Abortion Laws: Pro Life or Pro Choice(v2)?

"A system that legalizes the termination of life", eh? What, like capital punishment?

I didn't say a system, I said a practice, i.e., something practiced by individual citizens. The government has the power to punish crime through imprisonment and execution, but private citizens do not have that right.

If you want to debate capital punishment, there's already a thread for that. Let's keep this one about abortion.

 

Ok, after mostly lurking in the last thread, I'm going to be blunt on the "my body, my right" idea.

My take on the 'my right to control my body' is that I highly doubt that's what 99.99% of women going to the clinic are thinking when they walk in. Does anyone honestly believe a pregnant 23 year old is thinking "Gee, what an annoying clump of cells I have... I'll go get them removed because, after all, it's my body". I'd say unless she's referring to an ugly mole as she's just entered a dermatology clinic, she's not.

If a pregnancy was merely a case of a 'clump of cells', who would even care about being pregnant? Cells make no demand. They don't cry, crap or cost money. It's what they ultimately turn into - a human infant - that do that. THAT's when the obligation begins, and that's what women are ridding themselves of at an abortion clinic - obligation to a human being. They know it, we know it. To try to insist the case is anything else is just creative BS-ing, IMO.

Does that mean I think abortion should be illegal? Not at all. But I can't take seriously an argument for a woman to retain the right to terminate a pregnancy based on it simply being all about 'control' over her body. She controls her body when she has sex. She controls her obligation to a human being when she has an abortion.

 

I'm back!!

Pro-life am I, both in regards to abortion and the death penalty. I believe that nobody has the right to take away someone's life except in self-defense. Criminals sitting in jail are not a threat to our safety. This means the death-penalty is based soley on revenge.

I believe an person is a person at the point of conception and that the law should recognize this fact.

 

Criminals sitting in jail are not a threat to our safety. This means the death-penalty is based soley on revenge.

Criminal justice is there to protect and punish. The fact that someone in jail is not a threat does not in itself invalidate the death penalty.

 

Criminal justice needs to be fixed. Justice should not mean revenge. It should mean ensuring that everyone is treated with respect in regard to their rights.

Just like the laws regarding abortion need to be changed to respect the rights of both people involved.

 

Again: the death penalty debate belongs in a different thread.


Pro-making the abortion issue irrelevant through education, better birth control, and reform of adoption practices.

Me too.

However, I think that if abortion terminates a human life, it should be illegal even if we haven't perfected sex ed and birth control yet.

 

Ok, I am pro-choice (for the first trimester only, which I believe was the condition set by Roe vs. Wade) but, as with many things, for different reasons.

The whole "it's your body" thing is bullcrap. Like it or not, that clump of cells you're carrying is indeed, a human life.

But killing a mere clump of cells that scarcely deserves life is no less justified that killing an egg for consumption. After all, an egg is basically the immature, or "fetal" stage, of the reptile, bird, insect, fish, amphibian, or even mammal (two species, to be precise) from whence it came.

I don't see why people get all hyped up over a mere clump of cells that doesn't have any uniquely human characteristics. Hence we have the "it's my body" misnomer - the fetus is so negligible that it's easy to think of it is a non-independent life.

I just think that tripping up over technicalities is an intrusion on the woman's freedom. Which is why I oppose abortion only in the second and third trimesters, when the fetus has *basically* become a human, in its own right.

I know I'm going to get a lot of bashing over "how can you decide when a life is worthy of life"? The truth is, I don't have that power. But remember, I'm not the one making that choice - the parents are.

Pro-choice doesn't mean forced abortion. It means letting the parents decide whether that clump of cells the mother is carrying is worth all the trouble. If they don't think it is, so be it. If they keep it, so be it.

 

After all, an egg is basically the immature, or "fetal" stage, of the reptile, bird, insect, fish, amphibian, or even mammal (two species, to be precise) from whence it came

For one thing, the chicken eggs you get in stores are supposed to be unfertilized - it doesn't even contain an embryo; it's simply an egg. (Humans have eggs, too. Those by themselves are not considered lives.) If you did eat a chicken egg that contained an embryo, you're still just eating a chicken - which is perfectly legal.

