Should abortion be considered murder?

[Kerrie]

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion! Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings! they deserve LIFE, if that was you, wouldn't you want life? wouldn't you want to live? People who believe abortion is wrong becuase they arent giving the child a chance to live, one life to live... Its murder... I suggest reading Cantile for Lebowitz by Aurthur Miller, it proposes interesting questions about technology, and human life...

Please provide proof or statistics on your absolutely ridiculous claim. Please explain why those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics are less violent then those seeking an abortion.

 

[mattmns]

Please provide proof or statistics on your absolutely ridiculous claim. Please explain why those who shoot abortion doctors and bomb abortion clinics are less violent then those seeking an abortion.

Here is some stuff I found on google really quick.

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch5.html#S1

Here is another one.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/abortioncrime.html

Probably the most significant drop in crime was seen between the years of 1993 and 1997, when Child Abuse and Suicide
Interestingly enough, legalized abortion was supposed to dramatically reduce child abuse. "Every child a wanted child!" abortion proponents cried. "Unwanted children are abused! Abortion will help end child abuse!" Aside from the fact that killing someone because they might be abused isn't very logical, child abuse has increased since the legalization of abortion. The National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect indicates that the prevalence of child abuse is increasing, and the increases are "significant." From 1986 to 1993, the incidence of physical abuse rose 42% (97% under the revised Endangerment Standard), physical neglect rose 102% (163% E.S.), sexual abuse rose 83% (125% E.S.) and emotional neglect rose 333% (188% E.S.). This study did not conclude that better reporting was the reason for the increases:

"Although the rise in the population of endangered children may stem from improved recognition of more subtle cues from the child by community professionals, the rise in the number of serious injuries probably reflects a real increase in child abuse and neglect because it cannot be plausibly explained on the basis of heightened sensitivity." (source: http://www.childabuse.com/fs13.htm )

The study cited parental substance abuse, not the "unwanted" status of the child, as the major factor contributing to increases in abuse.

According to a study by Prevent Child Abuse America, child abuse reporting levels rose 41% between 1988 and 1997. This study did attribute greater public awareness and willingness to report as reasons for the sharp increase. However, the levels rose 1.7% between 1996 and 1997, despite the level of public awareness remaining relatively constant over a one-year period. (source: http://www.childabuse.com/50data97.htm )

I wonder how Levitt and Donohue explain the rise in the level of child abuse since the legalization of abortion? If we have essentially "killed off" many potential criminals through legalized abortion, as they concluded, and abortion itself was supposed to reduce child abuse, why on Earth has child abuse increased? Does this mean that only certain "types" of criminals were aborted, and those who would commit child abuse were not?

 

[Moonbear]

Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion, we are talking about human beings!

That's where we differ. Zygotes and fetuses are not people. If a person has never existed (never been born), they are not 1 out of 4. When you can prove to me they are sentient, independent beings, I'll start listening to the personhood argument.

I'll wait for you to back up the rest of your statistics with reliable sources.

 

[Moonbear]

What one needs to know is that some of the pro-choice
would have tax money pay for abortions.

That is a separate issue. There are "some" of any number of groups of people who support taxes for any number of other causes not supported by everyone in that group.

I myself would rather have taxes go to support the living than to kill unborns.

I too would rather money be spent to help those who are already alive than to terminate pregnancies. To me, the freedom to choose also means not being forced to pay for someone else's abortion if you do not agree with their choice, so I would not be in favor of funding abortions through taxes. Part of choice is also the choice to NOT have an abortion.

I think I'm going to extricate myself from this discussion again. The arguments are still the same and I'm too tired of the same old debate to put the effort into making my points any clearer, so there's really no point in my continuing as part of this discussion.

 

[Evo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by loseyourname
Do you honestly think that people who believe abortion to be immoral do not believe child abuse to be immoral? Seems like a strawman to me.

no, I think what Evo is trying to say is, why aren't the pro-lifers expressing their verbal outrage for child abuse as much as they are expressing their views on abortion? they seem to put a lot more energy on conserving a life yet not about improving the quality of those children already alive and being abused.

