Addressing the Ethical Debate: The Status of Abortion as Murder

[Hurkyl]

Killing a fetus compared to killing a baby is as killing a fetus is to menstration/(male)masturbation...Ahhhh satire.

You call it satire, but I call it a good starting point for any serious attempt at reasoning out this issue.

 

[Kerrie]

Then, you should spend time rethinking your position. Frankly, I find it ridiculous when women try to shut men out of this. It's like a poor drug addict saying that middle class America has no right telling them that stealing is wrong.


But that aside, I find your position most appalling because you flatly ignore a core issue of the topic -- when does it cease to be a "part of the mother's body" and becomes something more.

Refusing to recognize this issue doesn't make it go away, no matter how much you would like it to do so.

hurkyl, you missed my entire point...ONLY men seem to take a strong stand on this issue, where are the women and their point of view? the law allows a woman to abort without any sort of interruption during the first trimester for whatever reason...and to address your question-the baby ceases to be a part of the mother at birth. if abortion were illegal during that time she can choose to do crack, drink, smoke etc and not be penalized, thus abortion would have been entirely appropriate during that first trimester. if she is doing this once she has the child, her parental rights are taken away.

and how am i refusing to recognize the issue when i have clearly stated my views on it? simple enough, men telling me how immoral abortion is, is like me (being a female) telling you men how immoral it is to be uncircumsized. when you are able to feel a child grow within your womb, be the one ultimately responsible for the 9 months of gestation, and then most likely be the one raising that child (many men who are not ready to be fathers can't handle parenthood), then you will have a different stand on this, i guarantee it. and yes, i have two children of my own, never ever considered abortion, because it was my choice to carry them and be responsible for them.

 

[Zlex]

hurkyl, you missed my entire point...ONLY men seem to take a strong stand on this issue, where are the women and their point of view? the law allows a woman to abort without any sort of interruption during the first trimester for whatever reason...and to address your question-the baby ceases to be a part of the mother at birth. if abortion were illegal during that time she can choose to do crack, drink, smoke etc and not be penalized, thus abortion would have been entirely appropriate during that first trimester. if she is doing this once she has the child, her parental rights are taken away.

and how am i refusing to recognize the issue when i have clearly stated my views on it? simple enough, men telling me how immoral abortion is, is like me (being a female) telling you men how immoral it is to be uncircumsized. when you are able to feel a child grow within your womb, be the one ultimately responsible for the 9 months of gestation, and then most likely be the one raising that child (many men who are not ready to be fathers can't handle parenthood), then you will have a different stand on this, i guarantee it. and yes, i have two children of my own, never ever considered abortion, because it was my choice to carry them and be responsible for them.

It has been my experience that views on abortion are always personal.

My opionion/personal views on abortion have changed over the years. Here is my basis for my present view, and it is personal, and it is totally based on temporal bias.

My aunt and uncle had their 2nd child a little later in life. So, with full intentions of acting on the knowledge so obtained, my aunt and uncle agreed that my aunt would undergo a CVS procedure early on, to test for genetic defects. My aunts biggest fear her whole life was someday having to 'deal' with what she thought must be the 'heartache' of a special needs child. I'm not sure anybody runs willingly to embrace such a challenge or heartache. Certainly not me.

Then my cousin was born, with Williams Syndrome. A rare genetic deletion. 1:20000 or 1:40000 births, depending on what you read. Low enough on the radar not to be generally tested in a basic CVS screening. So, he was developmentally delayed, and then diagnosed with a life sentence at age 18 months. Bang, sitting in CHOP down in Toronto, and literally, there was this moment when I figuratively watched an axe come down on my cousin's neck, served up by some experts.

Flash ahead in time almost 9 years, my Aunt and Uncle have passed away, and their children lived with my family. My cousins--including Eric--are the absolute joys of my life. Sure, he has health issues. So do we all, when we are stumbling around here for our brief few moments in the Sun. But...and you have to know someone with WIlliams Syndrome to really know what I am saying--this child is the Sun. The ultimate love monkey. Everything else pales in comparison. He can't add to save his life, but what is important, he has tons of. OTOH, he loves words and music and language and most of all, people. Plus, most of the crap that the experts said he would never be able to do, he has already done.

So, I look at him every day, and I'm grateful, and I have to tell myself that we only accidentally didn't murder my cousin, this incredible gift, this lesson. Now, folks can say, well sure, now that some time has passed, and you know and love your cousin, of course you would not murder him, no matter how dinged up his genes are. But, we would have, then, that was the intent, and it was only a then failure of science which prevented us from aborting him; why else do folks have CVS procedures?

