Abortion

[Patricius Maximus 236]

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>

Yes, those growths if unimpeded will develop into humans. But when they are cell growths they are cell growths, regardless of what they may develop into.

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

Not exactly the same. When you kill thousands of trees you kill more entities than stepping on grass. Not to mention that most of the time grass is not killed by being stepped on.

And that is not my logic, it is my extension of the pro-life logic.

I hate this term.  It reeks of propaganda and is a total misnomer.  The terminology of Pro-Choice and Pro-Life are a success of the anti-abortion movement.  It lends to this false idea that pro-abortionists are somehow anti-life.  The debate is about abortion, the termination of a fetus.quote>

Well, I do not deny that the two terms were developed by the two groups as self-descriptions that demonize the opposition, but they have become common terms, and have in effect lost their meaning.

I just use pro-choice/pro-life because it is a common name for the two groups.

This should really be about pro-abortion vs anti-abortion.quote>

To clarify, there are, in theory, three groups on abortion:

Pro-abortion: group that encourages women to abort fetuses

Anti-abortion: group that seeks to prohibit abortion, sometimes with occasional exceptions

Pro-choice: group that thinks the individual woman should have a choice on abortion

Pro-/anti-abortion does not describe the pro-choice position. They are neither pro- nor ant-abortion. They simply believe the person involved is the best one to decide. They neither encourage nor discourage abortion.

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.quote>

Yes, most. It is a fact that most adoptive parents do no significant harm to their adopted children. It is just the uncertainty that can cause distress.

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

Correct. Changing a culture can best be accomplished through non-governmental efforts than by criminalizing what one group deems to be an immoral act.

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

According to me, no. If you carry the pro-life logic to its ultimate conclusion, yes.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

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.

...

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.quote>

The fallacy in working the numbers here is assuming that every aborted fetus equates to a new baby if abortion is illegal. Which is not the case. Ignoring the "back-alley" abortions done anyway, consider this: A woman has been pregnant for only a few weeks. She gets an abortion. Four months later, she gets pregnant again, and aborts it again. In this case, without abortion you would have one baby, since the second pregnancy could not have occurred had the first one not been terminated.

In other words, in some parallel universe where abortion was never legalized, the number of extra babies born would most certainly be less than the number of abortions performed in this universe. How much less? Hard to say. But definitely less.

The other thing is, even with however many potential humans never came to be due to abortion, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Millions of more people means millions of more people consuming resources, breathing oxygen, exhaling carbon dioxide... the world would be even more overpopulated than it already is.

Conclusion: abortion is good for the environment.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Duke87 Originally posted by: manticorefan

The other thing is, even with however many potential humans never came to be due to abortion, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Millions of more people means millions of more people consuming resources, breathing oxygen, exhaling carbon dioxide... the world would be even more overpopulated than it already is.

Conclusion: abortion is good for the environment.quote>

 

Is that really where we want to go?

The world is not overpopulated. That is a lie. The problems that cause people to claim it is are due to uneven distribution, both of population and of resources. I touched on this in another thread long ago, and pointed out UN numbers from the '70s that showed the Earth's 'carrying capacity' at a minimum of 40 billion. Advances in many areas, including agricultural science, have raised it considerably.

If abortion is good for the environment, then so much better would be wholesale mass-murder a lá the Holocaust, on a global scale (which some have proposed or supported, including Yoko Ono. See the 'Georgia Guidestones' in Elberton, Georgia.) To link abortion and the 'good of the environment' pours a lot of oil on an already slippery slope. 

Not that it's new, there are environmental blogs that call for more abortions for 'Gaia's' sake. Funny, they never start with themselves, and commit suicide to reduce their carbon footprint. They want all the life-sacrifice to be someone else's. Everyone who supports abortion has already been born.

Now, if we could make abortion retroactive, that might get my attention!

[Sam 163]

Originally posted by: pingangster

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.

-Pingangsterquote>

Actually a very high percentage of embryos (I think its 43%, but I can't locate the references right now) do not become human beings even if left to their natural course. The reason is spontaneous abortion. That's a very high number, and I've heard of numbers as low as only 1 in 5 zygotes lead to a live birth in humans.

