So, what you think about it?

A good thing, give's mothers the choice.

Yes, women must have the right do decide for themselves. In the netherlands this is no longer an issue.

Ezellohar, are you TRYING to start a fight?

I was tempted to just ignore this one, but couldn't resist.

Question ... when does life begin?

Does it begin at conception? When brain activity starts? When a "being" is able to breath oxygen on "its" own? When "it" is able to take care of itself?

You have to decide that first, because once you do, then you are able to draw a line between abortion and murder.

In America, we have a practice called "Partial Birth abortion". They induce labor in the woman, allow 90% of the baby to be delivered through the birth canal, and then, at the last moment, they use surgical scissors to pierce the skull, and destroy the brain.

This is a procedure called D&X (http://www.family.org/cforum/research/papers/a0010626.html)

I have a tough time calling that a "free choice every woman should be able to make."

Ok, that is an extreme procedure, and I did include it for shock value. However, this is a shocking reality that we are ignoring.

How many millions of people have been killed while the world stands around playing politics and talking about choice. I'm sure very similar rationalizations were floating around the German country-side while the Jewish, handicapped and politically incorrect folk were marched to the Concentration Camps.

Yeah, I know that most of you will disagree with me, and it is your choice to do so. Just please, think about when life begins, then follow your decision to the logical consequence.

Choice as in,

"My family has turned their backs, I can't afford maternity clothes, rent or food, so I feel I only have one option?"

or as in,

"If my mum and dad find out I'm pregnant, they won't love me anymore, so I'd better do this quick"?

or as in,

"If I don't have an abortion, my boyfriend says he'll leave me, and I love him so I have to do this"?

Those kind of choices?

I volunteered for five years in a clinic for women/girls with "unwanted" pregnancies and never met one, not one, that didn't hope someone would help her out financially and emotionally so she didn't "have" to have an abortion. The examples I gave above are what we heard, over and over and over until our hearts broke. Saying, "let her choose" is an easy way to say, "her baby is not my problem". If you've offered her clothing, food, shelter and love, and she still wants an abortion... then you're off the hook. Otherwise, by recommending abortion, you've left the most vulnerable and valuable kind of human being in the world- a pregnant woman- in the most dreadful dilemma imaginable.

The other side of the coin was the women who called us all the time to see if we knew any unwanted babies they could have, because they'd tried for years and their time was running out. On the one hand, poor women were destroying babies that were desperately wanted (by themselves or other women) because they didn't have the resources to support themselves in pregnancy, and on the other hand, homes that already had cribs and changing tables and all the love in the world ready stayed baby-less because our society finds abortion more morally acceptable than adoption. If you don't find that sad, I have to wonder where your heart is.

Mathetais, when I say this I'm not thinking of you (as a seemingly-intelligent person whose well-considered opinion isn't the same as mine) but of the far right-wing, hyper-Christian, anti-everything faction that wants to deny all reality outside of four church walls...

Oh, if only the people who want to ban abortions weren't also bent upon banning birth control at the same time! There's no better way to cut down on the number of abortions performed than to prevent them from being needed in the first place.

That said, keep the procedures safe and legal. Let the woman - and anyone else SHE chooses to involve - make the decision as to whether or not to avail herself of that option.

Sprite ... I agree 100%. I used to work for a woman's clinic that didn't offer abortions, just consuling and then referrals. I'd go to high schools talking about abortion, abstinence and birth control. It was amazing some of the stories that Freshmen in High School had about these topics. Broke my heart.

Rallymama ... my Christian brothers sometimes give my King a bad name. ;) :good: I'm in the same denomination as a minister who shot an abortion doctor. Not an acceptable option. I'm very pro-birth control (I've had a vasectomy, it doesn't get much more controlled than that).

Here's the thing ... as strongly as I speak against abortion, I speak as strongly against stupid people who just say "Ban it!" and refuse to get off their butts.

I was in a church group where the leader did a talk on abortion, and closed with a 10 min. video that showed people pulling aborted fetuses out of a dumpster behind a planned parenthood. It turned my stomach ... but what is worse is that a girl in the crowd had recently had an abortion. This christian leader didn't preach grace, forgivness or love, just law, intolerance and knee-jerk reactions. The Gospel of Grace is all about forgiving broken people and healing a broken world. Abortion is a pretty big tear in the fabric of our world, and the "Godly" response is to offer love, money, clothes, food, shelter, diapers, support, etc, etc to those in need, even if they've made mistakes.

I read in a newspaper about how they do abortion and I have to admit, that it is the only thing, what made me feel sick. Just sick. I just cried and even couldn't eat anything, because I felt so bad. I think it would be acceptable only, when the mother is too young(13-15) and both wouldn't survive.

My 2 cents. And I am not trying to start a fight.
I just want to know, what other people think.

When life begins is irrelevant in my opinion.

We have no qualms about killing a pig and it's alive (well, most of us don't.)

I anticipate someone saying there is a difference between a human life and a pig life so, the question is when does human life begin?

That's also irrelevant in my opinion.

Imagine this example: Yoda comes down to earth. We chat, have some tea and biscuits, then we kill him. Is that acceptable? The answer is in my opinion obviously no. Why is it not acceptable, Yoda isn't human?

I think that example shows that we realize there is no necessary connection between having the right to life and and being human. Like there is no necessary connection between the right to life and being alive (pigs and plants are alive until we kill them right?)

I think it is better to question when something becomes a person. Yoda fits the understanding of being a person in my opinion as does, just for an example, the Pope, Mariah Carey, Brett Favre etc.

Is this something we can agree on? Personhood is the key and not your genetic code.

To all you people against abortion:
What about women who have been raped? Is it right to make them have a child that is the direct result of a crime comitted against their person? how fair to the victim is that? Have any of you ever met a rape victim? I have and and it's not a pleasant thing to hear recounted.

Atreides, I'd like to jump in real quick here. Rape is a very small subset of the total number of all abortions.

I have known someone who was raped and became pregnant.

I think it probably better to discuss it in a more general context first and then talk about if there exceptions.

Ezellohar:

Yeah. Those "medical" pictures can be very disturbing.

What is important, Eze, is that you never have to make that decision.

Literally.

This doesn't make "you cannot ever have sex". It means this is something you need to address ahead of time.

If you are a devout Roman Catholic, then the Pope has already decreed that you can use the "Rythum Method", and that's it.

If you are a little more open in your views, then you have many options.

Progesterone/Estrogen tablets. Condoms. Spermacide inserts. Diaphrams. Spermacide "sponge" inserts. Vasectomy. Tubal Ligation.

This is part of being a responsible adult. You must weigh the consequences. You can reduce the "risk" of becomming pregnant (to an extraordinary degree, if you use several methods together), but it must always be an issue. Hopefully, your partner AND you will address the issue together.

As far as abortion goes, I fall under the "pro-abortion" category. But my little fantasy world has some twists in that "pro-abortion" category.

I'm just crazy like that.

I am pro-choice. Not like the guy has any choice in the matter...But I believe women have the right to choose whether or not to end their pregnancy.

The only time I would be against abortion is if it were used as a contraceptive measure...

.................................................

One thing I don't get is the fervor over abortion in general though. This may seem callous, but I feel better about aborting a fetus much more than killing someone who is already alive. By alive, I mean walking around living and doing stuff.

This may be difficult to explain in writing, but I'll give it a try. A fetus has no history, no existence, per se. It hasn't had any experiences, made relationships, fell in love, failed a math test, stubbed its toe, etc...So I don't place it in the category of "alive" in my meaning of the word.

I've always thought the greater tragedies are the deaths of children and adults in everyday life. Whether they died by war, disease, crime, violence, or whatever! People that had friends, families, and impacted the world in some way, however small. These people had a story to tell: About their lives, trials, challenges, hardships and triumphs. Why is it people are not outraged by war, but ending the life of a fetus causes people such angst?

With that said...and I'm sure I'll catch it from more than a few of you. When it comes right down to it...I believe the woman has the choice. And she has to live with the choice she makes.

(removed rant)

Leave it up to people to decide, but my advice to anyone thinking of doing this would be to speak to someone who has :(

[ December 03, 2002, 20:08: Message edited by: Vermillion ]

Abortion and Incest ... thats where many people allow abortion ... however those two very small percentages are keeping the door open for hundreds of thousands of people, some of whom use abortion as birth-control.

At Laches:
All right, I'll back down from my "rape" arguement for the present. However, I felt that I needed to point something like that out before everyone got completely diverted.
And now to my post:
I'm pro-choice period. There is a time that I believe that carrying out an abortion is wrong however (after six months specifically, if the woman in question can't make up her mind before then she should have the baby and either keep it or put it up for adoption.) Anyway, I'm not going to start ranting about this yet.

Atreides, not to draw you into the debate, but I've heard the 6 month thing before and am wondering what's magic about the 6th month?

Is that when personhood is established, or is it just easier to kill something that is too small to look human?

Just curious.

Oh, and Bel, I get fired up because we are sitting around playing video games while a holocost is going on around us. I have to walk past a Planned Parenthood building everyday on my way to and from work ...

My opinion will probably account for nothing - but I'll put it forward anyway ;)

Parents will often want an abortion if they discover the baby is severly disabled - whether it isn't growing properly or they notice deformaties that will cause problems and won't give the child a life without bullies and torment.

Sometimes if the person is too young, There is a 14 year old - and there are suspitions, especially as she has gone missing recently, has collapsed in school and is often off ill.

Sometimes people discover they are pregnant and can't deal with it. They don't know what to do and don't want the prospect of sending the child away to be adopted where anything could happen.

At the end of the day - they have a choice. I think there should perhaps be a system where they are given about a month to decide whether or not they still want to go ahead with the operation. It is their choice and if it's what they really want then we have no right to stop them. It is a difficult thing to decide - something that takes careful thinking. If you know someone who is thinking of having an abortion the best you can do is support them in whatever decision and not to argue with them, to decide to go ahead will be stressful enough. If you offer help they may change their minds knowing they have support and help when they need it

Question ... when does life begin? What is life??
Occupation of a body by a soul, having free will, activity in the brains?? I can only answer that question if I knew what life exactly is..

