Abortion.

[PippinTook]

I am totally fascinated at the tact everyone here has. I'm adoring the theology and beleif threads, I love this type of discussion. The entmoot rocks and therefore I felt safe to present this thread, I hope it hasn't been worn out.

How do you feel about abortion? Do you think it is killing babies? Do you feel that by not allowing pregnant women to abort their babies we are taking away a right? Do you believe that that baby has a life that can be allowed to go one or taken away?

I am very interested in what you all think, so have at it. I'll state my beleifs on it later, I'd like to start by asking the above questions first.

[Starr Polish]

I'm going to guess that since you used the word baby instead of fetus you're pro-life...but that's JUST a guess.

I'm against abortions "of convenience," but believe it should be a woman's choice if the child is the result of rape or incest, or if it's a life threatening pregnancy (more specifically, tubal pregnancy...can't think of the technical term right now).

[PippinTook]

*grins* Give that lady a prize!

Yeah, pro-life here. Was hoping to keep my beleifs in before I heard some others, but looks like I gave myself away

I've got a whole lot more sympathy for women who have been raped and want to abort their baby than for, like you said, women who do it for the convenience. It seems to me, however, that if a woman who is only getting an abortion because it is convenient for her, that baby should not be aborted, right? Therefore, that baby will be born and grow up to be a person.
But, what about the baby of the raped woman? Is it less of a baby because of what brought it about? I don't think we should cast away life because a terrible thing happened to make life begin.

[Linaewen]

Originally Posted by PippinTook

But, what about the baby of the raped woman? Is it less of a baby because of what brought it about? I don't think we should cast away life because a terrible thing happened to make life begin.

But you have to consider the mother's plight as well. Only she knows what it'd be like to be forced to carry the baby of the rapist. I imagine there would be much anguish either way, but she probably feels that she cannot remain pregnant in such circumstances.

[PippinTook]

That's true, it would be torture to think about it, and you'd be reminded of it all the time. But I still think that's not a legitimate enough reason to abort the baby. Some prices have to be paid for life, I guess you could say. I in no way can come close to identifying with or justifying the pain that woman has to go through, but I still stand by my beleifs that life is life and we shouldn't mess with it.

[Insidious Rex]

Do you support capital punishment? war?

[Starr Polish]

Originally Posted by PippinTook

That's true, it would be torture to think about it, and you'd be reminded of it all the time. But I still think that's not a legitimate enough reason to abort the baby. Some prices have to be paid for life, I guess you could say. I in no way can come close to identifying with or justifying the pain that woman has to go through, but I still stand by my beleifs that life is life and we shouldn't mess with it.

So the trauma and stress of rape should be made worse by a pregnancy? Particularly a pregnancy that is probably going to be high risk, due to the stress the mother has already undergone?

Hmm.

[Nurvingiel]

must ... resist posting... can't stop...

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion. But I sincerely doubt that a woman would have an abortion for convenience, ie. as a form of birth control. It's an extremely painful and I imagine heart-wrenching procedure, with serious medical implications. The side-effects can be very rough.
I can't judge because I have never been pregnant accidentally (or at all), and I've never been raped. I don't know what I would do in either situation. I probably would keep the baby if I was accidentally pregnant, but it's easier for me to say since I know my family and boyfriend would love and support me. As for rape I have no idea.

[BeardofPants]

I'm pro-choice. I think it is the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Women should not be seen as mere baby incubators, and a person's life, to me, is more important than a potential life.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

I think that the father should get a say aswell. If both the father and the mother agree that an abortion would be best then the mother should get an abortion(if she wishes to). But if either the father or the mother want to keep the child then they should because it's the fathers child aswell. I think that this doesn't occur if a rape has been commited though. If the woman is pregnant because of rape then I believe it should be solely her choice.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

But you have to consider the mother's plight as well. Only she knows what it'd be like to be forced to carry the baby of the rapist. I imagine there would be much anguish either way, but she probably feels that she cannot remain pregnant in such circumstances.

I feel as though if that were the case, there should be some mechanism for handling it. Perhaps it should be possible, if her case is established in court as rape, that she should be able to put the child up for adoption rather then keep him. I know that sounds awful, and it is awful. However, I cannot accept the idea that it is fine for us to kill infants, simply because we don't want to handle taking care of them. Sometimes there's no responsibility on the part of the parent, such as rape. Yet that doesn't take away the child's right to live.

