Abortion

[BVS]

Did you see the picture I posted? Looks to be human. Has hands, feet, a nose, mouth, eyes, ears and more.

So does a mannequin...

 

[financeguy]

This is not narrow legalism, it is a matter of correct statutory interpretation in Canada. A fetus is not a person under our Constitution - you are free to argue that the Constitution is incorrect, take it up with our Parliament and the Supreme Court. And good luck.

Not relevant. We are dealing with issues of natural law here.

 

[Justin24]

So does a mannequin...

Mannequins can't reproduce.

 

[BVS]

Moral societies view abortion as a crime - it really is that simple.

Wow your posts as of late.

Self righteous much?

 

[BVS]

Mannequins can't reproduce.

Can you ever answer a post in context? Your only qualifier is that it looked human.

Answer in context to what you originally said or just don't post.

 

[financeguy]

What is a 'moral society'?

A society which views abortion as a crime, is probably, inter alia, a moral society.

 

[Justin24]

The photos I posted is of a real child, not some mannequine. So why even bring that up? I have said other things, have you read that?

 

[Bluer White]

At present, the courts have not ruled that an embryo is a murder-able human being, so I suppose that means abortion is not murder.

Maybe not, but here is a nuance from a South Carolina court. Not sure how I feel about it just yet, but the whole article is worth reading:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040426/pollitt

"Now for the moment those slippery slope arguments have been set aside, and we are back with what is becoming an American tradition: arresting poor women for illegal drug use during pregnancy. For the past eight years, South Carolina has been charging women, mostly poor and black, with child abuse if they deliver babies who test positive for illegal drugs; the Supreme Court recently refused to hear the appeal of Regina McKnight, who is serving twelve years in maximum security for "homicide by child abuse" after delivering a stillborn baby who tested positive for cocaine. If you think what happens to a poor black drug user with an IQ of 72 doesn't apply to you, think again: In its 1997 decision in Cornelia Witner v. State of South Carolina, the state Supreme Court decreed that anything a pregnant woman does after viability that causes "potential harm" to the fetus is child abuse--anything."

 

[BVS]

The photos I posted is of a real child, not some mannequine. So why even bring that up? I have said other things, have you read that?

i was purely showing you the weakness of THAT statement.

Sorry you couldn't see that.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Bottom line: abortion is not murder, because to establish murder, there must have been a death of a human being. A fetus is not a human being and legally is not considered a person, therefore you don't even have a homicide, much less a murder. The end. I don't need photos or development timelines - there are probably few people at FYM who have my science background anyway, so I am perfectly well informed on the subject matter and have made up my mind.

Who needs a science background to know that a living being who looks like a human, has the same dna as a human being, and is developing and has developed the organs of a human being and resides inside of a woman human being is itself a human being?

 

[verte76]

I screwed up big time. I normally don't discuss abortion in public. It's just not something I'm comfortable with. I was trying to make the case for a secular state, something in general I feel very comfortable with, and let the cat out of the bag. Oops.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I screwed up big time. I normally don't discuss abortion in public. It's just not something I'm comfortable with. I was trying to make the case for a secular state, something in general I feel very comfortable with, and let the cat out of the bag. Oops.

I helped you let the cat out of the bag by taking issue with what you wrote. I don't feel bad about it, and neither should you, because an important and meaningful discussion has followed.

 

[CTU2fan]

Leaving religion out of it, because religion is only meaningful to those who believe...

Bottom line, at some point the fetus is alive. When that point is is debateable I suppose. You could make a case for "it's alive at the moment of conception" as well as "it's not alive until the head clears the vulva". If I had a way to prove if/when the fetus becomes self aware I'd probably make that the cutoff point, so I'd allow the morning after pill (did anyone ever confirm what it is, yes, it's basically a medical abortion, I think it prevents the embryo from attaching to the uterine wall). But I suppose that point of self awareness would vary; I'd guess the fetal brain's development rate varies, just as a child's brain does. But in the end, the possibility that that fetus might be alive, and aware, is why I'm 100% anti-abortion. IMO that life trumps any of the personal liberty arguments that pro-choicers generally use (and yes I realize that the majority of pro-choicers are not "pro-abortion").

