right to say what she wants growing inside her body....

 

[capn jazz]

Perhaps historically (i.e. Hellenic era) this concept may have held water, but it's ludicrous to believe that this is the case now. The debate is whether you believe that a fetus is a living human being; conflating it with women's lib theory not only distorts the message, but completely ignores the point of the current argument.

Honestly? I am by NO MEANS a feminist, and have never claimed to be, but if you think that things like thinking women are too silly to make their own grave decisions are things of the 'Hellenic era', you are sadly mistaken. The xkcd comic makes my point better than I ever could: http://xkcd.com/385/ There are many, many things that men do without notice, and when a woman does them, it's a sign that all women are bad at X or are bitches, or whatever. It's really not a moot point.

The argument is NOT about whether a fetus is a living human being, if you ask me. The argument is about whether we will allow women to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies. Beside, neither side has ANY EVIDENCE for a fetus either being alive or not - you can say all you want about stages of development and all, but in truth, no one can say definitively is a fetus is a cognizant individual or not. So why err on the side of the rights of an as-yet-unknown-possibly-living-organism over the indisputable bodily autonomy of an organism that you know damn well is an independent, self-aware individual.

Question: do you really think that if men were capable of carrying babies (which depending upon how you come down on the Thomas Beatie issue is a decidedly real possiblity) that people would be OK with killing fetuses?

If you really believe that, I've got a subprime mortgage for you that is an opportunity too good to miss!

Honestly, if it were the other way around, no one would even think to say that fetuses' rights need to be protected, because it would be utterly silly to ever think that men didn't deserve total and absolute control over their own bodies.

Which is why it's so utterly offensive and outrageous when people try and argue now that there is any POSSIBLE scenario where a person does not deserve bodily autonomy and the freedom to choose what medical procedures are done to them when they are fully mentally aware.

 

[Adam Smasher]

I don't know if this has already been brought up because I am nowhere near interested in wading through the entire thread. Anyway, "abortion" in a medical context simply refers to the death of the fetus, whether from miscarriage or from coat hanger.

Now that I think of it, you guys probably aren't interested in semantics. But I shall post my thoughts anyway so the world may smell my brain fart.

 

[lord_jeebus]

For those who believe that life begins at conception, I have a question.

Given that about half of fertilized eggs fail to implant (and hence, well, die), this means that failure to implant kills more humans than any single disease. Millions annually. For everyone alive on Earth today, there was someone who died of failure to implant.

Do you support shifting funding from research of heart disease, various cancers, and infectious diseases to this #1 killer disease? If not, why?

 

[Bacchus]

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round that won't stop. The two arguments in this thread are conception = life and conception != life.

 

[WinterLights]

Honestly? I am by NO MEANS a feminist, and have never claimed to be, but if you think that things like thinking women are too silly to make their own grave decisions are things of the 'Hellenic era', you are sadly mistaken. The xkcd comic makes my point better than I ever could: http://xkcd.com/385/ There are many, many things that men do without notice, and when a woman does them, it's a sign that all women are bad at X or are bitches, or whatever. It's really not a moot point.

The argument is NOT about whether a fetus is a living human being, if you ask me. The argument is about whether we will allow women to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies. Beside, neither side has ANY EVIDENCE for a fetus either being alive or not - you can say all you want about stages of development and all, but in truth, no one can say definitively is a fetus is a cognizant individual or not. So why err on the side of the rights of an as-yet-unknown-possibly-living-organism over the indisputable bodily autonomy of an organism that you know damn well is an independent, self-aware individual.



Honestly, if it were the other way around, no one would even think to say that fetuses' rights need to be protected, because it would be utterly silly to ever think that men didn't deserve total and absolute control over their own bodies.

Which is why it's so utterly offensive and outrageous when people try and argue now that there is any POSSIBLE scenario where a person does not deserve bodily autonomy and the freedom to choose what medical procedures are done to them when they are fully mentally aware.

I am for abortion but not because of the reasons that you mentioned. Abortions should only be utilized in the instance where the child may have a life-threatening disability, or the mother could die. I cannot think of any other reason to have an abortion. Adoption seems like the best alternative in any other case.

 

[SarsMO]

ok, that's just wrong and stupid, but then I guess you have to take into account that some are just may not be properly educated or highly immature.

I am really not sure as to why you decided to attack me personally with that. I find that very rude and "highly immature." That it not the point of this forum. I respect other people's points of view; I don't attack them or their intelligence.

