abortion clarification

i have a question for some of the pro-lifers out there. it's a position i've seen some people take and i don't quite understand it. the position is that abortion is wrong and it's murder unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or it's a case of rape and incest then it's ok.

my question is, why is it ok then? if it is an innocent baby, why is it ok to murder an innocent baby if the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy or if the baby is a product of rape or incest? the baby has nothing to do with the cirucmstances of it's birth. you wouldn't penalize the mother in such circumstances, so why would you penalize the baby?

Abortion tends to be a big gray area, hardly anyone is pure pro-choice either, sometimes people need to comprimise between their own idealogies, do you save the child or the mother ? Tough choice for anyone to make. Only zealots would find a choice like that easy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

hardly anyone is pure pro-choice either

---

Well, I'm one of them. Why? Simply because I do not in any way consider a fetus a human being or life in any way, and thus there is no "life" to kill, only a thing to remove. Kinda like an amputation....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Well, I'm one of them. Why? Simply because I do not in any way consider a fetus a human being or life in any way, and thus there is no "life" to kill, only a thing to remove. Kinda like an amputation....

---

You're pro partial birth abortions ?

EDIT: and just to make this a bit more controversial, suppose a woman is in labour, can she still chose to abort ? What abouta day before she's due ? A week ? Welcome to the gray area...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

You're pro partial birth abortions ?

EDIT: and just to make this a bit more controversial, suppose a woman is in labour, can she still chose to abort ? What abouta day before she's due ? A week ? Welcome to the gray area...

---

That's not much of a gray area. No one would approve of that.

Now, 22 weeks in, that's a gray area...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

That's not much of a gray area. No one would approve of that.

Now, 22 weeks in, that's a gray area...

---

It's dark gray :laugh4:

think the opposite view held by pro-lifers that the morning after pill should be illegal is as extreme, though might not appeal to people's emotions as much.


I should have also added that the child wasn't handicapped in any way and that the mother is not at risk.

Late abortions should not be legal because it is a big operation, abortions should take place within the first few weeks, when it's still minor.

But no, I don't consider anything as "life" until it is born, one way or another. It would be rather hard to abort a day before its due without giving birth to it and then whacking it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Late abortions should not be legal because it is a big operation, abortions should take place within the first few weeks, when it's still minor.

But no, I don't consider anything as "life" until it is born, one way or another. It would be rather hard to abort a day before its due without giving birth to it and then whacking it...

---

See, you do have a gray area, you consider some abortions worse than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

See, you do have a gray area, you consider some abortions worse than others.

---

Nah, not really, at least not in an ethical way. It's best for the mother that the abortion is done as early as possible, but I have no problems with late abortions. If it's OK with the mother, than it's OK with me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Nah, not really, at least not in an ethical way. It's best for the mother that the abortion is done as early as possible, but I have no problems with late abortions. If it's OK with the mother, than it's OK with me.

---

Okay, then you're a bit of an extremist :laugh4:

Don't worry there are enough of those on both sides, but I do believe that the majority of people take a somewhat less extreme stance. At least those who've given it serious thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by doc_bean

Okay, then you're a bit of an extremist :laugh4:

Don't worry there are enough of those on both sides, but I do believe that the majority of people take a somewhat less extreme stance. At least those who've given it serious thought.

---

I have given it serious thought, and I know I'm quite extreme...

My principle is simply that "when life begins" is a question without an answer, and as such left to the individual to figure out. Thus, I don't believe there should be any laws against it, the only thing stopping it should be the mothers ethics and conscience... And of course, the limits in the medical field...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I have given it serious thought, and I know I'm quite extreme...

My principle is simply that "when life begins" is a question without an answer, and as such left to the individual to figure out. Thus, I don't believe there should be any laws against it, the only thing stopping it should be the mothers ethics and conscience... And of course, the limits in the medical field...

---

So an abortion at 8 months, when if the baby was born it'd be absolutely fine, is ok?

I don't think there are any groups that think that. It's just horrible.

If it's ok with the mother, it's ok with me...

But yeah, I know I'm quite alone in this field :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

If it's ok with the mother, it's ok with me...

But yeah, I know I'm quite alone in this field :laugh4:

---

It'd probably be safer for the mother to just give birth or have a C-section and give the baby up...

Of course. Which is why someone taking an abortion weeks before a birth will happen about once in a century....

I don't see any reason why that one-in-a-million shot should be outlawed though... She'll have to have an extraordinary reason for wanting to choose an abortion at that stage...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

She'll have to have an extraordinary reason for wanting to choose an abortion at that stage...

---

What extraordinary reasons do you have in mind?
And should she be refused an abortion if she doesn't have one?

Quote:

---

My principle is simply that "when life begins" is a question without an answer, and as such left to the individual to figure out. Thus, I don't believe there should be any laws against it,

---

Ok life begins at 18. Until then your parents can abort you at any time. :help:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ok life begins at 18. Until then your parents can abort you at any time. :help:

---

After walking through the town centre on the weekend thats a position I can support.

And abortion should need the agreement of both parents, when both parents are known and obviously not including rape etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

After walking through the town centre on the weekend thats a position I can support.

And abortion should need the agreement of both parents, when both parents are known and obviously not including rape etc.

---

Now you are confusing a woman's right to do whatever she wants to herself and birth control...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenring

What extraordinary reasons do you have in mind?
And should she be refused an abortion if she doesn't have one?

