Abortion

[Meg 368]

First, let me say that most people here are indeed doing a good job of discussing the issues, not each other.   I know it's difficult but let's drop the snideness.

Second, I'd like to say, thank you, Vandy, you stated your position very well.  Like Barbarossa, I personally agree with the vast majority of what you said while wanting to tweak a few words here and there.

 

Third, (and not related to Vandy's post), I am reminded of a previous discussion on this topic where someone raised a question that I could not answer.  Since it is religious in nature, perhaps someone here can.   The question is this:  Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin?    When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned.

 

 

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[belfastuniguy 18]

Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin? When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned.quote>

Yeah but you see Skigeek, religious people are somewhat blind when it comes to intellectually discussing a topic and instead are be-dazzled by their obnoxious belief that they somehow have the right to tell someone how they may and may not live. Its not really their fault, they tend to exist in a world dis-connected with reality, at least they do in some places. In others they go about merrily dictating how people should live and their government or governing authority listen to them.

I have no problem with religion or anyone that wishes to practise religion, I see it as a basic right. However I do not and will never tolerate those religious people using their given right to suddenly demand that others they deem evil or unclean or 'sinful' be denied some rights.

In general most religious people wallow in hypocrisy for most of their lives and there really is no point in trying to change that stance as they see their way as the only true way. I would also add that your question Ski is only valid to those that believe in the fairytale that is Adam and Eve.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

There is already a thread for dissing the religious beliefs of others, this isn't it.

[spa 970]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy and spa
Not a single source from your list Manticore is an actual medical journal. The closest you get is a letter to the editor in a medical journal. All of the rest are Christian sites, anti-abortion groups or newspapers.quote>

The CFM site does reference The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology's journal, as well as the Royal College of Psychiatrists' Journal. You should look better before being dismissive. The links are listed in order at the bottom of the page I linked.

Or this, from *gasp* The NY Times article about this subject:

Using the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, Reardon found a higher risk of clinical depression in a group of married women who had abortions, and published the results in a 2002 article in The British Medical Journal; using California Medicaid records, he and Coleman found a higher risk of psychiatric hospital and clinic admissions among poor post-abortive women, which they reported in 2003 in The Canadian Medical Association Journal; two years later, using the National Survey of Family Growth, they found a higher risk of generalized anxiety disorder post-abortion and published their results in The Journal of Anxiety Disorders.

Or the findings of the US Supreme Court...
Gonzales v. Carhart  that “it is unexceptionable that some women will come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained … severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.”

Or the multi-page list of doctors, psychiatrists, medical studies, etc. listed by this *gasp* Christian group that *double gasp* supports my contention.[link] These would never be referenced by a pro-abortion group... you have to find them where they are at.

That good enough? Probably not, as I know it conflicts with what you already 'know'.

It's not like NARAL or IFPA would reference anything that conflicts with their position. The studies involved are linked on the websites, I suppose that the studies done by medical professional don't count because they are referenced on a site from one point of view? Seriously, all information on the subject comes from one side or the other. 

It's easy to dismiss information that one disagrees with, as I knew you would. But if you want to make the case that abortion never causes psychological distress, good luck. Everyone in a normal frame of mind knows that it's farcical to suggest that there is never trauma (either psychological and/or medical) involved in ending a pregnancy via D&C, as the pro-infanticide groups do. They just wave it all away as "those women were already disturbed". Go ahead and look for yourself, the information is all available.

Am I being too snide? Possibly. But I tend to get that way when I am treated that way.

quote>

 

I apologise if my intial reply seemed snide to you, but if you're going to post a large list of "sources" and call them fact you have to expect that people will look at them with a critical eye to see how they hold up. Medical science, specifically peer reviewed journals, are pretty much the only sources that are any use in a debate like this because of all the propaganda spouted off by BOTH sides. Drawing "research" from an extreme isn't very helpful.

I never said that abortion has no psychochological effects. That's you putting words in my mouth. It is equally farcical, however, to argue that abortion is some kind of massive psychological problem that hurts everyone who gets one. At the end of the day having a kid is a potential trauma, giving up a kid is a potential trauma and aborting a kid is a potential trauma. Odds are if a woman is pregnant and she's not prepared she's facing a potential trauma regardless of what option she chooses. Perhaps we should review the rest of that New York Times piece (the parts you left out since it didn't support what you already believe).

