Abortion

[Spensed]

There are many pro life groups that provide safe homes for poor unwed pregnant ladies. They provide prenatal care and emotional support. They are in every major city and many smaller ones as well. You act as if an abortion doctor is murdered every day. That is ridiculous and untrue but proabortion people routinely assign the same labels to those who genuinely care for and help women in that situation. Too many people worship at the altar of choice. I don't think that all abortion should be illegal but call it what it is abortion not choice. If a doctor performs these procedures he is aborting babies there should be no sugar coating of it with the word choice. I could not in good conscience tell a rape or incest victim that they have to carry a child that resulted from this for nine months and then have to be reminded of it every day for the rest of their life. That said the majority of abortions are done for birth control not because of rape or incest. Having talked to women who have had abortions everyone that I have talked to has talked about the emotional pain that follows and that nobody told them how hard it would be before the abortion was done. That is a true shame,

Of course it is. Hence, my point about education, contraception, adoption alternatives, etc. Those are the true weapons against abortion and, if the anti-abortionists' issue was really just with abortion, that's where they would make the most progress. Instead, too many of them want to moralize and legislate instead.

Of course also, my reference to murdering abortion doctors was sardonic. It would be idiotic to argue that all anti-abortionists are themselves murderers. But it's also idiotic to ignore the luke-warm or formulaic condemnation of these doctor murders. In fact, if you really think abortion is murder, then killing abortion doctors is no different to killing someone about to kill a child.

I'm strongly opposed to abortion for all the obvious reasons, but equally for all the obvious reasons it's not a matter for government coercion.

 

[01solara]

Of course it is. Hence, my point about education, contraception, adoption alternatives, etc. Those are the true weapons against abortion and, if the anti-abortionists' issue was really just with abortion, that's where they would make the most progress. Instead, too many of them want to moralize and legislate instead.

Of course also, my reference to murdering abortion doctors was sardonic. It would be idiotic to argue that all anti-abortionists are themselves murderers. But it's also idiotic to ignore the luke-warm or formulaic condemnation of these doctor murders. In fact, if you really think abortion is murder, then killing abortion doctors is no different to killing someone about to kill a child.

So does that mean that killing an abortion doctor is on the same level as the abortion doctor killing an unborn child? If there is no difference between the two and the abortion doctor has performed 500 abortions is he not more guilty than the person who killed one abortion doctor.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, not really. We dispose of people all the time, and it's not considered murder. Innocent civilians are slaughtered during war. Convicted criminals are ruthlessly executed under the death penalty. Doctors will supply excessive amounts of morphine in order to stop pain, and quicken death. In your state, physicians can end their patient's life under the Death w/ Dignity Act. Parent's can sacrifice one twin for the other when they're conjoined. Hospitals can stop treatment on patients when there's little or no benefit to the patient's health and the treatments are costly. Family members can decide to "pull the plug" when they're loved one is ventilated and is unlikely to recover. Parents can refuse nec. medical treatment for their children when the treatment goes against their religion. During disasters and other emergencies, people are triaged based on how bad off they are, what type of supplies are available to fix their problems, how many "helpers" are available, and so on. Some people are passed over for whatever reason and are left to die.

As a society, we allow people to starve to death. We allow them to freeze to death. We allow our elderly to die from lack of proper health care. As citizens, unless there's some legal obligation involved, we have the right to walk right by someone who is lying in their own blood and desperately calling out for help. We allow folks to kill, so long as it's done in self defense. Even if the perpetrator did not act in self defense, we often negate some of their guilt when the perpetrator has a good legal excuse. In each of these situations, someone dies at the hands of another. Yet, none take the murder label.

Life is certainly valuable, but the value isn't limitless.

Most of your examples aren't matters of choosing to end an innocent life that is doing just fine in terms of its environment. Others are the exceptions that prove the rule -- and are exceptions which could be made in the case of abortion as well.

 

[Kulindahr]

This was a joke right lol?

