Abortion II

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

Don't underestimate maternal instincts. I think a lot of pregnant women, by choice or not, feel a tremendous amount of attachment to the unborn child.

I agree. And often, showing a woman the ultrasound of her baby is enough to convince her not to abort. But having a child physically visible without any machinery or belly between you brings the experience to an entirely different level for many people. It makes it so much more personal.

Originally Posted by katya

I certainly wouldn't have cared if I'd have died before I had any attachment to anything in the world

That, you certainly don't know. I watched ultrasound footage of an 11-week old child struggling to get away from the instrument being inserted into the womb to kill it, and saw its mouth open into a panicked scream. The fact that its world is different from yours doesn't mean it has no feelings about it.

Originally Posted by katya

and no one's really gonna miss the kid either

Who cares????? Does all self-worth depend on what other people think of you? Should the Constitution be interpreted to guarantee, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," only to popular people?

Originally Posted by katya

As for how things turn out for the mother, well, that's her deal.

Often teenage moms are ignorant of the health risks abortions pose.

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

[Aristotle]Silly Lief, potential and material are the same thing![/Aristotle]

Originally Posted by Curufin

He does get psychiatric care. It doesn't always work, you know.

I am very, very sorry about his condition. I'll pray for him . . . I just think it's extremely wrong to assume that the lives of unborn children will turn out like his and use that as a justification for killing them.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The biggest difference between gestation and post gestation is that someone has to gestate. It's just not right to require someone to do that, if she doesn't want to. It's like requiring you to 'donate' a kidney. You have a perfectly swell one, you're hardly using it, and it would save someone's life. The government will be by to pick it up Wednesday. Don't worry, though. Your corneas look pretty good, so NEXT year we'll come and get those. Well, one, at least, we wouldn't want to inconvenience you. But skin...skin grafts are really in demand, we might get that, on a later trip.

There are a couple big differences. One is that it's you killing the person in abortion, not standing by and letting someone die when you could save him at great personal cost.

A woman committing abortion (especially in cases of rape, where it's not the woman's fault that she's pregnant at all) is like a woman who is put in jail for a crime she didn't commit, and shoots an innocent guard in order to escape, rather than serving the time.

The other reason why your analogies fall short is summed up in two words: Parental responsibility. Whereas individual families don't each have a responsibility to give up every dime they have for starving people in Africa, everyone has a responsibility to look after their own children. That's parenthood. You do it through hard times and good. You don't kill the kids in hard times.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

The ONLY reason everyone doesn't see this for the monstrous invasion of government into the life of an individual that it is is because people blame women for being pregnant. It's all through this thread, already. "If a woman chooses to have sex, she should know she might have a baby." There might be some lip-service to rape exceptions, or 'life of the mother' but basically the message is, 'She asked for it, let her suffer."

You're purposefully ignoring the repeated statements of pro-life folk that they care about the children. We also care about the mothers. Your statement is entirely untrue of my own feelings, and, I expect, is untrue of the views of all pro-life people here.

It's true that the woman, by willingly having sex with the knowledge that a child could result, bears some responsibility. That's called parenthood. Some people here have expressed the belief that parental responsibility begins at conception rather than at birth. This does not mean they want women to suffer or care nothing for their suffering. It just means that they don't see that suffering as a valid justification for murder.

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

It's not "a related note." It's outside the scope of this discussion,

What is this, the third time in two days you've tried to get the mods after me? Or has it been three days?

as any triage issue would be. Pray you'll never have sick relatives, or be sick, yourself.

It's not outside the scope. Pro-lifers see abortion as a form of infanticide, and pro-lifers argue that legal abortion will likely lead to legal infanticide (as it has done in the Netherlands). They are tied together.

As for my relatives, I have no idea what they have to do with the discussion .

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by katya

Also I read once or twice that maybe the fetus feels pain, well, like I care. Life is full of pain.

