Abortion Laws, Pro Life or Pro Chice?

Are you supporting giving rights to eggs?

I think that the "eggs" have a right to life.

However, abortion is acceptable for certain circumstances.

 

I think that the "eggs" have a right to life.

I hope you're talking talking about fertilised eggs, not single unfertilised ovum.

As that would be as stupid as saying that sperm have a right to life. Which would make any teenage boy genocidal on unimaginable scales.

- Scarlet.

 

Ok, I know this thread is supposed to be serious, but I am cracking up here.

 

LMAO!

 

As that would be as stupid as saying that sperm have a right to life.

The "s around the word "eggs" were in place for a reason.
Once the process has begun (sperm+egg) I do not think we have a right to destroy it, unless you fall into those "special circumstances" catagory.
It's probably those "special circumstances" that have kept abortion legal.

 

And what "special circumstances" do you find acceptable?

 

heh heh. sithlord, those highlights of yours are really buggin' my eyes.

cheers!

 

And what "special circumstances" do you find acceptable?

If the pregnancy puts the mother in mortal danger.
Or if the child is so deformed it would not be able to live.

Rape is a case I still have not decided on.

 

heh heh. sithlord, those highlights of yours are really buggin' my eyes.

And your Ewok is creepy. It's watching me.

 

Fire_Ice_Death:
Abortions should NOT be used for birth control though. That is my only problem. Those who use it as a form of birth control can then have that right taken away. It damages their ability to have kids and can cause the woman to become sterile.

Mmmm! Ok, so what's wrong with abortion as birth control? So what if the woman is harmed? It's her choice.

Of course, doctors should inform the woman of all effects of abortion, but if the woman doesn't care about becoming sterile, hey it's her choice. THIS is about HER body, more so than fetuses are.




Regarding abortion in general, I think that it's all about balance.

The human life technically begins at conception. But the question is: Is the life expendable?

IMO, the answer should be: Yes, at the early stages, i.e. up until the second trimester.

Which is why I concluded that abortion, IMO, should only be legal during the first trimester. This is a courtesy for those who used faulty contraceptives and/or those who have irregular cycles, among others. It also gives those who "messed up" a chance to get rid of the unwanted clump of cells before it gets a chance to ruin the unreceptive parents' lives.

 

The human life technically begins at conception.

But what about the fact that there is no heartbeat at conception? No brain activity? Would not a person lacking these things be considered dead?

 

Rebecca191, in a fully developed person, the lack of a heartbeat or brainwaves would cause the cells of the body to die. The person is obviously dead.

In the case of a fetus however, it is not the same. Even though at the early stages a fetus does not have a heartbeat or brainwaves, it is still alive. In fact, its cells are reproducing an a spectacular rate.

The fetus is not dead.

 

But how can it be a person with no heartbeat and no brainwaves?

 

Could it possibly be because it has a human genes?

Or do genes not count if they show you that a fetus is human?

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but do not eggs and sperm have human genes? If they didn't, they could never join and then develop into a person.

 

What will happen is that you will pre-empt them from seeking it legally. Out will come the coathangers, up will rise the number of maternal deaths and infections, and flood the hospitals will.

The fact that it would happen anyway is not reason enough for keeping abortion legal if it is murder. (Notice the "if" - this is the important point.) If the government has good reason for considering abortion murder, it has a duty to outlaw it regardless of the fact that it will continue to occur. Murder happens everyday, but we don't legalize it to protect the criminals.


Where did you come up with that? It was interpreted from the equal protection clause, for one, and the ninth (?) amendment about all other rights "devolving to the people" for another.

Strange, I thought it was implied by the 3rd and 4th Amendments' protection of the home and the 5th Amendment's protection against self-incrimination.


You are making an assumption on the intent of a guest in your home; I was stating that if a person threatens you harm in your home you are entitled to self-defense.

No, I was taking issue with your claim that a particular statistical risk presented by pregnancy jutifies abortion. I'm saying that if the same level of risk existed anywhere else, I couldn't use it to justify preemptively killing the person presenting the risk. It would help if I knew the statistic, but I'm sure it's nowhere near 50% of pregnancies or even 25% of pregnancies. (If 1 in 4 pregnancies resulted in death or serious bodily injury, I think I would have noticed...)


How do you know it isn't a clear and present danger of death?

Because when doctors tell people they're pregnant, they don't automatically assume tht they're going to die - or even that there's a significant risk of death. Of course, doctors are aware of possible complications and look for evidence of these as the pregnancy progresses, but no one is in fear of the mother's life until the complication begins to manifest itself.