"Soon after Koop’s refusal in 1987 to report on the health effects of abortion, the American Psychological Association appointed a panel to review the relevant medical literature. It dismissed research like Reardon’s, instead concluding that “well-designed studies” showed 76 percent of women reporting feelings of relief after abortion and 17 percent reporting guilt. “The weight of the evidence,” the panel wrote in a 1990 article in Science, indicates that a first-trimester abortion of an unwanted pregnancy “does not pose a psychological hazard for most women.” Two years later, Nada Stotland, a psychiatry professor at Rush Medical College in Chicago and now vice-president of the American Psychiatric Association, was even more emphatic. “There is no evidence of an abortion-trauma syndrome,” she concluded in an article for The Journal of the American Medical Association.

Academic experts continue to stress that the psychological risks posed by abortion are no greater than the risks of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. A study of 13,000 women, conducted in Britain over 11 years, compared those who chose to end an unwanted pregnancy with those who chose to give birth, controlling for psychological history, age, marital status and education level. In 1995, the researchers reported their results: equivalent rates of psychological disorders among the two groups.

Brenda Major, a psychology professor at the University of California, Santa Barbara, followed 440 women for two years in the 1990s from the day each had her abortion. One percent of them met the criteria for post-traumatic stress and attributed that stress to their abortions. The rate of clinical depression among post-abortive women was 20 percent, the same as the national rate for all women ages 15 to 35, Major says. Another researcher, Nancy Adler, found that up to 10 percent of women have symptoms of depression or other psychological distress after an abortion — the same rates experienced by women after childbirth.

Researchers say that when women who have abortions experience lasting grief, or more rarely, depression, it is often because they were emotionally fragile beforehand, or were responding to the circumstances surrounding the abortion — a disappointing relationship, precarious finances, the stress of an unwanted pregnancy."

Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University and a veteran abortion researcher, spends much of her professional time refuting Reardon and Coleman’s results by retracing their steps through the vast data sets. Russo examined the analysis in the 2002 and 2005 articles and turned up methodological flaws in both. When she corrected for the errors, the higher rates of mental illness among women who had abortions disappeared. Russo published her findings on depression in The British Medical Journal last year; her article on anxiety disorders is under review. “Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while,” 

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

. . . . whole bunch of rude text that doesn't answer the question . . . quote>

 

I understand that we all have our opinions on these things but that was not a constructive contribution to the discussion.

 

Not sure that I would call it "snide"; it was more in the category of "smart-ass".

 

Don't make me list of all the adjectives that are inappropriate.  We will simply close the thread instead.

 

 

[belfastuniguy 18]

I have no problem with religion or anyone that wishes to practise religion, I see it as a basic right.quote>

I didn't actually 'diss' anyone or any religion. I instead highlighted the hypocrisy of some religions.....see again no single religion or person is mentioned.

The question posed by Ski was interesting, I merely replied in such a manner knowing that some religious people will come in and start saying that the belief is flawed as they see the unborn fetus as a human being already, when that is false. I shall await and see what the those holding strong religious beliefs have to say in reply to the question and then I can analyse it more.

@Ski...no offence but that is your opinion and its hardly the first time something has been said that has been deemed by yourself or others members as 'constructive', the term is subjective.

In addition to the accusation I was being a 'smart-ass' well again that is your opinion and I thought we were meant to not discuss each other.

@Spa...I think he was referring to me.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

@Ski...no offence but that is your opinion and its hardly the first time something has been said that has been deemed by yourself or others members as 'constructive', the term is subjective.

In addition to the accusation I was being a 'smart-ass' well again that is your opinion and I thought we were meant to not discuss each other. quote>

 

Indeed, we are meant to discuss the issues, not each other.

con⋅struc⋅tive    [kuhn-struhk-tiv]

–adjective

1.     constructing or tending to construct; helping to improve; promoting further development or advancement

quote>

Your post made no attempt to discuss the issue.   It did not improve, promote further development or advancement of the discussion in the thread.

What it did was give lot of rude reasons why you think other people won't be able to answer it.

That is not discussing the issues.  That is discussing other people.  Whether you named individuals or not is irrelevant.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: SkiGeek

Third, (and not related to Vandy's post), I am reminded of a previous discussion on this topic where someone raised a question that I could not answer.  Since it is religious in nature, perhaps someone here can.   The question is this:  Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin?    When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned. 

 quote>

Well, the thing is, (At least from my understanding of this), that if you indeed do abort it, and it is considered a human life, then you are guilty of the sin of murder. So, while it may mean the baby was sin-free, you have a rather large sin on your hands. I really couldn't give you a very good answer on that.

