The "back alley abortion" myth

[themuzicman]

In Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson admits:

In NARAL, we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter, it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports only 39 deaths as a result of abortion in 1972. Nathanson believes that the actual total, allowing for under-reporting, was no more than 500. While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called epidemic of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America's acceptance of the procedure.


So, can we dispense with this claim yet? There was never an epidemic of "back alley" abortions, even when abortion was illegal, and there won't be, if abortion is made illegal again.

Michael

[Ytaker]

So, can we dispense with this claim yet? There was never an epidemic of "back alley" abortions, even when abortion was illegal, and there won't be, if abortion is made illegal again.

Michael

It's interesting to not on the graph of deaths that the number of deaths goes up in the year abortion in legalised, though it then continues to plumet as healthcare got better and better (and stronger antibiotics were found) . Most illegal abortions were done by trained physicians.

[Snarf]

In Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson admits:

In NARAL, we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter, it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports only 39 deaths as a result of abortion in 1972. Nathanson believes that the actual total, allowing for under-reporting, was no more than 500. While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called epidemic of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America's acceptance of the procedure.




So, can we dispense with this claim yet? There was never an epidemic of "back alley" abortions, even when abortion was illegal, and there won't be, if abortion is made illegal again.

Michael
I enjoy reading the futile bleatings of pro-lifers still sore about losing in 1973-face it the tyranny of control over women's bodies ain't gonna come back.

[Meh_Gerbil]

I enjoy reading the futile bleatings of pro-lifers still sore about losing in 1973-face it the tyranny of control over women's bodies ain't gonna come back.

Actually, Roe vs. Wade is being undermined all over the USA.

[Ytaker]

I enjoy reading the futile bleatings of pro-lifers still sore about losing in 1973-face it the tyranny of control over women's bodies ain't gonna come back.

Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) disagrees. She believes that she was manipulated into the case by Sarah Weddington, and has turned pro-life. The laws for the protection of the unborn might come back.

Does it not worry you that the case was passed by duplicitous methods and lies, not honest scientific and philosophical discussion and fact?

[Snarf]

Actually, Roe vs. Wade is being undermined all over the USA.

You've been saying that for years-unfortunately for pro-lifers two factors exist:

1) The majority of Americans favor legalized abortion
2) Supreme Court decisions since 1973 have upheld the woman's fundamental right to an abortion

Won't change anytime soon, as it shouldn't

[Snarf]

Norma McCorvey (alias Jane Roe) disagrees. She believes that she was manipulated into the case by Sarah Weddington, and has turned pro-life. The laws for the protection of the unborn might come back.

Does it not worry you that the case was passed by duplicitous methods and lies, not honest scientific and philosophical discussion and fact?

I don't believe her, plain and simple. To have gone throught the whole process took quite a bit of dedication and action on Norma's part-she can save her "I'm a victim" speech for the choir. If she had not become born-again, would you believe her? Be honest.

I really don't know what duplicitous methods and lies you are talking about but I'm sure it went on; but in fairness I have certainly seen pro-lifers telling lies for the cause-I don't believe in the sincerity of any political extremist.
What helps tip the scales are that pro-lifers have also been known to engage in murder to further their fanatical cause-even the whackiest of the feminist nutcases like Dworkin didn't use murder to advance their cause.

[Piebald]

the tyranny of control over women's bodies


[attachment=1]
Curses! After thousands of years my reign of tyranny has finally been overthrown. You win this round, Mommy.

[Bill the Cat]

even the whackiest of the feminist nutcases like Dworkin didn't use murder to advance their cause.

Because murder IS their cause...

[Snarf]

Because murder IS their cause...
Please prove your assertion...

[Bill the Cat]

Please prove your assertion...
I've already been around and around with you on this, and you will never be convinced that an unborn baby is a person. No amount of forensic or scientific data will convince your accepting eyes that it should not be perfectly legal to kill a child in-utero, no matter what stage of development. No amount of doctor testimony will convince you. You are a willing tool of a money making machine. I value the potential life of the unborn. You value the cash making ability of the "doctors". Because of that difference, I will make my assertation again. You can dismiss it all you like, I really don't care.

Abortion is murder.

[Mujibur]

What helps tip the scales are that pro-lifers have also been known to engage in murder to further their fanatical cause-even the whackiest of the feminist nutcases like Dworkin didn't use murder to advance their cause.

On the other hand, most pro-lifers would consider every time an abortion is carried out as "using murder". So, which side is guilty of committing more murders?

[Meh_Gerbil]

You've been saying that for years-unfortunately for pro-lifers two factors exist:

1) The majority of Americans favor legalized abortion
2) Supreme Court decisions since 1973 have upheld the woman's fundamental right to an abortion

Won't change anytime soon, as it shouldn't

Whatever you say. :sigh:

[Snarf]

I've already been around and around with you on this, and you will never be convinced that an unborn baby is a person. No amount of forensic or scientific data will convince your accepting eyes that it should not be perfectly legal to kill a child in-utero, no matter what stage of development. No amount of doctor testimony will convince you. You are a willing tool of a money making machine. I value the potential life of the unborn. You value the cash making ability of the "doctors". Because of that difference, I will make my assertation again. You can dismiss it all you like, I really don't care.

Abortion is murder.

And how do you value the life of the unborn? Do you support social services to help poor people who can't take care of their babies, or do you dismiss their suffering as "well it was their choice." Do you give money to help children? Do you do something to help the child's life after they are born?

Or do they cease to be deserving of your care once they are born?

Or do you just parade around mindlessly chanting pro-life, because it's what your pastor says, and because it gives you a feeling of power to try and force women to undergo a pregnancy that they don't want, just so you can show off your spiritual brownie points?

[Snarf]

On the other hand, most pro-lifers would consider every time an abortion is carried out as "using murder". So, which side is guilty of committing more murders?

Depends on how one defines "murder." I consider the death penalty to be murder too, but lots of pro-lifers seem to like it. Lots of pro-lifers also used to lynch African-Americans too, I guess they are really pro-'whatever form of human life I think is justified, (beep) the rest'

[Pilgrim]

I enjoy reading the futile bleatings of pro-lifers still sore about losing in 1973-face it the tyranny of control over women's bodies ain't gonna come back.
errr.....ok. Thanks for that interesting excurion onto insult island. Now, do you have anything meaningful to contribute or were planning to contiue being a troll?

[Pilgrim]

And how do you value the life of the unborn? Do you support social services to help poor people who can't take care of their babies, or do you dismiss their suffering as "well it was their choice." Do you give money to help children? Do you do something to help the child's life after they are born?

Or do they cease to be deserving of your care once they are born?

Or do you just parade around mindlessly chanting pro-life, because it's what your pastor says, and because it gives you a feeling of power to try and force women to undergo a pregnancy that they don't want, just so you can show off your spiritual brownie points?
Oh please. less the 5% of abortions in the US are perfomed for any meaninful reason of health. So that means these unwanted pregancnies are the result of poor planning and are, in fact, the product of choice: the choice to have unproteced sex. Let's not appeal to emotion here ok? Let's just look at the facts.

I'll meet any pro-abortion person half way and say, "ok, let's just stop abortion as birth control or abortion as a matter of convenience. Everything else goes." It seems that's a reasonable thing. I know of no individual who thinks that abortion for birth control or convenience is a good thing. So let's just come together on that one. That would stop upwards of 95% of all abortions in the US. How about it?

[Ytaker]

I don't believe her, plain and simple. To have gone throught the whole process took quite a bit of dedication and action on Norma's part-she can save her "I'm a victim" speech for the choir. If she had not become born-again, would you believe her? Be honest.

I really don't know what duplicitous methods and lies you are talking about but I'm sure it went on; but in fairness I have certainly seen pro-lifers telling lies for the cause-I don't believe in the sincerity of any political extremist.
What helps tip the scales are that pro-lifers have also been known to engage in murder to further their fanatical cause-even the whackiest of the feminist nutcases like Dworkin didn't use murder to advance their cause.

That she was manipulated by lawyers? Hmm, that's a tough one. People in the legal profession with a bias would never convince someone into their cause with falsehoods to attack a law they didn't like *cough* Scopes Trial *cough* *cough* PE teacher *cough*. They are all completely incorruptible :ahem: .

If she had not become born again, I would still think she was speaking the truth. She was not put into the trial for a true reason. She claimed she was raped, and that rape was the reason. (she latter admitted it was a lie.) Since it was started for a lie, then I do not find it hard that the people that recruited her were doing it to break a law (and so were willing to get her do something she did not want), not help her get her rights. Do not support the legal profession. They are all evil. :noid:

The 5000-10000 figure referenced to convince people that back alley abortions were rampant. There are similar claims of mass deaths worldwide that don't add up. The use of Haeckel's embryos, a dubious theory that was proved wrong a year after it came into the world (1866ish), and the idea that around 10% of women who are raped become pregnant (this is very easy to logically disprove). The first one was at the start of the topic. Read the topic before you talk about the posts.

Whilst not great actions, you aren't showing a clear line of thought for them. If you believe an unborn baby is a full human, then if millions of them are killed, then some will take extreme measures. Imagine if all black people were said to be non-persons, and killed at the behest of random white people. That would annoy many people. Same with this, assuming you accept the underlining preposition. The people who use murder are very rare.

[Bill the Cat]

And how do you value the life of the unborn? Do you support social services to help poor people who can't take care of their babies,

Yes. I give to charities that help underpriviledged parents. Just yesterday, I helped a man who needed diapers for his daughter in Petersburg. I took him into a store and bought a full pack of diapers for him.

or do you dismiss their suffering as "well it was their choice."

I dismiss irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control.

Do you give money to help children?

No. I give practical things like food and diapers.

Do you do something to help the child's life after they are born?

Yes.

Or do they cease to be deserving of your care once they are born?

Absolutely not. I rejoice when they are no longer the target of murderous "doctors" that you support that see them as nothing more than a disposable comodity to fund their mansion.

Or do you just parade around mindlessly chanting pro-life, because it's what your pastor says,

I was anti-abortion long before I was a Christian, so put that in yer peace pipe and smoke it!

and because it gives you a feeling of power to try and force women to undergo a pregnancy that they don't want,

Then they needed to keep their legs closed! If you don't want a cake, don't buy the mix!

[JSDileo]

And how do you value the life of the unborn? Do you support social services to help poor people who can't take care of their babies, or do you dismiss their suffering as "well it was their choice." Do you give money to help children? Do you do something to help the child's life after they are born?

Or do they cease to be deserving of your care once they are born?

Or do you just parade around mindlessly chanting pro-life, because it's what your pastor says, and because it gives you a feeling of power to try and force women to undergo a pregnancy that they don't want, just so you can show off your spiritual brownie points?

That is just about the most plain red herring that I've seen all day.

[lao tzu]

Oh please. less the 5% of abortions in the US are perfomed for any meaninful reason of health. So that means these unwanted pregancnies are the result of poor planning and are, in fact, the product of choice: the choice to have unproteced sex. Let's not appeal to emotion here ok? Let's just look at the facts.

I'll meet any pro-abortion person half way and say, "ok, let's just stop abortion as birth control or abortion as a matter of convenience. Everything else goes." It seems that's a reasonable thing. I know of no individual who thinks that abortion for birth control or convenience is a good thing. So let's just come together on that one. That would stop upwards of 95% of all abortions in the US. How about it?

Greetings, Pilgrim,

The first step in meeting your opponents half-way is to avoid mislabeling them. There are no "pro-abortion" people other than in the propagandized speech of pro-life advocates. The term you should try to practice is "pro-choice".

I'll say it again. No one likes abortion. No woman gets up one morning and thinks, "Hmm, I'm bored, can't think of anything to do. Oh, I know, I'll have an abortion! That'll be fun!" But this is the image presented with the term "pro-abortion". Thus an offer to meet this non-existent individual half-way can hardly be seen as sincere.

I rarely participate in these threads without some small hope of a meaningful discussion. Nor does the OP make me think this thread has such promise. But you might want to check out one of my old threads on the subject of meeting half way, Two out of three ain't good (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67244&page=1&pp=16).

As ever, Jesse

[Bill the Cat]

Greetings, Pilgrim,

The first step in meeting your opponents half-way is to avoid mislabeling them. There are no "pro-abortion" people other than in the propagandized speech of pro-life advocates. The term you should try to practice is "pro-choice".

I'll say it again. No one likes abortion. No woman gets up one morning and thinks, "Hmm, I'm bored, can't think of anything to do. Oh, I know, I'll have an abortion! That'll be fun!" But this is the image presented with the term "pro-abortion". Thus an offer to meet this non-existent individual half-way can hardly be seen as sincere.

I rarely participate in these threads without some small hope of a meaningful discussion. Nor does the OP make me think this thread has such promise. But you might want to check out one of my old threads on the subject of meeting half way, Two out of three ain't good (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67244&page=1&pp=16).

As ever, Jesse
Taoist,

I have to correct you. My wife recalled a story when she went in for her first abortion. There was a woman in the clinic who was in there for her 9th abortion. She told my scared then-teenage wife that abortion was cheaper than birth control pills, and joked that she got a "bulk discount". There are women out there who do use abortion and seem to not learn their lesson.

Pro-abortion means in favor of abortion. This "Pro-Choice" misnomer is just that... a misnomer. Its like saying pro-war is pro-choice in relation to war. Don't label the decision, label the issue pro or con. I use the terms anti-abortion and pro-life interchangeably, as they mean the same thing.

[lao tzu]

Taoist,

I have to correct you.

Bill,

As a matter of fact, you don't.

As ever, Jesse

[geochron]

Taoist,

I have to correct you. My wife recalled a story when she went in for her first abortion. There was a woman in the clinic who was in there for her 9th abortion. She told my scared then-teenage wife that abortion was cheaper than birth control pills, and joked that she got a "bulk discount". There are women out there who do use abortion and seem to not learn their lesson.



While I don't think this is great behaviour, I'm not prepared to legislate to stop it. Up to a certain point I don't think an embryo can reasonably be seen as a human being for legal purposes. Before that point I don't care why a woman wants an abortion.

[Pilgrim]

Greetings, Pilgrim,

The first step in meeting your opponents half-way is to avoid mislabeling them. There are no "pro-abortion" people other than in the propagandized speech of pro-life advocates. The term you should try to practice is "pro-choice".

I'll say it again. No one likes abortion. No woman gets up one morning and thinks, "Hmm, I'm bored, can't think of anything to do. Oh, I know, I'll have an abortion! That'll be fun!" But this is the image presented with the term "pro-abortion". Thus an offer to meet this non-existent individual half-way can hardly be seen as sincere.

I rarely participate in these threads without some small hope of a meaningful discussion. Nor does the OP make me think this thread has such promise. But you might want to check out one of my old threads on the subject of meeting half way, Two out of three ain't good (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=67244&page=1&pp=16).

As ever, Jesse
I have to disagree with you on one point. I have personally had women in my office for counseling who have said the following: "Well, what's the big deal, I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant, no problem."

I have heard it many times in particular from women under 20 who are still in school and just want to have fun. If that's not a pro-abortion sentiment then I don't know what is. Any ideology that allows for abortions of convenience ie. as birth control, is an ideology that can be correctly labled "pro-abortion."

If I am talking of a person or group that advocates choice where medical issues or rape is involved then I exclusively use the term "pro-choice."

As an aside, I met with a widower once who told me of his wife's death in labor. They knew that there was a very very high chance she would die in labor but she CHOSE to have the child anyway. His experience was that the medical community derided and shamed her for that choice. So, how pro-choice were those who were given the task of caring for this family medically? This woman simply believed that selflessness was to give up her life for a weaker vessel rather than destroying that vessel for ones own sake. That sounds aweful close to the gospel message to me.

I can't say I'd make the same choice necessarily but it was her choice. Why was she given such a hard time about that choice? BTW, their daughter is alive and well and full of promise.

[Pilgrim]

While I don't think this is great behaviour, I'm not prepared to legislate to stop it. Up to a certain point I don't think an embryo can reasonably be seen as a human being for legal purposes. Before that point I don't care why a woman wants an abortion.
Except that in many states it is. For example if you kill a pregnant woman in many places you are automatically charged with double homicide. Seems the legal precident is already established and we just decided to change it because it was an inconvenient one.

[geochron]

Except that in many states it is. For example if you kill a pregnant woman in many places you are automatically charged with double homicide. Seems the legal precident is already established and we just decided to change it because it was an inconvenient one.

Legal abortions predate fetal homicide laws, from what I can see, so I don't think we decided to change an already established precedent to allow abortion.

http://www.nrlc.org/Unborn_Victims/Statehomicidelaws092302.html

The "precedent" can't be assumed to spread to abortion since that is explicitly excluded in these laws.

I agree the law is inconsistent, but for me the solution is to replace fetal homicide laws. Causing a miscarriage through violence should be a serious crime, but it isn't synonymous with murder.

[lao tzu]

I have to disagree with you on one point. I have personally had women in my office for counseling who have said the following: "Well, what's the big deal, I can just get an abortion if I get pregnant, no problem."

I have heard it many times in particular from women under 20 who are still in school and just want to have fun. If that's not a pro-abortion sentiment then I don't know what is. Any ideology that allows for abortions of convenience ie. as birth control, is an ideology that can be correctly labled "pro-abortion."

Thank you for your thoughts, Pilgrim,

While this is one of the few instances where anecdotal data is relevant, that is, in distinguishing the difference between "no one" and "some," there is a difference between what you describe and "pro-abortion". At most, I see this idea of being prepared to take advantage of the abortion option as ambivalent.

"Pro", on the other hand, describes a positive position. "I like abortion" is a pro-abortion stance. "If worst comes to worst, I can have an abortion" is not. There's no need to imagine a scenario that would be pro-abortion given the instance cited in the post you've quoted. With such an example immediately in front of you, I dont' see how you can justify saying "I don't know what is."

This is not to say that choices do not have relative merit and demerit. Regular use of birth control by those who are both sexually active and unwilling to support a child is by far a better choice than abortion as a primary birth control method.

If I am talking of a person or group that advocates choice where medical issues or rape is involved then I exclusively use the term "pro-choice."

I would agree, but would also include that small proportion of those who use birth control regularly yet find themselves pregnant regardless. I have two friends, well one is my sister-in-law, who are both married and in grave risk of death from pregnancy. Which brings me to your last point ...

As an aside, I met with a widower once who told me of his wife's death in labor. They knew that there was a very very high chance she would die in labor but she CHOSE to have the child anyway. His experience was that the medical community derided and shamed her for that choice. So, how pro-choice were those who were given the task of caring for this family medically? This woman simply believed that selflessness was to give up her life for a weaker vessel rather than destroying that vessel for ones own sake. That sounds aweful close to the gospel message to me.

I can't say I'd make the same choice necessarily but it was her choice. Why was she given such a hard time about that choice? BTW, their daughter is alive and well and full of promise.

I think it was entirely appropriate for the medical practitioners to go to whatever lengths they thought appropriate to discourage this woman from killing herself. And that's what it was. From what you say, she was told that giving birth would likely kill her, and she did so regardless. Were I her husband, she would still be alive.

Yes, this is also choice, but suicide is not a proper choice in my worldview. There are always options for those who wish to have a family even if they are not able to have children of their own. It is the preference for infant adoptions that keeps adolescents and pre-adolescents in foster care, as I know only too well. There is no shortage of such children. With apologies to her husband, I would call her choice selfish as well.

As ever, Jesse

[Pilgrim]

Thank you for your thoughts, Pilgrim,

While this is one of the few instances where anecdotal data is relevant, that is, in distinguishing the difference between "no one" and "some," there is a difference between what you describe and "pro-abortion". At most, I see this idea of being prepared to take advantage of the abortion option as ambivalent.

"Pro", on the other hand, describes a positive position. "I like abortion" is a pro-abortion stance. "If worst comes to worst, I can have an abortion" is not. There's no need to imagine a scenario that would be pro-abortion given the instance cited in the post you've quoted. With such an example immediately in front of you, I dont' see how you can justify saying "I don't know what is."

This is not to say that choices do not have relative merit and demerit. Regular use of birth control by those who are both sexually active and unwilling to support a child is by far a better choice than abortion as a primary birth control method.



I would agree, but would also include that small proportion of those who use birth control regularly yet find themselves pregnant regardless. I have two friends, well one is my sister-in-law, who are both married and in grave risk of death from pregnancy. Which brings me to your last point ...



I think it was entirely appropriate for the medical practitioners to go to whatever lengths they thought appropriate to discourage this woman from killing herself. And that's what it was. From what you say, she was told that giving birth would likely kill her, and she did so regardless. Were I her husband, she would still be alive.

