The Abortion Thread

[quote]therajraj wrote:
I agree prosecuting the mother would lead to invasive examinations of a women’s bodies but so what? Is abortion the moral equivalent of killing a newborn or not?

I certainly wouldn’t curtail the investigation of a murdered newborn simply because it would inconvenience citizens. So why make an exception for abortion?

If they are moral equivalents, they should be treated as such.

[/quote]

You’d need evidence to charge someone with a crime. Plus, illegal medical operations are a weird situation. You’d have to talk to a lawyer more about it, but usually the guilt falls on the doctor.

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote

They way I see it is, sometimes killing is the lesser evil. In my opinion, aborting an unborn child when it is little more than the gametes that conceived it is better than carrying an unwanted child full term just to dump them into an orphanage as soon as they’re born. [/quote]

All other arguments aside for the moment, I’m asking you honestly. If it was you who was that fetus, if you could have the choice, would you rather just be aborted? Or, orphanage be damned, would you want a fighting chance?
[/quote]

I don’t know. Personally, I think you always have everything you need to be happy, so I have no problem conceiving a happy life for myself under those circumstances. However, I can’t stand the thought of being a burden.

It would come down to the specifics of the situation, but If I had to answer, I think in most cases I would side with the abortion. Not that I would ever know, as the concept of the self doesn’t set in for a few years after birth anyway.

[/quote]

Right. You can think whatever you want. Because you got that chance. Millions upon millions of people never got to think disinterestedly about what they’d do with their lives, because theirs was cut short at the end of a vacuum tube and a pair of scored forceps tearing them apart, limb by limb.

Is abortion ever okay?

A specific example where I see it as okay is if carrying the unborn child has a high probability of endangering the mother’s life.

An example is a CPS case where a father raped his 10 year old daughter. A fetus did form. Carrying the child through term would have had a high probability of serious health complications including death.

In this case, is it wrong for her to have an abortion?

And FTR, for the vast majority of cases, probably 99.9 percent I’d say it’s wrong and immoral.

Cortes,

"Kamui, this guy is a complete waste of time. He’s not here to honestly debate and I’m convinced he’s either a troll or has some kind of weird mental disorder.

Just letting you know, as I have not seen you around and you may not have caught his last 200 some odd empty-headed wastes of bandwidth."

Seriously it’s less than 100 “empty headed wastes of bandwidth”.
By “weird mental disorder” I assume you mean believing differently than you do, so I can accept that (as a compliment really)
I have an idea, stop reading my posts and pull your thought police act somewhere else or grow up and stop worrying about what I think.

This might throw some of you for a loop. I spent some time thinking about this and figured there is no real authority out there who could say when human life really begins. If you argue it has to do with development and time, then we could also say a toddler isn’t human because they haven’t developed to the point where they have adult cognition or the sort of faculties and ability to reason a full grown adult has.

A lot of the time people site freedom of choice, but if it’s really about freedom of choice, most times when people get pregnant it’s because they choose to have sexual intercourse. If your birth control failed, that is a risk you took when you decided to have intercourse. So perhaps the choice aspect is locked up with whether intercourse was consentual or no non consentual. I understand that others define choice as having the freedom to do with their bodies what they wish regardless of what stage a pregnancy may be, but the argument I provided above is just a more conservative way to make sense of this very complicated issue.

Personally, I don’t know when life begins or even how to define it, or who would be an authority about it. The subject of abortion is incredibly complicated because you have questions of freedom of choice, what constitutes a human life, how to define human life and womens rights wrapped up in one dilemma.

I think we can all agree that killing innocent people is wrong. If we can’t quite define what a human life actually is, and we have a thing that is potentially a human life, it seems the prudent thing to do is to protect that thing we don’t quite understand.

BUT, at the same time if we don’t know whether that thing is a human life, we don’t know if abortion actually is in fact murder. If it isn’t murder then we actually would be impinging on a womans right to choose. Perhaps there is an even more complicated point where both mother and fetus are considered human life and a choice has to be made to save one, or both will die…

I don’t see any solution to the problem, and simply sharing my thoughts openly. It truly is a mess… In the end I wouldn’t call it a crime because we don’t know enough about it, and we cant sit on our hands and not let them occur at all if a woman is raped and her choice was taken, or there is a situation where one must live and the other must die as in complicated pregnancies.

I guess I’m agnostic when it comes to abortion… Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Is abortion ever okay?

