Abortion In The News

[Luke T.]

Late term abortion ban challenged. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4615570/)

In the outlawed procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured. An estimated 2,200 to 5,000 such abortions are performed annually in the United States, out of 1.3 million total abortions.

Three lawsuits in three cities
The National Abortion Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and a handful of doctors sued in San Francisco, New York and Lincoln, Neb., to overturn the law.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion. Supporters contend it applies only to a procedure done late in pregnancy that is never necessary to protect the health of the mother.

1.3 million abortions every year. That's a lot of incest and rape. :rolleyes:

In other news, U.S. Senate takes up "Unborn Victims" bill. (http://wireservice.wired.com/wired/story.asp?section=Breaking&storyId=841091&tw=wn_wire_story)


Displaying photos of fetuses and graphically describing such attacks, backers said the bill would discourage assaults on women and recognize the loss and grief when a wanted pregnancy was violently ended by a criminal act.

The measure has cleared the U.S. House of Representatives and President Bush has promised to sign it into law.

The anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee strongly backs the legislation. But the American Civil Liberties Union has called it a "thinly veiled attempt to create fetal rights and further erode women's reproductive rights."

Opponents said the bill could undermine or at least complicate abortion rights or block stem cell research by treating the fetus as a person from conception. Sponsors say they drafted the legislation to explicitly exclude abortion.

I guess if the pro-abortion people had their way, you could beat a pregnant woman until she miscarried, and only be charged with assault. Something for every guy out there who doesn't want to be a dad to cheer about.

[corplinx]

The thing that disturbs me is that somehow the unborn victims of crime act is being portrayed as a win for the religious reich. I think its a win for mothers and moderate people.

[Tmy]

Who said anything about rape or incest? Why does that make a difference anyway.

Partially delivered?? Again why does that make a difference if you poke him whiles hes inside mom or 1/2 way out.



Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

[c0rbin]

It is difficult to fathom fine details in an issue that many perceive as black and white.

One thing is for sure, my opinions on abortion changed the day my first son was born.

[CFLarsen]

Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow? :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy
Who said anything about rape or incest? Why does that make a difference anyway.

I was being somewhat facetious. Whenever a politician comes out against abortion, some reporter is usually quick to ask "What about in cases of rape or abortion?" I just like to point out the vast, vast number of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. Sort of like a leaky faucet on a street where a dam has burst.

The article went out of its way to point out the small number of partial birth abortions. And out of those, probably a small percentage, if any, are necessary to save the mother's life.

The pro-abortion camp will make any argument and throw up any smokescreen ("what about rape and incest or when the mother's life is in jeopardy") to protect their "right" to the 1.3 million abortions taking place every year.


Partially delivered?? Again why does that make a difference if you poke him whiles hes inside mom or 1/2 way out.

Exactly. It is murder either way.

Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

Because there is a slippery slope. In both directions.

[Charlie Monoxide]

Perhaps after the right-wing wack jobs and religeous reich succeed in outlawing abortions, we can further refine the law to include the mandatory wearing of burkas (speling?) by our better half.

Charlie (don't legislate women's bodies!) Monoxide

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Luke T.


(snipped)




Exactly. It is murder either way.



Because there is a slippery slope. In both directions.

Documentation please? and Documentation again?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I was being somewhat facetious. Whenever a politician comes out against abortion, some reporter is usually quick to ask "What about in cases of rape or abortion?" I just like to point out the vast, vast number of abortions have nothing to do with rape or incest. Sort of like a leaky faucet on a street where a dam has burst.

Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary.

[American]

The type of girl who chooses not to have an abortion doesn't seem to need the choice, but I'd like them to have it because they're typically good women.

The type of feminist who demands total abortion access is usually not going to get pregnant anyway, and if she does then it's a win-win situation. They're reproducing less if they choose to abort (=very good for humanity), and they're stuck with a baby they have to care for and can go slutting around like a whore every weekend. I'm more than happy to take that choice away from the worthless human beings that are the liberals in this world.

Someone once made a very good point that feminists averaging one child in their late 30s (presumably aborting their earlier pregnancies) does wonders for Darwinism. Assuming you turn out like your parents, that's a LOT of little feminists not being born, thank god.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Documentation please?

Read the article. "Late term abortions" are performed when the baby is a viable human being.

In the outlawed procedure, generally performed in the second trimester and occasionally in the third, a fetus is partially delivered before its skull is punctured.

and Documentation again?

Again, read the article. The pro-abortionists are the ones making the slippery slope argument in this case.

Critics of the law say its language could criminalize more common types of abortion and could be a step toward abolishing abortion.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary. [/B]

Well, allow me to end another gambit...

Originally posted by Charlie Monoxide
(don't legislate women's bodies!)

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"

The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"


-people mutilate themselves all the time. (plastic surgery, tatoos ect.)

-Ive never haerd of someone charged with attempted murder after a failed sucide attempt.

-Lots of people take drugs oftheir choice. Alcohol, caffiene, overthe counter, script drugs, vitamins ect..

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"


Uh, why does it fail? Did I miss something?

Yeah, I favor drug legalization. I also favor allowing women to "mutilate" themselves if they so choose. (Here in GA they're in the middle of passing legislation that would outlaw clit piercings. I'm opposed to that legislation. Is that ok with you?)


The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

Or the choice NOT to. Or the choice to abstain from sex. Or the choice to use a morning-after pill. Hence the concept of "choice." It's up to a woman to choose. Calling it "pro-abortion" is just silly propaganda.

I'm always mystified by the people who think they defeat the entire pro-choice argument by saying "it's a good thing your mother was pro-life!" Well, my mother is pro-choice. Always has been, always will be. So's my dad, for that matter. The thing is, she--and my dad--CHOSE to have kids. Twice, they made this choice. That's why I'm here to piss you off today. :D

It's not even a matter of being "pro" or "anti" abortion. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice who are anti-abortion; it is not logically inconsistent by any means to oppose abortion yourself but allow other rational people the right to disagree and make that choice for themselves.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Luke T.

Pro "choice." The gambit of saying a woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body fails when you ask, "Should a perfectly healthy woman be allowed to kill herself? Or inject herself with a needle of a drug of her choice? Or mutilate herself?"



Why does it fail? I personally think a perfectly healthy woman should have the right to do all of those things if she wishes. Why not?



The only "choice" they want is the choice to kill/inject/mutilate the baby in their womb. It isn't pro-choice. It is pro-abortion.

It is pro-choice, because nobody is advocating that abortion SHOULD be done, but rather that it be available as a legal choice.

You DO understand that, right?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Tmy

-people mutilate themselves all the time. (plastic surgery, tatoos ect.

-Ive never haerd of someone charged with attempted murder after a failed sucide attempt.

I've never heard of Planned Parenthood defending Jack Kevorkian, either.

And insurance policies don't pay off if you commit suicide, do they?

-Lots of people take drugs oftheir choice. Alcohol, caffiene, overthe counter, script drugs, vitamins ect..

Is Planned Parenthood or the NAACP (http://www.naacp.org/news/releases/BoardProChoice022404.shtml) for the legalization of cocaine?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Cleon


Uh, why does it fail? Did I miss something?

Yeah, I favor drug legalization. I also favor allowing women to "mutilate" themselves if they so choose. (Here in GA they're in the middle of passing legislation that would outlaw clit piercings. I'm opposed to that legislation. Is that ok with you?)

I don't think most "pro-choice" people would favor suicide or drug legalization. That would be the Libertarian Party you are thinking of.

It's not even a matter of being "pro" or "anti" abortion. There are plenty of people who are pro-choice who are anti-abortion; it is not logically inconsistent by any means to oppose abortion yourself but allow other rational people the right to disagree and make that choice for themselves.

So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

[Cain]

Isn't this covered territory? If the argument against "partial birth" abortion -- a propaganda term, by the way -- is that you're killing a "viable human being," then nobody should have a problem with abortion in the first trimester, the time frame in which the overwhelming number of abortions are performed. Let's at the very least concede that elementary point.

Secondly, perhaps more importantly, what makes a "viable human being" rights-bearing? Earlier, Luke, I asked you why a fully grown chimp, who possesses higher cognitive abilities and greater emotional capacity than a fetus, does not have rights.

What's the ethical standard?

Pre-emptive strike: If you say being human, then I charge that is completely arbitrary and morally irrelevant. No different than sexism, racism, nationalism, and other historically oppressive us-vs-them belief systems.

Michael Shermer has a somewhat useful, if slightly misguided approach in my opinion, approach to the issue in _The Science of Good and Evil_.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow? :)

Good point. The funny thing is that the number of abortions dropped significantly after we got free abortion, and it has been dropping ever since.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Read the article. "Late term abortions" are performed when the baby is a viable human being.

I'm afraid you'll hit a brick wall on this point. No one can agree on what counts as a "human being." You seem to think that viability is the sole criterion. You're in good company with that, but I disagree. Viability is in the eye of the beholder -- in the near future, it may be possible to bring any fetus to term in an incubator, so even a fertilized egg could be considered viable.Also, viability itself doesn't prove anything -- after all, animals are viable but we don't think twice about killing them for convenience.

To me, the only relevant factor is whether the fetus should be considered different from any other animal, and as far as I can tell, what sets us apart from other animals is our brains. So, the criterion I would use for determining humanity is brain development. In fact, that's even better for you -- a fetus begins showing distinctly human-like brain activity at around 20 weeks, in most cases well before they would normally be considered viable.

However, let me ask you this: do you support women having access to abortions in the first trimester, before both brain activity and viability are even close to being considerations? Why or why not?

Jeremy

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

I don't favor abortions for others. In fact, I think abortions are a very poor solution 99% of the time. I took steps to make sure I never knocked anyone up, and other people should too.

However, I don't see how it's any of my business to tell people what they can and can't do with their own bodies when it doesn't affect anyone else (the fetus not yet being human).