So clearly, the difference between not murdering him then and not murdering him now is, a temporal bias; the simple passage of time and inevitablilty. It is only a temporal bias that would have permitted us to abort him then. A temporal bias that would allow us to pretend that Eric was never going to eventually happen. Well, he did eventually happen.

Purposeful or not, Eric was a Hell of a lesson.

Sometimes lessons are too perfect, and you start to wonder. For all I know, this was one of those personal conversations. Or, it still could be that **** just happens. But, that is still amazing.

It is only temporal bias which doesn't allow you to see the life that isn't here, yet. Sometimes that is good, or at least, kind, in that it protects us, for example, all from realizing the full horror of The Holocaust; the future generations of unfolding DNA/life that were in the process of unraveling and mixing and unfolding, and that were all lost.

So, I brought up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations.

I see one clearly, every day, who narrowly and only accidentally made it past the gauntlet.

 

[Hurkyl]

Kerrie: First off, I'd like to apologize for projecting the stereotypical arguments onto you. One of my biggest annoyances on the topic is when a pro-choicer starts with the statement "it's my body and I can do what I want to", and then uses that as the basis of the rest of their argument. While you did start with that statement, it wasn't a basis for the arguments in the rest of your post, so I was off base there.


As to genders, maybe your point was to criticize women for not participating, but you sure make it sound like a criticism of men for participating, and your last post does too, so I stand by my objection on that point. Furthermore, if your defense for your position is that "you'd understand if you were pregnant", you can hardly call that a rational position.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie: First off, I'd like to apologize for projecting the stereotypical arguments onto you. One of my biggest annoyances on the topic is when a pro-choicer starts with the statement "it's my body and I can do what I want to", and then uses that as the basis of the rest of their argument. While you did start with that statement, it wasn't a basis for the arguments in the rest of your post, so I was off base there.


As to genders, maybe your point was to criticize women for not participating, but you sure make it sound like a criticism of men for participating, and your last post does too, so I stand by my objection on that point. Furthermore, if your defense for your position is that "you'd understand if you were pregnant", you can hardly call that a rational position.

no, i certainly don't have the "it's my body, i can do what I want with it". hurkly, i assume you are male, and if you are, you have never and will never feel the presense of a child grow within you, nor will you experience the changes your body goes through, nor will you experience the pain of childbirth. these experiences can have a profound sway in what you believe in because they are LIFE ALTERING. so, yes, it is rational. men seem to take a very strong opinion on abortion when it does not affect them unless it is their own child being aborted. like i said before, i have no right in telling you that it is immoral to be uncircumsized any more then you have a right to tell me that abortion is immoral within the first trimester.

i will say, that i have a problem with a woman who chooses to carry her child, and yet chooses to not take care of herself. once she has decided to carry that baby to term, she has an obligation to herself and baby to not drink, smoke, etc. i took better care of myself while pregant then i did not being pregnant because i chose the responsibility.

Zlex~i have an 11 year old Down's Syndrome brother that now has both his parents divorced, who has severe autism, cannot use a toilet and will need care for the rest of his life. his main parent is constanly drained and has a difficult time providing the best care possible because of the lack of support. your situation is not typical of everyone because it is your experience.

 

[Zlex]

your situation is not typical of everyone because it is your experience.

Kerrie, Well, thank you, I think that's what I said.

But, something tells me, my argument might only look clear and logical and thought provoking to those who agree with it.

For others, I'm sure it is nonsense.

Though...I haven't heard it explained to me why, yet. I suspect the argument will be that is is somehow possible to support the idea 'in general' about the rights of future generations, as long as we don't uncomfortably reference any actual instance of that theoretical future generation and ask why suddenly an actual member of the future generation does not even have the right to simply ever exist, much less, view humpback whales in their native glory from a pristine beachline unsullied by oil derricks. Apparently, we must 'preserve' our resources for merely potential future generations, and that makes great sense, even though no actual instance of that merely potential future generation, once explicitely invited to sit at Nature's Table for a short visit, has even the right to exist. The whole in this case is somehow greater than the sum of its parts; an infinite series of "No rights + No rights + No rights, not even to exist + ..." somehow equates, on the whole, to a vast range of 'rights' which the present generation must consider and act to defend.

For example, the right to be free from the bother of a mound of yuk at Yucca Flats ... in 50,000 years.

Quite apparently, the merely potential future generations that will be around 50,000 years from now have 'rights' which the present generation must consider thoroughly.

You see, what is important is not that any single individual from that merely potential future generation has any rights that the mob/tribe will rush to defend, but merely that the mob/tribe as a whole/on the average has rights which the current mob/tribe must consider/defend.

Especially if claiming to do so allows the present mob/tribe to run over some individuals in the process; all the better.