And when I said that some women see abortion as a form of birth control, I say that with experience. I had a friend tell me, "I don't need to go on the pill, and if he doesn't want to use a condom that's ok because I can always get an abortion."

Please cease with the name-calling. 🙁

 

[capn jazz]

I am for abortion but not because of the reasons that you mentioned. Abortions should only be utilized in the instance where the child may have a life-threatening disability, or the mother could die. I cannot think of any other reason to have an abortion. Adoption seems like the best alternative in any other case.

As far as I'm concerned, they should be reserved for serious situations, but far be it from me to decide for another woman what a "serious" situation is.

Adoption is the best alternative for the future baby. For the woman? Not so much. Knowing your child is out there, and has nothing to do with you? Going through 9 months of hell? Freakin childbirth?! Losing your job due to not being able to handle the physical stress? Not getting hired for a future job because they think you'll go on maternity leave immediately? Possibly having to drop out of college if you miss too many days due to morning sickness/general malaise?

Yea, great alternative. Even better: requiring a full-grown woman go through all that so that a fetus may one day be born.

 

[Bacchus]

As far as I'm concerned, they should be reserved for serious situations, but far be it from me to decide for another woman what a "serious" situation is.

Adoption is the best alternative for the future baby. For the woman? Not so much. Knowing your child is out there, and has nothing to do with you? Going through 9 months of hell? Freakin childbirth?! Losing your job due to not being able to handle the physical stress? Not getting hired for a future job because they think you'll go on maternity leave immediately? Possibly having to drop out of college if you miss too many days due to morning sickness/general malaise?

Yea, great alternative. Even better: requiring a full-grown woman go through all that so that a fetus may one day be born.

I pose to you: Isn't this why contraceptives and abstinence exist? In extreme cases (rape/incest/arranged marriage) we agree abortion should be an option. But for a romp? See the first part of this post.

 

[tessa108]

I am really not sure as to why you decided to attack me personally with that. I find that very rude and "highly immature." That it not the point of this forum. I respect other people's points of view; I don't attack them or their intelligence.

And when I said that some women see abortion as a form of birth control, I say that with experience. I had a friend tell me, "I don't need to go on the pill, and if he doesn't want to use a condom that's ok because I can always get an abortion."

Please cease with the name-calling. 🙁

Not to jump in the middle here, but I read her comments as saying that the stance of using abortion as birth control is immature and uneducated, not attacking you.

And as much as I am pro-choice and believe that it is the woman's right to choose regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, that view toward abortion is certainly unfortunate with so many better options available. But in many cases - especially concerning teen pregnancy - better education and access to birth control could go a long way in helping to reduce the number of women in situations where they feel they need an abortion in the first place.

 

[SarsMO]

Not to jump in the middle here, but I read her comments as saying that the stance of using abortion as birth control is immature and uneducated, not attacking you.

And as much as I am pro-choice and believe that it is the woman's right to choose regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy, that view toward abortion is certainly unfortunate with so many better options available. But in many cases - especially concerning teen pregnancy - better education and access to birth control could go a long way in helping to reduce the number of women in situations where they feel they need an abortion in the first place.

ooh! good point...I might have totally misread her comment. oops. sorry shmrshine if I misinterpreted!

BTW, awesome stats Tessa!!!

 

[Haemulon]

So far, even with some bumps in the road along the way, there have been a lot of great comments throughout the course of the thread so far. Thanks to everyone who is making efforts to keep discussions polite and productive 🙂 I learn a lot by reading them, and even by floating my own ideas here and there.

 

[tessa108]

ooh! good point...I might have totally misread her comment. oops. sorry shmrshine if I misinterpreted!

BTW, awesome stats Tessa!!!

That's the trouble with internet forums - no inflection, no body language, so easy to misinterpret!

And thanks. 🙂

 

[foster033]

I pose to you: Isn't this why contraceptives and abstinence exist? In extreme cases (rape/incest/arranged marriage) we agree abortion should be an option. But for a romp? See the first part of this post.

Contraceptives are hardly full proof...and as to abstinence, that just doesn't make sense...you can be married and not want children, does that mean you should obtain to be 100% sure you want...or should a women be forced to get an invasive surgery so that she can no longer get pregnant, what if she wishes to get pregnant, just not right now?

if you're morally against taking a life then it shouldn't matter how the life was brought into existance, the fetus shoudn't be punished b/c of their father's actions...if it's okay in one situation it should be okay in all situations....why do the reasons behind the act matter, the act is still the same..

 

[MDman87]

The argument is about whether we will allow women to decide for themselves what happens to their bodies.