So, am I pro-abortion too?

Jeremy

[Cain]

Originally posted by plindboe


Good point. The funny thing is that the number of abortions dropped significantly after we got free abortion, and it has been dropping ever since.

True, but your abortion rate fell at the cost of socialism. A good God-fearing country like the United States would rather be washed in Red with the blood of dead babies.

________________________________

Toddjh: No one can agree on what counts as a "human being."

This is probably true as a descriptive statement; however, and this is my main objection to the previously mentioned Shermer book, when is a blastocyst/embryo/fetus not human? Any way you want to slice it (no pun intended), it's human. Now what's so important about a human blob of tissue? Why is it morally significant?

To me, the only relevant factor is whether the fetus should be considered different from any other animal, and as far as I can tell, what sets us apart from other animals is our brains. So, the criterion I would use for determining humanity is brain development. In fact, that's even better for you -- a fetus begins showing distinctly human-like brain activity at around 20 weeks, in most cases well before they would normally be considered viable.

Koko the gorilla apparently has similar abilities to that of a six year-old child. So shouldn't she have rights? What's so important about human thinking? Carl Sagan (w/ his wife) asks some of the right questions in his famous essay, but doesn't come close to answering them. You take a similar approach.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Actually, the purpose of the "rape or incest" gambit is not to suggest that is when most abortions happen, but rather to put the "abortion is murder" position holder in a tricky position. If abortion in indeed murder just like shooting someone on the street, then how can abortion in cases of rape or incest be permissible?

The "Abortion is Murder" proponent must either somehow either soften the claim or hold his/her ground and take the unpleasant but consistant position that these abortions are also murder. Unplesant as it will result in babies with severe birth defects, and also unplesant as it in effect allows a rapist to force a woman to carry his child.

The "abortion is murder" proponent can counter this gambit as far as "cases of rape" go, but the incest part is a bit dodgier, except that it largely becomes a euthenasia type argument where the difference of opinion bases itself in basic presumptions people hold about the nature and purpose of life.

So in the end this gambit, like most rhetorical gambits, only bear fruit or score points when used on the unwary. [/B]

Whether or not it is "murder" to kill a 2 week old fetus is up to each individual's belief system. However, as medical advances push the viability of a fetus farther and farther back, it becomes very hard to avoid the fact you are killing a baby at some point. And in my opinion, late term abortions are killing a baby. Murder.

But that doesn't matter to some pro-abortionists. For some reason, they are ok with killing a baby just because it isn't sucking air yet.

Haggling over incest and rape is akin to making the "one innocent man" argument to oppose the death penalty. It is a smokescreen. Better to just be plain about it and say a person is opposed to executing anyone, not just opposed to killing an innocent person. Because sooner or later, the technology will catch up with that little bugbear, too.

And I don't see what allowing a woman the choice of what to do with her body has to do with the Unborn Victims bill. If someone attacks a woman and kills the baby in her womb, that has nothing to do with her right to choose to have an abortion.

But if you realize that it is really all about being "pro-abortion" and not pro-choice, then it becomes obvious why the pro-abortion crowd is worried, because the Unborn Victims bill makes it clear that you are killing a baby and committing murder if you attack a woman and kill the baby. And the pro-abortion crowd can't afford for people to think that way about the unborn.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I don't think most "pro-choice" people would favor suicide or drug legalization. That would be the Libertarian Party you are thinking of.


Favor it? No. Favor the right to choose one way or another? Yes. And I'm a Green, not a Libertarian.


So you oppose abortion for yourself personally, but favor abortions for others. That is still pro-abortion.

Well, being a guy, I can support or oppose it for myself, but somehow I don't think it really matters. (Yes, yes, I know: "Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the *right* to have babies.")

You can repeat "that is pro-abortion" as much as you like, but repitition does not make true. I don't favor or oppose abortions for others--I support their right to make that decision for themselves.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Haggling over incest and rape is akin to making the "one innocent man" argument to oppose the death penalty. It is a smokescreen.

Suddenly has already explained to you why that's not true. The "rape and incest" argument is only meant to force an absolutist into one of two absurd positions: saying that abortion in the case of rape is not murder (which raises the question of why all the rest of the abortions are), or saying that abortion should not be allowed, even in cases of rape (thus giving a rapist that much more power over his victim).

It's not meant to be a real practical matter, but to try to get extremists to see some shades of gray.

Jeremy

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Exactly. It is murder either way.

M-W's definition of "murder":

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought

"unlawfully"-> well, that depends on the abortion laws in the specific area.

"person"-> is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have a personality?

"malice"-> so abortion is made because of evil intentions?

Well, maybe you use another definition of murder.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by Tmy
Why is it that slippery slope arguments are fine in abortion discussions but are sort of taboo in gay marriage discussions?

I'm pro gay marriage, and I think slippery slope arguments are just fine, depending on application. It's called gradualism when you're in favor of the process.

So yes, getting people used to gay people being OK will eventually lead to sodomy laws being overturned (as it has). And maybe or maybe not gay marriage or even polygamy.

The kind of argument that irks me is "Then why can't I marry my dog?"

Similarly, the dividing line in the abortion issue is that partial birth abortion might very well lead to infanticide, but need not.

I'm not sure what they are getting at with the fetal crime victim business. To me the solution is to increase the penalties for battery all around.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cain
True, but your abortion rate fell at the cost of socialism. A good God-fearing country like the United States would rather be washed in Red with the blood of dead babies.

Not to derail this thread, but Denmark isn't a socialist country. It's a mix of market economy and socialdemocratic ideas.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Perhaps an example to follow? :)

Likely your birth control education is better.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by plindboe


M-W's definition of "murder":



"unlawfully"-> well, that depends on the abortion laws in the specific area.

To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

"person"-> is a fetus a person? Does a fetus have a personality?

Does someone who is sleeping have a personality? Does someone in a coma? A chicken has a personality, but I can still kill it.

"malice"-> so abortion is made because of evil intentions?

To kill someone to escape financial hardship. Is that evil or not?

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

I don't think M-W had moral laws in mind in that definition. That aside, the higher law is not absolute.


Originally posted by Luke T.
Does someone who is sleeping have a personality? Does someone in a coma? A chicken has a personality, but I can still kill it.

Does a fetus of 8 cells have a personality?

Originally posted by Luke T.
To kill someone to escape financial hardship. Is that evil or not?

You say "someone". Again the personality issue.

[Tmy]

I like it when people are against abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Make up your mind, are you for taking life or not!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
Likely your birth control education is better.

Perhaps. I would also venture a guess about the attitude towards sex, as well as women's liberation. Freedom of choice is certainly also a decisive factor.

Originally posted by Luke T.
To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live.

You are probably right. Does that mean we should accept that the legal law is put aside by what some people consider a "higher" law?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by plindboe


I don't think M-W had moral laws in mind in that definition. That aside, the higher law is not absolute.

Does a fetus of 8 cells have a personality?



You say "someone". Again the personality issue.

That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:

1a : an unborn or recently born person

So abortion can be murder.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

You are probably right. Does that mean we should accept that the legal law is put aside by what some people consider a "higher" law?

I suppose that is the justification some abortion doctor killers use. I don't.

But there are people who believe the drug laws are wrong. Does that mean they can put the legal law aside? Does it mean they have to "accept" it? In their case, they do, because to break that law is to risk jail.

To oppose the abortion law doesn't mean you will be breaking the law by NOT getting an abortion.

[CFLarsen]

Luke,

You're not going to pull a "Paul Revere" on me, are you? :)

When is it justified to put ourselves about the law? Or others, who may not agree with us? Isn't that what you are getting at?

[Troll]

I'm pro-abortion. I'm also pro-choice because my allowance of choice doesn't stop at abortion. I'm rather tired of the left leaning people in favor of abortions tendancy to be against other choices.

That said, I've read the bill and think the critics like Feinstein are just playing politics as usual with the Unborn victims bill. If I recall correctly her state has something similar in effect where they define anything above 7 weeks old in the womb getting killed as murder. The bill being discussed in the senate uses the words "any stage of human development". It also clearly states that it does not pertain to abortion.

As for the late term abortions. They are still allowed at the time of delivery in case of complications that could result in harm or death to the mother. I've never had an issue with that. But anyone that has been carrying the thing inside for a period of time that birth can be done and just changes their mind at that point I can't agree with.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Luke T.
That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Person, human, individual, a couple of cells is none of these. It can of course be debated at what point it actually is.


Originally posted by Luke T.
Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:

1a : an unborn or recently born person


When you quote M-W it's best to mention all the significant definitions. 1a is probably only used in anti abortion circles, while 2a is the common understanding of the word: "2 a : a young person especially between infancy and youth"

Originally posted by Luke T.
So abortion can be murder.

You didn't show it was unlawful. You didn't show it was a person. You didn't show it was intended with malice. So your conclusion is still baseless.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke,

You're not going to pull a "Paul Revere" on me, are you? :)

When is it justified to put ourselves about the law? Or others, who may not agree with us? Isn't that what you are getting at?

Not at all. Plindboe was just playing around with the dictionary and that is when the law came up. My opinion is that sometimes we can disagree with the law and the dictionary. I suppose I could look up M-W's definition of "law" while I'm at it, but he probably is already unhappy with their definition of "child" and "person" since that disagrees with what he had defined a person as.

I think a fetus is a human being from the moment of conception, and that is the extreme, I admit.

But I think it is not extreme at all to ask people to consider that a second or third trimester fetus is a child. A human being. And I get very passionate about how I feel about women choosing to execute those children. I think the 1.3 million abortions annually has successfully set it in people's minds they are not killing kids because the sheer scale of it is too horrible to contemplate any other way than that it must be just scraping some useless tissue from their bodies.

For a woman who has had an abortion in her second or third trimester, it is inconceivably difficult to face the reality that she has killed a baby. And so this mad clutching at straws over the Unborn Victims bill.