Exactly.

 

[Evo]

People who had abortions are more likely to do more child abuse becuase of the stress asocciated with abortion!

That's false. There are no statistics showing that.

Also it has gotten so bad that one out of 4 people have never been born becuase of abortion

Where on Earth are you getting this stuff? Show me a valid study that backs either of your claims up.

 

[Kerrie]

Here is some stuff I found on google really quick.

http://www.leaderu.com/humanities/casey/ch5.html#S1

Here is another one.

http://www.rightgrrl.com/carolyn/abortioncrime.html

no where were there statistics, but only what a pyschiatrists specualtes. the incidences of child abuse increasing significantly since abortion has been legalized does not show a direct correlation between the two, but only specualtion and twisting of facts in order to convince others of what these people want others to see. sorry, your sources are bogus, especially since one site comes from a biblical college, which of course is going to be biased against the facts.

 

[Evo]

Evo, I'm sorry if my questioning of the general public of PF on the issue of abortion makes you sick or disgusted. I also extend my apologies to you if this thread bothers you.

No, no, no,misskitty! I didn't mean it that way, I feel terrible. I meant that I am sick of the fact that the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner.

 

[mattmns]

no where were there statistics, but only what a pyschiatrists specualtes. the incidences of child abuse increasing significantly since abortion has been legalized does not show a direct correlation between the two, but only specualtion and twisting of facts in order to convince others of what these people want others to see. sorry, your sources are bogus, especially since one site comes from a biblical college, which of course is going to be biased against the facts.

I was just pointing out the ideas of psychologist/groups. I am not sure if such statistics would exist: I do not think anyone would ask a child abuser about their stance on abortion.

If you mean statistics as in the 1 in 4 children then I am not sure about that. I have heard that about 35million (up to 1997) abortions have been performed since abortion became legal. I am not sure if that would be 1 in 4 or not.

Source: http://www.californiaprolife.org/abortion/aborstats.html

Here is an interesting part of that site.

Nearly all of the 1.3 million abortions a year are done because the woman did not want to be pregnant at that particular time (although 70% say they intend to have children in the future). The majority of women undergoing an abortion give one or more of the following reasons:

* a baby would interfere with work, school, or other responsibilities (75%)
* cannot afford to have a child (66%)
* do not want to be a single parent or have problems in the relationship with their husband or partner (50%)
* Only 1% of women aborting say they have been advised that their unborn baby has a defect, and only I% say they became pregnant by rape or incest. (Facts in Brief, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, September 1995.)

 

[Andromeda321]

In response to mattmns's statistics, gah you people, what's wrong with adoption?!? There are people who want to adopt kids so much right now in this country that they're literally willing to go to the ends of the Earth to do it and it's at no cost to you...
Sorry everyone, it just seems that the reasonings cited are rather selfish ones. I mean yes you messed up your life a bit by getting pregnant and don't want to mess up another but out of that you can give arguably the greatest gift possible to a person by giving them life. (Not to mention the happiness of the family who can have kids when they themselves cannot.)

 

[Kerrie]

It's just my thought andromeda, but going through a pregnancy and then giving up that baby could be extremely difficult. Also, a woman can't easily hide her pregnancy after she gets so far along thus, abortion is her option if she doesn't want others to know she got pregnant for whatever reasons. For some women, being pregnant and unmarried is a nightmare. I agree with what you are saying about adoption, however, being pregnant myself and then giving up my baby would be extremely heartwrenching, and could leave a scar as big as going through an abortion.

 

[Evo]

Abortion was legalized in the US because of the high incidence of death, sterility and other serious side affects of illegal abortions. But this mostly only happened to the poor, the rich could "arrange" medical abortions for their daughters, either through a friend or relative or by flying their daughter to a country where abortion was legal. But I guess none of you bothered to research why abortion was legalized here? Do you really think that making abortion illegal again is going to stop abortion? Are you really that naive?

