Abortion, the big question....

[Hunter]

Hi everybody, it's me again.

I've been pondering the topic of abortion for some time now, but I'm stuck. I simply am not sure of what the right answer is (assuming there is one).

Hence, I come to you fellow forum dwellers seeking your opinions on the topic of abortion and more importantly, why you hold those opinions.

My thanks to you all in advance.

-Hunter
P.S Forgive my temporary absence...My Dad is in the Hospital right now. I hope to get back to posting (and especially reading) these forums at top speed soon.

 

[Fade]

Mmm... here are the abortion questions that I can answer objectively:


Will criminalizing abortion keep abortions from happening? No.
Will criminalizing abortions cause a lot of people to be seriously, even fatally, hurt? Yes.
Will criminalizing present anything more then a travel obstacle? Yes. (canada and mexico just a short bus ride away)
Is abortion sometimes a necessary medical procedure to save the life of a woman? Yes.

Here are the questions that though are not objective in any real sense (no such thing as real objectivity), but I feel confident in answering:

Is abortion a moral thing to do? No. I think it's an awful thing to do.
Do I think less of women who get abortions as birth control? Yes.
Do I think less of women who get abortions because they understand that should that child be brought into the world, it will know a life of hardship, pain, abandonment, and disease? No.


Here are the questions that are really hard to answer:

When does life begin? I don't think a given thing is alive until it can be wholly removed from it's mother/egg/whatever, and still live.
When should abortions be allowed? I think the up to 3 months is a 3 months is a good stopping point, and most laws say something along the lines of this.


Here is a question I have no issues answering?

Do I like abortion? No.
Do I support the right of women to do with their bodies what they like? Yes. I would defend, bodily, any persons right to do whatever they want to do with their own flesh and blood.

 

[compjan]

Fade's got a good start on the various issues. All I can add now is that anyone who is comfortable and confident in their abortion postion is missing something. Its too ugly and bloody a situation for anyone to be able to get involved and stay clean, regardless of the decision. The only good solution I can see is to remove the need for abortions. Until then the moral struggle continues.

Good luck. Hope your Dad gets better.

CompJan

 

[Bjorn]

The only good solution I can see is to remove the need for abortions. Until then the moral struggle continues.

And how would one imagine that happen?

 

[Fade]

And how would one imagine that happen?

The only way I see something like that as possible is if we were somehow guaranteed care throughout our lives.

It's all happy fuzzy and warm to believe that some day everyone can grow up in peace, comfort, and prosperity.. but being a pragmatist, I don't see that as ever happening.

I do however believe that education and healthcare should be free, absolutely, all the time, regardless, period. If we get those two things out of the way, I would like to think that abortion would start to look even less appealing then it is now.

 

[toddjh]

And how would one imagine that happen?

It's a social issue. When we, as a society, are more comfortable with sex education which presents sex in a positive but cautious light at an early age, the rate of unwanted pregnancies will go down. People will have sex; it's a biological imperative -- and making it safer and less likely to result in pregnancy is a matter of embracing education and social acceptibility. But, like all social issues, it's not something that's going to change overnight, and abortions are never going to disappear completely. Accidents happen, even when you're being careful.

Personally, the only good criterion I can come up for when abortion should be considered unethical is brain activity -- after all, it's our brains that separate humans from the animals that we have no problem killing. I would argue that a fetus which does not exhibit human-like brain activity does not possess human-like consciousness and should not be considered a human being. In most cases, that sets an upper limit of ten to twelve weeks -- far earlier than the legal limits that exist today. I would consider third-trimester abortions to be murder; no different from infanticide, especially since there's a chance that some of the aborted fetuses could survive outside the womb.

Jeremy

 

[SortingItAllOut]

Hi Hunter!

First, I hope your Dad is doing better.

Sagan and Druyan wrote about this topic in "Billions and Billions" and as smart as those two are, they had some difficulty trying to come to a resolution. I suspect that we all have difficulty with this subject because it requires us to make a call as to whether a woman's life is more valuable than the life growing within her. We line up on one side or the other, or shuffle about in the middle somewhere, unable to pick a side, knowing the implications of either exteme.

I've heard the assertion that we should base this on when life can exist outside the woman. But clearly this is a case-by-case basis and somewhat subject to the technology of the day. And what of the newly-born child? Clearly it cannot survive without help, protection, shelter, nourishment. But this is viewed as being different since guardians can provide these things.