But with the idea I have of life now..
what if it is the only chance for life the unborn child has.. your just taking that away, simply because of reasons which are only important for yourself.. daddy will get mad, boyfriend will run away, rape..

Ain´t stealing life away from something wich haven´t even the chance to taste it, a greater sin than murder?? The only mistake which the unborn made was being created in you and yet people who steal, rape, murder, cheat, etc, get lesser punishment than the unlucky unborn

Those are my two penny´s

But maybe in situations I havent thought abortion is for the best, maybe...

[ December 03, 2002, 21:15: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

How would you like being aborted? Hmm? Hey, your mom's body, your mom's choice.

Nice ridiculous question C'Jakob.

Abortion should be an option, as long as it isn't abused. I agree with Sir Bel; only abortion as contraception seems wrong to me.

Abortion is murder.
Women have choices. They can choose to not have sex. They can choose to use birth control. Murdering an unborn child should not be one of the options.
As far as rape or incest. I don't see how following a crime/tragedy with a murder makes things better.

[ December 03, 2002, 22:54: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Myself? I'm a roman Catholic. I believe in God and Jesus and all that, but that doesn't stop me from believing that the whole "no birth control" thing is rubbish.

Personally, I'm pro-choice. I have heard in various circles "How would you like it if YOU had been an abortion." I sometimes (depending on how obnoxious my opponent is) reply with "I wouldn't care. I wouldn't care about that or anything, because my mind would never have begun working. My mind would never have existed. I would never have been alive."

I mean no offense or disrespect to believers in the "life begins at conception" idea, but to me, there is a difference between existance and life. My cat exists. But he doesn't "think", at least not in the conventional sense. Think about it. Very young babies merely wiggle and cry. At about two, (give or take a few months) we start moving around. We begin learning. By my way of thinking, (which, again, I'm not saying is right, it's just the way my mind works) life doesn't begin until the second year. Before that, we merely exist.

This is controversial, might make people stop liking me, and might make me idiot of the week, but It's what I think, and I stand by it.

Honestly, I don't think men should have a say in the matter of rape and incest. That's an incredibly traumitizing experience for a woman, but she wasn't responsible for it - someone else was. If she views this as murder, then she obviously shouldn't be doing it. If not, then she should go through with it as she feels. Regardless, I can't say there is much of any good that comes from abortion - sometimes it seems like a necessary evil in our society.

Why? Well, for one thing, if giving birth had any chance to kill the woman and the baby, abortion is probably the best choice. Secondly, making abortion illegal is absolutely ridiculous - women will resort coat hangers and vacuum cleaners. That's incredibly unsafe and deadly. Thirdly, the idea of intoxication (perhaps), rape, etc. doesn't make the woman responsible. Otherwise - she is (barring senlitiy or mental retardation, of course).

Is abortion murder? Some say yes - a heart starts beating in 18 days. Others say no - it's pretty much a parasite on the woman - totally dependent on her. Her choice anyways. Regardless, it's the couple's choice (assuming there is a couple). But most of the time, a woman gets an abortion out of convenience.

If you get knocked up, your own fault. Take responsibility.

(I apologize for using that phrase, but it's not half as clumsy as "impregnated".

Others say no - it's pretty much a parasite on the woman - totally dependent on her. Mankind is a parasite

sometimes it seems like a necessary evil in our society. True, sometimes, for the excistance of good, evil is neccesary, and the other way around

[ December 03, 2002, 23:22: Message edited by: Morgoth ]

Abortion should be an option, there are many many times where a child is unwanted and I for one think it is better to take it away before it is human than to let it live unwanted.
But it is a horrible choice and should obviously not be taken lightly. I know quite a few persons that have had abortions and it is a tremendous pressure and a terrible decision but sometimes it is for the better if the child is never born. All the anti-freedom people do is to put even more guilt upon the shoulders of those poor girls. No wonder you have heard so many that claims to regret it or other cry story, you with your judgmental attitude makes their already heavy burden unbearable.
But I cannot understand all these methods that have been mentioned in this thread, if that is how abortion is done in the US I can almost understand that they have so many anti-freedom people there. Six month is way too late imo, it is possible to give birth at that time and for the child to live and have a normal life. I dont claim to know when life begins but an abortion shouldnt be possible to consider if the fetus is a child that could be made to live outside the uteros (spelling).
Abortion should be completely free, for everyone and to them that thinks that people will use is contraceptive think again. As I have said it is a horrible decision and no one take it lightly, and if there is anyone it is such a troubled person that they have other great problems with their mind. It should of course be limited to pretty early in the pregnancy so that what the abortion basicly is is to scrape off some goo from the uteros wall. Later abortions should be limited to the cases where birth would pose lethal danger to both mother and child.
I would also like to say that I find the so called 'pro-life' people's scare argumentation to be despicable. Even quite sensible people seem to be able to stoop very low in this question to scare and terrorise people straight with horror stories and an extensive use of words like murder, holocaust, childrenskiller etc.

Say what you want about "the so called 'pro-life' people's scare argumentation". I believe in a soul. I believe that the soul enters the body at conception. I believe that killing a being with a soul in anything other than self defense is murder.
If this seems unreasonable to some people, there is nothing I can do for you. I will not change my mind about this.
Abortion is (primarily) a convenience for people who don't want to take responsibility for themselves. You can throw the incest/rape argument around all you want. Most abortions are done as a means of birth control.

I wrote a short essay supporting my belief that abortion is wrong, last year, a belief that I hold to.

Laches, we have no qualms about killing pigs and plants because we eat them afterwards, they fulfill a purpose of sorts. The only purpose some fetuses serve after being killed is to be used in some scientists' experiments.

Sir Bel, A fetus has no history, no existence, per se. It hasn't had any experiences, made relationships, fell in love, failed a math test, stubbed its toe, etc...So I don't place it in the category of "alive" in my meaning of the word. What about a new born infant? It's only taken a single breath of life outside the womb, does that count as an experience?

Atreides, There is a time that I believe that carrying out an abortion is wrong however (after six months specifically What's so special about the sixth month? The fact that it's been a fetus for six months? A fetus is a fetus, it doesn't matter which stage of development it's in, it has the same DNA as it did when it was conceived, it has the same DNA as when it will die. Just because it's a little more developed than it was before doesn't mean that it's any more human. It has always been human, it will always be human.
Also, killing a baby because the woman has been raped is not a good reason. Yes, I realize that the emotional pain must be almost beyond compare, but is that a good reason to murder a human being?

C'Jakob, Hey, your mom's body, your mom's choice. I'm sorry if I offend you by saying this, but I find that to be the most cowardly of all stances in this issue. For example, if you saw someone stabbing someone else in the chest, would you walk past and say that it's the man's choice to kill the other person? That it's not your place to defend the other person's life because it has nothing to do with "your body?"

I find it odd that only the women are considered in these arguments, what about the fathers? I'm sure there are those who push for their girlfriends/fiancees/wives to have abortions, but what about those who are deprived of the chance of having children.

Please don't think of me as one of those anti-everything Christians, or of one of those people who argues against things I know nothing about, because I have done some research into abortion, especially the moral and ethical issues related to abortion.

When I was researching for my essay last year, I came across a website, prochoiceconnection.com, in which the Bible was being used to defend abortion. I read through each of the passages listed, and the reasons they supposedly supported abortion, and I wrote to the woman who ran the website (I don't recall her name, but I do remember that she supposedly had a Ph.D) explaining to her how the passages actually went against abortion. She wrote back without any real argument, she just told me that some biblical scholars agreed on the interpretation she presented (I should say that when I looked up the passages in my Bible, the wording was different than that which she had put on her website) and she concluded her e-mail by calling me some extremely offensive names but she did not produce any arguments to combat what I had said. Odd how someone apparently so prominent among pro-abortionists can't take a firm stand against an argument.

I think that it is something horrible being done, yes murder is perhaps the best word. But there are always two sides to any case. I think abortion shouldn't be allowed unless the mother is in physical danger by being pregnant. The fact quite often overlooked is that having an abortion can be just as traumatising as not having an abortion. I don't know if it was a dutch or an internatiol survey, but a few months ago I read in a newspaper that women who did have an abortion done had a far greater chance of becoming depressed and a greater chance of getting cancer in ovuaries (i believe is the word).

So abortion isn't just something you do. It has far reaching consequences even if you do not believe in God or anything.

But the most important fact that a lot of christian people forget is that Christ preached love for our fellow humans. So instead of shouting Abortion Bad. Go out and help those girls in need!

Unfortunately, Joacqin, there are unpleasant and insensitive people on both sides of the debate. I certainly can't defend the behaviour of a lot of pro-life people, and I'm sorry that their unkindness and aggression have made me almost embarrassed to admit I'm pro-life too. All I can say is, we're not all like that. But "pro-choice" people are often just as bad. Although at least they don't go around shooting people, their attitude is often very unhelpful. A girl is pregnant, poor, frightened, unhappy? Have an abortion, it'll cure everything! The truth is that usually, if a woman wants to have her unborn child torn from her body, something has gone terribly wrong with her life, and if the baby's father, her family, the community, churches, charities would only take a little trouble to reach out and help her, then a baby becomes a joy and not a problem. And then everyone, especially the poor mother and child, is spared the horror of abortion.

Faerus,

just to clarify something -- when I note that we have no qualms about killing a pig, or about killing a tree when we cut it down, here is my purpose: to show there is no necessary connection between the right to life and the mere fact that something is alive.

Likewise, when I note that we would have qualms about killing Yoda it isn't because I'm trying to get people to think Yoda is a great guy, it is to show that there is no necessary connection between being human and the right to life.

Why do I think this is important? It seems to me that science might be able to define when life begins or when human life begins, potentially. I think it is likely to always be debatable but removed from the political and ethical tempest created by abortion the scientific community might well come to an agreement on when life begins.

Since I think there is no necessary connection between life or human life and the right to life for the examples given above though I think that science will not help us answer the question of when the right to life attaches.

Pursuing a scientific justification then is a waste of time in my opinion because the question is a philosophical one not a scientific one. Arguing about brain waves or heart beats etc. doesn't get to the core issue.

I think you might have misinterpreted my intent.