If not then I disagree I think animals have souls BTW the human species are animals just more intelligent animals... I am not a christian because I am an abomination according to that fairy tale... Also the bible states a bunch of animals such as pork and shrimp as unclean and that you should not eat.... Your not supposed kill and eat all animals hun.... Do you eat lions and tigers and bears too? How about dogs and cats or rats? didn't think so....

You really ought to learn about the Bible before knocking it -- you're totally off on the animals thing, and almost certainly off on the abomination thing.

 

[Spensed]

So does that mean that killing an abortion doctor is on the same level as the abortion doctor killing an unborn child? If there is no difference between the two and the abortion doctor has performed 500 abortions is he not more guilty than the person who killed one abortion doctor.

I'm not clear what point you're making.

If one's an anti-abortionist because one believes that abortion is the murder of innocent children, then it follows that it's OK to kill abortion doctors to prevent the greater evil and I suspect that that's what many anti-abortionists think, despite the lip-service to condemning the murder of those doctors.

If you're an anti-abortionist for philosophical reasons or whatever but don't see that "killing" a fetus is on a par with killing a baby that's already alive out of the womb, then killing an abortion doctor is a far worse evil.

Because there is no consensus and because it involves decision about the mother's own body, I just don't think it's an area for government coercion.

I also think that many anti-abortionists aren't so much interested in honoring life (where are all the funerals for miscarried babies or unused fertilized eggs?) as they are in moralizing about other people's sexual behavior. Otherwise, there'd be much more emphasis on education, safe sex and adoption options and less on legislation that really, by the way, would only affect the poor.

 

[Aggeryt]

I believe that if the mother doesn't want "it" then it may be best for the child if it were aborted, especially if we look at the alternatives:

*Growing up with parents that would always think of them as a burden
*Being born to young or unprepared parents
*Being shoved into the country's woefully inefficient orphanages and foster care system, that will likely make the kid into a criminal by the time they are 18.

 

[CupCake]

You really ought to learn about the Bible before knocking it -- you're totally off on the animals thing, and almost certainly off on the abomination thing.

Um I read some of the bible and I know that it says that certain animals are unclean! Here is a wikipedia page of the animals if you do not believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

Also if I have sex with a man as I would a woman that is an abomination and basically if you have sex with a man you will not enter the "Kingdom of heaven" If you just stay a virgin and are homosexual and do not act out on your "perversions" as they call it then you might....

But I am not a Christian and I really do not care to justify scriptures to suite my best interest.

This was about abortion and not the bible! And all I said was that Pro Life should be for all life! If you support war,death penalty,and killing of animals then you should not be a pro-lifer.

 

[CupCake]

Actually, no. The discussion is about abortion. "Pro-life" is a label within the context of "abortion." You're argument is tantamount to saying if I love ice cream then I should only eat ice cream. Knowing that what I mean is in the context of dessert, I love ice cream.

Frankly, I'm largely pro-life. But I believe in the death penalty. It's justified because I consider murder and killing two different things, though murder is a subset of killing. Murder is the taking of innocent life. Killing is simply the taking of life. Some killing is wrong (ie murder) but not all killing. The taking of someone's life who is about to kill me is not murder, nor is it wrong, but it is killing. War would fall into this category.

Thats your opinion and I respect peoples opinions. I am Pro Choice and thats all that matters. And just because your pro choice does not mean you want to murder innocent people thats all I want to say.

 

[01solara]

I believe that if the mother doesn't want "it" then it may be best for the child if it were aborted, especially if we look at the alternatives:

*Growing up with parents that would always think of them as a burden
*Being born to young or unprepared parents
*Being shoved into the country's woefully inefficient orphanages and foster care system, that will likely make the kid into a criminal by the time they are 18.

