abortion clarification

[Crazed Rabbit]

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.

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.

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

It is, but I fear you are incorrect.

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

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

[ShadeHonestus]

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.

[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.

[BDC]

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.

[ShadeHonestus]

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

[Kralizec]

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

[Beren Son Of Barahi]

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.

[TevashSzat]

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?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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

Thats what all laws and societies are about.

[Ironside]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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?

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

Ever hear of pre natal care?

[AntiochusIII]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

Ever hear of pre natal care?

Made on foetuses, not embryon.

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

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.

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.

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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?