Also, to everyone who says that the father isn't affected by this, I don't think this is true.

I know that if I had gotten a girl pregnant, and she aborted the baby, I'd really be freaked out.

Now, I'm not saying this goes for everyone, or that the man should tell the woman what to do,

but I do think he should have an equal say if the girl wants to get an abortion. After all, he is

just as responsible for the pregnancy. But that's a slippery slope, seeing as how there are cases where the father may want to abort and force the girl to. So, I say outlaw the whole thing and be done with it.

[Danlikebooks 6]

Originally posted by: SkiGeekhe question is this:  Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin?    When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned.

 quote>

I think I can answer this question.

According to the church, life begins at conception.  If original sin happens at birth, then the only time in which you are without sin is when you are in the womb.  If you are aborted, then you have supposedly lived a life without sin.

WRONG.  If you are without original sin, then you are not human.  Therefore, abortion wouldn't kill a human baby because, if you are born with original sin but not at conception, in the womb, according to the church's "logic", a fetus wouldn't be human, as all humans have original sin and a fetus, according to the church, does not have original sin...

THEREFORE

Fetuses are not human because they do not have original sin...

ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH'S LOGIC

You're welcome.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

(I think that I missed a few commas in that paragraph somewhere)

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Originally posted by: SkiGeekhe question is this:  Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin?    When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned.

 quote>

I think I can answer this question.

According to the church, life begins at conception.  If original sin happens at birth, then the only time in which you are without sin is when you are in the womb.  If you are aborted, then you have supposedly lived a life without sin.

WRONG.  If you are without original sin, then you are not human.  Therefore, abortion wouldn't kill a human baby because, if you are born with original sin but not at conception, in the womb, according to the church's "logic", a fetus wouldn't be human, as all humans have original sin and a fetus, according to the church, does not have original sin...

THEREFORE

Fetuses are not human because they do not have original sin...

ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH'S LOGIC

You're welcome.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

(I think that I missed a few commas in that paragraph somewhere)quote>

I'm not offended. However, I also have some issue with the doctrine of original sin as presented by some churches. I think your logic is somewhat backwards, as well.

Sin is action, and intent is necessary to fully formulate sin. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you can't form evil intent. A baby doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, and cannot commit any actions toward either end. Thus the idea of a baby's innocence. No intent + no action = no sin.

[Explodingsims 3]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Danlikebooks

Originally posted by: SkiGeekhe question is this:  Since the church says that life begins at conception and that original sin is conferred at birth, isn't an abortion the only way to have a life without sin?    When that question came up, everyone in the room just cringed and groaned.

 quote>

I think I can answer this question.

According to the church, life begins at conception.  If original sin happens at birth, then the only time in which you are without sin is when you are in the womb.  If you are aborted, then you have supposedly lived a life without sin.

WRONG.  If you are without original sin, then you are not human.  Therefore, abortion wouldn't kill a human baby because, if you are born with original sin but not at conception, in the womb, according to the church's "logic", a fetus wouldn't be human, as all humans have original sin and a fetus, according to the church, does not have original sin...

THEREFORE

Fetuses are not human because they do not have original sin...

ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH'S LOGIC

You're welcome.

Sorry if this offends anyone.

(I think that I missed a few commas in that paragraph somewhere)quote>

I'm not offended. However, I also have some issue with the doctrine of original sin as presented by some churches. I think your logic is somewhat backwards, as well.

Sin is action, and intent is necessary to fully formulate sin. If you don't know the difference between right and wrong, you can't form evil intent. A baby doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, and cannot commit any actions toward either end. Thus the idea of a baby's innocence. No intent + no action = no sin.quote>

ALTHOUGH, According to the Bible everyone is born with sin due to Eve first sampling the Fruit of the Tree.

So, in theory, that is passed on to everyone, and so, that is why Jesus had to die for us. But, this does get a little muddy, as it is also claimed by the church that until a certain age you get a free ride to Heaven.

[JakeMD 107]

Its up to the parents. Why should the government tell you if you must or must not keep your baby? In my opinion, if the "baby" isn't borne yet, it really isn't anything to get all excited about.

[hym 358]

Which church though? Some view sin as being inherited from the moment of conception.

[craizedmanic 0]

To the religion ? Manticorefan has it pretty close.