---

I can't think of any reason, as it the situation is so hypothetical that I can't even imagine it.

If she should be refused an abortion if she doesn't have a reason? Nobody takes an abortion without a reason, so that isn't a problem. How "extraordinary" it is, can only be judged by herself. And the decision is hers ALONE, the father doesn't have a say in this IMO, simply because either choice has very, very minor consequences for him, while it is life-changing for the mother.

Quote:

---

simply because either choice has very, very minor consequences for him, while it is life-changing for the mother.

---

Pretty life changing for the child as well. It has very minor consequences for the mother in comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ok life begins at 18. Until then your parents can abort you at any time. :help:

---

As a daddy lemur who gets way too little sleep, I heartily endorse the Gawain Policy on abortion. We should be able to terminate our progeny at any time, for any reason. That'll learn 'em.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Pretty life changing for the child as well. It has very minor consequences for the mother in comparison.

---

What child? A child is a young human being, which has been born... No birth, no child :)

First of all, 1.5 million fetus aborted/babies killed a year can't be wrong can it? It is after all big business a moral issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

i have a question for some of the pro-lifers out there. it's a position i've seen some people take and i don't quite understand it. the position is that abortion is wrong and it's murder unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or it's a case of rape and incest then it's ok.

---

For me personally, abortion is morally and ethically wrong allowing for the only exceptions in cases where a pregnant mother's life is threatened. Why?

Motherly Peril
This is a case where going to term would cause the mother's death or going anywhere close enough to term where c-section cannot preserve the life of the baby would cause the mother's death. This also goes to a sense of integrity in the Hippocratic oath. Both actions either to abort or not abort in this case goes toward the preservation of life.

Rape/Incest
When a woman is raped, she is robbed of her reproductive responsibility while an abortion robs her of motherhood. However, you will find it interesting that studies show women who have aborted after rape feel more violated by the abortion than the rape. In fact most resent their rape being used by pro-abortion activists. There is some literature out there which is written by people conceived in rape.

Often in cases of incest, the argument focuses on the genetic fitness of the child to be. When I think of this I'm reminded of a doctor's appointment we had during our pregnancy with my son. The doctor's came back with tests stating that there was a good chance he would have Trisome 21. The doctor said they could direct us to information that could help with our decision. Then proceeded to hand us abortion literature. When we asked about further testing the doctor stated that risks to the fetus would be high and not encouraged. Five months later, son was born, healthy as could be, no genetic defects or anything to worry about.

I thought maybe I was alone until I heard that the same thing happened to my brother, half a nation a way in Wa. state when expecting his daughter.

The Father
The fact that a fetus can either be aborted or carried to term completely of the mother's choice while the state forces responsibility upon the father when taken to term and robs him of responsibility when aborted is an incredible double standard. You offer the woman the choice of being responsible, but the father has none.

The reality
Abortion is protected under due process law, however unfortunate, it is legal and 1.5 million a year are performed. Abortion robs the population of yet another responsibility, it even reshapes the the oath of our medical personnel, it is a moral fiber which once cut resonates in importance greater than the singular issue.

In a Burger King kind of world where you pay your money and make your choice, a people should learn to deal with the consequences and not look to be set free from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

i have a question for some of the pro-lifers out there. it's a position i've seen some people take and i don't quite understand it. the position is that abortion is wrong and it's murder unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or it's a case of rape and incest then it's ok.

my question is, why is it ok then? if it is an innocent baby, why is it ok to murder an innocent baby if the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy or if the baby is a product of rape or incest? the baby has nothing to do with the cirucmstances of it's birth. you wouldn't penalize the mother in such circumstances, so why would you penalize the baby?

---

You bring up a tough moral issue. The mother is not at fault, but then neither is the baby. I know South Dakota tried to pass a law outlawing all abortions, even incest and rape, except when a mother was going to die.

I certainly don't think it's ok, and nor do I think most pro-life people do, but I guess the thing is an incremental strategy, though Roe v Wade makes that hard, and they'd rather not start that harder fight when they already have to fight for other things.

Quote:

---

That's not much of a gray area. No one would approve of that.

---

Plenty here in the US argue for the need to have partial birth abortions on demand, and scream about laws requiring notification of a parent when someone other than a parent takes a minor across state lines for an abortion.

Quote:

---

I don't think there are any groups that think that. It's just horrible.

---

It is, but I fear you are incorrect.

Quote:

---

And the decision is hers ALONE, the father doesn't have a say in this IMO, simply because either choice has very, very minor consequences for him, while it is life-changing for the mother.

---

And it isn't for the father, who will be forced to care for the child if the mother wants?
You seem to think which side of a few inches of flesh a person is on allows murder.

Crazed Rabbit

Quote:

---

What child? A child is a young human being, which has been born... No birth, no child :)

---

But still a human being and alive. This is where the grey matter comes in.

Quote:

---

And the decision is hers ALONE, the father doesn't have a say in this IMO, simply because either choice has very, very minor consequences for him, while it is life-changing for the mother.

---

Fatherhood alone changes a man's life profoundly, if not, I fear he is not a man to begin with. If you wish more tangible effects, let's see, 50% of all earnings, possible jail time, all insurance expenses, responsibility for all visitation travel expenses, education costs and thats the norm with many non-custodial fathers and the cases I've seen.