I think their consciences should be pricked. I worry about the erosion of conscience a lot. It has brought about a holocaust.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
But I think it is not extreme at all to ask people to consider that a second or third trimester fetus is a child. A human being. And I get very passionate about how I feel about women choosing to execute those children. I think the 1.3 million abortions annually has successfully set it in people's minds they are not killing kids because the sheer scale of it is too horrible to contemplate any other way than that it must be just scraping some useless tissue from their bodies.

I think their consciences should be pricked. I worry about the erosion of conscience a lot. It has brought about a holocaust.

Well, now you're conflating all abortions with second- and third-trimester abortions. According to the CDC, only 1.4 percent of abortions occurred after the first trimester. That lowers the number of "human" deaths to under 20,000, assuming you use a conservative estimate and consider a fetus to be a human being right at the beginning of the second trimester.

That's still a lot of deaths, yes, and I am as strongly against late-term abortions as you are. But I think throwing around numbers like "1.3 million" on one hand and then at the same time talking about the Unborn Victims bill, which would only deal with a tiny fraction of that number, is pretty disingenuous. I'd also like to see what percentage of those late-term abortions really are performed to save the life/health of the mother, but I can't find any data offhand. Out of curiosity, do you oppose abortions in cases where carrying the child to term has a significant chance of killing the mother?

Jeremy

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Tmy
I like it when people are against abortion but are ok with the death penalty. Make up your mind, are you for taking life or not!

What about the contrary? Against capital punishment and ok with abortion?

Abortion is illegal in Brazil, unless in cases of rape and risk for the mother. Some judges are already allowing abortion in cases of severe deformation, but that right can not be guaranteed. There was the case in which the judge took 10 months to grant the authorization for abortion. :rolleyes:

As a result, middle-class women perform their abortions in the underground floor of an expensive private clinic. Poor women have to resort to medieval practices. The last figure I read about estimated that the cost of dealing with abortion-related injuries was higher than legally performing the abortion would be. Not to mention that some women come out sterile, or die.

When I see young mothers, living in slums, with 3 or 4 children, I wish abortion was legalized and performed in public hospitals. Sure, I also wish they had access to information and birth control methods - but abortion should always be a choice, even if as a last resort. It is just one possibility, among many others, to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. But it should remain open when all else fails.

Is there evidence that, when allowed to legally perform an abortion, a woman will be careless with the birth control methods? I don't think I ever saw anything conclusive in this regard, only anecdotes with an agenda.

[CFLarsen]

Luke,

Why do you need to "prick" the consciousnesses (did I get that word right??) of women and not men? Why does it have to be I mean...it does take two, you know... ;)

To speak of a "holocaust" is way over the top. We are not talking about a state-sanctioned mechanized extermination of a population group here. I also take issue with you using the term "execute". That is way too emotional. Are we killing living tissue? Yes, no doubt. We are doing that when we get a root canal. Are we killing people? Atsaverygoodquestion....

What do you suggest we do, then?

[Cleon]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery


What about the contrary? Against capital punishment and ok with abortion?


Doesn't apply, as those who are ok with abortion typically don't see it as taking a life. Whereas I have yet to hear anyone seriously challenge the idea that the death penalty involves the taking of human life.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by toddjh


Suddenly has already explained to you why that's not true. The "rape and incest" argument is only meant to force an absolutist into one of two absurd positions: saying that abortion in the case of rape is not murder (which raises the question of why all the rest of the abortions are), or saying that abortion should not be allowed, even in cases of rape (thus giving a rapist that much more power over his victim).

It's not meant to be a real practical matter, but to try to get extremists to see some shades of gray.

Jeremy

The circumstances which brought about the creation of a human being does not change the fact it is still a human being. To abort a fetus conceived in the back seat of a buick with a lover is no different than aborting a fetus conceived by rape. Life is life, murder is murder. The rape and incest argument is not forcing anyone into an absurd position. It is a smokescreen designed to deflect attention away from the 1.3 million abortions that are performed for the sake of convenience.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That was your definition of a person. Since you refer to Merriam-Webster, here is their definition:

1 : HUMAN, INDIVIDUAL -- sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes

Here is one of M-W's definition of Child:

1a : an unborn or recently born person

So abortion can be murder.

Virtually all abortion argument comes back to the same core assumption I refer to in my first post. It all depends on when you consider life to start. From there we can do all the rhetorical gymnastics we want to; come up with labels for those we disagree or for ourselves to accentuate the positive (Pro-life or Pro-choice); and try to make those that disagree sound more and more like unprincipled cretins that must really hate (children/women) and who wouldn't understand justice if it crapped on their forehead....

Lather, Rinse, Repeat, until someone gets violent or someone smarter starts arguing about the even more divisive issue in American Life, the Bowl Championship Series. Same difference.

It doesn't matter. Most of this is trying to use logic to invalidate/validate a premise, and from what I recall from the "Logic I" class I took many moons ago at massively prestigious West Virginia Wesleyan College I can state with some authority:

That dog won't hunt.

Just doesn't work. Never will. If it did someone smarter than we are would have figured it out already and we could move on to USC vs. LSU.

My opinion? Glad you asked....

I don't think life begins at conception any more than it begins at "your place or mine" or "I'll pull out, I promise."(premise 1) Then again, I would also say that life begins before birth, using a newborn baby as my benchmark for "life."(premise 2) When exactly is gray however. So I'll go with the Supremes (not Diana Ross -- The other ones) and set that at the third trimester as a handy dandy line.(premise 3)

So, abortion before the third trimester is not the killing of a human being. However, it isn't calling out for a pizza either. As a case of morality I would only justify it for a Very Good Reason. However, as a legal matter I am unwilling to leave the determination of what is a Very Good Reason up to the government, as I place the rights of the woman well above the state interest in what will perhaps be a person. (premise 4) Thus, it is left to the individual whether a Very Good Reason exists.

During the third trimester things are more dicey. We can almost call the fetus a person, but not quite as long as the fetus is still inside. It is "human life" but given it's particular circumstance of being attatched to a second human being it really is not a distinct person. At this point as far as morality goes I would say it is justified only in case of Mortal Danger to the Mother, sort of like self defense but not quite as it defies analogy for the most part.

Again, however, legally, I'm not willing to leave that to the government. An argument could be made that since pregnancy itself carries risk of death to the mother, that Mortal Danger exists at all times. To fairly criminalize the behaviour the state would have to be pretty up to date on the state of medicine, and decide what an acceptable amount of risk of death one must have before that person is in enough Mortal Danger to justify their action. This seems to amount to a pretty serious governmental intrusion. For some women just being pregnant turns out to be massively dangerous, and for others not so much.

There. I just made that up off the top of my head.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleon
Doesn't apply, as those who are ok with abortion typically don't see it as taking a life. Whereas I have yet to hear anyone seriously challenge the idea that the death penalty involves the taking of human life.

Don't agree here. As I understand it, a big part of capital punishment is deliberately deriving people of their lives.

Why, one might even claim that it is the primary goal!

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke,

Why do you need to "prick" the consciousnesses (did I get that word right??) of women and not men? Why does it have to be I mean...it does take two, you know... ;)

I agree. 100%. But men don't get a choice to be "pro-choice" or "pro-life." It is all up to the woman.

To speak of a "holocaust" is way over the top. We are not talking about a state-sanctioned mechanized extermination of a population group here. I also take issue with you using the term "execute". That is way too emotional. Are we killing living tissue? Yes, no doubt. We are doing that when we get a root canal. Are we killing people? Atsaverygoodquestion....

What do you suggest we do, then?

The number of abortions in the U.S. performed since Roe v. Wade is rapidly approaching 50 million. Our population has literally been decimated by abortion. More than decimated. If that isn't a holocaust, what is?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
We are doing that when we get a root canal. Are we killing people? Atsaverygoodquestion....

Your root won't grow up to support you in your old age. :)

[plindboe]

Nice post, Suddenly. :D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
The number of abortions in the U.S. performed since Roe v. Wade is rapidly approaching 50 million. Our population has literally been decimated by abortion. More than decimated. If that isn't a holocaust, what is?

That was an opinion. I was kinda looking for a solution.

Got one? :)

Originally posted by Luke T.
Your root won't grow up to support you in your old age. :)

So far, I'm doing fine, thank you very much!! :p

[Tmy]

Population decemated???

We have a healthy population thanx in part to abortion. Who wants a bunch of unwanted rug rats running around. Look what its done for Brazil.

The problem we have is relgious based hangups on birth control.

Im ok with a abortion cut off point during pregnancy. But I do worry about an anti-abortion crowd widdling away until there is no abortions allowed.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I don't think life begins at conception any more than it begins at "your place or mine" or "I'll pull out, I promise."(premise 1) Then again, I would also say that life begins before birth, using a newborn baby as my benchmark for "life."(premise 2) When exactly is gray however. So I'll go with the Supremes (not Diana Ross -- The other ones) and set that at the third trimester as a handy dandy line.(premise 3)

So, abortion before the third trimester is not the killing of a human being. However, it isn't calling out for a pizza either. As a case of morality I would only justify it for a Very Good Reason. However, as a legal matter I am unwilling to leave the determination of what is a Very Good Reason up to the government, as I place the rights of the woman well above the state interest in what will perhaps be a person. (premise 4) Thus, it is left to the individual whether a Very Good Reason exists.

You seem to be okay with allowing the government to decide when a fetus is a human being and when it isn't, but not okay with them deciding on a "Very Good Reason"! Odd.

Exactly how does Roe v. Wade and the "due process" clause in the Constitution determine the line between not a human and a human anyway? Must take some real mental gymnastics.

Somehow they were able to determine, using the Constitution, when it was okay to abort and when it wasn't. Please explain that one to me.

