Abortion

Remove all ads!

people get so stuck with all the intricacies of this topic.

With an issue such as this we must back off a bit. What was the US founded upon? Basically freedom against oppression, so no one group can dictate issues of personal freedom such as religious belief. Much of the abortion debate revolves around our religious diversity. Pro-lifers are predominantly christian, pro-choicers believe no one should use religion to dictate the behavior of the majority. The issue itself is so full of diverse thought it has no dictate. All of the comparisons to murder and violence are irrelevant because predominantly we agree murder is unacceptable therefore we hold it as a high offence. Abortion is not regarded unequivocably as murder. Since we cannot reach a quorum no one should be in the position of dictating a persons right to choose. If you believe abortion is immoral don't get one, but you should not be dictating the choices of another.

How can people of the christian faith who are so quick to want to dictate morality not recognize the similarity between there fervor and that of the muslims we call terrorists?

 

Scarampella,

Has there been a national referendum on this?

Nice label. I would disagree. The terrorists are the pro-abortion crowd. They are the ones taking MILLIONS of innocent lives. The anti-abortion crowd is trying to protect them.
You want to talk about fervor, tell a feminist that you are anti-abortion. That's fervor. Everytime I have a discussion with someone who is pro-abortion, I can maintain control over my voice and vocabulary, but the other side can't.

 

Yeah right, Jack, anytime you talk with someone who agrees with you there is no problem!

How can you possibly be so blinded as to parallel terrorists with the left? They are part of your crowd, the right. Or do you not recognize your crowd?
Anarchists are on the left, terrorists the right. OK?

 

BTA, you are demonstrating exactly my point about the futility of contrasting "choice" and "life" as the two poles in the abortion debate. The pro-life stance is about the goal you are trying to achieve: ending abortion. It is not necessarily about what measures you think are appropriate to use to achieve that end. The pro-choice stance is inherently indifferent to whether abortions take place or not, and I would be hurt if anyone who knew me suggested I felt that way. I would no more respond to a friend who said she wanted an abortion with "It's your choice, you live with the consequences" than I would if she said she wanted to cut off her own hand. That I would respond with love, sympathy, and offers of help instead of anger and condemnation does not make me less pro-life.

As for the legislation issue, I think it's silly to suppose that criminalisation will prevent women from having abortions- you can say they SHOULD not choose to do so, as I do, but you can't use legislation to say they CANNOT do so no matter how many laws you wrap around it because it's just too easy to do (as an example, my college's feminist organisation offered classes on performing abortions just in case the laws ever change). Making something illegal and preventing it are totally different. I believe that the methods I advocate have done more to prevent abortions than most people trying to criminalise it have achieved.

 

Sprite is certainly right on differentiating between actually helping people decide not to (or to) have an abortion, and actually trying going too far to make it illegal (or make it legal in some places, or further abortion rights). It might sound self-contradictatory, but I oppose abortion, but I also oppose makeing it illegal.

The "left" and the "right" as Jack Funk and scarampella describe are both quite charged on whether on the legal issue of abortion. Arguments of life and rights and terrorists are slung back and forth, but I doubt that in any case, abortion will cease to exist - that is, through any legal means.

If abortion is legal, people will go to clinics and have abortions. And people will also protest about it.

If abortion becomes illegal (assuming it's legal whereever you live), people will have abortions on their own (which is very unsafe), And people will protest to legalize it.

So I don't like to think that it's an issue of whether abortion is "moral", or "right". That's a debate that can go on forever, and certainly won't reach an end. But I think people should help each other and judge each situation on its own merits. Hopefully you won't have to go through what you think is wrong, and maybe you'll be convinced to go through what think has to be done. This issue isn't going to reach a consensus, nor a point in which one side concedes another's point. Legalizing/illegalizing abortion won't make too much of a difference. People will go through with their, and their friends', judgement. The best we can, and should do about it is to give support and try to do the right thing.

