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

As I said, I can't argue with your belief that divorce, illegitimacy and extramarital sex don't have negative and far-reaching social consequences, except to provide factual arguments. If those are insufficient to persuade, I don't know what else would. To me, increased risks of child poverty, incarceration, psychological problems, poorer health, lower education levels, proliferation of STD's, and AIDS (which come by society devaluing the family, encouraging promiscuity and holding self-gratification above all) all seem like objectively detrimental social ills. Or do you not think that a poorly educated populace, a huge number of people in prison, poverty are bad things? Low education, high crime and poverty do occur some where society has mostly intact families, but they occur in much higher numbers where divorce and sex (and children) out of wedlock are prevalent, as in Western culture today. I can't see how this could objectively be seen as good.

One of the reasons people tend to have a problem with the Catholic Church, or Southern Baptists, or other evangelical or traditional Christian faiths that espouse traditional values and the sanctity of life, is that they refuse to give in to modern-day pressure and say that absolutely anything a person wants to do is all right. These churches hold to the belief that not everything is all right, that some things are just wrong. Standing up for that makes them unpopular, because people don't want to hear that; they want to hear that anything that makes them happy is good. But we don't live in a vacuum; our actions can affect others and we have a responsibility to live in a socially and morally responsible manner. Those who dislike the fact that that entails some restraint or denial of their every whim, resent and even despise churches for holding steady in the face of overwhelming pressure to cave in. Do you truly want an honest answer to your question? Yes, you may go to hell. It's not that you're non-religious but still try to live a good life, but that you actively reject even a secularly good and moral life; your actions are immoral and contrary to God's message and love. If you live a self- and not other-centered life, placing your own needs above everyone else's, and actively reject service, love, and good works by disrespecting your own body, your partners by using them, your parents by not honoring them, children by killing them ... all of this is contrary to living a good and moral life. You don't have to be perfect, but you do have to *want* to live a good life, and try to, and ask for forgiveness in order to receive eternal life. You will say "some forgiving and loving God if he won't let me be happy" but God never said that we could live carelessly and gratify ourselves constantly and still receive salvation. Rather, he said that the Way was hard, and we all will have crosses to bear, but self-denial and focus on and service to others was going to be required of us. As an aside, many major secular philosophers have also realized that some self-denial is an admirable virtue and necessary to living in a strong and stable society. You will no doubt feel insulted and angered by this, but I mean no insult. You asked, I tried to give you an honest answer.

 

(What, you think since I don't have the point of view you expect from a woman, it's not a valid "feminine" perspective?)

You missed the brackets.

You have a valid feminine perspective. I know a lot of pro-lifers are women. I think you lack the feminine perspective from the situation of the mother deciding whether or not to have an abortion.

- Scarlet.

 

Abortion and contraception have, in fact, led to the breakdown of the family that we see today and to objective societal ills.

In my eyes, contraception has done nothing but good. My parents have been married 28 years. They have a great relationship. They had the exact number of children they wanted, and were able to have those children when they were ready for them. My parents are wonderful, loving people who have provided a good life with many advantages for myself and my older brother and sister. Do you HONESTLY think it would have been better for my family, or any other loving, close family, if there had been six children instead of three, and all of us had gotten half the food, half the education, half the attention, half the love... do you HONESTLY think that makes a stronger family when the parents don't even know how they're going to bring in enough money to feed and clothe and educate their far too large family, and all their time is spent working and worrying about making ends meet that they have no time to love their children?

And for those of you who believe that because an embryo or fetus will inevitably become human and thus cannot be killed, no matter what it is now, think on this. It is inevitable that every single person will eventually die, and there is no way to get around that. Because every person will eventually be dead, and it doesn't matter what they are now, only what they certainly will, does that make it okay to just kill anyone, since death is the inevitable outcome of their life, just as being born human is the inevitable outcome of an embryo or fetus being carried to term?

 

Basically, you said the Constitution protects a right to life, but not a right to be carried to term

It doesn't. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that you have the right to be born. Extrapolating that right, just as one extrapolates the right to privacy, is a penumbration, a word that makes most conservatives shudder.