Pregnancy in humans also carries a very high risk of maternal death or permanent injury. The numbers are multiple times higher for the baby.  When deciding not to terminate a high risk pregnancy (losing one potential life), the fact is you risk losing two lives. Personally my ethics do not allow me to choose a potential life (an embryo or even a foetus) over an existing life. My view is the existing life (the woman) has priority and the right to choose a termination, or to  continue the pregnancy without interference in her choice, especially from government or religion.

While I agree that the father is at least 50% responsible for a pregnancy, the woman is the one who is left to bear almost all of the consequences (including the risk of permanent disability or death - which also tends to be rather permanent). As a result I find it rather insensitive and almost offensive when people (usually male who have never been nor never will be bearing the physical consequences of pregnancy and child birth) spin the "you play you pay" line. Both the man and the woman play (often the woman not consentually) but its the women who's left to pay almost entirely. It seems to me a very unjust position to take.

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, I agree entirely

The countries that have the lowest abortion rates (approximately 7 to 9 in 1000 compared to approx. 30 in the US), the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany, have abortion freely and readily available . The reason for the low rates is not that abortion is illegal (its not) but the widespread and effective use of contraceptives which in the case of the Netherlands are funded by the government. Other strong influences on the low rate are effective non-religious sex education, public education advertising and low barrier services.  (Ref: Ketting E and Visser AP.,Contraception in The Netherlands: the low abortion rate explained, Patient Educ Couns. 1994 Jul;23(3):161-71)

Based on this and similar research, both legalised abortion and open attitudes and acceptance of effective contraception and sex education are far more effective than punitive laws that demean women and strip them of their basic human rights.

Originally posted by: giomedicci

Originally posted by: FukudaExact same things? How is a 2 months old fetus the same thing as a newborn baby? Your fetus has no central nervous system, is puny-sized and barely looks human. It's as alive as a mollusc, excepting than molluscs can live autonomously, it's not even the case of your fetus. A newborn baby has a relatively developed brain and is autonomus (relatively, he doesn't use his mother's heart or direct systems)quote>

Not totally true. The heart starts beating 22 days after conception, about the same time as the central nervous system starts to form. By the 8th week your embryo becomes a fetus until it's born, this means that by this time all of its systems are formed, only in the process of maturing. A fetus is a completely different person than the mother, different genes, different blood, different mind. How do you know it doesn't have a concience yet? How much different is the abortion of a fetus to throwing your new born baby to the garbage to starve to death or plain killing it?quote>

The central nervous system doesn't develop until the fourth or fifth month of pregnancy, so there is no brain, therefore no conciousness. At both ends of the scale, life is largely defined as the presence of brain activity, hence the 20 week limit in many abortion laws.

And since most people here seem to be talking about late term abortion (after twenty weeks) it might be worth noting that the vast majority of abortions are performed before twelve weeks. (Ref: Wulf, D., (1999) Sharing responsibility: women, society and abortion worldwide.) This is more so in countries that have relatively few impediments to obtaining abortions.

Often in life choices have to be made. No matter what choice, or even making no choice, there will always be consequences. The relative risk and acceptibility of the consequences to the individual who has to bear them is in my view far the most important issue, which is why I support pro-choice on abortion, rather than governments imposing laws that remove the dignity and human rights from a sector of its population.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

No, I'm sorry, but I whole-heartedly disagree with you.  Firstly, the pro-abortion camp DOES NOT encourage women to abort fetuses, and I must say that that is the most ridiculous comment I have read in this thread.  In fact, I would laugh if it weren't so preposterous and disturbing.  Secondly, If someone believes that abortion should be available, whether they agree with it or not, is, by default, a pro-abortion stance.  You cannot rationalize yourself out of it.quote>

I disagree. For once, look at it from a neutral and dispassionate point of view, and review the definitions of pro-, anti-, and abortion. Then tell me if you think my answer is "preposterous and disturbing".

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Very well. You have adequately answered my request, and we obviously have differences of opinion on the definition of "pro-abortion".