At least A_Wanderes is consistent; A_W consistently takes a liberty-first stance on various topics. What I'd ask the other folks who make the libertarian argument for abortion legality (my body, my choice etc) is do you generally take that position on other issues? Prostitution for example. Should a woman have the ultimate say as to what she does with her body (or a man I suppose)?

Also what about minors...most would agree a minor can't consent to sex; why can an underage girl make the decision to abort, but not the decision to have sex in the first place?

I think it's really difficult to discuss this issue objectively. It's a credit to the FYM community how civil this thread has remained, from both sides of the argument.

 

[financeguy]

Wow your posts as of late.

Self righteous much?

I have not changed my viewpoint at all.

In other threads, you stand up for the rights of the underprivileged, the weak, against the strong, the powerful.

This IS a moral issue, just the same as standing up for the poor is.

Can't you see that?

 

[verte76]

I helped you let the cat out of the bag by taking issue with what you wrote. I don't feel bad about it, and neither should you, because an important and meaningful discussion has followed.

Oh, the discussion is cool. It's a comfort zone thing with me. I'm just not comfortable discussing abortion in public, and I did something I normally don't do.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Oh, the discussion is cool. It's a comfort zone thing with me. I'm just not comfortable discussing abortion in public, and I did something I normally don't do.

Oh, I understand.

There are certain issues that I feel strongly about that I will no longer discuss here at FYM.

 

[Liesje]

Maybe not, but here is a nuance from a South Carolina court. Not sure how I feel about it just yet, but the whole article is worth reading:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20040426/pollitt

"Now for the moment those slippery slope arguments have been set aside, and we are back with what is becoming an American tradition: arresting poor women for illegal drug use during pregnancy. For the past eight years, South Carolina has been charging women, mostly poor and black, with child abuse if they deliver babies who test positive for illegal drugs; the Supreme Court recently refused to hear the appeal of Regina McKnight, who is serving twelve years in maximum security for "homicide by child abuse" after delivering a stillborn baby who tested positive for cocaine. If you think what happens to a poor black drug user with an IQ of 72 doesn't apply to you, think again: In its 1997 decision in Cornelia Witner v. State of South Carolina, the state Supreme Court decreed that anything a pregnant woman does after viability that causes "potential harm" to the fetus is child abuse--anything."

Thanks for posting this. I think I mentioned in my original post that I was/am interested in the gray area as far as whether or not a fetus is a person. I was mainly referring to cases where the mom was killed and fetus died, or the mom was punched or kicked and the fetus died, but this article brings out another interesting angle. As I said earlier, it will be interesting to see how this gets played out in our courts...

 

[BVS]

I have not changed my viewpoint at all.

In other threads, you stand up for the rights of the underprivileged, the weak, against the strong, the powerful.

This IS a moral issue, just the same as standing up for the poor is.

Can't you see that?

But judging whole countries is a little out of character of you, you are usually a little more respectful.

 

[dazzlingamy]

What I'd ask the other folks who make the libertarian argument for abortion legality (my body, my choice etc) is do you generally take that position on other issues? Prostitution for example. Should a woman have the ultimate say as to what she does with her body (or a man I suppose)?

Also what about minors...most would agree a minor can't consent to sex; why can an underage girl make the decision to abort, but not the decision to have sex in the first place?

In regards to the first question as i am one of those my body my rights people, yes i take that position on everything. I want to go back to a day when people took their own responsibilty for their actions instead of blaming a hundred different factors in their lives. I don't care if someone takes drugs, drinks till they pass out, sleeps with 50 people in a week, eat fast food, pierce their bodies, get covered in tatts etc the list goes on - its your body - your life do with it what you will, im not going to tell you how to look after yourself. If the way they use their body THEn commits a crime (like drink driving, rape etc) then i believe they should be charged under the law but other then that your body is your own temple - do with it as you may.

This includes abortion - for all the feel good pics (wow a cow has eyes ear nose and feet, and a brain lets stop eating meat cause we're murderers! ) and the 'moral' arguments (who is the moral maker anyway?) a fetus is a aprt of my body - if i die it dies, its not ready to start life until it can live outside my body - until then its not a human and therefore people trying to place human values on it, just doesn't work.