A specific example where I see it as okay is if carrying the unborn child has a high probability of endangering the mother’s life.

An example is a CPS case where a father raped his 10 year old daughter. A fetus did form. Carrying the child through term would have had a high probability of serious health complications including death.

In this case, is it wrong for her to have an abortion?

And FTR, for the vast majority of cases, probably 99.9 percent I’d say it’s wrong and immoral.[/quote]

Yes, but there is a caveat. Would the child be in danger because of how small she was or was there another issue to factor in?

[quote]Severiano wrote:
This might throw some of you for a loop. I spent some time thinking about this and figured there is no real authority out there who could say when human life really begins.[/quote]

This is incorrect. The Church clearly states when life begins, at conception. The medical community used to say this and even had it in their hippocratic oath. Then for whatever reason they started questioning the biological understanding of life. Why? Nihilism.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
This might throw some of you for a loop. I spent some time thinking about this and figured there is no real authority out there who could say when human life really begins.[/quote]

This is incorrect. The Church clearly states when life begins, at conception. The medical community used to say this and even had it in their hippocratic oath. Then for whatever reason they started questioning the biological understanding of life. Why? Nihilism.[/quote]

Yup.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Is abortion ever okay?

A specific example where I see it as okay is if carrying the unborn child has a high probability of endangering the mother’s life.

An example is a CPS case where a father raped his 10 year old daughter. A fetus did form. Carrying the child through term would have had a high probability of serious health complications including death.

In this case, is it wrong for her to have an abortion?

And FTR, for the vast majority of cases, probably 99.9 percent I’d say it’s wrong and immoral.[/quote]

When mom or baby, usually both, are in eminent danger, then there may be no choice. But that is the only circumstance.

If a fetus did not develop a head or a brain wouldn’t you allow a woman to have an abortion?

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

I am not sure where your dog comes into this argument.
I don’t think the zygote is a lizard, I think it is a zygote made up of DNA and an egg and sperm.
I know this is difficult to accept, but the fact is that the lack of personhood has already been determined for zygotes. The law supports the belief that a zygote is not a human being, just human tissue, mother nature supports this as well, by eliminating at least 1 in 5 zygotes and early term pregnancies.
You say it is a person I say it is not, the law agrees with me, you may want to question the strength of your evidence. And just so you know, my wife and I are not in favor of abortion, but a bad argument (the one you guys have chosen) will never get the laws changed.

[/quote]

It’s not difficult to except. Your just flat fucking wrong, period. You are in ego preservation mode. You have no legs here, scientifically, morally, or otherwise.

The law agrees with you, really? Go punch a pregnant woman in the stomach hard enough to cause her to lose her child at any gestation period and see what you get charged with…It won’t be assault, it will be murder. Quite a few people are in jail for the murder of the unborn, see Scott Peterson who was convicted of double murder for his wife, and his unborn child.

There is no such thing as a human precursor, period. It simply doesn’t exist. Go ahead, show me your peer reviewed unbiased evidence that anything such as a human precursor exists…I know I am going to grow old waiting for it.

The animal references were merely to illustrate what you said makes a human, in fact makes no such thing at all. Lot’s of non human things have organs, sentience, sensation and thought. So to say that things that many living things have, make a human is flat incorrect.

It’s fun to watch your definitions of what humaness is fall completely apart like dried dog shit in a wind storm… Go on and let’s see your proof…
I rely on kneedragger for mine, I have nothing to add to his evidences…

See he is making claims and backing them up…You are making claims that have no backup what-so-ever. That’s a problem for your side.

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a fetus did not develop a head or a brain wouldn’t you allow a woman to have an abortion?[/quote]

Does the child have any chance at survival?

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a fetus did not develop a head or a brain wouldn’t you allow a woman to have an abortion?[/quote]

Is it alive?

[quote]Severiano wrote:
This might throw some of you for a loop. I spent some time thinking about this and figured there is no real authority out there who could say when human life really begins. If you argue it has to do with development and time, then we could also say a toddler isn’t human because they haven’t developed to the point where they have adult cognition or the sort of faculties and ability to reason a full grown adult has.

A lot of the time people site freedom of choice, but if it’s really about freedom of choice, most times when people get pregnant it’s because they choose to have sexual intercourse. If your birth control failed, that is a risk you took when you decided to have intercourse. So perhaps the choice aspect is locked up with whether intercourse was consentual or no non consentual. I understand that others define choice as having the freedom to do with their bodies what they wish regardless of what stage a pregnancy may be, but the argument I provided above is just a more conservative way to make sense of this very complicated issue.