Yes, this is also choice, but suicide is not a proper choice in my worldview. There are always options for those who wish to have a family even if they are not able to have children of their own. It is the preference for infant adoptions that keeps adolescents and pre-adolescents in foster care, as I know only too well. There is no shortage of such children. With apologies to her husband, I would call her choice selfish as well.

As ever, Jesse
I can respect your sentiment but what you have said is that it's not really about choice afterall, it's more about what will make life easy for the parents.

Regardles, if this choice of the strong to give itself up for the weaker is the selfish one then I have to think we are living in a very backward society. The gospel of Christ is always the stronger giving itself for the weaker.

This little one had a heart beat, it had fingers, it was a human. Yes, it was more vulnerable than the mother. And that reality makes the sacrifice of the mother all the more noble. They were given this life to protect and they did that.

Would you call a mother throwing herself in front of bullet to save an already born infant selfish or selfless?

[Hypertox]

From what you say, she was told that giving birth would likely kill her, and she did so regardless. Were I her husband, she would still be alive.

Yes, this is also choice, but suicide is not a proper choice in my worldview.

There are always options for those who wish to have a family even if they are not able to have children of their own. It is the preference for infant adoptions that keeps adolescents and pre-adolescents in foster care, as I know only too well. There is no shortage of such children. With apologies to her husband, I would call her choice selfish as well.

As ever, Jesse

Jesse, you lack parental pride, honour, and my respect.

If I were to produce a child, I would feel it my duty to put his life above mine in worth. It is a great pity that you are selfish enough to believe that your life is that important.
A child has a full life ahead of them; every time a baby is killed, a childhood is lost. That is a cause worth fighting for, the one dying without any voice of his own.
You are wrong in calling the woman's death a suicide. She died for her child. That is unselfish. That would take guts to do. Guts, or a lot of love. Suicide is an easy way out. Dying in a bloody, painful mess is hardly easy.
Again, it is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to adopt. Laws, adoption agencies, red tape, they are all very hard. Having a child of your own is incomparable to adoption.

[Ytaker]

I think it was entirely appropriate for the medical practitioners to go to whatever lengths they thought appropriate to discourage this woman from killing herself. And that's what it was. From what you say, she was told that giving birth would likely kill her, and she did so regardless. Were I her husband, she would still be alive.

Yes, this is also choice, but suicide is not a proper choice in my worldview. There are always options for those who wish to have a family even if they are not able to have children of their own. It is the preference for infant adoptions that keeps adolescents and pre-adolescents in foster care, as I know only too well. There is no shortage of such children. With apologies to her husband, I would call her choice selfish as well.

As ever, Jesse

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse...

Allowing her to continue is a logical consequence of a non-RC view of abortion. If the woman will die, the baby must die to save her is one scenario. If the woman, of her own free choice, can risk her life to bring life to save another, that's better than if you kill the unborn against it's wish for life. You are not violating free will, so it is a great and good moral situation. She was told that her death could save another's life. If I was married to her, I might try to dissuade her, but I would not diminish her. She is sacrificing her life to save another, which is a very nice Christian thing to do.

Even though they could get children by other means, this child was there, and they had to deal with it.

It's not suicide. Neither people nor outside forces can force you to commit suicide. Only by seeking your own death can you commit suicide. If she could live, she would, but she was willing to give up living for her child. Dieing for another is never selfish, by nature. You are giving up your self, so you are selfless.

[Snarf]

Oh please. less the 5% of abortions in the US are perfomed for any meaninful reason of health.
And you evidence for this stat?

[Snarf]

That she was manipulated by lawyers? Hmm, that's a tough one. People in the legal profession with a bias would never convince someone into their cause with falsehoods to attack a law they didn't like *cough* Scopes Trial *cough* *cough* PE teacher *cough*. They are all completely incorruptible :ahem: .

If she had not become born again, I would still think she was speaking the truth. She was not put into the trial for a true reason. She claimed she was raped, and that rape was the reason. (she latter admitted it was a lie.) Since it was started for a lie, then I do not find it hard that the people that recruited her were doing it to break a law (and so were willing to get her do something she did not want), not help her get her rights. Do not support the legal profession. They are all evil. :noid:


This includes all pro-life lawyers too, so how much dishonesty didWade's lawyers engage in?

[Snarf]

Yes. I give to charities that help underpriviledged parents. Just yesterday, I helped a man who needed diapers for his daughter in Petersburg. I took him into a store and bought a full pack of diapers for him.



I dismiss irresponsible women who use abortion as birth control.



No. I give practical things like food and diapers.



Yes.



Absolutely not. I rejoice when they are no longer the target of murderous "doctors" that you support that see them as nothing more than a disposable comodity to fund their mansion.



I was anti-abortion long before I was a Christian, so put that in yer peace pipe and smoke it!


Then I thank you for your benefits to society.

[Snarf]

Jesse, you lack parental pride, honour, and my respect.

If I were to produce a child, I would feel it my duty to put his life above mine in worth. It is a great pity that you are selfish enough to believe that your life is that important.
A child has a full life ahead of them; every time a baby is killed, a childhood is lost. That is a cause worth fighting for, the one dying without any voice of his own.
You are wrong in calling the woman's death a suicide. She died for her child. That is unselfish. That would take guts to do. Guts, or a lot of love. Suicide is an easy way out. Dying in a bloody, painful mess is hardly easy.
Again, it is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to adopt. Laws, adoption agencies, red tape, they are all very hard. Having a child of your own is incomparable to adoption.
A zygote is not a child, neither is an embryo.

[Snarf]

That is just about the most plain red herring that I've seen all day.

It has relevance. Why should abortions be outlawed if those who supposedly care so much about the unborn won't lift a finger to help after they're born.
I've known a number of pro-lifers who were really sincere in their beliefs and acted on them, and they have my full respect. They give women constructive alternatives to abortion (like Bill the Cat). Unfortunately there are many who get on the bandwagon because they just want to release hatred, or because their pastor said to, or because they want to "fit in" with the church, or to impress a girlfriend or boyfriend.

[Pilgrim]

And you evidence for this stat?
Why don't you start with these ok?:

Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003.

Faria G, Barrett E and Goodman LM, Women and abortion: attitudes, social networks, decision-making, Social Work and Health Care, 1985

Fielding SL and Schaff EA, Social context and the experience of a sample of U.S. women taking RU-486 (mifepristone) for early abortion, Qualitative Health Research, 2004

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, 2005

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002

Family Planning Perspectives, 1996

But just a quote from the first article of a simple google search (since apparently you're to lazy to do it yourself...)

CONTEXT: Understanding women's reasons for having abortions can inform public debate and policy regarding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.

METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118


Note that that health issues are apparently so rarely cited as a reason for abortions that it didn't even make the list.

[Bill the Cat]

And you evidence for this stat?
Why women have abortions
1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest; 6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and 93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient).

http://www.cbrinfo.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

[Pilgrim]

Thanks for the very fine link Bill! :thumb:

[Snarf]

Why don't you start with these ok?:

Finer LB and Henshaw SK, Abortion incidence and services in the United States in 2000, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2003.

Faria G, Barrett E and Goodman LM, Women and abortion: attitudes, social networks, decision-making, Social Work and Health Care, 1985

Fielding SL and Schaff EA, Social context and the experience of a sample of U.S. women taking RU-486 (mifepristone) for early abortion, Qualitative Health Research, 2004

The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Estimates of U.S. Abortion Incidence in 2001 and 2002, 2005

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2002

Family Planning Perspectives, 1996

But just a quote from the first article of a simple google search (since apparently you're to lazy to do it yourself...)

CONTEXT: Understanding women's reasons for having abortions can inform public debate and policy regarding abortion and unwanted pregnancy. Demographic changes over the last two decades highlight the need for a reassessment of why women decide to have abortions.

METHODS: In 2004, a structured survey was completed by 1,209 abortion patients at 11 large providers, and in-depth interviews were conducted with 38 women at four sites. Bivariate analyses examined differences in the reasons for abortion across subgroups, and multivariate logistic regression models assessed associations between respondent characteristics and reported reasons.

RESULTS: The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents.

CONCLUSIONS: The decision to have an abortion is typically motivated by multiple, diverse and interrelated reasons. The themes of responsibility to others and resource limitations, such as financial constraints and lack of partner support, recurred throughout the study.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2005, 37(3):110–118


Note that that health issues are apparently so rarely cited as a reason for abortions that it didn't even make the list.
Very well, I agree with your stats-that still isn't a reason for outlawing a woman's desire to take care of her body as she sees fit-including removing unwanted organisms.

[anthrogirl]

I haven't read this whole thread. But could you please explain what you mean by "back alley abortion"? I've known quite a few women over the years who have used non-traditional methods of abortion--such as drug abuse, violence, and here's one you may not be aware of: there are some herbs and exercises that have strong abortificent properties. I've never known or interviewed anyone who used a coat hanger in an alleyway in Detroit, but there are other ways to do it that don't require a tetanus shot.

ugh.
blech.

ag

[Teallaura]

I haven't read this whole thread. But could you please explain what you mean by "back alley abortion"? I've known quite a few women over the years who have used non-traditional methods of abortion--such as drug abuse, violence, and here's one you may not be aware of: there are some herbs and exercises that have strong abortificent properties. I've never known or interviewed anyone who used a coat hanger in an alleyway in Detroit, but there are other ways to do it that don't require a tetanus shot.

ugh.
blech.

ag

The term generally refers to any unregulated illegal surgical abortion, usually implying a non-physician abortionist. Generally does not refer to the use of abortifacents.

[Ytaker]

This includes all pro-life lawyers too, so how much dishonesty didWade's lawyers engage in?

How would a pro-lifer manipulate a trial? This women has chosen not to have an abortion, and I am imprisoning her for that. Crazy... :lol:

I meant your statement seemed suspect. It assumed that it was unusual for lawyers to manipulate clients into unusual situations if they were trying to destroy a law. I don't respect inexperienced feminist activist Sarah Weddington, who served as an attorney in the case. She was not that fair minded. She is not someone who I would give the benefit of the doubt to about whether she would manipulate a client. I have nothing but respect for Wade though. He was continuously re elected for a respected position for 36 years, and did not engage in duplicitous actions.

On helping pregnant women… A student here. Not many opportunities. Most of my money goes straight to the bank, and I’m too lazy to look through my banks, or work out some complex system for interest. When I do get spare money it normally goes to a charity that helps African children, once it’s original purpose has been fulfilled. I cannot think of any time when I have been in a situation where I could offer to help a pregnant woman for an extended period of time. Maybe when I get older and more widely social.

[Ytaker]

I haven't read this whole thread. But could you please explain what you mean by "back alley abortion"? I've known quite a few women over the years who have used non-traditional methods of abortion--such as drug abuse, violence, and here's one you may not be aware of: there are some herbs and exercises that have strong abortificent properties. I've never known or interviewed anyone who used a coat hanger in an alleyway in Detroit, but there are other ways to do it that don't require a tetanus shot.

ugh.
blech.

ag

An abortion done illegally, often in a person's home, generally in the early stages. There have been no recorded incidents of a coat hanger abortion in medical history to my knowledge.

[Wyzaard]

Actually, Roe vs. Wade is being undermined all over the USA.

I for one will learn the procedure and preform them if it is criminalized again.

[Wyzaard]

You've been saying that for years-unfortunately for pro-lifers two factors exist:

1) The majority of Americans favor legalized abortion
2) Supreme Court decisions since 1973 have upheld the woman's fundamental right to an abortion

Won't change anytime soon, as it shouldn't

Another reason: Conservative politicians will have lost their best wedge-issue carrot for luring their misinformed faithful to the ballot box if they actually outlawed it. Methinks they'll keep abortion legal for decades more, frothing up their flock and keeping them vengefully loyal to the Republican Party.

[Darth Executor]

I for one will learn the procedure and preform them if it is criminalized again.

And I would join the police for the sole purpose of hunting down people like you.

[Wyzaard]

[attachment=1]
Curses! After thousands of years my reign of tyranny has finally been overthrown. You win this round, Mommy.

Ummm... you didn't attach the patriarch who's actually saying those words.

[Wyzaard]

I've already been around and around with you on this, and you will never be convinced that an unborn baby is a person. No amount of forensic or scientific data will convince your accepting eyes that it should not be perfectly legal to kill a child in-utero, no matter what stage of development. No amount of doctor testimony will convince you. You are a willing tool of a money making machine. I value the potential life of the unborn. You value the cash making ability of the "doctors". Because of that difference, I will make my assertation again. You can dismiss it all you like, I really don't care.

Abortion is murder.

Trotting out pictures of fetuses along with numerous assumptions about what constitutes a 'person' does not a case make. 'Potential' personhood has not been shown to be personhood.

[Wyzaard]

On the other hand, most pro-lifers would consider every time an abortion is carried out as "using murder". So, which side is guilty of committing more murders?

The side that is killing people, rather than extracting lumps of parasitic tissue.

Having been with someone who received an abortion while we were together, I feel somewhat close to the issue; I will protect 'choice' against tyranny.

[micah4]

The side that is killing people, rather than extracting lumps of parasitic tissue.


"lumps of parasitic tissue", hmm...

tell me, what sort of parasitic tissue did you grow up from? An ovarian cyst? A breast tumor? Wart? A kidney stone, maybe? Goiter? Mites? My grand-uncle had a brain tumor once, and he gestated it in his head for nine months, after which doctors cracked his skull open wide and removed a healthy little baby girl! It's remarkable what those lumps of parasitic tissue can become.

[lao tzu]

I can respect your sentiment but what you have said is that it's not really about choice afterall, it's more about what will make life easy for the parents.

Regardles, if this choice of the strong to give itself up for the weaker is the selfish one then I have to think we are living in a very backward society. The gospel of Christ is always the stronger giving itself for the weaker.

This little one had a heart beat, it had fingers, it was a human. Yes, it was more vulnerable than the mother. And that reality makes the sacrifice of the mother all the more noble. They were given this life to protect and they did that.

Would you call a mother throwing herself in front of bullet to save an already born infant selfish or selfless?

Greetings again, Pilgrim,

This mother had a heart beat, she had fingers, she was human. She had a husband and vows to spend her life with him, for richer, for poorer, for better and for worse. She had a life which could have been devoted to making a difference to something more than the continuation of her gene line. Instead she chose to abandon all of these and, having brought a new life into the world, she left the rest of us to take care of that child.

Meanwhile, in foster care in any medium size city, you'll find tens of thousands of children in need of the comfort of a stable home. I should know. So which was easier, a birth designed to promote her own gene line or a choice to continue making a difference with her life? I'm sorry, but her sacrifice is no sacrifice at all if the rest of us are left to pay for her choice. In the end, she did not take care of her baby. This is irresponsible.

This isn't to say that I don't feel for her or her widower. Given the ability, I would not hesitate to wave my magic wand and summon up the past and a cure for whatever ailment caused her death in childbirth. But life isn't that simple. The choices we have available do not include perfection, but almost always are a selection between relative goods, and too often between relative evils. This is what choice means in an imperfect world.

Nor is a choice to delay bringing new life into the world likely to result in less children for a couple. Responsible parents will decide how many children they feel they can support and plan for them. Irresponsible parents will let biology simply take its course. We are human, and should be above these simple animal attributes. We have the power not merely to choose but to create new choices.

... Suicide is an easy way out. ... Again, it is very difficult, and sometimes impossible, for parents to adopt.

I agree. She was apparently not merely selfish and irresponsible but a coward as well. Adoption is difficult and sometimes impossible only because adopters insist on infants. Thank you for the corroboration. Now go away. Remember, "It's not that you've nothing interesting to say, it's just that the interesting things you have to say are not interesting to me."

Jesse, Jesse, Jesse...

Allowing her to continue is a logical consequence of a non-RC view of abortion. If the woman will die, the baby must die to save her is one scenario. If the woman, of her own free choice, can risk her life to bring life to save another, that's better than if you kill the unborn against it's wish for life. You are not violating free will, so it is a great and good moral situation. She was told that her death could save another's life. If I was married to her, I might try to dissuade her, but I would not diminish her. She is sacrificing her life to save another, which is a very nice Christian thing to do.

Even though they could get children by other means, this child was there, and they had to deal with it.

It's not suicide. Neither people nor outside forces can force you to commit suicide. Only by seeking your own death can you commit suicide. If she could live, she would, but she was willing to give up living for her child. Dieing for another is never selfish, by nature. You are giving up your self, so you are selfless.

Greetings, Ytaker,

"Allowing ... scenario" is simply incomprehensible to me. Are you roman catholic? Anyway, thank you for your thoughts. Above, I went into some detail with Pilgrim as to why I feel her action was less than selfless. This wasn't some stranger she was saving, but a continuation of her own gene line. Her action follows as a biological imperative and is indistinguishable from animal instinct.

I obviously disagree with your analysis of suicide. Refusing to take action is a decision in its own right. And as the anecdote reads, she did so with full knowledge, as much knowledge as someone standing on the train tracks as they see a train coming around the bend. But I do recognize room for more than one interpretation, and it's less than sure that I am totally set in my own interpretation. In particular, I am quite uncomfortable with the thought of her husband or daughter reading these words. This is some kind of signal I'm sure.

__________

In any case, I thank those who've gone to the trouble to answer my posts with thoughtful replies, obviously excluding the hypertoxic one, but as I often find, this issue is far too emotionally charged for the kind of rational consideration I most appreciate on bulletin boards. And so, at this point, I will be bidding adieu to this thread with my original impression that these threads are not for me once again confirmed. In fairness, having stirred up a can of worms, I invite anyone who feels the need to make a further point to take this conversation to PM.

As ever, Jesse

[Darth Executor]

My grand-uncle had a brain tumor once, and he gestated it in his head for nine months, after which doctors cracked his skull open wide and removed a healthy little baby girl! It's remarkable what those lumps of parasitic tissue can become.

:lmbo:

[Ytaker]

The side that is killing people, rather than extracting lumps of parasitic tissue.

Having been with someone who received an abortion while we were together, I feel somewhat close to the issue; I will protect 'choice' against tyranny.

They are not parasitic. They offer many benefits.

Lots of blood (1/3 more) . You have much more stamina early on, and for a bit of time after. If you time it right, it can help you a lot in a race or marathon.

Cute pregnant women things, like shopping for baby clothing, hearing the heartbeat, seeing the ultrasound.

Popularity. People will always help you or talk to you often, and smile at you a lot in a nice way

Happy hormones. It's much easier to laugh, and have fun.

It's OK to gain weight.

Children.

If you are negative, then you'll see it as a horrible situation, but if you look at the bright side, it can be a lot of fun.

I'll protect life from death. I hold life as a very high value.

For Taoist to skim read. The RC view is that abortion is wrong even to save the life of the mother, and the scenario is the one where a baby is aborted to save the mother. I would distinguish it from animal instinct. She had full knowledge of the situation, and allowed herself to passively die, knowing she could save herself at any time, with people mocking her at every step, which is a very hard thing to do. That takes incredible will power and mental strength.

Make your scenarios complete as well. She stood in front of the train, letting it run her over so it would stop before it reached her baby. Unwilled passive death is the hardest action of all. It is not suicide, but sacrifice. Suicide can be passive or active, but it is always when you seek to die, not when you risk your life when you don’t have to.

[themuzicman]

And when you're pregnant, you don't have to worry about getting pregnant... err... :huh:

[elysian]

And when you're pregnant, you don't have to worry about getting pregnant... err... :huh:

Why worry about closing the barn door when the horse is already running free? :lol:

[RumTumTugger]

Very well, I agree with your stats-that still isn't a reason for outlawing a woman's desire to take care of her body as she sees fit-including removing unwanted organisms.

So Snarf you are telling us you are a wanted organism?

Well I'm a human being that was and is wanted. not just an organism.

[RumTumTugger]

The side that is killing people, rather than extracting lumps of parasitic tissue.

Hello Parasite.

I'm a human being, have been since my conception.

[Rahab]

I haven't read this whole thread. But could you please explain what you mean by "back alley abortion"? I've known quite a few women over the years who have used non-traditional methods of abortion--such as drug abuse, violence, and here's one you may not be aware of: there are some herbs and exercises that have strong abortificent properties. I've never known or interviewed anyone who used a coat hanger in an alleyway in Detroit, but there are other ways to do it that don't require a tetanus shot.

ugh.
blech.

ag Bonjour AG,

The term "back alley" abortion should include any methods of terminating a pregnancy which presents :

- a health risk to the mother
- by the nature of being illegal, removes any liability from either the licensed physician or nurse or person assisting in such termination. Which means that current methods of prevention applied to any health risk abortion were not applied. To include prescription of antibiotics, follow up visits to control the hormononal "drop", hemorraging factors, echography to confirm that no tissue remained in utero.

Back in "those days" surgical methods could easily result in severe infections leading to septicemia and toxic shock as the majority of such procedures practised by licensed physicians or nurses were not meeting the current mandatory health standards, such as sterile environment and antibiotic prescription and follow up.