[ December 10, 2002, 02:57: Message edited by: C'Jakob ]

 

You have your terms, and I have mine, and I think they are both reasonable. There is no one right answer about how to define pro-life or pro-choice. That's why I think the terms are unhelpful. On the personal, moral spectrum there are people who are anti-abortion, pro-abortion and indifferent to abortion. On the legal spectrum, there are people who try to prevent abortion by means of legislation, people who try to keep legislation out of it, and people who are indifferent to legislative aspects. How do you squash the multiple possible combinations of these beliefs into two labels?

 

Agreed. Let's draft a classification system for abortion attitudes and notify leading authorities to adopt it forthwith.

 

I'm gone for three days and the topic just leaves me behind...

Faerus, go back and read the whole post, don't lift my sentence out of context. You'll see that was not what I was saying at all.

Library's breaking for lunch, I'll be back to answer Laches. Take care.

 

Scampy, I fail to see why the default position is that abortion is ok. And if you're talking about what the country was founded on, remember that the phrase is "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness," and it's in that order for a reason.

The question is simply about whether it's a baby.

IMO it's clearly a distinct human life. Distinct and human as we can tell by DNA, and alive as we can tell... well, by about any definition of life one can come up with.

The blather about it being ok to kill a being who is dependent on another is cruelly heartless, BTW.

 

Ater the first cell division, there is life. No one can change that fact. The theory about WHEN the baby is a baby is useful legally but morally inconsistent.

Now Look at Shralp's excellent Slogan.
Life, Liberty and percuit of happiness.

If a baby will only score 1 out of 3, then isn't abortion for the better? Or is it in the slogan's spirit that life is above all else, no matter how miserable it is? Who is the best to decide wheter a coming baby is stuck with 1 out of 3? The baby? no. the Law? perhaps. The mother, perhaps. The mother with councilling? Most likely.

[ December 12, 2002, 19:03: Message edited by: Nobleman ]

 

You're putting words into my mouth. I am not opposed to premarital sex, merely to those people that engage in it on a first-date or with everyone they meet. Yes, it has no pertinence to the abortion matter, and I withdraw that comment.

 

Shralp: The default position must be that there is choice because we cannot reach a referendum. Or would you define yourself as some kind of moral Alexander Hamilton? As if you know the 'morally' righteous path and must lead us blind idiots because we know no better.

Well, IMHO you are a complete hypocrite.

How can you stand on one foot and say, a cell, not developed, is a life that should be defended at whatever cost, and then go down the street marching for the death penalty and the right to bear arms (which by the way KILL people)?

Your logic smacks of religious prejudice. The reason you right-wing religious zealouts care so much about the fetus is that they are the 'pure spirits'- the ones not yet become sinners. It has nothing to do with life and the preservation there-of or else you wouldn't be so eager to kill all the mother ****ers in prison and every where else in the world where people don't fit your idea of worthy.

This holy platform of 'preserve life' is the biggest lie you spew out because of the not so random way in which it is applied.

Talk about callous.

Here I sit, being called callous for deciding not to have a child (eek) whilst I bemoan the meaningless waste of life to be purportrated by my government and am insulted by the same people who are eager to go kill the evil-doers. Those same morally righteous people want to gas every black man on death row.

Cut the crap, if it weren't for science you wouldn't even know about the developement of a fetus. Scientists have offered you a vision and yet when it challenges your religious beliefs you are quick to curtail their efforts.

Life...the living, walking, breathing, woman's life.
As far as the founding fathers were concerned life began at birth not before.

And how many foster children have you adopted lately? How much money have you donated to the needy children in our country? Are you supporting pre-natal care to poor women? I seriously doubt it.
Put your money where your mouth is, stop preaching and live by example.

 

Scarampella: Amen, sister. A few points in support...

To the Roman Catholic church, and any others that believe in the doctrine of original sin, even a fetus is tainted and not a "pure spirit."

If pro-lifers believe that all life is sacred, right down to the cellular level, how can they justifying eating meat, eggs, or even plants? Grains are out because the eater would rob the seed of its potential to become a plant. Seems to me that the only things someone could eat would be milk and honey, as long as they're collected organically in limited quantities.