What I have always been taught is the child is born into sin, meaning the world. (Or born into a world full of sin) The child its self has no sin. The child has not been taught right from wrong and therefor has no understainding of sin. It is a "learned behaivor" ( I use that simply to make my point). The baby or child is pure an with out sin.

Explodingsims: you are right in a way.

What the "church" means by free ride to heaven is reaching the age of accountabitly.

Until the child reaches an age of understaing that he/she is doing wrong then they can not be held accountable.

That of course falls on the mom and dad to teach their child the differences and then with an understanding of wrong form right the child chooses to or not to belive in a higher power. Thus reaching the age of accountabitly. It is at different ages of everyone.

Hope this helps. It is the easiest wasy (belive it or not ) to explain.

If some think the father should have to pay half for an abortion , but not have say if she keeps it or not is (in my opinion) wrong.

Why should the man have to pay for a womans choice, expecially if he wants the child.

After all abortion is just a "cop out". A way to earse a "mistake" To me that is the lowest form of deadbeat parenting that can be.

Everyone knows the risk going into the "fun", but noone whats to own up to their responcibilty. There are many other way worse things that can happen. I would rather have a child as opposed to having an uncurable STD. If a man runs or refuses his reponcibilty's then he is a dead beat, but a women can earse it and everything is just fine. I completly disagree. I realize rape is a completly different story.

Anyway just my thoughts whatever there worth.

[_Atticus 10]

It is with great reluctance that I am entering this thread, as I know I will not change anyone's opinion on the matter and nobody will change mine, but I felt I had to express my opinion. So here it goes.

First of all, I think abortion is not only wrong, but is actual murder. Why? I will give you a simple analogy.

Ok, say you like to hunt. You go out to the woods one day with your sniper rifle, and after waiting for half an hour, you see some movement, but you can't make out what it is. You know it's in the middle of the hunting season, and there are many other hunters out there. But you shoot it anyways. You go over and you see a man with blood all over his chest. You just murdered someone.

The same goes for abortions. Whether you know if the fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. The possibility of human life in a fetus is what matters, and I don't imagine anyone denying that a fetus is a possible (potential) human. Just as in my analogy, if you're not sure if there's human life in there, then don't shoot.

So with that logic, abortion should be illegal, because last time I checked, so was murder.

In all 50 states (and DC).

I hope my logic made sense.

-Pingangster

[SC4 meister 7]

Originally posted by: pingangster It is with great reluctance that I am entering this thread, as I know I will not change anyone's opinion on the matter and nobody will change mine, but I felt I had to express my opinion. So here it goes.

First of all, I think abortion is not only wrong, but is actual murder. Why? I will give you a simple analogy.

Ok, say you like to hunt. You go out to the woods one day with your sniper rifle, and after waiting for half an hour, you see some movement, but you can't make out what it is. You know it's in the middle of the hunting season, and there are many other hunters out there. But you shoot it anyways. You go over and you see a man with blood all over his chest. You just murdered someone.

The same goes for abortions. Whether you know if the fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. The possibility of human life in a fetus is what matters, and I don't imagine anyone denying that a fetus is a possible (potential) human. Just as in my analogy, if you're not sure if there's human life in there, then don't shoot.

So with that logic, abortion should be illegal, because last time I checked, so was murder.

In all 50 states (and DC).

I hope my logic made sense.

-Pingangsterquote>

I, like you, was not going to say anything in here for the same reasons.  However I must say that that is the best I have ever heard it put. 

  For the record, I understand a lot of you guys' views about my religion, (Christian) dictating what you can and cannot do.  But the only question I have is, if we don't get our ethics, morals, our sense of right and wrong from a religion, where the heck do we get them from?  And if we're going to get them from a religion, who's to say mine's the only/best one out there, (I happen to believe it is, but that's a whole other ball of wax that needs not be discussed here)?

  I believe we are still one nation, under God, (considering the amount of professing Christians, regardless of sect, I think that's a fair thing to say) and if we are, then our laws should reflect that fact.  Not that the church should dictate laws, (the whole point of separation of Church and state) but that the majority of our populus considers themselves Christians or at least a religion with similar views on the subject.  So in short I think it's wrong, and think that pinganngster put the reasoning best. 