Personally, I don’t know when life begins or even how to define it, or who would be an authority about it. The subject of abortion is incredibly complicated because you have questions of freedom of choice, what constitutes a human life, how to define human life and womens rights wrapped up in one dilemma.

I think we can all agree that killing innocent people is wrong. If we can’t quite define what a human life actually is, and we have a thing that is potentially a human life, it seems the prudent thing to do is to protect that thing we don’t quite understand.

BUT, at the same time if we don’t know whether that thing is a human life, we don’t know if abortion actually is in fact murder. If it isn’t murder then we actually would be impinging on a womans right to choose. Perhaps there is an even more complicated point where both mother and fetus are considered human life and a choice has to be made to save one, or both will die…

I don’t see any solution to the problem, and simply sharing my thoughts openly. It truly is a mess… In the end I wouldn’t call it a crime because we don’t know enough about it, and we cant sit on our hands and not let them occur at all if a woman is raped and her choice was taken, or there is a situation where one must live and the other must die as in complicated pregnancies.

I guess I’m agnostic when it comes to abortion… Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. [/quote]

Well the question then becomes for you, if you are faced with this decision and you have a 50/ 50 shot at taking a human life simply for existing, would you still do it? You answer to that reveals your true conviction…You don’t actually have to answer this if you don’t want to.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Church has always held that the woman is the second victim of abortion.

[/quote]

Can you go into more detail on the above if you don’t mind?[/quote]

I can’t. I’ll have to research it more. But, I’ll get back with an answer. The reason why I don’t much know beyond that stance is that discussions don’t really go that direction and they don’t get much in depth most of the time. So, I haven’t been pressured to look into the ideas behind the culpability of the woman beyond that she’s considered the second victim of abortion.

But, I’ll do my best.[/quote]
The woman is the second victim because, she was duped into thinking she was making a good choice not a bad one, until the event has happened. Most women feel tremendous guilt in the post-abortive world. Their women who had abortion live in a world of guilt, anger, depression, suppression, over compensation, anxiety, etc.
For instance, the suicide rates among women who have had abortions are six times higher than their non-abortion having counter parts.
The women don’t get away scott-free, they live usually with a tremendous guilty conscious that leads to all kinds of issues for them, for the rest of their lives…

Anybody ever heard of Norma McCorvey? You may know her by her pseudonym “Jane Roe”, yup, the one and only Jane Row. Except, guess what? First, she has never had an abortion. Second, she has completely and totally flipped sides. She is now 100% against abortion. I actually met her about 10 years ago. She was doing a talk at my church and there was no way in hell I was going to miss it. She is now a full blown antiabortionist crusader.

See, at that time in my life I smoked and I am sure glad I did, because so did she. We stood outside, smoking like chimneys, and chatting away about abortion. She told me her story personally adding things she didn’t say to the crowd. She still has tremendous guilt about her role in the whole thing. She explained that she feels driven to fight abortion as hard as she can to try and undo the damage she did. She showed me a poem she wrote to all the unborn babies she had a role in ending their lives. See, she was a celebrity for the abortionists and worked at abortion clinics for years.

Ironically, it was smoking that led her to her conversion, both to become anti-abortion and Catholic. She would smoke with an evangelical who worked next door to Operation Rescue. It was her love of smoking that got her communicating with the guys next door who also smoked. They didn’t judge her, they would just hang out and talk. It was during that period where she totally converted…Now this story is repeated in articles and stuff, but I got all this info right strait from her.

Basically, that galvanized my anti-abortion sentiments…For if Jane Roe thinks abortion is wrong, well that alone should be enough. You cannot pull the wool over her eyes and you can’t BS her with all this ‘precursor’ double talk…She lived the life, she KNOWS it, she lived it for years.

If Jane Roe thinks abortion is murder, and she does, then that’s enough to give pause and really think about it…the famous Jane Roe, is 100% against abortion. You cannot argue with her credentials. Thank God I used to smoke…

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Church has always held that the woman is the second victim of abortion.

[/quote]

Can you go into more detail on the above if you don’t mind?[/quote]

I can’t. I’ll have to research it more. But, I’ll get back with an answer. The reason why I don’t much know beyond that stance is that discussions don’t really go that direction and they don’t get much in depth most of the time. So, I haven’t been pressured to look into the ideas behind the culpability of the woman beyond that she’s considered the second victim of abortion.