Seeing that the pro-choice position is the same whatever you call it, and what you call it is irrelevant to discussion on abortion, let's simply discuss the issues at hand, and not stray off topic.

[duack 14]

Okay I have a question Im going to ask for all the pro-abortionists in this forum -

Would you like to have been aborted?

[JanYpe 17]

Originally posted by: duack Okay I have a question Im going to ask for all the pro-abortionists in this forum -

Would you like to have been aborted?quote>

If it meant I wouldn't have to listen to all the supposedly "pro-life" gibbering, I'd strongly consider it.

[PhilsCafe 8]

Originally posted by: duack Okay I have a question Im going to ask for all the pro-abortionists in this forum -

Would you like to have been aborted?quote>

I don't think I would have noticed if I had been aborted when I was a cell cluster. Maybe my parents would have missed out on something... but I'm sure they would have considered the fact.

Maybe I should start to feel depressed about the potential millions I didn't earn...

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: duack Okay I have a question Im going to ask for all the pro-abortionists in this forum -

Would you like to have been aborted?quote>

The problem with this argument is that if I had been aborted, I'd never have been around to care. Embryos/Fetuses are not capable of objecting to anything. They're not fully formed yet.

Asking that question is equally as pointless as asking all the aborted embryos/fetuses out there if they'd rather have not been aborted.

[belfastuniguy 18]

The problem with this argument is that if I had been aborted, I'd never have been around to care. Embryos/Fetuses are not capable of objecting to anything. They're not fully formed yet.

Asking that question is equally as pointless as asking all the aborted embryos/fetuses out there if they'd rather have not been aborted. quote>

Exactly. Not exactly the greatest question ever asked.

[nihonkaranws 88]

If the argument is 'should abortion be legal?', then I think it should. Instead of the law getting involved, it should be up to the mothers of the child. Indeed, it is their choice, not that of the state. If they choose to have a child, but their circumstances change and they are no longer capable of supporting it, then it is only fair that the mother decides. What I mean is that if the government were to let the people whether abortion is legal or not, then we just get unfair results. Democracy is not a completely fair system. It is the best we have, but if we can find other - more fair - ways to get around public voting, then we should be all for it. Instead of the general public deciding the fate of a fetus, we should let the possessor of the fetus choose. That is only fair, right? In a similar situation, would you really want the public to choose whether you get, say, the right to quit your job if it is not doing you any good?

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: duack Okay I have a question Im going to ask for all the pro-abortionists in this forum -

Would you like to have been aborted?quote>

I'm gonna go with a simple "Yes" on that one.

[coolotter88 2]

It is fully the mother's choice on what to do with the specific part of her body that is sucking the nutrients out of her system. A fetus is a parasite and if the woman doesn't want to carry it around for 9 months, then let her terminate it! Of course, she will be denied the benefit of giving birth to a miracle of nature but to each his own.

[Explodingsims 3]

Every time I ask this question, I always get a very circuitous answer, but, I'm going to ask again:

Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide?

I know some say because it was against the woman's will, but then that defeats a pro-abortionists logic, as then it is considered a human life.

[Meg 368]

Semi-random comment:

The most common cause of death for an pregnant American is homicide.  Usually by the baby's father.

 

[ilikehotdogsalot 308]

Way to lighten up the mood, eh Meg?

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Explodingsims

Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide?quote>

Because that law was passed by anti-abortionists.

Personally I'd equate it to, maybe, more like one and a half murders.

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Every time I ask this question, I always get a very circuitous answer, but, I'm going to ask again: 

Why is it that if someone murders a pregnant woman, they can be charged with double homicide?quote>

For the record, I oppose the charge of double homicide with a pregnant woman. It is the killing of a single person, and the same logic that produced this charge, extrapolated, would mandate that a person be charged with double murder when they kill someone with a brain tumor.

The charge of double homicide in this instance is a curious inconsistency in the US government. In one scenario, the fetus is a legal human, and in another it is not.

And I do not consider the pro-choice position to be pro-abortion. I am aware of the pro-lifer's attempts to demonize their opposition by labeling them "pro-abortion", thus carrying the connotation that they are actively encouraging abortion, and possibly are eugenicists, thus putting more weight to their position.