Things I know personally:

An abortion happened as a result of a relationship I was involved in back in my twenties. It wasn't a pleasant situation. It wasn't simple and I wouldn't wish that situation on anyone. I look at my children now and wonder what might have bcome of that child if the abortion hadn't taken place, how the lives of those involved would be different. I don't dwell on it, but it does exist as a memory. People close to both of us lined up on either side of the issue and some said some harsh, hurtful things to us. At the time, we decided that it would be a terrible thing to bring a child into the environment in which we lived. Adoption wasn't even discussed. I'm not sure why.

There are cases of incest and rape and these aren't any easier for many people to reconcile. My sister is a staunch "pro life" advocate. My spouse holds a slightly less extreme opinion on the subject, allowing exceptions for rape and incest. A good friend seems to always side with the woman except for the 'partial birth abortion", which sound extremely similar to murder in my mind. I don't know that many of these abortions are or have been performed, but it sure seems wrong to me.

Quite the can of worms, Hunter.

Have a nice day!

 

[Peter Soderqvist]

The cellular lives of the zygote have no internal rights at all, because it has no concepts of right, or wrong, etc, hence it is not a human, and thus, to do an abortion, is analogous to remove a tumor. But the zygote can have external rights through sentimental values, for instance, when the woman in question is in love!

We go to sleep when we are tired, and we eat when we are hungry, and we scratch ourselves, when it itches somewhere, and we have sex when we are horny!

The voice of reason!

 

[mindless]

How can people be for abortions but against euthanasia, abortion is forced upon the life to be aborted without its consent, euthanasia is a decision made by the person wishing to be terminated and yet that is illegal. I am for euthenasia & abortion.

I don't feel a child should be brought into this world if it isn't going to be loved or treated normaly. I also think that babys that will be born severly disabled should be aborted.

If your having trouble deciding just what side of the line you stand on maybe seeing some photos of the process and aftermath of an abortion procedure, with the remnants of the dead baby may help make up your mind, saying its not a life is wrong, it is plain to see that the aborted foetus (sp?) is clearly a small human, its just easier for people to deal with and cope when they de-humanify the child as nothing more than a thing, it removes the guilt of the act from the mother and the people performing the procedure. Once more we see the power of ignorance and dilusion.

PM me if you want the link (trust me, you probably don't) I won't post it publicly here as It may seriously offend people.

 

[Galadriel]

First off, let's get off the whole "partial-birth abortion" bit. That was something dreamed up by the forced-birthers. What they describe as "partial birth" is something that is done when the fetus is already dead. If you don't believe me, look it up.

Secondly, 85% of all abortions are done in the first trimester, with 80% of those being done in the first six weeks.

Thirdly, as a former escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic, if I had a dollar for every man who waved a sign and yelled at women going into the clinic that they were baby killers and going to hell, only to show up with his wife, girlfriend or daughter at a later date wanting an abortion for them, I'd have quite a few dollars.

I agree that education and access to birth control is key. But remember that we live in a country that took over ten years to approve the Today sponge and Norplant--but only four months to approve Viagra.

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

As far as I am concerned, the real issue here is, at which point does the baby acquire human rights? I obviusly speak of the "baby", because an embryo just as obviously doesn't have them.

I thought about it, and I think it's reasonable to say that a baby has human rights when two conditions are met:

1. it has human-like brain complexity
2. It can survive outside the womb

Right now, the first (about 5 months, as i recall) is smaller than the second (around 6 months, with problems), but science keeps pushing #2 back all the time. By the definition I propose, then, the ethical and humanitarian considerations will never apply to a fetus less than 5 months old, no matter how far medicine advances.

What about after 6 months? Well, the mother's right of control of her body should be inviolate as well, so here's where #2 comes in handy: if the fetus is old enough to satisfy both conditions but the mother wants to be rid of it, what should be done is not abortion but medical birth + prolonged postnatal care + adoption. This way, mother gets her control over her body, and we get to say with clear conscience that we preserved a person's (baby's) human rights, while at the same time not being obligated to preserve every fertilized egg that gets miscarried, and every fetus that is aborted in the first trimester.

What d'you think?

 

[Michael Redman]

Well, of course the point at which we now give rights to a baby is when it's born alive. That is the status quo, so I would suggest that anyone who wants to change it must provide a rational explanation why this standard is not adequate. It works just fine for me.