Abortion being murder is YOUR OPINION.

And abortion not being murder is your opinion. The government gets to pick one, and it has to have some good reasoning behind it. I think there is good enough reason to extend governmental protection to a fetus prior to viability.


I keep asking you to provide proof that abortion is murder of a human being; you have simply stated that it is over and over and over again

Not really; I keep saying "if."


The government does protect the child's life-when the fetus is past the point of viability forward.

Just when they no longer need it. How convenient.


He would only have to claim that for a woman to be able to be forced to remain pregnant against her will, she was no longer under the fourth amendment's protection from illegal searches and seizures.

Ridiculous. Any governmental search would be legal because it would either be done under the authority of a warrant or under a belief that a crime was in progress or about to take place. The fact that the government has served a warrant to search your house doesn't give other intruders the right to enter. One has that authority; the other doesn't.


I'm not sure that pain is a good enough reason to justify ending someone else's life

Respectfully, I don't think you should go here.[...] you might feel very different staring a terminal cancer patient in the eye and telling them that.

I said someone else's life. I meant deciding for someone else that they shouldn't live because of their pain.


who, in that case, is our priority, the unborn, questionable human, or the born, definitely human, mother?

Just because we aren't yet sure that the unborn is a human doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to ask the question.


it's my belief that the Government keeps its nose out of the whole affair, so they can a) avoid contravening the first amendment, by possibly forcing their sense of religious morality on the people,

Why does

 

The fact that it would happen anyway is not reason enough for keeping abortion legal if it is murder.

It isn't? Keeping hundreds of women from dying (and their babies too, if you believe that) from horrendous and unsterelised backstreet operations is not reason enough? Women's lives are not reason enough, compared to your sense of morality? There's no consensus on whether babies are human lives. There is consensus on whether women are. So we should act accordingly.

If the government has good reason for considering abortion murder, it has a duty to outlaw it regardless of the fact that it will continue to occur.

As I stated earlier, people on both sides have "good reason." But there is no real answer to the question.

Murder happens everyday, but we don't legalize it to protect the criminals.

A woman who aborts her baby is neither a murderer (as at that point, legally, it is not considered a human life), nor a criminal (as she has broken no laws).

Abortion being murder is YOUR OPINION.

No, it is also the opinion of the law.

The government gets to pick one, and it has to have some good reasoning behind it.

How about it minds its own business?

Not really; I keep saying "if."

And using that "if" as the basis of your argument. If you could qualify that "if," your argument would hold water.

I said someone else's life. I meant deciding for someone else that they shouldn't live because of their pain.

That isn't the question. The baby's pain isn't in question. It can't even feel pain. The woman can. Is the woman's body, and the child is feeding off her. What if she decides she doesn't want it to? What if she doesn't want to kill it, but doesn't want a parasite inside her? If, by your definition, a baby is a human life, and it is inside the woman against her permission, isn't that assault?

Just because we aren't yet sure that the unborn is a human doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to ask the question.

And in the mean time we protect the one we know for sure to be a human life - the mother.

Why does abortion always have to be about religion?

Because a lot of the pro-lifers beliefs (and the Republican's, who would be enacting anti-abortion laws), stem from Christianity. That's forcing your sense of Christian morality on the rest of us.

We have to base our laws on the protection of individuals' rights, and I think that is the way we should approach abortion - instead of labeling all the pro-lifers as religious zealots.

The most extreme of them are. That's undeniable. The ones that blow up surgeries and harm doctors that are just doing their job - the majority of them are religious zealots.

And this is how we are approaching the abortion. From the view of the right of the human (mother), about whose right to life we have consensus, rather than the view of the right to life of a questionable human (the baby), about whose right to live we have no consensus.

The government has no place enforcing a moral code, but it has a duty to protect everyone's rights to life and liberty.

Which is exactly what they are doing at the moment.

Now the government gets to decide which lives are expendable? What happened to everyone being equal??

I don't consider any human life expendable. I don't consider a baby, up until viability, a human life, though. I consider it a potential human life. That's why it's expendable, especially when there's no disagreement about a woman being a human with rights.

Courtesy abortions? The government has no duty to provide people with a way out of the sticky situations they get themselves into.

What about rape and abuse? What about people whose contraception failed? They didn't get themselves into that situation.

Yeah, no one wants some stupid kid messing up their parents' lives.
Better to just get rid of them and hope the parents learned their lesson, right?