Originally Posted by Starr Polish

So the trauma and stress of rape should be made worse by a pregnancy? Particularly a pregnancy that is probably going to be high risk, due to the stress the mother has already undergone?

Hmm.

The only argument that I can see as sufficient for saying abortion should be allowed is the argument that the fetus is not a living child, yet. If you say it's just a united bunch of cells that isn't resembling a human in any very close way, then you probably have sufficient reason to justify to yourself supporting women's right to choose, on the matter of abortion. However, if you believe that the fetus is actually a living human being, then we're talking on totally different planes here. I cannot conceive of a stressful pregnancy being even close to sufficient reason to kill a child. No way. Just . . . no way. I don't believe that parents should be allowed to kill their 3 year olds for any reason. The child in the womb is simply younger then they are. They're younger then I am. Yet if they're just as alive and real as I am, even if less mature and old, then it is obviously wrong to kill them. A one year old child is less developed then I am, but just as much a human being. We put behind bars those women that dump their one year old children in dumpsters. If you believe that the fetus qualifies as a human being, then abortion for any reason is just completely, obviously, utterly morally unjustifiable.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Do you support capital punishment? war?

Totally different issues. 100% different issues. Capital punishment is for criminals that have done major offenses against society. There is guilt and justice involved. An extremely young child is not guilty, and justice should be involved, only it isn't. People kill the child despite the fact that they're not guilty, because they're an inconvenience. A severe inconvenience in the scenario Starr Polish brought up, but we're still leaping from killing only because of justice to killing because of convenience. That's a huge, and in my opinion, reprehensible leap. The only way that it can be justified is by dehumanizing the fetus. If you believe scientific research that shows that the fetus is clearly not yet the equivalent of human life, then I respect your stance on abortion. Yet if you think that convenience is a good enough reason for destroying human life . . . I just have absolutely 0 respect for that view. It seems to qualify as a criminal stance to a very high degree.

Politics also you bring up. Wars vary from one to another. Sometimes when we go to war, it is good, and sometimes when we go to war, it is bad. Most of the time some good and bad is done. So referring to war in the same line of thinking as abortion is useless. They're utterly different subjects. I might support one war or go against another, but all children that are born are clearly innocent of all crimes, and killing them is ALWAYS wrong.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion. But I sincerely doubt that a woman would have an abortion for convenience, ie. as a form of birth control. It's an extremely painful and I imagine heart-wrenching procedure, with serious medical implications. The side-effects can be very rough.

They certainly can be. What is it, a 95% increase in likelihood of breast cancer? Not everyone has access to that type of information, though.

Most abortions are done because of convenience, in my opinion. Many teenagers can't handle the social reprecussions of being a single mother. Many teenagers won't face the massive problems of raising a child, when they themselves are so young and ill-prepared. These are all matters of convenience, the killing of one person because the someone else doesn't want to deal with it. The abortion of the child of a raped woman also I'd call a matter of convenience.

I don't think that abortions should be allowed to take place in any of these cases. The only situation where I'm not completely certain is where it's actually causing a strong risk that the mother might die. Then it's an either/or, one life or another.

The other situations are very hard, I realize. They are extremely harsh on the teenage girl who suddenly has to deal with a child they're utterly unprepared for. The child could very likely be growing up in poverty, with a mother who's tearing her hair out struggling to provide. The single mother's future also is in serious jeopardy. It would be incredibly hard for the mother to have a successful life, for most of these girls are forced to step out of highschool early. Without the education, good jobs are difficult to handle.

So I understand these massive stresses. However, think about it. In a way, this is saying it should be legal for a poverty stricken person to shoot another person for his money. The money totting individual has done nothing against the beggar, but the beggar can end his situation by shooting the wealthy person and taking what he has.

Women who get abortions are doing something very similar. They're killing an innocent child in order to keep their current situation (whether it's with money, school or society) stable. Murder shouldn't be legalized for the beggar, should it? Then why should murder be legalized for parents?


It might be possible to set up agencies that help single parents. Perhaps having a better adoption system prepared also would be helpful. I think even homosexual adoption is preferable over abortion.

