Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by sultan_of_agrabah, Jun 7, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    It is a "right" in the sense it is protected by the law. It's sematics

    I don't think that's what people mean when they say "it's my right." It seems to be perceived as some inherent right which must not be infringed by the government. I would like to know why.

    For me, the question is not, "Is abortion illegal?" Though I could argue that current laws really should protect the life of a fetus, that is really not the question at hand.

    The question is, "Should abortion be illegal?" Should abortion be protected, or punishable, by law?

  2. RoboNerd Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Nov 7, 2001
    star 2
    1. IT IS NOT YOUR BODY. Someone, *please* try to prove to me that a fetus is part of the woman's body before making that argument. The simple fact that the child is contained within your womb does not make it your body. If you could somehow engulf another living human being (swallow them?), would you then have the right to their body?

    Sure, this argument is fine after a certain point. But I think especially at first trimester, this needs to be a woman's decision. Furthermore, many pregnancies miscarry due to things like inadequate nutrition, stress, etc. Is that murder, because the woman didn't take care of herself? Where do we draw the line?

    2. A bad forecast for the child's life is no excuse to end it. Most babies who are thrown into the dumpster after birth are unwanted, but that doesn't make it okay. It shouldn't be used as an excuse before birth, either.

    Okay, then what is your solution? Overload the protective services even more?

    3. I am not telling anyone what to do with their bodies. I am simply telling them what the consequences may be if they choose to behave in an irresponsible manner. Once a pregnancy results, you're past the point where you had a choice. Our legal system should protect a fetus the same way it protects a newborn.

    "Irresponsible" = failed birth control? "Irresponsible" = young married couple? "Irresponsible" = severe diabetic? "Irresponsible" = eptopic pregnancy? "Irresponsible" = abused woman?

    4. Abortion should be illegal simply because it is murder. ... In what other situation would you argue for laws that make it easier for a murderer to escape with his or her life? Should we outlaw self-defense to make sure that no one accidentally gets killed in the process of committing murder?

    This is comparing apples to oranges. How is aborting a non-developed zygote murder? Because it had the potential to become a person? So did every egg and sperm ever wasted. So did fertilized zygotes that never implanted. So did miscarriages that the woman never realized happened. (Which, by the way, is very common today in our stressful, poor-nutrition society -- only 1 in 3 conceptions ever make it to where the woman misses her period.)

    5. Birth control and education on its use are the best way to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

    Agreed.

    It is far better for a woman to prevent a pregnancy than to have to experience all of the physical side-effects of a pregnancy followed by the painful procedure of an abortion.

    Agreed. But not always feasible.

    If you care about women, teach them to care for themselves *before* they get to the point where they need to think about abortion.

    Agreed. However I don't think calling people murderers is helping the situation. Of course abortion is wrong in many circumstances, but again, I don't want to see a return to the barbaric, nauseating conditions of pre-Roe V. Wade days. Have you ever read about what happened? It's very nasty stuff. Which will happen again -- no doubt -- if Roe V. Wade is overturned.

    Just because someone aborts a pregnancy doesn't make them a monster who deserves to hemmorage, become massively infected, and slowly succumb to a deadly bacteria. And some of that stuff which infects coat-hanger abortions literally eats its victims alive. It's bad stuff.

    I'm sorry, I don't want a return to those days, and if for no other reason than that, it needs to be legal. I think the system we have right now is just fine... women need to learn their options, and make their decision. After the first trimester, I agree that you've given up the option, but not before.

    Furthermore, again I don't see any answers yet -- where are the "studs" in this whole affair? Why aren't they being persecuted for being promiscuous? Where is their share of the venom that is being hurled at the women who actually have to live with the consequences of their decisions?

    +=o RoboNerd o=+
  3. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    But I think especially at first trimester, this needs to be a woman's decision.

    Explain to me why abortion is less wrong during the first trimester.


    Okay, then what is your solution? Overload the protective services even more?

    Part of the solution is bringing about an awareness of how horrible abortion really is. Most people already know and agree that killing a newborn baby is illegal and wrong. I don't want abortion illegal so that we have more criminals; I want it illegal so that people realize it is a crime and decide not to do it.

    The other part of the solution, as I said before, is better education on the use of birth control. Right now women everywhere are shouting that they have a right to choose. I wish I could scream back that their choice was made when they chose to have sex. If people could just realize this, you would have far fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

    I realize that birth control isn't 100% effective. However, if everyone who was concerned about not getting pregnant used a combinations of methods (e.g., the pill & condoms), it should be really close to 100%. I would rather see federal funding devoted to improving birth control than used to fund abortions.


    "Irresponsible" = failed birth control?

    How often does this really happen? I think that improper use of birth control is still a little irresponsible, don't you? Anyone who puts all their faith in a single condom & insists that we offer abortion as a backup if it fails is rather naive.