He said "clump of cells." Not "kid." Stop trying to make it emotion

 

Although I have already stated my opinions on this matter earlier in this thread, I find it simply amazing that people can actually defend abortions in the fashions that they do.

Even if you are pro-abortion (choice), which I am not, shouldn't that be the option of last resort?

And I get so tired of people saying that pro-lifers push their morality on others. Arent you pushing your pro-death choice stance on us? That is also a form of morality (or immorality if you're on the other side of the coin), so it's all relative.

The only way that Roe v. Wade ever got passed was via the courts. There was no way it would've happened through the proper legislative branch of government, so the liberals had to (as they often do) legislate from the bench. That is why it so terrifies them to have a conservative as President and conservatives in charge of Congress, due to the appointment of conservative judges who will not act as liberal activists on the bench.

Those who deny that the unborn are human will never be convinced to change their minds. That is how they rationalize abortion, by claiming you are not destroying anything that is human anyway. As I stated before, neither side is going to convince the other of changing their minds.

I just know that it is my opinion that all life (from conception to grave) is to be protected and cared for. If you show a woman a picture of even their 6-8 week fetus which is visibly human in appearance, it has been proven that many of them will change their minds if they are thinking about it.

I will never look at a child and say that you should never have been born because you were an inconvenience or a problem.

 

Even if you are pro-abortion (choice), which I am not, shouldn't that be the option of last resort?

Well, of course. People aren't going to not use contraception so they can continually abort a couple of days later.

Arent you pushing your pro-death choice stance on us?

No, we're not pushing anything. We're pushing not pushing. Just let people make their own minds up about the morality of abortion.

Those who deny that the unborn are human will never be convinced to change their minds.

Not unless you convince me that the unborn are human.

If you show a woman a picture of even their 6-8 week fetus which is visibly human in appearance, it has been proven that many of them will change their minds if they are thinking about it.

This is great. Don't even think about saying "just show them pictures! they'll break down and cry and see the error of their ways!" The majority wont. If they're wanting to get an abortion, some polaroids ain't going to stop them. Stop pulling the emotional thing. Remain objective. Emotion is for the extremists and religious fanatics. People who want a reasonable debate on the subject need to remain objective.

I will never look at a child and say that you should never have been born because you were an inconvenience or a problem.

Nobody is suggesting people should get "convenient abortions." But if it's "inconvenient" for that person - doesn't it also follow that the baby will be brought up in a home where they aren't the first priority? How is that right?

It's the woman's body. Hers. The Government has no right to be pushing itself into her uterus.

- Scarlet.

 

The fact that it would happen anyway is not reason enough for keeping abortion legal if it is murder.

Correct-except it isn't murder. The courts have ruled on this time and again. Even with the republicans running things, this is not going to change. This is simply how you feel about it. Now, you can continue to answer me back as many times as you wish, but my point of view is the one that is recognized as legitimate. If it truly bothers you as much as it seems to, you need to get involved with those committed to political change, not trying to convince me-because you won't.

(Notice the "if" - this is the important point.) If the government has good reason for considering abortion murder, it has a duty to outlaw it regardless of the fact that it will continue to occur. Murder happens everyday, but we don't legalize it to protect the criminals.

How many different times/ways can I say this? It doesn't recognize the duty to outlaw it because the woman's body trumps the early developmental stages of an embryo/fetus. WE ARE GOING IN CIRCLES HERE.

No, I was taking issue with your claim that a particular statistical risk presented by pregnancy jutifies abortion.

It absolutely does. A woman has as much right to remove an invading fetus as she does to remove an invading cancer. That's the way it is.


I'm saying that if the same level of risk existed anywhere else, I couldn't use it to justify preemptively killing the person presenting the risk.

Exactly, because the law says a fetus isn't a person. Repetition plus.


It would help if I knew the statistic, but I'm sure it's nowhere near 50% of pregnancies or even 25% of pregnancies. (If 1 in 4 pregnancies resulted in death or serious bodily injury, I think I would have noticed...)

Actually, somewhere between a quarter and a third of all pregnancies result in spontaneous abortion due to genetic abnormalities. As far as your thoughts on death or bodily injury, well, I've seen it, and it's much higher than you think. The difference is, those with problems tend to be overweight black and hispanic women, and poor to boot-not the white ones. Spend some time in an inner-city university hospital maternity ward, and you'll see it. Guaranteed.

Because when doctors tell people they're pregnant, they don't automatically assume tht they're going to die - or even that there's a significant risk of death.