The foundation for dividing up folks on both sides of the barricades is actually quite consistant. The 'only groups have rights' folks clearly go to one side. The 'individuals have rights., too' folks go to the other.

Is this a conflict between the rights of an actual some and the rights of merely potential others? Sure. A conflict brought about via the actions of only one of the parties. And, the bias that allows us to refer to one party as 'actual' and the other as merely 'potential' is called, temporal bias, because the only factor distinguishing one from the other is the natural passage of time and the failure of one to actively terminate the other.

 

[Kerrie]

So, I brought up temporal bias in the context of the abortion debate, and ask why it is we can see and imagine and cherish future generations, but not actual individual members of those future generations

i apologize for not reading your post more closely...at the time of my reply, i was pressed for time...

regarding this point, this is more of an idealistic view instead of realistic...if a mother's future is hardly secure for herself, how can she possibly secure the future of another human life? if she doesn't see herself fit to raise a child, how can she cherish her child the best she can? one may throw in the option of adoption, and this is certainly a valid choice for those women strong enough to endure the growth of another human life within them, feel their movements, feel a bond and then after all that energy, give that baby up. one may say, use birth control, but birth control is not 100%. one may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway), she is the one who is responsible for providing the future of the child first. without that solid secure future, the future generations could be in trouble.

 

[Zlex]

i apologize for not reading your post more closely...at the time of my reply, i was pressed for time...

regarding this point, this is more of an idealistic view instead of realistic...if a mother's future is hardly secure for herself, how can she possibly secure the future of another human life? if she doesn't see herself fit to raise a child, how can she cherish her child the best she can? one may throw in the option of adoption, and this is certainly a valid choice for those women strong enough to endure the growth of another human life within them, feel their movements, feel a bond and then after all that energy, give that baby up. one may say, use birth control, but birth control is not 100%. one may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway), she is the one who is responsible for providing the future of the child first. without that solid secure future, the future generations could be in trouble.

There are reasons for the Jungle's Strong to cancel the invitation to the Jungle's Weak, I suppose. Need those reasons be considered at all, or is 'at the mere convenience of the Strong' a principle worthy of a civilized nation?

How ignorant of the factual hurdles facing sentient life that exist in a Universe clearly made mostly of Hydrogen must one be, in order to consider 'mere convenience' a reason to squash it?

Consider the Holocaust; what makes the Holocaust so geometrically tragic is not just the life that was lost, but the generations of life that were lost. Somewhere in all of those lost strands of DNA could have been ...who knows? The cure for cancer. The leader who was going to bring peace to the M.E... then end of all Holocausts.

Shouldn't we have a higher hurdle than mere 'convenience' to lurch up to the last hurdle in someone elses' longshot race with the improbable with a butcher knife?

The last of those hurdles imight be a gauntlet of current lucky winners holding suction tubes and knives, directed by some current lucky winners who explicitely(if wrecklessly)invited the runner to the race and are now employing the reason 'convenience' to forcefully withdraw the invitation. ie, the Jungle's Strong (two or more gathered together in a cause)ganging up on the Jungle's weak(any lone individual)for the ...and here is where the real core of the current debate is...for any of the following reasons:

1] Survival
2] General Welfare
3] General well being
4] lifestyle
5] convenience

of the Strong.


Despite all the politcal mumbo-jumbo that surrounds these issues there is a fundamental moment of truth waiting to be discovered in these issues, and that truth is hidden in our plain sight. In a Universe made almost entirely of Hydrogen, with precious little coalesced stardust to be found, and precious little of that exhibiting what we call 'life,' does _this_ longshot species value life, or does it take that longshot condition in this Universe for granted?

The cold, logical accounting fact is, only some of that rare coalesced stardust ever became animated, and only a yet smaller, almost infinitesimal fraction of that merely animated coalesced stardust has become self-aware.

In the history of this species, and its only very recent self-awareness, that transition from merely animated to self-aware is still ongoing. This species, as a self-aware example of coalesced stardust, is very young, and still struggling to emerge fully aware from the ooze and figure out who we are in this Universe.

 

[Kerrie]

Consider the Holocaust; what makes the Holocaust so geometrically tragic is not just the life that was lost, but the generations of life that were lost. Somewhere in all of those lost strands of DNA could have been ...who knows? The cure for cancer. The leader who was going to bring peace to the M.E... then end of all Holocausts.

you can also pose the argument that a horrible serial-murderer-to-come could have been killed to in the holocaust...this argument cannot hold up why abortion should be illegal, as it lacks reason and reality in today's world. we can't focus on "what could have been", but need to focus on the here and now. the fact remains, if a woman cannot support a child to the best of her ability and provide that child with everything it deserves, she should have the option of terminating that fetus. if abortion is illegal, she will seek it through means that are unsafe and could kill her. that is the reality of it, and will always remain to be.