Why aren't we expecting the same Stoic attitude from the Mother, then?

Because that doesn't work. Both the mother and the child need compassion.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

This perspective makes a TON more sense to me than many I've heard. I disagree with you about the government's role, for governments have a duty to protect their citizens, and if no one can say "humans are persons", and we instead argue about when personhood begins for humans, it can become very hard for the government to adequately protect all of those they should be protecting.

But I entirely agree with your position that people should err on the side of caution when deciding the fate of a human life.

Thank you.

I hear what you're saying about the governments role. I just think you won't get anywhere with it. Clearly if someone is leaning pro-choice on the issue, they're doing it because they feel very strongly that it's unconstitutional, and/or, in some cases, have a strong emotional attachment to the issue because they feel victimized as woman and are expressing they're concerns on one of the most dramatic fronts in the battle for Womans Rights. I know a few feminists who are like this, sadly. So much so that it's hard to make them see any validity in the Pro-life argument at all.

Both of these groups will and are reacting very aggressively to the legal approach to solving this problem. They're so sure that it's unconstitutional, which I believe it is, that they'll never give in. Which is why I firmly believe that if you want to stop abortions, you first need to give them the right to do it. From there you can have an honest discussion with them about the realities of abortion. If they think you want to take their rights from them they'll never listen to a word you say.

Woman looking for an abortion need to be treated with love and respect. They need to know no one's out to get them, and their shouldn't be. If you want to stop abortions, you need to first help the mother. And you can't give them true loving care if you want something out of them. These woman need support, and the last thing that will help them make the best choice for them is to walk into a support center full of woman trying to convince her to keep the baby. Much less trying to take away her right to abort in the first place.

That's how I feel anyway. Now I'll stop blabbing!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Why aren't we expecting the same Stoic attitude from the Mother, then?

Good point.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Good point.

Thanks, again.

[Curufin]

A woman committing abortion (especially in cases of rape, where it's not the woman's fault that she's pregnant at all) is like a woman who is put in jail for a crime she didn't commit, and shoots an innocent guard in order to escape, rather than serving the time.

I'm sorry, but this is an absurd analogy. A woman who is forced into a pregnancy should not be forced to 'serve the time.' It's her body - not a factory for the production of somebody else's baby - especially if she has been raped and had no say in this whatsoever. And even if it is not rape what on earth gives someone the right to tell another person what to do with their body? Are you going to raise all the unwanted children? Are you personally going to make sure that each and every child that is unwanted has a safe and happy home? No? Then stay out of it.

The other reason why your analogies fall short is summed up in two words: Parental responsibility. Whereas individual families don't each have a responsibility to give up every dime they have for starving people in Africa, everyone has a responsibility to look after their own children. That's parenthood. You do it through hard times and good. You don't kill the kids in hard times.

They don't have this responsibility if they didn't want the children in the first place. Personally, I think every unwanted child should be sent to an adamant pro-lifer to raise. Whether they want it or not. See how they like it.

[katya]

I hope I don't sound too cold here.. I'm just being realistic. And personally (and I know it's not everyone so I should try to understand others too) but I don't have a very strong will to live at all, so I don't walk around going thanks for not aborting me. Maybe I am cold.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I agree. And often, showing a woman the ultrasound of her baby is enough to convince her not to abort. But having a child physically visible without any machinery or belly between you brings the experience to an entirely different level for many people. It makes it so much more personal.

Yeah, I kinda misread your post a little bit, I realized that. I'm sure it's much more intense to actually see the baby, but I'm just sayin'.

That, you certainly don't know. I watched ultrasound footage of an 11-week old child struggling to get away from the instrument being inserted into the womb to kill it, and saw its mouth open into a panicked scream. The fact that its world is different from yours doesn't mean it has no feelings about it.

Who knows, really? But yeah no one likes pain much sure they're gonna avoid it.