    "Irresponsible" = young married couple?

    Young married couples don't use birth control? If they don't, I'm pretty sure they're aware that there is a possibility they'll get pregnant. A young married couple that doesn't want a pregnancy but doesn't use birth control is irresponsible.

    "Irresponsible" = severe diabetic? "Irresponsible" = eptopic pregnancy?

    I'm in favor of allowing abortions when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. It's a simple case of self-defense.

    "Irresponsible" = abused woman?

    Abused woman = rape. Doesn't it?

    The irresponsible behavior I was talking about is unprotected (or sometimes, poorly protected) sex. If two people make a choice to engage in this activity, both are responsible for the outcome. Women have been holding their children's fathers accountable for years. I think the mothers should be held accountable as well. More importantly, I think both men & women should understand the consequences of their actions clearly enough that they take the proper steps to prevent an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.


    How is aborting a non-developed zygote murder? Because it had the potential to become a person? So did every egg and sperm ever wasted.

    No, because it already was a living human being. When, in your opinion, does it suddenly become a person? At birth?

    You will not get any scientific opinion that says an egg or sperm is a human being. You are correct in saying that these have the potential to become human. The difference between sperm & eggs and a zygote is that the zygote is not long potential human life; it is human life.


    However I don't think calling people murderers is helping the situation.

    I really don't know what else to call it. The willful termination of a human life before birth is no less murder to me than terminating the same life after birth.


    Of course abortion is wrong in many circumstances, but again, I don't want to see a return to the barbaric, nauseating conditions of pre-Roe V. Wade days. Have you ever read about what happened? It's very nasty stuff. Which will happen again -- no doubt -- if Roe V. Wade is overturned.

    I don't want this to occur, either, but what you refuse to see is that abortion is still nauseating and barbaric. I don't want to return to the pre-Roe v. Wade conditions; I want a stop to all abortions (with a few exceptions, such as to save a mother's life). Simply making abortion illegal
  4. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    A fetus prior to the third trimester is not and cannot generally be considered a legal individual with individual rights... despite whatever our President has to say about it.

    At such a time when they are entirely chemically, biologically, and otherwise wholly dependent on the mother for survival... as much as one of the mother's kidneys or skin tissue... to imbue with a fetus any such rights is nonsense. They can neither be demonstrated to be biologically independent of the mother, nor capable of having a choice in the matter of their independence. Fetuses prior to the third trimester are inextricably linked to the mother, have no choice in that matter, and cannot be given the choice pr opportunity to separate from the mother and be expected to actually survive.
  5. Rebecca191 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 1999
    star 6
    There is a difference between a fetus and a newborn. Yes, a newborn needs constant care, but in this day and age, it can be provided by someone other than the baby's mother.

    And I don't think a just-concieved fetus (actually, I think it's a different term at the beginning, but I don't remember from biology) is human. It can't think. It doesn't have brain activity. Therefore, by my definition, it's not human. It will be human, it will be a baby, but to me, it isn't yet.

    And I'm not that big a fan of the idea of abortion. I can't see myself having one, except under extreme circumstances. But I believe in the right to have one as long as it is done early on.

    I don't understand how people can say a blob of cells is the same as a newborn. It has no feelings. The mother has feelings.
  6. sleazo Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 13, 2001
    star 4
    well some people consider that blob of cells to have the same rights as its human mother.
  7. Rebecca191 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 2, 1999
    star 6
    Well, in my opinion, it doesn't. I believe the rights of the mother should come first.
  8. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    Rebecca:Zygote is the word you're thinking of. Sperm and egg form zygote, zygote becomes embryo, embryo becomes fetus... and so on.

    I find it ironic that pro-lifers call themselves that. What they are more precisely is humanists. They do not support the preservation of all life... just humans, particularly emybryos and fetuses.

    I'm not saying I support irresponsible sex, irresponsible parenting, irresponsible anything... nor do I perceive abortion as a contraceptive answer to the potential results of casual sex (or any other kind of sex).

    For that matter, I think that bringing 5... 6... 10 children into this world is also irresponsible in relation to the balance of life. We are reasonably secure in our ability to survive without needing to produce more than one offspring (at least in developed nations, we can be relatively confident that one will survive).
  9. FlamingSword Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 2001
    star 6

    And I'm sure there is not a single person who would want things to be the way they were before Roe vs. Wade
  10. HavocHound Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Nov 30, 2000
    star 4
    Did you guys know the Nazis came up with institutionalized abortion?
  11. Saint_of_Killers Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 5
    The nazis also came up with the assault rifle. Does that make AR's inherently evil?
  12. Obi-Wan McCartney Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 17, 1999
    star 5
    Fetuses are not human beings and therefore do have any rights except that granted to it by the mother.