On the flip side, being robbed of fatherhood when expecting and desiring it can have an equally detrimental effect on a man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I can't think of any reason, as it the situation is so hypothetical that I can't even imagine it.

If she should be refused an abortion if she doesn't have a reason? Nobody takes an abortion without a reason, so that isn't a problem. How "extraordinary" it is, can only be judged by herself. And the decision is hers ALONE, the father doesn't have a say in this IMO, simply because either choice has very, very minor consequences for him, while it is life-changing for the mother.

---

So say a mother is 3 weeks' due and decides to abort her child out of spite because her husband just left her. Would you agree with her decision?

Human Life = conception to natural death.

Under that rubric, abortion is wrong save in those very rare circumstances where it is a true choice between the life of the baby-to-be and the life of the mother. In that instance, the mother (or her designated trustee) should choose.

Cases of rape and incest are abhorent for any number of reasons, but the unborn has harmed/wronged no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Human Life = conception to natural death.

Under that rubric, abortion is wrong save in those very rare circumstances where it is a true choice between the life of the baby-to-be and the life of the mother. In that instance, the mother (or her designated trustee) should choose.

Cases of rape and incest are abhorent for any number of reasons, but the unborn has harmed/wronged no one.

---

I'm inclined to agree with you, but...

1) I find it hard to see a few weeks old bundled of undifferentiated cells as human, it will probably grow into one assuming it doesn't miscarry, but it isn't really yet, any more than a culture of cells taken from me is a human.
2) On a more practical note, abortion happens anyway. I'd rather have it done cleanly, safely, and be regulated.

lol just realized that in my post #24, it could be construed that I stated my son was the result of incest and nooooooooooooo thats not what I meant, the object in comparison and relation is genetic irregularities. *whew* had to clarify

That's what I tought immediately after reading it, but it was too funny to give you the idea of editing it :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

I'm inclined to agree with you, but...

1) I find it hard to see a few weeks old bundled of undifferentiated cells as human, it will probably grow into one assuming it doesn't miscarry, but it isn't really yet, any more than a culture of cells taken from me is a human.
2) On a more practical note, abortion happens anyway. I'd rather have it done cleanly, safely, and be regulated.

---

This is maybe the most sensible post i have seen here... Abortion is going to be around in one way or another, whether it is done underground in less then ideal conditions in which anything could happen and does. or in a controlled medical environment

No mother has an abortion for the hell of it and there is alway a huge toll of her as a result. It is often men debating the issue and about what women can and can't do, and as a result it is often easy to pre-judge what is happening...

on a personal note, even with being careful sometimes people get pregnant, people need to make the best decisions they can, based on what ever they feel is important to them. when i was 17 and my girlfriend was 16, we had protected sex and she got pregnant, i supported her in what ever she did, and would of too, both of us being at school. she had an abortion, and i feel under the circumstances it was best for both of us. keep in mind we are not religious in anyway so moral issues about sex hold no sway.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Human Life = conception to natural death.

Under that rubric, abortion is wrong save in those very rare circumstances where it is a true choice between the life of the baby-to-be and the life of the mother. In that instance, the mother (or her designated trustee) should choose.

Cases of rape and incest are abhorent for any number of reasons, but the unborn has harmed/wronged no one.

---

But if you classify Human Life = conception to natural death, and gives them equal value throughout this process, then millions dies every year because of inadecute medical treatment in their first month of life.
Very few of the fertilized eggs makes it to a new-born child and adults, children, babies do get access to medical treatment, while the embryos does not.

Quote:

---

But if you classify Human Life = conception to natural death, and gives them equal value throughout this process, then millions dies every year because of inadecute medical treatment in their first month of life.

---

Is there a point to be made here?

Quote:

---

babies do get access to medical treatment, while the embryos does not.

---

Ever hear of pre natal care?

I see abortion as just another possible choice to be made by a woman in her lifetime should she ever get pregnant.

...and among the worst choices. But her choice; or her and her partner's choice, should they be in a union. Can't let them fathers and lesbian moms hanging what's with all the ridiculous divorce injustices nowadays.

I'm not a woman; I'm not carrying a child. I'm not a father, or the father. I don't intend to impregnate anyone so far and probably not at all...who the hell am I to tell them what they can do and what they can't?

Essentially, my view is, before birth where the technology can save the baby, save him/her; the line before that is allowed, if not ever preferred, for abortion.

I personally am a pro-choice person, but I wonder why do pro-life people want to outlaw abortions? It is entirely their right to not like abortions and refuse to use them, but why would do they want to impose their beliefs on other people? There can be limitations as to when abortions are allowed, but it is too unreasonable to outlaw abortions by choice that is you the baby doesn't have to be endargering the mother, or be the product of rape or incest. America is certainley a free country right?

Quote:

---

but why would do they want to impose their beliefs on other people

---

Thats what all laws and societies are about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Is there a point to be made here?

---

That the rights for embryon to live is woefully underdeveloped and as an effect most of them will die. And it's the only time in a human life that such losses due to natural causes is considered perfectly acceptable. Abortion is nothing compared to this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Ever hear of pre natal care?

---

Made on foetuses, not embryon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xdeathfire

I personally am a pro-choice person, but I wonder why do pro-life people want to outlaw abortions? It is entirely their right to not like abortions and refuse to use them, but why would do they want to impose their beliefs on other people?

---

They equal abortion with murder as they put the same value on a embryo as on a baby or child.