 

[Galadriel]

What about after 6 months? Well, the mother's right of control of her body should be inviolate as well, so here's where #2 comes in handy: if the fetus is old enough to satisfy both conditions but the mother wants to be rid of it, what should be done is not abortion but medical birth + prolonged postnatal care + adoption. This way, mother gets her control over her body, and we get to say with clear conscience that we preserved a person's (baby's) human rights, while at the same time not being obligated to preserve every fertilized egg that gets miscarried, and every fetus that is aborted in the first trimester.

What d'you think?

Quite frankly, if it takes six months for a woman to figure out that she doesn't want to have the kid, she isn't a really good parenthood candidate to begin with.

However, I don't think that an induced birth at six months is the answer. Neonatology is probably one of the most advanced areas of modern medicine--kids that would have been considered miscarriages twenty years ago can be kept alive--but it's far from perfect. Often these kids have loads of medical problems, and there's moral issues in that as well. Should a life be saved just because it is a life, or should the quality of life that kid's going to have be considered as well?

BTW, I appreciate the non-knee-jerk discussions here. I enjoy civilized debate!

 

[RandFan]

Should a life be saved just because it is a life, or should the quality of life that kid's going to have be considered as well?

Interesting question. Quality of life is and should be a concern. But should it be a point to determine if someone lives or dies?

I find nothing sacred about sperm or egg. Neither do I find anything special about conception and initial mitosis. There is a point somewhere along a gradient in which there is something that I do believe is life. The taking of that life I would find quite disturbing. The fact that the fetus is in the womb has no bearing to me as to whether or not the fetus is alive or whether it is entitled to live. Fortunately this point is crossed sometime in the second trimester after most abortions are performed.

However there is a valid conflict between a woman's right to control her own body and the rights of a fetus. I think the incendiary and divisive nature of abortion is centered on this conflict. Abortion strikes at the very roots of human consciousness. Life and the destruction of life and the right to choose what happens to our own bodies (yes ours, men and women if laws can be passed to control women's choices then the can be passed to control men's).

The abortion question is a complicated social problem. Simple solutions to complex problems are usually wrong. What are the solutions? I don't know but I doubt that we will begin to solve them until we remove the rancor from "both" sides of the issue. Abortion is a powerful political tool however. As long as it remains such I doubt that we will see a reduction in the rhetoric and vitriol.

 

[Bjorn]

Remove the need for abortions?

The only way I see something like that as possible is if we were somehow guaranteed care throughout our lives.

It's all happy fuzzy and warm to believe that some day everyone can grow up in peace, comfort, and prosperity.. but being a pragmatist, I don't see that as ever happening.

Wouldn't pregnancies after rape or incest always be a problem, or the pregnacies where the mother's life is in real danger if she's not having an abortion?

I don't think there will ever be any easy way out ("no need for abortions") - we still have to struggle with the rights of the parties and how to measure them against each other.

My 'problem' is that in real life I cannot see anyone we should rather give this responsibility to than the mother.

I am not comfy with my own view, but haven't seen any better.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think it's reasonable to say that a baby has human rights when two conditions are met:

1. it has human-like brain complexity

What d'you think?

Me thinks that bigfig would never be human!!

 

[Pahansiri]

I too would like to see and hope for a day when abortion ends. But not by a government or any group banning or forcing it's will on other beings. It will end when the causes and conditions that bring it about end.

To end it by law will only send it back underground. Underground in dirty back room butcher shops. Woman will suffer and many times die; many males will just walk away and keep up the same practice. This is of course not just males who bring about this problem in anyway.

The causes and conditions must change and change in the home. Sex explained for what it is, not a dirty little secret. Loving kindness respect and compassion for all beings is what we must teach to our children and live such a life ourselves. If fear is part of the Childs home life then how can they come to a parent and workout such a problem? That must change.

Rape will not just go away, and ending abortion will not make it. Abuse at home will not end by making abortion illegal etc. The causes and conditions must change and by the nature of reality when something is no longer needed it fades away.

We see some of our Christian friends yelling and even becoming violent ( the great oxymoron) over this. Yet many have no idea what the bible says about it.

Abortion is condoned for a woman who had an affair on her husband. Numbers 5:11-31 says just that and presents a game plan if you will of how to do it, it is called The Test for an Unfaithful Wife.