I also disagree a bit about why we don't feel qualms with killing other things. We have no qualms about killing a roach in the middle of nowhere either. It is because we perceive it as lacking worth, not having the right to life, not because killing it achieves some purpose.

The question is when does the right to life attach.

So far I've seen variation of the old favorite: "the slut deserves it" argument. I've also seen religious beliefs. I've also seen people simply assert that it is murder. I'm curious to see what else pops up.

Also Faerus, attributing the response of one woman on the internet as representative of all pro-choicers is akin to a pro-choicer attributing the views of those who murder doctors to all pro-lifers.

[ December 04, 2002, 00:57: Message edited by: Laches ]

Of course there are always rotten eggs on both sides in a case.
I believe in the option, of course something has gone horrible wrong if someone considers an abortion and taking away the child wont fix everything but what it will do is to enable the woman doing the abortion a possibility to straighten out her life to get an education and settle down and build a nest so that the children that are wanted will have all that they may need. Instead of delivering the child unwanted and to parents unable to take care of it, both practically and emotionally.
It is up to the person bearing the child, if she believes that abortion is wrong or that she can take of the child she will bear but if she knows that she wont be able to take of the child then I think she should have the option of removing it under controlled forms.
I personally prefer it being done properly in a clinic by doctors than by alone in a toilet with a fork or some questionable drugs.
And all you people putting religious values to this be free to do so but you cannot enforce them on others, just because you believe in a soul doesnt mean that everyone else does.

Up until fairly recently, I have tended toward the pro-choice argument, simply because of that rape thing. However, we need to, as Laches said, look at the big picture now and save the exceptions for later.

I'll probably be accused of straddling both sides of the fence here, but that's okay. While I am a firm believer that humans should be made to be responsible for their actions, however foolish, I do recognise that abortion is certainly necessary in our society.

It should certainly not be used as a contraceptive, there are plenty of other options available (especially abstinence, which is completely fool-proof). However, if the pregnancy would jeopardize both the mother and her child, an abortion would likely be the best option. After all, which would make a greater stain on the conscience, killing an unborn child that likely would not survive either way or (indirectly) killing two humans?

In America, we have a practice called "Partial Birth abortion". They induce labor in the woman, allow 90% of the baby to be delivered through the birth canal, and then, at the last moment, they use surgical scissors to pierce the skull, and destroy the brain.Math, you make a good point, and this procedure is basically doctor-assisted murder and should be totally banned in our nation. Regardless of when scientists say life begins, the child is born, it is alive. There can be no valid argument on this.

Sometimes if the person is too young, There is a 14 year old - and there are suspitions, especially as she has gone missing recently, has collapsed in school and is often off ill.

Sometimes people discover they are pregnant and can't deal with it. They don't know what to do and don't want the prospect of sending the child away to be adopted where anything could happen.While I tend to agree with the rest of your statements 8people, those I do not. In both of those circumstances, the person needs to be held responsible for their decisions, not offered a post-conception method of birth control. While I agree that the conditions in orphanages and adoption institutions tend to be subpar, it is still better than it being dead (or not existing, whichever opinion you may hold).

C'Jakob, why do you not believe that the father should have a say as well? He will have to support and nurture the child as well as the mother will. While he may not have the pain of birth control, I believe that the couple should have the decision, not simply the female.

Damn, it seems I've ticked off Faerus and Rastor here.

How would you like being aborted? Hmm? Hey, your mom's body, your mom's choice. Faerus, I was being mildly sarcastic there. I was trying to make the point that the idea that you can kill your unborn child because it's in your body is ridiculous. We're in the same boat here, Faerus. I think that it's ridiculous that a person should let someone else do something morally wrong because s/he can.

Rastor, when a woman gets an abortion, most of the time it's a one-night stand. She gets impregnated by some guy she met in a bar whose last name she doesn't even know, and the guy just ditches her after the sex. Or, after the male finds out his girlfriend/fiancee/(even) wife is pregnant, he leaves her alone. Often, the woman is left alone with the choice. Granted, the man should have an equal say in it too. But more often than not, the woman's left alone with a scarred reputation; the man is basically unscathed.

I agree that it is the couple's choice. The matter is that usually there won't be one. And I really do not believe that the man should have a word of say in the situation of rape or incest.

[ December 04, 2002, 03:20: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

I asked this question earlier in the day and I'll ask it again only this time more directly: Faerus have you ever met a rape victim? A woman who has been raped will always live with the pain of that terrible event in her life and *never* be free of it. To force her to give birth to a child that was caused by that rape is inexcusable and cruel. I once had a debate with a group of classmates in a speech class my second year in college and I brought up this same issue in regards to abortion. Someone had the nerve to actually imply that having a child that is the result of a rape could "turn a terrible thing in to a good thing." I've said this once to that person and I'll say it to anyone else: *nothing* good comes from a rape, nothing.
To answer the six months thing I'll point out that's more the partial-birth abortion thing I have a problem with rather than a length of time. My definition of a human life beginning is when that baby is born in to the world and the proceedure that I've read described earlier (about the birthing the baby 90% and killing it like that) is something that I generally find a bit revolting. However, unless that baby is born I see it is just so much material, a collection of cells and half-formed organs and no perception of what is going on around it. I know that sounds a bit cruel to some of you guys but it's my opinion however cold it may seem.

Rastor, I agree with most of your statements but I'm with C'Jakob on this one. Hope you don't feel ganged-up-upon. :) If the father of the baby shows any interest whatsoever in providing care and support of the baby, it is extremely unusual for the mother to choose abortion. Usually the abortion is his idea, or done in the hopes of winning him back, or prompted by economic factors his presence in the equation would mostly resolve.

Having said that, the pro-life agency where we worked had a shelter where the girls could live and finish their education if they wanted. Once, just once, we had a teenage boy living there. We helped him persuade his girlfriend he'd be a good father (and on-staff nurses were there to ensure this, for the girls as well), and we gave him all the gifts and help we'd have given to the mother if she'd wanted them, and he and the baby moved in to the shelter. Boy was HE popular! What a guy. I totally take off my hat to him.

C'Jakob, you toss out an interesting statistic - that most abortions are due to one-night stands. Can you point me in the direction of the raw data supporting that assertion, please?

In such cases, you are correct in saying that the woman bears responsibility for the decision alone. However, in all cases where the father is known, he shares responsibility. I'm sure it's often not the equal division that is should be, but the responsibility is there and anyone deserving of being called a MAN will shoulder it. Kudos to the teen that Sprite knew!

If anyone really believes that this is entirely a women's issue, go buy a one-way ticket to Nigeria. I hear that women can still get pregnant on their own over there.

How many miles is Nigeria from Georgia?

I am not a Roman Catholic. Yikes, you REALLY scared me. I have no faith right now, anyway. Pro-choice for me.

Eze

What would you think of a mother who comes up to you, puts a gun to your head and sais: Sorry, you were not ment to be. Poof!

Who are we to decide what's worthy to live?
I stated it before: The human kind is the most intelligent species in the universe and we use our knowledge to our own destruction.

You want to have good sex, but you are too stupid to use a condom? Suffer the consequences. You created life, now you want it dead... What do you want?

Of course, there are some difficult cases.
People dont want to be raped, but still you have to respect life.

Could go on for ever....
My head is spinning with thoughts I'm not able to express.

Okay, I'll jump in again.

I'm curious, thus far I haven't seen anyone offer any in depth explanation regarding why abortion is wrong. I've only seen assertions that it is wrong. I've seen assertions that it is murder, that she got herself into it and now she just has to deal with it etc.

First, imagine that someone tells me that I need to buckle up while I drive. I refuse. I drive around unbuckled all of the time and one day I get in an accident. I break my arm. Can I have my arm operated on in order to repair the break or do I need to accept that I was warned and I knew what the consequences could be and went ahead and drove around irresponsibly anyways so now I just have to deal with the broken arm because it's my personal responsibility?

I anticipate someone stepping in and telling me why the analogy is awful, why it is that there is a big difference between a broken arm and a fetus. That's something no one has really tried to do yet. They've simply asserted that abortion is murder.

In order for an abortion to be immoral/wrong etc. it must be the case that a fetus has a right to life doesn't it? Putting aside that no one has argued why this is the case yet let's assume for a second that you believe the fetus has a right to life. Let me point out what that commits you to, which the Jesuits who first developed the philosophy of a fetus having a right to life realize:

If a fetus has a right to life:

1) It is immoral/evil etc to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest. If the fetus has a right to life it has a right to life and to abort a fetus conceived in rape is like killing a 10 year old child born of rape/incest etc.

2) It is immoral/evil to abort a fetus in order to save the mother's life. Imagine I'm in the hospital and need a kidney transplant or I will die. I can't kill the patient next to me to make that kidney available because that would be taking away the life of something with the right to life in order to save mine and that is immoral/evil etc. You may think to argue that the analogies don't work because the mother may be directly threatened by the pregnancy and the man in the hospital isn't directly threatened but I will point out that the right to life is the right to life and I will then point out that the threat to the mother may not be direct in cases revolving around cervical cancer or other similar threats to the mother's life which must be addressed quickly often times in order to save the mother's life and can only be addressed if the child is aborted. In cases like this it isn't the pregnancy that is the threat but the fetus must be aborted in order to treat the illness.

3) It is immoral/evil to abort a fetus to save the mother's life even when the fetus will die shortly anyways. This one hurts. Imagine a couple of eastern Jewish background who become pregnant and the child we know through genetic testing has Tay-Sachs. If you're unfamiliar with it, Tay-Sachs may be the most awful disease we know of and occurs as a disease in some cases when there are two parents of european jewish background. Recessive genes I believe. It is quite possibly the most painful disease we know of and results in the infants death usually shortly after birth though I do know of one instance where the child lasted longer (I believe 10 months or so, there may be others that lasted longer, I'm not aware of them though.) So, imagine a fetus with Tay-Sachs and a mother with cervical cancer that needs to be treated quickly or the cancer will spread and she will die. In this case aborting the fetus is immoral/evil etc. if the fetus has the right to life. If I'm in the hospital, need a kidney transplant within a week, and the man next to me is dying of a neural disease and will be dead within the month I still can't kill that man next to me for that kidney. To do so would be to violate that person's right to life.

