abortion clarification

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[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....

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?

[doc_bean]

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 ?

[Don Corleone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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....

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...

[Banquo's Ghost]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Kralizec]

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?

*runs and hides for the Sicilian mafia*

[Ironside]

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

[HoreTore]

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

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[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]

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.

No your just murdering people.

yeah yeah, and I like it



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?

Maybe we should do as the Spartans did.

How did the Spartans do?

[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?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.