The definition of "pro-" in this context is:

pro- agreeing with; supporting; favouringquote>

Here, pro-abortion means one of these things:

a. agreeing with abortion

b. supporting abortion

c. favoring abortion

The pro-choice position does not support abortion, favor abortion, and in its default state does not agree or disagree with abortion. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the pro-choice position is agreeing, supporting, or favoring abortion. Therefore, the pro-life position that the pro-choice argument is pro-abortion is completely false, and is pure propaganda intended to demonize and stigmatize the pro-choice position.

Is the pro-choice position agreeing, supporting, or favoring choice? Yes. This is the correct name for that position, regardless of your emotions on the subject.

When arguing, we need to refer to the competing positions by their correct names.

Is the pro-life position anti-abortion? "Anti-" means "opposed to". Is the pro-life position opposed to abortion? Yes. Therefore, it is correct to refer to this position as anti-abortion.

- Patricius Maximus

[belfastuniguy 18]

Here, pro-abortion means one of these things:

a. agreeing with abortion

b. supporting abortion

c. favoring abortion

The pro-choice position does not support abortion, favor abortion, and in its default state does not agree or disagree with abortion. Therefore, it is incorrect to state that the pro-choice position is agreeing, supporting, or favoring abortion. Therefore, the pro-life position that the pro-choice argument is pro-abortion is completely false, and is pure propaganda intended to demonize and stigmatize the pro-choice position.

Is the pro-choice position agreeing, supporting, or favoring choice? Yes. This is the correct name for that position, regardless of your emotions on the subject.

When arguing, we need to refer to the competing positions by their correct names.

Is the pro-life position anti-abortion? "Anti-" means "opposed to". Is the pro-life position opposed to abortion? Yes. Therefore, it is correct to refer to this position as anti-abortion.

- Patricius Maximusquote>

In complete agreement.

I do not like the idea of abortion or the fact it is used. However I strongly defend the right of freedom of choice by the women. As Maximus stated Pro-Choice does not always mean Pro-Abortion.

[fukuda 351]

Is the pro-choice position agreeing, supporting, or favoring choice? Yes. This is the correct name for that position, regardless of your emotions on the subject.

When arguing, we need to refer to the competing positions by their correct names.quote>

Sorry, but I still don't get it. Following your definitions, I realize that I've never met any pro-abortionist in my entire life. What are exactly pro-abortionists by the way? Pro-choice is what we call pro-abortionism here.

You can't be pro-choice without supporting the use of abortion if it's the decision of the interested individuals.

they are actively encouraging abortion, and possibly are eugenicistsquote>

And as far as I'm concerned, eugenics have never been about aborting. Sterilization of the individual was used instead, it works better.

[dabadon5 295]

Well i didnt read any other post but here is my opinion on Abortion

Well I feel that if a woman decides to engage in sex and ends up pregnant, i feel that she should carry the child until it is born where she can give it up to adoption or keep it.

But i do feel the the women has the right to abortion if she was raped or if the pregnancy is a risk to the womans health. I feel that if the woman was raped she can have an abortion or take a pill

to stop the pregnancy. She did not ask for this and may be to young to go through the pregnancy anyways. I also feel that if there indeed was an abortion then they can use stem cells for what ever purpose is needed. thats my opinion in a nutshell

[Patricius Maximus 236]

Sorry, but I still don't get it. Following your definitions, I realize that I've never met any pro-abortionist in my entire life. What are exactly pro-abortionists by the way? Pro-choice is what we call pro-abortionism here.quote>

A pro-abortionist is the position that, by default, supports and favors abortion. This means by extension that they encourage abortion. Obviosuly these people are very rare.

You can't be pro-choice without supporting the use of abortion if it's the decision of the interested individuals. quote>

Yes, and you cannot be pro-choice without supporting the decision of a woman not to get an abortion. The pro-choice position by default has no leanings for or against abortion.