These are the stances you are committed to if you believe a fetus has a right to life. They are upsetting to many who identify themselves as pro-life because they seem to many to be anti-intuitive.

If you wish to reject one of the beliefs above and remain pro-life you need to explain how it is that it okay to abort and destroy the right to life in one instance and not the others. FWIW the Jesuits tried for years and concluded it was impossible; if you argue that a fetus has a right to life you are committed to the above. The above is therefore the official Catholic belief.

If you want to say that abortion is immoral/evil for other reasons than a fetus has a right to life you need to explain why abortion is immoral/evil etc. That's something people haven't successfully done either.

It is quite the conundrum for the pro-life community.

I'm also still curious to hear people explain why my original analogy of the man with the broken arm driving the car is wrong.

Also, let me be honest. Appeals to the Bible or a god will be throughly uncompelling in my mind. If you are pro-life and want to help change things then I think you need an argument that can convince people and an appeal to the Bible won't convince atheists, Jews (many who believe not only that abortion is acceptable but indeed that for religious reasons it is occasionally REQUIRED), Buddhists etc. If you are sincere in your belief that abortion is wrong I'd think you would want to develop an argument for these people as well as people who already believe as you do. I'm not saying that you can't have your religious reasons, just pointing out that if that is all you have you are unlikely to convince the people you want to convince.

Laches, you seem to suggest that unless a right to foetal life can be proven, there's no argument against abortion, but I for one feel differently. How can you prove anyone has a right to live? I would turn it around and ask, why should anyone suffer or die if there is anything that the person's family or community can do to prevent it? I don't think the stray kittens in my shed, to give just one example, have any "rights", but I nonetheless give them food and warm blankets to help them through the winter, because I find intrinsic value in their little lives.

But for the sake of argument, let's assume that a foetus is *not* alive, does *not* have any right to life- does that make abortion OK? Imagine that you own a beautiful and unique painting. Many people admire this painting and wish it was theirs. One day, you decide that you don't want it anymore, that you can't stand to look at it ever again. Is it more sensible and moral to destroy the painting, or to give it to someone who would be happy to have it? Or even, keep it in case your distaste proves a temporary whim, and that you'd regret having destroyed it?

If nothing else, abortion hurts every adult involved- certainly the mother, almost always the grandparents, and often the father if he ever hears about it. It's a very traumatic thing, and people who've been involved with it often feel lifelong sadness, regret, guilt, even if they were not participants in the decision to terminate the pregnancy. This is even more the case when the mother made the decision, despite actually wanting to keep the baby, because she couldn't get the financial or emotional help she would have needed to get through the pregancy. And as I said in my first post, it is also sad to see babies being destroyed when there are so many families that are desperate to adopt, who wait their whole lives for a baby and sometimes are told they are now too old to adopt before their number ever comes up. We as a society seem to view adoption as the more heartless choice, but from what I have observed that's just not true. Private adoptions, in particular, are often joyful for everyone involved. The mother can flip through albums of photographs and profiles of couples who want her baby, can meet the people whose dream she is making come true, can know that she is giving other people an opportunity to create a family.

Edit: In response to your analogies- I agree with #1, the circumstances of conception are not relevant to whether a mother should choose abortion or not. For #2, the flaw in the analogy is that the man who has the healthy kidney does not depend on the person who needs it. A better analogy would be, should siamese twins be separated if one of them will certainly die, but the other can be saved? I would say yes, and I would similarly say, if mother and unborn child would die without an abortion, then saving one (the mother) is unquestionably the better moral choice. For #3: Again, the analogy is flawed because it's assuming that self-interest is the motivation. Assume that you *don't* need the kidney of the person dying a horrible painful death. Assume that you just love him, and don't want him to suffer. It's really the same question as euthanasia. Most people who are opposed to abortion are also opposed to euthanasia, but I would break from the group here (presumably because my pro-life stance is not religious in basis) and say protection from suffering is more important to me than life, so it would be preferable to terminate a pregnancy or euthanise an adult in agony.

[ December 04, 2002, 17:49: Message edited by: Sprite ]

I have heard the adoption point before and it completely moot. There are already millions of children in this world without parents that just waits for someone to adopt them. Or is it so that those poor parents that have waited their whole life dont want a *foreign* and *different* child? Is it in someway offensive to their tastes to take a child of a different ethnicity so the prefer to wait a few decades in the hope for some poor girl to get pregnant but not wanting abortion nor take care of the child?

rallymama:

Okay, I will admit that there is no good specific, raw, data that backs up my assertment that most of abortions come from one-night stands. While that may not be the case, I would definitely say that only a small fraction of abortions come from married couples. Most sensible married couples would have the reason and maturity to consider the risks of unprotected sex and the choice of having a baby.

Laches:

In order for an abortion to be immoral/wrong etc. it must be the case that a fetus has a right to life doesn't it? Putting aside that no one has argued why this is the case yet let's assume for a second that you believe the fetus has a right to life.Not necessarily. While I myself would say that killing a fetus destroys the possibily of life, there are also other reasons people believe abortion is immoral. I have heard other girls say that if they ever did get pregnant of their own consent, they would go through with having the baby, because they would take responsibility of having sex. That seems pretty sensible to me.

And if you believed that abortion was wrong because one should take responsibility for one's actions, clearly rape and incest can be an excuse for abortion. I'm not too sure on the notion of dying giving birth to your child - but likewise, responsibility should be taken; the couple/woman should use their/her best judgement. And on the idea of having a baby who will most definitely die soon after being born - well, I can't say I know what I would say to that. Those are definitely some enlightening thoughts on pro-life/anti-choice stances.

Kinda an odd perspective ....

What do you think a group of heros would be more into saving ... the lifes of millions of unborn children, or the right for women to be "free with their bodies"???

(only 1/2 serious here, but its a point to ponder)

:good:

I'd pretty much work it on second strike, and you're out.

Regardless of the little fantasy world that some of these "women" live in, there is the rest of the Planet as well as them.

Resources better used in prevention, rather then crisises.

There's a point, at which you climb out of your fantasy world long enough to address the rest of the Planet.

Then once that's taken care of, you are obviously freed-up to climb right back in your fantasy world.

To all of you propagating for contraception that is very good but no contraceptive measure short of sterilization is foolproof. Condoms can break, the pill isnt 100% save etc etc. So even if you have made all the possible measures you could still be pregnant, sure the chance is small but it is there.

Ok, I didn't have the patience to read all the posts in this topic, but here's what I think about abortion:

It's good. A fetus is not a humam being (and don't even start with the "but it has a soul" stuff), it's a project. And besides it's not conscious, so it doesn't miss anything, it doesn't know anything. So for the fetus is no problem.
Second, people should be allowed to choose if they want or not to have children. Even if they get preagnent.
Third, some of you guys live in countries where abortion is legal, but here in Brazil, it ain't. So what happens? women try to have abortions by sticking stuff into their wombs. Is that nice? Shouldn't they be allowed to simply abort, instead of dying because of an unwanted child?

Abortion has too many sides to be considered. But if you don't like abortion, don't abort. But allow people who want to, to do so.

I do not belive the government has the right to legislate morality. Period. So I think it needs to remain legal, no matter how distasteful I find it personally.

-If the fetus obviously will be handicapped, then it is a selfish act, far worse than murder, that the mother should have him/her.

-Abortion because of rape is acceptable because it was not the choice of the mother to become pregnant.

-Abortion because the mother was too drunk/drugged etc is also acceptable, because it protects the interests of the would-be human (probably wouldn't grant too good a life). But also punishable because of this act of irresponsibility.

-I do not find it acceptable to deny abortion because of religious reasons. This should only apply to those would-be mothers who wish to uphold their own religion by doing so. But never should this be forced upon another because of a difference of religion against their will.

2 sides of the same coin:
-Psychological birth happens some time after the external birth. Before that the "awareness" of a baby does not really exist, and thus it is not spiritually/mentally alive.
-On the other hand, the "awareness" of the fetus of a human can easily be seen as greater in itself / simply more important, than the awareness of any smaller animal. And their slaughter is not allowed either.

The line is hard to draw. Probably because like with so many other things, there isn't any. It all depends on the situation. Of course, that simply isn't enough as you can hardly put it in the books of law just like that. But the zealous attitude of never allowing an abortion brings nothing but useless harm to many. Completely allowing it under all circumstances would be the opposite, far too many women would use this as a "condom" of sorts (yes it isn't that simple thanks to the shiftings in the hormonal balance of a woman's body I know, but first-timers do not think like this).
What can I say? Lucky I'm not the guy who has to come up with the laws and directives.

A whole lot more to say as well, but I'll bring it up later on when someone gives me the arguments. Assuming I care at the time.

-If the fetus obviously will be handicapped, then it is a selfish act, far worse than murder, that the mother should have him/her.
I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, because you say it would be a selfish act but you are looking at one perspective, you only see it from the mothers but what kind of life awaits someone with a handicap. This ofcourse all depends on what kind of handicap, physical or mentally.

I think that the mother is the only one to make that decision. She is the one to raise the child and the one who will fill in a big part of what kind of person the child will be when becoming an adult. If the mother is unsuitable than what?

Handicaps shouldn't be a reason to do an abortion.
Handicapped people are humans as well and our equals. We are both worthy to live.

Why would the mother be the only one to make the decision? Fathers dont count as a parent anymore?
Wake up! Men are no animals who shoot their part and leave. (at least not what they are ment to be, some may think however). Both parents are responsible for the new life they created.

One man I know: He had a fling with a girl and she got pregnant, but she didnt want to have the child. This man said he would care for it, since it's his child too. He married now with an other woman and has 2 other kids. They are all equal to him

IMO, Wilfully stopping the progress of life, is murder. Wether already born, or not.

I'm not sure if I agree with that statement, because you say it would be a selfish act but you are looking at one perspective, you only see it from the mothers but what kind of life awaits someone with a handicap. This ofcourse all depends on what kind of handicap, physical or mentally.