But, I’ll do my best.[/quote]
The woman is the second victim because, she was duped into thinking she was making a good choice not a bad one, until the event has happened. Most women feel tremendous guilt in the post-abortive world. Their women who had abortion live in a world of guilt, anger, depression, suppression, over compensation, anxiety, etc.
For instance, the suicide rates among women who have had abortions are six times higher than their non-abortion having counter parts.
The women don’t get away scott-free, they live usually with a tremendous guilty conscious that leads to all kinds of issues for them, for the rest of their lives…

[/quote]

I will admit that, probably due to my own misconception and missunderstanding, that I’m am suprised by this.

I would have assumed the Church would have seen those issues as her “cross to bear”, her punishment if you will, for doing what she had done. The term victim protrays almost sympathy I didn’t think she would receive…

hmm.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

The Church has always held that the woman is the second victim of abortion.

[/quote]

Can you go into more detail on the above if you don’t mind?[/quote]

I can’t. I’ll have to research it more. But, I’ll get back with an answer. The reason why I don’t much know beyond that stance is that discussions don’t really go that direction and they don’t get much in depth most of the time. So, I haven’t been pressured to look into the ideas behind the culpability of the woman beyond that she’s considered the second victim of abortion.

But, I’ll do my best.[/quote]
The woman is the second victim because, she was duped into thinking she was making a good choice not a bad one, until the event has happened. Most women feel tremendous guilt in the post-abortive world. Their women who had abortion live in a world of guilt, anger, depression, suppression, over compensation, anxiety, etc.
For instance, the suicide rates among women who have had abortions are six times higher than their non-abortion having counter parts.
The women don’t get away scott-free, they live usually with a tremendous guilty conscious that leads to all kinds of issues for them, for the rest of their lives…

[/quote]

I will admit that, probably due to my own misconception and missunderstanding, that I’m am suprised by this.

I would have assumed the Church would have seen those issues as her “cross to bear”, her punishment if you will, for doing what she had done. The term victim protrays almost sympathy I didn’t think she would receive…

hmm.[/quote]

Oh quite the contrary… The church isn’t stupid. We don’t alienate woman who have had an abortion. We have ministries and support groups to assist them emotionally and even financially if needed. They reconize it as a tragedy. We target the enablers and liars, not the women.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]BrianHanson wrote:
Pat,

I am not sure where your dog comes into this argument.
I don’t think the zygote is a lizard, I think it is a zygote made up of DNA and an egg and sperm.
I know this is difficult to accept, but the fact is that the lack of personhood has already been determined for zygotes. The law supports the belief that a zygote is not a human being, just human tissue, mother nature supports this as well, by eliminating at least 1 in 5 zygotes and early term pregnancies.
You say it is a person I say it is not, the law agrees with me, you may want to question the strength of your evidence. And just so you know, my wife and I are not in favor of abortion, but a bad argument (the one you guys have chosen) will never get the laws changed.

[/quote]

It’s not difficult to except. Your just flat fucking wrong, period. You are in ego preservation mode. You have no legs here, scientifically, morally, or otherwise.

The law agrees with you, really? Go punch a pregnant woman in the stomach hard enough to cause her to lose her child at any gestation period and see what you get charged with…It won’t be assault, it will be murder. Quite a few people are in jail for the murder of the unborn, see Scott Peterson who was convicted of double murder for his wife, and his unborn child.

There is no such thing as a human precursor, period. It simply doesn’t exist. Go ahead, show me your peer reviewed unbiased evidence that anything such as a human precursor exists…I know I am going to grow old waiting for it.

The animal references were merely to illustrate what you said makes a human, in fact makes no such thing at all. Lot’s of non human things have organs, sentience, sensation and thought. So to say that things that many living things have, make a human is flat incorrect.