 

[yolland]

I think I mentioned in my original post that I was/am interested in the gray area as far as whether or not a fetus is a person. I was mainly referring to cases where the mom was killed and fetus died, or the mom was punched or kicked and the fetus died, but this article brings out another interesting angle.

I spent some time researching that earlier today, and the short answer is that it varies very widely from one state to the next, at least in terms of statutes. 32 states classify *some* types of situations resulting in the death of a fetus as either 'fetal homicide,' murder or, most commonly, manslaughter (in some cases, vehicular manslaughter only counts), but it's a real crazy quilt of statutes (and actually SC's, since BluerWhite mentioned them, are probably the most expansive). For example, here in Indiana, a "human being" is by (legal) definition "born and alive," and Indiana law does not regard the murder of a pregnant woman as a double homicide (though it is grounds for seeking life without parole), but on the other hand, if you "intentionally kill a viable fetus while acting under sudden heat," then that is voluntary manslaughter...go figure. I didn't have time to look up every state's definition of "human being", but as far as the 'timeline' criteria for when the various penalties kick in in states that have them, they ranged from "viability" (e.g. Indiana, Maryland) to "quickening" (e.g. FL, GA, actually most of them...I'm guessing those are quite old laws) to post-first trimester (e.g. Arkansas) to post-second trimester (e.g. Iowa) to "from implantation on" (e.g. AL, OH) to "from conception on" (e.g. TX, LA--in fact, LA is so up-to-the-minute they actually have a crime "feticide by terrorism"!). Also a few states (e.g. NC, SD) specified for some reason that the perpetrator must know the victim is pregnant in order for the crime against the fetus to apply.

To me this just confirms how muddled and vague our collective national thinking on the topic is; on the other hand, I think it's probably better to have one consistent legal principle to apply to both abortion and 'fetal homicide' (in the sense you meant it), as Canada apparently does.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Oh, I understand.

There are certain issues that I feel strongly about that I will no longer discuss here at FYM.

Your opinion is as valid as the next person's. I hope you do know that.

It's a shame when an opinion is lost and rendered irrelevant by its style of delivery. I actually like most people here, but sometimes the way we all address each other and speak in general on here is just woeful.

 

[Justin24]

You know, I am taking philosophies of Religions and find it fascinating. I read some of the bible. More than I have ever read in my life. Even though BVS and I have gone back and forth I don't hold anything against him I think he is a cool guy. Yes I get on his nerves because of my views, and I am sorry.

 

[maycocksean]

I, personally, could never place mere potential human life ahead of "comfort" or "convenience." I feel this way primarily because of issues such as rape, faulty contraception, the sheer spontanaeity of sex (ie. why should one sexual act condemn an unwilling mother to a "life sentence" of sorts) etc. etc.

I think the key word here is "potential." If we are dealing with human life, I'm sure you would put that above "comfort" and "convenience."

To understand the pro-life argument, you have to realize that this is how they view fetus and thus their argument makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[maycocksean]

I didn't say I wouldn't try to go back and save them. I said I'd try to save the little girl first. Here is exactly what I said; I didn't change a word:

"I would first try to save the little girl, because she has made it successfully through the beginning stages of personhood and has exited the woman into full-blown personhood."

And this is why I oppose banning abortion. It is a complicated issue and sometimes we have to make a choice between the best interests of the mother (and I'm not talking about "convenience") and the child. The interests of the mother should take precedence. Yes there are those who will abuse this right to a safe and legal abortion and that is between them and God, but I just don't think that there is enough abuse to outlaw abortion in all circumstances.

 

[maycocksean]

I never said I don't value little girls' lives over those of embryos in a petri dish. In a situation like that, I couldn't do both at once, so I'd have to make a choice about which life was more vital, and try to save that life first.

Actually this statement supports my point above even better. Sorry, this is the first chance I've had to respond to this thread today. I'm guessing most of you (other than the Aussies) are fast asleep so I pretty much have the thread to mysefl right now.

 

[maycocksean]

But the intentional killing of an innocent human being is murder.

But that's just it! Most, if not all people who are pro-choice are "not intentionally killing an innocent human being." At most you could argue that they are "unintentionally" killing a human being because they don't recognize the fetus as human.