Who cares????? Does all self-worth depend on what other people think of you? Should the Constitution be interpreted to guarantee, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," only to popular people?

No, even a hermit who never sees anyone or who no one likes deserves to be happy. I'm just saying that it's a minimal amount of suffering caused compared to killing someone with friends and relatives and ties to the world. Which is logistics, pretty much but it's still something to consider. Like I said, don't think the fetus is gonna care all that much and it's over quick anyway. See, I don't mind the idea of myself dying too much, I am more scared of people I love dying. So I'm more apt to feel sympathy for the ones left behind than the ones who die.

Often teenage moms are ignorant of the health risks abortions pose.

And they certainly don't understand just how big a deal having/raising a baby is either. And even if they put it up for adoption, abortion is much much safer than giving birth.

[katya]

Originally Posted by d.sullivan

Why aren't we expecting the same Stoic attitude from the Mother, then?

In case you didn't know, abortion hurts. A lot. A lot a lot. Anyway the point is that inflicting a full life on someone is going to give them a lot more pain than a quick and dirty abortion.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by katya

In case you didn't know, abortion hurts. A lot. A lot a lot. Anyway the point is that inflicting a full life on someone is going to give them a lot more pain than a quick and dirty abortion.

I did know that, actually.

If I have insulted you in some way, I apologize.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Curufin

I'm sorry, but this is an absurd analogy. A woman who is forced into a pregnancy should not be forced to 'serve the time.'

I said it's for a crime she didn't commit- my way of agreeing with you that she shouldn't have to serve the time. But the only alternative is to "kill the prison guard." The prison guard is no more guilty than she is.

Originally Posted by Curufin

It's her body - not a factory for the production of somebody else's baby - especially if she has been raped and had no say in this whatsoever. And even if it is not rape what on earth gives someone the right to tell another person what to do with their body? Are you going to raise all the unwanted children? Are you personally going to make sure that each and every child that is unwanted has a safe and happy home? No? Then stay out of it.

It's her body, but it's also physically linked to someone else's body- the child's. They are bonded, two different people united in flesh. The brains don't both think the same thoughts, the wills and personalities differ. They're two people. No woman can "free" her body of an unwanted pregnancy through abortion without killing her baby's body. So it's not just the mother deciding what she wants to do with her body. What she does with her body has a direct impact on what happens to her baby's body. People talk as though the baby deserves no rights, simply because of its location within the mother. They talk as though it doesn't exist as a separate entity when it does have its own brain and its own tiny body that's linked to the mother's through the umbilical cord. From a very early stage in its existence, it has its own motor control over its tiny body.

This isn't just the mother making a decision about the mother. It's two people, two bodies, united into one flesh. So abortion is unthinkable.

Originally Posted by Curufin

They don't have this responsibility if they didn't want the children in the first place.

Responsibility is independent of personal desires. If a man and woman are married and the woman leaves the man with the children, he never wanted that kind of responsibility in the first place, but that doesn't mean it isn't his. If he shrugged that responsibility aside, leaving the kids to fend for themselves, we'd all see him as a lousy parent.

If an older kid with his younger brother go to camp and the older kid doesn't want to look after his younger brother, but would rather hang out constantly with kids his own age, the fact that he didn't want the responsibility and didn't ask for it doesn't mean it isn't his.

Nobody wants responsibility. Almost all responsibility takes from our free time, requires energy, makes us do things we don't want to do or look after things we couldn't care less about. We never want responsibility. If us initially desiring the responsibility is required for responsibility to exist, responsibility ceases to have meaning and all that counts is desire. That is pure selfishness.


Katya, thanks for the explanations in your most recent posts. I think they help me a lot to better understand where you're coming from. It doesn't change my mind in anything I said, but I think it really does help me to better see what you mean.

Originally Posted by katya

In case you didn't know, abortion hurts. A lot. A lot a lot. Anyway the point is that inflicting a full life on someone is going to give them a lot more pain than a quick and dirty abortion.