What about adoption? There are a ton of people that can't have children waiting to provide a loving home for these "unwanted" babies. No solution other than good judgment and proper birth control if you don't want a child is perfect. However, the guilt many women feel after abortion is very real with very real implications. Education is critically important but self control and good judgment are equally important and sadly missing in much of our current world. All actions have consequences and an unplanned pregnancy is full of them no matter what "choice" is taken. Kids don't become criminals only because of where they grow up. How many families have both good and bad children that grew up in the same house with the same rules and the same genetic make up? In my experience more than not almost every family has a "black sheep". Mine is no exception either. my father and my uncle were both adopted and both raised in a loving family. My father was a loud abusive jerk. My uncle a loving, supportive, reasonable parent that provided both discipline and love. My sister is in jail convicted on nine separate drug felonies yet I have never even experimented with an illegal drug. If it was all upbringing either I should be in jail or she should be a responsible model citizen. Unfortunately there is no way to predict how kids will turn out. It would be nice if you could just abort all the future serial killers and child molesters but it just doesn't work that way.

 

[spencer]

Plan B, which you take up to 3 days after unprotected sex is different from the abortion drug RU486.

It's basically just a stronger dose of birth control.

I guess it's not always "murder"

Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation). If a fertilized egg is implanted prior to taking Plan B, Plan B will not work.

I too think abortion is taking away a life. When someone who wants to be preggers get pregnant, everyone celebrates and if someone were to take it away from the mother without the mother's consent, that would be a serious offense. I would also not approve of a pregnancy of my genetics being taken away and the wishes of the mother.

 

[Alpha1851]

Most of your examples aren't matters of choosing to end an innocent life that is doing just fine in terms of its environment. Others are the exceptions that prove the rule -- and are exceptions which could be made in the case of abortion as well.

Does it matter? I don't think so, but I can work w/ this.

Well, the embryo, requires a woman to be the environment. In none of the examples I provided is one person forced to be the environment for another. As for exceptions, I believe we have them. It's called being pro-choice. If you want to have the baby, have it. If you don't, you can have an abortion. The exceptions are there. Women aren't forced into abortions. Each can choose for themselves.

 

[Kurn]

The OP, like so many people, lack a developed sense of ethical responsibility.
They don't understand that it's not their issue.
Pregnancy is something that happens in a woman's body and, AS A LEGAL ISSUE, it is wholly her prerogative whether or not to terminate or continue. No one else, even if Congress were made up of Pope-clones, has any decisivity in the matter.
This is the American way. It should be the universal way.

Now, to be sure, the World at large is free to discourage abortion. It may encourage births. But it does not and may never of right have decisive power.

Choice, by the way, works both ways. It is also wrong to encourage or impose an abortion that a woman DOES NOT want. That could be criminalized.

Other than that, for the most part, get your grubby hands off our female citizenry. This is not a civil concern. The prerogative in this matter is a deep and ancient action of Nature.

 

[Guy89]

I'm personally pro-choice. It's not something I would ever want done to my own child, regardless of the situation, but I know there can be many different circumstances for every case and so that's why I feel like the woman should decide for herself. I don't agree with women who use it as a form of "birth control" though. If you don't want a kid I think you should at least try to take some precautions so nobody gets pregnant in the first place.

 

[wundersteve]

My thoughts?

If you don't approve of abortion, don't get knocked up, m'kay? And if you DO get knocked up and don't approve of abortion, don't have one. Seems pretty simple.

Martina Navratilova has made that same quote.

However, she is also an advocate for animals rights and gay rights.

Therefore, following her own logic:

Don't believe in cruelty to animals? Then don't be cruel to animals.

Don't believe in discrimination against gays? Then don't discriminate against gays.

Keep government action out of our decisions because it is coercive, blah blah blah. Keep the state OUT of our wombs. Except when it's time to pay the bill. Then the state is required to be IN the womb, apparently. Confiscating the resources of taxpayers, who have no choice, to pay the bill for dismembering a fetus, who also had no choice, to cover the costs of medical staff such as nurses, who had no choice but to be complicit to the procedure if they wish to remain employed in a hospital.