What I'm trying to say above is that they actually don't as the consequences of this would be quite radical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Thats what all laws and societies are about.

---

No, a free society should minimize it. There should be as few areas as possible where the belief of one group is pushed on another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

No, a free society should minimize it. There should be as few areas as possible where the belief of one group is pushed on another.

---

So, I'm curious HoreTore, if passing through the birth canal is a magical event that immediately and uniquely confers 'humanity' on a being, does that mean I can kill people that I know were delivered through Cesearean section with impunity?

And by the way, Europe and America are very different places. 2% of all abortions (and that's a total of about 1million) of the elective abortions performed in the US are performed in the 3rd trimester. That's approximately 20,000 a year.

Forgetting about the legal side of things for a moment, I would like to see Planned Parenthood and the rest start to actually work towards their stated goal of the past 30 years of working to reduce the occurrence of abortion. When I was in high school back in the 1880's, erh, I mean 1980's, the cool thing for the pro-choice to say was "safe and legal but unnecessary and unheard of". Guess there's too much money in chopping up fetuses, as it has grown well beyond the rate of poplulation for the 30+ years it's been legal.

When someone is born, you are 100% sure that the person in question is living by any definition of the word. While it is still in the womb, you cannot be 100% sure that there is life.

Aaah! Okay!!! So all I have to do is catch people in a deep sleep and I can kill them with impunity then? After all, at that time, I was not 100% certain they were alive.... :shrug:

But you didn't answer my question. Passing through the birth canal would make you 100% certain that a being is alive. How about a fetus coming out through ceserean section.... since they didn't pass through the magical birth canal, can we not just kill them at any time it becomes conveniant, since we're not 100% certain they're alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

And by the way, Europe and America are very different places. 2% of all abortions (and that's a total of about 1million) of the elective abortions performed in the US are performed in the 3rd trimester. That's approximately 20,000 a year.

Forgetting about the legal side of things for a moment, I would like to see Planned Parenthood and the rest start to actually work towards their stated goal of the past 30 years of working to reduce the occurrence of abortion. When I was in high school back in the 1880's, erh, I mean 1980's, the cool thing for the pro-choice to say was "safe and legal but unnecessary and unheard of". Guess there's too much money in chopping up fetuses, as it has grown well beyond the rate of poplulation for the 30+ years it's been legal.

---

I've been wondering what the big problem in the US is, in Europe we tend to have abortions early (only first trimester allowed here, though a lot of people go to Holland if they find out too late, it's not perfect) , and we also have only about half the abortion rate of the US.

Can we blame it on poor sex education or is it something else entirely ?

Something else entirely. Americans are disgustingly irresponsible. Using any metric you care to (personal savings, personal debt) we are lousy at planning for the future and the executing in a reasonable timeframe.

This is one of the reasons why abortion is so popular in America. Unlinke Europe, it's actually used as a form of contraception over here by many. Wake up one day, realize 'crap, things are getting out of hand', a quick trip to the clinic and viola, all problems gone, nice and neat.

It saddens me to say it, but the single differentiating factor that explains why the USA does things like this is simple: collectively, we are the most irresponsible people on the planet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

Aaah! Okay!!! So all I have to do is catch people in a deep sleep and I can kill them with impunity then? After all, at that time, I was not 100% certain they were alive.... :shrug:

But you didn't answer my question. Passing through the birth canal would make you 100% certain that a being is alive. How about a fetus coming out through ceserean section.... since they didn't pass through the magical birth canal, can we not just kill them at any time it becomes conveniant, since we're not 100% certain they're alive?

---

Of course not, but anyway, that would be killing a human being, not a fetus, which I do not see as a human being or life in any way... But anyway, kill something that's not alive? How do you do that?

As for the c-section, I really didn't think I had to explain that it is a common way of giving birth...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Of course not, but anyway, that would be killing a human being, not a fetus, which I do not see as a human being or life in any way... But anyway, kill something that's not alive? How do you do that?

---

HoreTore, I think perhaps your terminology is confusing your thinking on this.

There is absolutely no doubt that a foetus is alive. The debate is rather at which point does it become a viable human being, with the rights pertaining to that status. Those who are pro-life tend to argue that the rights of a human being should be due at the moment of conception, and are unalienable at that point. Pro-choice tend to argue that those rights either do not come into being until late in the pregnancy (viability) or are over-ridden by the rights of the adult female until viability. Neither stance denies that the foetus is alive right from conception.

The big point of contention in the US (as I understand it, and await correction if in error) is that a legal ruling that permitted abortion allows very late terminations. As Don noted, there are quite a few third semester abortions over there because of this. In Europe, there is often a strict upper limit (usually around 24-26 weeks) and this is based on current scientific analyses of viability - ie a foetus of 22 weeks is very unlikely to survive outside the womb whatever the interventions. As our medicine gets better, this limit is supposed to reduce.

The pro-life stance is, in many ways, much more ethically based and consistent than this sliding scale approach - though it lacks practicality - as has been said, miscarriages happen and back-street options will be sought if no legal recourse is available. To answer Xdeathfire's question, if a person believes that the foetus is a child immediately on conception, the thought of killing that child in cold blood would be as abhorrent as hacking a four-year old to death for being inconvenient. Their anger and torment is entirely understandable, and certainly they deserve respect for the passion of their beliefs. Miscarriages are accidents, as are car crashes, and victims should be mourned. Abortions are clearly murder in this way of thinking.