During the third trimester things are more dicey. We can almost call the fetus a person, but not quite as long as the fetus is still inside. It is "human life" but given it's particular circumstance of being attatched to a second human being it really is not a distinct person. At this point as far as morality goes I would say it is justified only in case of Mortal Danger to the Mother, sort of like self defense but not quite as it defies analogy for the most part.

Again, however, legally, I'm not willing to leave that to the government. An argument could be made that since pregnancy itself carries risk of death to the mother, that Mortal Danger exists at all times. To fairly criminalize the behaviour the state would have to be pretty up to date on the state of medicine, and decide what an acceptable amount of risk of death one must have before that person is in enough Mortal Danger to justify their action. This seems to amount to a pretty serious governmental intrusion. For some women just being pregnant turns out to be massively dangerous, and for others not so much.

There. I just made that up off the top of my head.

So again you trust the government in places you see fit, and don't in others, on the same subject, just as long as abortion comes out legal on the other end of the sausage making process.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


That was an opinion. I was kinda looking for a solution.

Got one? :)

Yeah. Ban abortions. Those back alleys would have to be working overtime to catch up to 50 million.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yeah. Ban abortions. Those back alleys would have to be working overtime to catch up to 50 million.

You are kidding, right? You really want to ban abortions?

(I don't understand your second half of the post)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


You are kidding, right? You really want to ban abortions?

Yes. I want to ban abortions. I am not kidding.

(I don't understand your second half of the post)

Luciana said she wished abortions were legal in her country because of the current situation which supposedly forces women to get them in "back alleys." A common argument against banning abortions. It is my feeling that a lot less abortions occur when abortions are illegal than when they are legal.

Can you imagine 1.3 million abortions being done every year in "back alleys" in the U.S.? I can't.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Yes. I want to ban abortions. I am not kidding.

I was afraid you were going to say that. So, what's your solution?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Luciana said she wished abortions were legal in her country because of the current situation which supposedly forces women to get them in "back alleys." A common argument against banning abortions. It is my feeling that a lot less abortions occur when abortions are illegal than when they are legal.

Although you seem like a nice person (and we've met, and I hope to buy you a beer at TAM3), I am not all that interested in your "feelings". I would much rather like to hear your evidence that banning abortion is better than not banning abortions.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Can you imagine 1.3 million abortions being done every year in "back alleys" in the U.S.? I can't.

How do you know how many abortions were done before Roe vs. Wade? At what cost? Shame, shunning, pain, deaths?

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You seem to be okay with allowing the government to decide when a fetus is a human being and when it isn't, but not okay with them deciding on a "Very Good Reason"! Odd. Where did you get that? I said I would adopt the USSC idea not due to any implied authority, but more out of a "their guess is as good as mine" idea. Sounds like a reasonable place to draw a line.

Exactly how does Roe v. Wade and the "due process" clause in the Constitution determine the line between not a human and a human anyway? Must take some real mental gymnastics.

Somehow they were able to determine, using the Constitution, when it was okay to abort and when it wasn't. Please explain that one to me. Only after you can explain that this is somehow anywhere near anything I suggested. I think you are attributing my adoption of the "trimester" concept as a ratification of authority. It isn't, and I'm sorry if that was in any way unclear. Otherwise I'm going to leave the discussion of Roe's place in constitutional law to another thread, as I though this was more discussing general morality, and what you ask is more a technical question of constitutional law.



So again you trust the government in places you see fit, and don't in others, on the same subject, just as long as abortion comes out legal on the other end of the sausage making process. Gee. Thanks for reading the post and not making an insulting insinuation based on your misreading of one small detail in order to deflect the entire substance of my post so that any "abortion should be legal" appears to be inconsistent, at least in your mind. I'm glad I took the time to flesh that whole thing out. I was afraid someone would manufacture some sort of issue developed from a massively oversimplistic sense of consistency that ignores any of the finer points of balancing rights and recognizing practical problems I tried to address. Silly me!!

Anyway....

As I have been exposed for the unthinking shill that I am for Those That Kill Babies Local 5233, I now return you to your regularly scheduled argument:

It's murder!!

Is not you woman hater!!

Baby killer!!

Fascist rapist lover!!

(ad nauseum)

(literally)

[Charlie Monoxide]

Yes, banning abortions would certainly control the "problem". In fact it'll create it's own industry of enhanced enforcement, confinement of pregnant women, and money making hobbies for under-worked barbers.

Charlie (dang, if it didn't work for illegal drugs) Monoxide

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly
Otherwise I'm going to leave the discussion of Roe's place in constitutional law to another thread, as I though this was more discussing general morality, and what you ask is more a technical question of constitutional law.

Actually, I really am interested in knowing the technical questions of Roe v. Wade and how it was determined when a fetus is a human and and when it isn't and therefore okay to abort.

The first two articles I linked in the opening post also contained some rather interesting legal twists, in my opinion. Like, what does charging someone with murder if they attack a woman and kill the fetus inside of her have to do with "the right to choose" that is causing the pro-abortion people to get so upset over the Unborn Victims bill?

Unfortunately, Suddenly, the subject of abortion is as prone to a legal-morality intertwining as gun control and the death penalty.

I did let my emotions get away with me, and I was being snide to you, and I am very sorry about that.

I truly do not understand these questions about roe v. wade, though, and what sort of legal wrangling was used to draw the line of when life begins, and what sort of legal foundation it is based on. Rock or sand?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
It is a smokescreen designed to deflect attention away from the 1.3 million abortions that are performed for the sake of convenience.

So you keep saying. I guess we just disagree.

So, just to make things perfectly clear, there are no circumstances in which you think an abortion is justified? Not a single exception?

Jeremy

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Actually, I really am interested in knowing the technical questions of Roe v. Wade and how it was determined when a fetus is a human and and when it isn't and therefore okay to abort.

The first two articles I linked in the opening post also contained some rather interesting legal twists, in my opinion. Like, what does charging someone with murder if they attack a woman and kill the fetus inside of her have to do with "the right to choose" that is causing the pro-abortion people to get so upset over the Unborn Victims bill?

Unfortunately, Suddenly, the subject of abortion is as prone to a legal-morality intertwining as gun control and the death penalty.

I did let my emotions get away with me, and I was being snide to you, and I am very sorry about that.

I truly do not understand these questions about roe v. wade, though, and what sort of legal wrangling was used to draw the line of when life begins, and what sort of legal foundation it is based on. Rock or sand?

I'll give a good answer to that after I re-review Roe. It has been awhile since I read it. I'm a bit curious myself...

As far as the victim's rights bills go, I'm not a big fan. Many states have civil liability for injuring a fetus, and I do support that. It is just that I see criminal liability centering on the conduct of the criminal rather than the result of the action. More about punishment than vengance in other words.

I think the whole issue revolves around weighing different sets of rights and goals and working through them. I haven't really thought about the unborn rights laws, but my idea off the cuff is that I would support a law providing for penalties for someone intentionally harming a fetus in addition to the likely crime committed against the mother. I don't like the wholesale addition of any fetus as an additional victim. I think if I thought about it I'd wind up somewhere between those two extreme points.

I'd explain but I have to go meet my wife. Thanks for not letting this exchange spiral downward due to my little sarcastic outburst.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Although you seem like a nice person (and we've met, and I hope to buy you a beer at TAM3), I am not all that interested in your "feelings". I would much rather like to hear your evidence that banning abortion is better than not banning abortions.

How do you know how many abortions were done before Roe vs. Wade? At what cost? Shame, shunning, pain, deaths?

I doubt accurate records were kept of illegal abortions, don't you? So an estimate of the number is just that, an estimate. But I don't see 1.3 million a year occurring. That would have been noticed.

As for shame and shunning, I thought you weren't interested in "feelings."

Pain and death? I assume you are talking about the mothers and not the babies...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by toddjh


So you keep saying. I guess we just disagree.

So, just to make things perfectly clear, there are no circumstances in which you think an abortion is justified? Not a single exception?

Jeremy

Adolf Hitler. :D

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

[Grammatron]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Adolf Hitler. :D

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

What about cases in which a mother's life could be in danger?

[Luciana]

Originally posted by Tmy
Population decemated???
We have a healthy population thanx in part to abortion. Who wants a bunch of unwanted rug rats running around. Look what its done for Brazil.

It has done nothing for Brazil. "Unwanted rug rats" have always existed, even before the pill was invented. We have poverty but I don't see its relation to the illegality of abortion, or, if it's a factor, it's a minimal one. Actually, our fertility rate is now 2,3, which is a healthy one.

Because, Tmy, abortion is performed anyway. Legal or illegal. I see women going to great lengths to get them done. Those who can, pay royally for it. Those who can't, risk their health inside dusty slum bedrooms. Illegality adds another stress factor to an already emotionally-charged situation, as well as increased health risks.

The problem we have is relgious based hangups on birth control.

The common wisdom is that abortions are prohibited in Brazil because of the strong lobby of the Catholic Church. It's not true. Abortion is prohibited because most Brazilians are against it, as multiple researches indicate. Why, you ask? Because the priests influence people's thoughts? If that were true, we would not have Carnival, a pagan celebration which the church abhors.

It is my feeling that a lot less abortions occur when abortions are illegal than when they are legal.

Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Luke T.
You seem to be okay with allowing the government to decide when a fetus is a human being and when it isn't, but not okay with them deciding on a "Very Good Reason"! Odd.

Exactly how does Roe v. Wade and the "due process" clause in the Constitution determine the line between not a human and a human anyway? Must take some real mental gymnastics.

Somehow they were able to determine, using the Constitution, when it was okay to abort and when it wasn't. Please explain that one to me.
Personally, I believe the "is a person/is not a person" is a terrible justification pro or anti abortion. I think it comes down to whether a woman's basic freedoms can be revoked, or whether her basic freedoms are criminalized. In any case, I will guarentee you that there are simply just some situations where a person's right to life can never be satisfied, as cynical as that may sound.