It's about a woman having the right to say what she wants growing inside her body.

Couldn't agree more. And a woman does have the right to control what goes on inside her body. . . right up until the moment of conception (or whenever it is you consider "life" to begin). Because then, her actions affect not only her own body, but also the life of her unborn child. Back when the Supreme Court was overturning the D.C. handgun ban, a friend of mine (who's pro-choice BTW) compared abortion to gun rights. She believes people should have the right, if they so choose, to own guns for self-defense purposes, and I agree. She goes on to say that just as people make bad decisions with guns, they still have that right, that autonomy. She thinks women may make bad decisions when it comes to abortion, but they should nevertheless have the right to choose for themselves. Seems like a reasonable argument. The only difference, though, is that people who make bad decisions with guns are punished under the law. You can choose to do wrong, but you better be prepared to suffer the consequences (with guns, that is)

In case it's still unclear, I do not agree with abortion. Call me a radical or an extremist, but I honestly don't think it's any different from murder. There are certainly cases where it's more justifiable than others (rape, etc.), but I just don't think it should be allowed. Yes, it would be a real tragedy for a rape victim to have to bear a child that was conceived under such circumstances. But what I find even more tragic is the fact that thousands of lives (and, yes, I consider them lives) are being unnecessarily ended each year. It seems to me that there's a simple solution to this problem: DON'T GET PREGNANT! Of course, accidents are going to happen, but they shouldn't. If you're not ready to accept the possibility that you might end up pregnant (regardless of how many precautions you take), then perhaps you should think twice about having sex. Easy for me to say, I guess, since I don't have to worry about getting pregnant at all.

The main reason I feel so strongly that abortion is wrong is this: I have never once met a woman who's had an abortion who doesn't feel the slightest bit of guilt for her decision, and I would challenge anyone out there to contradict this. Now if someone feels guilty about a decision, chances are it was wrong (again, in my opinion). Also, why is abortion so secretive? If there's nothing wrong with it, why do so many women keep the procedure to themselves? Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but when a pregnant woman is murdered, isn't the murderer prosecuted for two murders? This may be false information, but if it is true then it seems to contradict the legality of abortion in my opinion. . .

Hope I didn't get too carried away here. This is just one man's opinion, so please don't take offense. This wasn't a rant; I just feel strongly about the issue and had to express my thoughts

 

[Haemulon]

Couldn't agree more. And a woman does have the right to control what goes on inside her body. . . right up until the moment of conception (or whenever it is you consider "life" to begin). Because then, her actions affect not only her own body, but also the life of her unborn child. Back when the Supreme Court was overturning the D.C. handgun ban, a friend of mine (who's pro-choice BTW) compared abortion to gun rights. She believes people should have the right, if they so choose, to own guns for self-defense purposes, and I agree. She goes on to say that just as people make bad decisions with guns, they still have that right, that autonomy. She thinks women may make bad decisions when it comes to abortion, but they should nevertheless have the right to choose for themselves. Seems like a reasonable argument. The only difference, though, is that people who make bad decisions with guns are punished under the law. You can choose to do wrong, but you better be prepared to suffer the consequences (with guns, that is)

In case it's still unclear, I do not agree with abortion. Call me a radical or an extremist, but I honestly don't think it's any different from murder. There are certainly cases where it's more justifiable than others (rape, etc.), but I just don't think it should be allowed. Yes, it would be a real tragedy for a rape victim to have to bear a child that was conceived under such circumstances. But what I find even more tragic is the fact that thousands of lives (and, yes, I consider them lives) are being unnecessarily ended each year. The main reason I feel so strongly that abortion is wrong is this: I have never once met a woman who's had an abortion who doesn't feel the slightest bit of guilt for her decision, and I would challenge anyone out there to contradict this. Now if someone feels guilty about a decision, chances are it was wrong (again, in my opinion). Also, why is abortion so secretive? If there's nothing wrong with it, why do so many women keep the procedure to themselves?

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but when a pregnant woman is murdered, isn't the murderer prosecuted for two murders? This may be false information, but if it is true then it seems to contradict the legality of abortion in my opinion. . .

Hope I didn't get too carried away here. This is just one man's opinion, so please don't take offense. This wasn't a rant; I just feel strongly about the issue and had to express my thoughts

I think this is still controversial, for obvious reasons. True in some states, not in others from what I understand. Also might tie into the specific nature of the how the crime occured and other factors ... I can't recall for sure. Would be interesting to find out if gestational age has any relevance.