I fear that in the United States, the positions are so polarised that the original court case cannot be amended (or rather, a new law passed) to make late term abortion illegal and replicate the European sliding scale. No politician of either side is willing to offend either the radical pro-choice groups that refuse to accept any limits now they have no limits - and the pro-life groups cannot accept that any abortion is permissible because it would repudiate their beliefs. The politicians would rather the Supreme Court made the decision - a decision that by definition (since SCOTUS does not legislate but interpret) will be an all or nothing situation.

For the record, I am pro-choice out of pragmatism, but in Don's 1980's mould. The decision has to rest with the mother, and her rights outweigh those of the foetus (though I would prefer the limit to be in the order of 12 weeks) but there should be many, many more options available (it is a crying shame that we have so many couples using artificial means to procreate, or in desperation from trying to adopt, yet millions of foetuses are aborted). There should be much, much greater education and support available for mothers so that they truly have a choice.

It saddens me for example, that many pro-life campaigners are also people who condemn single mothers - I would have thought that the brave decision to keep a baby, even in the absence of its father, would be applauded and supported. I imagine many babies are aborted because the stigma of single motherhood is so great, which is also a deep shame for those of us who would like to see choice mean that most accidental pregnancies resulted in a happy child in a loving home.

OK, that went on a little longer than I planned. Should have aborted it around the third paragraph, methinks, bit now it's just too grown up. :embarassed:

Banquo:

You and I hold different positions on this issue, but your summary is a rather nice precis of the whole argument -- thank you.

An earlier poster -- Ironside? -- implied that a majority of conceptions do not result in the production of an adult human. I can only speak for the United States, but that is not accurate. Discounting abortion, Doctors estimate that about 1 conception in 3 fails to result in a birth (miscarriage, failure to implant, etc.) A very small percentage die during the birthing process. Another small percentage die from some illness or accident prior to adulthood. While this number is significant, it is not, however, a majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

So, I'm curious HoreTore, if passing through the birth canal is a magical event that immediately and uniquely confers 'humanity' on a being, does that mean I can kill people that I know were delivered through Cesearean section with impunity?

---

:uhoh2:
*runs and hides for the Sicilian mafia*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

An earlier poster -- Ironside? -- implied that a majority of conceptions do not result in the production of an adult human. I can only speak for the United States, but that is not accurate. Discounting abortion, Doctors estimate that about 1 conception in 3 fails to result in a birth (miscarriage, failure to implant, etc.) A very small percentage die during the birthing process. Another small percentage die from some illness or accident prior to adulthood. While this number is significant, it is not, however, a majority.

---

Any links on it? My google skills aren't good enough to get anything else than that it's hard to get an accurate estimation and the original source I've red is a few years old.

Still, my original statement stands.

As for abortion information (only to make people having something to debate on and compare). It seems that it's slghtly less abortion in the US compared to Sweden (1,3 million abortions to 4 million births vs 35k and 105k). Sweden is considerbly higher (6-10% higher of total pregnacies) in that category compared to it's Scandinavian neighbours by some reason. The percentage is stable in Sweden, been around that since abortions became legal. It's slightly decreasing in the US.

Going from this link for US info (do you have a bureu that handles handles all kind stastistical information in the US? I miss SCB when I search US info). Facts on Induced Abortion in the United States

Teenage abortions is about the same of the total, 19% in the US, 19,8% in Sweden.

The number of repeated abortions are lower in Sweden 37,3% vs 48%.

The time of abortion also got a noticable difference, 93% of all abortions in Sweden is done before week 11, while it's 78,5% in the US. 18 weeks of free abortion, after that you'll need to

Swedish source here if anyone care (in Swedish) Aborter 2005

Well, swedish women don't know when to spit or swallow anyway, so they're not really a good comparison....:laugh4:

And Banqou's Ghost, whether or not a fetus is alive, depends how you define life. If you compare it to say a flower, then yes, it is life. However, if you add in things like a soul/spirit/whatever as a prerequisite for (human) life, then things are no longer clear. And the debate should be about the latter, if it is only life in the manner of a flower, then surely it is no worse to kill it than said flower?

You even have support from religous books. I think it was the Quran who stated that a fetus doesn't get a soul/spirit/essence/whatever until the 3. or 4. month of pregnancy... So following that, having abortions before that time is no problem at all, since you're not killing anything, you're simply removing a fetus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And Banqou's Ghost, whether or not a fetus is alive, depends how you define life. If you compare it to say a flower, then yes, it is life. However, if you add in things like a soul/spirit/whatever as a prerequisite for (human) life, then things are no longer clear. And the debate should be about the latter, if it is only life in the manner of a flower, then surely it is no worse to kill it than said flower?

You even have support from religous books. I think it was the Quran who stated that a fetus doesn't get a soul/spirit/essence/whatever until the 3. or 4. month of pregnancy... So following that, having abortions before that time is no problem at all, since you're not killing anything, you're simply removing a fetus.

