Thinking of responding to this pro-life editorial, but not sure where to start.
 

From my school paper the Vanderbilt Hustler, available online at http://www.vanderbilthustler.com/vne.../41f56899dc4db
Wilt could probably argue for something as sensible as the existence of roads and it would still infuriate me. Aside from the tasteless title/ main analogy of the paper, anyone see anything particularly glaring?

This will probably offend people, and i dont mean to say i'm right... it's really just a guidline that i live by (as i've chosen never to have children)... but it's probably a lot worse to bring a child into a world full of child molesters, rapists, televangelists, corrupt politicians, sitcoms/TV zombie culture, wars without reason, wars without end, racists/bigots, etc. Thats a dirty thing to do to somebody. A lot of anti-abortion folks say things along the lines of "They didnt have the chance to choose to live" but if a fetus was somehow cognative and understood what they were about to go up against... fuck, i'd stay in the womb.

The term "Alive" is only relevant if you are a vegetarian. "Human" would be the term to use....

Anyone else notice the article mentioning that science says fetus' can talk? wtf is that about?

The crux of the issue is always "When does human life begin". I'd question his undocumented scientific evidence, it runs contrary to most of the findings that I've seen. For the "Life begins at conception" argument, a brief review of how birth control pills work, makes for an uncomfortable dillema. Basically, birth control pills do not prevent conception, they prevent implantation. By their definition, use of birth control pills = abortion.

It's an old argument that will never find a comfortable resolution.

He is entitled to his opinion. I believe a woman should have the right to terminate her pregnancy. I do wonder though if in the future they will look back at us and say "what barbarians, all they had to do was be a little careful but instead killed millions of innocents just because they were inconvenient". But until someone can convince me that the fetus is entitled to the same rights as the born, I'll err on the side of women controlling their own bodys.

here is what I plan to submit, I am staying away from the obvious offenses of the article and went with a different prospective



Shades of grey in the black and white abortion debate


More than 10% of the world’s babies died last year.10% is the rate of known pregnancies that are spontaneously aborted, as reported by the government funded online medical encyclopedia found at http://www.nlm.nih.gov/. This number of course is a gross underestimation of the true extent of the devastation. The same source reports that an estimated 50% percent of fertilizations are spontaneously aborted before the mother is aware that she is pregnant. People who believe life begins at the moment of conception or the beginning of pregnancy need to break out the black, because they have a lot of mourning to do.
Natural abortion aside, let’s examine another infant killer, this one engineered entirely by man. IVF or In vitro fertilization is a process by which women with fertility problems are able to conceive. IVF requires participants to ‘superovulate’ with the aid of drugs. Superovulation allows women to produce multiple viable eggs, which are removed surgically and fertilized in a test tube by a donor’s semen. Fertilization occurs in the confines of a test-tube or Petri dish. These test-tube babies face a dark and treacherous future, it is estimated that 90% of these fertilized pre-embryos will be terminated or frozen for later attempts. In virtually every procedure, at least some fertilized embryos are lost. Information on IVF can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IVF. 115,000 of these procedures have occurred in the United States.
We need to take a hard long look at when life begins before we can formulate arguments that do not lead us to hypocrisy. I will consider it a sad day when ‘pro-life’ protesters show up at the door of a fertility clinic, which is trying desperately to allow women to create the very life the protesters are trying to protect. This hypothetical makes my head spin. Clearly lines do need to be drawn, as ridiculous as I consider the notion that life begins when gametes are united, it is ludicrous to consider a baby an hour before delivery to be any less complete than the same infant two hours later when he is a kicking crying newborn. The question of when we treat potential life as life will not be resolved easily; I’m not offering any solutions. All I ask is that people cut back on the rhetoric which is subverting attempts to sift through the grey and come up with a solution we can agree on.

I would recommend using significantly smaller words in your reply.....

Those who support conception are, without question, tantamount to those who stood idly by while the Nazi regime in Germany slaughtered millions. It is no different, except our holocaust of the unborn is indiscriminate. It doesn't matter if they're black or white, male or female; any born baby -- human being -- is legally allowed to die.

I know the reaction I'm going to get from this article. Outrage. Indignation. There will be women on this campus who will probably never speak to me again. So let it be that way, I guess. I don't blame pro-conception people for the murders themselves, but they do enable it by either directly or indirectly supporting the so-called "right to procreate."

One of the most compelling arguments I've ever heard against procreation "rights" is this: in the Declaration of Independence -- you know, the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness part. What good is life, happiness or liberty going to do for you? After all, everything that lives dies. At the end of it, you have nothing. All that hapiness, liberty, means squat once you're dead.

A lot of pro-procreation advocates will say that the baby is alive. As President Reagan once said, "procreation is advocated only by persons who have themselves not died yet." What right is it of ours to say they should "live"? With the scientific evidence overwhelmingly pointing to the fact that the unborn feel pain, how can we brush this aside simply because, as disgracefully as it may sound, the procreation-minded citizens in this country see the unborn as nothing more than vessels through which they can live vicariously?

I'm not blind; I know that women will continue to get illegal pregnancies. But the point is that instead of 1,500,000 births, rather, murders a year, that number will be drastically reduced, the doctors who do break the law will go to jail, and the mothers who try to birth their child will also go to jail. In comparison, the welfare queens who have 15 children are using my tax money to, unfortunately, keep another human being alive for a geologically miniscule and cosmologically insignificant period of time.