 

[Zlex]

you can also pose the argument that a horrible serial-murderer-to-come could have been killed to in the holocaust...this argument cannot hold up why abortion should be illegal, as it lacks reason and reality in today's world. we can't focus on "what could have been", but need to focus on the here and now. the fact remains, if a woman cannot support a child to the best of her ability and provide that child with everything it deserves, she should have the option of terminating that fetus. if abortion is illegal, she will seek it through means that are unsafe and could kill her. that is the reality of it, and will always remain to be.

I am not arguing that folks should be compelled to be enlightened humans at the point of a gun.

I am arguing that those that aren't, aren't. Weak? Yes. Frail? Yes. Fearful? yes. Gutless and lacking courage? Yes. Merely human? Yes. Admirable? No. Was my family almost one of them? Yes. Was it simply an accident that we were not, totally contrary to our intentions? Yes.

The total lack of emotion coming from those who have been aborted is simply a small part of an overall silence. It's easy to ignore that silence, because of our temporal bias. We can't hear them now, so they never were going to be. It is just like the silence of the succeeding generations missing after the Holocaust.

On the other hand, we claim to clearly hear future nonexisting and never existed generations calling us and imploring us to save their resources for them, a topic replete with cute, furry emotional seal pups with their big doleful eyes.

Conception is the result of a deliberate act of invitation. The parties who perform the act of invitation hold some responsibility for that deliberate act. I do not recognize, nor can imagine, the concept 'accidental procreation;' I slipped on a banana peel while in an aroused state, happen to make a soft landing in exactly the right location?

Rape/incest? I believe that the victim/mother should have the right to choose, with consequences of deliberate death falling on the perp. Risk to mother's life? A natural conflict, and again, the Mother should have the right to choose.

But, we are quickly onto abortion for mere convenience/to support the precious lifestyle of those that deliberately invited life; abortion as extended birth control. This is disgusting. Checked the DayTimer, had time for the dance, but sorry, not in my 5 year Plan. It is only temporal bias that forbids us from seeing this as exactly what it is; the strong pushing the weak away.

At the same moment of time, a zygote is not a adult human being. Now, imagine for an instant that we actually lived in a universe where time existed; in that Universe, the only difference between a zygote and an adult human being is time and inevitability and the absence of some larger, stronger entity with a knife and a too-full DayTimers.

But your point was, prevoiusly, I think, that reality/biology is unfair in this regard. The guys get physically involved only when it's all fun, and women must shoulder the long term physical consequences/burden after that mutual dance has been completed. You are right, reality/biology is unfair in that regards, there is no mistaking your point.

But, this is MORE reason to support the concept of respect for life, not less. Except in the case of rape/incest, it is via a specific invitation to life, made by two participants in an explicit, specific act of invitation, that results in the burdensome responsibility of bringing forth somebody to Nature's Table. There is no such thing as 'accidental life.' Maybe, inadvertent life; maybe wreckless life, maybe unintended life, but there is certainly no such thing as accidental life. Not even a busted condom qualifies as an excuse to claim 'accidental life.'

Accidental life? Nonsense. What, somebody slipped on a banana peel in an aroused state, and 'accidentally' impregnated someone, who simultaneously had accidentally slipped on a second banana peel and provided a soft landing? Total gibberish/nonsense. People do not accidentally procreate, no matter what their holy intentions were as the outcome that they merely thought they had control over, and actually did not.

 

[Kerrie]

But, we are quickly onto abortion for mere convenience/to support the precious lifestyle of those that deliberately invited life; abortion as extended birth control. This is disgusting. Checked the DayTimer, had time for the dance, but sorry, not in my 5 year Plan. It is only temporal bias that forbids us from seeing this as exactly what it is; the strong pushing the weak away.

But your point was, prevoiusly, I think, that reality/biology is unfair in this regard. The guys get physically involved only when it's all fun, and women must shoulder the long term physical consequences/burden after that mutual dance has been completed. You are right, reality/biology is unfair in that regards, there is no mistaking your point.

why a woman chooses an abortion is no one's business. the question of why begins to interfere with every individual's concept of morality. the supreme court (thankfully) ruled abortion legal for more practical reasons above moral reasons. the fact that a woman risks her life (illegal abortion) over someone else's moral code (pushing the religious limits) is more of a waste then the aborted fetus itself.

perhaps if you were a single young female suddenly pregnant, your views would change.

but, quite honestly, i personally agree that everyone needs to take responsibility for a child they bring into this world unexpectedly-i certainly did and have a beautiful 8 year old daughter. is it my right to tell another young mother-to-be she shouldn't abort for the same reasons i didn't? absolutely not, it's not me who is bearing the responsibility.