 

[SarsMO]

I think this is still controversial, for obvious reasons. True in some states, not in others from what I understand. Also might tie into the specific nature of the how the crime occured and other factors ... I can't recall for sure. Would be interesting to find out if gestational age has any relevance.

I think it is based on gestational age in most places. I think 7 mos is pretty typical...but honestly I could be basing that off of Law&Order episodes I've seen. 🙂 I'll look for sources.

 

[capn jazz]

I pose to you: Isn't this why contraceptives and abstinence exist? In extreme cases (rape/incest/arranged marriage) we agree abortion should be an option. But for a romp? See the first part of this post.

I don't know where you get the idea that women are pouring into abortion clinics after their monthly romp. Seriously - people throw around this comment like most abortions come from some silly girl who just wanted to sleep around without consequences.

Abstinence? Honestly? That'll work.

Contraceptives can fail. Condoms can break, and you might not even notice. BC can be more or less effective depending on the make up of your hormone chemistry. Hell, I recently read an article that said that BC may be less effective in women over 155 lbs.

Here's a good article on why abortion should remain legal, written by a physician:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=283931&p=1

 

[Haemulon]

I think it is based on gestational age in most places. I think 7 mos is pretty typical...but honestly I could be basing that off of Law&Order episodes I've seen. 🙂 I'll look for sources.

Seems reasonable enough on the surface. Thanks.

 

[foster033]

Couldn't agree more. And a woman does have the right to control what goes on inside her body. . . right up until the moment of conception (or whenever it is you consider "life" to begin). Because then, her actions affect not only her own body, but also the life of her unborn child.

The rights of the fetus do not supersede the rights of the woman.

The main reason I feel so strongly that abortion is wrong is this: I have never once met a woman who's had an abortion who doesn't feel the slightest bit of guilt for her decision, and I would challenge anyone out there to contradict this. Now if someone feels guilty about a decision, chances are it was wrong (again, in my opinion). Also, why is abortion so secretive? If there's nothing wrong with it, why do so many women keep the procedure to themselves?

While I can't challenge the fact that you've never met a women who doesn't feel guilt, since I don't know you or the people you've met, I can tell you that my best friend in college had an abortion when she was 14 and has never felt any guilt about it...she was coerced into having sex with a family friend who was much older than her...when she got pregnant and told her parents what had been happening they actually blamed her and were upset when she wanted to get an abortion, she ended up getting one any way. Because of her experience with the doctor who performed her abortion she is perusing medical school and wants to be an OB/GYN so that she can help young children and women do what they they need to do. If she had a child at the age of 14 she would not be in the place she is today and she is grateful for that, not remorseful or guilty...

 

[capn jazz]

In case it's still unclear, I do not agree with abortion. Call me a radical or an extremist, but I honestly don't think it's any different from murder. There are certainly cases where it's more justifiable than others (rape, etc.), but I just don't think it should be allowed.

What about cases where the woman might die? What if she's bleeding out on the hospital bed and you need to end the pregnancy to save her life? What if it's not so clear cut, but there is a good chance she could die if she continues the pregnancy? What about ectopic pregnancies? They're all lives, according to you. Is it okay to kill them if they might kill someone else? Most pro-life people would never agree that it's okay to kill someone if there is a good chance they might kill another person in the future. Why is it different for fetuses?

DON'T GET PREGNANT! Of course, accidents are going to happen, but they shouldn't. If you're not ready to accept the possibility that you might end up pregnant (regardless of how many precautions you take), then perhaps you should think twice about having sex. Easy for me to say, I guess, since I don't have to worry about getting pregnant at all. [/quot]

I want you to re-read your last sentence over and over again until you actually understand what you wrote. Yes, it IS easier for you to say it because you are preaching about something that will NEVER personally affect you. It's nice to say how things SHOULD be, but this is how things ARE. And what's up with "don't get pregnant"? There's no pregnancy fairy that comes around and whoops! Pregnant! There's a man behind every pregnancy just as much as there's a woman, and yet they escape blamelessly while women are the harlots who need to have their pregnancy because they were so foolish and had sex. Honestly - when did a baby become a consequence? It is so outlandish to say "You ****ed up and were irresponsible so we're going to make you have a baby" A baby should never be treated like a punishment or a lesson.

The main reason I feel so strongly that abortion is wrong is this: I have never once met a woman who's had an abortion who doesn't feel the slightest bit of guilt for her decision, and I would challenge anyone out there to contradict this.