Handicaps shouldn't be a reason to do an abortion.
Handicapped people are humans as well and our equals. We are both worthy to live.
It is precisely what I do not do. I do NOT see it from the mother's point of view. And I do NOT see it as an nazistic move to purify the human race of the less important, less equal. I see it as a way to prevent a beign to be born with the sheer purpose of suffering.
I cannot know what it is to be handicapped, nor can any of you "normal" humans (by normal, I mean healthy, physically and mentally.. don't cling to it in hopes of blaming me for racism or such like). Even the opinion of a handicapped person himself cannot be trusted for the sake of the psychological treatment many of them receive with the purpose of making them feel better by blinding from them the truth for what it is. So all I can do is believe in my own views on this. As long as it doesn't become a law (I don't consider myself as smart and responsible enough to be allowed that honour).
And I know, that I would suffer for the rest of my life were I to bring in life a child who I knew would be seriously handicapped. It is the worst of curses. To see what all others can do, to be mentally equal but physically unable to ever fit in (or vice versa). To see and know what the life of another is, what yours could be, but never will.

Of course handicapped people are expensive for the society in many ways which I will not list here. But it is of little consequence. My thoughs are purely on the life of the person him/herself. I would like to point out that I am familiar with handicapped people. I'm not saying they're all begging me for death, but they have made it quite clear how hard it is each and every day, even will after 20 years of life.

Of course this all depends on the base-question: when is a person born? If one would see the birth being at exactly the same time the fertilization happens, then I can understand why one would think that abortion under all circumstances is wrong. But I cannot see it as simple as that.
I do not believe in "birth" before the psychological birth takes place. I believe that a baby that has just been given birth to is far too under-evolved to understand and experience death as anything synonymous to suffering or evil. Because of this, I believe that a fetus that is "killed" when it is still inside the mothers womb will effectively be unaware of this event. And quite frankly I believe that the will of other people to "do good" by preventing this in the face of an unrealistic ideal, which they will not have to take the pain from, will only result in more "evil" in the end.

I will say now that I've got 38c fever and I'm still working. So although I'm putting a lot more concentration on this than I normaly would, be aware of the possibility that I might say something hilarious or furiating without the intent of doing so.

I'm a Christian (protestant)and to my opinion there is only One who should decide over life and death. Since He's the only one who can create life, He also is the only to end it.

Humans turned this world into a planet of hatred, selfishness, death, and materialism.
' Everything should be perfect'. Well, this life is not perfect. We all suffer, handicaped or not.
Of course it isnt nice to see someone is suffering, but that doesn't give us, mortal fools, the right to end lives. We must help people, but not by ending their lives.

But if someone wants to do an abortion, go ahead, as long as you can justify it.

Oh here we go.

So basically medicines, surgery and other methods of preventing illnesses, curing diseases and such all step in the way of Him? Surely they were meant to die afterall, but humans intervened.

My roommate actually thinks similarly on that "we are meant to suffer" thing, and I just simply can't figure out why. If you get a terminal disease, you know you will die of it and you know you will suffer incredibly. Both mentally and physically. Still you cannot end your life because "suffering is meant to be"?

I'm just so sick of that zealous one-sided thinking where people see themselves as good and holy for just upholding the stupid trend that life must be over all else. Always life, it doesn't matter how much of that life is left. But as long as the heart is pumping, lungs breathing and brains still keep sending some nerve-signals (probably just the ones upkeeping those last bodyfunctions) he must be alive. We have no right to decide wether people should live? Then what is delaying ones death through suffering mean to you, if not deciding wether he should live. No matter how much pain, loss and suffering was involved.

If such a god exists that wishes for that, then I reject him outright. If the god does exist and rejects me as well, then I willingly accept the consequences for such a being can be no true god, not good anyway. And if such a god exists but does so because of his god-like understanding of what I cannot perceive, then he will understand my reasoning and not punish me for it.

I do not belive the government has the right to legislate morality.Is making murder illegal legislating morality? Many would say that murder is a useful tool and should be applied in many cases. So should the murder of those already born be legal?

[ December 05, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

I see it as a way to prevent a beign to be born with the sheer purpose of suffering.
That is exactly what I meant.

Why would the mother be the only one to make the decision? Fathers dont count as a parent anymore?
Wake up! Men are no animals who shoot their part and leave. (at least not what they are ment to be, some may think however). Both parents are responsible for the new life they created.
Mistake on my part, I meant both parents.

IMO, Wilfully stopping the progress of life, is murder. Wether already born, or not. If that were true, there is A LOT MORE murder in this world then you account. Let's talk about all the animals who get slaughtered for meat, let's talk about all the plants and trees cut down, they are also 'alive'

What I meant that a fetus isn't a conscieus being yet. I also mentioned the difference between physically and mentally handicapped and the severity of the handicap, and if they find out when it is still a fetus the 'parents' should be able to decide if they want it or not.
They are still the ones who created the child.

You want to have good sex, but you are too stupid to use a condom? Suffer the consequences. You created life, now you want it dead... What do you want?

Of course, there are some difficult cases.
People dont want to be raped, but still you have to respect life.Let's say that happens to someone who is addicted to drugs or lives on the street, is that humanly to have a child who will be raised by a drugs addict or without a house.

I'm a Christian (protestant)and to my opinion there is only One who should decide over life and death. Since He's the only one who can create life, He also is the only to end it.Let's just say I don't follow your line of reason (or religion). But IMHO the ones who create life are the parents and not 'HIM'

[ December 05, 2002, 16:38: Message edited by: Apeman ]

Let's say that happens to someone who is addicted to drugs or lives on the street, is that humanly to have a child who will be raised by a drugs addict or without a house.
Should we kill the children of drug addicts and the homeless who didn't choose abortion? If a woman is a homeless drug addict and has a 2 year old that she no longer wants, should she be allowed to kill the child?

*That is a very interesting aproach to solve the social problems in urban troublespots. Kids of people who earn less then $ 1.000,- a month should be generally aborted, if born perhaps shot, or maybe taken away to be given to more responsible parents, responsible meaning beeing able to afford and raise a child properly. Yay!*

Is it just me or does that sound a little pervert?

Life of an unborn child is an important thing, it deserves the same protection like born life. A handicapped child as a reason for an abortion? Say a child is mongoloid - who can be so presumptous to claim their lifes are not worth living? They love and live, feel happiness and grief - maybe on a child's level - but anyway. As human beeings they deserve protection.
Of course a woman has the right to decide on her own life, but it isn't so that she has no influence on the issue (I'm not fixing responsibilities here :D ) of getting pregnant or not. Birth control is reality today.

Of course there are cases when the life of a woman is endangered by the birth of a child - an abortion may be necessary to save a mother's life, or for example after a rape ...

However you decide on when a human live starts to exist - the decision to abort or not to abort is a matter of conscience, so the least thing that can be expected is that weman seriously think about the decision they are going to do.
Only claiming the unlimited right of a woman to abort is thought too short, there are two lifes to consider. They weigh *self-determination* against *value of a human life*, and it is not a decision of *you or me*.

[ December 05, 2002, 18:27: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

Let me just make one very short comment about abortion if the fetus is determined to be handicapped: Stephen Hawking.

I have no idea about this subject, there are many good arguments for and against it on these boards, and you all seem to be very sure. I have no idea what is the right thing. Thankfully, I will never have to face this decision.

Sprite, I don't think the analogies are flawed at all.

Regarding #2, we can easily suppose that the man is dependent upon the person with the kidney. In a way he in the given analogy already, if he doesn't get the kidney he dies. Therefore, he is dependent upon the man with the kidney. You may say, "but there are other kidneys out there." I'd say, fine, imagine then that the guy is at the end of his rope, has very difficult organs to match, the guy next to him has those organs, and the odds of them popping up anywhere else are slim to non-existent. Change it to a heart transplant or something more difficult to match if you'd like, the principle is the same.

Regarding #3, again I think the specifics are being paid too much attention to. Change the disease from Tay-Sachs to a disease which has a 5 year life expectancy, or a 10 year, or a 2 year etc. It doesn't really matter, the point is that resorting to the idea that in the one instance I mentioned you would view it as euthenasia avoids the issue. If a woman's life is threatened and the child's life expectancy isn't great (but it may be 5,10,15 years or as little as 1 etc whatever to fit your view) the mother must either abort or die herself. If a fetus has a full right to life then she is taking the right from the fetus.

After 7 years of thinking about it I'm pretty firmly convinced that if you believe a fetus has a full right to life then you are committed to the above. The reason is that when something has the right to life it may not be taken without either consent, forfeit(possibly), or justification. Self preservation might be justification in the instance of a direct threat, but with the example of above the threat is indirect not direct -- it is the cervical cancer not the pregnancy that would result in the mother's death. Under such circumstances by the way many Jews believe that their religion would REQUIRE an abortion.

I don't believe that the only way to justify the stance that abortion is immoral is to believe the fetus has a right to life. But it is undoubtedly the strongest way to justify that stance. One might reasort to some utilitarian justification but that is far less compelling and the conclusions are always highly speculative.

Also, I'll say it again because Sprite brought it up -- I do NOT assume the fetus is not alive, I assume that it is. It certainly isn't dead. HOWEVER, the mere fact that something is alive doesn't mean it has the right to life. Otherwise everytime you cut the lawn there is a genocide of unprecedented proportion.

This idea that abortion is wrong because people need to accept responsibility for their own actions sounds a bit to me like the old crowd favorite : "the slut deserves it." Again, if you go back to my broken arm example you could argue that I just need to be responsible for my actions and accept the broken arm.

I also a highly skeptical of the assertion that abortion always resolts in mental anguish for the mother etc. Sprite, I have no doubt that this is your heartfelt belief. However, since your abortion experience centers around your work in a Pro-Life agency I wonder if your experiences are unrepresentative. I know girls who have had abortions, I have a few close friends, and I have never witnessed the unmitigated anguish described. Perhaps my friends simply hide it from me. However, if it is such a harrowing experience I wonder about those who chose it many times. I also wonder about whether the anguish is over something done or whether if they didn't see people always calling them murderers, immoral etc., much like some in this thread have called them, they wouldn't be in a much healthier mental state. In other words, they might well be okay but for people yelling "murderer!" at them and causing doubt and subsequent anguish.

Math, I believe your question regarding heroes was addressed to me. I'm not certain what you were getting at but here is a response: yes, not only can I imagine but I'm well aware of many heroes who have shed their blood for freedom.