If that's the case, the mother could legally remove the child from her womb, but she still wouldn't be allowed to kill it. It would have to die on its own once removed.

She wouldn't have to kill it, because early enough on, as when most abortions are performed, it would die anyway. By the way, since the constitution doesn't specifically state that life begins at conception, using your argument, the mother could kill it after removing it. It doesn't say anywhere that you can't. Our societal laws on such are "common sense"-not a point of constitutional law. The constitution is mute on when life begins, and how we treat it prepartum.



No, that isn't what I meant, though I can see how it would sound that way. The ultimate goal should be to address this kind of abuse when it first manifests itself, so that no woman gets to the point where she is pregnant with her abuser's child. The thing is, if you try to address the problem here and in other countries by telling women to discreetly use birth control and get abortions, you're not getting at the real problem. You're basically telling them that there's no way to avoid the abuse, but they can try to cover up the effects.

Abortion really has nothing to do with it at all. I see your point, but if abortion stopped tomorrow, there'd still be abuse-and it would be worse, as would its consequences, for the reasons I stated in my previous post. Abortion and abuse do not go hand-in-hand, as you would suggest. Making it illegal would only serve to impose a further burden on already-stretched-to-the-limit women in impossible situations.

Peace,

V-03

 

I think you lack the feminine perspective from the situation of the mother deciding whether or not to have an abortion.

I think you're foolish for suggesting there is one feminine perspective in this matter. In case you hadn't noticed, not all women with unplanned pregnancies come to the same conclusion.

And while I have never been in a situation where I had to decide whether or not to keep an unplanned pregnancy, I have been in the situation of deciding not to have an abortion. The difference is that I didn't wait to get pregnant to deal with that decision; instead, I took the necessary steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

I think all women should be shown that they have the choice not to become pregnant. Given the option of preventing pregnancy or being faced with the decision of how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, which do you think is better, from the feminine point of view?

 

The constitution is mute on when life begins, and how we treat it prepartum.

I realize that. It just brings us back to where we started: the debate over where a human life should legally be recognized.


Abortion really has nothing to do with it at all.

The reason I make the connection is because it seems to be brought in so often as an answer to abuse. I happen to think it's the wrong answer.

 

Rebecca, I was necessarily speaking in generalities. It's wonderful that your parents have been married as long as they have and that you and your siblings have turned out well. In fact, I know you've said on other threads too that you plan to wait to have sex, and I think that's a laudable and responsible choice. However, an exceptional case does not disprove the general statistics. Children born out of wedlock are five times more likely to live in poverty. A ten times higher percentage of children are born out of wedlock today than were in 1950. I'm just saying, look at the numbers. And there seems to be a strong correlative link between the rise in use of birth control and extramarital sex, and the increase in those numbers. My postulation as to why is that sex (apparently) ceased to have consequences. Want to have sex? Why not, since several of the main reasons people used to restrain themselves are gone. If you get pregnant? Just abort it. If you get STD's? Just get some medicine. Society stopped disapproving such behavior at the same time, and social stigma used to be effective in reducing it. I don't think that was a bad thing. To the contrary, I think the results of promiscuity are the bad things, and evidenced everywhere today in our society as the family in general is breaking down.

Also, I'm not sure why you think you would only have gotten half the food or half the love or half the education if your parents had happened to have had more children. I'm the oldest of five -- I don't feel any less loved and certainly am not less educated or less well fed than most of my friends who are only children or only have a few siblings. Besides, as I have said, I'm not totally against birth control; I will follow the Catholic teaching on NFP -- but if ever I was in a situation of such extreme hardship that I felt after prayerful discernment that I had no other option but to use artificial birth control, it would only come pursuant to that prayerful discernment. Just my view on that.

 

I think you're foolish for suggesting there is one feminine perspective in this matter. In case you hadn't noticed, not all women with unplanned pregnancies come to the same conclusion.

I had noticed. My point was that you are unable to sympathise with the situation, irregardless of what choice you would make in said situation.