I don't think you understand what "guilt" means. I can feel guilty about eating another cookie, but I can still be happy I did it. You can feel guilty about running a red light but still be happy you did because you beat the traffic as a result. Feeling slightly guilty doesn't necessarily mean you regret your choice and would go back in time to change it if you could. And honestly, with all the talk about how women should really think before they magically get pregnant, how they should accept the consequences, how they shouldn't have slept around - you honestly don't see where that guilt might come from an outside source? People make others feel guilty for their decisions all the time, it doesn't mean those people would have made a different decision in retrospect.

Also, why is abortion so secretive? If there's nothing wrong with it, why do so many women keep the procedure to themselves?

Um.... maybe because crazy people shoot abortion providers and picket outside of planned parenthood with doctored pictures of abortions and shouting about how everyone's going to hell as a result. Maybe because their dad said they would kill them if they got pregnant in high school. Maybe because their boyfriend really wants the baby and said he would kill her if she got an abortion. Think about it. It's not that hard to come up with a thousand explanations for these things.

 

[tessa108]

The main reason I feel so strongly that abortion is wrong is this: I have never once met a woman who's had an abortion who doesn't feel the slightest bit of guilt for her decision, and I would challenge anyone out there to contradict this. Now if someone feels guilty about a decision, chances are it was wrong (again, in my opinion). Also, why is abortion so secretive? If there's nothing wrong with it, why do so many women keep the procedure to themselves?

I have trouble considering these points as strong support for abortion being wrong. To me, they just highlight that controversial and emotional issues involved.

Any major dilemma lacks a choice without negative aspects - that's what makes it a difficult choice to make. Even if you make the best decision for the time and the circumstances, you likely still have troubled thoughts or guilt because there wasn't a perfect solution. In terms of abortion, I don't think that the decision is taken lightly in most cases, but the woman is obviously in the difficult situation of feeling she can't go through with the pregnancy for whatever reason, even if the decision is troubling to her. But the fact that she may feel sadness for having an abortion and agonized over the decision doesn't automatically make it the wrong decision. (It may have been for some, but I have a very hard time accepting it as a rule, or believing that every woman who feels any guilt about her abortion would go back and change it if she could.) It may be wrong in your opinion for other reasons (which I may not agree with but certainly can respect), but I don't think guilt alone is reason to say something wasn't the correct - albeit difficult - decision for that individual personally.

As for the secrecy, abortion deals with very private and emotional circumstances that would make it difficult to share to begin with. Add in the highly controversial aspects of the topic and how emotional it tends to make people not even involved in the actual decision (just check out this thread), is it that surprising that a woman doesn't want to tell everyone about her abortion regardless of her moral feelings on the subject? She obviously considered her pregnancy a mistake; why would she want to broadcast that? [Edit - and as Capn Jazz pointed out above, there are many conceivable more pointed reasons to retain privacy about these matters.] Besides, how open are people usually about even the less controversial aspects of their sex lives outside of a close circle of friends? Again, this argument shows that abortion is controversial (which we all would agree with) - but not necessarily that it is wrong.

 

[calnation]

I understand where you're coming from but again, pregnancies aren't always a result of unprotected sex...

I'm trying to come up with a situation, besides unprotected sex, where an unwanted pregnancy can develop. I can't think of any 😕

 

[calnation]

Ps: you have a really good lookin' dog

 

[capn jazz]

I'm trying to come up with a situation, besides unprotected sex, where an unwanted pregnancy can develop. I can't think of any 😕

The idea of contraception being 100% effective is laughable, but dangerously wrong. Like I said above, condoms can break, BC has different levels of efficacy depending on the individual body chemistry of the woman, or her level of fat, or a million other things. It's not an exact science. I know people who have gotten pregnant despite using condoms or BC. They were hardly being irresponsible.

 

[calnation]

OHHHHH
Thanks capn jazz totally cleared that up. I hadn't been thinking of that. In fact I've never heard of it but it makes sense.

 

[bcat85]

I'm not denying that the fetus is going to die or that your decision is the cause of it, but it's I don't think it's the woman is obligated to let the baby use her body in order to survive...
having sex is not a consent for pregnancy...

Foster you are like a bad dream to me. I always find myself arguing with you on threads like this. However, I have to admit you alway attempt to act maturely and generally do a decent job of supporting your points.