 

[Justinius]

why a woman chooses an abortion is no one's business. the question of why begins to interfere with every individual's concept of morality. the supreme court (thankfully) ruled abortion legal for more practical reasons above moral reasons. the fact that a woman risks her life (illegal abortion) over someone else's moral code (pushing the religious limits) is more of a waste then the aborted fetus itself.

Kerrie, a few questions:

Could you please outline the practical reasons you speak of when you speak of the supreme court? A woman risks her life in a clinical abortion just as much as she would in a back-alley abortion. She risks grave damage to her fallopian tubes, hysterectemies, etc.

I think you forget to acknowledge that the aborted fetus itself is a human being. Here, I get the impression that a fetus is a disposable part of a woman's body and has no rights. If the woman knew she did not want a baby she should have thought about that before she had sexual intercourse: the natural product of a sexual relationship is another human being.

perhaps if you were a single young female suddenly pregnant, your views would change.

Lets not use situation ethics or appeals to emotions please. Let's face it, I'm male, I will never carry a baby, however, as I said above, this young female should have thought the cause of this sudden pregnancy through before going through with the act.

We must remember we are talking about a human baby when discussing this topic. Having read many of the posts on this thread, it appears that a few pro-choicers here neglect this.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Kerrie, a few questions:

Could you please outline the practical reasons you speak of when you speak of the supreme court? A woman risks her life in a clinical abortion just as much as she would in a back-alley abortion. She risks grave damage to her fallopian tubes, hysterectemies, etc.

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

 

[dekoi]

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

I assume Justinius was stating that two women who receive "successful" abortions (one back alley and the other one done professionally) are still at moderately equal risk of being victims to several problems.

Researchers examined the death records for approximately 173,000 low-income California women and discovered that women who had abortions were almost twice as likely to die in the following two years and that the elevated mortality rate of aborting women persisted over at least eight years.

During the eight year period studied, women who aborted had a 154% higher risk of death from suicide, an 82% higher risk of death from accidents and a 44% higher risk of death from natural causes.

How can anyone even argue for abortion? It is completely, utterly absurd. Everything about it shows negative results. Not one single thing can account as a positive affect or product of abortion.
Absolutely ridiculous, and well, quite funny how people try to justify their apathy. Disagree? Shall we have story time? Ok, ill tell this story:

# Salt poisoning – a technique used for 4 months and above. Abortionist injects poison solution into abdomen. Baby breathes poison and convulses until death (which the mother feels). Takes 2 to 3 hours to kill the baby, who is delivered vaginally 24 hours later – sometimes alive.

Prostaglandin abortions. An injection of a strong hormone which causes intense labor, and violent contractions of the womb. One complication – live birth.

Hysterotomy – a mini-caesarian section. Womb is surgically opened. The abortionist cuts the cord, and let's the baby die in a basin, or chokes him/her to death.

And then people tell me that i am a man and can not speak on behalf of abortion; do all lawyers need experience murdering when fighting for murderers? To all of those pregnant women who are looking to abortion as the answer because the baby is of inconvenience in any way, i'll be perfectly blatant with you, "Stop eating potato chips and reading magazines;get off your bum-bum, have the baby, give it up for adoption."

 

[Kerrie]

I'm not posting to express an opinion on abortion in this post. But this is just incorrect. How do you figure that a woman takes no more chances jabbing a coat hanger up her uterus than having a trained professional with appropriate equipment in a clean environment? That is absurd.

exactly dan...abortion clinics have standards and access to necessary medical supplies that are sanitary and SAFE. justinus, would you buy heroin off the street or buy morphine from a pharmacy? the same idea.

think you forget to acknowledge that the aborted fetus itself is a human being.

no, but within a few months it will be. it is entirely dependent upon the female carrying it, from what she eats, how she rests and what she does to her body. that fetus can abort itself during the pregnancy too. miscarriages are quite common.

If the woman knew she did not want a baby she should have thought about that before she had sexual intercourse

don't EVEN throw this out. it takes TWO to create life. this is exactly why abortion needs to remain legal, your attitude is, "if the woman gets pregant, tough ****."

Let's face it, I'm male, I will never carry a baby

absolutely, and after the expression of your "tough ****" attitude, you have no right to dictate what a female can or cannot do.

 

[dekoi]

Kerrie, read my post, and please stop being overthrown by your passions. You're more mature than that.

Also, do you know much about the potentiality and actualization of the sperm, egg, etc.?