And here is the crux of the issue in my opinion, and I'll draw on support from an unlikely source, one that many pro-lifers view as a champion of their cause -- Chief Justice Rehnquist. If you read the dissents of Rehnquist in the abortion cases he feels that there are reasonable arguments on each side. I concur, I feel there are many reasonable arguments on each side and it isn't nearly as cut and dry as many like to believe it is. Given then that reasonable people can come to opposite conclusion, he argues that it should be left up to the states to decide for themselves whether or not they wish to make abotion legal. I disagree with this last sentiment for reasons I'm sure you can sympathize with Sprite. I find that I am something of a libertarian. Where reasonable people can arrive at opposite conclusions on a matter of moral uncertainty, I believe the individual must make that determination for herself.

I wish also to address something Jack Funk rejected in an offhand manner earlier. That is the use of scare tactics. I used to attend a Catholic school with grades 7-12. When I was in the grade 10 the entire school was gathered to be fed anti-abortion propaganda by a woman who went around specializing in just that. A large screen at the front of the gymnasium was placed and this woman in her soft voice began describing in great detail some of the procedures regarding abortion, with the help of graphic slides. I got up and left, was told I must return, refused and told the principal he should be ashamed of himself for showing that to 7th graders and was suspended. Since then I've become interested in the abortion debate, FWIW I'm the only one in my family who really is, I wasn't indoctrinated into the debate. I made a point of studying it in depth in college. There is only one thing I feel incredibly strongly about in this debate and that is that these type of scare tactics, subjected upon small children, is deplorable. It seems to suggest to me that some feel they are incapable of convincing others through rational discourse and so they resort to the closest thing to a sword they can find.

Anyone seen the movie "Citizen Ruth?" A great, great film about the abortion infighting. Ruthlessly criticizing both sides. A good bit of dark comedy as well. Laura Dern plays in it and it's a very worthwhile movie.

Laches,

I wish also to address something Jack Funk rejected in an offhand manner earlier. That is the use of scare tactics.I have reread each of my posts and do not know what you are talking about.

Say what you want about "the so called 'pro-life' people's scare argumentation". This is what I was talking about, if that isn't what you meant I appologize but stand behind the substance of what I said.

Kinda striking that most arguments against abortion are based in religious beliefs. Please don't say they're not, just read back up the posts.

For the few who find that on moral grounds, NOT based on religion, they feel abortion is wrong, I can respect your point of view, I just do not subscribe.

I go with the perspective of life effectively starting at birth. I *know* there is a heart beating before that, please do not think me devoid of knowledge of human biology, but I think life is made up of our experiences, love we have given and received, people we have interacted with etc.

I find it morally right therefore to place the decission with the mother who may not be in a position to bring up a child in her current situation. There are many reasons for this, certainly not all financial. It is not an easy choice, and heaping guilt is sure not helping the matter.

Abortions will happen since there are people in circumstances where bringing into it a child is not a good option. They will have a termination regardless of the legallities, so therefore, it must be kept legal. Take Ireland as a shining example of Catholic democracy very close our shores here in the UK. I believe the only way to have a legal abortion in Ireland (where of course birth control measures were also banned until relatively recently), is on medical grounds. So what is a desperate young woman to do? Throw herself in front of a car so that she'll be x-rayed in hospital, which allows abortion as the x-rays may have a damaging effect on the foetus? Do not think I jest, it's happened over there. Young girls have killed themselves this way when they were only trying to get injured. Not a regular thing I'm sure, but I find it reprehensible to treat people in such a way that in order for them to go on living they have to threaten their own life like this.

Quality of life for the potential mother is more important to me than bringing unwanted children into this world. Whatever the reson for that choice as long as it is freely made.

hmmm...

well, as long as abortion doesn´t go "OOPs, forgot condom, oh well, lets just ask the doctor to stick a plier up in there and there and remove the troublesome parasite"

However, in all cases where the father is known, he shares responsibility. I'm sure it's often not the equal division that is should be, but the responsibility is there and anyone deserving of being called a MAN will shoulder it.An interesting point of view, and one which I share. However, sometimes if the couple lacks the economic or maturity needs to nurture the child, they will choose abortion over adoption.

Who are we to decide what's worthy to live?On the same token, who are we to infallibly predict a child's destiny? Just because the child may be physically or mentally handicapped does not mean that it will suffer all through their lives. While I have met many handicapped people who did, I have met equally as many who did not.

To all of you propagating for contraception that is very good but no contraceptive measure short of sterilization is foolproof. Condoms can break, the pill isnt 100% save etc etc. So even if you have made all the possible measures you could still be pregnant, sure the chance is small but it is there.For those who choose to engage in premature sexual activities, sure. There is another alternative though, and that is to wait to have sex until you are ready to have a child. No cause, no consequence.

Second, people should be allowed to choose if they want or not to have children. Even if they get preagnent.I agree with people being able to choose if they want to have children. However, I'd say that if they were engaging in intercourse, then they are mature enough to be aware of and be willing to face the consequences.


-Abortion because the mother was too drunk/drugged etc is also acceptable, because it protects the interests of the would-be human (probably wouldn't grant too good a life). But also punishable because of this act of irresponsibility.Question: Who put the woman in that situation? She knew what some of the possible things that alcohol/drugs can cause you to do, yet she chose to use them anyway. While I'm not preaching drug prevention, I don't see that as a valid excuse.

On the other side of the coin, yes, it could produce a handicapped fetus. Does that mean that the baby does not have a right to exist? Does that automatically mean that the child will be nothing but a drain of society's resources? No, and we should not treat it as such.

If you get a terminal disease, you know you will die of it and you know you will suffer incredibly. Both mentally and physically. Still you cannot end your life because "suffering is meant to be"?On the "we are meant to suffer" thing, I agree that simply because the baby is going to have a hard life is not a valid reason for going for the abortion. Does that mean that it is morally wrong to "pull the plug" on someone in the hospital because his only existance is suffering? No, because he will have a say in whether he wants to live on suffering or die. The fetus gets no such option. How would you like having someone else decide whether you live or die? I, for one, would not.

For all of those who preach for seperation of church and state, religion plays no role in this. Especially because different faiths have different beliefs. If your religion tells you something that society allows is wrong, you don't engage in it. Telling someone that doesn't believe in your god what your religion says to be true is something that they will not listen to.

Let me just make one very short comment about abortion if the fetus is determined to be handicapped: Stephen Hawking.Good point, BTA. If he was aborted just because he would have a hard life, think of how much less knowledge and technology that we would have in the world today.


This idea that abortion is wrong because people need to accept responsibility for their own actions sounds a bit to me like the old crowd favorite : "the slut deserves it." Again, if you go back to my broken arm example you could argue that I just need to be responsible for my actions and accept the broken arm. Breaking your arm in a pure accident and being promiscuous are two entirely different things. Is there a possibility that when you wrecked the arm would have been broken anyway? Sure. Are you constantly running around breaking your arms then seeking treatment for it? No, and if you were I'd say live with it. Was being in the accident something that you purposefully did? No. It's an entirely different concept and fault.

[ December 05, 2002, 20:33: Message edited by: Rastor ]

Not really Rastor, you don't purposely become pregnant (in this example), you purposely had sex. You didn't purposely break your arm, you did drive without your seatbelt on knowing the risk though on purpose.

I wonder how many of all pro-life people that feel abortion is immoral also feel pre-marital sex is. The taboo associated with sex is in my opinion tied closely to the issue.

Laches,

I am not going to dance with you. I don't believe I was being dismissive. I don't agree with scare tactics. When you use scare tactics, you lose credibility. Which appears to have happened to the "educators" (my quotes) that you were exposed to. However, scare tactics are often one of the first things mentioned (that and killing doctors) as if extreme behavior from the anti-abortion side invalidates the argument against abortion. When someone brings up personal experience with this kind of behavior, I believe it is useful to discuss. It obviously had an impact on you.
One day, about 10 years ago, I went to my mailbox and found a post card displaying a full color photo of an aborted baby. I was shocked, disgusted, and outraged. I couldn't believe that people who claim to be concerned about the welfare of children could do something so callous and potentially damaging (imagine a 10 year old getting the mail that day).
So I believe that we are on the same side on this issue. I apologize for being oblique.

Laches, we are clearly crossing wires on the analogy thing but I'm too tired to get into it. As for the fact that my experiences were "biased" somehow because I'm pro-life and so are the other people who worked at the clinic helping deal with "unwanted" pregnancies, I just can't understand that point. Do you think that only pro-life girls came to us? All they knew is that we were there to help them, whatever they chose, and we did. The ones that had abortions usually were saddened about it. The ones who put their babies up for adoption, or were helped to raise the babies themselves, usually found joy. What does the personal beliefs of the people who helped them have to do with anything? Do you think we made the ones who *did* have abortions feel guilty? Not at all. They usually felt more terrible afterwards, all by themselves, than any human being ever should. And if they wanted to come back and cry about it afterwards - which they usually did - we certainly didn't say "I told you so". And I have friends who have had abortions too, and the most positive thing any of them have ever said about it was, "It was probably the right thing to do at the time". Not one of them, ever, said it made them happy, whereas I don't know one mother who ever looked at her baby and said, "gosh, I wish I'd had an abortion". I can't explain why all the women you know are so different from all the women I know. (edit: a sentence deleted).

(edit: this part is not directed at Laches, but at people on both sides of the abortion debate) My experience is, a girl who comes in off the street asking for an abortion, usually frightened and poor, will change her mind immediately if the man who impregnated her, or her parents, offer to take her in and help her. Most of the time they'll change their minds if non-judgmental people who have nothing to do with the pregnancy offer to take her in and help her. So what I am saying to people on both sides of the abortion debate is: by telling a girl her pregnancy is a curable disease she has the "right" to "choose" to end, you aren't helping her. If you are telling her she is a murderer you aren't helping her either. The first question shouldn't be, is abortion right or wrong, but, WHY do you want to do this? Can I help make your life better so that this baby is a miracle instead of a heartache? You'd be amazed how often the answer is yes, you can help me, please do. So instead of blabbering about what is "right or wrong" for another person to do, start finding out why she is so terrified of having this baby, and help her start dealing with those problems instead of acting like a baby is the worst thing that could ever happen to her.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:25: Message edited by: Sprite ]

Now, now, Sprite, I think you're putting words in my mouth to make it easier to dismiss me. I've never said that abortion is a "terriffic and harmless pracitce." I also don't think it is "blabbering about what is 'right or wrong.'" I also don't think, as your post can be interpreted to imply, that I am uncaring and act like having a baby is the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

For the record, I don't know nor do I assert to know whether abortion is right or wrong. I do assert that there are reasonable arguments on each side and therefore, since I tend toward libertarian ideals I think it should be left to the individual.