    In my opinion, GOD does not create babies. That is the only reason why it's even an issue, all you religious folk seem to believe GOD makes babies. A WOMAN creates a baby, with a little jump start from the fella. As the Supreme Court stated, the government has NO right to interfere in such a family issue as whether a man or a woman can beget or bear a child.

    You have NO right to tell a person that they must have a baby. You have NO right to tell someone when, and with whom someone can have sex with. And no, it's not law that "if a woman has sex she accepts that she must have a baby." That's freaking stupid! It's not true! Who says that it's true? In fact, that statement is clearly FALSE! The government has no right legislate sexual morality. The decision to bear a child is a woman's personal right, before it leave her it IS her. It share the same blood. It's not yet a human being.

    We'll have this debate forever because even though I believe in a higher power/godlike creation, I don't believe that any religion has it right and I don't believe that we should allow arcane religous philosphy to tell us that the government has a right to MAKE a woman carry a child to term.
  13. Maveric Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 1999
    star 4
    It share the same blood. It's not yet a human being.

    Then explain to me, Obi-Wan, how it is that my three children have different blood types than their mother? You need to do some studying on biology.
  14. Darth_SnowDog Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 10, 2001
    star 4
    HavocHound: Christians were persecuting Jews before the Nazis... does that make Nazis inherently good?

    I guess I fail to see your point... that abortion is somehow evil just because Nazis used it. It would be like saying that all Christians are evil because of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the current child molestation scandal, David Koresh.. etc. Point being... abortion is a tool, like religion... it can be used for good, or it can be used for bad.

    If abortion is bad because it takes life, why do we have anti-abortionists taking the lives of doctors? Why for that matter aren't "pro-lifers" supporting the preservation of all forms of life? Why do they eat meats and/or vegetables, fruits and grains?
  15. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    In my opinion, GOD does not create babies. That is the only reason why it's even an issue, all you religious folk seem to believe GOD makes babies.

    This is one of my problems with the anti-abortion movement. We have just enough people who believe it's wrong for religious reasons that the rest of us get pinned with the same point of view. It's not true. Go try and find any place in my argument where I said this had anything to do with a god or a religion. It's not there. We don't need religious reasoning to outlaw abortion. We can outlaw it simply because it is murder.


    You have NO right to tell a person that they must have a baby.

    No one forced these women to become pregnant, unless they are victims of rape. You seem to ignore the fact that there was a conscious decision to engage in sexual activity with the knowledge that a pregnancy could result. These women don't suddenly wake up one day to discover they're pregnant. They did something to make it happen. The law can't force someone to procreate. However, once a new human life has been created, the law has a responsibility to protect that life. A woman can't legally destroy her child after birth; I don't see why she should legally be able to do so before birth, either.


    And no, it's not law that "if a woman has sex she accepts that she must have a baby." That's freaking stupid! It's not true! Who says that it's true? In fact, that statement is clearly FALSE! The government has no right legislate sexual morality.

    Thanks for misquoting me and calling me stupid. Appreciate that.
    I said that women should realize that sex can lead to pregnancy and should take steps to prevent it, if they do not want a child.

    The abortion movement is based on the concept that a woman has a right to choose whether or not to have children. She should not simply be a reproductive machine for her husband, as was the attitude some hundred years ago. Abortion was the only method a woman used to have to control reproduction. She couldn't force her husband to wear a condom, she couldn't even say no to her husband if she didn't want to have sex, and so the women fought back using abortion. Now, I do understand the concept of a woman's right to choose not to have children. However, I think that birth control methods have come far enough that abortion is no longer necessary for the exercise of that right. A woman still has the right to choose not to have children by choosing not to become pregnant.


    The decision to bear a child is a woman's personal right, before it leave her it IS her. It share the same blood. It's not yet a human being.

    Prove that to me. Explain to me why it is not a human being. Is its umbilical connection to the mother enough to prevent its humanity? Can we still destroy a child that has exited the womb, as long as the umbilical cord is intact? Why can you only draw the line at birth?


    We'll have this debate forever because even though I believe in a higher power/godlike creation, I don't believe that any religion has it right and I don't believe that we should allow arcane religous philosphy to tell us that the government has a right to MAKE a woman carry a child to term.

    But once she gives birth, the government can make her take responsibility for it for the next 18 years. What's the difference?


    If abortion is bad because it takes life, why do we have anti-abortionists taking the lives of doctors?

    Because there are extremists and hypocrites that think this is a solution. It isn't, and it puts the rest of the anti-abortionists in a bad light. Murder is wrong, including the murder of abortion doctors.


    Why for that matter aren't "pro-lifers" supporting the preservation of all forms of life?