Without abortion, there would not be nearly enough people willing to adopt, think of the millions of children doomed to live out their lives in an orphanage. How are we as a nation going to handle the expense? When do we cut off the care? Can we ever cut off the care to those that don't adapt? They will end up on welfare or in prisons. Have you ever thought this through? You say "stop abortion", ok then what? These women that now can't work, can't go to school, they also become burdens on society. Not everyone has a loving, supporting family that they can turn to for help. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

What we need to be focusing on is more education and birth control for the young. We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

Logical Reasoning in Support of Abortion: Not Just Pro-Choice Arguments

1. There are already enough children, who need homes, and some couples are petty and have unfair expectations; adoption shouldn't be perceived as, like in a dog pound, where people want "the cute one." We don't need more children in the world when people are starving.

2. Population control: Darwinism shows that an excessive population results in Darwinistic tendencies; shouldn’t we not kill things and fight over resources?

3. If you’re concerned about the possibility of a future living human, you should wonder about the unborn child. If a woman has one child, she may give the baby to an adopting family; however, that is one less child getting adopted because the family is satisfied. What happens when an excessive amount of babies are available? The child becomes the responsibility of the mother. She may have two children when she grows up, but she one of her children will be born early - the child may struggle through hardship and become less likely to benefit society; however, if the mother waits, she will become more of a benefit to society, and the her future 1st child will have a greater chance at success in life.

4. If the mother hasn't had the child and doesn't want it, then the child has no value to society. Why should society value the life of something that doesn't contribute to its well being? Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

 

[mattmns]

Without abortion, there would not be nearly enough people willing to adopt, think of the millions of children doomed to live out their lives in an orphanage. How are we as a nation going to handle the expense? When do we cut off the care? Can we ever cut off the care to those that don't adapt? They will end up on welfare or in prisons. Have you ever thought this through? You say "stop abortion", ok then what? These women that now can't work, can't go to school, they also become burdens on society. Not everyone has a loving, supporting family that they can turn to for help. Not everyone is as fortunate as you.

What we need to be focusing on is more education and birth control for the young. We need to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.

Yes we should be focusing on preventing unwanted pregnancies. But what are people supposed to think? "Hey we can have sex, I will just get an abortion if I become pregnant." (not that I heard anyone say this) My reasoning is this: If you are not ready to have a baby (due to work, school, etc) then do not have sex.

 

[learningphysics]

4. If the mother hasn't had the child and doesn't want it, then the child has no value to society. Why should society value the life of something that doesn't contribute to its well being? Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

Why does it matter whether or not the mother has had the child? Why doesn't your reasoning apply AFTER the child has been born? Or does it apply? Why should society value the life of a baby that doesn't contribute to its well being?

 

[Evo]

I'm saying that people need to get off of their respective bandwagons of whether abortion should be legal or illegal since abortion will not stop, only how it is done.

Abortions have taken place all through history and will continue. People need to stop hiding their heads in the sand. I hear "if you don't want a child, don't have sex". So, you're saying that people should only have sex when they wish to get the woman pregnant? How many people here, honestly, can say that they have only had sex with the intention of having a child? Is that realistic?

Let's face it folks, people are going to have sex. Parents that will not allow their children access to birth control are in denial of reality. Yes, there are some that can control themselves, kudos to them, but reading the threads here, it seems those are definitely not the norm.

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

When born at a time the mother chooses, a baby can be a source of happiness -children can cause happiness when raised during an appropriate time and when loved. Furthermore, the child is tangibly avaliable to everyone. Other people are brought jubilation by its presence - the joy is more intense when watching a mother love a child, since to see dislike, in a mother's eyes, is not an enjoyable feeling. Have you never seen a mother, in a store, drag a child around like it's a burden - the look of scorn she can present is often horrifying.