Yes, but some here have been suggesting that the pain of giving birth is a valid excuse to get an abortion. I can't compare the degrees of pain the two different procedures require, personally.

Originally Posted by katya

I hope I don't sound too cold here.. I'm just being realistic. And personally (and I know it's not everyone so I should try to understand others too) but I don't have a very strong will to live at all, so I don't walk around going thanks for not aborting me. Maybe I am cold.

No, even a hermit who never sees anyone or who no one likes deserves to be happy. I'm just saying that it's a minimal amount of suffering caused compared to killing someone with friends and relatives and ties to the world. Which is logistics, pretty much but it's still something to consider.

I wouldn't say it's at all "minimal," for the person being killed is much more important to consider than the people reacting. What other people think of it is just about completely irrelevant. What we really should be thinking about is whoever is being killed, and whether or not he deserves it. Whether or not other people will feel grief is insignificant in comparison to that.

Originally Posted by katya

Like I said, don't think the fetus is gonna care all that much and it's over quick anyway. See, I don't mind the idea of myself dying too much, I am more scared of people I love dying. So I'm more apt to feel sympathy for the ones left behind than the ones who die.

I think it might really, really help if you had more self-love. I don't mean selfishness, when I say that, for selfishness is caring more about self than about others. But loving oneself, one's own life, creates greater potential for loving other people's lives. When you talk about yourself possibly being cold and not caring much about your life (or those of people who die), I really care and I think that this might change if you loved yourself more.

Originally Posted by katya

Quote:
Often teenage moms are ignorant of the health risks abortions pose.

And they certainly don't understand just how big a deal having/raising a baby is either. And even if they put it up for adoption, abortion is much much safer than giving birth.

I don't know that that's true . . . giving birth is pretty safe now in the West, but I've seen some hair-raising statistics about the number of botched up abortions.

Besides, we should be concerned about the baby's safety as well as the mother's.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Thank you.

I hear what you're saying about the governments role. I just think you won't get anywhere with it. Clearly if someone is leaning pro-choice on the issue, they're doing it because they feel very strongly that it's unconstitutional, and/or, in some cases, have a strong emotional attachment to the issue because they feel victimized as woman and are expressing they're concerns on one of the most dramatic fronts in the battle for Womans Rights. I know a few feminists who are like this, sadly. So much so that it's hard to make them see any validity in the Pro-life argument at all.

Both of these groups will and are reacting very aggressively to the legal approach to solving this problem. They're so sure that it's unconstitutional, which I believe it is, that they'll never give in. Which is why I firmly believe that if you want to stop abortions, you first need to give them the right to do it. From there you can have an honest discussion with them about the realities of abortion. If they think you want to take their rights from them they'll never listen to a word you say.

I'm sure you're right that many feminists would react that way. I can't give up, though, on that basis. We're talking about mass murder. We've seen how much it's become accepted in society since it was legalized. Its legalization had that effect, not the pro-life movement. The more time we give between the present and the time it was legalized, the more fully ingrained it will be in the culture and the nation. I can't bear to see that happen.

We need to show love for the women without showing acceptance of criminal acts. Showing acceptance of the legality of those acts would strengthen their moral legitimacy in the eyes of society and make more people callous toward the fate of the unborn.

Originally Posted by D.Sullivan

Woman looking for an abortion need to be treated with love and respect. They need to know no one's out to get them, and their shouldn't be. If you want to stop abortions, you need to first help the mother. And you can't give them true loving care if you want something out of them. These woman need support, and the last thing that will help them make the best choice for them is to walk into a support center full of woman trying to convince her to keep the baby. Much less trying to take away her right to abort in the first place.

That's how I feel anyway. Now I'll stop blabbing!

I agree these women need love and support. We cannot allow children to be murdered because of our concern for their mothers' emotional state, though. It's a matter of priorities. Which do you think is more important?