Belfastuniguy put it best in his statement:

I do not like the idea of abortion or the fact it is used. However I strongly defend the right of freedom of choice by the women. As Maximus stated Pro-Choice does not always mean Pro-Abortion. quote>

And as far as I'm concerned, eugenics have never been about aborting. Sterilization of the individual was used instead, it works better.quote>

The vast majority of eugenics programs used sterilization as the primary or sole means of execution. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia encouraged abortion of "unfit" women, and prohibited abortion with their "fit" population. While it was a secondary method, it was used by these regimes.

However, I do agree that if a eugenics program is a government's goal, sterilization works better than abortion.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Patricius Maximus

And as far as I'm concerned, eugenics have never been about aborting. Sterilization of the individual was used instead, it works better.quote>

The vast majority of eugenics programs used sterilization as the primary or sole means of execution. Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia encouraged abortion of "unfit" women, and prohibited abortion with their "fit" population. While it was a secondary method, it was used by these regimes.

However, I do agree that if a eugenics program is a government's goal, sterilization works better than abortion.quote>

Witness the advancing of a eugenics ideal by Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. She was a big admirer of Hitler, and made no secret that abortion was key to ridding the world of (in her words) "human weeds"; like gays, Slavs, Jews, the physically and mentally disabled, blacks, etc. She also shared an office with the International Eugenics Society.

The biography Killer Angel (link to HTML version) tells a good part of it. Yet, PP claims in its literature that it's "proud of its past". Among that past, interestingly, has been ironically called the Anti-Choice platform; meaning you have no choice about how many children you can have. You would be limited to only one, by force. Where have we heard that before? Sanger thought of it first.

[saltandsauce 0]

how hard can sex education be?

if you have sex you can get pregnant DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH how blunt must i put it

it also doesn't help that so many people now have one night stands, like sex is a kind of chore, like hoovering or washing dishes i think it's degrading

[coolotter88 2]

Eugenics was a popular pseudoscience in its time. People at the time were not well informed. Carnegie and Rockefeller provided philanthropy for Eugenics research, does that mean they're bad people? Teddy Roosevelt, a former president, and one who is on Mount Rushmore supported eugenics, does that make him a bad person? WINSTON CHURCHILL, great man who led Great Britain through World War 2 AGAINST HITLER supported Eugenics, does that make him a bad person? No, so arguing that Margaret Sanger, a pro-choice feminist who happened to support a pseudoscience at the time does not make her a bad person.

Not necessarily do people have to get pregnant after sex. Promoting safe sex/birth control education is important. People are not going to stop having sex to get pregnant. Why give up a pleasurable experience?

edit: I would also like to add that not all ideas of "bad people" are bad. Even if Margaret Sanger advocated the sterilization of dysgenic groups, that doesn't mean that her views on abortion are entirely invalid. Adolf Hitler banned public smoking, should we make everyone smoke because Hitler didn't like tobacco? Because, obviously, if he tried to exterminate an entire ethnic group, his other ideas are totally wrong. Like how smoking is a disgusting habit. I should start smoking so I'm not like Hitler. You should too if you don't smoke.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: saltandsauce how hard can sex education be?

if you have sex you can get pregnant DUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHH how blunt must i put itquote>

Consider the following scenario:

a hot, sexy girl wants you, now. You don't have a condom. Nor does anyone else around. What do you do?

It's easy to say that you'll avoid the encounter now, in a rational state of mind, of course. Problem is, in situations like that, we have this tendency to cease thinking with our brains and start thinking with our testicles... and the willpower to say "no" all of a sudden becomes really hard to muster up.

So you do it, and oops, she gets pregnant. You know you did something wrong. You know you made a mistake. But damn it, if a similar situation arises in the future, you'll make exactly the same mistake all over again. And will keep making it and then regretting it afterward. Because we're simply wired to behave that way. It's instinctual to try and reproduce as much as possible. The species wouldn't survive if it wasn't.

it also doesn't help that so many people now have one night stands, like sex is a kind of chore, like hoovering or washing dishes i think it's degradingquote>

Um... a chore? Bad comparison there. Like casually strolling in the park might be a better analogy.

And while yes, there are flaws with behavior, how exactly is it degrading? Rape is degrading, certainly, but if both parties are consenting...