I have been in the situation of deciding not to have an abortion. The difference is that I didn't wait to get pregnant to deal with that decision; instead, I took the necessary steps to avoid an unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

What, complete abstinence? Suit yourself. Don't expect everyone else to keep utter chastity on the off-chance that pregnancy might occur and they don't want the child.

I think all women should be shown that they have the choice not to become pregnant.

Yeah. It's called abortion. I'm all for keeping it.

Given the option of preventing pregnancy or being faced with the decision of how to deal with an unplanned pregnancy, which do you think is better, from the feminine point of view?

I think that proper birth control should be used at all times. Failing that, and a woman becomes pregnant, I think that it should be her choice, and her choice alone (not moralistic, old, white men in Washington) as to whether or not to have an abortion.

It's funny how some Conservatives talk about small, non-interfereing Government on one hand, but, on the other, are more than willing to jump into a woman's womb in order to prevent her from contravening their morals.

- Scarlet.

 

Ok, my family has three children. Suppose instead it had six. We each would have gotten half the attention, since my parents couldn't just ignore the additional kids. Now, all these additional kids would have needed a college education. Which means my parents would have had half the money to spend on each college education. Then there's the house. We live in a really nice house. However, if there had been six children instead of three, my parents would have spent twice as much money raising children. They probably wouldn't have been able to afford this house. And while luxuries aren't a neccesity in life, they are pretty nice, and there would have been less money to spend on fun things for us, like video games, computers, vacations, toys, extra clothes, etc.

 

My point was that you are unable to sympathise with the situation, irregardless of what choice you would make in said situation.

Who says I'm unable to? I choose not to in this debate, because I don't think this issue should be decided based on emotion and sympathy for one party or the other. From a legal standpoint, the government has to treat all human beings equally. That's why the debate should be, and always has been, over when a fetus can legally be considered a human being.


What, complete abstinence? Suit yourself. Don't expect everyone else to keep utter chastity on the off-chance that pregnancy might occur and they don't want the child.

Did I say abstinence? I left out my particular choice because I wasn't sure how personal I should get on a public forum. I think that presented with the situation I described, some women would opt for abstinence, while others would use the most effective form(s) of birth control available.


I think all women should be shown that they have the choice not to become pregnant.

Yeah. It's called abortion. I'm all for keeping it.

You weren't paying attention. You can't get an abortion until after you become pregnant, and I was talking about a choice not to become pregnant in the first place.


I think that it should be her choice, and her choice alone (not moralistic, old, white men in Washington)

Moralistic old white men in Washington penned a Constitution that laid the foundation for a government based on equality. Sure, they left out some people, and we've needed to amend it over the years, but the amendments also came at the hands of moralistic old white men in Washington. Are you saying they aren't fit to govern, or are you just going back to the silly argument that men can't take a stand on the issue of abortion?


It's funny how some Conservatives talk about small, non-interfereing Government on one hand, but, on the other, are more than willing to jump into a woman's womb in order to prevent her from contravening their morals.

If we were talking about outlawing pre-marital sex, I would see your point, because that is purely an issue of morals. Abortion, however, goes beyond morality alone because at some point, there is another life involved.

 

Maveric Posted this in the old thread
I remember a 1992 study that showed that 98% of abortions were done for convenience. The remainder were done when a women's life was in danger or to end a pregnancy caused by rape.

I believe in pro-choice but only because of those 2% of cases.

When a woman wants an abortion just cause the baby is female and she want's a boy, I believe that child has a right to live.

Someone also said in the other thread that It shouldn't be used as birth control. I agree with that aswell, I think the only time an abortion shold be preformed is when the mothers life is in danger, whether it be physicaly or the way of her life will go out the window, ie get kicked out of her house if she's a teenager. Or the mother is raped and it results in a child. If that happened to me, I don't know if I'd beable to look at the child ever.

Ami

 

For pro-lifers and pro-choice--ers how were your views on abortion formed? Did you pick up your ideas from other people? Or were they formed on your own? I've always wondered how people got their stance on this. Feel free to share. If I don't respond it's because my cable modem went out (again).