Non surgical methods of self induced abortions presented the issue of uncontrolled bleeding as well as an infection risk which always occurs the moment the abortificant causes dilation of the cervix.

Even spontaneous miscarriages require a medical follow up to insure that no infection results. More importantly, the medical supervision is necessary following such a miscarriage, to insure that the uterus retains no potential for scarring tissue. I do not recall anytime when I had a spontaneous miscarriage when I did not have an echography, follow up examinations and infection prevention meds.

"back in those days" the woman who developped symptoms indicating an infection such as abdominal pain and fever was reluctant to show up in an ER as she knew that trained medical staff would easily detect that she had an abortion. Whether such staff respected the confidentiality of such patient and did not alert local authorities is another story.

The mythical aspect of "back alley abortions" resides in the vision folks may have of self induced abortions while using sharp instruments such as a "coat hanger" or "knitting needles". But the reality of the absence of proper medical supervision and follow up is certainly not a myth. To also note that women sought to terminate a pregnancy long before coat hangers came to existence!

[Wyzaard]

"lumps of parasitic tissue", hmm...

tell me, what sort of parasitic tissue did you grow up from? An ovarian cyst? A breast tumor? Wart? A kidney stone, maybe? Goiter? Mites?

An embryo, another sort of parasitic tissue.

[Wyzaard]

They are not parasitic. They offer many benefits.

Lots of blood (1/3 more) . You have much more stamina early on, and for a bit of time after. If you time it right, it can help you a lot in a race or marathon.


Link?


Cute pregnant women things, like shopping for baby clothing, hearing the heartbeat, seeing the ultrasound.

Popularity. People will always help you or talk to you often, and smile at you a lot in a nice way


I'm going to ignore this sexist stuff... that ok?


Happy hormones. It's much easier to laugh, and have fun.


Or in the case of my ex, horribly depressed until the abortion... then she was happy!


It's OK to gain weight.


What country do you live in?


Children.


Not if you don't want, or can't have them.


If you are negative, then you'll see it as a horrible situation, but if you look at the bright side, it can be a lot of fun.


I'm sure being a helpless, impovershsed woman at the mercy of a hyper-religious fiends is SO much fun.


I'll protect life from death. I hold life as a very high value.


And I will protect living women from people like you, I reckon.

[Wyzaard]

I'm a human being, have been since my conception.

Not shown, sorry.

[Ytaker]

Link?

Nutrient requirements increase during pregnancy to support fetal growth and maternal health. Iron requirements of pregnant women are approximately double that of non-pregnant women because of increased blood volume during pregnancy, increased needs of the fetus, and blood losses that occur during delivery [16]. If iron intake does not meet increased requirements, iron deficiency anemia can occur. Iron deficiency anemia of pregnancy is responsible for significant morbidity, such as premature deliveries and giving birth to infants with low birth weight [1,51,59-62].
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp#h7

I'm going to ignore this sexist stuff... that ok?

Many women find it fun shopping for baby clothing due to maternal instincts (i.e. you can have fun preparing life for the baby), and also people often help pregnant women. It is considered good, for instance, to give up your seat on a bus to pregnant women. It's not sexist to ride a fun biological imperative whilst it lasts, or to help people who have a baby.

Or in the case of my ex, horribly depressed until the abortion... then she was happy!

Yes, you can be negative. My point is that the baby offers benefits if you seek them, and so is not a parasite.

What country do you live in?

England. Most women tend to get bigger in pregnancy as the baby grows, and a few pounds more isn't noticed. Since women need to eat more to feed the baby, a few pounds is expected. What do you do in your country to stop women from getting fatter during pregnancy? We do nothing weird to pregnant women.

Not if you don't want, or can't have them.

If you don't want them then you are being negative, if you cannot have them then you are either being negative or are not pregnant.

I'm sure being a helpless, impovershsed woman at the mercy of a hyper-religious fiends is SO much fun.

That is very ad hominid. People find my company fun. If my friend needs support, I give it. I do not condemn others because of their beliefs by calling them 'hyper-atheists' or anything that corny. I discuss claims and put foward arguments. The women I talk to are never at my mercy either. What sort of sequence of events do you imagine I have started, that I have a poor person at my mercy, and she thinks of me as a hyper-religious fiend.

And I will protect living women from people like you, I reckon.
Again, what exactly are you accusing me of?

[themuzicman]

The mythical aspect of "back alley abortions" resides in the vision folks may have of self induced abortions while using sharp instruments such as a "coat hanger" or "knitting needles". But the reality of the absence of proper medical supervision and follow up is certainly not a myth. To also note that women sought to terminate a pregnancy long before coat hangers came to existence!

Which, of course, has never been shown to be a massive problem in ANY age. Most women are smart enough not to use a coat hanger to induce abortion.


The point is that deaths from abortion when it was primarily illegal were no where even close to the 5,000 to 10,000 that was claimed in front of the supreme court, and is simply an invalid argument because it isn't true.


In fact, if you look at a country like Ireland, you'd think (given the pro-abortion folks' assumptions) that women would be dying in DROOVES because abortion is illegal there....

Guess what? They're NOT.

Michael

[geochron]

In fact, if you look at a country like Ireland, you'd think (given the pro-abortion folks' assumptions) that women would be dying in DROOVES because abortion is illegal there....

Guess what? They're NOT.

Michael

Perhaps not, but they are travelling to the UK to have abortions, and since that is relatively easy there's no particular reason to risk a "back street" procedure.

[geochron]

So, can we dispense with this claim yet? There was never an epidemic of "back alley" abortions, even when abortion was illegal, and there won't be, if abortion is made illegal again.

Michael

I spent a few minutes scanning the literature...

As to the effects of making abortion illegal on reducing the rate of abortions...



The incidence of abortion worldwide, Henshaw SK, Singh S, Haas T, INTERNATIONAL FAMILY PLANNING PERSPECTIVES 25: S30-S38 Suppl. S, JAN 1999,

Abstract: Context: Accurate measurement of induced abortion levels has proven difficult in many parts of the world Health care workers and policymakers need information on the incidence of both legal and illegal induced abortion to provide the needed services and to reduce the negative impact of unsafe abortion on women's health.
Methods: Numbers and rates of induced abortions were estimated from four sources: official statistics or other national data on legal abortions in 57 countries; estimates based on population surveys for two countries without official statistics; special studies far 10 countries where abortion is highly restricted and worldwide and regional estimates of unsafe abortion from the World Health Organization.

Results: Approximately 26 million legal and 20 million illegal abortions were performed worldwide in 1995, resulting in a worldwide abortion rate of 35 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. Among the subregions of the world, Eastern Europe had the highest abortion rate (90 per 1,000) and Western Europe the lowest rate (11 per 1,000). Among countries where abortion is legal without restriction as to reason, the highest abortion rate, 83 per 1,000 was reported for Vietnam and the lowest, seven per 1,000 for Belgium and the Netherlands, Abortion rates are no lower overall in areas where abortion is generally restricted by law (and where many abortions are performed under unsafe conditions) than in areas where abortion is legally permitted.

Conclusions: Both developed and developing countries can have low abortion rates. Most countries, however, have moderate to high abortion rates, reflecting lower prevalence and effectiveness of contraceptive use. Stringent legal restrictions do not guarantee a low abortion rate.



As to health effects of illegal abortions...



Illegal abortion: Consequences for women's health and the health care system, Faundes A, Hardy E, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGY & OBSTETRICS 58 (1): 77-83, 1997

Abstract: Illegal abortion is responsible for up to half of maternal deaths and consumes a large proportion of health resources in many developing countries, particularly in Africa and Latin America. The legal situation of abortion in a country does not influence the abortion rate, but illegality is associated with a much greater risk of complications and death. To make abortion legal is not enough. Access to safe abortion strongly depends on the capacity and willingness of physicians and the hearth system to provide safe services, which sometimes are made available in spite of restrictive laws. The abortion rate will drop and the safety of the procedure will improve, parallel to the position women occupy in a given society, and to the level of recognition of their sexual and reproductive rights. The medical profession, and FIGO in particular, has a great role to play in implementing initiatives that will reduce the consequences of illegal abortion for women and society. (C) 1997 International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics.



Looking at the figures from this paper, worldwide about one pregnancy in 8 ends in an illegal abortion, and illegal abortions are responsible for about half the maternal deaths in the world each year. ~200,000 maternal deaths result from 20-30 million illegal abortions, suggesting an approx. 1% fatality rate (perhaps down to 0.1% given the slack in the numbers) from illegal abortion.

From what I can see non-fatal long term illnesses are more common.

[themuzicman]

OK, your biggest source for illegal abortions is Vietnam and Latin America.

Not exactly the bastion of high quality health care, regardless of legality.

How about a comparison between like countries?

Michael

[Pilgrim]

Very well, I agree with your stats-that still isn't a reason for outlawing a woman's desire to take care of her body as she sees fit-including removing unwanted organisms.
Fine, you wouldn't even meet half way with preventing abortions of convenience and as simple birth control. Once again, it comes to light that pro-abortion folks are not really concerned with choice or medical issues, they are concerned with convenience.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Not shown, sorry.

Would you mind showing then when a "parasite" becomes a human being?

[Snarf]

Fine, you wouldn't even meet half way with preventing abortions of convenience and as simple birth control. Once again, it comes to light that pro-abortion folks are not really concerned with choice or medical issues, they are concerned with convenience.

I am concerned with choice- a woman should have the choice to remove an organism from her body for any reason whatsoever. Convenience has nothing to do with-and I fail to see why you consider abortions "convenient."

[RumTumTugger]

I am concerned with choice- a woman should have the choice to remove an organism from her body for any reason whatsoever. Convenience has nothing to do with-and I fail to see why you consider abortions "convenient."

There you go saying you are only an organism again.

Snarf, a human being is a human being no matter what stage of development she is at not just an organism.

[Pilgrim]

If it has nothing to do with medical concerns or issues of rape it is simply a matter of convenience. And you have already agreed to the stats presented that show that for over 90% of women the taking of the life of an unborn infant in abortion is simply a matter of convenience, a matter of birth control. You can call it an organism all you want to try to find some relief from conscience but the fact remains that this organism is a human one and to destroy it for the sake of convenience is selfish.

It would be one thing to make the democratic argument and say that as a Christian you are opposed to abortion but living in a pluralistic and democrative society there are certain evils you can not prevent, but it is another thing all together that as a Christian you seem to delight in the fact that there are abortions and you seem to like to use it as a tool for trolling. I just don't get it. You'd think that most people would be all for doing anything that could prevent unnecessary abortions? And here is a way to cut abortions by 90%. :shrug:

[geochron]

OK, your biggest source for illegal abortions is Vietnam and Latin America.

Not exactly the bastion of high quality health care, regardless of legality.

How about a comparison between like countries?

Michael

Actually, Vietnam is contrasted with Belgium showing the range of abortion rates in places where it is legal. The paper claims that the range of abortion rates is the same whether one covers all countries where it is illegal or all countries where it is legal, suggesting to me that making abortion illegal does indeed simply lead women to have illegal abortions.

My main reason for posting was to show that illegal abortions do in fact lead to a significant number of fatalities among women. The original figures from the OP may have been inflated a lot, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

[geochron]

Fine, you wouldn't even meet half way with preventing abortions of convenience and as simple birth control. Once again, it comes to light that pro-abortion folks are not really concerned with choice or medical issues, they are concerned with convenience.

If you don't see the embryo before some development stage as a person worthy of protection, why would you see getting rid of an inconvenient one as a bad thing?

[geochron]

I notice some of our pro-life correspondents have yet to recommend a sentence for a woman who has an abortion.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=76930

[Pilgrim]

If you don't see the embryo before some development stage as a person worthy of protection, why would you see getting rid of an inconvenient one as a bad thing?
Interesting idea. So as long as any criminal can show that he or she is consistant in not recognizing life at a certain stage to be truly human he or she should be given a free ride.

[themuzicman]

Actually, Vietnam is contrasted with Belgium showing the range of abortion rates in places where it is legal. The paper claims that the range of abortion rates is the same whether one covers all countries where it is illegal or all countries where it is legal, suggesting to me that making abortion illegal does indeed simply lead women to have illegal abortions.

My main reason for posting was to show that illegal abortions do in fact lead to a significant number of fatalities among women. The original figures from the OP may have been inflated a lot, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
I believe in that original link, the reported deaths from abortion was around 40 per year:

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports only 39 deaths as a result of abortion in 1972. Nathanson believes that the actual total, allowing for under-reporting, was no more than 500. While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called “epidemic” of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America’s acceptance of the procedure.

Thus, the point is that the 5K to 10K figure was both a fabrication and wholly inaccurate.

Michael

[Rahab]

Which, of course, has never been shown to be a massive problem in ANY age. Most women are smart enough not to use a coat hanger to induce abortion. Bonjour Michael,

IMO, the issue remains the absence of medical supervision. Obviously within a context where elective abortions are illegal, the medical supervision will lack. As an aside, whether so many women died of illegal abortions should not be the compelling argument which influences a legislation sanctionning or banning abortions. The Roe/Wade Decision did not rely on such argument to draw its final conclusion.


The point is that deaths from abortion when it was primarily illegal were no where even close to the 5,000 to 10,000 that was claimed in front of the supreme court, and is simply an invalid argument because it isn't true.

I will bring your attention to Chapter XI of the transcripts of the final arguments in Roe/Wade.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

Can you point where in the concluding arguments , "deaths from abortion" became a compelling point which led the concurring Supreme Court Justices to declare article 1196 as unconstitutional? Will you kindly present your understanding of which compelling arguments retained the attention of the concurring Supreme Court Justices?


In fact, if you look at a country like Ireland, you'd think (given the pro-abortion folks' assumptions) that women would be dying in DROOVES because abortion is illegal there....

Guess what? They're NOT.

Michael As Geochron pointed, the proximity of the UK where abortions are legal allow for women in the Republic of Eire to obtain a legal and medicaly supervised procedure of termination of pregnancy in the UK. So I am not sure which point you are attempting to make by using your example.

In any case, I have not read in the above transcripts any thought process from the concerned US Supreme Court Justices claiming that "deaths by abortion" ought to justify the legalization of elective abortions in the State of Texas.

The 7 votes which concurred with declaring Texas legislation unconstitutional came from Supreme Court Justices who were far from being misled by whichever allleged claims presented to them.


It is in fact insulting to them to even consider that such argument of "deaths by abortion" would be what retained their attention and became a compelling point in their deliberations and final conclusion.

In fact, I suspect that they avoided setting a precedent which would open a door to the legalization of any criminal activity based on a similar argument such as legalizing the use of INJECTED illegal substances which presents a severe health hazard as to which method is utilized to absorb such substances.Allowing then for the free dispensation of needles and possibly a medicaly measured and controlled distribution of such drugs.

I cannot fathom that the US Supreme Court would declare that the prohibition of the private use of such substances is unconstitutional based on any "death by sharing needles" arguments.

I will encourage you again to read the entire course of the final deliberations and realize that the "deaths by abortion" argument (no matter which alleged claims were made in terms of number of deaths as you stated) was not what compelled the concurring Justices to declare the Texas status on abortion as unconstitutional.

That you attribute such argument to some pro choice individuals, I can understand it. But I need to tell you that as you attempted to connect it to the Roe/Wade Decision, you are mistaken.

[themuzicman]

Bonjour Michael,

IMO, the issue remains the absence of medical supervision. Obviously within a context where elective abortions are illegal, the medical supervision will lack. As an aside, whether so many women died of illegal abortions should not be the compelling argument which influences a legislation sanctionning or banning abortions. The Roe/Wade Decision did not rely on such argument to draw its final conclusion.

The 5K to 10K figure was bandied about, and the argument in general ("back alley abortions") is still in use today.

Thus, the need to expose the myth


Michael

[Rahab]

Interesting idea. So as long as any criminal can show that he or she is consistant in not recognizing life at a certain stage to be truly human he or she should be given a free ride. Bonjour Pilgrim,

Currently, Pilgrim, the designated medical custodian of a brain trauma patient, whose cortical and stem activity have ceased to exist thus function, cannot be charged with murder as he/she will request that the rest of the organic functions of such patient be deprived from artificial life support.

Do you think that he/she is getting a "free ride" while entrusting that a medical diagnosis and prognosis are pivotal in defining whether there is any "life" to be attributed to such patient who still has a unique and specific DNA coding as a member of the human species?

Should the medical staff and ethical pannel called to sanction and approve of such request be charged with murder as they evaluate based on morphological capacities and functions what "life" there is?

I will tell you the primary reason why such participants to such a decision cannot be charged with murder: because it is widely accepted that the presence of DNA coding unique and specific to the human species( which ought to be the accurate definition of what "human" means) does not constitute proof or evidence that such presence equals or justifies the status of being a legal existing person.

As far as the "life" argument goes: any biological organism is a form of life. We have placed human DNA coded biological organisms as worthy of rights and privileges other biological species do not benefit of. However, we have also legaly defined which of those human DNA coded biological organisms are to be attributed the quality of being an existing person benefiting of rights and privileges.

IMO, the current reliance on the birth timeline based on some vague interpretation of the 14Th Amendment needs to be modified and extended prior to the birth timeline.We could reasonably argue that viability out utero, that is specificaly the capacity to assume autonomous vital organic functions, should be taken into account to include the capacity for sensorial and intellectual reception and interpretation of our environment. Which undoubtly relies on the existence and function of the human encephalic organ.


Do you think it is unreasonable to consider that a person exists legaly thus is to benefit of rights and privileges when he/she has the capacity to exercise and experience both sensorial and intellectual reception and interpretation of his/her environment?

Do you think it is an act of murder to not prolongue or support the organic existence of any human DNA coded biological organism who has no capacity to exercise and experience any sensorial and intellectual reception and interpretation of its environment such as it is the case for an anencephalic infant or any other born human DNA coded biological organism void of such capacity?

By "born" implying obviously that such organism is now out utero and not dependent on the proper function of the organs of the hosting human DNA coded biological organism, the mother happens to be, to assume his/her own organic function.

I am purposefuly taking a clinical approach to your question because such ethical issue as you raised needs to remain based on non emotional arguments.

The same way, the ethical issue of a spouse making the decision to terminate the existence of his/her advanced stages Alzheimer's loved one needs to be facing judiciary intervention and jury evaluation of whether a crime was committed and which degree by not allowing our personal emotional preferences to take over.

[Snarf]

There you go saying you are only an organism again.

Snarf, a human being is a human being no matter what stage of development she is at not just an organism.

No, because a zygote can not perform any of the functions which can be ascribed to a human being.

And yes, I am only an organism.

[Snarf]

If it has nothing to do with medical concerns or issues of rape it is simply a matter of convenience. :

Please define "matter of convenience," you think that getting an abortion is like getting a wart removed?

It doesn't seem to occur to you that there might be other reasons as to why a woman might want an abortion: fear of what parents will do to her, fear of being unable to support the child, fear of what the father will do to her if she carries the child to term.

Why you so arrogant to think that you know all the reasons for why a woman would want an abortion?

[themuzicman]

No, because a zygote can not perform any of the functions which can be ascribed to a human being.


You mean like divide one human cell into two human cells?

Michael

[Snarf]

If it has nothing to do with medical concerns or issues of rape it is simply a matter of convenience. And you have already agreed to the stats presented that show that for over 90% of women the taking of the life of an unborn infant in abortion is simply a matter of convenience, a matter of birth control. You can call it an organism all you want to try to find some relief from conscience but the fact remains that this organism is a human one and to destroy it for the sake of convenience is selfish.

It would be one thing to make the democratic argument and say that as a Christian you are opposed to abortion but living in a pluralistic and democrative society there are certain evils you can not prevent, but it is another thing all together that as a Christian you seem to delight in the fact that there are abortions and you seem to like to use it as a tool for trolling. I just don't get it. You'd think that most people would be all for doing anything that could prevent unnecessary abortions? And here is a way to cut abortions by 90%. :shrug:

I don't delight in abortions, I delight in the failure of power-crazed, fascist fundies from imposing their will on the rest of society.

[themuzicman]

Please define "matter of convenience," you think that getting an abortion is like getting a wart removed?

It doesn't seem to occur to you that there might be other reasons as to why a woman might want an abortion: fear of what parents will do to her

God forbid that her PARENTS be consulted, huh?

fear of being unable to support the child,

Adoption?

fear of what the father will do to her if she carries the child to term.

Gee, there's things called "restraining orders" you know...

Why you so arrogant to think that you know all the reasons for why a woman would want an abortion?

He isn't saying any of those things. He's saying that all of those things fall under the category of "convenient". In this case, it's more convienent to kill than to be afraid.

Michael

[Snarf]

You mean like divide one human cell into two human cells?