 

[Pengwuino]

Abortion on page 9 in like 4 days... saw that coming :D

 

[learningphysics]

When born at a time the mother chooses, a baby can be a source of happiness -children can cause happiness when raised during an appropriate time and when loved. Furthermore, the child is tangibly avaliable to everyone. Other people are brought jubilation by its presence - the joy is more intense when watching a mother love a child, since to see dislike, in a mother's eyes, is not an enjoyable feeling. Have you never seen a mother, in a store, drag a child around like it's a burden - the look of scorn she can present is often horrifying.

Well, the prospect of a child that is going to be born can also bring joy to many. And the abortion brings unhappiness to many. However the feelings of the mother take precedence over the feelings of others. Why should this change after birth?

So is it acceptable to kill a child that is unwanted by the mother?

Here's what you said:

Should society value this "feeling matter" because someone will mourn its loss? No, because the mother, who has the right to lament its death, does not want it. So, basically, society should value a noncontributing, order disturbing, improperly timed, negatively life altering and logically defying agglomeration? I think not.

Everything written above applies to a born child that is unwanted by the mother. Why one set of rules after birth, another set before birth.

 

[Evo]

Well, the prospect of a child that is going to be born can also bring joy to many. And the abortion brings unhappiness to many.

And the prospect of a child that is going to be born can bring despair, fear, ostracization and humiliation, to the point that many women getting pregnant at the wrong time has caused them to take their own lives.

 

[learningphysics]

And the prospect of a child that is going to be born can bring despair, fear, ostracization and humiliation, to the point that many women getting pregnant at the wrong time has caused them to take their own lives.

Yes, and a child that has already been born can bring despair and fear to the mother's life. Can we terminate this child?

What I'm getting at is that these issues of care, welfare, adoption, lack of financial reousrces to care for the child... are getting away from the real issue... whether or not the unborn child is alive, has rights etc...

 

[Evo]

are getting away from the real issue... whether or not the unborn child is alive, has rights etc...

Which my point is that abortion will continue, legal or illegal, but more harm is done by illegal abortion.

So should we make abortion illegal so that we can all pat ourselves on the back and stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem is gone?

 

[learningphysics]

Which my point is that abortion will continue, legal or illegal, but more harm is done by illegal abortion.

So should we make abortion illegal so that we can all pat ourselves on the back and stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the problem is gone?

If the unborn child is a human, and has the rights of a human, then isn't it critical to stop it from happening?

If abortion is illegal, then at least the numbers will go down. It will work as a deterrent at least. No punishment to any crime is perfect. Murder still takes place, rape still takes place, theft still takes place... do we just forget about punishing the criminals because the crimes still happen?

Would you give such a response to any other crime? Child abuse will take place whether or not it is made illegal, but illegal child abuse creates more harm?

I'm not saying abortion is a crime, or that the unborn has the same rights as a human... but IF it does... then we have to treat abortion as any other crime, and do our best to prevent it from happening.

The critical issue is the rights of the unborn child... what these rights are etc...

 

[Evo]

I'm not saying abortion is a crime, or that the unborn has the same rights as a human... but IF it does... then we have to treat abortion as any other crime, and do our best to prevent it from happening.

The critical issue is the rights of the unborn child... what these rights are etc...

This is where it gets dangerous. Until after the 8th week, it is not a fetus, it is an embryo. Many women will spontaneously abort (miscarry) during this period. When a woman miscarries during this time, no death of an infant is recorded, no death certificate. Can you imagine trying to record every miscarriage into public record?

If we were to claim that an embryo was a fully developed person and had all human rights, we get into a very problamatic situation. If a woman miscarried during this time, does she have to bring in the contents of her toilet bowl, sheets, underwear, etc... so it can be determined (how I wouldn't know) that she was not in some way responsible for it's "death". Will we start throwing women into jail for horseback riding, or mountain biking or improper nutrition? Does she have to give a name to something not visible to the naked eye, get a death certificate and have it buried?