Consider this: Is the right to life so fundamental that it must be preserved at all costs?

Now I'll ask you this: If it the right life is so fundamental, should the government be obligated to raise taxes sharply and take away everything you make above minimum wage if it will save lives in other countries?

Clearly, it is difficult to answer both of those questions with a yes. In fact, answering yes to the above and no to the below is unjustified hypocrisy. The correct answer to the first question is "No". The reason: There is no intent to somehow portray life as "less valuable" or "worthless", but merely to illustrate that pragmatically the cynical world we live in cannot by any means protect all life at all costs.


My position is this: Abortion is a necessary evil.

I dont believe there is any justification in saying "You have no choice, you will become a mother whether you like it or not".

In cases of rape or incest, I would say forcing a mother to bear her rapists child is further torture on a woman who has suffered a heinous crime. 5.4% of all women who are raped get pregnant, and its terrible that many woman will never report a rape at all.

Even if a woman has sex for fun and finds herself pregnant, I could never imagine anyone saying "Well that's what she gets for fooling around, now she must suffer the consequences". That vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Adolf Hitler. :D

But seriously, off the top of my head, I can't think of one.

I realize the potential for birth defects with incest, but that opens the door to all birth defects, and off we go again on the slippery slope.

Problem with the slippery slope is that if you go far enough up the "development" scale you wind up with a Monty Python song.

Anyway...

There is a reasonable argument that abortion in the case of rape is not crime but rather justifiable, even if all other abortion is considered murder.

It stems from the idea that in the case of rape the woman is put in the position of pregnancy through no choice her own, so her choosing to not continue a pregnancy isn't murder or even homicide, as legally she would owe no duty to the unborn child.

To analogize, imagine while you are sleeping someone for his own benefit hooks up an innocent third party to your body. The circumstances are that innocent party will die if unhooked, otherwise you must drag that person around for nine months and allow them to feed off your body's systems. Do you now have the right to unhook that person?

I would say morally it is a tough decision, but as a legal matter to do so is not a crime. You owe no duty of support to this third party, and unhooking this person is simply protecting your own body from invasion and withholding support.

This is different from a situation where you at some point knowingly choose a path of action where being hooked up to the 3rd party is a possibility. That act would create some duty that didn't exist before...

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Personally, I believe the "is a person/is not a person" is a terrible justification pro or anti abortion. I think it comes down to whether a woman's basic freedoms can be revoked, or whether her basic freedoms are criminalized. In any case, I will guarentee you that there are simply just some situations where a person's right to life can never be satisfied, as cynical as that may sound.

Like I pointed out earlier, is it a woman's basic freedom to commit suicide, or take drugs, or mutilate herself? Those freedoms have been revoked.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery

Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower?

Well, if 1.3 million abortions per year are any indication, with the total approaching 50 million, I would say it is highly unlikely illegal abortions would be anywhere near on par with that.

Also, thinking about it, 50 million abortions out of a population which is only now reaching around 280 million strongly suggests that a lot of women are having multiple abortions.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


There is a reasonable argument that abortion in the case of rape is not crime but rather justifiable, even if all other abortion is considered murder.

It stems from the idea that in the case of rape the woman is put in the position of pregnancy through no choice her own, so her choosing to not continue a pregnancy isn't murder or even homicide, as legally she would owe no duty to the unborn child.

To analogize, imagine while you are sleeping someone for his own benefit hooks up an innocent third party to your body. The circumstances are that innocent party will die if unhooked, otherwise you must drag that person around for nine months and allow them to feed off your body's systems. Do you now have the right to unhook that person?

I would say morally it is a tough decision, but as a legal matter to do so is not a crime. You owe no duty of support to this third party, and unhooking this person is simply protecting your own body from invasion and withholding support.

This is different from a situation where you at some point knowingly choose a path of action where being hooked up to the 3rd party is a possibility. That act would create some duty that didn't exist before...

I would say you are morally responsible to stay hooked up to that person. It only highlights another of my points about abortion. Most are done out of convenience.

My wife and I discussed this a few weeks ago. My opinion is that if she were raped and was impregnated, I would raise the child as my own. I did not tell her this when I asked her what she would do. She said she would keep the kid. She was quite touched when I told her what I would do.

Reason number umpteen thousand that tells me I married the right woman.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Even if a woman has sex for fun and finds herself pregnant, I could never imagine anyone saying "Well that's what she gets for fooling around, now she must suffer the consequences". That vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.

That is a strange outlook. Motherhood as punishment. It is a gift. A very precious one which many who can't have kids will tell you.

Sex has consequences. Can't get around that. And the consequences weren't determined by man's laws. It has been determined by nature.

Abortion has consequences, too. You would transfer the consequences of a woman's "fooling around" to a completely innocent person.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Luciana Nery
Luke: No reliable data, that's for sure. The best number I could find comes from a research conducted in 1999, by reputed IBASE institute, which indicated that, in ages 15-49, 38 out of 1,000 Brazilian women have had an abortion.

Do we have numbers to compare it to? In countries where abortion is legal, is the number higher or lower? I tried to check numbers before and after abortion became legal in a number of countries, but it became very difficult.

On one side we don't have much reliable numbers on illegal abortions because they were kept a secret, on the other hand it was difficult to find any site that wasn't biased one way or the other. The number of abortions in the US right now, to mention one example, varied from around a million a year to about 1,4 million.

Going through the numbers, however, I think it is reasonable to say that we have more abortions after it was made legal. Which is not to say that we have more - or fewer - tragedies.

I don't like abortions, and I wish they weren't used as a form of birth control. On the other hand, I can't see who should be allowed to make the decision, if not the pregnant woman. And I can't see why a poor woman should be forced to have her baby, while a rich one could take a 'vacation' in the US or elsewhere and come home 'un-pregnant'. :(

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


I would say you are morally responsible to stay hooked up to that person. It only highlights another of my points about abortion. Most are done out of convenience.

My wife and I discussed this a few weeks ago. My opinion is that if she were raped and was impregnated, I would raise the child as my own. I did not tell her this when I asked her what she would do. She said she would keep the kid. She was quite touched when I told her what I would do.

Reason number umpteen thousand that tells me I married the right woman.

I'd agree with what you say w/r/t morality. I'd react the same way.

The question is whether you feel it is justified to force others by use of law into making the same choice. I have trouble with that one.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Like I pointed out earlier, is it a woman's basic freedom to commit suicide, or take drugs, or mutilate herself? Those freedoms have been revoked. Where I come from, it is a freedom to commit suicide if that's what you want. And that's the way it should be, if you ask me - but that's another thread.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Bjorn
I tried to check numbers before and after abortion became legal in a number of countries, but it became very difficult.

I had the same problem trying to find data.

On one side we don't have much reliable numbers on illegal abortions because they were kept a secret, on the other hand it was difficult to find any site that wasn't biased one way or the other. The number of abortions in the US right now, to mention one example, varied from around a million a year to about 1,4 million.

Going through the numbers, however, I think it is reasonable to say that we have more abortions after it was made legal. Which is not to say that we have more - or fewer - tragedies.

Well, my personal feeling (pffft! to Claus :) ), is that each abortion is a tragedy.

I don't like abortions, and I wish they weren't used as a form of birth control. On the other hand, I can't see who should be allowed to make the decision, if not the pregnant woman. And I can't see why a poor woman should be forced to have her baby, while a rich one could take a 'vacation' in the US or elsewhere and come home 'un-pregnant'. :(

So instead of forcing the mother to have the baby, you are forcing the baby to die. What about its rights?

If slavery were legal elsewhere and rich people could go somewhere to have slaves serve them hand and foot, should we legalize slavery here? Rich people take advantage of a lot of laws elsewhere. That is no reason to make or not make something illegal here.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


I'd agree with what you say w/r/t morality. I'd react the same way.

The question is whether you feel it is justified to force others by use of law into making the same choice. I have trouble with that one.

Yes, I feel it is justified. I can not think of any justification to allow the death of an innocent person.

[Bjorn]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Well, my personal feeling (pffft! to Claus :) ), is that each abortion is a tragedy.I agree - I was just trying to remind myself that we saw some tragedies when it was prohibited as well. Illegal/dangerous abortions, children born into families/circumstances where they would not be taken properly care of, add some suicides among the mothers-to-be for good measure, add some drug addicted mothers and so on.

So instead of forcing the mother to have the baby, you are forcing the baby to die. What about its rights?I clearly see the problem. I have no good answer. With the day-after pill available, would you prohibit it?

If slavery were legal elsewhere and rich people could go somewhere to have slaves serve them hand and foot, should we legalize slavery here? Rich people take advantage of a lot of laws elsewhere. That is no reason to make or not make something illegal here. Eh, no. Rich people may go elsewhere and have an abortion. Or do it here. The baby is dead anyhow. Legalizing slavery here would make some people here slaves. Not a good comparison?

I see the point, however. My point was that with money, you have as many abortions as you want. Or, as it was, with a good lawyer, or a doctor friend. It wasn't like we didn't have American girls having abortions, they were just unevenly distributed.

[Boo]

So, I just read through this entire thread and now I have a question.

Where does someone like my sister fit in? At 20 weeks (the first date that in a routine pregnancy that ultrasounds are done) she was told the baby was anacephalic (brainstem only). The state she lived in had outlawed abortions after the first trimester (12 weeks). Her insurance company advised that they would partially pay for a 'medically necessary' abortion. By the time they had borrowed, etc, enough money to go out of state for the procedure the fetus had died in utero but did not spontaneously deliver. This was at 26 weeks. The procedure was done at 28 weeks. She spent an additional week in the hospital due to infection complications from the fetal demise.

If you want to outlaw late abortions then have a safety net in place. You can't tell a woman that her child will not survive to term or past birth and then tell her you have to carry it til term or it aborts on it's own, because it's too late for you to legally have the pregnancy ended.