Michael

No, I mean things that a nonbrain dead person can do that a brain dead person can't. FYI-even after a person is completely dead some cells can divide.

[Snarf]

God forbid that her PARENTS be consulted, huh?

Maybe in your white-bread "Father Knows Best" world parents unconditionally love and never mistreat their daughters. Unfortunately, reality is that many dads beat the tar out of their daughters if they're pregnant because that means that they've had sex.



Adoption?
Assumes that woman has access to an adoption agency. Not always true.



Gee, there's things called "restraining orders" you know...
The boyfriend can usually get their faster than the police; one can't get a restraining order so easily when one's leg is broken.



He isn't saying any of those things. He's saying that all of those things fall under the category of "convenient". In this case, it's more convienent to kill than to be afraid.

Michael[/QUOTE]
Two of the many synonyms for "convenient:"
contributive, decent
fromhttp://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=convenient

[Pilgrim]

Please define "matter of convenience," you think that getting an abortion is like getting a wart removed?

It doesn't seem to occur to you that there might be other reasons as to why a woman might want an abortion: fear of what parents will do to her, fear of being unable to support the child, fear of what the father will do to her if she carries the child to term.

Why you so arrogant to think that you know all the reasons for why a woman would want an abortion?
For some women (before the abortion anyway) it IS seen as simple as getting rid of a wart. Apparently you think so too since you simply refer to it as removing an unwanted organism. What could you possibly be trying to do but to deminision the concept of a unborn child to the status of something like a wart or a melenoma?

All of the issues you mentioned are issues of convenience. Yes, it might be hard to tell your parents, but that's a part of life. Yes, it might be financially hard, but that's a part of life. All of the issues that you bring up have more to do with convenience than anything else: finance, education, being afraid of parents. These are all things that conscience and responsability should dictate we handle with out running away. As I said, I would be willing to compromise and say that health issues and pregnancy resulting form rape could be excluded from any legislation.

And before you ask that stupid question again: yes I have personally cared for mothers who have elected to not have an abortion. Helping them financially and even helping them find adoptive parents for their children. And to answer your next question, yes I have counseled mothers who have gone through an abortion as well because they need love and grace in double helpings.

I understand and have been confronted with the complexities of this issue in many ways because of what I do for a living. I have not come to my opinion in a vaccuum.

[themuzicman]

Maybe in your white-bread "Father Knows Best" world parents unconditionally love and never mistreat their daughters. Unfortunately, reality is that many dads beat the tar out of their daughters if they're pregnant because that means that they've had sex.

If they beat the tar out of them for that, chances are they've had the tar beaten out of them before. That's what child abuse laws are for.

Assumes that woman has access to an adoption agency. Not always true.

You can anonymously drop off a baby at any Emergency Room, and they'll take them.

The boyfriend can usually get their faster than the police; one can't get a restraining order so easily when one's leg is broken.

Keep a shotgun handy. (There are also shelters for these women.)

Two of the many synonyms for "convenient:"
contributive, decent
fromhttp://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=convenient


Why use a synonym when a definition will do?

con·ven·ient Audio pronunciation of "convenient" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kn-vnynt)
adj.

1. Suited or favorable to one's comfort, purpose, or needs: a convenient time to receive guests; a convenient excuse for not going.
2.
1. Easy to reach; accessible: a bank with branches at six convenient locations.
2. Close at hand; near: an apartment that is convenient to shopping and transportation.


Michael

[Pilgrim]

Maybe in your white-bread "Father Knows Best" world parents unconditionally love and never mistreat their daughters. Unfortunately, reality is that many dads beat the tar out of their daughters if they're pregnant because that means that they've had sex.

You have numbers for this assertion of how violent many dads are in this regard or are you just blowing smoke? I personally, and this is just anecdotal, never seen a dad beat his daughter over this issue. And I have been doing family and youth counseling for 10 years.

Hard cases make bad law. You seem to think that every abortion is about the ahrd cases even after you've been shown and accepted as credible the research that shows your conception of the motives of abortion is wildly in accurate.

[Pilgrim]

I don't delight in abortions, I delight in the failure of power-crazed, fascist fundies from imposing their will on the rest of society.
Quick show of hands: how many people here would ever classify Pilgrim as a fascist fundie? I think everyone polled would tell you that Pilgrim is a slightly left leaning evangelical who flirts more with liberalism than he does conservatism. It's just that I really do believe in a culture of life. Thus not only am I pro life, a oppose the death penalty and have pacifist leanings.

It's just that the fact that there are millions of abortions a year and the research indicates that over 90% mostly used as birth control has made more passionate about this issue than I have been in the past. I can't believe that as a Christian you think life and it's potential are simply commodities that can be so easily shrugged away.

Stick with the topic and stay away from the ad hom snarf. Or at least try to understand a little bit who you are accusing of these things.

[micah4]

The boyfriend can usually get their faster than the police; one can't get a restraining order so easily when one's leg is broken.


If "the boyfriend" wasn't going to be forced to support a child he didn't want, what would be the motivation for harming his g/f because of a pregnancy?

[Tickle Me Mercury]

In Aborting America, Dr. Bernard Nathanson admits:

In NARAL, we generally emphasized the drama of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter, it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, and I suppose that the others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the morality of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics?

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports only 39 deaths as a result of abortion in 1972. Nathanson believes that the actual total, allowing for under-reporting, was no more than 500. While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called epidemic of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America's acceptance of the procedure.


So, can we dispense with this claim yet? There was never an epidemic of "back alley" abortions, even when abortion was illegal, and there won't be, if abortion is made illegal again.

Michael

Yes, we can dispense with it. Anything that is a myth, or a political emotion-based construct that isn't based on truth should be dismissed if there is ever to be a productive dialogue on an issue. So, while we are dismissing that nonsense, may we also dismiss the accusations of someone being "pro-abortion" or the nonsense idea of "abortion on demand?" It's baseless smear, and such accusations degrade the conversation immensly. Furthermore, as someone who is pro-choice, I resent the implication that I somehow am lax about the idea of abortion, and I certainly resent the fact that people would paint the issue with such a broad brush and, without knowing me, include me in some predefined group who is "pro-abortion."

I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. Let me repeat for clarification: I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, I am relatively certain that very few people do (I will further address that below). In fact, I along with many others would like to see all other options explored first, including adoption of the child into a loving family that will care for all of its needs.

I think that, ideally, there would be no abortions. In fact, I believe that in an ideal society, by anyone's conception regardless of political persuasion, there would be no need for abortions and the practice would abolished. Not one, not ever. There would not even be a single unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, ever. Every child would be the gift, the blessing that it should be thought of, born into a family that is psychologically and financially ready for the responsibilities of caring for a child.

While it is fun to pretend, however, we do not, and can not by definition live in an ideal society. Ideals like the abortion less society described above are excellent goals to use as a driving force behind a society. But such goals are inherently asymptotic. We can never truly reach them, but must keep trying. Also, we have to recognize that an ideal society, or something close to it, is not forced into being by means of restrictive legislation. Good laws do not make good men, and simply saying, "We don't like action A! Make action A against the law!" is superficial, and, quite frankly, demeaning to the seriousness of the problem. It is akin to sleeping in poison ivy and thinking that we can just keep putting calamine lotion on the rash, when what we really need to do is remove the poison ivy itself. I hope to work towards this goal by means properly educating my children to understand both the factual and philosophical elements of cause/effect in decision making, as well as emphasis on abstinence with a full, factual treatment of different methods of contraception. What will the pro-lifers be doing? Hopefully something in a similar vain: educating people in what you feel to be a superior life philosophy, namely, choosing options other than abortion to deal with unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, instead of whining for the government to force your life philosophy onto all the citizens of the country regardless of theirs.

But, with all of that said, I am pro-choice. We don't live in an ideal society, and since I am not omniscient, I cannot foresee all of the possibilities of the human condition. Nor is it my right to make that decision, or implicitly make that decision by means of restricting it, for all other free beings. So, I am pro-choice because I believe that the legal option for safe abortion should be there, with certain restrictions, I simply won't stand for being called pro-abortion as such a label is clearly in contradiction with personal feelings on the matter, as I believe in abortion only as a last option after all others have been explored and rejected.

But hey, since we are in a dispelling and dropping myths mood, let's move onto the "abortion-on-demand" myth, shall we? I have seen a multitude of posts throughout this thread recounting horror stories of young woman with blithe attitudes towards the serious matter of pregnancy and abortion—which of course implies an even more blithe attitude towards sexual responsibility. But, as far as I can see here, this is nothing more than hearsay and anecdotal, emotion ploys. Is there any reliable statistical evidence to show that these isolated incidents have become the prevailing attitude towards abortion? Are there studies to show that the population in general believe in abortion as a form of birth control, or that pregnancy is no big deal? I would like to see them. Until then, this is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay. And, I assure you all, that for every story I have seen here and elsewhere along the lines of, "I met a women who had 9 abortions," or "I had a patient who said abortion was no big deal," I can offer you an equally true and equally anecdotal story about a woman or young woman who struggled with the decision to terminate a pregnancy, agonized over having to make the decision, and learned a valuable lesson regarding the monumental weight of pregnancy and sexual responsibility. So whose story time is more valuable? No one's. It's nothing more than a collection of a few personalized, isolated incidents and we do ourselves a disservice by using these stories as "proof" to argue for or against legalized abortion.

Finally, I would like to dispel the myth presented in the OP's quote, specifically, " While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called epidemic of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America's acceptance of the procedure." The misplaced fear of back-alley abortions might very well have fueled public sentiment about legalized abortion, but public sentiment, as so many have lamented in the past, can and should not influence the Supreme court, and was not the deciding factor in Roe v Wade. The risk to women from illegal abortion procedures is a tiny fraction of the basis for the decision. So while it is important to dispel myths, it does not, at all, influence the basis for the SC's decision on the matter. Balancing privacy with the rights of potential human life within the mother were main concerns, as well as respecting the State's interest in protecting the life of its citizens. The full text of the decision can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html), I won't insult you by recounting the entire thing. Basically, it has been found on more than one occasion, that the State, in forbidding all forms of abortion across the board, oversteps its boundaries and contradicts the constitutional rights of citizens in this country. We can't base our opinions on sentiment, personal religion, etc. We have a standard : the Constitution, and we must judge all laws against the Constitution, myths and personal beliefs aside.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

No, because a zygote can not perform any of the functions which can be ascribed to a human being.

And yes, I am only an organism.

So you define living things by function instead of essence?

[Rahab]

Snarf:

I need to intervene at this point and not in your favor. IMO you are drifting away from sensible and reasonable arguments.

Pilgrim is absolutly correct that elective abortions are a matter of convenience by the very definition that they are designed to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The reasonable and acceptable solution to reducing the current abortion rate of 1.5 millions a year is to promote and pursue to provide cost free anti conception devices and drugs. (which the majority of Planned Parenthood centers will place an IUD at no cost if the woman is economicaly unable to support the cost).

Crisis Pregnancy Centers are equipped to make referrals to various adoption agencies and will even provide temporary shelter, economical and financial support for prenatal care by calling on local families who volunteer to host a pregnant woman and help her thru the completion of her gestation. Our CPC had an amazing amount of resources and was specificaly trained to encourage the alternative of adoption. Also trained to consider the welfare and future of the pregnant visitor.

Basicaly, as you earlier dismissed the potential for adoption as a viable alternative to abortion, you are mistaken. Any pregnant woman, no matter her age, health and economical condition, has free access to any of the existing CPCs which advertize their services in a simple phone book! (I will take that opportunity to recommend Birthright CPCs).

They also provide a list of contacts and resources to support, comfort and nurture any woman dealing with a pregnancy she did not will to cause. Some of our counselors went as far as not forsaking the ones who still chose to have an abortion. They would follow up on the emotional, psychological and often physical impact of the abortion on those who elected to pursue the termination of their unwanted pregnancy. Those folks are far from being "crazed fascist fundies"!.

In fact, some of my peer counselors were anti abortion for the sake of the woman and not based on any belief that a blastocyst and zygote and embryo are in fact an actual person. Their concern was to spare such woman from an abortion and by doing so emphasizing the importance of not confusing elective abortions for a contraceptive mean.

The statistics we kept from our caseload showed that women who still opted to terminate their pregnancies were more proned to not use contraception and often resorted to multiple abortions. Those who opted for adoption and completed their gestation, used contraception and were extremely vigilent to not get pregnant again.

I was part of the statistics of repeated abortions in my youth. Undoubtly, being uncaring and numb about the preciousness of my own body.

I need to tell you that once a pregnant woman, who faces an unwanted pregnancy, makes the choice to pursue such pregnancy for the purpose of providing a newborn to a childless couple by means of adoption (or a single person for that matter), she will not expose herself to a second unwanted pregnancy.

However, I strongly support her right to make or not make that choice as she is the actual existing person I am concerned with.

At the point in human gestation when a fetus has the capacity to experience both any degree of sensorial and intellectual reception and interpretation of his/her environment, I do raise the ethical issue of one actual existing person's right to live versus the right of the other actual existing person to choose to have an elective abortion. I then need to consider two actual existing persons' rights.

But I will not deprive any actual existing person from the right to exercise that choice for the sake of supporting the concept that a potential individual person to be is to have rights which prevail over the rights of the actual existing person.

Thus, under no circumstances would I forsake, harass, mistreat any pregnant woman who makes the choice to terminate her pregnancy. In all circumstances, though, will I encourage her to reconsider and explore the benefit of completing her gestation for the purpose of providing a childless individual with a newborn. I will undoubtly share my experiences with multiple abortions and what resulted from them in the several years during which I suffered of PAS until I was brought into recovery and healing by a PAS counselor who also had experienced multiple abortions and could deal with my issues with compassion and empathy.

I am very firm with women who are now pro lifers, have experienced one or multiple abortions in their past, and pursue to be venimous, angry and uncompassionate towards those who make today the choice to terminate their pregnancies.

Pilgrim's attitude of love and grace towards women who had an abortion is the right one coming from a christian. His left leaning tendencies ought to be no surprise to anyone familiar with the denomination he has been ordained as a minister in. (which I also happen to be familiar with). Your attempts to label Pilgrim as part of the "crazed fundy fascist "crowd are totaly unjustified.

Though I hold a position different from Pilgrim's, I still recognize that he has indeed reflected reasonably on various arguments before he formed his current opinion on the topic of abortion.

I also acknowlege, contrary to you, that as a counselor, he has the necessary experience to naviguate in the realm of helping folks separate their emotions from a decision making process and he will focus on long term benefits rather than instant gratification and quick fixes which often lead to a repeated pattern of the same unfortunate consequence.

To conclude : your style of communication, in the majority of the threads where the topic revolved around abortion, lacks the capacity to focus on reasonable arguments which invite reflection from the "opposite side". Basicaly, you come across as a troll. Which IMO offers no support to a pro choice stand. I will add, that I consider also that some of the pro lifers in this forum strike me as trollish by the poor quality of their arguments projecting emotional reactions. Pilgrim is definitly NOT one of them.

Can we try to refocus on which common goals a pro lifer and a pro choicer may share? Which the only reasonable half way meeting point IMO is to figure out ways to reduce the current abortion rate while encouraging sexualy active men and women to prevent pregnancies they have not consciously and willingly decided to cause and assume. The right to choose to become pregnant or not become pregnant implies a change in the sexual practices from both genders.

Mentalities do not change by means of repression and oppression of individual freedom. And the individual freedom of every female is at stake the moment we propose to allow the state to exercise a custodial role over the use of her own organs. Organs which are necessary to support the gestational stages of the in utero morphological and bio chemical development. Until an established and defined stage of viability out utero when such development may be pursued without the use of her organs. That argument ought to be your focus as a determined pro choice individual.

In fact, the staunch pro choice position is that as long as the mother's organs are necessary to support such development in utero, it is irrelevent that she is supporting another person or a "blob of cells". She should not be compelled by law to utilize her organs to support anything or anyone against her will. Which is NOT my position. I do raise an objection to such reasoning as I embrace embodied subjectivity as defining an actual existing person in utero which of course points to a serious ethical issue. Only then, do I consider that her rights must be challenged.

The other being the dualism of who has rights to prevail over other persons' rights granted we all agree on the definition of "person". Granted we all explore objectively the implications of promoting legislations granting rights to potential persons versus actual persons.

My patronizing tone with you is purposeful. The goal at hand is to redirect you to utilizing reasonable arguments rather than drawing all sorts of assumptions bordering with ad hom attacks. Keep in mind that for some pro lifers, they have invested great emotional energy in their reasoning and provoking those emotions IMO is not acceptable. Some are absolutly convinced that a blastocyst is no different than the cute 20 weeks fetus who has the capacity to experience the same comforting suckling action a newborn experiences by sucking his/her thumb or wrists...... Yet it is not the picture of a blastocyst which will be paraded in pro life rallies, but indeed the in utero pic of a fetus as most resembling to a newborn.

[Rahab]

So you define living things by function instead of essence? Bonsoir ApologiaNick,

Since you mentionned "living things", what essence do you attribute to a bacteria ? I am seriously asking that question, while assuming you meant biological living organisms rather than "living things".

As you reflect on the essence of a bacteria, I will also ask you to compare the essence to the function of a bacteria.

I have a sense, only a perception of course (which leaves an open door to being erroneous) that you are invoquing the biology species argument which relies on the status of belonging to the homo sapien species as being the compelling argument to define the importance and ethical value of the human blastocyst, zygote and embryo. That ,of course, without considering their morphological capacities and abilities to include bio chemical interaction at the encephalic level.

Is that what you mean by "essence"?

[Wyzaard]

Nutrient requirements increase during pregnancy to support fetal growth and maternal health. Iron requirements of pregnant women are approximately double that of non-pregnant women because of increased blood volume during pregnancy, increased needs of the fetus, and blood losses that occur during delivery [16]. If iron intake does not meet increased requirements, iron deficiency anemia can occur. Iron deficiency anemia of pregnancy is responsible for significant morbidity, such as premature deliveries and giving birth to infants with low birth weight [1,51,59-62].
http://dietary-supplements.info.nih.gov/factsheets/iron.asp#h7


These changes benefit the fetus... not the woman.


Many women find it fun shopping for baby clothing due to maternal instincts (i.e. you can have fun preparing life for the baby), and also people often help pregnant women. It is considered good, for instance, to give up your seat on a bus to pregnant women. It's not sexist to ride a fun biological imperative whilst it lasts, or to help people who have a baby.


biological imperitives... or cultural assumptions? My ex was scarcely in the mood for playing 'broodmare'.


Yes, you can be negative. My point is that the baby offers benefits if you seek them, and so is not a parasite.


Your 'positives' are either specious, or inapplicable to our particular life conditions; hense, the negatives ruled the day... regardless of any 'seeking'.


England. Most women tend to get bigger in pregnancy as the baby grows, and a few pounds more isn't noticed. Since women need to eat more to feed the baby, a few pounds is expected. What do you do in your country to stop women from getting fatter during pregnancy? We do nothing weird to pregnant women.

Unfortunately, pressures to stay thin are hoisted on pregnant women here... much to their and their fetus's detrament.


If you don't want them then you are being negative, if you cannot have them then you are either being negative or are not pregnant.


For good reason, as I have said... and outside of our choosing, condition-wise. This is not a matter of attitude... having a baby in the US can literally be life-or-death for the poor.


... what exactly are you accusing me of?

Making unjustified assumptions at the very least... more, I cannot say.

[Wyzaard]

Would you mind showing then when a "parasite" becomes a human being?

When it is born sounds like a good line to draw... of course, this is arbitrary and debateable.

[Rahab]

Yes, we can dispense with it. Anything that is a myth, or a political emotion-based construct that isn't based on truth should be dismissed if there is ever to be a productive dialogue on an issue. So, while we are dismissing that nonsense, may we also dismiss the accusations of someone being "pro-abortion" or the nonsense idea of "abortion on demand?" It's baseless smear, and such accusations degrade the conversation immensly. Furthermore, as someone who is pro-choice, I resent the implication that I somehow am lax about the idea of abortion, and I certainly resent the fact that people would paint the issue with such a broad brush and, without knowing me, include me in some predefined group who is "pro-abortion.". Bonsoir Sweet Mercury, Pearls for such a well thought and HONEST post. I concur that it has become quite annoying to be labeled as "pro abortion" as if any of us were delighting in and marveling at the notion of any woman having to resort to either a chemical abortion or an invasive surgical procedure to terminate a pregnancy they did not willingly and consciously choose to cause with the consenting will and intention to assume it. Part of the debate habit here on T Web is unfortunatly to use labeling and confuse issues and rarely explore the implications of statements made in the absolute.