What about someone that doesn't like her and claims the miscarriage was an "intentional" abortion?

 

[Dooga Blackrazor]

One set of rules is designed around the integration of a being into society; the other is based on the choice whether or not a child is appropriate at a certain time. Something, a child, that is part of society should not be removed from it when it can contribute and would be physically willing, in the future, to be thankful for its life; this can be turned around, I know, but I can refute that opposite arguements. For example, an aborted child who lives would be thankful for life, but so would the theoretical unborn child who doesn't result because of a failure to abort - the child who would live a happier life.

An unborn child has no logical rights. The embracing of paradoxically moral beliefs has to be done through the acceptance that there is no real altruism. You have no need to care for the unborn child, unless you are expecting it; nevertheless, you should want the best for the mother and the future, theoretical, happier child that may never be born because of a failure to abort.

 

[Kerrie]

I don't think many realize how many spontaneous abortions really do occur in women. I think the rate is 1 in 3? Anyhow, Evo, I have to agree 110% with what you are saying here. It's about a woman's safety, health, life, and rights of her body that are above the unborn child. This is the main factor in why it is legal, more of a practical reason over a moral one. In this instance, one must be practical over being moral. You cannot tell anyone to stop having sex, it's just not going to happen. But you can provide birth control and education to prevent these unwanted pregnancies.

It's a sad fact that it is done, but no matter what it will continue to be done regardless of what morals are cast upon our society. Women usually cannot obtain an abortion after 16 weeks, and some clinics won't go past 12 weeks, which is the time that miscarriage is most likely to happen anyway. It doesn't matter why she is choosing to abort, if she wants it to happen and seeks whatever means, we need to protect her from an unsterile environment and untrained people who do not know how to perform the procedure.

 

[Rev Prez]

I'm saying that people need to get off of their respective bandwagons of whether abortion should be legal or illegal since abortion will not stop, only how it is done.

Neither will fraud, murder, or any number of illegal activities.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

This is where it gets dangerous.

I don't see why. By the time a pregnancy is detected after the third week, and the rate of miscarriage falls off http://www.pregnancyloss.info/statistics.htm . The state can adopt a simple two track system (log a pregnancy, log its end) that sufficiently scales to meet its new obligations for a little less effort than it takes to log a birth and fill out a death certificate.

Can you imagine trying to record every miscarriage into public record?

Yes. Given the overwhelming majority of detected spontoneous abortions will occur under circumstances no more suspicious than the menstrual cycle, the only issue remaining is to track pregnancies. In that case, the objections collapse to only those which fall out of the theory of privacy and balanced interests arrived at in Roe v. Wade.

Besides, granting personhood status to the fetus attaches legal obligations to seek and provide pre-natal care. Is that a bad thing?

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Logical Reasoning in Support of Abortion: Not Just Pro-Choice Arguments

These are arguments in support of a host of other controversial programs, including but not limited to killing born children. So, to avoid blurring a distinction between the fetus and the born you have to deny personhood to the fetus--that brings you right back to what we're talking about.

Rev Prez

 

[Rev Prez]

Abortion was legalized in the US because of the high incidence of death, sterility and other serious side affects of illegal abortions.

Really? Where in Roe v. Wade did you find that little gem?

Rev Prez

 

[Evo]

Really? Where in Roe v. Wade did you find that little gem?

Rev Prez

That's just the court case, I am talking about the reasons people were pushing to get abortions legalized. I know, I lived through that time.

 

[loseyourname]

no, I think what Evo is trying to say is, why aren't the pro-lifers expressing their verbal outrage for child abuse as much as they are expressing their views on abortion? they seem to put a lot more energy on conserving a life yet not about improving the quality of those children already alive and being abused.

Child abuse is universally decried and is already illegal. If abortion had the same status, it is doubtful that many people would be raising a voice against abortion.