To me, child abuse is the far greater evil than abortion. How can a person look into the eyes of his/her child - someone who loves you more than anyone else in the world - and deliberately cause harm, or even death? These are the cases that truly sicken me. There's no excuse for it in a world where you don't have to bear or keep a child that you don't want or cherish. If someone knows that she's not able to raise a child with the kind of love and respect it deserves, that burden shouldn't be thrust upon her.

The Clinton administration had this one right: keep abortions safe, legal, and RARE. Encourage contraception by whatever means you feel is appropriate, but keep the "last-ditch" alternative available.

 

Like I said before: Flush em if you have to.

Why is a baby's right to live greater than a young woman's right to choose her own path in life? In this case, the young woman has the power of life and death over the fetus and it is her absolute priviledge to abuse it to any extent.

If the pro-'lifers' get their way by criminalising and demonising abortion, well, all the best to them. They won, they were stronger. If the pro-abortionists get their way, long live freedom and liberty, baby. Neither side, though, has the higher moral ground.

Pro-lifers: You force your beliefs on women whose future might be dependent on whether the lump of flesh growing in them is flushed or not. You are, essentially, taking their lives, for what is a life when one does not live it his/her own way? As far as I am concerned, pro-lifers who attack abortion clinics and harrass and persecute women who have had abortions are nothing more than scum.
Screw your Yahweh/Jesus/Allah/Buddha/Whatever diety's teachings. This is the world of the humans. If we wish to commit atrocities on each other, it's our business. Don't bring any supernatural entities into this. And yes, I'm referring to you lot in particular, *******s who worship a bigger ******* on a cross.

Pro-abortionists, or more accurately, women who would choose to have an abortion if neccessary: Yes, you've liberated yourself, a bright future full of shining prospects awaits you. Hope you remember the interesting red, slimy bits in the metal pan that used to live in your womb, as you lead the life that you chose. But there's nothing wrong with that, almost everyone in this world has had his or her life built on the corpses and suffering of others. Just know that you are in no way more enlightened or liberated than the dogmatic, raving fools that call themselves the pro-'lifers'.

There is no right or wrong. There was ever only the weak and strong.

 

Scarampella,

Nice rant. It is so easy for someone to make you lose your focus. Try to keep your eye on the debate.

I asked you this before, and you ignored me. I will ask again: When have we had a referendum on abortion in this country?

The right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself. You know this and are smarter than this. This is what I mean when I say you lose focus.
I agree with you about the death penalty. It should be abolished.

Your words. Where in this thread has anyone who is anti-abortion made this statement? Again, a knee jerk reaction. Try not to be so easily baited into using the same old feminist rhetoric.

Again, your words. You appear to be a typical reactionary liberal. You can't argue intelligently about the topic at hand, which is abortion, so you bring in all kinds of other issues to try to paint the opposition in a way that demonizes them to try to achieve some sort of moral high ground. Pathetic.

As a tax paying American, I am paying for pre-natal care for poor women. I am also paying for women to have abortions because they cannot take responsibility for themselves. This sickens me.

Finally, if you are so comfortable in your "choice" and your position, why do you become shrill when the other side speaks? Do you have doubts?

 

Well, I see Jack Funk has already responded to Scarampella but I wanted to ask how so many people get this idea of anti-abortion and pro-death-penalty opinions usually coming from the same people. I have never encountered such a thing. Usually I encounter it as part of a package of NON-violent beliefs - anti-death-penalty, anti-suicide, anti-war. I waver on the euthanasia issue where pain is involved but otherwise I reject these forms of violence just as strongly as I reject abortion. [Edit: and I believe Jack Funk and Mathetais, the other most vocal anti-abortion arguers in this thread, are both anti-death-penalty as other threads on SP have revealed] I believe human beings should kill each other only in self-defense and only after all other measures have failed - and in this, I am unique among the other self-proclaimed pro-lifers I know only in that most of them do not endorse killing even in self-defence. I am quite sure my Quaker aunties and most of my Mennonite friends are telling the truth when they say they would rather be murdered in their beds than strike a blow in self defence. Although I would have to say I could better understand a worldview that says unborn babies have more right to life than serial killers than the reverse.