.I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. Let me repeat for clarification: I am pro-choice, I am not pro-abortion. I don't like the idea of abortion, I am relatively certain that very few people do (I will further address that below). In fact, I along with many others would like to see all other options explored first, including adoption of the child into a loving family that will care for all of its needs. I cannot think of any pro choice individual I have personaly interacted with who "liked the idea of abortion". I cannot even think of any woman I have counseled or interacted with who chose to have an abortion who "liked the idea of having an abortion". Nor did I myself celebrate and publicize openly with any epiphany that I had multiple abortions.

.I think that, ideally, there would be no abortions. In fact, I believe that in an ideal society, by anyone's conception regardless of political persuasion, there would be no need for abortions and the practice would abolished. Not one, not ever. There would not even be a single unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, ever. Every child would be the gift, the blessing that it should be thought of, born into a family that is psychologically and financially ready for the responsibilities of caring for a child. That is a wonderful vision. However, we both know that our society is dysfunctional by the very nature of its participants. On one side, people who neglict to apply necessary measures to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. On the other, people who will to control thru the state the exclusive right of ownership and choice of use of a female's organs. Blind to the implications of empowering the state at any time to dictate to any sentient existing and constitutionaly identified person how she/he will utilize his/her organs. No law can currently compell any such person to support the life of any other person by providing the use of his/her organs and bodily fluids.

While it is fun to pretend, however, we do not, and can not by definition live in an ideal society. Ideals like the abortion less society described above are excellent goals to use as a driving force behind a society. But such goals are inherently asymptotic. We can never truly reach them, but must keep trying. Also, we have to recognize that an ideal society, or something close to it, is not forced into being by means of restrictive legislation. Good laws do not make good men, and simply saying, "We don't like action A! Make action A against the law!" is superficial, and, quite frankly, demeaning to the seriousness of the problem.

Absolutly. I earlier stated " mentalities do not change by means of repression and oppression of individual freedom". In fact, such means tend to have the opposite effect and create an underground industry to support the prohibited behavior. (see the prohibition).



. It is akin to sleeping in poison ivy and thinking that we can just keep putting calamine lotion on the rash, when what we really need to do is remove the poison ivy itself. I hope to work towards this goal by means properly educating my children to understand both the factual and philosophical elements of cause/effect in decision making, as well as emphasis on abstinence with a full, factual treatment of different methods of contraception. What will the pro-lifers be doing? Hopefully something in a similar vain: educating people in what you feel to be a superior life philosophy, namely, choosing options other than abortion to deal with unexpected or unwanted pregnancy, instead of whining for the government to force your life philosophy onto all the citizens of the country regardless of theirs. IMO some pro lifers are more involved in providing such equipping and education than pushing their agenda by attempting to manipulate legislation. The same way, some religiously motivated individuals are more involved in improving the human condition by direct interaction and intervention than attempting to demonstrate that they have a copyright on character and morality, further to also manipulate legislation to impose on a pluralistic society their version of what character and morality ought to be.

.But, with all of that said, I am pro-choice. We don't live in an ideal society, and since I am not omniscient, I cannot foresee all of the possibilities of the human condition. That admittance seems to be common among agnostics. I am often touched by the humility most agnostics display as they avoid declaring anything as an absolute truth. That searching state of mind seems to produce a climate of tolerance and acceptance.

. Nor is it my right to make that decision, or implicitly make that decision by means of restricting it, for all other free beings. So, I am pro-choice because I believe that the legal option for safe abortion should be there, with certain restrictions, I simply won't stand for being called pro-abortion as such a label is clearly in contradiction with personal feelings on the matter, as I believe in abortion only as a last option after all others have been explored and rejected. Your position is similar to mine.

.But hey, since we are in a dispelling and dropping myths mood, let's move onto the "abortion-on-demand" myth, shall we? I have seen a multitude of posts throughout this thread recounting horror stories of young woman with blithe attitudes towards the serious matter of pregnancy and abortion—which of course implies an even more blithe attitude towards sexual responsibility. But, as far as I can see here, this is nothing more than hearsay and anecdotal, emotion ploys. Is there any reliable statistical evidence to show that these isolated incidents have become the prevailing attitude towards abortion? Are there studies to show that the population in general believe in abortion as a form of birth control, or that pregnancy is no big deal? I would like to see them. Until then, this is nothing more than unsubstantiated hearsay. And, I assure you all, that for every story I have seen here and elsewhere along the lines of, "I met a women who had 9 abortions," or "I had a patient who said abortion was no big deal," I can offer you an equally true and equally anecdotal story about a woman or young woman who struggled with the decision to terminate a pregnancy, agonized over having to make the decision, and learned a valuable lesson regarding the monumental weight of pregnancy and sexual responsibility. So whose story time is more valuable? No one's. It's nothing more than a collection of a few personalized, isolated incidents and we do ourselves a disservice by using these stories as "proof" to argue for or against legalized abortion. That is a very honest assessment of how we will use such anecdotes to support our own agenda. There is a variety of responses and reactions to an abortion among women who chose to have one or several. In general, the multiple abortion pattern is the result of confusing abortion for contraception.

If the first one is in very early pregnancy, and does not necessitate a D and C (invasive), the tendency is to not identify it to an abortion. IMO, the human psyche will reject any reality it wills not to deal with. That implies a state of denial. Some have argued that the use of RU 486 can only contribute to a pattern of repeated abortions. Which I disagree with. The emotional and psychological and physical impact is far more drastic thru a process which takes approximately two weeks to complete dilation and the evacuation or ejection of a less than 9 weeks embryo or zygote or blastocyst. Such non surgical procedure can only be lived and experienced as an abortion by the patient. Cramping in the course of dilation, followed by intermittent bleeding and passing of tissues over the final week and after the absorbtion of the second chemical drug. I can hardly imagine that anyone would shelter in any denial stage.

The atmosphere which weighs over the waiting room of a Women's Health Clinic can only be described as heavy. The one I visited two years ago did not spare the awaiting patients from the vision of the departing patients still groggy and often escorted by a relative or friend. Each of those women will respond differently to their abortion. Though some will have to deal with post abortion syndrom symptoms sometime manifesting themselves years after the fact.

I cannot provide you with statistics but I can only relate to you what my personal experience was and why I did not identify my first abortion as an abortion but as a quick fix without any consequences. The feeling of being delivered from an unwanted situation or condition prevailed over any type of emotional or psychological impact. The physical one having been a matter of 15 minutes in a GYN's office. The second and third one were equaly minimized in my mind. It was as if I were going thru the motions of an unavoidable doom without any feelings whatsoever. A state of resignation almost bordering with self inflicted punishment. A twisted confirmation of my state of unworthiness.

Of course, years later, my subconscious started to act up. Whichever I repressed willed to come out. I harbored anger which lashed out at any target of opportunity. I pursued behaviors denoting a lack of self validation of my own person. Losing interest in my studies. Becoming increasingly depressed and unable to be committed to any long term goal or relationship.I continued to waste my body into embraces I was using as a mean to find affection and validation. The ultimate self deceptive process so many women suffer of. It is only as I reached my mid thirties and prior to the birth of my third child now 14, that I was confronted by the reality that all those symptoms I could not either ignore or control had their source somewhere in my past and it was time to deal with it.

I recieved counseling from a nurse trained in PAS . We bonded as sisters as she had undergone a similar experience. She led me to establish consciously a connection to which specific events of my past caused me to repress pain. I will tell you that it is my observation that many women who had an abortion will to avoid any emotional pain. Part of that avoidance is often manifested by denying that there is any reason to feel it. It is a denial stage often noted in post abortion stages. In that sense, such response can be percieved as indifference or a "blithe attitude" towards abortion by folks who have absolutly no way to relate to experiencing an abortion. What goes on in the psyche of each woman is so very complex and profoundly dramatic at times.

.Finally, I would like to dispel the myth presented in the OP's quote, specifically, " While any death is a tragedy, the estimated 500 is a far cry from the so-called epidemic of deaths from back-alley abortions that fueled America's acceptance of the procedure." The misplaced fear of back-alley abortions might very well have fueled public sentiment about legalized abortion, but public sentiment, as so many have lamented in the past, can and should not influence the Supreme court, and was not the deciding factor in Roe v Wade. The risk to women from illegal abortion procedures is a tiny fraction of the basis for the decision. So while it is important to dispel myths, it does not, at all, influence the basis for the SC's decision on the matter. Balancing privacy with the rights of potential human life within the mother were main concerns, as well as respecting the State's interest in protecting the life of its citizens. The full text of the decision can be found here (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZS.html), I won't insult you by recounting the entire thing. Basically, it has been found on more than one occasion, that the State, in forbidding all forms of abortion across the board, oversteps its boundaries and contradicts the constitutional rights of citizens in this country. We can't base our opinions on sentiment, personal religion, etc. We have a standard : the Constitution, and we must judge all laws against the Constitution, myths and personal beliefs aside. I am glad you echoed what I developped on earlier in this thread. I also had posted a link to the transcripts of the final and concluding arguments of the Roe/Wade Decision. I equaly refuted any attempt to claim that Roe/Wade was influenced by any alleged "deaths by illegal abortions" arguments. But I cannot confirm that my link was even opened and read by the poster I addressed my refutation to.

[geochron]

If "the boyfriend" wasn't going to be forced to support a child he didn't want, what would be the motivation for harming his g/f because of a pregnancy?

Surely you aren't suggesting that justifies violence?

If he felt that strongly he should have restrained himself earlier. He took the risk.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

When it is born sounds like a good line to draw... of course, this is arbitrary and debateable.

Would you mnd telling me then why earlier it even has its own DNA, the same DNA it has at birth, it can be seen sucking its thumb in an ultrasound and the mother can invite people to touch her belly to feel it kick? To say it's arbitrary and debateable is to hurt your own point. Everything is debateable of course, but to say arbitrary makes it seem as if you just picked out a time and assumed there's something magical in the birth canal that gives life.

Now if you want to show there's something about the birth canal that bestows humanity, then please show it.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Bonsoir ApologiaNick,

Since you mentionned "living things", what essence do you attribute to a bacteria ? I am seriously asking that question, while assuming you meant biological living organisms rather than "living things".

As you reflect on the essence of a bacteria, I will also ask you to compare the essence to the function of a bacteria.

I have a sense, only a perception of course (which leaves an open door to being erroneous) that you are invoquing the biology species argument which relies on the status of belonging to the homo sapien species as being the compelling argument to define the importance and ethical value of the human blastocyst, zygote and embryo. That ,of course, without considering their morphological capacities and abilities to include bio chemical interaction at the encephalic level.

Is that what you mean by "essence"?

I would say by essence, that which is at the soul of a creature. By this standard, bacteria would not apply. They do not have souls. I appreciate the chance to explain my view further.

I do believe there are soulish animals and these are all the higher animals. If my house is being invaded by termites, I have no qualms about calling an exterminator in to gas them. They're not soulish creatures. On the other hand, I cannot readily accept it when the news tells about several dogs and cats slaughtered and dumped somewhere in town. Those are soulish creatures.

For human beings definitely though, who we are comes before what we do. We are creatures created in the image of God before anything else and I would say even abortion is an attack on that image.

[Ytaker]

These changes benefit the fetus... not the woman.


In the middle period yes, but before the baby grows a lot, and just after it is born, you have a huge surplus of blood. It wouldn't be a benefit for everyone, but it is useful nonetheless. Even if you do not take advantage of it, it is still there.

biological imperitives... or cultural assumptions? My ex was scarcely in the mood for playing 'broodmare'.

Your ex desperately wanted to abort the baby, so she was unlikely to heed any instinct. In addition, putting emotive words in like 'broodmare' does not strengthen your point. Maternal hormones are well recognised in mammals, being the reason why they don't just drop their children down and ignore them, but in fact nurse them and feed them. Since mothers have a similar situation, becoming very loving of their babies despite not being baby people before, it is a reasonable guess that they, like all other mammals, have instincts too. So, if you want, you can have a lot of fun. If you don’t want to, then you are again not taking advantage of your baby’s gifts.

Your 'positives' are either specious, or inapplicable to our particular life conditions; hense, the negatives ruled the day... regardless of any 'seeking'.

To someone who hates babies, yes. Negatives will always rule when hate abounds. Maternal instincts are always applicable, as almost every woman will have it if they allow themselves to (hormones being genetic). If someone tells you to stop getting fat, you can insult them a lot legitimately (as it is a fact that anorexia is not healthy, even if your culture likes thin people). If at the end you are bored with children, you can have your child adopted.

Unfortunately, pressures to stay thin are hoisted on pregnant women here... much to their and their fetus's detrament.


Weird.

For good reason, as I have said... and outside of our choosing, condition-wise. This is not a matter of attitude... having a baby in the US can literally be life-or-death for the poor.
With the extent of aid offered that is unlikely. All they have to do is get support that people often offer to pregnant women, then dump it near an adoption centre. Does the US offer support to people with children?


Making unjustified assumptions at the very least... more, I cannot say.


You already have said more, assuming I am terrorising someone, making someone " a helpless, impovershsed woman at the mercy of a hyper-religious fiends". I meant why are you using rudeness to try to defeat my arguments? What’s wrong with rational debate?

My benefits do not need to be enormously good. The children at one end are the main benefit. As long as you get a few benefits in between, then calling the unborn a parasite is wrong, as it gives the mother useful abilities.

[Rahab]

I would say by essence, that which is at the soul of a creature. By this standard, bacteria would not apply. They do not have souls. I appreciate the chance to explain my view further.

Bonjour!

My perception was definitly way off!:smile: I appreciate your candor in revealing that your conviction relies on your spiritual beliefs.

.I do believe there are soulish animals and these are all the higher animals. If my house is being invaded by termites, I have no qualms about calling an exterminator in to gas them. They're not soulish creatures. On the other hand, I cannot readily accept it when the news tells about several dogs and cats slaughtered and dumped somewhere in town. Those are soulish creatures. Taking in consideration that the soul remains quite an abstract concept, my next question is what basis do you use to determine that a termite is not a soulish creature but cats and dogs are?

Does it have to do with the fact that mammals relate to us as they can interact with us? I myself refer to our Great Pyrhenees and our maincoon as "furry persons".

Does it have anything to do with their morphology allowing them to communicate some degree of emotions, definitly sensorial responses and that we can train them to react and respond according to our will?

Does it have anything to do with considering some animals as having a conscience and some not having one? By conscience, I mean the potential to discern right from wrong. However, most certainly a learned practise where the right and wrong are defined by whomever is training the animal to respond one way or the other.

Which interestingly enough, we, as members of the human species, also learn such practise and our values will depend on which culture and society trained us to consider what is right and what is wrong.

.For human beings definitely though, who we are comes before what we do. We are creatures created in the image of God before anything else and I would say even abortion is an attack on that image. IMO your reasoning is very consistant with the judeo christian concept of a God who first formed the morphology of the first man to then animate him by breathing His Spirit into his nostrils.

IOW, the physical existence preceeded the animation of the creature. Without that animation (I purposefuly use the term "animation" because of its common latin root to the word "soul", "anima" which is also the translation for soul in Italian), the human is only an organism which has no capacity and ability to ever exercise the potential for discerning right from wrong.

Please do not take my following reasoning as an attempt to demean the source of your conviction. Rather to draw a parallel between the Biblical description of the act of creation and animation of the first member of our species and what goes on in utero until the time of viable birth.

Creation : God forms the human morphology of Adam from dirt. A concrete and material tool we can visualize. An image which seems to be reflected again later in the metaphore of the "potter and the clay". However, we have no mention of genes, chromosones, DNA etc.. It remains a simplistic description without any involved details.

In utero : we do have very involved and confirmed details. We know that the fertilized ovum becomes a blastocyst (between 70 and 150 cells), that once attached to the uterine wall, it will evolve to the zygotic, then embryonic and finaly fetal stage.

At what point of time do you believe in such development, the ensoulment occurs?

Do you believe it to be inherited?

Do you believe it follows after the morphological formation as it did in God's Act of Creation or it preceeds it?

Do you believe it occurs at birth as indeed the newly delivered infant has to be stimulated to breathe in order to guarantee that his brain cells will recieve an adequate supply of oxygene? Brain cells who participate and direct our entire capacity to ever exercise and practise the ability to discern right from wrong (conscience).

A conscience without which neither you or I would have ever been able to concieve mentaly the concept of a Creator we have identified as God.

Did Adam's morphology necessitate a brain to be further animated and prompted to reason for him to even percieve and acknowlege that God is?

Could "made in the Image of God" mean the specific time when God breathed His Spirit into Adam's nostrils?

Could it also mean that the fetus is "made in the Image in God" at the specific time he/she has sufficient brain formation to even be animated by the supply of oxygene his/her mother's red cells transport into his/her own circulatory system? An animation which continues to increase as the fetus develops further encephalic formation. Formation which at some point of time allows any of us at whichever tender age of childhood to comprehend the concept of God.

As an aside, I lean to appreciate more the idea of inherited ensoulment regardless of any morphological capacity, because it guarantees that no mentaly incapacitated human being will be rejected from the eternal presence of God in Heaven even as they cannot at any time understand the meaning of Christ and accept Him.

That belief has sustained me to envision a specific loved one in Heaven who was mentaly ill her entire existence and could never access God because of her mental dereliction and distress. I cherish the thought of her being finaly delivered and being able to contemplate the visage of Christ. That belief allowed me to not consider her existence as tragic and meaningless. That is the beauty of our faith. It gives each of us a comforting purpose.

I look forward to your reply.

[Rahab]

In the middle period yes, but before the baby grows a lot, and just after it is born, you have a huge surplus of blood. It wouldn't be a benefit for everyone, but it is useful nonetheless. Even if you do not take advantage of it, it is still there.



Your ex desperately wanted to abort the baby, so she was unlikely to heed any instinct. In addition, putting emotive words in like 'broodmare' does not strengthen your point. Maternal hormones are well recognised in mammals, being the reason why they don't just drop their children down and ignore them, but in fact nurse them and feed them. Since mothers have a similar situation, becoming very loving of their babies despite not being baby people before, it is a reasonable guess that they, like all other mammals, have instincts too. So, if you want, you can have a lot of fun. If you don’t want to, then you are again not taking advantage of your baby’s gifts.



To someone who hates babies, yes. Negatives will always rule when hate abounds. Maternal instincts are always applicable, as almost every woman will have it if they allow themselves to (hormones being genetic). If someone tells you to stop getting fat, you can insult them a lot legitimately (as it is a fact that anorexia is not healthy, even if your culture likes thin people). If at the end you are bored with children, you can have your child adopted.



Weird.


With the extent of aid offered that is unlikely. All they have to do is get support that people often offer to pregnant women, then dump it near an adoption centre. Does the US offer support to people with children?




You already have said more, assuming I am terrorising someone, making someone " a helpless, impovershsed woman at the mercy of a hyper-religious fiends". I meant why are you using rudeness to try to defeat my arguments? What’s wrong with rational debate?

My benefits do not need to be enormously good. The children at one end are the main benefit. As long as you get a few benefits in between, then calling the unborn a parasite is wrong, as it gives the mother useful abilities. Just to let you know that IMO there is no general rule as to women will experience a pregnancy. The only determining factor being whether it was a planned and desired pregnancy. That will set a state of mind in her which will allow her to overcome and bear with whichever discomfort, physical limitation, health changes, hormonal variations, weight gain, etc.....

The age may also be a factor because I can guarantee you that a pregnancy in your late thirties is not as pleasant as it may be in your twenties. Especialy since women start losing bone mass in their mid thirties and our skeleton is not so solid and strong that we will not experience back strain as we carry extra weight to include the weight of the fetus as we enter the third trimester. Let alone knee and ankle problems and possible tendinitis. Which may make ambulation painful.

But again, all those "miseries" are bearable as we are nesting extensively, preparing actively the arrival of the youngling and depending on our economical situation, we may be either shopping for the cutest layette items and baby furniture or struggling to readjust a meager budget while avoiding stores on our way to the thrift shop of the Salvation Army.


In the US, there is no guarantee you will benefit of consistant medical pre natal supervision unless you have the financial ability of being able to afford health care insurance. You may have to depend on Women's Health Care Clinics who are still willing to provide basic pre natal supervision at moderate cost but will need to refer you to an OB GYN if you were to develop complications. And do not fool yourself to believe for an instant that a pregnancy is never a potential of health risks for a woman.

And even in those circumstances, the fact that the pregnancy was desired and willingly caused will still animate such woman with strength, resilience and creative ways to overcome economical poverty.

In any case, any pregnant woman is worthy and deserving of support, comfort and affection. It is easy for any of us to engage in a conversation with any pregnant woman who crosses our path. So easy to compliment her and ask her the usual questions such as "when are you due"? Easy to make her feel special. We may even discover in the course of such conversation that she can benefit of the crib we stored in our attic.