Anyway, my point was that we should discuss purely the merits of the arguments put forth, not use ad hominem tactics to question the motivations of our opponents. It shouldn't matter to this thread why opponents of abortion speak out against abortion, oftentimes more loudly than they do against anything else. What is important is whether or not their arguments are compelling and they are correct to postulate that abortion is murder.

 

[Moonbear]

That's just the court case, I am talking about the reasons people were pushing to get abortions legalized. I know, I lived through that time.

Evo is correct that making abortion illegal isn't going to make it go away, it only makes it less safe. For evidence of this, one only need to look at countries where abortion is currently illegal or unavailable; abortions still happen, and at great risk to the women undergoing the procedure.

From:
Finkielman JD, De Feo FD, Heller PG, Afessa B.
The clinical course of patients with septic abortion admitted to an intensive care unit.
Intensive Care Med. 2004 Jun;30(6):1097-102.

Unsafe abortion, abortion characterized by the lack or inadequate skills of health care providers, hazardous techniques, and unsanitary facilities is one of the neglected health care problems in developing countries [1]. Abortion remains a common cause of maternal death in the developing world, and deaths from abortion result primarily from sepsis [1, 2].

Morbidity and mortality from septic abortion are widespread in countries where abortion is illegal or inaccessible [2]. The reported mortality rate from septic abortion has ranged from 0 to 34% [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10]. Complications occur frequently following septic abortion. These complications include peritonitis, hemorrhage requiring transfusion, uterine perforation, renal failure, coagulopathy, liver dysfunction, and lower genitourinary tract injury [5, 6, 10]. In countries where abortion is legal, mortality due to abortion is infrequent, and septic abortion has become a rare condition. In the United States (where abortion is legal), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention identified nine deaths among 884,273 legally induced abortions reported in 1998 and none died as a result of illegally induced abortion [11]. In a recent study of 74 obstetric patients admitted consecutively to an intensive care unit (ICU) from January 1991 to December 1998, only one had septic abortion [12].

In Argentina, abortion is illegal and the estimated proportion of maternal deaths due to abortion has remained around 30% [1, 13].

References:

1. Division of Reproductive Health (1998) Unsafe abortion. Global and regional estimates of incidence of and mortality due to unsafe abortion, with a listing of available country data (WHO/RHT/MSM/97.16). World Health Organization. Geneva
2. Stubblefield PG, Grimes DA (1994) Septic abortion. N Engl J Med 331:310–314
3. Spina V, Bertelli S, Bartucca B, Bonessio L, Aleandri V (2001) Current
clinical features of septic abortion in Western countries. A series of cases
observed during 1998 at the 1st and 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology of the University of Rome La Sapienza. Minerva Ginecol 53:351–356 [in Italian]
4. Hawkins DF, Sevitt LH, Fairbrother PF, Tothill AU (1975) Management of
septic chemical abortion with renal failure. Use of a conservative regimen.
N Engl J Med 292:722–725
5. Adewole IF (1992) Trends in postabortal mortality and morbidity in
Ibadan, Nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 38:115–118
6. Konje JC, Obisesan KA (1991) Septic abortion at University College Hospital, Ibadan, Nigeria. Int J Gynaecol Obstet 36:121–125
7. Bartlett RH, Yahia C (1969) Management of septic chemical abortion with
renal failure. Report of five consecutive cases with five survivors. N Engl J Med
281:747–753
8. Rivlin ME, Hunt JA (1986) Surgical management of diffuse peritonitis
complicating obstetric/gynecologic infections. Obstet Gynecol 67:652–656
9. Cane RD, Rivlin M, Buchanan N (1976) The management of septic
abortion in an intensive care unit. Eur J Intensive Care Med 2:135–138
10. Lanari A, Firmat J, Paz RA, Rodo JE (1973) Septic abortion with acute renal insufficiency. Study of 150 cases. Medicina (B Aires) 33:331–360 [in
Spanish]
11. Elam-Evans LD, Strauss LT, Herndon J, Parker WY, Whitehead S, Berg CJ
(2002) Abortion surveillance–United States, 1999. MMWR Surveill Summ
51:1–9, 11–28
12. Afessa B, Green B, Delke I, Koch K (2001) Systemic inflammatory response syndrome, organ failure, and outcome in critically ill obstetric patients treated in an ICU. Chest 120:1271–1277
13. Direcci n de estad sticas e informaci n de salud (2002) Estad sticas vitales— Informaci n b sica a o 2001. Ministerio de Salud. Buenos Aires, Argentina