Numbers 5:11-31

The Test for an Unfaithful Wife
11 Then the Lord said to Moses, 12 "Speak to the Israelites and say to them: 'If a man's wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him 13 by sleeping with another man, and this is hidden from her husband and her impurity is undetected (since there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act), 14 and if feelings of jealousy come over her husband and he suspects his wife and she is impure-or if he is jealous and suspects her even though she is not impure- 15 then he is to take his wife to the priest. He must also take an offering of a tenth of an ephah [1] of barley flour on her behalf. He must not pour oil on it or put incense on it, because it is a grain offering for jealousy, a reminder offering to draw attention to guilt.
16 " 'The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord . 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord , he shall loosen her hair and place in her hands the reminder offering, the grain offering for jealousy, while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, "If no other man has slept with you and you have not gone astray and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray while married to your husband and you have defiled yourself by sleeping with a man other than your husband"- 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse of the oath-"may the Lord cause your people to curse and denounce you when he causes your thigh to waste away and your abdomen to swell. [2] 22 May this water that brings a curse enter your body so that your abdomen swells and your thigh wastes away. [3] "
" 'Then the woman is to say, "Amen. So be it."
23 " 'The priest is to write these curses on a scroll and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall have the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water will enter her and cause bitter suffering. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial offering and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 27 If she has defiled herself and been unfaithful to her husband, then when she is made to drink the water that brings a curse, it will go into her and cause bitter suffering; her abdomen will swell and her thigh waste away, [4] and she will become accursed among her people. 28 If, however, the woman has not defiled herself and is free from impurity, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 " 'This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray and defiles herself while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences of her sin.' "

Here we see little concern for the fetus, it is simply forced to be miscarried on the floor. The woman is punished by killing the unborn child. A child that has no part in what the mother may or may not have done. Drinking dirty water and saying some words

 

[Paradox]

The 'quality of life' issue is a hard one to find consistency with, as everyone individually formulates this for themselves. An adopted child should, IMO, grow up perferctly healthy in a nurturing and caring environment, regardless of whether (s)he is from the gene pool of the guardians caring for him/her.

However, there is a social value placed on biological parenthood issues...a value the child is likely to encounter in life. If the kid ends up placing too much importance in the issue, it could indeed turn out to be something that affects the 'quality of life'. Although, if the family environment has been loving, I can't see how this would be fundamentally much different than a quality of life 'suffering' because the family in question isn't rich.

Assuming there are always caring parents in search of adoptions, I think preservation of the fetus would be the better choice.

 

[Hunter]

Hmm...

Thankyou all for your replies.

Perhaps the greatest problem for me is determining when that fetus should be granted rights. And even if we are dealing with something that isnt human shouldn't we still take into account the fact that 'it' will soon house another human/consciousness? By aborting that fetus are you not denying life to someone who would otherwise be just about guaranteed a life?

One way of looking at it I guess is that if someone were attached to you (something like a siamese twin) and depended for the most part on your bodiliy functions to survive, you would tecnically have the right to have him disconnected but in doing so you would ensure his death.

Of course the above is a gross over-simplification. What if that person could live without relying on your body if given some time ( to grow some organs for example) or in the case of the fetus is without a mind but will posess one in a short while....

Forgive me if I have just come of as majorly pro-life, I'm really (as I said in my original post) quite unsure of what to think about this.

Once again, thankyou for your replies
-Hunter

 

[Paradox]

Re: Hmm...

Thankyou all for your replies.

Perhaps the greatest problem for me is determining when that fetus should be granted rights. And even if we are dealing with something that isnt human shouldn't we still take into account the fact that 'it' will soon house another human/consciousness? By aborting that fetus are you not denying life to someone who would otherwise be just about guaranteed a life?

I thought about this quite a bit when pondering abortion. You realize, though, that the line of 'potential' can basically be traced back ad infinitum. Each sperm on it's way to a healthy egg is a 'potential life'. Marstubation, by this logic, kills millions (well, male masturbation, that is...women don't have to suffer with the guilt...although every menstruation period they go through without pregnancy is also the loss of a 'potential life').

One way of looking at it I guess is that if someone were attached to you (something like a siamese twin) and depended for the most part on your bodiliy functions to survive, you would tecnically have the right to have him disconnected but in doing so you would ensure his death.

Actually there is a thread dealing with this...somewhere (if not here, then in banter or maybe current events).

Of course the above is a gross over-simplification. What if that person could live without relying on your body if given some time ( to grow some organs for example) or in the case of the fetus is without a mind but will posess one in a short while....

Defining 'short while' is the key here. The line will, inevitably, have to be drawn somewhere. Some of the suggestions provided above seem very sensible to this purpose.

Forgive me if I have just come of as majorly pro-life, I'm really (as I said in my original post) quite unsure of what to think about this.

No need to apologize. Now if you start claiming that pro-choice people are really 'pro-abortion/anti-life' (as some fanatics like to say), then we'll talk.