When you're talking about a first-trimester pregnancy, "embryo" is probably more precise than "fetus" (I think the term "fetus" applies after 8 weeks or so.) The thing you're talking about - the "clump of cells" that you can't differentiate from another species - is an embryo.


I am pro-choice (for the first trimester only, which I believe was the condition set by Roe vs. Wade)

Roe v. Wade does allow for abortions during the second trimester. It allows for regulations that protect the mother, but not the fetus.


Pro-choice doesn't mean forced abortion.

I don't think anyone ever said it was. We're not afraid that you're going to force someone to have an abortion; we're concerned that you're allowing people an opportunity to terminate another human life.

And by the way, pro-life doesn't mean forced pregnancy either.

 

And by the way, pro-life doesn't mean forced pregnancy either.

Um, if you outlaw abortion, isn't that kind of the same thing as forced pregnancy? Unless you mean "we legally say you can't, but we're not going to PHYSICALLY make you!" This doesn't wash with me.

- Scarlet.

 

And by the way, pro-life doesn't mean forced pregnancy either.

It does if you don't allow exceptions for rape.

Edit: Spelling.

 

Actually, maybe I should've made myself a bit clearer. I'm pro-life, but everyone who posted before me was pro-choice. Now that both sides are here, I might as well say something.

"...killing a mere clump of cells that scarcely deserves life..."

Sorry, but this just irked me a bit. I don't see how people think they have the right to judge whether or not an unborn child deserves life. In my opinion, everyone deserves it. Care to clarify?

 

Um, if you outlaw abortion, isn't that kind of the same thing as forced pregnancy?

Nope!

Nobody forced anyone to become pregnant. (Edit: excluding rape, of course)

Maybe it means a forced continuation of existing pregnancies, but we're not forcing anyone to become pregnant.

 

Sorry, but this just irked me a bit. I don't see how people think they have the right to judge whether or not an unborn child deserves life.

I can't speak for that poster. Only what I think they were saying. They were saying it was a clump of cells, NOT a child, and since it was NOT a child, it did not deserve to live at the expense of the mother losing her rights to her body.

 

Personally, having been in the situation where I have had to make that choice, a choice that is by no means easy. I know I will offend many with this, but it is my opinion and my opinion only. But until that 'clump of cells' is able to survive outside the body of its host, it is nothing more than a parasite. For many it is a parasite that they have chosen to live with for 9 months, I did not. For the record when I made that decision I was on birthcontrol, for the exact reason that I did not want to get pregnant, and I have since made the decision and acted up on it, to have my tubes tied, so that I will never have to make that decision again.

So if my post did not make it clear, I am most definately pro-choice. Oh and before you start arguing the parasite statement, look it up in the dictionary.

par·a·site Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

 

Nobody forced anyone to become pregnant

Oh, come on. Heard of failed contraception?
That was just dodging it. If a person falls pregnant, irregardless of the circumstances, and you refuse to let them abort, that is FORCED PREGNANCY.

Unless a woman has sex with the express intention of conceiving, or at least, not minding if she does, it's forced pregnancy when you refuse to allow her to abort afterwards.

In today's society, people are just going to become more and more promiscuous and engage sexually, irregardless of whether or not they want children. A lot wont want children. So how can you say, when they fall pregnant, and the law wont let them abort, that that isn't forced pregnancy?

I don't see how it's any business of yours to decide the morality of how or why she fell pregnant, or to legislate based on that (besides the fact you'd never be able to prove it either way) - you just decide, once a woman is pregnant, whether or not she should be allowed to abort.

Now, if you legalislate against her aborting, that's forced pregnancy. If you legislate allowing her a choice, that's called freedom. It's funny how Conservatives tend to champion pro-life, and simultaneously champion freedom. The two contradict perfectly.

- Scarlet.

 

If a person falls pregnant, irregardless of the circumstances, and you refuse to let them abort, that is FORCED PREGNANCY.

People don't "fall pregnant" like a person might accidentally trip and fall. No one suddenly wakes up pregnant - they became pregnant as a result of their actions. If you want to give them better birth control, do it - but don't try to use abortion as a backup.