[Wyzaard]

Would you mnd telling me then why earlier it even has its own DNA, the same DNA it has at birth,

Why is this significant? A tumor also has it's own DNA.


it can be seen sucking its thumb in an ultrasound and the mother can invite people to touch her belly to feel it kick? To say it's arbitrary and debateable is to hurt your own point. Everything is debateable of course, but to say arbitrary makes it seem as if you just picked out a time and assumed there's something magical in the birth canal that gives life.

Likewise, as you have magically chosen "It's cute! Look at it sucking it's thumb!" as your arbitrary pick of criteria. Mine's as good as yours on any 'ultimate' moral level. Now, on a pragmatic one...


Now if you want to show there's something about the birth canal that bestows humanity, then please show it.

Personhood, not humanity... and the burden of proof is on you to show why a lump of parisitic tissue deserves to be treated as a person.

[RumTumTugger]

Personhood, not humanity... and the burden of proof is on you to show why a lump of parisitic tissue deserves to be treated as a person.

Whats the difference?

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Why is this significant? A tumor also has it's own DNA.

DNA is insignificant? Got it.



Likewise, as you have magically chosen "It's cute! Look at it sucking it's thumb!" as your arbitrary pick of criteria. Mine's as good as yours on any 'ultimate' moral level. Now, on a pragmatic one...

Is there any basis for yours? Mine has a basis. Sucking your thumb like that is the activity of a living being. In fact, your own words imply that it's doing an action that we deem as cute.



Personhood, not humanity... and the burden of proof is on you to show why a lump of parisitic tissue deserves to be treated as a person.

Difference between the two?

[Rayado]

Why is this significant? A tumor also has it's own DNA.
'Scuse me for interrupting, but I wanted to comment on this.

This comment is simply absurd. The unborn are no different than tumors?

Cancerous tissue is nothing more than 'broken' DNA. Would you like to explain how the DNA of unborn children is also 'broken?' In fact this is where the comparison fails the worst: no good changes occur to DNA through mutations after conception. While bad changes sometimes do happen to a child's DNA during conception, most DNA changes at conception do not 'break' stuff like cancer does (and if it did, well, we wouldn't be here).

Apart from concieving new life, the DNA we carry only deteriorates. We call that DNA cancer, not new life. Why you think they are the same is...beyond me.

On the other hand, this could make for a very interesting cottage industry:

[Wyzaard]

Whats the difference?

'Human' in the manner that you are using the term catagorizes all entities that possess the same base biological template: shared semblance of DNA. This is an insufficient catagory when speaking of the applicable rights and consideration of a particular sort of agency that would give us pause before proceeding with any 'termination'; a sapient 'person' describes this state of ethical applicablility. In our society... the brain dead, the immature, the senile, the adolescent, the criminal... all have circumscribed rights based upon pragmatic considerations of their developing and/or circumscribed personhood; an embryo and a fetus do not even possess the fraction of the characteristics as even the forementioned... thus, why should we consider them as 'people'? Potentiality arguments will not help here; anything constituative and/or consumable could be seen as 'potentially' (part of) a new life.

[Wyzaard]

DNA is insignificant? Got it.

Dunno... why should we consider it so? This is YOUR criteria, mind you.


Is there any basis for yours? Mine has a basis. Sucking your thumb like that is the activity of a living being.

Arguments from analogy are pretty weak... indeed, if I were to only rely on 'parasite' associations, you would have cause to question my position.

In fact, your own words imply that it's doing an action that we deem as cute.


So are baby seals, geckos, poodles, convertables, and tutus... does this confer personhood upon these things?

[Wyzaard]

This comment is simply absurd. The unborn are no different than tumors?


To someone who does not want to have a child, the parasitic aspects and looming doom in the future can be errily similar.


Cancerous tissue is nothing more than 'broken' DNA. Would you like to explain how the DNA of unborn children is also 'broken?'

If it's an unwanted pregnancy... heck yes it's broken: it never should have happened. At any rate, how is 'brokenness' a valid criteria here?


In fact this is where the comparison fails the worst: no good changes occur to DNA through mutations after conception. While bad changes sometimes do happen to a child's DNA during conception, most DNA changes at conception do not 'break' stuff like cancer does (and if it did, well, we wouldn't be here).

Well, as pregnancies around the world kill the woman one out of seven pregnancies, I would say there some things may 'break'; and that's before the ramifications to the health of the family even in the advent of a successful pregancy... most abortion in the US are done out of finantial need.


Apart from concieving new life, the DNA we carry only deteriorates. We call that DNA cancer, not new life. Why you think they are the same is...beyond me.

Namely the parasitic, dangerous characteristics.

[Rayado]

To someone who does not want to have a child, the parasitic aspects and looming doom in the future can be errily similar."Doom?"

It's a little late to be worried about children at this stage in the game, don't you think, when the chance of pregnancy is introduced?

So now it's just supposed to "seem" like an unborn child is a parasite or a cancer?

If it's an unwanted pregnancy... heck yes it's broken: it never should have happened. At any rate, how is 'brokenness' a valid criteria here?

Actually, you have it completely backwards: it is because pregnancy is anything but broken that it's unwanted. Pregnancy works like it should: the DNA of an unborn child, barring genetic problems that do happen, is 'whole' and will cause the child to develop into a separate, whole, human. Cancer cannot, by nature, do anything but kill someone from the inside out. Just because a child is unwanted does not mean that it is 'broken'--it's because it's gonna work and do like every other unborn child does, and have needs like every other child does, that it is unwanted.

'Brokennness' is a valid criteria specifically because you're comparing corrupted DNA to whole DNA, and calling them the same. It's the distinction that's being ignored to compare new life to that which only kills.

Well, as pregnancies around the world kill the woman one out of seven pregnancies, I would say there some things may 'break'; and that's before the ramifications to the health of the family even in the advent of a successful pregancy... most abortion in the US are done out of finantial need.Maybe you didn't see where I did mention that not all pregnancies end well. Second, we're not talking about the mothers--we're talking about the genetic composition of the child (and more specifically, the end to which that composition is being used).

Namely the parasitic, dangerous characteristics.What parasitic characteristics? Human anatomy is suited for pregnancy and birth--it's not something that just sneaks up on people out of the blue. Sperm haven't developed wings yet, either.

[Bill the Cat]

Wyzard,

We are all parasites. We all rob natural resources from the earth. We mine, deforest, and dam up rivers. We destroy other creatures' natural habitat. So why is an unborn parasite any different than a born one?

[Rahab]

Why is this significant? A tumor also has it's own DNA.
Bonjour Wyzaard,

I would like to assume that you are aware of the invalidity of comparing a tumor to a blastocyst.... but just in case, let me give you a couple of arguments which make your argument quite weak:

- The female human immune system does not identify the blastocyst as a foreign body. There is no increase of white cell count which occurs at the time the blastocyst attaches to the uterine wall. A sign that neither mature lymphocites or T cells are activated to attack the blastocyst.

- Tumors, whether malignant or benign, are the product of a metabolic dysfunctionment of one mother cell which uncontrolably multiplies to create a mass of invasive cellular tissues which have the same capacity as the mother cell to multiply indefinitly. Including to detach from the initial tumor and "choose" a new environment to form new tumors.

The blastocyst is not the product of a metabolic dysfunctionment. From the fertilized ovum (mother cell), subsequent cells do NOT at any time detach themselves to form independent tissue masses seeking new environments. The blastocyst can only develop attached to the uterine wall.(endometrium) Those cells are programmed geneticaly to form a coherent body leading to the formation of specific organic parts triggering various functions. There is no coherence factor in tumors. No organic part to trigger any organic function.

To also add that the entire endocrional system of the female will adapt and welcome the blastocyst. The endocrional glandes automaticaly enlarge the uterine wall tissues to provide a secure attachment location. In fact, the entire organic functions of the female undergo a process of changes and responses to the blastocyst with the goal to adapt to the presence of the organism. I am not aware of such adaption response from the human morphology to tumors.

Further, the human immune system is being explored diligently to perfect immunotherapy methods to combat malignant tumors. Cancer research has shown that the immune response can be stimulated to attack and destroy tumors without the use of conventional methods of chemo and radiations. IOW, the human immune system is already programmed to activate itself to attack tumors. It is only a matter of guiding B lymphocytes and T cells towards specific targets.

The human immune system is not programmed to detect, target and destroy a blastocyst.

So, on one hand, we have a non coherent mass of tissues with a DNA coding identical to the initial mother cell, which can detach, travel throughout the body, seek new environments to form still non coherent new cellular tissues which do not ever develop any organic distinc parts leading to organic distinct functions. A tumor.

On the other hand, we have a coherent body of approximately 150 cells in the blastocyst ,with a DNA coding which was produced by the combining of two distinct DNA codings at the time of fertilization, their metabolism being programmed to form distinct organic parts leading to specific organic functions. A functional organism produced by a functional and natural organic capacity of the human morphology. There is no dysfunctional factor which causes the formation of the blastocyst.

However, that said, I do not abide to the biology species theory which promotes the opinion that the specificity and uniqueness of each DNA code of each blastocyst justifies the concept of personhood. It certainly denotes an individual quality to each blastocyst. But the same individuality quality can be attributed to any mammal blastocyst.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

So are baby seals, geckos, poodles, convertables, and tutus... does this confer personhood upon these things?

*Casts rod out and reels in excitedly as he feels a jiggle.*

Oooh! Caught a big red herring here!

Okay! First off, being cute does not constitute being a person. I have no idea where you got that I was thinking that.

Secondly, you still haven't told me what's magical about the birth canal that gives life. (My position is life is there from the beginning and we just see more evidence of it.)

Thirdly, I'm still looking for a difference between what makes a baby a person but not a human.

[Wyzaard]

It's a little late to be worried about children at this stage in the game, don't you think, when the chance of pregnancy is introduced?


Nope. Abortion's the last responsible choice left when others have been exhausted.


So now it's just supposed to "seem" like an unborn child is a parasite or a cancer?

The resemblance is uncanny.


Actually, you have it completely backwards: it is because pregnancy is anything but broken that it's unwanted. Pregnancy works like it should: the DNA of an unborn child, barring genetic problems that do happen, is 'whole' and will cause the child to develop into a separate, whole, human. Cancer cannot, by nature, do anything but kill someone from the inside out. Just because a child is unwanted does not mean that it is 'broken'--it's because it's gonna work and do like every other unborn child does, and have needs like every other child does, that it is unwanted.

The end result is however the same (though a rough analogy, admittedly)... a tremendous risk to the life and well-being of the woman in question, if unwanted. Pregancy is not harmless when you are poor, nor is child-rearing.


'Brokennness' is a valid criteria specifically because you're comparing corrupted DNA to whole DNA, and calling them the same. It's the distinction that's being ignored to compare new life to that which only kills.


Not necessarally; some cancers are benign... so I guess the analogy is pretty muddied.


What parasitic characteristics? Human anatomy is suited for pregnancy and birth--it's not something that just sneaks up on people out of the blue. Sperm haven't developed wings yet, either.

But not everyone has access to education, empowerment, contraception, and the material resources necessary to grow and raise a child. In conditions of scarcity, the embryo/fetus becomes a serious threat that wouldn't be otherwise.

[Wyzaard]

Wyzard,

We are all parasites. We all rob natural resources from the earth. We mine, deforest, and dam up rivers. We destroy other creatures' natural habitat. So why is an unborn parasite any different than a born one?

I never said I was keen on the born ones... that's why I'm a revolutionary socialist.

[Wyzaard]

Bonjour Wyzaard,

I would like to assume that you are aware of the invalidity of comparing a tumor to a blastocyst.... but just in case, let me give you a couple of arguments which make your argument quite weak:


Well... I never intended it as an argument more than a rough analogy meant to illustrate the potential threat an unwanted child poses for the family it could be born into. Personally, I don't find that I hold the burden of proof in these isses; if one wants a fetus to hold a full complement of human rights, then they need to show why we should confer them onto something that is by default a non-person.


However, that said, I do not abide to the biology species theory which promotes the opinion that the specificity and uniqueness of each DNA code of each blastocyst justifies the concept of personhood. It certainly denotes an individual quality to each blastocyst. But the same individuality quality can be attributed to any mammal blastocyst.

Well said!

[Wyzaard]

Okay! First off, being cute does not constitute being a person. I have no idea where you got that I was thinking that.


"Would you mnd telling me then why earlier it even has its own DNA, the same DNA it has at birth, it can be seen sucking its thumb in an ultrasound and the mother can invite people to touch her belly to feel it kick?"

"Mine has a basis. Sucking your thumb like that is the activity of a living being. In fact, your own words imply that it's doing an action that we deem as cute."

You used these images in an appeal to emotion, methinks... or else a poor method of comparison.


Secondly, you still haven't told me what's magical about the birth canal that gives life. (My position is life is there from the beginning and we just see more evidence of it.)

There's nothing more or less magical with mine than yours... all we have as a comparative convention is pragmatics: my set of criteria in this matter deals with individual choice and social utility, both of which are served with the existance of legal abortion on one hand... and the default recognition that a lump of insapient, nonautonomous tissue is not a person in any way shape or form. If you wish to show that it is, then you bear that burden... as well as show that the woman's human rights are worth less than the fetus.


Thirdly, I'm still looking for a difference between what makes a baby a person but not a human.

'Personhood' is a matter of sapience, personal and social agency, development, autonomy, etc (this is a sliding scale, admittedly)... whereas 'human' is just a simple biological marker that is insufficient for this moral/ethical task.

[ApologiaPhoenix]

"Would you mnd telling me then why earlier it even has its own DNA, the same DNA it has at birth, it can be seen sucking its thumb in an ultrasound and the mother can invite people to touch her belly to feel it kick?"

"Mine has a basis. Sucking your thumb like that is the activity of a living being. In fact, your own words imply that it's doing an action that we deem as cute."

You used these images in an appeal to emotion, methinks... or else a poor method of comparison.

No. I used it because anyone can look at that and realize that that is a living being and thus a human at that point. That is not the activity of simply a mass of tissue or a parasite.



There's nothing more or less magical with mine than yours... all we have as a comparative convention is pragmatics: my set of criteria in this matter deals with individual choice and social utility, both of which are served with the existance of legal abortion on one hand... and the default recognition that a lump of insapient, nonautonomous tissue is not a person in any way shape or form. If you wish to show that it is, then you bear that burden... as well as show that the woman's human rights are worth less than the fetus.

I've already shown it. THe baby is participating in activity and a doctor will tell you it has a heartbeat at that point. I've yet to see something non-living that doesn't have a heartbeat. If you consider the baby just a lump of tissue, I'm wondering what you really know about the baby at that stage.

The woman's rights are not worth less than the fetus, but it is not her body. It is the body of the baby. The "fetus" does not have her DNA after all. It has part of it, but it does not possess all of her DNA.



'Personhood' is a matter of sapience, personal and social agency, development, autonomy, etc (this is a sliding scale, admittedly)... whereas 'human' is just a simple biological marker that is insufficient for this moral/ethical task.

Which leads to where will we draw the line? At what point are we going to say people cease to have personhood? If they already have humanity, then are we not automatically killing humans? Again, you're determining people based on their function instead of who they are. I wonder if any other cultures in recent history have done such a thing.....

[geochron]

No. I used it because anyone can look at that and realize that that is a living being and thus a human at that point. That is not the activity of simply a mass of tissue or a parasite.



It doesn't follow from "it sucks its thumb" that its life must be preserved. Interspersing "it's human" into the chain doesn't help.



Which leads to where will we draw the line? At what point are we going to say people cease to have personhood? If they already have humanity, then are we not automatically killing humans? Again, you're determining people based on their function instead of who they are. I wonder if any other cultures in recent history have done such a thing.....



If we use failing a test to determine something isn't a person, it doesn't follow that passing the test makes something a person.

I think all this "human" stuff leads pro-lifers astray. There's nothing in a two-day old conception that makes me think we should preserve its life by legal force. Arguing about whether its "human" or "a human being" or not is just an argument about how we want to use that word or phrase. Call it a human if you like, I still don't think there's anything about a two-day old conception that makes me think we should preserve its life by legal force. It doesn't have and never has had mental states.

There is a question of where we draw the line. The fact that it is a difficult question to answer doesn't imply that we have to draw it at the moment of conception.

[themuzicman]

What DOES make you think that we should preserve the life of a human?

Michael

[Snarf]

There is a question of where we draw the line. The fact that it is a difficult question to answer doesn't imply that we have to draw it at the moment of conception.

For fundies it does:simple-minded people don't want to have to think too hard

[geochron]

What DOES make you think that we should preserve the life of a human?

Michael

For instance evidence that it has had or is having thought processes, as implied above.

[themuzicman]

For instance evidence that it has had or is having thought processes, as implied above.
So, what it is before we can detect though processes?

[geochron]

So, what it is before we can detect though processes?

A human embryo at a stage before it is appropriate to protect its existence with legal sanctions.

[themuzicman]

A human embryo at a stage before it is appropriate to protect its existence with legal sanctions.
So, the human embryo is a human that isn't worth protecting from death.

[geochron]

So, the human embryo is a human that isn't worth protecting from death.

If you want us to agree to use the word "human" that way for the purposes of this discussion, yes.

But I sense lack of clarity on what a human is. You want me to extend my definition of "a human". My existing definition of "a human" includes "protect from death". When I extend it to include embryos at all stages of their development, you hope that the "protect from death" part of the old definition will get dragged along with it.

That's why I find pro-life "it's a human" arguments so uncompelling.

[themuzicman]

You're really splitting hairs over the meaning of "human", here. Either the embryo is human, or it is not. It's the same being that will come to term and be born, yet somehow that same human has to earn it's way into your protection.

Michael

[geochron]

You're really splitting hairs over the meaning of "human", here. Either the embryo is human, or it is not. It's the same being that will come to term and be born, yet somehow that same human has to earn it's way into your protection.

Michael

It's not splitting hairs. The "it's a human" argument is just a language game.

My bottom line - something with no brain that never had a brain is not worth protecting under the law, no matter what we agree to call it.

[Wyzaard]

No. I used it because anyone can look at that and realize that that is a living being and thus a human at that point. That is not the activity of simply a mass of tissue or a parasite.


Human, sure. A person... I see little practical resemblance. Instead, a mass of tissue is more descriptive.


I've already shown it. THe baby is participating in activity and a doctor will tell you it has a heartbeat at that point. I've yet to see something non-living that doesn't have a heartbeat. If you consider the baby just a lump of tissue, I'm wondering what you really know about the baby at that stage.


That it is a living thing means little to whether or not we should consider it a person; lots of things that are living are afforded little to no consideration in our society.


The woman's rights are not worth less than the fetus, but it is not her body. It is the body of the baby. The "fetus" does not have her DNA after all. It has part of it, but it does not possess all of her DNA.

But it does possess half of it, and is completely dependant upon the woman for development; it is a subordinate entity at best.

You appear to have little problem with forcing women to be incubators.


Which leads to where will we draw the line? At what point are we going to say people cease to have personhood? If they already have humanity, then are we not automatically killing humans? Again, you're determining people based on their function instead of who they are. I wonder if any other cultures in recent history have done such a thing.....

Don't pull this Genocide Awareness Project crud; an embryo/fetus cannot be a person by any practical consideration, whereas a thinking/walking/talking/developed/socially integrated human being can be. Currently, many humans ARE considered to be 'less' than people... prisoners, low-wage workers, immigrants, the senile, children... some for fair reasons, most not. Why don't you concentrate on those who should be treated better, rather than WASTE your efforts on lumps of tissue?

[Rayado]

Nope. Abortion's the last responsible choice left when others have been exhausted.

:twitch:

Who are you trying to fool? Abortion is the dereliction of responsible choices if the possibility of a child is unwanted--and unheeded. Keeping your pants zipped, however, remains a responsible choice, and considerably cheaper than the risk of pregnancy and abortion.

The resemblance is uncanny. So? I'm not terribly interested in resembelance, but actual composition. Why should I not think that such an appeal is only to emotion and fear?

The end result is however the same (though a rough analogy, admittedly)... a tremendous risk to the life and well-being of the woman in question, if unwanted. Pregancy is not harmless when you are poor, nor is child-rearing. Neither is it harmless for the not-so-poor. Money can't bring happiness to broken homes and broken people, after all.

Not necessarally; some cancers are benign... so I guess the analogy is pretty muddied.That it is.

But not everyone has access to education, empowerment, contraception, and the material resources necessary to grow and raise a child. In conditions of scarcity, the embryo/fetus becomes a serious threat that wouldn't be otherwise.Let's look at these:

Education. Really, what education do you need to prevent pregnancy by not having sex?

Empowerment. This one actually backfires; if by it you mean self-discipline this wouldn't be a problem at all.

Contraception. This one is self-defeating if used as an answer to dangerous pregnancy; all contraception does is lower the risk of problems, but it doesn't do a thing to stop the real problem.