For the record I'm pro-choice...I don't care if you call the fetus alive or not, it doesn't really matter to me (I'm saying this since you assume that all people who are pro-choice must think the fetus is not a life)...I'm still pro-choice..

the argument I'm trying to make is that the mother cannot be forced to let a fetus live off her body...you're not killing the fetus, you're choosing not to let it be a parasite...
the fact that it dies is a consequence of your choice, but it's not the same as killing it.
killing and letting die are in fact very different things. You could not be charged for murder because you refuse to give a liver transplant to your dying relative who needs it...in essence you are letting them die, but it's not the same things as killing them. you have a right to decide what you want done with your own body...same principal applies here...having sex is not the same thing as saying you want to have a baby...

once a child has been born you need to take care of it...it does not depend solely on your body for all functionality...it's heart beats on its own, it breathes on its own, etc. yes, you must feed the baby, but it can survive on formula which doesn't require any sacrifice from your own body..

You are failing to make the distinction between active and passive intervention (or lack thereof). In the lack of any intervention, that child would go to term and would be born healthy (theoretically). In the case of abortion, the child would have to be actively removed from the mother's body. In your example, the lack of intervention on your part would result in the death of your relative. This is very different from feeding him shots of whisky until his liver dies. Consider taking a biomedical ethics class.

I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round that won't stop. The two arguments in this thread are conception = life and conception != life.

Yes its not really a great argument. Many arguments for abortion are based on false analogy. I actually just wrote a blog entry on my position on abortion:

http://bcat85futuremd.blogspot.com/2008/07/on-being-pro-life-physician.html

I am for abortion but not because of the reasons that you mentioned. Abortions should only be utilized in the instance where the child may have a life-threatening disability, or the mother could die. I cannot think of any other reason to have an abortion. Adoption seems like the best alternative in any other case.

Right. That was my initial reaction to this thread. A simple yes/no is kind of hard. I don't oppose ALL abortions (ectopic and life threatening disability i also accept), but I do oppose any in the case of rape/incest. It is a little too cut and dry.

 

[Marcus Brody]

I didn't read any of this thread but I find the poll question very misleading. I personally am NOT "for abortion." I find it disgusting, morally reprehensible, and something to be deeply ashamed of for any woman other than those who are raped.

BUT... I don't believe in taking it away as an option.

So according to the poll I would "believe in abortion" when in reality I definitely do not. I just believe in "choice" above all. The whole euphemism aspect of this issue mindfckues with everybodys' heads. "Pro-life" must mean the other side is "anti-life" or "pro-death." Or if you're "anti-abortion" then the other side must be "pro-abortion."

There is anti-choice and pro-choice. Those are the real options.

 

[Maxwell Edison]

Honestly? I am by NO MEANS a feminist, and have never claimed to be, but if you think that things like thinking women are too silly to make their own grave decisions are things of the 'Hellenic era', you are sadly mistaken. The xkcd comic makes my point better than I ever could: http://xkcd.com/385/ There are many, many things that men do without notice, and when a woman does them, it's a sign that all women are bad at X or are bitches, or whatever. It's really not a moot point.

The Hellenic era comment was referring to the historical prejudice against infanticide because it was practiced by proto-matriarchal tribes as a means to assert control. The Greeks thought that this was the likely instigator for later rebellions by uppity women (as you may correctly assume we're talking about Athenians here) and so repressed the practice of abortion as a means of subjugation (a measure so successful in Greek culture that Hippocrates even included it as a practice that physicians must forswear to be ethical practitioners).

Fast forward a couple centuries (in which men were forbidden by various ecclesiastical authority to even let their sperm fall on the earth) and the movement transformed into people who believed, for one reason or another, that fetuses were living beings who deserved human rights. As such, although the historical pedigree of the pro-life movement was associated with misogyny, that is no longer it's current goal.

Because of this modern iteration, it is laughable to think that men would receive different treatment than women; these days, it's about the fetus, not controlling the person who carries it. That part is incidental.

But this mindset permeates your reasoning:

There's no pregnancy fairy that comes around and whoops! Pregnant! There's a man behind every pregnancy just as much as there's a woman, and yet they escape blamelessly while women are the harlots who need to have their pregnancy because they were so foolish and had sex. Honestly - when did a baby become a consequence? It is so outlandish to say "You ****ed up and were irresponsible so we're going to make you have a baby" A baby should never be treated like a punishment or a lesson.

It's not about punishment. It's not about sexual mores. It's not even really about responsibility. The question simply reduces to whether or not you think fetuses are humans. If you do, the rest is a foregone conclusion. If you don't, that's a different story.

 

[harposnarpo]

I was about to post here and then decided against it.