  I think laws should be decided by the people, if the majority say that abortion should be outlawed, regardless of my feelings of a woman's right to choose or a baby's right to live, then abortion should be outlawed.  Same as if the majority says anything is allowable or disallowable, (gay marriage, to think of one at the front of many people's minds right now) it doesn't really matter what I personally think, we are a democracy, so I will abide by any and all laws passed by the majority, be it through our elected representitives, or by a direct vote.  That said, if abortion should become legal in the US, you will see me doing everything in my contitutionally-granted right to pettition and free speech to change that, as many have done and are doing over the recently passed prop 8 here in California.

Please forgive any and all misspellings and gramerical errors in this post, as it is 1:40 AM here and my spellcheck is not working.  I have tried to do my best to talk about the issue, not any person or persons, I am sorry if anything I have said offends anybody or steps on anyone's toes, please do not take it personally as it was 100% not meant to be taken that way by anyone.

God bless,

-SC4M

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Ok, say you like to hunt. You go out to the woods one day with your sniper rifle, and after waiting for half an hour, you see some movement, but you can't make out what it is. You know it's in the middle of the hunting season, and there are many other hunters out there. But you shoot it anyways. You go over and you see a man with blood all over his chest. You just murdered someone. quote>

That is obvious. You've just killed a human.

The same goes for abortions. Whether you know if the fetus is a human or not is irrelevant. The possibility of human life in a fetus is what matters, and I don't imagine anyone denying that a fetus is a possible (potential) human. Just as in my analogy, if you're not sure if there's human life in there, then don't shoot.quote>

A fetus is not human life, since it it does not demonstrate the characteristics of the species Homo sapiens. If it does not have the characteristics of humans, then it is not a human. It is obvious to me.

And in the second analogy you do not know if a human is in the line of fire, so you may not have murdered anyone -- innocent until proven guilty.

Now let's say that instead of shooting a human there you shot a growth of lichen. That is the most appropiate analogy I can give.

So with that logic, abortion should be illegal, because last time I checked, so was murder.

In all 50 states (and DC).

I hope my logic made sense.quote>

No, it does not make sense, since you haven't murdered anything.

For the record, I understand a lot of you guys' views about my religion, (Christian) dictating what you can and cannot do.  But the only question I have is, if we don't get our ethics, morals, our sense of right and wrong from a religion, where the heck do we get them from? quote>

I get my ethics from a rational understanding of people's rights. As a general rule, if it infringes upon another person's rights, it is probably unethical. Most ethical principles throughout history, especially the more basic ones (rape, murder, etc.), can be traced back to violations of rights.

I don't wish to discuss it much here, but ethics that come out of a religion are based more on fear of their god than rationality. My ethics can generally be described as "libertarian" or "liberal".

About the question of paying for it, I believe that since the fetus is in the woman's body, and it is the woman who is getting the abortion, then the father should not be obligated to pay for it, as he may or not think it should be done.

Lastly, I too have to commend the civility in this thread, and I ask everyone to not wander too far off topic.

- Patricius Maximus

[PhilsCafe 8]

Why do Christians always have to punish themselves over anything? I'm Christian too, and I value life. But what about the life of a woman that was a victim of rape or incest? Didn't she have to suffer enough? Or a pregnancy that threatens the mother's life? Isn't that just unnecessary punishment? It's not like they chose to be in that situation.... nor do they deserve the consequences.

Although I don't approve to abortions in general, mainly due to the fact that there are so many couples who want to be parents but cannot get a baby themselves, I think the possibilities of an abortion have to exist. Otherwise the women carry out the abortion somewhere else, probably illegally, maybe even with dangerous consequences to their health. I don't think any woman takes the decision lightly.

To those who say it's everyone's choice to have sex and one has to deal with the consequences... that's easy to say for a man. But It takes two to conceive a baby. Only the woman has to live with the consequences, however. This degrades women to "birth-o-mats" or something... I thought we were past that.

[duack 14]

Before everyone accuses me of being a too religous I'm just going to say that Im athiest. 

Anywho, Im against abortion for many reasons.
Reason 1- It's murder. Many people have already gone into this so I wont repeat everything to try and keep this short. But killing a potential human is actually worst than killing one thats already alive. Here's my way of thinking - 
When an small child, like 5 yeasr old, dies for any reason, its usually more tragic than if an eighty year old died. Why? because the young child still had another 70 years before reaching its life expectancy, while the 80 year old, has already passed theirs so your killing a larger "lifetime" or so to speak. Now killing an unborn baby, your killing an entire lifetime. 