I do agree however, that we must include the man in this. It takes two to tango.

So the mother who is thinking of abortion, should be helped to love - that is, to give until it hurts her plans, or her free time, to respect the life of her child. The father of that child, whoever he is, must also give until it hurts. By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion. Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love, but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Kerrie]

To all of those pregnant women who are looking to abortion as the answer because the baby is of inconvenience in any way, i'll be perfectly blatant with you, "Stop eating potato chips and reading magazines;get off your bum-bum, have the baby, give it up for adoption."

absolutely unrealistic, insensitive, and stereotypical. you are unable to put yourself in this position, thus have no room to speak of how a woman can do this. yes, i am sure any woman who has gone through abortion will feel guilt to an immense degree. is that your problem? NO. mind your own business is what i suggest. your suggestion is easier said then done, and until you can go through this act yourself, i suggest you show some compassion for both sides.

 

[dekoi]

absolutely unrealistic, insensitive, and stereotypical. you are unable to put yourself in this position, thus have no room to speak of how a woman can do this. yes, i am sure any woman who has gone through abortion will feel guilt to an immense degree. is that your problem? NO. mind your own business is what i suggest. your suggestion is easier said then done, and until you can go through this act yourself, i suggest you show some compassion for both sides.

I have plenty compassion. More compassion than you would ever imagine. If anything, it is you that are being stereotypical by suggesting that since i am a man, i can not share the struggles of another human being.
ps. "Feel guilt to an immense degree." ? I would think of it as severe depression. This is not just guilt, but depression consequently leading to , in many cases, suicide.

I don't see how someone can justify abortion. And so far, i have not seen any true assertive arguments.

Do we not see *life* in the womb? Do we not see a living person? Do we not view the growth and development of this person, just like we would see it outside of the womb?

From the moment of fertilization, the human has been given breath. To abort is to stop a beating heart.

 

[Kerrie]

Kerrie, read my post, and please stop being overthrown by your passions. You're more mature than that.

Also, do you know much about the potentiality and actualization of the sperm, egg, etc.?

I do agree however, that we must include the man in this. It takes two to tango.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

you must not have been reading ANYTHING i have typed here. I HAVE TWO CHILDREN OF MY OWN. i know the pregnancy/parenthood process, probably more then you do, and i am STILL for the choice being up to the person bearing the responsibility BECAUSE it's none of my business, and not yours either unless YOU knocked her up. if you read my previous post, you would know that i would never suggest an abortion, but merely believe it is not up to me to decide what another person does with their body. shall i judge you for being circumsized, or even uncircumsized? it's none of my business. just because a sperm and egg get together to make a fetus does not guarantee life will happen. during the first three months, that fetus is barely beginning to take shape, and a woman has had plenty of time to decide if she can bear the responsibility of that child. i guarantee you, if she's single, child support, health insurance and shelter will not be easy to come by, unless you personally will help her out.

sorry to lend the "stereotype", but i presume you also are male, unable to understand what it truly feels like to be pregnant, go through childbirth, and be ultimately responsible for another human being for 18 years.

 

[Kerrie]

This is not just guilt, but depression consequently leading to , in many cases, suicide.

please provide reliable statistics, i have known plenty of women still alive who have endured abortions.

please shake off your religious dogmas. besides, men are twice as likely to commit suicide then women.

During the eight year period studied, women who aborted had a 154% higher risk of death from suicide, an 82% higher risk of death from accidents and a 44% higher risk of death from natural causes.

these statistics don't explain real numbers.

 

[dekoi]

if you read my previous post, you would know that i would never suggest an abortion, but merely believe it is not up to me to decide what another person does with their body. shall i judge you for being circumsized, or even uncircumsized? it's none of my business. just because a sperm and egg get together to make a fetus does not guarantee life will happen. during the first three months, that fetus is barely beginning to take shape, and a woman has had plenty of time to decide if she can bear the responsibility of that child. i guarantee you, if she's single, child support, health insurance and shelter will not be easy to come by, unless you personally will help her out.

But it seems that you are suggesting ethical subjectivism. What is good for me might be bad for you, visa versa. Abortion for one woman might be good and for you, let's say, it is bad. Then who is to say whether murder is bad for you and me? Who is to say that i can not kill anyone that i see? Who is to judge me and put me into jail, when it was after all, my own subjective opinion that murder was good?

Don't you see? We need a standard to decide whether abortion is good or not. If we fail to reach a standard, we will be in chaos. Abortion will lead to euthanasia, and euthanasia will lead to genetic screening.