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes, but some here have been suggesting that the pain of giving birth is a valid excuse to get an abortion. I can't compare the degrees of pain the two different procedures require, personally.

You mean the pain the mother feels or the baby?

I wouldn't say it's at all "minimal," for the person being killed is much more important to consider than the people reacting. What other people think of it is just about completely irrelevant. What we really should be thinking about is whoever is being killed, and whether or not he deserves it. Whether or not other people will feel grief is insignificant in comparison to that.

I think you have different beliefs about what happens when you die too, so naturally would disagree on this point. That's ok.

I think it might really, really help if you had more self-love. I don't mean selfishness, when I say that, for selfishness is caring more about self than about others. But loving oneself, one's own life, creates greater potential for loving other people's lives. When you talk about yourself possibly being cold and not caring much about your life (or those of people who die), I really care and I think that this might change if you loved yourself more.

Yeah probably. Thanks. Still, death happens to everyone eventually and that's all well and good and there's no reason to be afraid or think it's bad, know what I mean? It's too much of that thinking that makes it hard (and sometimes easier) to live though. ><

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

You mean the pain the mother feels or the baby?

The mother.

Originally Posted by katya

I think you have different beliefs about what happens when you die too, so naturally would disagree on this point. That's ok.

Urgh . . . so hard to debate with someone who takes moral relativism to its logical conclusions . If you cease to exist when you die and all morals are relative anyway, and you take that to its logical conclusion by saying it doesn't matter if anyone dies, I can see how it wouldn't matter from your point of view if the child dies or not. Murder of adults wouldn't matter much either, would it? So why even make it illegal? That would logically follow.

Gosh, it's hard to argue if you think that. Except to say that such a viewpoint is so full of death and hopelessness that it's not worth having. We live in the world of the living. Let's act like it .

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Urgh . . . so hard to debate with someone who takes moral relativism to its logical conclusions . If you cease to exist when you die and all morals are relative anyway, and you take that to its logical conclusion by saying it doesn't matter if anyone dies, I can see how it wouldn't matter from your point of view if the child dies or not. Murder of adults wouldn't matter much either, would it? So why even make it illegal? That would logically follow.

Gosh, it's hard to argue if you think that. Except to say that such a viewpoint is so full of death and hopelessness that it's not worth having. We live in the world of the living. Let's act like it .

Goodness gracious, I'm not talking about moral relativism! I was saying I think you believe in an afterlife and God who judges people and stuff like that don't you (correct me if I'm wrong)? I believe... something else I guess. I don't think I'll be around so much after I die so it doesn't matter too much if it happens. Know what I mean?

I think morals are relative to an extent but I still have my own set (some of it might even be universal!) and it definitely doesn't involve killing people or cruelty or any sort. I just don't think "murder" is wrong just because it's murder- I think it's wrong because it causes suffering.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

Goodness gracious, I'm not talking about moral relativism! I was saying I think you believe in an afterlife and God who judges people and stuff like that don't you (correct me if I'm wrong)?

Mm-hmm.

Originally Posted by katya

I believe... something else I guess. I don't think I'll be around so much after I die so it doesn't matter too much if it happens. Know what I mean?

Yes I do, though I don't know why you don't believe in an afterlife . Perhaps you'd like to respond to that in the Theology thread?

Originally Posted by katya

I think morals are relative to an extent but I still have my own set (some of it might even be universal!) and it definitely doesn't involve killing people or cruelty or any sort. I just don't think "murder" is wrong just because it's murder- I think it's wrong because it causes suffering.

Okay, sorry for jumping to conclusions with the moral relativism thing.

Just to be clear . . . if I was a care worker and I put sleeping pills in the food of a community of orphans, and then I gave them all lethal injections so they died in their sleep, you wouldn't find this wrong?

[katya]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Yes I do, though I don't know why you don't believe in an afterlife . Perhaps you'd like to respond to that in the Theology thread?