Reason 2- Having offspring is the primary instinct of every living thing. Including all animals, humans, plants and bacteria. Everything that lives wants to have offspring. Now, if when your pregnant and already suffering from hormonal swings, you decide to abort your baby, chances are you will regret it. That experiment mentioned earlier cannot be accurate. The force that drives someone to produce offspring is more powerful than any other emotion. It has to be, it created the entire world as we know it. There's no telling what the effects of abortion do on a subconcsiece level. Remember, phsychology is a hard topic to work with. There are still many mysteries relating to the study of psychology and much remains not understood. If a woman missed a chance to create offspring, it would have to affect her. You cannot fight off 3 billion years of natural selection - its just too strong.

Reason 3- If you really dont want the baby, give it for adoption. Its a win win situation. There are many parents who want to have children but can't and aborting an unborn child is no better than abandoning a new born at a gas station like this one couple on news did a while back. At least if you give it for adoption, you wont regret it as much, because technically its still your offspring and in relation to reason 2 above, you have passed on your genes and created your offspring, while it drains someone elses energy. So once again, its win win...genetically.

Reason 4- With the whole issue of rape, remember, two wrongs dont make a right. Give up the child for adoption. Pregnant women arent even immobile the whole time. Only the last 4 months or so get really hard. Whats four months of downtime and some stretch marks compared with murder? It makes you look pretty selfish.

The only time i think abortion is acceptable is when it actually poses a risk to the mother's life. Even though the child has a greater "lifetime" than the mother, you cant force someone to kill themselves. However, this doesn't happen very often now. Maybe in the 1600's it did but now, its very very rare.

[fukuda 351]

If a man runs or refuses his reponcibilty's then he is a dead beat, but a women can earse it and everything is just fine. I completly disagree.quote>

Making babies is not women's duty. Women are not baby-making machines. If she decided to give birth to a baby it's her duty to take care of him; but she should be able to decide if she wants to give birth or not.

And a little silly question of mine:

Is killing a rabbit considered murder too? Because it's way more human than a fetus...

[saltandsauce 0]

i am adamant in no abortion, nobody chose their parents

if abortion were legalised in 1900 about 1/3rd of you ouldn't exist there is a thought

besides most would be mothers go through immense emotional trauma from effectivley losing a baby and it ruins their physical health (hormone inbalances and such can lead to cancers)

and girls/women, a guy who won't wait is a guy you don't date

[spa 970]

SC4Meister: But what about the Tyranny of the Majority? The US was founded as one nation under god as the saying goes, but the philosophical base also includes rights and respect for minorities. It's all right there in the Federalist Papers and in Alexis Tocqueville's writings. America was founded with limitations to protect those who don't agree with the majority from being persecuted. It's a balancing act and not a matter of simply polling everyone and 50%+1 carrying the day.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Reason 1- It's murder. Many people have already gone into this so I wont repeat everything to try and keep this short. But killing a potential human is actually worst than killing one thats already alive. Here's my way of thinking - 

When an small child, like 5 yeasr old, dies for any reason, its usually more tragic than if an eighty year old died. Why? because the young child still had another 70 years before reaching its life expectancy, while the 80 year old, has already passed theirs so your killing a larger "lifetime" or so to speak. Now killing an unborn baby, your killing an entire lifetime. quote>

First of all, how do you 'murder' a non-sentient growth of cells? That is the same logic as saying removing a tumor is murder.

I don't think an 80-year-old's death is less tragic than a 5-year-old's. They are both humans, and the tragicness of it depends on how close you were to either of the two people.

I do not deny that with abortion you are killing cells, but cells get killed in the body every minute of every day.

Reason 2- Having offspring is the primary instinct of every living thing. Including all animals, humans, plants and bacteria. Everything that lives wants to have offspring. Now, if when your pregnant and already suffering from hormonal swings, you decide to abort your baby, chances are you will regret it. That experiment mentioned earlier cannot be accurate. The force that drives someone to produce offspring is more powerful than any other emotion. It has to be, it created the entire world as we know it. There's no telling what the effects of abortion do on a subconcsiece level. Remember, phsychology is a hard topic to work with. There are still many mysteries relating to the study of psychology and much remains not understood. If a woman missed a chance to create offspring, it would have to affect her. You cannot fight off 3 billion years of natural selection - its just too strong.quote>

It is true that most members of a species wish and do produce offspring in their lifetime.

If the woman regrets it, it is her problem. She made the choice herself. The fact that some women regret getting abortions does not justify the government to, in effect, declare the woman to be their property (as explained in my previous posts). What about the ones who do not regret it?