Just another scree patch on that slippery slope.



Boo

[Cinorjer]

The whole abortion arguement is mired in sloppy thinking and language. First of all, it's stupid to ask "When does life start", because life only started once on Earth, in the distant past. From then on, life only continued.

Every culture defines the limits of personhood, the definition of what it takes to be eligible for the rights and priviliges of being a member of the tribe. There has to be limits, after all. And each culture has considered their own particular definition as sacred and fought over changes. At one time in the not so distant past in the USA, being of a different skin color meant you were not entitled to personhood, according to the people who were in charge of the definition. Criminals are often stripped of their personhood and declared outlaw, subject to being killed. For some people, personhood is extended to a fertilized egg in a mother's womb, while for others it's only with the first breath. It's all pretty arbitrary.

The extent of when a fertilized egg has reached a stage of development that qualifies as personhood is defined by the culture, and reflects ethical, religious and moral values that often come into conflict. In reality, women who get abortions and the people who support their right are not heartless baby killers. No woman wakes up one day and says "I've got nothing better to do, so I'll get an abortion. Might be fun". It's the least worst choice for them. And the people who see this as the ending of a process that produces a human being are not callous and blind to the rights of a woman to control her own life. They just see a greater right involved.

So the arguements will continue, with statistics and misinformation thrown about and emotions trumping logic, and neither side willing reexamine their own position. There's a principle involved, after all.

Jerry

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
I doubt accurate records were kept of illegal abortions, don't you? So an estimate of the number is just that, an estimate. But I don't see 1.3 million a year occurring. That would have been noticed.

Really? Why? People were very good at keeping such scandals secret.

Originally posted by Luke T.
As for shame and shunning, I thought you weren't interested in "feelings."

Well, since you don't have any data from days of yonder we can look at... :) Do you agree that the social stigma in earlier days was quite devastating?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Pain and death? I assume you are talking about the mothers and not the babies...

Both. You think it was pleasant for either, in the days of hacks and quacks as abortionists?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Also, thinking about it, 50 million abortions out of a population which is only now reaching around 280 million strongly suggests that a lot of women are having multiple abortions.

Whoa, BAD skeptic! You can't do the math like that.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Sex has consequences. Can't get around that. And the consequences weren't determined by man's laws. It has been determined by nature.

Let me explain a seemingly new concept to you (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/)...

Originally posted by Luke T.
Abortion has consequences, too. You would transfer the consequences of a woman's "fooling around" to a completely innocent person.

It takes two, Luke. And there are plenty of birth control methods to choose from, for both parties.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Luke T.


That is a strange outlook. Motherhood as punishment. It is a gift. A very precious one which many who can't have kids will tell you.

Sex has consequences. Can't get around that. And the consequences weren't determined by man's laws. It has been determined by nature.

Abortion has consequences, too. You would transfer the consequences of a woman's "fooling around" to a completely innocent person.

It's not a strange outlook; merely an alien one for you. Just as you, LukeT, don't dictate what the meaning of motherhood to me, the government does not dictate what constitutes a life to me. Motherhood might be a gift to you; to many it is. It's something open and subject to interpretation. For me, motherhood would be a potential death sentence; in my entire life, I would have seen it as a burden, I would not see it as an "innocent life" but a parasite, a leech, not a blessing or any sort.

You're using a fallacy by invoking nature.

Abortion has consequences? Yes, so does going through a full pregnancy. I could die myself LukeT. I could snap and go psychotic post- partum and kill the viable human being.

You want back alley abortions? So what happens if someone you love has a non-viable fetus? No abortion to save your loved one's life LukeT. That fetus die in utero? Too bad. That fetus going to die right after it's born? Well it's still a lifetime, right, so long as it gets it's 5 minutes of rescucitation I guess it's okay with LukeT...?

For you, LukeT, it's okay to put a fetus' life over a viable adult's, but it's not okay to put a viable adult over a fetus, an "unborn", even a blastocyte, which is a collection of cells even. Because the fetus is innocent? And yet you'd deny abortion to rape victims and incest victims, since you want them to go back-alley. Who decides who is innocent at that point? Not you LukeT... slippery slope in action, you merely warned suspension on someone who threatened to shoot someone else on this board, but you'll condemn all abortions for your gut feeling?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Really? Why? People were very good at keeping such scandals secret.

Common sense, Claus. A million abortions a year? Kept secret?

Well, since you don't have any data from days of yonder we can look at... :) Do you agree that the social stigma in earlier days was quite devastating?

There was also a social stigma attached to being a single mother. That stigma is gone.

Whoa, BAD skeptic! You can't do the math like that.

Again, common sense, Claus. Either most women have had an abortion, or many have multiple abortions.

But if common sense isn't good enough, then a quick look around the net will answer it for you. For instance, here. (http://www.multnomah.edu/voice/0203/0203cover2.html)

The Voice: Do you have many repeat clients?

Downtown Women's Center: It is fairly common to have more than one abortion.

Let me explain a seemingly new concept to you (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/bc/)...

Maybe you should explain that concept to women who have an abortion, or especially multiple abortions. That seems to be their idea of birth control.

Here (http://www.oneliferevolution.org/unbelievable/) are some more consequences of sex for you to consider.

It takes two, Luke. And there are plenty of birth control methods to choose from, for both parties.

It only takes one to end the life the two created.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
Common sense, Claus. A million abortions a year? Kept secret?

Luke, you don't really believe that people had less sex in olden days, do you? Add to that, less contraception. What do you get?

Also, the million corresponds to a population of 280 million. The population has not been 280 million during that time. So, the number would naturally be somewhat lower.

Originally posted by Luke T.
There was also a social stigma attached to being a single mother. That stigma is gone.

Not everywhere; Try being a young pregnant girl in the Bible Belt. However, the social stigma for girls who got pregnant was quite devastating - do you agree with that?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Again, common sense, Claus. Either most women have had an abortion, or many have multiple abortions.

No, what I meant was: The population hasn't always been 280 million during that time frame. You can't add the number of abortions over a prolonged time frame, and then compare it to the population today.

Do you have any numbers on abortion at all?

Originally posted by Luke T.
But if common sense isn't good enough, then a quick look around the net will answer it for you. For instance, here. (http://www.multnomah.edu/voice/0203/0203cover2.html)

I was hoping for some nationwide statistics...

Originally posted by Luke T.
Maybe you should explain that concept to women who have an abortion, or especially multiple abortions. That seems to be their idea of birth control.

WHAAT?? Luke, you are not serious!! :eek: Do you have any numbers - not opinions?

Originally posted by Luke T.
Here (http://www.oneliferevolution.org/unbelievable/) are some more consequences of sex for you to consider.

It's an AIDS site, Luke. That deals with having unprotected sex, not just having sex.

Originally posted by Luke T.
It only takes one to end the life the two created.

It seems to me that you place all responsibility on the mother?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suezoled


It's not a strange outlook; merely an alien one for you. Just as you, LukeT, don't dictate what the meaning of motherhood to me, the government does not dictate what constitutes a life to me.

So you are okay with aborting a 38 week fetus? Because the governments says you can't, that it is a life.

Motherhood might be a gift to you; to many it is. It's something open and subject to interpretation. For me, motherhood would be a potential death sentence; in my entire life, I would have seen it as a burden, I would not see it as an "innocent life" but a parasite, a leech, not a blessing or any sort.

You're using a fallacy by invoking nature.

Nature says if you have sex, you can get pregnant. Sorry.

And I'm sorry you see children from such a hateful perspective.

Abortion has consequences? Yes, so does going through a full pregnancy. I could die myself LukeT. I could snap and go psychotic post- partum and kill the viable human being.

You could die, could snap. I could get run over by a car today, should I never leave the house? Abortion is a certainty.

You want back alley abortions?

A nice threat. We'll kill ourselves if you don't let us kill our babies. How sympathetic should I be to that?

Obviously, if there were greater risks with these back alley abortions, then less abortions would occur. Because then a mother really, really would be taking her own life in her hands instead of in some imaginary argument to preserve legal abortion. Kind of level the playing field between her and the fetus for real.

So what happens if someone you love has a non-viable fetus? No abortion to save your loved one's life LukeT. That fetus die in utero? Too bad. That fetus going to die right after it's born? Well it's still a lifetime, right, so long as it gets it's 5 minutes of rescucitation I guess it's okay with LukeT...?

Where have you gotten the idea I would not be in favor of removing a dead fetus from the mother?

For you, LukeT, it's okay to put a fetus' life over a viable adult's, but it's not okay to put a viable adult over a fetus, an "unborn", even a blastocyte, which is a collection of cells even. Because the fetus is innocent? And yet you'd deny abortion to rape victims and incest victims, since you want them to go back-alley. Who decides who is innocent at that point? Not you LukeT... slippery slope in action, you merely warned suspension on someone who threatened to shoot someone else on this board, but you'll condemn all abortions for your gut feeling?

How often is a mother's life truly in danger anymore, Suezoled? And "danger" and "life threatening" doesn't mean certain death these days anymore either.

My wife had something called pre-eclampsia during her pregnancy. It used to be called toxcemia. Very hazardous to the mother. I suppose some pro-abortionists would be all over that and say it justifies terminating the pregnancy. Fortunately, my wife is made of tougher stuff. She was hospitalized for as long as possible, and then labor was induced. We have two beautiful twins as a result.

My wife suffered terribly. Terribly. She was in the hospital for weeks afterwards. But she will tell you she'd do it again in a second.

In fact, we found out she was pregnant again four months later. We were in no way prepared for that. We didn't want another baby. We were as exhausted as two people can be with the twins. My wife's emotional health was past its limit. She had post-partum psychosis from hell. She has only recently opened up to me the terrible things taking place in her mind back then even though she was on medication for it, and it made my hair stand on end. But again, abortion was not an option for either one of us.