 

[arildno]

Up to a certain point, a fetus cannot be regarded as anything else than a quaint appendage in a woman's body.
That woman has, of course, full rights as to decide over her own body parts.

 

[loseyourname]

Abortion was legalized in the US because of the high incidence of death, sterility and other serious side affects of illegal abortions. But this mostly only happened to the poor, the rich could "arrange" medical abortions for their daughters, either through a friend or relative or by flying their daughter to a country where abortion was legal. But I guess none of you bothered to research why abortion was legalized here?

Did you bother to research why abortion is legal here? This page contains the full text of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe v. Wade.

• This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

The original district court ruling stated that the Ninth Amendent to the US Constitution guaranteed a right of privacy that included the decision to terminate a pregnancy without state interference. The Supreme Court disagreed, but ruled that, in fact, the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed that right.

• On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree. Appellant's arguments that Texas either has no valid interest at all in regulating the abortion decision, or no interest strong enough to support any limitation upon the woman's sole determination, are unpersuasive. The Court's decisions recognizing a right of privacy also acknowledge that some state regulation in areas protected by that right is appropriate. As noted above, a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. The privacy right involved, therefore, cannot be said to be absolute. In fact, it is not clear to us that the claim asserted by some amici that one has an unlimited right to do with one's body as one pleases bears a close relationship to the right of privacy previously articulated in the Court's decisions. The Court has refused to recognize an unlimited right of this kind in the past.

Contrary to what many people believe, the Supreme Court did not interpret the constitution in such a way that the right to terminate a pregnancy was absolute. The state is said to have a legitimate interest at some point during pregnancy in protecting both the health of the mother and in protecting potential life. When this point occurs is never stated.

• We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.

The above statement seems to indicate that some level of state regulation, in the aforementioned interests of protecting maternal health and unborn life, is constitutional. Again, how much regulation and what form it is allowed to take is never stated.

• The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  
  . . .
  
  All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.

The above statement by the Court is the basis of contemporary pro-life arguments that, if it can be established that the unborn should be granted the status of personhood based on moral concerns, then Roe v. Wade becomes moot, and indeed guarantees that these unborn have the right not to be killed.

Note that the court never ruled on the matter of whether or not the unborn should be considered persons. In fact, the court took no stand on the issue of when life began or what the moral status of a fetus was. They ruled only that the constitution and subsequent rulings have never recognized the unborn as having full personhood (similar to the Dred Scott decision). They did, however, say this:

• In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.

This was true at the time of the ruling. Although limited personhood was granted to the unborn by some laws and rulings, each of these granted personhood contingent on the fact that the unborn should eventually become born. Should they die before birth, whatever rights they had been granted were thus taken away. Ignoring the illogic of this stance, we have the further problem that, as of today, the legal status of personhood is not just bestowed upon the unborn contingent on their birth. California at least, and perhaps other states (though I am not certain of this) now allows that anyone other than the mother or physician of the mother be charged with murder for the killing of an unborn child. This is discussed by myself in the Scott Peterson thread. The Roe v. Wade decision was made contingent upon the fact that no prior ruling had ever recognized full personhood for the unborn, unless they eventually were born. Now we have laws and rulings in which full personhood is granted to unborn children who never are born. With a significant part of the Supreme Court's rationale taken away, what are we now to do?

The Court also stated this:

• As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.

I urge you to consider all of this, and ask yourself whether the legal basis of abortion is really as strong as you previously believed.