 

[harposnarpo]

whoops

 

[capn jazz]

It's not about punishment. It's not about sexual mores. It's not even really about responsibility. The question simply reduces to whether or not you think fetuses are humans. If you do, the rest is a foregone conclusion. If you don't, that's a different story.

The thing is, I don't think the question comes down to that. Even if I believed that fetuses were individual living organisms, I'm not sure that would mean to me that abortion should be outlawed. It is by all means, from my perspective, much more about the woman's choice and autonomy than it is about any consequences for the fetus.

The mindset permeates my reasoning because that is the basis for my opinion. It's not wrong just because it's not the common way people approach the issue.

 

[Marcus Brody]

I was about to post here and then decided against it.

I'm waiting for it to degenerate to posting pictures of aborted fetuses and arguments involving violinists and dialysis tubing.

 

[MDman87]

What about cases where the woman might die?

I forgot to mention this. This is one of the few circumstances where abortion could be justified. You're right, if the fetus jeopardizes the mother's life, then abortion would be an appropriate course of action

A baby should never be treated like a punishment or a lesson.

Of course not. But I do believe it should be treated with the same respect as an adult human being. The fetus, in my opinion, should be entitled to the same rights as you and me, and that includes the right to live

The rights of the fetus do not supersede the rights of the woman.

I would not argue against that. However, in my estimation, the fetus's right to live does supercede many of the mother's rights. Many people, it seems, jump at the chance to express the feelings of pregnant women, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I believe also that the interests of the baby should be kept in mind

capn jazz, foster033, and others: all your points are well made. I think it's just safe to say that we have a difference of opinion. No more posts from me. . . don't want to raise everyone else's blood pressure or my own, especially this close to bed time

 

[Maxwell Edison]

The thing is, I don't think the question comes down to that. Even if I believed that fetuses were individual living organisms, I'm not sure that would mean to me that abortion should be outlawed. It is by all means, from my perspective, much more about the woman's choice and autonomy than it is about any consequences for the fetus.

The mindset permeates my reasoning because that is the basis for my opinion. It's not wrong just because it's not the common way people approach the issue.

Yes, this approach is popular because it provides a quick answer. Expediency, however, is seldom the best approach in ethical discussions. With your viewpoint (one that foster shares) I take it to mean that regardless of the status of the fetus as human or not, you'll never sympathize with it because it overrides a woman's autonomy. But to me, there is no more atrocious ethical concept than "I want my rights, I don't care how many people die."

This doesn't apply just to abortion; this is true in any case. There is never a reason that a matter of life and death ought to be categorically relegated to the latter outcome just because someone's comfort or lifestyle may be temporarily cramped for it. I don't feel comfortable saying that African diamond miners don't have the right to live simply because I want a cheaper wedding ring. There are certain standards of ethics that we ought to stand by regardless of disadvantage, and the right to life for each and every human being is one of them.

But again, if you don't think fetuses are humans, then the decision becomes an easier one.

I'm waiting for it to degenerate to posting pictures of aborted fetuses and arguments involving violinists and dialysis tubing.

The latter has already made an appearance, and was hastily rebuked.

 

[foster033]

Ps: you have a really good lookin' dog

😀 Thanks...

Foster you are like a bad dream to me. I always find myself arguing with you on threads like this. However, I have to admit you alway attempt to act maturely and generally do a decent job of supporting your points.

Haha...I pretty much feel the same about you..it wouldn't be any fun if there was no one to argue with🙂

You are failing to make the distinction between active and passive intervention (or lack thereof). In the lack of any intervention, that child would go to term and would be born healthy (theoretically). In the case of abortion, the child would have to be actively removed from the mother's body. In your example, the lack of intervention on your part would result in the death of your relative. This is very different from feeding him shots of whisky until his liver dies. Consider taking a biomedical ethics class.

It's not really that I forgot to make the point...(I admit the analogy was probably poor I might have been able to come up with something better a few hours ago when I was a little more coherent😉)...but that I don't really think much else matter except that the mother's rights come first and foremost before anything else.
It also depends on when the abortion is performed on whether or not it's active, you can take a pill that induced abortion or a pill that prevent implantation...this is intervention but it allows you to avoid an invasive procedure to your body, whether that's childbirth or abortion, and therefore prevents an unwanted medical procedure simply by taking a pill...
I've taken many ethics classes...that's sort of the thing about ethics though is nothing is right or wrong and you can always use some theory or author to refute a point...

 

[capn jazz]

Yes, this approach is popular because it provides a quick answer. Expediency, however, is seldom the best approach in ethical discussions.