---

And there you've finally hit on the crux of the issue. When does life begin? When are we talking about a mass of tissue, and when are we talking about a human being? When does a child start to have rights, including the right to life? If everyone agreed on the answers to this question, the abortion issue wouldn't be very complicated. You seem to see this moment as the moment of birth. Others see it as the moment of conception. Others see it somewhere in between. If you had a different view of when life begins, all your other principles could remain the same and you'd still have a very different opinion on abortion. I personally don't know what to think on this one.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

i have a question for some of the pro-lifers out there. it's a position i've seen some people take and i don't quite understand it. the position is that abortion is wrong and it's murder unless the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother or it's a case of rape and incest then it's ok.

my question is, why is it ok then? if it is an innocent baby, why is it ok to murder an innocent baby if the mother's life is in danger by the pregnancy or if the baby is a product of rape or incest? the baby has nothing to do with the cirucmstances of it's birth. you wouldn't penalize the mother in such circumstances, so why would you penalize the baby?

---

Deep down I feel aborting a child due to rape is still wrong. It really is a horrible circumstance for a woman to find herself in, but its not the child's fault.

As for if the mothers life is in danger, sadly a utilitarian choice must be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Cases of rape and incest are abhorent for any number of reasons, but the unborn has harmed/wronged no one.

---

The rapist's genes carry on to another generation. The mother would look at her child every day and see that half of it is the rapist that violently abused her, and that she hates over everything else in the world.

Incest: the child gets genetical disorders 9 times out of 10, due to inbreeding and lack of genetic variation. Most cases of incest that result in children seem to be fathers raping their daughters. Would the daughter take care of her father's child and for the rest of her life be reminded that she was abused as a child? Or should the child be taken to an orphanage, where it has little chance to find decent new parents because it is sickly by its inbreeding genetical disorders?

These aren't children concepted under normal circumstances. Unless you do a really good job preventing those circumstances from ever occuring, the anti-abortion view is quite weak compared to the acceptance to abortion view. If someone even actively promotes keeping a society that repeatedly and often gives rise to these phenomena, their position against abortion is quite hypocritical IMO. Perhaps the Catholic Church should instead campaign to teach people to keep the condom on until they are mature enough to have a child that they can love, and campaign to help the kind of people that eventually become rapists before they enter that path. To teach people that it's dishonorable to use abortion, but that it is a necessary evil in some cases. Rather than today enforce a rather militant view on abortion, resulting in abortion happening a lot more often than it would, if it wouldn't have such taboo on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ajaxfetish

And there you've finally hit on the crux of the issue. When does life begin? When are we talking about a mass of tissue, and when are we talking about a human being? When does a child start to have rights, including the right to life? If everyone agreed on the answers to this question, the abortion issue wouldn't be very complicated. You seem to see this moment as the moment of birth. Others see it as the moment of conception. Others see it somewhere in between. If you had a different view of when life begins, all your other principles could remain the same and you'd still have a very different opinion on abortion. I personally don't know what to think on this one.

Ajax

---

Couldn't agree more.

That's why I'm promoting a very liberal view here. By allowing abortions, you are not discriminating those that feel live begins at conception, however, if you do not allow it, you discriminate those who feel that life begins at birth, or somewhere in between.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

If someone even actively promotes keeping a society that repeatedly and often gives rise to these phenomena, their position against abortion is quite hypocritical IMO. Perhaps the Catholic Church should instead campaign to teach people to keep the condom on until they are mature enough to have a child that they can love, and campaign to help the kind of people that eventually become rapists before they enter that path.

---

The Church does preach against many of these ills. Incest is condemned as a sin as is rape. These are crimes against others and a sin before God. The Church does not -- and as far as I am aware has not -- "actively promotes keeping a society that repeatedly and often gives rise to these phenomena."

The Church has long taught that abstinence before marriage is the correct way to emphasize both the sanctity of that sacrament and, in addition, prevent unhoped for pregnancies etc. Since this fits the larger model of self-discipline through faith, the position is not intellectually inconsistent.

Throughout history, and across many cultures, the record of human behavior tells us that a significant number do not "wait for marriage" before becoming sexually active. Recognizing this, a significant number of Catholics would agree to the use of a condom, since this barrier method prevents conception.

It would be difficult for the Church, however, to favor this. "Do not sin and do not cheapen a sacrament that brings you closer to God" is a consistent point. Replacing it with "Do not sin and do not cheapen a sacrament that brings you closer to God -- but if you do, please take enabling steps to minimize the personal consequences of your actions and make it easier for you." would not follow the basic approach advocated for the faithful.

Quote:

---

Incest: the child gets genetical disorders 9 times out of 10, due to inbreeding and lack of genetic variation.

---

Where do you get things like this from? What a load of crap. The gene pool has been so mixed over the generations that there is very little chance of any of that hapening anymore.

Quote:

---

That's why I'm promoting a very liberal view here. By allowing abortions, you are not discriminating those that feel live begins at conception

---

No your just murdering people.

Quote:

---

however, if you do not allow it, you discriminate those who feel that life begins at birth, or somewhere in between.

---

How?

Maybe we should do as the Spartans did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Where do you get things like this from? What a load of crap. The gene pool has been so mixed over the generations that there is very little chance of any of that hapening anymore.

---

Then go ahead and form an inbred society somewhere where people like to have sex with close relatives, and we'll see what happens. I thought it was common knowledge that the reason incest is forbidden is because it causes inbreeding, and because it causes inbreeding humans have evolved to despise it and suffer from it if exposed to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

No your just murdering people.

---

yeah yeah, and I like it :laugh4: :whip: :devil:

:rolleyes:

seriously come on - calling people murderers won't make them stop supporting that abortion shouldn't be forbidden. Why do you hate freedom? Why can't people make their own choice?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

Maybe we should do as the Spartans did.