F_I_D

I am pro-choice, was raised Southern Baptist, am currently Wiccan. I developed my ideas from reading extensively and looking into options when I got pregnant by my husband about 12 years ago. We were not ready to have children, to be exact we have since decided that we do not want children, though we are divorced now and I am remarried. When I was a teenager, I followed my religion in the belief that abortion was wrong, however, as I grew up, I came to the realization that religion is nothing more than Big Brother watching you, and I wanted nothing to do with that. I basically got very sick and tired of my sister telling me that I was going to hell because I made adult decisions that were none of her business. Today, my new husband is Episcopalian <sp> and I am Wiccan, we live happily, and enjoy our lives together. I guess you can say that at some point I finally came to my senses that maybe, just maybe, my religion was Wrong.

irishjedi49

You have still not responded to my previous 2 posts. Is it wrong that I had sex with my husband during our marriage, using two forms of birth control, becuase I did not want to get pregnant. I would appreciate a response, or are you always this rude?

 

Lyta, I did answer your question in context on the last page, right after you asked it.

"[In the Catholic tradition] sexual intercourse is understood to have two indivisible aspects, the unitive and the procreative. It represents a true and ultimate union between partners (which cannot be truly present outside of marriage, which is why the Church is against extramarital sex) AND an openness to creating new life. Not every act of intercourse results in a child, of course, but an openness to the possibility is part of the act. Part of the Catholic vows in marriage are a promise to be open to the gift of children in that marriage. Contraception is an artificial barrier to that aspect of sex. In natural family planning (NFP) (which, to preclude any sarcastic denigration, is not simply "the rhythm method") a couple can choose to make use of the naturally infertile times of the month to have sex in order to plan or space their children, but the possibility of conception is not artificially closed off. HV is not dogma for Catholics and can be dissented from, but Catholics are obliged to make such a choice to use artificial birth control only after a prayerful discernment and realization of extreme financial or emotional hardship. Certainly if a pregnancy resulted even after that choice had been made, abortion would not be acceptable; abortion is morally reprehensible by this tradition."

So I would probably answer your question "yes," although, since you don't abide by the Catholic (or Southern Baptist) tradition, the answer would be meaningless to you, or only invite more hostility.

EDIT: womberty, good points

 

irishjedi49

Sorry, you still did not answer my question, you quoted Catholic philosophy to me. So let me ask you another question, in Catholic philosphy is it expected for a man and woman who are married to have sex?

 

One of the reasons people tend to have a problem with the Catholic Church, or Southern Baptists, or other evangelical or traditional Christian faiths that espouse traditional values and the sanctity of life, is that they refuse to give in to modern-day pressure and say that absolutely anything a person wants to do is all right.

Then convince me (preferabally without religious thoughts) that a fetus is a human life, and tell me why all live is important? (dont tell me that it is important, tell me why, and again, without using religious reasons.)

 

I'm finally going to weigh into this debate, even though I promised I would not after last time. I just wanted to point out to everyone who keeps saying that the 'introduction' (paraphrase) of abortion has led to a societal breakdown, that that isn't true. There are recorded accounts of abortion from the Roman empire and then right through history. Abortions and birth control have always existed...maybe not in the way that they do now but there have always been remedies for preventing and aborting pregnancy.

Just as an aside: The number of births actually escalated during the early modern witch hunts - one of the major reasons for this (but not the only one) is that the midwives, herbalists and 'cunning men' were so oft accused of witchcraft and burned or hanged that the remedies weren't readily available anymore.

Kithera

 

I was talking about a choice not to become pregnant in the first place.

Birth control can still fail, Womberty, so in reality, the only real way to avoid what you call a 'choice' is abstinence. That's ok if it's done willingly, but it can't be forced, not by government's, religions, or moral platitudes of any kind. Won't work.

I realize that. It just brings us back to where we started: the debate over where a human life should legally be recognized.

Agreed.

Peace,

V-03

 

This debate is like watching an Indie car race. Round and round and round and round and...........