Then I received the wonderful news I was being laid off. Two newborns and a pregnant wife. We then began a life living on government cheese. Dark days in a state with the nation's highest unemployment rate.

I busted my ass getting another job. I finally got one at far less pay than my last one.

Our new baby is five months old. I have had to refinance our house, and every payday I have to decide which bills get paid and which ones don't. Getting a meal from Burger King is a major financial decision. In fact, I haven't eaten there since I can't remember when. The tires on my vehicle are bald, and I live in a very rainy state and it is an hour drive each way to work every day. I can't afford life insurance.

So don't talk to me or my wife about hardship being a good excuse to abort.

When I look at our new baby girl, all these worries leave my mind. Because every time I make eye contact with her, her whole body smiles. Her arms and legs scrunch up, her faces scrunches up, and her mouth gives me a gigantic toothless smile. Her eyes shine as bright as floodlights down to the bottom of my soul. This doesn't make me feel like a real man. It makes me feel small. It makes me feel like a wobbling water balloon.

Our daughter used to make a face when I would rub her fuzzy little head. But she is used to it now, and she has to be, because I can't stop myself. I have practiced and practiced to learn how to coax belly laughs from her and her big brother and sister. I am a world champion laugh-evoker with kids now. So who gives a flying frig about Burger King?

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by yahweh:
Even if a woman has sex for fun and finds herself pregnant, I could never imagine anyone saying "Well that's what she gets for fooling around, now she must suffer the consequences". That vindictive, self-righteous attitude stems from a belief that sex is bad and must be punished. Motherhood should never be punishment for having sex. Forcing a child to be born to punish its mother is the ultimate in child abuse.

Sex isn't bad, nor should it be "punished", but it's a plain and unavoidable biological fact that sex can result in babies. If you choose to "fool around" then you must be aware of all the consequences and be prepared to face them if needs be. Put it this way, if I as a man chose to fool around and in the process got someone pregnant, would I get off paying maintainence if I told the Judge that to do so would be an unjust punishment?

Originally posted by Cf Larsen:
Almost 60% more abortions per capita in the US than Denmark.

Why so many in the US? We have completely free abortion here, have had it for 30 years. Add to that, a much more relaxed attitude towards sex.

Originally posted by Plindboe:
Good point. The funny thing is that the number of abortions dropped significantly after we got free abortion, and it has been dropping ever since.

Maybe demographics is the key. Perhaps the US has per capita 60% more women of childbearing age than Denmark. Possibly a significant drop in abortions in Denmark over the past three decades correlates with a declining birth rate overall, translating into a declining cohort of women capable of childbirth.

Since Luke is ploughing a lonely furrow here I'll weigh in and give him my broad support. I just don't feel comfortable with abortion on demand. Yes I can see the point about victims of rape and incest. But I think the use of abortion has gone beyond what it's proponents originally claimed. Rather than being a means of eliminating back street abortions (the prevalence of which is in doubt) it seems to be used as a decadent means of birth control. I'd agree with Luke when he says that the social mores that would have driven women to the back street abortionists no longer exist. In short, my conscience brings me down on the pro-life argument.

[CFLarsen]

Shane Costello, Luke,

We have to see real numbers that says that women are using abortion as a contraceptive.

Right?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Luke T.


So you are okay with aborting a 38 week fetus? Because the governments says you can't, that it is a life.


yes, actually, I am. Because the life that is established takes precedence over any potential life.


Nature says if you have sex, you can get pregnant. Sorry.

And I'm sorry you see children from such a hateful perspective.

Nature also says if I am raped I can get pregnant, though as a man you would suffer the same trauma but not the possible same result. And I don't hate children. I said I saw my own *motherhood* as a curse and a parasite. I like children; wanted children are the best. I've seen unwanted children; I've ached for them; but I guess any life is better from LukeT's prospective?

You could die, could snap. I could get run over by a car today, should I never leave the house? Abortion is a certainty.
No LukeT, I am far more likely to snap and lash out. I recognize that in me; I am not proud of it, but I don't brush it off as easily as you do. I am also far more likely to die in pregnancy, if I can get pregnant at all.


A nice threat. We'll kill ourselves if you don't let us kill our babies. How sympathetic should I be to that?

Obviously your sympathies mean nothing to me. The reality is, you want a fairly safe and regulated medical procedure to go back underground where people are risking their lives again.


Obviously, if there were greater risks with these back alley abortions, then less abortions would occur. Because then a mother really, really would be taking her own life in her hands instead of in some imaginary argument to preserve legal abortion. Kind of level the playing field between her and the fetus for real.
Where have you gotten the idea I would not be in favor of removing a dead fetus from the mother?
Oh, okay, aborting a dead cluster of cells or fetus (yes, it's actually called a "missed abortion" in medical terms) is okay under LukeT's terms.



How often is a mother's life truly in danger anymore, Suezoled? And "danger" and "life threatening" doesn't mean certain death these days anymore either.
Is it just life threatening? No; some people abuse the system of medical practice such as abortion; I honestly think, from what I have seen and read and who I have spoken with, most abortions are not done without the patient's consideration.

(personal anecdote snipped)

So don't talk to me or my wife about hardship being a good excuse to abort.

(snipped more personal anecdote, as it is irrelevent to the actual debate and only shows LukeT once again arguing from a non critical thinking perspective)

Don't strawman me LukeT; I never said a d@mn thing about hardship; your mother made her choice, you and your wife made your mutual decision. You've already made your decision, and anything else to you would be an excuse, it seems.
Yet you would deny it to others; that same choice of going through with risky pregnancy.
You are anti-choice. I respect that. But your appeal to emotions don't help your position.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Luke, you don't really believe that people had less sex in olden days, do you? Add to that, less contraception. What do you get?

More babies?

Do you have any numbers on abortion at all?


I was hoping for some nationwide statistics...

Survey. (http://www.afterabortion.org/Survey2.htm)

Percentage that had one abortion, 73%. Two, 17.8%. Three, 5%.
Four or more, 3.5%.

Interesting questions in Section 3 of the survey about the emotional and physical consequences of their abortions.

A health source. (http://www.deveber.org/text/whealth.html)

A significant number of women who experience pregnancy loss have had multiple induced abortions. [/b]

Here (http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm) is an article based on an Alan Guttmacher Institute report. The AGI is an arm of Planned Parenthood, I believe.


47% of abortions are performed on women who have already had one or more abortions.

So like I said, common sense, and an easy search around the net will verify a lot of women have had multiple abortions. You can find sources both pro- and anti-abortion which confirm it.

There were even more sources I came across which show that multiple abortions have some pretty serious health consequences for the woman. I guess they are putting their lives at risk by having abortions, eh?

It's an AIDS site, Luke. That deals with having unprotected sex, not just having sex.

Sexual consequences, nonetheless. And protected sex is no guarantee against AIDS or pregnancy.

It seems to me that you place all responsibility on the mother?

The law has placed all responsibility for abortion on the mother, yes.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suezoled

Don't strawman me LukeT; I never said a d@mn thing about hardship; your mother made her choice, you and your wife made your mutual decision. You've already made your decision, and anything else to you would be an excuse, it seems.
Yet you would deny it to others; that same choice of going through with risky pregnancy.
You are anti-choice. I respect that. But your appeal to emotions don't help your position.

You had your own appeal to emotion by saying you would snap if you had a kid. If you know this ahead of time, why don't you get your tubes tied? Why take a chance?

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Luke T.


You had your own appeal to emotion by saying you would snap if you had a kid. If you know this ahead of time, why don't you get your tubes tied? Why take a chance?

It's not an appeal to emotion; I do have a higher tendency. In fact, women in general might have this tendency, but I guess if the baby is born it doesn't matter if the woman who bore it is suffering.


As for the nosy personal question of why I don't get my tubes tied? I've tried. I've gone to 3 doctors. Each of them have refused. It's not so easy LukeT. I can't get my tubes tied because doctors don't want a "I regret my decision" lawsuit on their hands. They don't want to take away that potential I would change my mind later. The doctors are afraid I'm too young to make such a life altering decision, though nevermind pregnancy and abortion are also life altering. No, I'm having a hard time finding someone who will tie my tubes or Essure me; and even those processes are not gauranteed; every person who has researched voluntary sterilization knows this for a fact.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
More babies?

Well, more pregnancies.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Survey. (http://www.afterabortion.org/Survey2.htm)

Percentage that had one abortion, 73%. Two, 17.8%. Three, 5%. Four or more, 3.5%.

I don't know about you, but I don't see abortion used as a contraceptive here.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Interesting questions in Section 3 of the survey about the emotional and physical consequences of their abortions.

Which definitely speaks against women using abortion as a contraceptive.

Originally posted by Luke T.
So like I said, common sense, and an easy search around the net will verify a lot of women have had multiple abortions. You can find sources both pro- and anti-abortion which confirm it.

A "lot", Luke? When do the women have their second and third abortion? Do you think women get an abortion because it might be difficult to get contraceptives?

There is, of course, also the explanation that women get abortions for medical reasons as well. How many are those, out of the total number?

Originally posted by Luke T.
There were even more sources I came across which show that multiple abortions have some pretty serious health consequences for the woman. I guess they are putting their lives at risk by having abortions, eh?

Nobody is saying that an abortion is a totally safe medical procedure - no medical procedures are.

Originally posted by Luke T.
Sexual consequences, nonetheless. And protected sex is no guarantee against AIDS or pregnancy.

No, but it sure as heck lowers the chance!! Are you saying "no sex at all"?

Originally posted by Luke T.
The law has placed all responsibility for abortion on the mother, yes.

I did ask the law. I asked you.


I noticed that the average number of weeks a woman was pregnant before she got an abortion was 9.6% - which tells us that the average woman discovers she has missed her period, and gets an abortion pronto. Only 4% carries longer than 20 weeks, which - and I am only guessing here - would probably mean those pregnancies that are terminated for medical reasons.