I believe in life... I guess I'm one of those losers who believes in "something", haha. I'll have to pass on the theology thread though. I try to avoid religious and political debates on forums (even nice ones like Entmoot), partly because a good portion of my beliefs are totally unfounded

Okay, sorry for jumping to conclusions with the moral relativism thing.

Just to be clear . . . if I was a care worker and I put sleeping pills in the food of a community of orphans, and then I gave them all lethal injections so they died in their sleep, you wouldn't find this wrong?

No problem! The orphans, well, it would be wrong in a few ways, but not just because the kids die. For one, whether they have anyone else or not that they have ties too, you should ideally care about the kids yourself. Not wish them harm, want to show them compassion. It would not be morally wrong if a bunch of kids died in a hurricane. Humans killing kids is wrong because it hurts the killer.

So what about fetuses right? Well, I don't think it's good to kill them either but it's less bad. Sounds like a really weak defense, I know, but it's how I feel. It's not an easy choice anyway. But I have to love myself first, you said so yourself (though I'm sure this isn't what you meant exactly), and I have to choose myself and the father and everyone else who it would affect, over the fetus who's not gonna suffer much at all. I thought I would have a child, and I would want the very very best for it too. That was my first thought. I couldn't give it anything less because I was already in love. I know this post was very stream of consciousness and I'm sorry, I'm just about ready for bed.

[Curufin]

Lief,

In a perfect world, I would agree with you that we should not allow abortion. Although I am adamantly and completely pro-choice, I see abortion as a horrible thing, and the fewer that take place the better. I do not think that anyone on the pro-choice side would disagree with me in this.

But the truth is - it simply isn't as easy or as simple or as black and white as the anti-choice side makes it.

First, the most important thing we can do to stop abortion is agressive sex education. And I don't mean abstinence-only sex education which is dishonest and doesn't work. I'm talking about sex-education that teaches kids the safest way to have sex and how to use condoms and other forms of birth control. A sex-education program that realizes that while it is ideal that pre-teens and teens wait to have sex until they are older and more emotionally ready for it, it is also unrealistsic to deny that this sex will occur. When teenagers are taught how to prevent pregnancy effectively, instead of simply being told that sex is evil while at the same time not being taught how to protect themselves, then the numbers of abortions will decrease.

Secondly, making abortion illegal is not going to stop it. It's simply going to save the lives of women who would have these abortions anyway. The truth is that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she's not going to have that child, whether its legal or not. These woman are going to have abortions in back alleys, using rusty coat-hangers and unsterile equipment, and many thousands are going to die of infections that could have been prevented. If you want stories or pictures of these, just ask. I've done tons of research on this topic, and believe me, these stories and pictures are just as disgusting as your aborted fetus pictures. If you are truly pro-life what do you make of this? Do you think that these women deserve to die for their sins, that this is some sort of poetic justice for the 'baby-killers'? Or do they deserve compassion and the ability to have this difficult (both physically and emotionally) procedure done in such a way that there will only be one life (if you consider it that) lost instead of two? Think about it for a while.

Women who have abortions are not monstrous 'baby-killers.' They are women who have found themselves in difficult situations - rape, or an accidentally pregnancy that they don't feel they can handle. Maybe they're in school, maybe they'd be disowned by their parents, maybe the father left them when he found out about the pregnancy and they do not have the ability to raise that child. There are certainly as many reasons for having an abortion as there are women who have them. These women deserve compassion, not condemnation; love, not words of hatred and damnation. They deserve to have control over their bodies, and not to have all control over themselves and their most intimate bodily processes taken away from them. It is not the place of the state to tell any of us what to do with our bodies. My reproductive system is not the property of congress, or the pro-life lobby. If pro-lifers truly care about life, maybe they should stop bombing clinics, and start helping to educate children and teenagers on how to prevent these unwanted pregnancies to begin with. This would be a lot more helpful than the hateful and vitrolic words thrown at women who are already suffering one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I said it's for a crime she didn't commit- my way of agreeing with you that she shouldn't have to serve the time. But the only alternative is to "kill the prison guard." The prison guard is no more guilty than she is.