I would appreciate it if you dropped the condescending tone. This was not a "quick" position that came to me to avoid thinking about the subject, my opinion is the result of many years and long arguments and debates and reading. It is a fully-formed opinion, and the guiding principle of my ethics is not "expediency."

I don't feel comfortable saying that African diamond miners don't have the right to live simply because I want a cheaper wedding ring.

This is a ridiculous comparison! I honestly don't even know where your parallel is coming from. Wanting to buy something cheaply is in NO WAY analogous to carrying a fetus to term against your own wishes about what to do with your own body and life.

 

[Maxwell Edison]

This is a ridiculous comparison! I honestly don't even know where your parallel is coming from. Wanting to buy something cheaply is in NO WAY analogous to carrying a fetus to term against your own wishes about what to do with your own body and life.

The question is whether you think that there is any right more important than the right to life. I don't think there is.

 

[capn jazz]

The question is whether you think that there is any right more important than the right to life. I don't think there is.

I don't think someone that has yet to be born has a right to life.

 

[foster033]

The question is whether you think that there is any right more important than the right to life. I don't think there is.

The argument is that a women shouldn't be forced to support the life of the child inside her body at the expense of her rights...

 

[Marcus Brody]

The argument is that a women shouldn't be forced to support the life of the child inside her body at the expense of her rights...

Child eh? 😛

 

[Maxwell Edison]

I don't think someone that has yet to be born has a right to life.

Then we've reached the intractable end.

The argument is that a women shouldn't be forced to support the life of the child inside her body at the expense of her rights...

If that's the argument that's fine, but why do the non-mortal rights of a mother supercede the mortal rights of the fetus (again, working from a position that fetuses aren't human)? I can't think of a single correlate outside the abortion debate in which this proposal would be considered acceptable.

 

[foster033]

Child eh? 😛

meh...the terminology is interchangeable for me b/c like I said before I think the women's rights should take precedent over everything so it doesn't matter to me if it's a human life or not, a child or a fetus...
I usually try to use fetus though to avoid comments like these but I slipped up this time...

 

[bcat85]

It's not really that I forgot to make the point...(I admit the analogy was probably poor I might have been able to come up with something better a few hours ago when I was a little more coherent😉)...but that I don't really think much else matter except that the mother's rights come first and foremost before anything else.
It also depends on when the abortion is performed on whether or not it's active, you can take a pill that induced abortion or a pill that prevent implantation...this is intervention but it allows you to avoid an invasive procedure to your body, whether that's childbirth or abortion, and therefore prevents an unwanted medical procedure simply by taking a pill...
I've taken many ethics classes...that's sort of the thing about ethics though is nothing is right or wrong and you can always use some theory or author to refute a point...

This is the crux of the whole issue. It seems to me that the pro-choice/pro-life distinction is that the pro-choice individuals are more concerned with the rights of the mother to her body and the pro-life group is focused on the fetus itself. This is what makes it such a difficult issue. I certainly am not a zealot, I used to be very adamantly pro-choice, but I changed my position on the issue after taking an ethics class. I read a very well-written ethical position paper against abortion (I don't remember who it was by), but it reall changed my opinion on the issue.

I am actually unaware of any pill that prevents implantation. I know RU-486 causes the shedding of the uterus lining, and most b.c. prevents ovulation, but some studies seem to indicate that it can actually contribute to implantation in those who have ovulated.

 

[Marcus Brody]

This is the crux of the whole issue. It seems to me that the pro-choice/pro-life distinction is that the pro-choice individuals are more concerned with the rights of the mother to her body and the pro-life group is focused on the fetus itself. This is what makes it such a difficult issue. I certainly am not a zealot, I used to be very adamantly pro-choice, but I changed my position on the issue after taking an ethics class. I read a very well-written ethical position paper against abortion (I don't remember who it was by), but it reall changed my opinion on the issue.

I am actually unaware of any pill that prevents implantation. I know RU-486 causes the shedding of the uterus lining, and most b.c. prevents ovulation, but some studies seem to indicate that it can actually contribute to implantation in those who have ovulated.

So if it was up to you, what would the legislation say?

 

[foster033]

I am actually unaware of any pill that prevents implantation. I know RU-486 causes the shedding of the uterus lining, and most b.c. prevents ovulation, but some studies seem to indicate that it can actually contribute to implantation in those who have ovulated.

Birth control pills can prevent implantation.. this is a backup protection to preventing conception...emergency contraceptives can also do this...
I think it is somewhat up for debate though to how effective this is but it is still mentioned as an effect of most of these pills..