 

In what respect is it "her body"? One woman does not have 4 legs, 4 arms, two beating hearts...

If what you're saying is true, than why constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures? Why is rape a crime if a woman's body isn't "hers"?

The "limb" argument doesn't really work here. Does your logic mean that babies born with less than the normal complement of parts (such as the thalidomide tragedies) receive different status than more "normal" ones?

I think the debate here should be not whether or not an embryo/fetus is "human life", but more along the lines of whether or not it is equal to the person carrying it, when does that equality occur, and why.

My opinion, backed up by scientific evidence and legal precedent, is that life develops in stages. What one starts out with is not what one finishes with at birth; there is a point or "window of time" surrounding a point where an "equality of rights" should be bestowed. I believe that this should be when respiratory development is sufficient to allow survival outside of the womb with minimal support. This occurs around 26 weeks. With technology, the number can be pushed lower, but fetuses delivered this prematurely are more likely to suffer from the complications of low birth weight, infections, and the problems encountered from long-term artificial respiration.

So let's give the fetus a little bit more benefit of the doubt-18 weeks. That's just shy of five months-right around the time when abortion procedures move from somewhat risky to very risky. Since the majority of abortions are performed before the 12-week period, the number of legal abortions being reduced by such a decision would actually be very small, but perhaps they would help set limits and act to encourage more women to not seek abortion.

I am pro-choice, but I do not "like" abortion. As such, I do defend the right to have them, but would like to see their number reduced through education and dissemination of birth control, until the day when perfect birth control becomes available. I do not think outlawing the right will make things any better; on the contrary, they will make things much worse.

But that is an argument for another time....

And by the way, pro-life doesn't mean forced pregnancy either.

Unfortunately, it does. Unless pro-life equals removing said embryo/fetus and growing it somewhere else, then denying a woman access to abortion is forcing her to carry the pregnancy against her will.


Peace,

V-03

 

People don't "fall pregnant" like a person might accidentally trip and fall. No one suddenly wakes up pregnant - they became pregnant as a result of their actions. If you want to give them better birth control, do it - but don't try to use abortion as a backup

Yes, but those actions are not always intentional. Nor are they always actions of their own. Just because someone decides to engage in sexual practice, doesn't mean we should, as a society, automatically say that they MUST, therefore, be ready for pregnancy. Birth control fails. Rape occurs.

Which leads me to another question:

Pro-lifers say that a foetus is a human life. They say that, therefore, abortion should be legal. A lot then go on to say that it should be legal in the case of rape. Isn't this the contradiction that ends your argument? I mean, if you truly believe it's a human life, aren't you faulting your own beliefs in the sanctity of life by allowing MURDER (as you call it), as the result of an entirely different person's rape? I'm not suggesting you should change your opinions to include rape in the 'things that can happen to you that do not allow you to have an abortion' - I'm suggesting you explain that inconsistency.

- Scarlet.

 

But killing a mere clump of cells that scarcely deserves life is no less justified that killing an egg for consumption. After all, an egg is basically the immature, or "fetal" stage, of the reptile, bird, insect, fish, amphibian, or even mammal (two species, to be precise) from whence it came.

All right, then. How about this:
When someone shoots a bird or reptile, or even comsumes food at their local KFC, we'll put them on trial for murder. The death penalty, of course, will not be neccessary for all cases.
Just some.

Obviously, society and law put more emphasis on all things human than they do on "animals". That's how some people feel about that "clump of cells", as you put it.

 

But killing a mere clump of cells that scarcely deserves life is no less justified that killing an egg for consumption. After all, an egg is basically the immature, or "fetal" stage, of the reptile, bird, insect, fish, amphibian, or even mammal (two species, to be precise) from whence it came.


Wrong. Very wrong. The eggs you buy at the supermarket to consume are unfertilized. Every month I pass an unfertilized egg, and frankly, I couldn't care less if you wanted to fry it up and eat it, or mutilate it however you see fit. If you went home and cracked open a fertilized chicken egg with a developing chick in it and ate that then it's a parallel to abortion.