---

How did the Spartans do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

The Church does preach against many of these ills. Incest is condemned as a sin as is rape. These are crimes against others and a sin before God. The Church does not -- and as far as I am aware has not -- "actively promotes keeping a society that repeatedly and often gives rise to these phenomena."

The Church has long taught that abstinence before marriage is the correct way to emphasize both the sanctity of that sacrament and, in addition, prevent unhoped for pregnancies etc. Since this fits the larger model of self-discipline through faith, the position is not intellectually inconsistent.

Throughout history, and across many cultures, the record of human behavior tells us that a significant number do not "wait for marriage" before becoming sexually active. Recognizing this, a significant number of Catholics would agree to the use of a condom, since this barrier method prevents conception.

It would be difficult for the Church, however, to favor this. "Do not sin and do not cheapen a sacrament that brings you closer to God" is a consistent point. Replacing it with "Do not sin and do not cheapen a sacrament that brings you closer to God -- but if you do, please take enabling steps to minimize the personal consequences of your actions and make it easier for you." would not follow the basic approach advocated for the faithful.

---

that is if you consider sex as a sin. Regarding that btw, which I thought was quite uncommon these days - where would you rank the sin of sex compared to other sins? Worse or better than: lying, killing, raping (is raping a special sin according to the church btw, or does it classify the same as any form of sex?), being forced to steal because you're poor, starting unprovoked war (or is this really a sin according to the church?), or praying to other God's than God etc?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LegioXXXUlpiaVictrix

that is if you consider sex as a sin. Regarding that btw, which I thought was quite uncommon these days - where would you rank the sin of sex compared to other sins? Worse or better than: lying, killing, raping (is raping a special sin according to the church btw, or does it classify the same as any form of sex?), being forced to steal because you're poor, starting unprovoked war (or is this really a sin according to the church?), or praying to other God's than God etc?

---

The church does not consider sex to be a sin. It considers sex outside the bounds of a consecrated marriage to be sinful. Celibacy is considered an honorable status among religious not because sex is wrong, but because the individual in question has forsaken the rewarding temporal relationships most of us choose to focus more fully on their relationship with the Eternal.

Pre-marital sex was always ranked as a venal, not a cardinal, sin. This was made worse if it also constituted adultery as that involved the abrogation marital vows. Rape and murder, as crimes of violence (as you are well aware, rape is far more about this than sex), were and are considered significantly worse. Praying to a false god is a big no-no, at least once the individual has been informed of the truth.

As with all such things, context matters quite a lot. Stealing may be wrong, but doing so as the only way to keep your family fed in extremis would not be as morally wrong as would stealing as a career choice.

I think that whatever view you take has to be morally consistant. For me, after a great deal of thouht, I decided that conception had to be the point at which life begins, because I can't find a more certain later point.

As a direct result of this I am pro-life, with the single exception that if the child is going to die and kill the mother an abortion is better than two people dieing. Given a choice between my wife and my child I honestly don't know.

My morality says that the child is totally innocent and totally blameless. On the other hand I can't imagine letting go of the woman I love and bringing up her child without her.

In the cases of incest and rape the child itself is blameless so saying that it's okay to abort and still call yourself pro-life is a double standard.

You can't have "pro-life but....."

To those who are pro-choice the only question I ask is where and how you make the decision between a bundle of cells and a new life.

Quote:

---

Then go ahead and form an inbred society somewhere where people like to have sex with close relatives, and we'll see what happens.

---

It takes generations of inbreeding not just one fling. People now marry outside their own town lol :laugh4:

Quote:

---

seriously come on - calling people murderers won't make them stop supporting that abortion shouldn't be forbidden

---

Im just caling it like I see it. Im not doing it to change their mind.

Quote:

---

Why do you hate freedom

---

I hate freedom? :laugh4:

Ok Then why do you support murder? :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Why can't people make their own choice?

---

Why have laws? Let people choose what they want to do.

Quote:

---

How did the Spartans do?

---

As soon as you emerged from your mothers womb you would be examined by an official of the state. If he thought you were too sick or puny to make a good spartan they left you on the side of a mountain to die.

Gawain, it is simple genetics that show you inbreeding isn't good for the family gene pool. I had a biology teacher who used to be a genetics counselor for Johns Hopkins Hospital, one of the best in the world. He said that as soon as he sees inbreeding, he starts to look for some serious recessive disorder among the descendents

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

To those who are pro-choice the only question I ask is where and how you make the decision between a bundle of cells and a new life.

---

Well to me the issue is not when life begins but when personality can be atributed to that life. A group of cells has no human characteristics (except for DNA, of course), even a perfectly formed fetus is still not a full person, and he aquires that title when he leaves the womb. And to me personality is only adquired once the fetus is susceptible of being individualized, outside the womb and can breath.

Just imagine if we believed that life begins even before conception, and we consider the child to be an undetermined being not yet in the material world, but an eventual human being nontheless...

However I still consider abortion to be a crime, because even if the fetus is not yet a person it will be some day, and we can't take away that life for that reason, because it's an eventual human being. The only justification I can find to abortion is that that you just mentioned: a life threatning risk to the mother, should she carry on with the gestation.