I was, however, puzzled over this question: "Have you ever had a waking or sleeping visitation from the aborted child?" 17.7% said "Yes" - are we talking something like Alien Abductions here?? Hmmm....

[Luke T.]

Well, my wife just read this topic from home. We just talked on the the phone and she says I need to stop talking about it before I make some enemies. And then she dared me to tell you guys she said that...

*sigh*

Hope I'm not too late.

[CFLarsen]

Enemies? What are you - well, she - talking about? We are debating, facts are flying around our ears....

Be careful what you let your wife read! :D

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CF Larsen:
We have to see real numbers that says that women are using abortion as a contraceptive.

Right?

Not necessarily. The numbers (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html) in themselves don't tell us anything about the motivation behind the terminations. But since the overall number of births in the US is 4 million (www.mchb.hrsa.gov/pages/page_51.htm), I can't see how every fifth pregnancy would have to be aborted on health or other grounds.

[CFLarsen]

Shane Costello,

That's what I meant: Numbers about the motivation. :)

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Enemies? What are you - well, she - talking about? We are debating, facts are flying around our ears....

Be careful what you let your wife read! :D

My wife knows me all too well. The biggest danger for me with this topic is making an enemy of myself. I have always lived to regret my judgmentalism. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but my wife was right to stop me.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by CF LArsen:
Shane Costello,

That's what I meant: Numbers about the motivation.

Here's what I mean. Given the advancements in medical technology and change in social attitudes, what possible reason is there for every fifth pregnancy to end in abortion? I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that abortion is being used as a means of contraception.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Actually, I really am interested in knowing the technical questions of Roe v. Wade and how it was determined when a fetus is a human and and when it isn't and therefore okay to abort.

...

I truly do not understand these questions about roe v. wade, though, and what sort of legal wrangling was used to draw the line of when life begins, and what sort of legal foundation it is based on. Rock or sand?

From the opinion:

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. 51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument 52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.




The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; 53 in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. 54



All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn. 55 This is in accord with the results reached in those few cases where the issue has been squarely presented. McGarvey v. Magee-Womens Hospital, 340 F.Supp. 751 (WD Pa. 1972); Byrn v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp., 31 N. Y. 2d 194, 286 N. E. 2d 887 (1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-434; Abele v. Markle, 351 F.Supp. 224 (Conn. 1972), appeal docketed, No. 72-730. Cf. Cheaney v. State, Ind., at , 285 N. E. 2d, at 270; Montana v. Rogers, 278 F.2d 68, 72 (CA7 1960), aff'd sub nom. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Keeler v. Superior Court, 2 Cal. 3d 619, 470 P. 2d 617 (1970); State v. Dickinson, 28 Ohio St. 2d 65, 275 N. E. 2d 599 (1971). Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection.



This conclusion, however, does not of itself fully answer the contentions raised by Texas, and we pass on to other considerations.


B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.



It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community, insofar as that can be ascertained; organized groups that have taken a formal position on the abortion issue have generally regarded abortion as a matter for the conscience of the individual and her family. 58 As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks. 60 The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century, despite opposition to this "ensoulment" theory from those in the Church who would recognize the existence of life from the moment of conception. 61 The latter is now, of course, the official belief of the Catholic Church. As one brief amicus discloses, this is a view strongly held by many non-Catholics as well, and by many physicians. Substantial problems for precise definition of this view are posed, however, by new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is a "process" over time, rather than an event, and by new medical techniques such as menstrual extraction, the "morning-after" pill, implantation of embryos, artificial insemination, and even artificial wombs. 62




In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth. For example, the traditional rule of tort law denied recovery for prenatal injuries even though the child was born alive. 63 That rule has been changed in almost every jurisdiction. In most States, recovery is said to be permitted only if the fetus was viable, or at least quick, when the injuries were sustained, though few courts have squarely so held. 64 In a recent development, generally opposed by the commentators, some States permit the parents of a stillborn child to maintain an action for wrongful death because of prenatal injuries. 65 Such an action, however, would appear to be one to vindicate the parents' interest and is thus consistent with the view that the fetus, at most, represents only the potentiality of life. Similarly, unborn children have been recognized as acquiring rights or interests by way of inheritance or other devolution of property, and have been represented by guardians ad litem. 66 Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense.



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

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Luke T.
To many people, there is a higher Law than the law of where they live. Indeed. However, the Laws of Physics don't seem to prevent abortion.

Does someone who is sleeping have a personality? Does someone in a coma? A chicken has a personality, but I can still kill it. Does intelligence matter? If a chicken is stupid enough to kill, does that mean I should be able to kill you without consequences? What about earthworms?

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Indeed. However, the Laws of Physics don't seem to prevent abortion.

[/b] Does intelligence matter? If a chicken is stupid enough to kill, does that mean I should be able to kill you without consequences? What about earthworms? [/B]

Hey, it was plindboe's definition of a "person," not mine, or the dictionary. I guess you didn't read the entire topic, but thank you for supporting my point.

By the way, have you made it a personal goal to piss off everyone on this forum one at a time? If so, you will have to try harder with me.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Suddenly


From the opinion:



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

Well, logic dictated to me that the Supreme Court would have to have made an all-or-nothing decision. I also read the opinion and noted the parts you quoted, and it seems to confirm what I thought. They believed abortion to be legal all the way up to delivery.

Tragic.

I guess Supreme Court decisions which followed rolled/will roll that back.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Not everyone. Just the stupid, ignorant, uneducated, blindly stubborn, and set-in-their-ways people.

[Luke T.]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Not everyone. Just the stupid, ignorant, uneducated, blindly stubborn, and set-in-their-ways people.

Good luck with that. ;)

[Jeff R]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Here's what I mean. Given the advancements in medical technology and change in social attitudes, what possible reason is there for every fifth pregnancy to end in abortion? I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that abortion is being used as a means of contraception.
No doubt abortion is a means of contraception. Maybe somebody can explain to me what's wrong with that. Not Luke, 'cause his position is very clear, but somebody who is generally in favor of a woman's right to decide whether or not to take a pregnancy to term. What difference does it make why she decides to end her pregnancy? Besides, I don't think that abortion is the primary means of contraception for any but a few very irresponsible or possibly nutty people, and maybe those people shouldn't be having children anyway.

In my book terminating an unwanted pregnancy is a far better option than giving birth to a child that you are unable to provide for and/or properly care for. To any women who have found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy and chose abortion, I say good for you. There's nothing wrong with what you did, and don't let the anti-abortion zealots get to you.

I guess I'm surprised that I'm the first one to say that in a lot of cases abortion may be the next best thing to not getting pregnant in the first place.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Luke T.
My wife knows me all too well. The biggest danger for me with this topic is making an enemy of myself. I have always lived to regret my judgmentalism. I don't know if that makes sense to you, but my wife was right to stop me.

....wimp.... :)

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Here's what I mean. Given the advancements in medical technology and change in social attitudes, what possible reason is there for every fifth pregnancy to end in abortion? I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that abortion is being used as a means of contraception.

BEEP! Argument from ignorance. :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Suezoled
As for the nosy personal question of why I don't get my tubes tied? I've tried. I've gone to 3 doctors. Each of them have refused. It's not so easy LukeT. I can't get my tubes tied because doctors don't want a "I regret my decision" lawsuit on their hands. They don't want to take away that potential I would change my mind later. The doctors are afraid I'm too young to make such a life altering decision, though nevermind pregnancy and abortion are also life altering. No, I'm having a hard time finding someone who will tie my tubes or Essure me; and even those processes are not gauranteed; every person who has researched voluntary sterilization knows this for a fact.

Yuck. I've been there. All I can say is, keep at it. I went to four doctors trying to get snipped (starting at age 23), and got the same treatment. Then, at my next physical, my regular doc saw all the urology consults in my file and asked what was up. When I told him, he put a nasty note in there about doctors minding their own business, and got me an appointment with the department head, who was very apologetic and did it himself.

So, I got lucky (except for the fact that it didn't take and I get to have it done again on Thursday -- yay!!). One tip I learned after the fact: after a doctor refuses to do it, ask his/her nurse if there's another doctor in the department who might be more open-minded. Also, I assume you're trying to find a doctor that's covered by an insurance plan, but if you're willing to pay out of pocket, Planned Parenthood should be able to hook you up without a problem.

Jeremy

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by Luke T.


Well, logic dictated to me that the Supreme Court would have to have made an all-or-nothing decision. I also read the opinion and noted the parts you quoted, and it seems to confirm what I thought. They believed abortion to be legal all the way up to delivery.

Tragic.

I guess Supreme Court decisions which followed rolled/will roll that back.

For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

It really isn't all or nothing. Different regulations kick in at different stages. Taking the decision narrowly it really only decides that a law making all abortions illegal (excepting life/health threatening situations) is unconstitutional.

[Jas]

Originally posted by toddjh


Yuck. I've been there. All I can say is, keep at it. I went to four doctors trying to get snipped (starting at age 23), and got the same treatment. Then, at my next physical, my regular doc saw all the urology consults in my file and asked what was up. When I told him, he put a nasty note in there about doctors minding their own business, and got me an appointment with the department head, who was very apologetic and did it himself.

So, I got lucky (except for the fact that it didn't take and I get to have it done again on Thursday -- yay!!). One tip I learned after the fact: after a doctor refuses to do it, ask his/her nurse if there's another doctor in the department who might be more open-minded. Also, I assume you're trying to find a doctor that's covered by an insurance plan, but if you're willing to pay out of pocket, Planned Parenthood should be able to hook you up without a problem.

Jeremy

Tell me about it. They won't do it for me, I'm too young (apparently). At the birth control clinic here in town, they told me that they have problems getting it done for women who are 22 and already have three or four kids. Doctor's are just extremely reluctant to do it, msot seeming to be of the opinion that all women secretly want to have kids (or have even more kids, if they've already popped out a few).