Reason 3- If you really dont want the baby, give it for adoption. Its a win win situation. There are many parents who want to have children but can't and aborting an unborn child is no better than abandoning a new born at a gas station like this one couple on news did a while back. At least if you give it for adoption, you wont regret it as much, because technically its still your offspring and in relation to reason 2 above, you have passed on your genes and created your offspring, while it drains someone elses energy. So once again, its win win...genetically.quote>

"Give it for adoption". It is not as simple as that. Giving up a baby for adoption can cause more psychological trauma than abortion, because you know nothing about your child, how he's doing, where he is, how his living conditions are, or even if he's alive or not.

If a person wishes to carry the fetus through to birth and then put it up for adoption, that is fine with me if that is their choice. But the government should not force them (directly or indirectly) to do so.

And a little silly question of mine:

Is killing a rabbit considered murder too? Because it's way more human than a fetus... quote>

Pro-life logic. Killing anything, be it sapient, sentient, or non-sentient is considered murder, and the victims must be protected by the government. That is their logic taken to its logical conclusion.

i am adamant in no abortion, nobody chose their parentsquote>

That is true, no one chooses their parents, for the simple reason that the parents came before you did, and they voluntarily chose to create you.

if abortion were legalised in 1900 about 1/3rd of you ouldn't exist there is a thoughtquote>

If every condition now was the same in 1900. In 1900 there was no understanding of DNA, no prenatal testing, not to mention a stigma against abortion. So the ones among us would be more than you think.

besides most would be mothers go through immense emotional trauma from effectivley losing a baby and it ruins their physical health (hormone inbalances and such can lead to cancers)quote>

Consequences of their choice that they made. That does not mean that the government should prevent them from making a choice which could result in harm.

Also, most post-abortion women do not go though intense psychological trauma.

SC4Meister: But what about the Tyranny of the Majority? The US was founded as one nation under god as the saying goes, but the philosophical base also includes rights and respect for minorities. It's all right there in the Federalist Papers and in Alexis Tocqueville's writings. America was founded with limitations to protect those who don't agree with the majority from being persecuted. It's a balancing act and not a matter of simply polling everyone and 50%+1 carrying the day.quote>

Firstly, America was founded as "one nation, indivisible", not "one nation, under god". "Under god" was added to the Pledge in 1954 to seperate "us" from the "godless commies".

You are correct in saying that the founders of America did not want the majority to rule in every matter. If they wished to do so, the USA would be a democracy, not a republic.

[_Atticus 10]

Originally posted by: fukuda

Is killing a rabbit considered murder too? Because it's way more human than a fetus...quote>

I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but I assure you, a rabbit is by no means more human than a fetus. That statement seems almost ludicrous.

Even if you don't think fetuses are actual people, you cannot deny that they are people to be. Every fetus will become a human like you and me if nothing happens to it during pregnancy.

First of all, how do you 'murder' a non-sentient growth of cells? That is the same logic as saying removing a tumor is murder.quote>

You are missing the whole point. Fetuses aren't just any old cell growths. They are cell growths (if you want to call them that) that will, if unimpeded, become human beings.

Under your logic, stepping on grass (and causing it to die) is the same as killing thousands of trees.

-Pingangster

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

saltandsauce said: if abortion were legalised in 1900 about 1/3rd of you ouldn't exist there is a thoughtquote>

What bodily cavity entrance did you pull that statistic from?  I think I know.

Barbarossaquote>

Hang on sec, Barbarossa. The abortion death toll in the US alone since 1972 is 47 million, give or take a million. Without going through the necessary equations to extrapolate from 1900, and factoring in expected population growth in the resulting lost population, 100 million less people in the US alone, based on saltandsauce's supposition, is probably a very conservative estimate.

Some factors at work would be socio-economic, i.e. the poor having more children than the wealthy; and the swings in population growth since 1900.

While I just don't want to attempt the necessary math because I'm just too darn lazy at the moment, I invite anyone looking for mental calisthenics to go ahead and try it. But please, show your work.

Edit: While poking through some data, I found this: 1971-2001, the PRC reported 266,772,000 abortions. All by itself. Add in growth over that period, and you would likely come pretty close to the entire population of the US.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

. . . she is the one that has to carry it to term, to her own detriment (for those who do not know, pregnancy can be very taxing on a woman).quote>

 

Thank you, Barbarossa.   You put that better than I did.