Let me be honest, when I've had these discussions in the past there is a tendency for both sides to take a 'holier-than-thou' attitude. Both sides will claim the other doesn't care as much as they do. They'll say that the heroes are on their side, that it is their side that is truly caring and good, etc.

In my opinion, the issue is a close one, balanced on a razor's edge, and I was trying to point that out by pointing out what one must be committed to to adopt certain positions.

Now, perhaps you didn't mean to imply this, but to be honest I'm offended by the implication that when those I've known have considered abortion I've been callous and recommended it to them or otherwise didn't offer them support. To be honest, this strikes me as the "holier-than-thou" argument.

I think this one is about discussed out.

[ December 05, 2002, 22:58: Message edited by: Laches ]

Pretty hard to use Stephen Hawking as an example since his disease broke at the age of what... 17-20? Young, but still not at birth already. He is a good guy, I actually do idolize him somewhat. But most cases are not like that. In fact, Hawking would be the all-time lottery jackpot compared to my views on a probable positive outlook for life for a seriously handicapped person. And I do observe this from the simplest point of view: If one Stephen Hawking were never born, tens of thousands of others would never have had to suffer. And there is nothing offensive towards Hawkings here, it can't be since he would have never known, had his existence been brought to an end before he was even born.

I do not mind if someone shoots me in the back of my head effectively killing me off instantaneously. I would never understand what exactly happened, never have time to realize what I would lose. And when it was all over, I wouldn't be around to think on it anymore. Killing other humans must be prevented though, because granting that advantage to one will bring damage to others. If each and every human were a complete individual with no social ties to anyone else, then the loss of one would hardly matter to others would it? Someone might be willing to compare this to the "life" of an unaware, unfamiliar, unborn fetus.

Oh well. It's not like we can change each other's opinions here. Sometimes it takes strength to make the right decisions. And right isn't always good, just as good isn't always what *seems* good to begin with. But I'm no-one to judge this. I've said what I believe in. And what's important, is the fact that I can live with that choice better than I might with the other.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:11: Message edited by: Forashi ]

Laches, if you thought the second part of my last post was directed at you, you'd be right to be offended, but it wasn't. As I noted in the first or second sentence, that last section was directed at "people on both sides of the abortion debate". Sorry if your feelings were hurt about that part. I'll edit my post to make it clearer. The people I was thinking of, in particular, were two very common categories of abortion activists:
- people who shout offensive things and wave disturbing banners in the faces of pregnant women outside abortion clinics, instead of trying to help them deal with the problems they are facing.
- the many "pro-choice" activists who are virulently opposed to providing counselling or a waiting period prior to abortions, and who suggest abortion without trying to solve any underlying problems of poverty or family issues that may be a woman's incentive for wanting an abortion. Not offering much of a choice, in my opinion. They also tend to say things like, "haven't you ever heard of abortion?" to and about happily-pregnant poor women, which I find reprehensible.

As for the other part- well, you did imply first that I was too biased to hear the truth from people, so turnaround is fair play. But since you feel I've misrepresented your opinion, I will delete those comments from my post.

To everyone: I think it's time that people who do NOT think that abortion is a bad thing, and that there's no reason to try to help people avoid it, now I'd like to hear you justify *your* opinion.

[ December 05, 2002, 23:31: Message edited by: Sprite ]

Handicapped/disabled children have a life that is more diffilcult - they may not see it as they have lived with it, dealt with it, without knowing otherwise. I know people who often wished they hadn't been born because their parents only see them for their problems - not the person and have them shut away from the world. Others are tortured by society and feel alone in their predicaments.

I think people are asking two different questions here:

What about the *child*?
*What* about the child?

We are mainly talking about the parents, but what about the result? We need to follow through - firstly the mother ad how she'd deal with everything, second the child and how it'd be and live, thirdly both parents together, fourthly how the child will grow up if it has a future.

-sigh-

My roommate actually thinks similarly on that "we are meant to suffer" thing, and I just simply can't figure out why. Maybe you figure out when you read more carfully. When did I ever say that that we are ment to suffer?
I said THAT we all suffer. I dont want we suffer. You dont want it. God doesn't want us to suffer. He created a perfect world and the human kind had to ruin it. Now don't blame God for our faults, please.

So basically medicines, surgery and other methods of preventing illnesses, curing diseases and such all step in the way of Him? Seems like death and illness is the same to you. Jesus cured people, right? And His disciples did, too. Does that sound like God wants us to be sick, ill, suffering and dead?
We don't have to delay death, but we shouldn't quicken it.

But IMHO the ones who create life are the parents and not 'HIM'
Humans create the 2 parts that have to 'interact', but the essence of life is unknown to humans. We can't raise the dead either, can we?

Does that sound like God wants us to be sick, ill, suffering and dead?Don't get me wrong; I share your same views, both on abortion and religion. But let's keep in mind Mr. Job. Of course, that was a different situation. Sometimes God (or the Great Wheel of Being, let's say, for you atheists) makes bad things happen; but the point is to continue to perservere. Faith, love, and God, are stronger than disbelief, pain, and hate.

Just remember that God is loving, but he doesn't prevent every bad thing from happening. Just take a look in the mirror at yourself and investigate your own life.

EDIT: Yeah, this has nothing to do with abortion, but the way I see it, it's slowly spiraling into a debate about morals, with the issue of abortion as but a cover.

[ December 06, 2002, 00:03: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

I feel obligued to respond to Rastor here and his as Laches so nicely put it 'the slut deserves it' attitude. You are dragging in a whole new matter in the discussion by bringing in promiscuity and I cant help but to think that its completely irrelevent thing. It may come as a shock to you but not everyone believes that to be a good and nice person you need to marry and stay with a person just to have sex. In our society sex and pregnancy is more or less divided things. And what about the couple that have been married for 10 years and already have 3 children should they abstain from sex so they dont run the risk of getting another child or should they use contraception? True that in this example they would probably grin and bear if they got another child accidently as I have seen it happen but they wouldnt prefer beforehand. This relates to your point about the joy of children Sprite. I dont find it strange or even an issue that the ones that remove a child is sad and the ones that keep it are happy. Children bring joy to parents, that is both genetical and cultural, how can anyone not love a little child? And if they have the oppurtunity to take care of they will probably love it and care for it even if the mothers plans for her life is in ruins. For no one can disagree with me when I say that a child is a fulltime job for atleast 10 years and then there are another 10 years of atleast a part time job, with no pay. Having an abortion is a scar for life but it can enable a person to live the life they have choosen and get a child when they are ready instead of having one accidently dumped on them.

I used Hawking as an example because his handicap is genetic and that if abortions are going to be decided on the basis of genetic screening for handicaps, the Human race may miss out on some great people.

Sprite:

To everyone: I think it's time that people who do NOT think that abortion is a bad thing, and that there's no reason to try to help people avoid it, now I'd like to hear you justify *your* opinion.
To think that abortion is acceptable and should be an option does NOT make it a GOOD thing. No-one is going to stand on street corners with plackards proclaiming the greatness of abortion.

BUT, what does *helping people avoid it* mean? Pressuring them with guilt and scaremongering into having a child they are not equiped to bring up? I think not. Where it's a question of support I'm all for it, but there are more than financial reasons why people go through terminations, and in all fairness I think most of your arguments have so far failed to consider that. For example a friend of mine had an abortion because she is also on medication for depression. She would have had to stop taking it for nine (eight I suppose when she found out) months. Not good at all in her case, since the medication pretty much enables her to lead a normalish (as much as any of us do) life.

As far as my justification goes, please read my earlier post.

I agree with Viking, it isn't that I think abortion is a good thing, I simply think there are strong arguments justifying its legality and the arguments that it is immoral aren't strong enought to justify making it illegal.

Here is the way I look at it I suppose, in the case of a lawsuit or a criminal prosecution one side bears the burden of proof. I suppose since those who wish to make abortion illegal are wanting to limit a person's freedom I feel that they bear the burden of proof -- err on the side of it remaining a personal decision not a state mandated decision.

Well, since we're all clarifying our positions, I should say I never thought this thread was about whether abortion should be illegal and my responses have been simply in response to the question, of whether abortion, in and of itself, is good, bad, or neutral. I don't think outlawing abortion would make a difference- abortion is easy to induce, and will happen legally or illegally. My point is that it's a tragic thing regardless of whether it's legal or not. I think most of you arguing against me are actually as anti-abortion as I am, you just take an opposing stance in this particular argument because you don't want to see abortion criminalised. Or, because you don't want to see women who have had abortions treated like monsters, with which I agree 100%.

Viking, I am truly sorry that your friend was put in the position of making such a decision. I just hope that everyone involved - especially her family and the father of the child - treated her kindly and was open to hearing about all her feelings.

As for the issue that most of what I've been talking about is financial, that's because that's the issue I care about most, not because I don't realise there are occasionally abortions undertaken for medical reasons. No, people don't wave placards saying abortion is great, but whether you yourself are in that category or not, many people *do* recommend abortion to healthy pregnant women, and often make them feel guilty if they are "too poor" or "too young" and still want to try to be mothers. The father of the unborn child, the mother's family and friends, and "feminist" clinics, are most often the ones who do this. My opposition is to that point of view, not to any legal position. I think that anyone, particularly the father of the child, who tells a healthy pregnant woman that an abortion is the "right" thing to do, or reacts negatively to an announcement of impending motherhood, is quite frankly a pig. Maybe that does make me holier-than-thou but that's how I feel. And I've met enough of these "pigs" - male and female - to know they aren't the figment of a pro-life imagination.