Child as prison guard. that's an interesting analogy.

It's her body, but it's also physically linked to someone else's body- the child's.

No, it's not. It's not a 'child" at 11, or 15, or 20 weeks. It's not a 'someone else', it's not a 'person with rights', it's not a "human'. You'd like it to be, I know. But it's not. It's a parasitic growth.

For any woman who has wanted to have a baby, and planned her fertility, and tried, it's enormously exciting to get a positive pregnancy test. It can be a long awaited step on the road to parenthood. But it is NOT, in itself, parenthood. Even a stillbirth isn't the same as "having a baby." If you're mentally well, you don't treat every onset of menses like a dead toddler. Because it's NOT.

People talk as though the baby deserves no rights, simply because of its location within the mother.

People talk as though the woman has no rights, simply because of her location outside a fetus. They're throwing them in jail now, for not getting the kind of medical care some folks on the anti-choice side thinks they should. Scary? I think so.

If an older kid with his younger brother go to camp and the older kid doesn't want to look after his younger brother, but would rather hang out constantly with kids his own age, the fact that he didn't want the responsibility and didn't ask for it doesn't mean it isn't his.

Um, yes, it does. In the sane world, we might even call it "child abuse' to saddle a minor with the care of a child that wasn't his own.

Nobody wants responsibility.

Nonsense. lots of people do. People who are forced into responsibility aren't really responsible. And parenting, of ALL things, needs dedication, needs skilled volunteers.

Yes, but some here have been suggesting that the pain of giving birth is a valid excuse to get an abortion. I can't compare the degrees of pain the two different procedures require, personally.

I haven't seen that comparison, post number? Being pregnant is a heckuva lot more than labor.

I don't know that that's true . . . giving birth is pretty safe now in the West, but I've seen some hair-raising statistics about the number of botched up abortions.

You've seen irresponsible polemics. they wouldn't know good science if it bit them on the tuchis.

We need to show love for the women without showing acceptance of criminal acts.

Abortion is not a "criminal act."

Lief, you'll never know anything important about having a baby. Biology prevents. Maybe that's why you want to insert yourself into this process.

[D.Sullivan]

Originally Posted by Curufin

Lief,

In a perfect world, I would agree with you that we should not allow abortion. Although I am adamantly and completely pro-choice, I see abortion as a horrible thing, and the fewer that take place the better. I do not think that anyone on the pro-choice side would disagree with me in this.

But the truth is - it simply isn't as easy or as simple or as black and white as the anti-choice side makes it.

First, the most important thing we can do to stop abortion is agressive sex education. And I don't mean abstinence-only sex education which is dishonest and doesn't work. I'm talking about sex-education that teaches kids the safest way to have sex and how to use condoms and other forms of birth control. A sex-education program that realizes that while it is ideal that pre-teens and teens wait to have sex until they are older and more emotionally ready for it, it is also unrealistsic to deny that this sex will occur. When teenagers are taught how to prevent pregnancy effectively, instead of simply being told that sex is evil while at the same time not being taught how to protect themselves, then the numbers of abortions will decrease.

Secondly, making abortion illegal is not going to stop it. It's simply going to save the lives of women who would have these abortions anyway. The truth is that if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she's not going to have that child, whether its legal or not. These woman are going to have abortions in back alleys, using rusty coat-hangers and unsterile equipment, and many thousands are going to die of infections that could have been prevented. If you want stories or pictures of these, just ask. I've done tons of research on this topic, and believe me, these stories and pictures are just as disgusting as your aborted fetus pictures. If you are truly pro-life what do you make of this? Do you think that these women deserve to die for their sins, that this is some sort of poetic justice for the 'baby-killers'? Or do they deserve compassion and the ability to have this difficult (both physically and emotionally) procedure done in such a way that there will only be one life (if you consider it that) lost instead of two? Think about it for a while.