 

Mankind from the very beginning of modern man (Homo sapiens neadertalensis and Homo sapiens sapiens {AKA Morphologically Modern Humans} ? i.e. us) and probably before but we have yet to see it in the archaeological record, has used herbs, the roots, the leaves, et cetera of certain plants as contraceptives and to cause spontaneous miscarriages (abortion) if it was not convenient at the time ? i.e. there was not enough food to go around, the people were living in drought or harsh conditions and a baby would be too much of a drain on those already in the family/tribe/community not to mention their meager resources, along with numerous other reasons; ?The Church? was one of the primary causes of this to cease to be because it took the power of the women out of their hands and placed it into the hands of men beginning when it no longer let women practice in the giving of Communion and that went on until finally, slowly, between the 1400s and the early 1700s women were no longer allowed to practice medicine or to use the time proven methods handed down from mother to daughter millennia after millennia; it was at this point that ?The Church? stuck its nose into private matters and pronounced that artificial means of contraception and spontaneous miscarriage (abortion) were against Church Law. Funny isn?t it, that during roughly the same time the Catholic Church outlawed marriage for its clergy as well ? could this be because ?The Church? was tired of losing all of its lands and property to the children of these afore mentioned clergy and wanted to exert its control over even more people? YES. For those of you who doubt any or all of this, I suggest to things to you ? read texts on Archaeology and on the history of the church written by both Catholics and non-Catholics alike in order to get a valid and balanced outlook.

 

Life begins when the fetus can live outside of the mother's body with or without artificial means - i.e. resporators, UV lights, et cetera - which is at least at 26 weeks of age for a Homo sapien sapien fetus but even then many complications can and will occure that will effect the newborn for the rest of its life such as blindness, Spina Bifita, Cerebral Palsey, deafness, a very weakened immune system, and on and on. I personally place the beginning of life at the time the fetus is born.

 

Actually, it's not 26 weeks, it's either 23 or 22. I read about a little girl who had to be born at 23 weeks because her mother developed eclampsia. She had a lot of health problems and spent months in the hospital but she is now one and a half years old and is expected to live a normal, healthy life. I think I've read about babies born at 22 weeks who lived but I'd have to look around for an article. I'll check.

Ok. I looked it up. It's not very likely a baby will survive at 22 weeks, but it's possible - about a 10% chance. At 23 weeks, epending on various factors, the chance for survival for an individual baby is 25%-75% - which averages out to 50%, so about half survive. At 24 weeks, it goes up to 75%. However before 25 weeks, there is a high chance of the baby having medical problems even if it survives.

 

. I personally place the beginning of life at the time the fetus is born.

I didn't think anyone would possibly argue that a baby the day before birth wasn't alive. I was wrong.

 

One of the reasons people tend to have a problem with the Catholic Church, or Southern Baptists, or other evangelical or traditional Christian faiths that espouse traditional values and the sanctity of life, is that they refuse to give in to modern-day pressure and say that absolutely anything a person wants to do is all right.

Unless your an ecclesiastical member of some of those religions, in which case you can molest all the children you want.

 

Unless your an ecclesiastical member of some of those religions, in which case you can molest all the children you want.

That comment was uncalled for

 

Stop.


Drop.


And roll.



Everyone has brought out the flame throwers at the same time.




Really people, these posts are long, but their substance is thin.



I am calling on a cease fire between the Catholics and the anti-Catholics unless they weave the abortion issue into it.



Finally, where did you get the idea that human life did not start at conception. Where did you get the idea that you need a heart and brain to be human. The only thing that denotes is the stage you are currently at.

My argument is that embyos are not potential human life, they are human life. Please refrain from saying my position is that of protecting a potential life over a human life. That may be how you see it, but don't ever say that is my objective.

Also, the government is not legislating sex when it outlaws abortion. It is merely forcing the couple to think more carefully about what they are doing.

Things such as birth control and who you sleep with and how often and what you do should not be legislated, even though I may think some parts of that may be morally wrong. However, when your immoral actions result in harm to somebody else, then legislation is a perfectly acceptable way of getting you to stop.

P.S. I know I took a shot at long posts at the beginning of this one, but I am trying to make up for 3 pages of lost argument.

P.S.S. I should be available for an hour or two after this is posted in case anyone wants to debate. Sorry to run out on everyone before but I have been busy.