    Our system of law regulates how human beings treat one another. That is the basis for our Constitution. Abortion is a legal issue because it involves human beings.
    We can't have the same jurisdiction over other forms of life. You can't make it illegal for
  16. Kit' Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 30, 1999
    star 5
    Why do people still believe that contraceptives can absolutely prevent pregnancy? It still seems to be a misconception in this thread that they do...or at least it seems so to me!

    The ONLY to prevent pregnancy is by not having sex. That is he ONLY way to ensure you won't get pregnant. Contraceptives and Birth controls do fail (see one of my previous posts, I think it is back a page) from no fault of either the mother or the father.

    Kit
  17. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    Why do people still believe that contraceptives can absolutely prevent pregnancy? It still seems to be a misconception in this thread that they do...or at least it seems so to me!

    Now, I admit no form of birth control other than abstinance is 100% effective. However, a combination of effective birth control methods would come very close. In your previous post, you spoke of a family that had about 5 or 6 children while using some form of birth control. The number seems to far above the 2% error rate for an effective birth control method, so I find it a little hard to believe that there was a "stringent" use of birth control.

    One misconception that many people have is that a condom is a pretty good contraceptive. However, it is one of the less effective methods, especially since is often misused. The Pill, on the other hand, is more effective and less likely to be misused than a contraceptive that may be forgotten or unavailable at the time of intercourse. The combination of the Pill and condoms is effective enough that the margin of error should be far below 1%.

    If contraceptives could be 100% effective, then would you agree that abortion is unnecessary and should be illegal?

    (Edits: punctuation)
  18. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    Interesting, my first post in an abortion
    thread. I'm pro-choice, but I think there is a line between human baby and a non-human lumb of cells. What that line is? I can't tell.
    If it's clear that it's still between zygote and fetus there's nothing wrong with an abortion. If it can't be decided whether it's simple fetus or a humanrightsdeserving fetus, there should be no abortion. If it's a baby within a womb, no abortion. And the normal if it's a threat to the mothers life, abortion.
    Making abortions illegal wouldn't solve anything. Everyone seems to agree with this.
    Better and more extensive sexual education from early childhood (12 years olds?) would be a good way to make sure that there are fewer "mistakes" in the future.
    And finally, adoption. Since every stinking alcoholic and narc can f@ck around and get pregnant, it should be made easier to adopt. There are people who want to and can give a child a good life. (This from a man who is going to marry a woman who can't get pregnant)

    "I'm in favor of allowing abortions when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. It's a simple case of self-defense."

    But what about the innocent baby? It can be sacrificed? My answer is that mothers life is more precious than the babys life.
    Dura lex, sed lex.
  19. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    "I'm in favor of allowing abortions when the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. It's a simple case of self-defense."

    But what about the innocent baby? It can be sacrificed? My answer is that mothers life is more precious than the babys life.


    Well, I'm not saying someone has to abort when their life is threatened, but they do have the right to self-defense.

    However, I believe you have stated one of the key issues in the abortion debate: Many people believe that an adult life is more valuable than an unborn child's. Why is that? I think that both human lives should be provided equal protection under the law.

  20. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    Cold and heartless logic. It is more reasonable to ensure that the mother survives. This ensures that she can give birth to more babies. Who, hopefully, proceed with better luck.
  21. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    But that's not any basis for a law, is it? The law should apply equally to everyone.
  22. FlamingSword Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 4, 2001
    star 6
    If the mother's life is at stake, things should be considered. But in the majority of abortion cases, the mother's life is not at stake.

    If the mother's life is at stake and the mother and fetus will both die, then I'd say abort the fetus to give the mother a chance at life. Tough choice, but if they're both going to die, try to save one.

    If the mother's life is at stake, but the fetus would live if she died, the choice is harder. One of the two will die. It would be up to the people involved but I would still allow for an abortion to save the mother's life. At this point in time, her life is more valuable than the child's to society.

    But for any other reason (I can't handle a child ... I wasn't planning it .. I can't support it) ... I don't believe an abortion is a valid option. It's not like you did nothing to get pregnant ... you performed an act and should have thought about the consequences. In the cases of rape, there is always the morning after pill and such.
  23. Vagrant Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Apr 21, 2002
    star 3
    "The law should apply equally to everyone."

    In a perfect world, yes.
  24. womberty Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 21, 2002
    star 4
    In a perfect world you wouldn't need law.

    Our system of law is based on a principle of equal rights for all. Granted, it was poorly implemented at first, but we have gradually come closer to a system that gives everyone the same treatment and protection under the law. Why shouldn't we take the next step and extend that protection to another group of human beings currently being denied their rights?
  25. Silmarillion Manager Emerita/Ex RSA

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 1999
    star 6
    -- In the cases of rape, there is always the morning after pill and such.

    The morning after pill is around 75% effective and comes with a host of nasty side effects. Not every woman can take it.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.