 

[Kerrie]

Don't you see? We need a standard to decide whether abortion is good or not. If we fail to reach a standard, we will be in chaos. Abortion will lead to euthanasia, and euthanasia will lead to genetic screening.

the supreme court has already decided this (at least in america). to change the law now would mean more women risking their lives over the possibility of suicide and depression.

 

[dekoi]

please provide reliable statistics, i have known plenty of women still alive who have endured abortions. these statistics don't explain real numbers.

For example, Meta Uchtman, director of the Cincinnati chapter of Suiciders Anonymous, reported that in a 35 month period her group worked with 4000 women, of whom 1800 or more had abortions. Of those who had abortions, 1400 were between the ages of 15 and 24, the age group with the fastest growing suicide rate in the country.

please shake off your religious dogmas. besides, men are twice as likely to commit suicide then women.

I'm sorry? Religion? Who said anything about religion?

 

[dekoi]

the supreme court has already decided this (at least in america). to change the law now would mean more women risking their lives over the possibility of suicide and depression.

Of course. But after all, to restrict abortion abruptly would be like taking away bananas from monkeys. We must first reach a cultural foundation; we must initially teach people what is wrong with a situation, and why it is wrong. To make abortion illegal right away in a country which has adapted to it for so long, would be very dangerous indeed.

 

[dekoi]

I got to go Kerrie. It's late here in Toronto. I will continue the discussion with you tomorrrow.

Nice talking to you.

 

[Kerrie]

Of course. But after all, to restrict abortion abruptly would be like taking away bananas from monkeys. We must first reach a cultural foundation; we must initially teach people what is wrong with a situation, and why it is wrong. To make abortion illegal right away in a country which has adapted to it for so long, would be very dangerous indeed.

read this link of why abortion remains and will remain legal.

Nine reasons why abortion is legal

I particularly agree with #6:
"6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms."

 

[dekoi]

6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.

==================
i. "incompatible with a free society": I'm sorry, but have there been records of a society in which abortion was legal and we experienced massive chaos because of 'incompatibility'? It mentions "free" society; it's funny that even an organization like Planned Parenthood does not know the meaning of "freedom"/free. To give a person freedom is to give them the right to choose good decisions. To give a person license is to give them the right to choose good and/or bad decisions. A society which allows license is one which allows human beings to be enslaved in their own apathy; this sort of society is one which allows abortion to continue, and let millions of woman suffer for years and years (if they live that long afterwards) and kill 80 newborns every single minute. This sort of society is one which stops a beating heart; one which disturbs natural order, and one which totally takes away the freedoms and liberties of the baby.

"Where will government stop?" This is absurd. To ask a question like this regarding abortion, which "wounds one [woman], kills the other [baby]", is to almost praise abortion as something good . The entire question tries to put the restriction of abortion on the same lines as e.g. putting cameras in private showers and publicizing them.

"It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms." Once again, to give America individual rights and freedoms is to give us power to choose good; to give us freedom would be to steer us away from evil and enslavement. If a government did not do this, would they be fulfilling the goal of a government to protect their population?

There are so many flaws in "Nine Reasons Why Abortions Are Legal" that it is absolutely laugh-out-loud ridiculous. It seems they are begging the question by connecting unrelated information to their "arguments"; if this works so well, perhaps i should to make murder legal as well, or theft for that matter, afterall it is my private matter. We have to stop looking at abortion as such a private matter; "By abortion, the mother does not learn to love, but kills even her own child to solve her problems. And by abortion, the father is told that he does not have to take any responsibility at all for the child he has brought into the world. That father is likely to put other women into the same trouble. So abortion just leads to more abortion."

 

[plus]

read this link of why abortion remains and will remain legal.

I particularly agree with #6:
"6. Compulsory pregnancy laws are incompatible with a free society.

Society is not and should not be completely free. If it were then it would be anarchy.

If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms."

The same point. If the government allows people to murder the unborn, then where will it stop? What about killing new born babies?

The traditional american ideas about individual rights and freedoms do not mean anything. They allowed slavery.

 

[plus]

may say, abstain from sex. is this realistic? i think not. i am not saying that a woman should automatically choose abortion if she didn't mean to get pregnant...abortion for a woman IS a hard decision that factors in how much a woman can sacrifice herself for being a parent...remember, it is the woman who tends to be the primary care giver, who will rely on a man to pay support, to give support. in a society where the mother is most often the single parent (one who never marries the father anyway),

The unborn is produced by a man also with his genes. She should be more careful who she sleeps around with also then. If you like to go around having casual sex, and get pregnant then it may be convenient to kill the offspring, but it is not fair on the person you are killing. Like it or not but sex has some very serious consequences associated with it. Sex should only be completed in a situation where either the woman wants (or will put up with) to be a single parent or in a stable marriage with a responsible man.
There is a choice. Either for things to carry on with women having sex with whoever takes their fancy, and then murdering the offspring.
In my opinion the genocide has to stop. This will require either returning to a situation where more traditional family norms are adopted, with people shunning sex outside marriage. Or for women to be happy being single mothers after being inpregnated by whoever she felt lust for.