[ December 07, 2002, 05:05: Message edited by: Sprite ]

When abortion was illegal in germany, weman who wanted to abort just went to the netherlands (where the law allowed it) to get it done. Of course it was illegal but how will you control that? Just declaring it illegal or not doesn't solve the problem actually.

Now it's allowed in germany, under narrow circumstances (up to the 12th week), and only if you have consulted a certified counseling institution before. They manage to convince a high percentage to get the child and not to abort by explaining them where for example to find financial support.

Despite all weaknesses I like that approach because it is way better than to let weman do it illegally, then it would have been less likely that they stopped and eventually got the child.

****************************************

PS: I cannot proove it but, to counter a sentence I read earlier, I clearly remember that the typical woman who choses abortion has 1 child, is married and mid-30. I also remember that they usually didn't tell their partner what they were going to do. I don't believe in the 1-night-stand theory.

[ December 06, 2002, 09:57: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

I don't think they should have a choice, unless it was a result from rape. You had sex, and got pregnant, its your own fault!

Abortion, like math said, is like killing a baby. ITS MURDER. And anyway if the gift of life is given then take it with arms dont kill it before you see it!

Padeen! :cool:

Laches, the analogy of the broken arm is a bad one for a very simple reason. The doctor who repairs your broken arm (which was a result of a bad choice on your part) is fixing something; the doctor who aborts your child (which was a result of a bad choice on your part) is destroying something. Plain enough?

The circumstances you described are tough. Personally, I agree with Sprite on #1. The circumstances of conception do not undermine the child's right to life.

As for #2 and #3, the true question is, could the fetus survive on its own at that point? If not, then it's not murder to abort the baby; it's medical triage. If it can, then you could simply deliver the baby and then make the necessary steps to save the mother's life.

Padeen, let me ask you something. Did you read the topic? DID YOU THINK?? Sorry.

Ezellohar,

Padeen, let me ask you something. Did you read the topic? DID YOU THINK?? Sorry. The topic is "Abortion". Padine gave his opinion of abortion.

/edit - removed harshness.

[ December 06, 2002, 20:48: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]

Whoopsies. Sorry.

Feels very embarrassed and urges others to continue the highly intelligent debate-thing

Many medical procedures destroy to help Cap, if you want, change it to smoking and cancer. In order to cure the cancer you destroy the cells. The analogy only fails if you assume that it is okay to destroy in one instance and not the other because what is being destroyed has inherent worth in one instance and not the other. That's what I was driving at. You must say that there is inherent worth in the fetus and not with the cancer cells and this is typically done by assigning a right to life to the fetus. That was my point.

Should've used a better analogy. ;)

Anyway, point taken and agreed. Any comments on the rest?

Actually, there are people who wave placards around saying that abortion is a wonderful thing. In fact, Planned Parenthood is having a poster contest to celebrate 30 years of abortion in the U.S.

If you're under 18, Planned Parenthood wants you to get parental permission to enter the poster contest.

If you're under 18, Planned Parenthood also wants you to be able to have the skull of your unborn child crushed without your parents permission.

Free choice in poster contests now!

Actually, I think I do Cap but I'm a bit pressed for time and can respond more in depth later.

For now, your argument regarding the #2 and #3 analogy sounds like it comes, intentionally or not, from Judith Jarvis Thompson. JJT is a bloody smart philosopher who does a lot of work in metaphysics but also works in ethics and came up with one of the really really big pro-choice arguments.

She argues that abortion is still ethically okay even if we assume a fetus has a full right to life upon conception. She only justifies an abortion which does not do direct harm to the fetus but instead removes the fetus from the the woman so that the fetus is no longer using the woman's resources.

I'll tell ya JJT's argument, as much as I can remember, when I get more time but at first glance your depend on viability and seem to say that if the fetus isn't viable it would be acceptable to remove it in such a way that it wouldn't be using the woman's resources but not to do direct harm to the fetus. I think in trying to come up with a solution to the #2 or #3 analogy you may use JJT's argument style so you don't just justify abortion in those cases but in ALL cases as long as the type of abortion chosen doesn't do direct harm.

That's jumbled, sorry. Gotta run. I'd imagine info on JJT can be found on the web too.

Just a quick pointer on the viability issue -- note that I said this was a case of medical triage. In other words, if it's not viable outside the womb -- no abortion causes both mother's and child's death; abortion allows you to try to save the mother. This is not to say that you can remove the fetus for whatever reason you feel like, but only in life-threatening situations (hence the term triage).

Or if the woman was raped.

Edit-Eze, what Cap and I are talking about is if you accept that a fetus has a right to life then whether it is possible to EVER accept abortion. Thusfar, noone has offered an argument that if you believe there is a right to life abortion when there has been rape or incest is justifiable.

Looking back a bit, I thought about this a bit. I really don't think that if someone recommends an abortion they must be a "pig." First, I'd like to point out that women can and do recommend abortion as well so even if it does make you a "pig" it isn't limited to men. Second, I think that since there are plenty of reasonable people that see nothing immoral with abortion that it is entirely possible to suggest to a friend an abotion for purely altruistic reasons. Now, you can suggest an abortion because you're scared or don't wish the responsibility and maybe you want to say that makes them a "pig" but I see no reason someone can't suggest an abortion out of a genuine belief it would be best for his/her friend.

Capstone, regarding the triage analogy. I've never worked in one but the way I understand they work is that for example it is a way for an emergency room to determine who to treat first or who to treat at all if there are limited resources. My experience is admittedly limited to t.v. drama etc.

I don't believe triage circumvents the problems of either in most instances because of the way I understand most abortions take place. Imagining a battlefield I see how you might sort people out and due to limited resources not treat some who might be beyond help or where the odds of helping them are slim so that you may help those you can. But you don't kill those you can't help, you simply move on to helping others. Most abortions result in the direct harm to the fetus and it is the direct harm which takes the fetuses life. So, I think to use a triage analogy as justification the abortion would have to be of a type which does not cause direct harm -- I'm not sure about the feasiblity of this type of procedure.

Assume though that the abortion is of a type which does not do direct harm to the fetus -- in essence a delivery of the fetus even though it is not viable through cesarean or something of the sort. I think the triage analogy has problems addressing example #2 because the way I understand triage is that you separate based upon who you can help and who has the best chances of survival. In example #2 the fetus is in perfect health and if not aborted will live a long life but the mother is in mortal danger. By aborting the fetus dies and the mother has a chance at survival, I would think in the case of a triage you wouldn't knowingly sentence someone who would live for certain on the chance you might be able to help someone else.

With regards to example #3 I think it is a closer call and might turn on the specifics. I could think of circumstances where the life expectancy of the fetus might well be greater than that of the woman even if she is treated and vice versa. My initial reaction is that your triage analogy might work in some of those instances to justify an abortion but not in others. A woman who with treatment might have a 5-10 year life expectancy then might not be justified in aborting a fetus with a 10-12 year expectancy. A woman with a 2-3 year expectancy versus a fetus with a 5 year.

There is another big difference as well. It is a matter of who makes the decision. In the case of triage medical personnel make the decision based on who they can help the most. In the case of abortion the woman makes the choice on the basis of self interest vs. welfare of the fetus. I'm not sure how to factor that into the equation yet.

[ December 06, 2002, 22:28: Message edited by: Laches ]

Er... in regards to the above -- if the mother is in mortal danger and the fetus is not viable outside the uterus, then the fetus is by definition in mortal danger. That's why I'm labelling a premature delivery (if you will) as triage -- the only way to help the mother is by allowing the fetus to die; it's not murder, as the child is going to die regardless of what you try to do to help. Incidentally, #3 is really just a subset of #2, so I'm making these statements in regards to the broadest set of circumstances.

To sum: if the mother's life is in danger due to the fetus, then deliver it and try to keep it alive if possible. If not, consider it a case of triage. This is typically a medical decision made by the doctors, so it would still not be an abortion, I suppose.

Also, I don't see terminal illness as necessarily the same as mortal danger, so examples with a few years or so life expectancy have no bearing on the matter.

Err... it's different though isn't it? Left on its' own the fetus isn't in mortal danger, it is only in mortal danger if there is an abortion. Or look at as one patient who would be in mortal danger if she wasn't hooked up to life support -- but she is. In order to treat another patient you have to unhook another patient who is on life support and will live a long and perfectly healthy life in order to treat the first patient and hope that the treatment will help her -- no guarantees. In a triage case the doctors don't put the patients in mortal danger by treating another they simply don't help both who are already in that condition.

Now, you may want to say it isn't really like taking a patient off life support because the fetus is using the woman's resources and not some independent resources. This supposes that simply because the fetus is implanted it doesn't follow it has a right to use the woman's resources. That's what Judith Jarvis Thompson's argument is and that's where I thought you were eventually headed.

And again, just to be clear, you say "if the mother's life is in danger because of the fetus" but that isn't what the examples suppose. They suppose the mother's life is in danger from something unrelated to the fetus.

Also, you say "if the mother is in mortal danger" and that also isn't really supposed by the examples in the way that you're using mortal danger either. You say that you don't consider terminal illnesses and life expectancy to be something which qualify as mortal danger so the woman's illness which must be treated quickly to give her the best chance of survival, like cervical cancer, isn't really mortal danger either. So, I'm not sure using 'mortal danger' like you are either the woman or fetus qualify as being in mortal danger. Does this change your analysis?

i understand that #3 is a subset of #2. It is designed that way. #1, #2, and #3 become increasingly difficult for many who feel the fetus has a right to life and they're designed that way.

I'm a tad drunk, hope thats understandable.

Sprite, yup, she had all the support rhe could wish for. No problem there. Just a very unfortunate set of circumstances. Thanks for the thoughts though.

Shralp, celebrating the fact that it's been legal for 30 years is not the same as proclaiming it as *GOOD*! It's in fact nothing like it, strangely enough. I do not agree with promoting abortion in any way, but I think (for reasons previously stated) it should be the choice of the mother. Personal opinion without a doubt. Still, consider the impact of it not being? [legal]

Please do not say: Lots of children would live! Lots of their mothers and their children wound't!

The lives of humans are cheap: why so much talk?

If someone stands in your way or inconveniences you, remove him/her. That applies to all the unwanted babies that are a burden to their mothers as well. If an abortion is what is needed for a