I've been realizing more and more lately how abortion is actually a desperately important issue in the United States. If the fetuses are real children, as I believe they are, then we're butchering millions of human beings! It makes us seem a pagan nation in the extreme, not all that different from Adolf Hitler. He killed off the mentally impaired, the physically impaired, political dissidents and Jews. His "undesirables" that were "burdening the nation", he killed. Whether he was right or wrong about them being responsible for burdening the nation is not the point. He had no moral right to kill those people. It was extremely wicked.

The evidence is that abortion is far from painless to the fetus also, I've heard. This is getting a little out of my line, for it gets into evidence and I haven't researched this stuff so well as I should. I talked with a very knowledgable person on the subject once, though. From him, I learned that the heartbeat is the first thing that's detected of the fetus. Directly after the heart is formed, the brain is. Therefore from the very first moments of the child's being detected, we have a living, thinking human being on our hands. When an abortion takes place, the pain of the child is shown to be worse then that which the mother would have in a natural birth.

Unfortunately, this last paragraph I cannot effectively defend. I'm simply repeating what I heard from a knowledgable person who has studied this subject and taught about it to others.


All right, I'm aware that these last two posts are not so respectful as perhaps they should be. They are hardline, and not politically correct. They are extreme, and I'm sorry if I've insulted people in these posts. If I have insulted you, reader, because of your views on the subject, that'll just have to be the way it is this time. I do not have respect for views that say killing children is all right. Only if you believe a fetus is very biologically different from a child can I respect a stance in favor of abortion; this is because of my moral principles. So anyhow, there we are. Now I'm really tired. Today I've been a little irritating to people around me at home, because of being tired from staying up late last night and being woken up early this morning. The Lord bless you all.

~Lief

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

I'm pro-choice. I think it is the woman's right to decide what to do with her body. Women should not be seen as mere baby incubators, and a person's life, to me, is more important than a potential life.

What do you mean by "a potential life"? Do you mean that the fetus is not close to a human being yet, or do you mean that the person hasn't done anything yet, so like a one-year old, he's a person with potential?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I think that the father should get a say aswell. If both the father and the mother agree that an abortion would be best then the mother should get an abortion(if she wishes to). But if either the father or the mother want to keep the child then they should because it's the fathers child aswell. I think that this doesn't occur if a rape has been commited though. If the woman is pregnant because of rape then I believe it should be solely her choice.

The matter has to come down to evidence about the nature of the fetus. Otherwise, the judgment upon the young life is morally reprehensible.

At present, the mother doesn't have to involve the father in the decision making. I met a father whose partner (they weren't married) chose to have an abortion against his will, and the woman then got it done behind his back. It was an extremely hurtful experience to him.

However, it is my view that there shouldn't be any decision possible to make on the subject. Not by either father or mother. The child should be given a place in the world, if it is sufficiently developed to be recognizable as a human being. However dirty and hunger filled that strange new world is.

Unfortunately I very likely won't be able to post much during this week. Perhaps next weekend, I'll write here again. If you haven't all cast me out already because of my vehement words .

[Nurvingiel]

No one will criticize you for being wishy-washy Lief.

I think the word "pagan" is highly abused in Western society. IIRC, its literal meaning simply means non-Christian. There is no point in using this word in a negative context, and being Christian does not make one more humane or civilized.

I have no idea what the statistics are around side-effects, only that they are tough. I'm doubting the 95% breast cancer risk increase though. My point with that statement is that most abortion seekers are probably not doing it for convenient reasons. I don't think that for a young teenager who finds herself without support, and pregnant, having an abortion in mere convenience. I acknowledge that you realize her situation is tough.

But do you understand her situation, or how she feels? No. Neither do I. One cannot truly understand such a thing until one experiences it themselves. We cannot understand the battle going on in her head.

I am pro-adoption! I refuse to take a side on abortion.