And to those pushing the argument that an unborn child is a lump of cells and there's no downside to destroying it- are you sure you want to go there? If you want to say there's no one better to judge whether an unborn child should live or die than its mother, I can at least understand your point of view. But I worry where the "lump of cells" argument is concerned because it takes your argument beyond "choice" to "pro-abortion". I think that if this argument is accepted, a woman's right to give birth to the child she has conceived is threatened. I know several people - my Roman Catholic mother unfortunately among them - who believe that an unborn child is indeed just a lump of cells and therefore women on welfare should be forced to have abortions. Are you really comfortable with this? How on earth will you counter this if you have argued yourself out of a position where you can say "you have no right to kill my baby". How will other women, who choose not to have abortions, obtain child support from the father of the child if he can legally counter that the baby is your sole responsibility because you chose to allow a lump of cells to turn into a baby?

Having said that- I think it would be nice if we would be less abrasive towards Scarampella in this thread than we have been so far. Let's remember that for most of us this is an intellectual position and to her it is deeply personal. Of course she is going to be more emotional and who can blame her? Being contemptuous and angry towards her personally is not going to solve any problems.

[ December 13, 2002, 17:50: Message edited by: Sprite ]

 

Shura is the perfect example of how a friend can be your worst enemy. As someone who has been arguing that abortion should remain legal and that it may well not be immoral at all I shuddered reading his post.

JackFunk, while the issue hasn't gone to the voting booths on a national scale, polling data is extensive and makes it pretty clear that a majority of Americans support keeping abortion legal. Roughly 1/2 of Americans think that abortion is "murder." Of these though, 1/3 of that group think that abortion should remain legal even though they view it as "murder." The actual numbers I've found are 41% are pro-life, 47% are pro-choice and the rest are undecided. Of that 41%, 1/3 think abortion should remain legal. So, a majority of Americans think abortion should remain legal.

65% of Americans think abortion should be legal in the first trimester, 24% in the second, and 8% in the third.

84% think abortion should be legal if the woman's life is in danger, 81% if her health is in danger, 78% if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, 64% if her mental health is in danger, 53% if the fetus may be physically impaired, 53% if it might be mentally impaired.

66% think partial-birth abortion should be illegal and 78% support parental support laws and mandatory waiting periods (I oppose both and haven't seen much on them here.)

60% think insurance shouldn't cover abortion but 68% think insurance should cover birth control.

46% oppose the use of RU-486 (43% support) but in a funny twist 45% of people admit they know nothing about it.

WOmen are more likely to support abortion type arguments than men but the numbers are surprisingly close.

Those with more education are more likely to be pro-choice -- 60% of college graduates think abortion should be legal, 47% of those with some college, and only 36% of those who have no education beyond highschool. Hispanics are much more likely to say that abortion should be illegal in all cases.

Anyways, those are some numbers, not sure they really mattered but you seemed to be asking.

Sprite, I think your concerns over forcing people to have abortions is a slippery slope fallacy.

From the view that the fetus does not have the right to life attached to it it does not follow that one would support forced abortions. That's an illegit use of "if-then."

[ December 13, 2002, 19:42: Message edited by: Laches ]

 

Laches,
Spew all the statistics you want. A poll is not the same as a vote. I did not bring up the idea of having achieved (or not) a "quorum" or "referendum", Scamparella did. I merely asked when this referendum had been held. It is not fair to say that we cannot achieve a quorom/referendum if we have not tried.

Sprite,
I am not sure if you are referring to me when you comment that we should be "less abrasive" to Scamparella. I have gone out of my way to not label or abuse her due to the choice that she made. I have merely responded to her comments, many of which are QUITE abrasive.
She choose to enter this debate (and I have tried to keep it in the realm of debate), choose to reveal her past, and choose to become inflammatory. She needs to live with those choices.

[ December 13, 2002, 21:01: Message edited by: Jack Funk ]