Women who have abortions are not monstrous 'baby-killers.' They are women who have found themselves in difficult situations - rape, or an accidentally pregnancy that they don't feel they can handle. Maybe they're in school, maybe they'd be disowned by their parents, maybe the father left them when he found out about the pregnancy and they do not have the ability to raise that child. There are certainly as many reasons for having an abortion as there are women who have them. These women deserve compassion, not condemnation; love, not words of hatred and damnation. They deserve to have control over their bodies, and not to have all control over themselves and their most intimate bodily processes taken away from them. It is not the place of the state to tell any of us what to do with our bodies. My reproductive system is not the property of congress, or the pro-life lobby. If pro-lifers truly care about life, maybe they should stop bombing clinics, and start helping to educate children and teenagers on how to prevent these unwanted pregnancies to begin with. This would be a lot more helpful than the hateful and vitrolic words thrown at women who are already suffering one of the most difficult experiences of their lives.

Bravo! Very well written. My feelings exactly.

[Nautipus]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

No, it's not. It's not a 'child" at 11, or 15, or 20 weeks. It's not a 'someone else', it's not a 'person with rights', it's not a "human'. You'd like it to be, I know. But it's not. It's a parasitic growth.

I can only stop in for a moment, so I'll make this short: How do you measure a human? Is it the genetics? When two haploid gametes fuse and combine genetic material is it not human? It has mostly the same genetic code as anyone else here (as far as we know, bum, bum, bum). Or is it when it is capable of abstract thought? Infants cant do that, any more than can a newbrn bird fly. When does something qualify as human?


This is a serious question and I expect a serious response in turn, there is no sarcasm of any capacity in this post (other than the inserted humor, which was irresistable), so please, all those who may answer: no sarcastic bs or brush offs. Thank you.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by katya

I believe in life... I guess I'm one of those losers who believes in "something", haha. I'll have to pass on the theology thread though. I try to avoid religious and political debates on forums (even nice ones like Entmoot), partly because a good portion of my beliefs are totally unfounded

I know what you mean . Yeah. That's why I love apologetics . I love to have reasons for what I believe.

Originally Posted by katya

No problem! The orphans, well, it would be wrong in a few ways, but not just because the kids die. For one, whether they have anyone else or not that they have ties too, you should ideally care about the kids yourself. Not wish them harm, want to show them compassion. It would not be morally wrong if a bunch of kids died in a hurricane. Humans killing kids is wrong because it hurts the killer.

This kind of reasoning really . . . gosh, I hardly no how to respond to it. I understand how you arrive at it, I think, but it's too . . . too completely on a different wavelength for me to know how to respond to it.

Wrong because it hurts the killer . . . I suppose if you're a sociopath and don't care then it's not wrong at all, then . . . this is just bizarre to me. Way to bizarre for me to grapple with.

I can't respond. Maybe someone else here can. RÃ*an, are you hovering out there? Help?

Originally Posted by katya

So what about fetuses right? Well, I don't think it's good to kill them either but it's less bad. Sounds like a really weak defense, I know, but it's how I feel. It's not an easy choice anyway. But I have to love myself first, you said so yourself (though I'm sure this isn't what you meant exactly), and I have to choose myself and the father and everyone else who it would affect, over the fetus who's not gonna suffer much at all. I thought I would have a child, and I would want the very very best for it too. That was my first thought. I couldn't give it anything less because I was already in love. I know this post was very stream of consciousness and I'm sorry, I'm just about ready for bed.

Have a good night's rest . . .

I don't know how to reply to your thought processes, I'm afraid. They're so far different from mine that while I think I can understand your logic, I can't really deal with it. Maybe I'll think of some way to relate later.

Why do you think suffering is wrong, by the way?