What am I still doing here! *flees*

[brownjenkins]

100% pro-choice here... i also believe that unborn babies are only potential life... and that life, coming into the world unwanted is not too promising

that said, i like to offer solutions... the first of which being free birth control with no strings attached for anyone of the age with the ability to procreate... the second, free and easy pregnancy care for those who wish to give up their children, including easy methods of putting up babies for adoption and, in turn, adopting them

i think the more comfortable and acceptable (monetarily as well as socially) we make the alternatives to abortion... the less likely people are to make that choice

on the flipside, making it illegal would only make it more dangerous for the mother... history shows that abortions would still happen

[Linaewen]

Curious, BJ, when would you consider a baby/fetus a 'life', then? Only once it's born?

I'm in the middle. Not entirely pro-choice, but by no means all out against abortion.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Linaewen

Curious, BJ, when would you consider a baby/fetus a 'life', then? Only once it's born?

I'm in the middle. Not entirely pro-choice, but by no means all out against abortion.

as far as pure science goes, a fetus is "a life" just as much as any other organism... from bacteria to whale... i'd say in the first month and a half, before even brain waves appear, it would be very hard to call a fetus "human" however... though around three months it is fairly developed

i tend to side with the "viability" argument... when it is old enough to survive outside the mother, it could be considered "life" for abort/not abort decisions

ideally, i prefer methods like the morning after pill (something else i would make freely available)... and i would not be completely against banning third, and maybe even second trimester abortions, as long as there was no danger to the mother and first trimester abortions were easily available to any and all women

[inked]

Well, I have 20+ years of experience in this regard. I can tell my experience.
I do not personally perform abortions unless the life of the mother is at stake or the embryo/fetus/baby has a syndrome incompatible with life.

Over the years, the vast majority of requests for abortion in my practice (which has extended over 3 states in the USA) have come for birth control purposes. The minority of these requests have NOT been for contraceptive failure. The majority have been for FAILURE TO USE CONTRACEPTION. The attitude is "well, I just couldn't be bothered to <use contraception>".

I can count literally 5 cases of threat to the maternal life or incompatible with life syndromes in those same years. Of these cases ONE was a true failure of contraception. The others were complicated pregnancies that had been desired.

The whole issue of using the plight of the poor to justify the process is inadequate. The majority of my patients who have requested abortion have been middle class college educated females who have had all the advantages of adequate finances and education. For those who have not read Margaret Sanger in the original, I suggest you do so. She advocated birth control and abortion as such a technique for the suppression of overbreeding minorities to prevent them from overwhelming WASP society. I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP! Check out her writings for yourself.

So my experience as described indicates that abortion is used as a primary means of birth control.

While I perform only medically indicated procedures as delineated above, I do refer folks who request such a procedure to practitioners who do them under appropriate surgical arrangements. The choice of action remains with the patient.

I have had patients with life-threatening medical conditions and complications of pregnancy who elected to run the risks and continur their pregancy to give their embryo/fetus/baby a chance for life. Most have survived, but some not.

The issue of rape is also overblown. The chance of conception from a single act of intercourse is small. Consequently the number of pregnancies so wrought is very low. (Under optimum conditions for pregnancy the conception rate is ~15% per cycle. The average couple attempting pregnancy will have a 50-50 chance of conceiving within 6 months of initial attempts.) Historically, women have survived the pregnancy resulting from rape at the same rate as those willingly sought. The offspring of such have been raised by the mother, placed for adoption, or institutionalized. They may have a marginal life such as the deliberately bred offspring of the Nazi breeding programs in conquered countries.

Now, with that background material known, I will state that I am opposed to abortion philosophically and religiously except in the case of the threat to the life of the mother and incompatible with life syndromes.

For the philosophical aspects I suggest THE UNABORTED SOCRATES by Peter Kreeft. The religious opposition is traditional Christian.

One point I should like to make is that arguments that abortion are in the best interests of the fetus because it is not wanted are specious. Projecting the alleged absence of desired life experience versus the death of the individual which negate the possibility of any experience do not hold water.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

So my experience as described indicates that abortion is used as a primary means of birth control.

i agree to a large extent... though there are people who get abortions who are not able to easily obtain other forms of birth control... maybe, maybe not the majority, but part of the picture none-the-less

i'm curious how you would answer a question i asked elsewhere

if there was a pregnancy "vaccination" of sorts... completely safe, one short a year would be 100% effective... would you be willing to distribute it freely to anyone who wanted it irregardless of age?

also, how do you feel about the "morning after pill" as a form of birth control?