Lack of experience talking here. Any doctor must make the patient aware of the potential complications and their risks. They may not automatically "assume" that, but they're certainly thinking of what can go wrong. And the numbers are up there. Of course, you know that I feel their existence justifies the right to abortion. But we will agree to disagree on this one.



And abortion not being murder is your opinion.

Much more than that. Much more. Decades of legal precedent, scholarly arguments, medical evidence. It is much more than my opinion.

The government gets to pick one, and it has to have some good reasoning behind it. I think there is good enough reason to extend governmental protection to a fetus prior to viability.

Your thoughts have been noted. The law disagrees with you. The American Association of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees with you. The burden of proof is on you, Womberty, not I.


Not really; I keep saying "if."

You claim it's only "if", yet you insist the government has some wild obligation to intrude on a woman's body by placing the benefit of the doubt on the "if". That is not consistent with the due process clause in our constitution. "If" doesn't cut it. We need proof. It isn't there yet.



Just when they no longer need it. How convenient.

Convenient that mom doesn't have to be forced to carry something against her will. They don't "need" it to begin with.


Ridiculous. Any governmental search would be legal because it would either be done under the authority of a warrant

 

Keeping hundreds of women from dying (and their babies too, if you believe that) from horrendous and unsterelised backstreet operations is not reason enough?

I think it would be a good idea to look at why those women would feel the overwhelming need to get ride of their child, to the extent of using coathangers and draincleaner. If we can change what makes them feel so pressured and ashamed, it would be a big step to eliminating the use of abortion for strictly contraceptive purposes.

 

it would be a big step to eliminating the use of abortion for strictly contraceptive purposes.

SithLord, there are very, very few people who do that. Abortions are either medical, involving pills with very uncomfortable side effects and requiring multiple doctors' office visits, or surgical, which requires a clinic procedure and is very expensive.

The women who get abortions in backalleys don't do so for contraceptive purposes; they do so because they are either

a) unable to get access to contraceptives

or

b) uneducated on their use

They tend to be poor minorities; rich white women can afford private ob/gyn's who can get them bcp's and teach them how to use them properly.

Abortion is rarely ever "birth control"-it generally is what happens when birth control fails. What is needed here is a greater dissemination of education, contraceptive methods, and further research into more effective contraceptives. Banning abortion will not solve the problem, it will exacerbate it and multiply it exponentially.

Peace,

V-03

 

i am willing to wager that if people stopped having sex outside of marrige then there would be 90% less abortion in the US. but that will never happen scince its their 'freedom' ad their 'rights' as americans to screw and then take the easy way out when they screw up (bad pun, soory).

I ran across this in the Why exactly is sex 'bad'? thread, and, you know, since it is about abortion, I brought it for all of you to see.

 

That's drivel.

It's also probably coming from a teenaged, white, male, who wouldn't have a clue in HELL what it is like to be pregnant. He can pass it off as Americans not having any responsibilities, but he has obviously not been in that kind of situation before.

He hasn't been a teenager with a child. Or a single parent who can't take any more children. Or a woman who doesn't want children, for whatever reason.

It is a woman's right to have an abortion, no matter what you think of it. It's her right to be in control of her own body, and that which is dependant upon it. It is a woman's right not to be forced into dangerous backstreet abortions. It is a woman's right not to have to "visit relatives in the summer" so she can have her child the socially acceptable way. It's her right not to have the Government poking around her womb. It's her right to decide when she is financially, physically and emotionally ready to have a child.

I dare each one of you pro-lifers who are gunning from an emotional, non-objective point of view to step into her shoes. To step into her shoes and see whether or not you'd still swallow the moralistic rubbish that is being displayed here.

EDIT: The comment that people should only have sex within marriage is more idiocy. This is the 21st century, not the 18th. No matter how much you pine for it, it's never going to come back; it's only going to go further away. And if it means that the medieval view towards abortion and women's rights are also gone, then good bloody riddance.

- Scarlet.

 

In the case of a fetus however, it is not the same. Even though at the early stages a fetus does not have a heartbeat or brainwaves, it is still alive. In fact, its cells are reproducing an a spectacular rate.

The fetus is not dead.


No, but given what it is, that is, a collection of living cells, then how can you argue a foetus is anything different to, say, a blade of grass? (In the earliest forms of said foetus' development). If you are saying that living cells, which do not have heartbeats or brain waves, being terminated is murder what is mowing your lawn?

E_S