Quote:

---

Gawain, it is simple genetics that show you inbreeding isn't good for the family gene pool

---

No :daisy: Sherlock :laugh4:

But you screwing your sister isnt going to have that effect. Its only one instance. Now if you were to have mulitiple instances of family incest that would be a different matter. But if your sister got pregnant from you theres a very small chance of birth deffects because of it.

Actually it is indeed very likely to have that effect, even if it's just one instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

But you screwing your sister isnt going to have that effect. Its only one instance. Now if you were to have mulitiple instances of family incest that would be a different matter. But if your sister got pregnant from you theres a very small chance of birth deffects because of it.

---

It's not quite that clear cut, Gawain. There's quite some debate on the subject, with some studies arguing that 50% of children born to such a union will be disabled. The recent case in Germany is informative:

Quote:

---

"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Couple stand by forbidden love
By Tristana Moore
BBC News, Berlin

They share a small flat in an east German tower block on the outskirts of the city. It looks like an ordinary family scene, but Patrick is Susan's brother and they are lovers.

"Many people see it as a crime, but we've done nothing wrong," said Patrick, an unemployed locksmith.

"We are like normal lovers. We want to have a family. Our whole family broke apart when we were younger, and after that happened, Susan and I were brought closer together," he said.

Patrick, who is 30 years old, was adopted and, as a child, he lived in Potsdam.

He did not meet his mother and biological family until he was 23. He travelled to Leipzig with a friend in 2000, determined to make contact with his other relatives.

He met his sister Susan for the first time, and according to the couple, after their mother died, they fell in love.

"When I was younger, I didn't know that I had a brother. I met Patrick and I was so surprised," said Susan, who is 22.

She says she does not feel guilty about their relationship.

"I hope this law will be overturned," Susan said.

"I just want to live with my family, and be left alone by the authorities and by the courts," she went on, in a hardly audible voice.

Patrick and Susan have been living together for the last six years, and they now have four children.

The authorities placed their first son, Eric, in the care of a foster family, and two other children were also placed in care.

"Our children are with foster parents. We talk to them as often as possible, but the authorities have taken away so much from us," said Susan.

"We only have our little daughter, Sofia, who is living with us," she said.

Incest is a criminal offence in Germany. Patrick Stuebing has already served a two-year sentence for committing incest and there is another jail term looming if paragraph 173 of the legal code is not overturned.

The couple's lawyer, Endrik Wilhelm, has lodged an appeal with Germany's highest judicial body, the federal Constitutional Court in Karlsruhe, in order to overturn the country's ban on incest.

"Under Germany's criminal code, which dates back to 1871, it is a crime for close relatives to have sex and it's punishable by up to three years in prison. This law is out of date and it breaches the couple's civil rights," Dr Wilhelm said.

"Why are disabled parents allowed to have children, or people with hereditary diseases or women over 40? No-one says that is a crime.

"This couple are not harming anyone. It is discrimination. And besides, we must not forget that every child is so valuable," said Dr Wilhelm.

The couple's case is controversial and it has prompted a heated debate in the media.

"We need this law against incest in Germany and in the whole of Europe," said Professor Juergen Kunze, a geneticist at Berlin's Charite Hospital.

"It is based on long traditions in Western societies, and the law is here for a good reason," said Prof Kunze.

"Medical research has shown that there is a higher risk of genetic abnormalities when close relatives have a child together. When siblings have children, there is a 50% chance that the child will be disabled," he said.

Patrick and Susan say they have no other choice but to fight the current law.

"I have read that some doctors claim that children born to siblings could be disabled, but what about disabled parents who have children, or older parents?" asked Patrick.

"People have said that our children are disabled, but that is wrong. They are not disabled," said Patrick.

"Eric, our eldest child, has epilepsy, but he was born two months premature, he also has learning difficulties. Our other daughter, Sarah, has special needs," Patrick said.

The couple claim they have received a lot of support from friends and neighbours.

"When we go out to the supermarket, people recognise us and many have told us that they support our legal challenge," said Patrick.

"We would like society to recognise us, as any other normal couple," he said.

In 2004, Patrick voluntarily underwent a vasectomy.

"It's legal for the couple to live together, and to share a bed. But they are breaking the law once they have sex. If there are no more children, then who will be able to prove that they are a couple?" asked their lawyer.

Dr Wilhelm said a ruling was expected in the next few months.

"We've already heard that the vice-president of the Constitutional Court said that there will be a 'fundamental discussion' about this issue in Germany," said Dr Wilhelm.

"Many criminal law experts say that we are right and I'm confident that my clients will win their case. The law against incest is based on very old moral principles. The law was abolished in France, it's about time it should be scrapped here in Germany as well."

You may be keen to know that your of your favourite countries, Frnace abolished incest as a crime back in Napoleon's day, the Netherlands doesn't prosecute either and in Sweden you can actually marry your sister.

Whereas in Donegal, it is of course compulsory. :wink:

Quote:

---

It's not quite that clear cut, Gawain. There's quite some debate on the subject, with some studies arguing that 50% of children born to such a union will be disabled. The recent case in Germany is informative:

---

Quite a debate? One sentence in an article? Hmmm, these people had four children and I see nothing there about any of them being disabled. You will have to back that up with further proof.

Not only that but this is about abortion. So that takes us back to the model of the Spartans. Better off dead than not perfect?

It really depends on your definition of disabled, I'm myopic and dyslexic.

In the end I expect it varies widely depending on just how shoddy your genes are to begin with.