And anti-abortionits get tarred with the anti-choice label? Get real. The pro-aborts are the true anti-choicers.

 

[construct]

Let's throw a wrench in all of this. A man kills a pregnant woman and gets 2 charges of murder. A doctor aborts a baby and get's nothing.

So we're back to my question above.

What do you guys want? Twenty to life for both the abortionist and the woman? Would you prefer the death penalty? What say you, boys and girls?

 

[FirmaFan]

Let's throw a wrench in all of this. A man kills a pregnant woman and gets 2 charges of murder. A doctor aborts a baby and get's nothing.

That's not a wrench, it's more like a playing card that flaps around, constantly making lots of noise, but actually does nothing.

Here's a wonderful video demonstrating the ignorance of such arguments. It appears that most anti-abortionists spend a lot of time thinking about what kinds of anti-abortion signs to make but don't think too far beyond that - even a simple followup question that you would think be inherent to their protests can not be answered:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uk6t_tdOkwo

[STRIKE](copy and paste into your address bar and remove the space after the first "h" - the video won't allow embedding and jub won't allow an internet address to be posted without wrapping the url html code around it, embedding the video)[/STRIKE]

 

[Alpha1851]

Sometimes, it appears that key parts of laws are being left out, and what is implied by our posts, is not really what the law states or how it is applied. Always remember that laws vary from state to state. Whether your govt. pays for, supports, punishes, or allows x, doesn't mean my govt pays for, supports, punishes, or allows X.

Keep government action out of our decisions because it is coercive, blah blah blah. Keep the state OUT of our wombs. Except when it's time to pay the bill. Then the state is required to be IN the womb, apparently. Confiscating the resources of taxpayers, who have no choice, to pay the bill for dismembering a fetus, who also had no choice, to cover the costs of medical staff such as nurses, who had no choice but to be complicit to the procedure if they wish to remain employed in a hospital.

The state? Which states? Is it half of our states, more than half? Do your tax dollars fund all abortions in every case?

In actuality, Congress has long banned the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in some cases of rape or incest. In cases of rape, the woman may be required to show proof that she was raped and isn't lying.

32 of our states and D.C. prohibit the use of state funds for abortions except when the woman's life is endangered by a full-term pregnancy, or in some cases of rape or incest. Again, the woman may have to prove the pregnancy is a result of rape. 1 more state prohibits the use of state funds for abortions except when the woman's life is endangered by a full-term pregnancy. They do not allow state funded abortions in cases of rape or incest.

So, that's 33 states that prohibit the use of state funds for at least some types of abortions. Obviously, that's more than half of our United States. Now, if you feel that's one to many, that's fine. But, I think it's important to fully define what's going on.

Let's throw a wrench in all of this. A man kills a pregnant woman and gets 2 charges of murder. A doctor aborts a baby and get's nothing.

So, if any man kills a pregnant woman he'll be charged w/ double murder? In all circumstances? Is any type of crime required? What if a woman or a child kills a pregnant woman? What if it was in self defense?

First, let's be honest here. The Unborn Victim's of Viol. Act (Laci's and Connor's law) was pushed by the Republicans in an effort to trump a woman's reproduction rights. It was a smart move by them and the pro-life crowd immediately rallied behind it. I mean, whoever doesn't support it seems like they're FOR hurting pregnant women and their cute, innocent fetuses. And, believe it or not, murder is actually the number one way that a pregnant woman dies. Seriously. So, it is what it is. Smart, strategic move.

Second, let's be clear about the law here. The bill specifically states that abortion is NOT a crime. Even in this bill, abortion rights are protected. Congress made a point to note that there's a distinction btwn ruthlessly murdering a pregnant woman, and a woman's right to choose what to do w/ her own body.

Also, this law only applies during the commission of a federal crime (narrowly tailored filed. Such as drug trafficking or terrorist attack) and only when it is being committed against the pregnant mother. The pregnant woman must die.