Material resources: It isn't all about the benjamins. Money cannot buy safety or security.

[Ytaker]

Don't pull this Genocide Awareness Project crud; an embryo/fetus cannot be a person by any practical consideration, whereas a thinking/walking/talking/developed/socially integrated human being can be. Currently, many humans ARE considered to be 'less' than people... prisoners, low-wage workers, immigrants, the senile, children... some for fair reasons, most not. Why don't you concentrate on those who should be treated better, rather than WASTE your efforts on lumps of tissue?

Ad hominen, now bait and switch. Not effective argument strategies.

"Why don't you concentrate on those who should be treated better, rather than WASTE your efforts on lumps of tissue?"

The implication is that being pro life means you ignore human rights issues, and we are incredibly cruel for caring for one group when another more needy group also exists, who we naturally hate. Neither argument is convincing without evidence.
What you don't seem to realise is that until you convince us that the unborn is not a person, you cannot convince us that we should become pro-choice by making an argument that uses emotive terminology to say that the unborn is not a person.

Who do you not consider a person out of the above? All of them seem to be pure blood humans.

[geochron]

What you don't seem to realise is that until you convince us that the unborn is not a person, you cannot convince us that we should become pro-choice by making an argument that uses emotive terminology to say that the unborn is not a person.



The unborn is not a person from the getgo because something with no brain that never had a brain can't be a person.

It seems to me that pro-life arguments tend to be awash with emotive terminology.

[Ytaker]

The unborn is not a person from the getgo because something with no brain that never had a brain can't be a person.

It seems to me that pro-life arguments tend to be awash with emotive terminology.

We disagree, obviously, and have different definitions. I'm not arguing though, just deploring the suggestion that we don't care about people in need because we are pro-life.

Baby terminology, actually. The unborn is very cute, so words that indicate this are common. I would deplore something like this.

Why don't you concentrate on 'cute' babies, rather than WASTE your efforts on those ugly thin 'scum' in Africa.

His supposition was that we were ignoring important issues (cute babies), and hammering this in with a bit of emotive terminology (say, scum, or with the unborn, cute). If you avoid using ad hominid as an argument, it's OK to use the odd word.

[Wyzaard]

Who are you trying to fool? Abortion is the dereliction of responsible choices if the possibility of a child is unwanted--and unheeded.

This is based off the assumption that having a child is a responsible choice... not shown. Some situations make this the untenable choice for a family... thus ending the pregnancy is the only responsible choice.


Keeping your pants zipped, however, remains a responsible choice, and considerably cheaper than the risk of pregnancy and abortion.


Too bad conservatives have fostered an environment of gender disempowerment, misinformation, and poverty... which kindof makes these choices hard to avoid.


So? I'm not terribly interested in resembelance, but actual composition. Why should I not think that such an appeal is only to emotion and fear?


'Actual' composition? More assumptions. And don't deny you chose those certain structures for emotive effect.


Neither is it harmless for the not-so-poor. Money can't bring happiness to broken homes and broken people, after all.


Perhaps not... but it makes happiness possible where it was impossible before. Socio-economic status is the primary indicator of all social ills.


Education. Really, what education do you need to prevent pregnancy by not having sex?


Because sex is a natural drive of sexually developed human beings; denying it helps nothing. Students that have made abstinance pledges lose their virginities only a handful of months after their non-abstaining classmates... and over 90% of both lose it before marriage anyway. (See Judith Levine's 'Harmful to Minors' for more info). Because of this, it is imperitive that contraceptive use is properly used... abstinance pledgers tend to not use condoms when they do eventully have sex; do you think that is a good thing?


Empowerment. This one actually backfires; if by it you mean self-discipline this wouldn't be a problem at all.


Women are still regulated to second-class status when it comes to sexual choices, regardless of your religious adherance; men have the upper hand in both consumer culture and christian matters... women are given passive roles in such decisions.


Contraception. This one is self-defeating if used as an answer to dangerous pregnancy; all contraception does is lower the risk of problems, but it doesn't do a thing to stop the real problem.


Which is the combination of the three reasons I gave... combine them, and your abortion rate will plummet as European rates have; if no one is pregnant due to access to contraceptives (over 98% effective if used properly), gender empowerment, and proper education in both the methodologies of protection AND in what they might want sexually... then the problem is practically solved.

Sorry, we tried your theistic 'solution' through several republican administrations... and look where it's gotten us.


Material resources: It isn't all about the benjamins. Money cannot buy safety or security.

But it does buy condoms and pills... as well as make it possible to RAISE A CHILD.

Wake up, people.

[Wyzaard]

Ad hominen, now bait and switch. Not effective argument strategies.


Where? I see no such fallacies here. This:


"Why don't you concentrate on those who should be treated better, rather than WASTE your efforts on lumps of tissue?"


Is simply a fair and reasonable suggestion.


The implication is that being pro life means you ignore human rights issues, and we are incredibly cruel for caring for one group when another more needy group also exists, who we naturally hate. Neither argument is convincing without evidence.

Straw man... I never said you hated and completely ignored other groups. However, conservative politics is marked by a 'personal-responsibility' non-ethic that erases public assistance and social justice-based programs that heap suffering upon the impovershed, push 'tax-reforms' that beenfit the affluent classes at the expense of the poor, move to eliminate labor unions and worker protections while worshipping free-market madness, pushing tough crime laws and punitive sentancing, defunding of education and health care programs, are typically VERY pro-war, etc... etc...

You might not fall into this brand of pro-life, but most US pro-lifers do.


What you don't seem to realise is that until you convince us that the unborn is not a person, you cannot convince us that we should become pro-choice by making an argument that uses emotive terminology to say that the unborn is not a person.

Emotive terminalogy was not a part of my argument, and I do not bear the burden of proof... you have not shown that a lump of tissue qualifies as a 'person' any more than any other.


Who do you not consider a person out of the above? All of them seem to be pure blood humans.

Conservative ideology does not consider the poor, prisoners, non-Americans and many others to possess a fyull complement of human rights; I think those people should have them, instead of lumps of tissue.

[RumTumTugger]

It's not splitting hairs. The "it's a human" argument is just a language game.

My bottom line - something with no brain that never had a brain is not worth protecting under the law, no matter what we agree to call it.

No, it is you who are playing the word game. The same word game that allowed a certain group of human beings to be enslaved by anther group just because of their color by arbitraily deciding they weren't persons. only this time you are using the stage of development the human being is at to decide that they when they should be called persons who have the right of equal protection.

Geo, Human beings are persons because they are inherently human beings not because they have hit a certain developmental stage. there is not inherent change that happens to a human person when they hit the brain portion of their developmental stage they are the same person with the same DNA they had at conception.

[geochron]

No, it is you who are playing the word game. The same word game that allowed a certain group of human beings to be enslaved by anther group just because of their color by arbitraily deciding they weren't persons. only this time you are using the stage of development the human being is at to decide that they when they should be called persons who have the right of equal protection.

Geo, Human beings are persons because they are inherently human beings not because they have hit a certain developmental stage. there is not inherent change that happens to a human person when they hit the brain portion of their developmental stage they are the same person with the same DNA they had at conception.



Your point doesn't really address what I meant, since you don't refer to the previous post I'd made. where I defined the language game...

"But I sense lack of clarity on what a human is. You want me to extend my definition of "a human". My existing definition of "a human" includes "protect from death". When I extend it to include embryos at all stages of their development, you hope that the "protect from death" part of the old definition will get dragged along with it."

Anyway, racial slavery wasn't based on an arbitrary decision. It was justified on the theory that one race had lower abilities than another. The theory that justified slavery was shown to be invalid.

I justify abortion at least up to the point where the embryo has a brain on the grounds that being a person requires having or having had the capacity for mental states. It is self evident that at early stages the embryo lacks abilities conventionally associated with personhood and has never had them. If you can show that the embryo has mental states before it has a brain, go for it.

What is it that makes something a person - DNA? I think this idea is implausible. The concept of "person" was well established before the concept of DNA had even been imagined. That what we all understand by "person" can be applied to an embryo based on continuity of DNA remains to be shown.

[Rayado]

This is based off the assumption that having a child is a responsible choice... not shown. Some situations make this the untenable choice for a family... thus ending the pregnancy is the only responsible choice.Might want to let the myriad adoption agencies out there know this. They haven't had the luxury of knowing that their work has been futile.

What about their responsibility to the child? Couples who choose not to abort are obviously aware of this.

Too bad conservatives have fostered an environment of gender disempowerment, misinformation, and poverty... which kindof makes these choices hard to avoid.And it's too bad that you seek to blame anyone and everything else except the individual for their own choices. This is the problem I have with abortion: it seeks brute pleasure without responsibility for the consequences, and will kill to do so.

'Actual' composition? More assumptions. And don't deny you chose those certain structures for emotive effect.Quite the opposite: By composition I mean DNA structure--if it's got 23 pairs of chromosones, it's human; let's treat it as such.

When I say actual composition, I really mean actual composition; I've no interest in what it only 'seems' like. Right now this 'seems' comically absurd to me, and it 'seems' to me that you are trying to distract me to keep from having to defend a ridiculous position. But since how things 'seem' affects their reality, then... :tongue:

Now, you do realize the massive irony of calling an unborn child a tumor and a parasite, and when called out on this appeal to how an unborn child merely 'appears' to be a tumor and a parasite; and then trying to accuse me of using emotionally-loaded terminology, right?

Perhaps not... but it makes happiness possible where it was impossible before. Socio-economic status is the primary indicator of all social ills.And here I thought we were discussing abortion... :ahem:

Because sex is a natural drive of sexually developed human beings; denying it helps nothing. Splitting this paragraph to tackle the two issues in it.

So what if sex is a natural drive? When we justify our actions with statements like this, is it any wonder that men are thought of as pigs?

Students that have made abstinance pledges lose their virginities only a handful of months after their non-abstaining classmates... and over 90% of both lose it before marriage anyway. (See Judith Levine's 'Harmful to Minors' for more info). Because of this, it is imperitive that contraceptive use is properly used... abstinance pledgers tend to not use condoms when they do eventully have sex; do you think that is a good thing?

Abstinence pledges aren't worth the paper they're signed on unless they actually follow them. There is a logical correlation between not having sex and not getting pregnant.

It's not a problem with abstinence when people don't abstain. It's a problem of human nature.

Women are still regulated to second-class status when it comes to sexual choices, regardless of your religious adherance; men have the upper hand in both consumer culture and christian matters... women are given passive roles in such decisions.And this has what to do exactly with the issue of abortion? Or were you simply going off on a tangent? And judging from this description of Christianity, it looks like your understanding of the NT regarding women is a little rusty.

Which is the combination of the three reasons I gave... combine them, and your abortion rate will plummet as European rates have; if no one is pregnant due to access to contraceptives (over 98% effective if used properly), gender empowerment, and proper education in both the methodologies of protection AND in what they might want sexually... then the problem is practically solved.Thirty years of legal abortion in this country, and yet we're still arguing over it? Somehow I'm not convinced that this is the case.

[geochron]

Quite the opposite: By composition I mean DNA structure--if it's got 23 pairs of chromosones, it's human; let's treat it as such.



So if it was missing a chromosome, or had an extra one, there would be some doubt about whether it was human, right?

[Ytaker]

Where? I see no such fallacies here. This Is simply a fair and reasonable suggestion.

If we believe the unborn to be human, what chance is there of us heeding it. Until you prove that you are going around in circles if you accuse us. Consider.

Cocaine smoking is OK
No it's not
Drugs have many benefits
The problems of addiction outweigh them
You should be focusing your efforts on real issues like mugging
Wuh? What has that got to do with this.
Your people have bad crime policies.
We do?
You heap suffering on the impoverished
I do? Since when.
Not you but the US


And the argument passed over cocaine. Keep on topic.

[QUOTE]Straw man... I never said you hated and completely ignored other groups. However, conservative politics is marked by a 'personal-responsibility' non-ethic that erases public assistance and social justice-based programs that heap suffering upon the impovershed, push 'tax-reforms' that beenfit the affluent classes at the expense of the poor, move to eliminate labor unions and worker protections while worshipping free-market madness, pushing tough crime laws and punitive sentancing, defunding of education and health care programs, are typically VERY pro-war, etc... etc...

You might not fall into this brand of pro-life, but most US pro-lifers do.

You have to prove this though, show that whatever pro-choicers say is better and everything. That's a massive tangent to go off on. Random ramblings on how you hate conservative policies do not prove a point. Keep the Conservative/Liberal debates in their places, and debate abortion in it's place.

Emotive terminalogy was not a part of my argument, and I do not bear the burden of proof... you have not shown that a lump of tissue qualifies as a 'person' any more than any other.

To declassify someone who was regarded as a person? You bear a huge burden of proof. You cannot decide that some group of people are not people, and it's fine to kill them, and expect others to have to disprove you by doing more than shouting “stupid”. You have to prove that whosoever you kill is sufficiently guilty of your accusations, beyond doubt. I prefer to avoid the burden of proof, and just debate the question "is the foetus a human?".

Conservative ideology does not consider the poor, prisoners, non-Americans and many others to possess a fyull complement of human rights; I think those people should have them, instead of lumps of tissue.

Either you are going off on a tangent, and assuming that being pro-life is an exclusive conservative phenomena, (think of Piers Anthony, he's very liberal, but fairly pro-life "I hate the thought of the most truly innocent of creatures, unborn babies, suffering the death penalty.") or you just want to rant about conservative ideology. I think it is the second. You have not proven that becoming pro-choice will have any affect on the prisoners.

[Wyzaard]

Might want to let the myriad adoption agencies out there know this. They haven't had the luxury of knowing that their work has been futile.

Nahhh... lots of kids out there who need adopting; the conservative socio-economic backlash has brought a lot of them into being.


What about their responsibility to the child? Couples who choose not to abort are obviously aware of this.


As well as those who did choose to abort... like my ex and I. Having a child would have been incredibly irresponsible for us to do.


And it's too bad that you seek to blame anyone and everything else except the individual for their own choices. This is the problem I have with abortion: it seeks brute pleasure without responsibility for the consequences, and will kill to do so.

Abortion is not pleasureful... it is a last-resport solution to the problem of an unwanted pregancy. Expensive, and painful... but not nearly as much as a pregancy brought to term and a child raised in an impovershed household.

And you haven't shown that the individual is 'responsible' for these sorts of events.


Quite the opposite: By composition I mean DNA structure--if it's got 23 pairs of chromosones, it's human; let's treat it as such.


Tumors also possess human DNA... why should I consider things within this broad catagory to be 'people'?


When I say actual composition, I really mean actual composition; I've no interest in what it only 'seems' like. Right now this 'seems' comically absurd to me, and it 'seems' to me that you are trying to distract me to keep from having to defend a ridiculous position. But since how things 'seem' affects their reality, then... :tongue:

Yiou have not shown that your 'actual' isn't just a 'seems'; I'm not just going to grant you ontological authority off the cuff here. No quarter.


Now, you do realize the massive irony of calling an unborn child a tumor and a parasite, and when called out on this appeal to how an unborn child merely 'appears' to be a tumor and a parasite; and then trying to accuse me of using emotionally-loaded terminology, right?


Granted, I used the terminology as a hook... but wow, did it work or what?

My argument though is still a solid 'negative' one; until the anti-abortion side shows that an embryo/fetus should be treated as a full-grown person, then there's nothing much to talk about here.


And here I thought we were discussing abortion... :ahem:


Unlike conservatives, I do not disconnect social issues that are intrinsically intertwined. Oh... and YOU brought it up.


So what if sex is a natural drive? When we justify our actions with statements like this, is it any wonder that men are thought of as pigs?


Wanting and having sex does not mean we are 'pigs'... it just means we are human.


Abstinence pledges aren't worth the paper they're signed on unless they actually follow them. There is a logical correlation between not having sex and not getting pregnant.


As well as using contraception correctly and not getting pregnant, and that doesn't require us to act as eunichs. And besides, my point was that abstinance DOESN'T WORK... human sexuality cannot be 'turned off'. So, contraceptive use is the reasonable position here.


It's not a problem with abstinence when people don't abstain. It's a problem of human nature.


What problem might that be... and if a religious dictate, why should the rest of us allow you to warp society to its assumptions?


And this has what to do exactly with the issue of abortion? Or were you simply going off on a tangent? And judging from this description of Christianity, it looks like your understanding of the NT regarding women is a little rusty.

So I guess you're not one of those literalist christians who wish women to be subordinate to their husbands? Well that's good to know.

Oh... and women's rights and position in society has everything to do with the abortion issue, as it is their bodies we are talking about.


Thirty years of legal abortion in this country, and yet we're still arguing over it? Somehow I'm not convinced that this is the case.

Conservatives have eroded or eliminated all the suggestions I have mentioned that European countries have used to cause their unwanted pregnancyrates to plummet. We still argue over it because people like yourself are still hurting American families... which is similar to how many of you hurt them in other respects (anti-labor, pro-war, etc...).

[Wyzaard]

Cocaine smoking is OK
No it's not
Drugs have many benefits
The problems of addiction outweigh them
You should be focusing your efforts on real issues like mugging

Stop here... assuming the structure of this argument: the supposed 'problems' of abortion do not outwiegh the destructive impact on individual rights and social good in this case, as I have stated. Therefore, you shouldn't devote your time to doing something that is essentially destructive... instead, perhaps you should go into stopping poverty, a REAL killer of children. But...


Wuh? What has that got to do with this.
Your people have bad crime policies.
We do?
You heap suffering on the impoverished
I do? Since when.
Not you but the US


... as it stands, those of your political persuation actually SUPPORT the ravages of poverty, willingly and unwillingly, by voting conservative... removing scoial aid programs, hurting workers, etc. Insult upon injury... the wedge voter does much to hurt others and themselves by focusing on unnuanced issues 'from the heart'.


You have to prove this though, show that whatever pro-choicers say is better and everything. That's a massive tangent to go off on. Random ramblings on how you hate conservative policies do not prove a point. Keep the Conservative/Liberal debates in their places, and debate abortion in it's place.

That's the conservative way... isolate all issues from others. Sorry, it doesn't work that way; abortion is related will all manners of social, economic, and political topics. Supporting women's rights and a sound social policy have positive reprocussions for everyone else.


To declassify someone who was regarded as a person? You bear a huge burden of proof. You cannot decide that some group of people are not people, and it's fine to kill them, and expect others to have to disprove you by doing more than shouting “stupid”. You have to prove that whosoever you kill is sufficiently guilty of your accusations, beyond doubt. I prefer to avoid the burden of proof, and just debate the question "is the foetus a human?".


Incorrect. I don't have to 'declassify' a embryo/fetus... the E/F has never been shown to be a 'person' to any practical extent, as isn't currently. Stop dissembling and misrepresenting, and bear that burden.


Either you are going off on a tangent, and assuming that being pro-life is an exclusive conservative phenomena, (think of Piers Anthony, he's very liberal, but fairly pro-life "I hate the thought of the most truly innocent of creatures, unborn babies, suffering the death penalty.")

Hmmm... Anthony has a strange regard for children bordering on the pedophilic; I don't doubt that in the slightest. Conservatives do make up the bulk of the anti-abortion movement, however.


or you just want to rant about conservative ideology. I think it is the second. You have not proven that becoming pro-choice will have any affect on the prisoners.

Well, apart from making it less likely that an unwanted, burdening child might grow up to become someone living in desperate straights... working for the individual's rights as well as the public good implies leads one into a position to see prisoners as people, not 'evil'.

[Rayado]

Nahhh... lots of kids out there who need adopting; the conservative socio-economic backlash has brought a lot of them into being. :eh: What backlash?

As well as those who did choose to abort... like my ex and I. Having a child would have been incredibly irresponsible for us to do.But the sex apparently wasn't.

Sorry--that which is responsible (in this case, the sex that I'm being asked to believe is responsible) does not lead to that which is irresponsible (in this case, having a child). It just isn't a logical conclusion.

Abortion is not pleasureful... it is a last-resport solution to the problem of an unwanted pregancy. Expensive, and painful... but not nearly as much as a pregancy brought to term and a child raised in an impovershed household.I have a big problem with appealing to abortion as the 'lesser of two evils,' especially considering letting the child live would be the greater good.

And you haven't shown that the individual is 'responsible' for these sorts of events. You mean to say that people aren't responsible for their own actions taken with their own bodies?

Tumors also possess human DNA... why should I consider things within this broad catagory to be 'people'?:sigh: Is there an echo in the building? We've been down this road before. And soon you'll be telling me that the unborn only 'seem' like tumors.

Yiou have not shown that your 'actual' isn't just a 'seems'; I'm not just going to grant you ontological authority off the cuff here. No quarter.Fine, if you wish to base your argument off of emotion and appearance, go right ahead.

Granted, I used the terminology as a hook... but wow, did it work or what?