Since Kerry posted a link to why she thinks abortion should be legal, have a look at these disturbing pictures of the dead.

http://www.100abortionpictures.com/Aborted_Baby_Pictures_Abortion_Photos/



Now contrast those images with the selfish women who happily have orgasms for fun with whoever. Sure they may feel some guilt later, but most murderers feel this.

 

[dekoi]

I feel sad that we couldn't get this discussion settled without an appeal to emotion (the images plus posted).

Plus i am glad you are participating, but could you read my replies as well?; i think it will contribute to your responses.

 

[Dayle Record]

I am not sure how anti-abortion people were able to conjure up the telepathy, to know that women are emotionally hurt, by abortion. I can see how the anti-abortion movement would seek out women who did feel remorse, to shore up their arguements. All flesh was made by the same creator, whether the creator is a god, or a big accident. So, as you blow your nose, or eat your chicken dinner, or scratch your derriere, I maintain, that it is all the same stuff. Quantum physicists will back me up on this, it is all the same stuff. Even thinking about abortion, in a positive or negative light, is the same stuff. So choosing the anti-abortion stance, is just a matter of need for inappropriate control of lives, and events that are not theirs to control. I think the anti-abortion armchair control freaks, should go to work for charities, that serve the starving, abandoned, born children in this world. Every penny spent in the anti-abortion movement, is taken from the needy. So, to the anti-abortion movement, I say, get up from your computer, your desk, your telephone, and go feed a hungry child, relate to a child, financially support a child, donate to food banks, and to education, and after school care. Adopt a half a dozen hungry kids. But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

 

[dekoi]

I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

Everything i do, i do for the love of humanity. I do not favour the aborted children over the hungry chldren. That is extremely absurd. You "thinking" this is true is equally absurd. How could you possibly know this?

Charity is a wonderful thing, and can be done in numerous ways. Some choose feeding the hungry, others supporting children. I choose helping dying children.

It makes me laugh at how everyone ignores my points on subjectivity and resorts to statements like, "You are trying desperately to find an issue.".

 

[Kerrie]

I am not sure how anti-abortion people were able to conjure up the telepathy, to know that women are emotionally hurt, by abortion. I can see how the anti-abortion movement would seek out women who did feel remorse, to shore up their arguements. All flesh was made by the same creator, whether the creator is a god, or a big accident. So, as you blow your nose, or eat your chicken dinner, or scratch your derriere, I maintain, that it is all the same stuff. Quantum physicists will back me up on this, it is all the same stuff. Even thinking about abortion, in a positive or negative light, is the same stuff. So choosing the anti-abortion stance, is just a matter of need for inappropriate control of lives, and events that are not theirs to control. I think the anti-abortion armchair control freaks, should go to work for charities, that serve the starving, abandoned, born children in this world. Every penny spent in the anti-abortion movement, is taken from the needy. So, to the anti-abortion movement, I say, get up from your computer, your desk, your telephone, and go feed a hungry child, relate to a child, financially support a child, donate to food banks, and to education, and after school care. Adopt a half a dozen hungry kids. But no, they don't want already needy kids, they want babies, that they can control. I think the anti-abortion people aren't loving, they are just trying desperately to find an issue, where they are in the right.

thank you Dayle...it seems those who are anti-abortion are first to preach about the horrid act it is, yet are the last to volunteer to help abused children or mothers on welfare.

I choose helping dying children.

by doing what act? preaching? i certainly hope you aren't one of those who stands at the clinics shouting at the doctors and women.


i have said my piece here...as far as i am concerned, someone else's choice of terminating a new life is none of my business. that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

 

[Hurkyl]

that person will have to be the only one to live with the consequences.

Of course there's another one that doesn't get to live with the consequences.

Whether or not it's your business, the issue of terminating life is certainly something the government is required to address. One point of these discussions, at least as I see it, is to work out how we think it should be addressed.

 

[plus]

I feel sad that we couldn't get this discussion settled without an appeal to emotion (the images plus posted).

Like it or not, a lot of the actions of society are governed by emotion. For example showing starving people in Ethiopia to get people to give money to charity.

The main aim of these pictures is to show that they are real people who are being killed. I would have preferred if it was not from such an emotional/ fanatical website, but I couldn't find anything else quickly. And yes, I admit that you have a more linguistic style of debate.