Last, state laws differ here too. Some states follow the federal law word for word and apply them to state crimes. Others only make it a crime to kill or seriously injure a viable fetus. And others define victim as a person who has drawn breath on their own. Affirmative defenses also apply in some states. These incl. lack of intent to kill the unborn child, and no knowledge of the pregnancy (these aff. defenses don't apply in the commission of a fed crime).

 

[Kulindahr]

I also think that many anti-abortionists aren't so much interested in honoring life (where are all the funerals for miscarried babies or unused fertilized eggs?) as they are in moralizing about other people's sexual behavior. Otherwise, there'd be much more emphasis on education, safe sex and adoption options and less on legislation that really, by the way, would only affect the poor.

Just for fun, I checked with two funeral outfits with their own cemeteries.
Neither would take someone who was never pronounced alive, i.e. met the qualifications for a birth certificate.

I'll agree that a lot of pro-life people are just in it to hear their lips flap. But the groups I've been associated with have paid hospital bills, helped with rent, bought groceries, aided with adoption, and more, on the one hand, and offered information and talks on "how not to get pregnant" on the other.

 

[Kulindahr]

Um I read some of the bible and I know that it says that certain animals are unclean! Here is a wikipedia page of the animals if you do not believe me http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unclean_animals

Yes, but the Bible isn't a recipe book; you can't just grab some pages at random and neglect the rest. It's more like a novel -- you have to wait till the end to find out how things turn out -- and as it turns out, that "unclean" business was for a limited period of time, and that time ended some two millennia ago.

This was about abortion and not the bible! And all I said was that Pro Life should be for all life! If you support war,death penalty,and killing of animals then you should not be a pro-lifer.

That isn't necessarily so....

Actually, no. The discussion is about abortion. "Pro-life" is a label within the context of "abortion." You're argument is tantamount to saying if I love ice cream then I should only eat ice cream. Knowing that what I mean is in the context of dessert, I love ice cream.

Frankly, I'm largely pro-life. But I believe in the death penalty. It's justified because I consider murder and killing two different things, though murder is a subset of killing. Murder is the taking of innocent life. Killing is simply the taking of life. Some killing is wrong (ie murder) but not all killing. The taking of someone's life who is about to kill me is not murder, nor is it wrong, but it is killing. War would fall into this category.

The death penalty can be upheld from the same basis that the pro-life position can: that the life of an innocent person is valuable. Someone who resorts to violence to attack me at home (or in a gay bar, for that matter) with a lethal weapon has forfeited the claim to innocence, and is thus fair game for me to terminate so as to end the threat to myself and others. It's essentially a matter of unspoken contract: a person's life is inviolate up to the point at which he/she decides to violate another's life; at that point, the person has quit the contract, and becomes -- in the old Icelandic sense of the term -- an outlaw, beyond the law, subject to whatever a citizen within the law might wish to do to him/her.

This is where the Libertarian pledge to never initiate violence comes from: starting violence sets you outside the contract, makes you a de facto outlaw. Responding to violence, however, is a matter of no one's choice but the person being subjected to it; to say I cannot respond in the manner of my choice to a danger of life and limb is immoral.

The essential point is not whether the organism in question has the quality of "life" or "personhood", but whether it has acted in a manner which poses a potentially mortal danger to others.

 

[Kulindahr]

Does it matter? I don't think so, but I can work w/ this.

Well, the embryo, requires a woman to be the environment. In none of the examples I provided is one person forced to be the environment for another. As for exceptions, I believe we have them. It's called being pro-choice. If you want to have the baby, have it. If you don't, you can have an abortion. The exceptions are there. Women aren't forced into abortions. Each can choose for themselves.

What the environment is, is irrelevant: the only thing relevant is whether there is a person in the womb. If there is, killing it is no different than killing the kid down the street whom you'd like to get rid of.

A woman can choose for herself -- when it's just her self that's involved. But if that unborn is a person, it isn't just her self, is it?
For that matter, it isn't just her, anyway -- unless she managed a latter-day virgin birth.