My argument though is still a solid 'negative' one; until the anti-abortion side shows that an embryo/fetus should be treated as a full-grown person, then there's nothing much to talk about here.Oh, it worked, far better than you intended, because you (and geochron as well) used and defended such terminology and revealed your underlying (unspoken) assumptions in all of their malice and evil.

Abortion isn't a question of money, or socioeconomic status. It's a question of worth: what do we find valuable? What has value? What gives value? What value does life have?

That which is valuable is protected; that which has no value can be disposed of without worry. Abortion devalues the unborn to the point of being worthless in order to justify itself. The unborn child is going to have worth as a human being, and to deny that worth is barbaric. But I will explore that a little more later down.

Unlike conservatives, I do not disconnect social issues that are intrinsically intertwined. Oh... and YOU brought it up.Actually, no. I was just contesting your calling the unborn 'parasites.'

By the way...who said I was a conservative?

Wanting and having sex does not mean we are 'pigs'... it just means we are human. Who are no better than pigs if that's all we do.

As well as using contraception correctly and not getting pregnant, and that doesn't require us to act as eunichs. And besides, my point was that abstinance DOESN'T WORK...

Wrong.

I have not had sex.

I do not have any children, and I have not had to consider abortion.

Therefore, abstinence works.

It is that simple.

human sexuality cannot be 'turned off'. So, contraceptive use is the reasonable position here.

Correct, it cannot be turned off...but there is a time and a place for it. How many young women have lost their virginity to the incessant pleas of their boyfriends who act like they're gonna die if they don't get satisfied? How many times are people pressured into sex based on the urges of the other?

What problem might that be... and if a religious dictate, why should the rest of us allow you to warp society to its assumptions?Who said I wanted to legislate anything? I'm no theonomist. I'm convinced that Christians, living their lives as they should, and living the gospel are a far better way to change society than changing the laws.

So I guess you're not one of those literalist christians who wish women to be subordinate to their husbands? Well that's good to know.But it still doesn't explain your misreading of the NT.

Oh... and women's rights and position in society has everything to do with the abortion issue, as it is their bodies we are talking about.Not just their bodies, but the bodies of those that they carry.

Conservatives have eroded or eliminated all the suggestions I have mentioned that European countries have used to cause their unwanted pregnancyrates to plummet. We still argue over it because people like yourself are still hurting American families... which is similar to how many of you hurt them in other respects (anti-labor, pro-war, etc...).Again with the conservative business: how do you know that I am what you are trying to broad-brush me as?

So if it was missing a chromosome, or had an extra one, there would be some doubt about whether it was human, right?Nope, precisely because such problems do occur in nature, and there's no doubt about the humanity of the people that have such conditions. But the question is not one of chromosones, but worth. Would such a condition render the embryo 'worthless' enough to abort? Would such a condition render the person 'worthless' enough to terminate? As a Christian, I recognize the value inherent to all life, not just that which is convenient or wanted. It always comes back to the question of value--and that we do not destroy that which we value.

[Ytaker]

Stop here... assuming the structure of this argument: the supposed 'problems' of abortion do not outwiegh the destructive impact on individual rights and social good in this case, as I have stated. Therefore, you shouldn't devote your time to doing something that is essentially destructive... instead, perhaps you should go into stopping poverty, a REAL killer of children. But...

Until you win he debate, we believe that banning abortion would result in social good, and individual rights should never be held above societal stability, i.e. banning murder. It's no use telling us your views, as they have no impact on us. We believe abortion is a REAL (capital letters make your argument stronger? :sigh: ) killer of children.

... as it stands, those of your political persuation actually SUPPORT the ravages of poverty, willingly and unwillingly, by voting conservative... removing scoial aid programs, hurting workers, etc. Insult upon injury... the wedge voter does much to hurt others and themselves by focusing on unnuanced issues 'from the heart'.

This needs results from studies, examinations of policies, and long term predictions of removing whatever social aid programs exist. Since you have not managed to casually rant a point, only give your vague impression of conservative policies, your rant is not a good rant.

That's the conservative way... isolate all issues from others. Sorry, it doesn't work that way; abortion is related will all manners of social, economic, and political topics. Supporting women's rights and a sound social policy have positive reprocussions for everyone else.


Maybe, perhaps if all pro-lifers decided to become pro-choice, world peace would ensue, terrorists would hand in their guns, and an eternal utopia would be established. Prove it. Don't rant, give statistics that we can argue upon, consider the other's argument and all.

Incorrect. I don't have to 'declassify' a embryo/fetus... the E/F has never been shown to be a 'person' to any practical extent, as isn't currently. Stop dissembling and misrepresenting, and bear that burden.

We invented the term personhood, it is an artificial idea. Previously, if it was human, personhood was assumed. Black people were supposed to not be people based on vague assertions, and it caused many deaths. You assume the E/F to be a non person, and so must prove it. We made the definition, we have to work out how to use it.


Hmmm... Anthony has a strange regard for children bordering on the pedophilic; I don't doubt that in the slightest. Conservatives do make up the bulk of the anti-abortion movement, however.


Use the word pro-life. Being rude only makes enemies. It doesn't convert people. Think how you would feel if I started to call you anti-life, or pro-death. Rude nicknames are the sort of thing I am arguing against.

[geochron]

Nope, precisely because such problems do occur in nature, and there's no doubt about the humanity of the people that have such conditions.



It was your definition - you said "By composition I mean DNA structure--if it's got 23 pairs of chromosones, it's human; let's treat it as such." My view is that human DNA is defined with reference to humans rather than the other way round.



But the question is not one of chromosones, but worth. Would such a condition render the embryo 'worthless' enough to abort? Would such a condition render the person 'worthless' enough to terminate?



A couple of posts back the question was one of chromosomes, apparently.

Before some level of development I'm ok with any embryo being aborted, after that point I would allow abortion only to save the mother's life. So, no, a particular genetic condition does not make an embryo worth more or less.

[Wyzaard]

:eh: What backlash?


Ever hear of Reagan and his cuts to social programs? How about the numerous anti-abortion mini-laws that have cut access to abortion and contraception to millions of women?


But the sex apparently wasn't.


Nope. Birth control (pill) failure was the cause... she had to switch pills because of health insurance cuts.


Sorry--that which is responsible (in this case, the sex that I'm being asked to believe is responsible) does not lead to that which is irresponsible (in this case, having a child). It just isn't a logical conclusion.


Then I would check your logic over... responsible acts may lead to irresponsible conclusions, and vice-versa; most circumstances of life are outside of the control of the 'agents' in question. And besides... you and I aren't preassuming the same valuations for responsible acts anyways.


I have a big problem with appealing to abortion as the 'lesser of two evils,' especially considering letting the child live would be the greater good.


By what measure?


You mean to say that people aren't responsible for their own actions taken with their own bodies?


No, not when there are numerous circumstances that are well outside of the control of the people in question; poverty tends to take choices away... and poison the rest.


:sigh: Is there an echo in the building? We've been down this road before. And soon you'll be telling me that the unborn only 'seem' like tumors.

Fine, if you wish to base your argument off of emotion and appearance, go right ahead.


Like yourself? Oh wait... you have a 'mystical' backing to your position... my bad.


Oh, it worked, far better than you intended, because you (and geochron as well) used and defended such terminology and revealed your underlying (unspoken) assumptions in all of their malice and evil.


Hardly. If I have been guilty of anything, it has been with being unclear with my terms.


Abortion isn't a question of money, or socioeconomic status. It's a question of worth: what do we find valuable? What has value? What gives value? What value does life have?


That depends upon the circumstances... and if you have a poor socio-economic status and no way to get out of it (due to systematic inequalities), the value of an embryo lies in negative territory, with little else positive possible.


That which is valuable is protected; that which has no value can be disposed of without worry. Abortion devalues the unborn to the point of being worthless in order to justify itself. The unborn child is going to have worth as a human being, and to deny that worth is barbaric. But I will explore that a little more later down.


There you go with that potentiality stuff again... are we to value spream and ova on this potentiality track? How about my last meal that is being incorperated into my body as per its actualized potentiality? Not that tenable, no...

And again, an embryo/fetus is NOT valuable to those whose lives are threatened by it coming to term... indeed, no one has shown that it inherently possesses value of the uniform type that you have given it, so 'devalue' it I have not done. Again, YOU bear the burden of proof.


Actually, no. I was just contesting your calling the unborn 'parasites.'


Well, they do act in such a manner bilogically... why is this a misnomer?


By the way...who said I was a conservative?


Your dismissal of the effects of socio-economic status on these sorts of issues labels you as conservative even if you do not see yourself as such... the political spectrum has shifted rightward quite a bit.


Who are no better than pigs if that's all we do.


We do all sorts of things... of which sex is an integral part. No false dichotomies! We can be animal and human at the same time.


Wrong.

I have not had sex.

I do not have any children, and I have not had to consider abortion.

Therefore, abstinence works.


Wrong. Subjective anecdotal evidence without qualifications dealing with your socio-economic status and other factors does not change the facts dealing with the broad implementation of this non-policy.


It is that simple.


Nothing is that simple, ever.


Correct, it cannot be turned off...but there is a time and a place for it. How many young women have lost their virginity to the incessant pleas of their boyfriends who act like they're gonna die if they don't get satisfied? How many times are people pressured into sex based on the urges of the other?


Gender empowerment and sexual education would prepare both boys and girls to pursue sexual relationships on a more equiable and knowledgable basis... that we don't have such programs today are a testament to destructive conservative engineering of our society.


Who said I wanted to legislate anything? I'm no theonomist. I'm convinced that Christians, living their lives as they should, and living the gospel are a far better way to change society than changing the laws.


Another conservative thought.... and a sad one; such depoliticization serves those in power quite nicely.


But it still doesn't explain your misreading of the NT.


You have not explained how I have done so... or how this effects the practical outcomes of the readings of these texts that DO subordinate women.


Not just their bodies, but the bodies of those that they carry.


There are no 'those' here until shown to be otherwise.

And who says you consider women to possess bodies? Your position seems to indicate that women are incubators, and little more.


Again with the conservative business: how do you know that I am what you are trying to broad-brush me as?


Only going by what you have stated thus far... how am I wrong exactly?


Nope, precisely because such problems do occur in nature, and there's no doubt about the humanity of the people that have such conditions. But the question is not one of chromosones, but worth. Would such a condition render the embryo 'worthless' enough to abort? Would such a condition render the person 'worthless' enough to terminate?

Why are we assuming 'worth' from the start, rather than 'worthlessness' for such lumps of tissue? Unfounded assumption.


As a Christian, I recognize the value inherent to all life, not just that which is convenient or wanted.

Would you support a comprehensive social safety net to support all these unwanted children coming into the world? Do you support the formation of one now?


It always comes back to the question of value--and that we do not destroy that which we value.

I would diagree with this for this reason: Apart from the other reasons I gave earlier for why my ex and I chose to abort, the last one one of mercy... we were sparing this possible 'life' the pain of living in an loveless, poor home, as well as the possibility of being adopted by those who would raise the child to be a monster... such as by fundementalist christians.

[Wyzaard]

Until you win he debate, we believe that banning abortion would result in social good, and individual rights should never be held above societal stability, i.e. banning murder. It's no use telling us your views, as they have no impact on us. We believe abortion is a REAL (capital letters make your argument stronger? :sigh: ) killer of children.

And yet, you have not SHOWN that it should be treated as such. Where is the non-mystical justification? What would be socially positive about a nation/world awash in unwanted, suffering children burdening everyone else?

Are you sado-masochistic?


This needs results from studies, examinations of policies, and long term predictions of removing whatever social aid programs exist. Since you have not managed to casually rant a point, only give your vague impression of conservative policies, your rant is not a good rant.


Some stuff to chew on while I look further:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy/ConservThinkTanks.html

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

I would suggest such books as Nickel and Dimed (Ehrenriech), Perfectly Legal (Johnson), The Working Poor (Shipler), Savage Inequalities (Kozol), and Culture Wars (Shor). I don't have the time and typing skills to go into as much detail online.


Maybe, perhaps if all pro-lifers decided to become pro-choice, world peace would ensue, terrorists would hand in their guns, and an eternal utopia would be established. Prove it. Don't rant, give statistics that we can argue upon, consider the other's argument and all.


False dichotomy, fallacy of the extremes... all part of the straw-man. I never said that abortion would be a panacea for all ills... but an improvement along with other measures? Yep.


We invented the term personhood, it is an artificial idea. Previously, if it was human, personhood was assumed.

Nope. You yourself give an exception:


Black people were supposed to not be people based on vague assertions, and it caused many deaths.

Yep... claims to their 'unpersonhood' were mighty specious; they were walking, talking, fully equivelent sapient beings. As for lumps of reproductive tissue however... a world of difference.


You assume the E/F to be a non person, and so must prove it. We made the definition, we have to work out how to use it.

Your definition of 'human', and how it is relevant/applicable to this discussion of 'personhood', has not been shown to be tenable.

Sorry.


Use the word pro-life. Being rude only makes enemies. It doesn't convert people. Think how you would feel if I started to call you anti-life, or pro-death. Rude nicknames are the sort of thing I am arguing against.

The problem with those nicknames for me is that they are not applicable... but YOU do want to end the practice of abortion, no? You are NOT 'pro-life'... not pro-woman, not pro-child with the plethora of the unwanted, unsupported, suffering kids you will usher into the world.

Rude? It's applicable.

[Ytaker]

And yet, you have not SHOWN that it should be treated as such. Where is the non-mystical justification? What would be socially positive about a nation/world awash in unwanted, suffering children burdening everyone else?

Are you sado-masochistic?

Emotive words again. You have not proven that abortion decreases suffering, just posted links, and you have not proven that being poor means you live a life that is not worth living. I don't care about links.
Positives. A greater respect for life might lead to many random things, such as women getting greater self confidence as feminists stop saying they need surgery to prove themselves to be true women. You have to prove that abortion does good things if I ask you, as you are actively participating in this debate with the intent to argue. I'm just annoyed at your accusations against pro-lifers, and am trying to get you to stop being rude.

Some stuff to chew on while I look further:

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Democracy/ConservThinkTanks.html

http://understandingkatrina.ssrc.org/FrymerStrolovitchWarren/

I would suggest such books as Nickel and Dimed (Ehrenriech), Perfectly Legal (Johnson), The Working Poor (Shipler), Savage Inequalities (Kozol), and Culture Wars (Shor). I don't have the time and typing skills to go into as much detail online.

Then don't rant about it. If you don't have the time to go into your views, then don't talk about them.


False dichotomy, fallacy of the extremes... all part of the straw-man. I never said that abortion would be a panacea for all ills... but an improvement along with other measures? Yep.

I was giving quick examples. I am waiting for you to start trying to prove the abortion is a panacea for any ills at all. You apparently don't have the time, but do have the time to make some vague fact bereft waffle :whack: . Stop insulting me, and start debating.

Nope. You yourself give an exception:

Black people? Mass slavery and all that wasn't there early on. It appeared latter. They are also not an exception, as the reasons are "specious"


Yep... claims to their 'unpersonhood' were mighty specious; they were walking, talking, fully equivelent sapient beings. As for lumps of reproductive tissue however... a world of difference.

Not everyone thinks so, and so abortion was considered illegal. Many hold that personhood is inherent, that the actions that designate a person are there ready to be used from the start. That is why someone comatose is still human, because they still have inherent personhood in them, and may still act in the future. Even if they cannot walk, talk, or be wise. I just don't like your arguments that assume that I hold the view that abortion is beneficial. To stop this, start putting facts in those arguments, so they are less circular.

Your definition of 'human', and how it is relevant/applicable to this discussion of 'personhood', has not been shown to be tenable.

Sorry.

I mix and match the terms.

The problem with those nicknames for me is that they are not applicable... but YOU do want to end the practice of abortion, no? You are NOT 'pro-life'... not pro-woman, not pro-child with the plethora of the unwanted, unsupported, suffering kids you will usher into the world.

Rude? It's applicable.


:shifty: You don't think human life should be preserved at all costs, therefore you are not pro-life. You are pro-death, when it suits women, and anti-life as in your philosophy. The main reason why we have the label pro-life is we champion other causes such as stopping euthanasia. Being unwanted by a person does not mean they will live a bad life, as other people do want them.

Is this going to be like SkepticBud spending ages saying JP's true name over and over again, after JP asked him to stop doing so, as he didn't want prison
inmates to beat him up? If someone has a preferred name, we should use it.

I can ramble about how you are not pro-choice, not pro-women, not pro-child, but pro-death and pro-abortion as you don't allow the unborn's choice, how you degrade women and destroy the family, but I don't, as such accusations are fact free (though have some basis) and look stupid.

If someone has a name, and it's not overly stupid (like 'your lord and master' for a squirrel), then call them it. Do not give them a nickname based on your feelings, as that is rude, whether or not you think it is applicable.

[Rayado]

Nope. Birth control (pill) failure was the cause... she had to switch pills because of health insurance cuts.Then sue the pants off of the company that sold you a defective product! Sue them for selling you a defective product that caused you unimaginable emotional and pysical harm. It's their fault.

Then I would check your logic over... responsible acts may lead to irresponsible conclusions, and vice-versa; most circumstances of life are outside of the control of the 'agents' in question. And besides... you and I aren't preassuming the same valuations for responsible acts anyways.Which is the entire problem.

Like yourself? Oh wait... you have a 'mystical' backing to your position... my bad.Where I'm from, we call that 'poisoning the well,' and it's not entirely accurate--I've only moderately based my position on theology.

That depends upon the circumstances... and if you have a poor socio-economic status and no way to get out of it (due to systematic inequalities), the value of an embryo lies in negative territory, with little else positive possible.Why would that be?

There you go with that potentiality stuff again... are we to value spream and ova on this potentiality track?Why do I suddenly have "Every sperm is sacred" running through my head right about now? :hehe:

How about my last meal that is being incorperated into my body as per its actualized potentiality? Not that tenable, no...There you go again with the emotionally charged comparisons. We know what happens to food that we digest. The same thing doesn't happen to the unborn even if you consider the unborn the same.

And again, an embryo/fetus is NOT valuable to those whose lives are threatened by it coming to term... indeed, no one has shown that it inherently possesses value of the uniform type that you have given it, so 'devalue' it I have not done. Again, YOU bear the burden of proof.Which you just supplied, thank you very much. You have proven the axiom by assigning oblivion to that which you personally do not value--in this case, the unborn. I'm curious to know how something loses value simply because it endangers something else that is valuable.

Your dismissal of the effects of socio-economic status on these sorts of issues labels you as conservative even if you do not see yourself as such... the political spectrum has shifted rightward quite a bit.Dismissal? Not quite. I should mention at this point that I think that the church can and will always do a better job than a government at providing care to all people. And that includes the unwanted and the unvaluable.

We do all sorts of things... of which sex is an integral part. No false dichotomies! We can be animal and human at the same time.Then you should have no problem with me calling you a pig for thinking and acting like one.

Wrong. Subjective anecdotal evidence without qualifications dealing with your socio-economic status and other factors does not change the facts dealing with the broad implementation of this non-policy.What other factors could possibly be involved that would cause the eqation (no sexual activity with females, therefore, no risk of pregnancy) to change?

Abstinent rich people don't have rich babies.

Abstinent middle-class people don't have middle-class babies.

Abstinent poor people don't have poor babies.

The logic works.

Nothing is that simple, ever.This time it is. I am living proof.

And about the anecdotal evidence claim--why should I not brush your situations off as anecdotal?

Gender empowerment and sexual education would prepare both boys and girls to pursue sexual relationships on a more equiable and knowledgable basis... that we don't have such programs today are a testament to destructive conservative engineering of our society.Last I checked, abstinence is a knowledgable basis for relationship. It's only when people try to break that rule that the rules break them instead.

Why are we assuming 'worth' from the start, rather than 'worthlessness' for such lumps of tissue? Unfounded assumption. You know, it does no good to confess to muddling your terms, and then muddle your terms some more. Things like this make me wonder about how serious you really are.

Would you support a comprehensive social safety net to support all these unwanted children coming into the world? Do you support the formation of one now?I do; it's called the Body of Christ. Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight...

I would diagree with this for this reason: Apart from the other reasons I gave earlier for why my ex and I chose to abort, the last one one of mercy... we were sparing this possible 'life' the pain of living in an loveless, poor home,That's not mercy, that's the zenith of cruelty to extend such lovelessness and poverty of care to the child before he or she was born.

as well as the possibility of being adopted by those who would raise the child to be a monster... such as by fundementalist christians.Yeah, why don't those adoption agencies ever screen people? It's almost like they'd have thought of that sooner.

[Rayado]

A couple of posts back the question was one of chromosomes, apparently.

It still is. Look at this thread--if it really was only about chromosones, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.