It’s fun to watch your definitions of what humaness is fall completely apart like dried dog shit in a wind storm… Go on and let’s see your proof…
I rely on kneedragger for mine, I have nothing to add to his evidences…

See he is making claims and backing them up…You are making claims that have no backup what-so-ever. That’s a problem for your side.[/quote]

Pat,

If I punch a pregnant woman in 38 states ( and the fetus dies) I may be charged with murder depending on the stage of pregnancy, if I punch a pregnant woman (any degree of pregnancy) in 23 states and the zygote/fetus dies I may be charged with murder. That is a far cry from the blanket statement you proposed, and it is still a judgement call on the part of prosecutors, here are some of the gems brought about by fetal murder laws in just one state South Carolina:

To the best of our knowledge since 1984 only one man has been prosecuted and convicted of murder based on the recognition of fetal personhood. In contrast between 50 and 100 women in South Carolina have been arrested based on claims of fetal person hood. Women who gave birth to healthy babies, but nevertheless were deemed to have put those pregnancies at risk have been sentenced to jail terms for as long as 10 years. 4

A pregnant woman in South Carolina has been arrested because she was pregnant and used alcohol. 5

When a thirteen-year-old girl experienced a stillbirth her parents were arrested: One charge was for unlawful conduct to a childâ??because they had allegedly “failed to get proper care for the fetus.” 6

A woman who suffered a miscarriage was arrested and charged with homicide by child abuse. The prosecutor who admitted there was no evidence of drug use nevertheless insisted that the miscarriage was a “crime” that the woman had to take responsibility for. 7

Since South Carolina has declared that unborn children may be “protected” through the stateâ??s criminal laws, infant mortality in the state has increased for the first time in a decade." 8

The state has also seen a twenty percent increase in abandoned babies suggesting that women fearful of criminal punishment are leaving their babies rather than risk arrest. 9

citations at the end:

Is a zygote a human precursor:

“When the zygote divides, it gives rise to a pair of new cells. Does
the zygote survive its division? If it does, it is either one or
the other of the pair of cells to which it gives rise. (It cannot
be both, for one thing cannot become two things.) But since the two
cells to which it gives rise are exactly similar, we can have no
more reason to say that the zygote becomes this one than that it
becomes that one. Thus neither of the pair of child cells is the
proper successor to the parent zygote cell, i.e. neither is
identical to the parent. Conclusion: when the zygote divides, it
ceases to exist.”

That is a pretty nifty argument.

Humanness or personhood or human being is essentially the same, it is not merely life, but it includes a spark of humanity, evident in children, evident in late term fetuses, evident in the old, the insane, the disabled etc. It does not exist in a zygote, or a blastocyte, if you removed a persons brain and kept them “alive” (respiration, heartbeat) on a machine would you argue for the sanctity of their life? If so, why? If not, how are they different from a zygote, they are certainly bigger, and hairier, they have limbs and features, but they are missing something aren’t they?

I am not in ego preservation mode (I have been married for 17 years and have 2 kids, I have no ego left, just memories of one) and I am not changing my definition. Maybe you should change yours.

State v. Horne, 319 S.E.2d 703, 704 (S.C. 1984) (holding that pursuant to the court’s authority to expand crimes that existed at common law, it was creating prospectively a new crime of feticide in a case where a man brutally assaulted his pregnant girlfriend causing the death of the fetus. Because of the prospective application, the defendant was not subject to the new legal interpretation).
Whitner v. State 492 S.E.2d 777 (S.C. 1997), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1857 (1998).
Audiotape of Oral Argument, State v. Ard, 505 S.E.2d 328 (S.C. 1998) (May 27, 1998)
Tolliver v. State, No. 90-CP-23-5178, Order (S.C. Ct. C.P. Greenville County Aug. 10, 1992) (addressing conviction of a woman whose healthy infant tested positive for exposure to cocaine and who after pleading guilty on charges of child abuse was sentenced to 10 years in jail.)
Melissa Manware, Infant Born Drunk: Intoxicated Mom is Facing Charges, The State (Columbia, S.C.), Sept. 24, 1998, at A1 (reporting that the woman was charged with unlawful conduct toward a child after going into labor while using alcohol).
Associated Press, Three people face charges in stillbirth, The Post and Courier, (Charleston, S.C.) (July 22, 1999) at 6-B.
Kathy Ropp, Mothers Charged with ‘Homicide by Child Abuse’ The Hory Independent Newspaper, (Conway, S. C.) Aug. 19, 1999
Infant Mortality on Rise in '97, Post & Courier (Charleston, S.C.), Feb. 19, 1999, at B1.
Associated Press, Discarded Children Increasing, Post & Courier (Charleston, S.C.) April 19, 1999.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]therajraj wrote:
If a fetus did not develop a head or a brain wouldn’t you allow a woman to have an abortion?[/quote]

Does the child have any chance at survival?[/quote]

Nothing in life is 100% so let’s say 99% it dies outside the womb within a few minutes. If it lives it will be on life support it’s whole life. It doesn’t have a head FFS