If what you're saying is true, than why constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures? Why is rape a crime if a woman's body isn't "hers"?

The "limb" argument doesn't really work here. Does your logic mean that babies born with less than the normal complement of parts (such as the thalidomide tragedies) receive different status than more "normal" ones?

A woman's body is hers. But the baby's body is the baby's too. The limb argument was just an example. I wasn't saying deformed children are less important, but I was saying that one woman's body consists (in general) of two arms and two legs and one heart. If there are two beating hearts, 4 legs, 4 arms involved in the medical procedure, then the woman isn't only doing it to her own body.


The parasite argument sickens me to no end. It's the only pro-choice argument that actually makes me want to cry. I don't understand how you could call your child a parasite. You aren't even giving him or her a chance to contribute to your life, and if you didn't give her a chance, then how do you expect her to do so?

Pro-lifers say that a foetus is a human life. They say that, therefore, abortion should be legal. A lot then go on to say that it should be legal in the case of rape.

Actually, pro-lifers say it should be illegal for the most part.

 

Once again, respect to JediFlyer, for although I don't always agree with him, he has chosen the logical moral path, whereby he practises a coherent ideology.

And no, TSB DID NOT say that abortion was murder. He said, that many who are pro-life (and thus deem abortion murder) are also pro-death penalty, which is the killing of a being by the state. If you are pro-life, you believe abortion = murder, right? Therefore, you cannot sanction the death penalty without having a flaw in your ideology the size of Finland. Thus far, only JediFlyer has been consistent in his approach to this matter, whilst many have missed the mark by several hundred meters.

However, if you vociferously declare how right you are, you must be correct on this matter. If you say you believe abortion is murder but the death penalty is not, then you forsake logic to conclude you are correct. I do not believe abortion constitutes murder. I do believe the death penalty is wrong; and yet only one first world nation still executes people...

E_S

 

The parasite argument sickens me to no end. It's the only pro-choice argument that actually makes me want to cry. I don't understand how you could call your child a parasite. You aren't even giving him or her a chance to contribute to your life, and if you didn't give her a chance, then how do you expect her to do so?

Whoa, ease up on the emotion.

-------------------------
Dictionary.com:

par·a·site P Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
-------------------------

The baby feeds through the placenta, is sheltered and protected by the mothers womb, and grows within it, inside the mothers body, without contributing anything in return. By all definitions, an unborn child is a parasite.

You may not like this particular word, but it is entirely, 100% accurate. To suggest otherwise is to bring emotion and subjectivity into the argument.

- Scarlet.

 

Pro-making the abortion issue irrelevant through education, better birth control, and reform of adoption practices.

Yes, of course! Why didn't I see it?! Education will stop contraceptive failure and rape!



E_S

 

I mean, if you truly believe it's a human life, aren't you faulting your own beliefs in the sanctity of life by allowing MURDER (as you call it), as the result of an entirely different person's rape?

I don't think that a pro-lifer who believe abortion is murder would say it's suddenly not killing if the pregnancy was a product of rape. However, many would like to make this exception because they understand that the pregnancy was not a result of the mother's choice.

There are two ways, I think, that we can allow abortion in the case of rape:

1. Give everyone the same opportunity for abortions; for example, the first trimester (I'm just picking an arbitrary point, not particularly endorsing this one). That is probably the simplest, because no one would be required to prove they were raped.

2. Consider parental responsibility as starting before birth. After birth, you are expected to care for your child, and if you kill it or it dies as a result of neglect, you are held criminally responsible. However, if someone were to leave a child on your doorstep, you are not considered responsible for that child. A pregnancy resulting from rape would be a case where the mother was made a parent forcibly, instead of as a result of her choice. So, you might not have to hold her responsible for the child.


As I said, the first option is easier to implement. I think that if the government can declare that a child is a living human being at a certain point, regardless of its ability to survive outside the womb, it deserves the government's protection. Before that point, it probably can't outlaw abortion, because it can't show that the embryo (or early fetus, depending on what kind of timeline we're talking about) meets a standard definition of human life.