 

I don't know anyone who would make the case that a person is obligated to undergoing any other painful, medical, body changing procedure.   Donating a kidney, for example.  Well, that involves losing an organ so let's go with donating bone marrow.   

Is anyone here prepared to say that a person is required to donate bone marrow, even of the lack of a donation will result in the death of another?

 

Originally posted by: SC4 meister

. . .  I believe we are still one nation, under God, (considering the amount of professing Christians, regardless of sect, I think that's a fair thing to say)]quote>

Just thought I would point out that there are many people who believe in God who don't "qualify" was Christians.   (see the "The Definition of Christian" thread for further details.)

 

Originally posted by: PhilsCafe

To those who say it's everyone's choice to have sex and one has to deal with the consequences... that's easy to say for a man. But It takes two to conceive a baby. Only the woman has to live with the consequences, however. This degrades women to "birth-o-mats" or something... I thought we were past that.quote>

Well said.

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

"Give it for adoption". It is not as simple as that. Giving up a baby for adoption can cause more psychological trauma than abortion, because you know nothing about your child, how he's doing, where he is, how his living conditions are, or even if he's alive or not.  quote>

Most adoptive parents are loving and do their best to raise the kids.  But let's not pretend that all adoptive parents are good ones.  I can show you several recent, local cases where the adoptive mother killed the child.

If a person wishes to carry the fetus through to birth and then put it up for adoption, that is fine with me if that is their choice. But the government should not force them (directly or indirectly) to do so.  quote>

 

Would someone explain to me why "minimal government inference" is a good philosophy when applied to business but a bad one when applied to individual lives?

I suspect it comes down to trying to legislate morality.  Which just doesn't work.

Firstly, America was founded as "one nation, indivisible", not "one nation, under god". "Under god" was added to the Pledge in 1954 to seperate "us" from the "godless commies".

You are correct in saying that the founders of America did not want the majority to rule in every matter. If they wished to do so, the USA would be a democracy, not a republic.quote>

and they would not have created the electoral college.  They were concerned that large populations in the cities would outvote the smaller populations in rural areas. 

[fukuda 351]

Reason 2- Having offspring is the primary instinct of every living thing. Including all animals, humans, plants and bacteria. Everything that lives wants to have offspring.quote>

Well, no. The primary instinct is to keep living, and plants don't have instincts and hardly want anything, so do bacteria.

That experiment mentioned earlier cannot be accurate.quote>

Hmm which one of those? Or they don't are accurate because they don't match with your beliefs? Remember,hypothesis are based on experiments, not the other way around.

If a woman missed a chance to create offspring, it would have to affect her. You cannot fight off 3 billion years of natural selection - its just too strong.quote>

not only the major part of living beings don't seem to care at all if their offspring lives or not (let's drop the eggs somewhere and just forget about them!), but I don't see my cats depressed at all when none of their pussies survive the birth... They just rush to make more

Reason 3- If you really dont want the baby, give it for adoption. Its a win win situation.quote>

That must be why orphanages are full

Pro-life logic. Killing anything, be it sapient, sentient, or non-sentient is considered murder, and the victims must be protected by the government. That is their logic taken to its logical conclusion.quote>

Uh oh, I sent some apoptotic messages to my cells today, am I a murderer?

Aand by the way, each time I use a condom I'm a mass murderer I guess... I killed millions of possible lives...

I'm not exactly sure how you arrived at that conclusion, but I assure you, a rabbit is by no means more human than a fetus. That statement seems almost ludicrous.quote>

I'm willing to explain you how I arrived to that conclusion. To begin with, rodents are closer than dogs to actual humans, they are relatively very close to us. It's the same with their DNA. In the embryo (fetus) stage, only the most basic organs and tisues are developed, and those are almost identical in both rabbits and humans. Not even the most special feature about humans, the brain, is developed yet.

Not only they are similar in a long part of the embryonic state, but a living, full-developed rabbit, which is what I was talking about before, has developed the full organs and behavior, which are most closer to a human adult than the human embryo ones. That's why a rabbit is more "human" than a fetus.

You are missing the whole point. Fetuses aren't just any old cell growths. They are cell growths (if you want to call them that) that will, if unimpeded, become human beings.quote>

In the real world, things and beings don't have possibilities or potential of becoming another thing, they are what they are in that given lapse of time. We are mixing reality with concepts here.

saltandsauce said: if abortion were legalised in 1900 about 1/3rd of you ouldn't exist there is a thoughtquote>

Seeing how abortion was already legal when and where I was born, it's not the case