I'll grant you, that sometimes I get the sense that people don't WANT to recognize the fetus as a human--which I totally understand, because the ramifications of such a recognition are pretty serious--and I think that is unfortunate. I don't believe that acknowledging that a fetus is a human necessitates banning abortion. I think the pro-choice camp would actually have a much stronger argument if they acknowledged that yes, it MAY be taking a human life, and that's an awful thing to do, but sometimes it must be done. Perhaps we could agree that none of us WANT abortions to happen and let's do all we can to minimize them. It's the whole "absolute ban" or "no restrictions whatsover" polarization of the issue that makes it so intractable.

I mean sometimes I get the sense that it's a baby when we want it ("oh, look at the sonogram of my baby!" Nobody says "check out this growth in my uterus. I can't wait until it becomes human!") and a "growth" when we don't want it. Which is shaky logic.

For me, the solution is: face it head on. Yes it's a baby. But sometimes the life of the mother (and not just the mortality of the mother) outweighs that of the baby. It's a horrible, horrible thing. But that's the reality, nontheless.

 

[maycocksean]

I'm curious about this. Under what conditions, besides to save the life of a mother, would you call abortion "necessary".

I would say if the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger.

I probably wouldn't consider abortion acceptable beyond those circumstances, but I believe that those circumstances are broad enough that a ban on abortion is neither practical nor wise. I don't suppose I would oppose additional legislation restricting late-term abortions and so on, though.

My mom had an abortion. The kid would have been my fourth sibling (my youngest sister died of a birth defect two weeks after she was born so I just have one living sister and brother). At the time my mom made the decision to have the abortion she was trapped in a brutally mentally and physically abusive relationship with my dad. She was literally on the brink of a mental breakdown and could not. . .could NOT endure another pregnancy. For her, at the time she believed abortion was her only option. Like me, she didn't think of the fetus as an "unwanted growth." She thought of it as her child, her baby, but she knew she couldn't make it mentally and emotionally so she did what she felt she had to do.

Eventually my folks split up (which is a good thing, otherwise my siblings and I would have been totally screwed. My dad was a horrible, horrible man.) and my mom began the long journey back to mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual health. To this day, my mom does not regret her choice. She still believes it's what she had to do and that God understands that (she is a very strong, very conservative Christian by the way) and she believes she will see both her dead children someday in heaven.

I didn't find out about this until I was an adult, if I recall correctly and we've talked about it some since then. I especially wanted to know if she found that she was "haunted" by what happened or if it "damaged her for life" especially after I read this terribly written pro-life pamphlet-disguised-as-a-novel called The Atonement Child by Francine Rivers (an author who I normally admire very, very much) and the author insisted that all women who have abortions are damaged forever and ever because of what they did. So I asked my mom if that was true for her and she said, no it wasn't. She felt peace about what she did, and while I'm sure there will be those who say "she's lying. . .oh, she's haunted all right" I chose to take her word for it because I see the peace and joy she has in her life everyday and I know that's real.

Perhaps it's because of her that my view of the abortion issue is so "complicated."

 

[maycocksean]

That's exactly it right there. What is the "very Christian" thing to do?

Christian = follower of Christ

So, what would Jesus' opinion be on abortion?

I don't know. But I have a feeling that whatever he said would shake us all up--on both sides of the debate. Reading the gospels, that seems pretty typical.

I find it ironic that so many are so certain we know "what Jesus would do" when the fact is that when He was here on earth what He mostly did was confound people's expectatons.

 

[trevster2k]

Ok, time to shift the POV. Let's say abortions were made illegal again. What do the pro-lifers think will be the consequences of the action?

Do you think it will have a positive or negative effect on women and society? Will there be a huge burden placed on already overtaxed social services in your community?

Will we see a rise in the crime rate as more and more children grow up in impoverished and unstable homes or will all these children be adopted by loving families? Will government and faith based organizations step in to provide support for single and underage women who have children?

Will all families accept the birth of babies by their underage daughters or throw them out into the street?

Just curious to see how you see this turning out if they reversed this law after almost 35 years of it being a policy. Since having a baby goes beyond it's birth, there are social consequences which affect the entire community.

 

[Butterscotch]

This is a tough subject, but not a tough descision for me. A person's 'choice' vs. a life- no contest.