It's not going to be easy. The powerful procreation enthusiast lobby has a stranglehold over the Democratic Party (and as we see, its views on morality and issues like procreation played so well in 2004) and they'll try to block judges who don't support procreation in the Senate. While President Bush advocates death abroad for peoples of the world who don't agree with our foriegn policy, perhaps we should also take a look inward and realize we aren't yet conducting the greatest mass murder on the entire planet. I am confident that with the help of God and the wise votes of the American people, we will end this birthing travesty once and for all.

reiii,

i'm pro-life and am staunchly in favor of making abortion illegal except in radically unusual circumstances (threatens mother's life etc.). however, i do approve of your response. it seems well written, sober, and intellectually honest. good on ya.

Try looking again how birth control PILLS work. They prevent the woman from releasing an egg.

There are many other types that prevent implantation, many of which cause horrid birth defects. I.E. the mini-razors that were intended to scrape off the lining of the uterus so the egg couldnt plant inside of it, which more often than not chopped off appendeges of the baby and ended up inside of them while still in the womb.

Personally I'm against abortion in any moderate case. Extream cases such as rape, incest, and health risk to the mother I believe should be allowed. But the whole "it's a woman's right" thing is bunk to me. If I have a 4 year old son, and I feel that he's an un-needed burden on me I cant just go to a doctor and have him "removed". Say what you want about the difference between a fetus and a 4 year old, I see them as alive and worthy of a chance. I see no difference between them outside of the difference between a 4 year old and an 8 year old.

When people speak out against abortion, I always wonder or ask, "so what do you propose to do with all these unwanted pregnancies?" Who is going to look after all of these unwanted children?

No-one ever seems to have a good answer to that one, therefore, I support the freedom of choice.

you're countering their argument after first twisting their premises. the good answer is that those people argue that sex should be reserved for a man and woman within the bonds of marriage. a society that embraces those social mores would have very little need for abortion. it's silly to think of sex as something free from responsibility or consequence... that it exists outside (but not solely for the purpose of) creation of living/breathing/thinking/feeling human beings.

society is bankrupt when the whims and passions of the powerful hold sway over the lives of undesirables.

thanks, that means alot to me

You do of course realize....that the Christian Church is becoming the "Powerful" entity in this country. And that those many of us will soon be the "undesirables".

COMBINED ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES

Your source? Mine says that you are correct 90% of the time. That means that if you and your SO use birth control pills and believe that life starts at conception, you only commit murder once a year.

The list for those waiting to adopt young children is extremely long. Hense the increasing number of people who adopt children from other countries.

StanT I concede that you are right on this one, 10% of the time.

You could pobably respond by saying, "Well that's a well written article that produces a valid argument." Something to that effect.

i like the reply reiii

personally i don't have any stake in the case of abortion nor do I take it as a case of principles or what not and simply put it as keep the government out of people's lives - while i am absolutely 100% for people being responsible and what not, I don't think its the federal government's job to tell people what they can and can't do - and lets be honest, as long as people want to do something, they'll find means to do it, and I'd rather have doctors doing abortions than back-alley operations occuring.

i always find it funny how men are always the ones at the heart of the pro-life argument...I just think men feel a bit..possibly out of control, impotent, whatever, about the only way to bring life into this world, so they try to exert some control through the courts/law system..

I just don't get it. i think that if most men had to experience childbirth, we'd give a much different perspective of abortion/childbirth/this whole concept. As i always tell people, i don't have a vagina, so why should i have control over someone who does. I honestly cannot stop any lady from aborting her child if she is driven to do so, so i would prefer a safer method for her to rely on over coat hangers or "insert hideous object here"

Sorry for rambling, it's been a long night. Suffice it to say, i find it very odd that the people who want the most restrictions on what a lady can do with her body are the ones who are always wanting the gov't out of personal lives. I also find it odd that those without a vagina wish to control those with one..ie...force an unwilling mother to give birth to a child..

Yes, there are many people just "begging" to adopt. Plus gay couples (kill two birds with one stone) who want to adopt. I am also against fertility clinics that produce septuplets when there are so many kids to be adopted. The solution seems so obvious to me. Combine all of the above.

Maybe, introduce a child tax instead of credit. Only have kids if you can AFFORD to so they don't become a burden to the state. Then, maybe people will think about the consequences of their actions BEFORE they act.

If you don't want to have kids, great, no problem. Either practice safe sex, or don't have sex, or get "fixed". Problem solved, everyone happy.

Abortion is NOT effective contraception. Condoms etc are. Also, try personal responsibility and accountability. Sex education would be good too.

I am against abortion period. Even in cases of incest, rape. The lone exception would be to save a mother's life.

I am also against the death penalty (too light of a punishment and other obvious flaws) and against pro-lifers who burn down clinics and kill people (that's just weird to me).

I also think it's a bit weird if the Church is against abortion but condemns condoms. That's not really consistent policy to me.

So at least I am consistent in my beliefs and I won't bash anyone who has a different opinion than mine. God bless America.

Good thread, good topic.

I understand about the argument regarding a "woman's control over their body" but I don't see it as relevant to abortion. I see it as different issues.

For example, if someone wants to "cut themselves" or kill themselves, (control over their own body) then why do people try and stop them? Why do the authorities get involved? It's their body, shouldn't they be allowed to do what they want? Also, if I want to take drugs, can't I do what I want to my body?

But my belief, is that the fetus is a life, which I guess, is the core of the controversy. Whereas the "right over own body" is a different issue.

I don't see it in terms of gender (but I suppose one could if they wanted to) but rather, as an issue of life ( as in when does it begin).

We could probably split the thread into different threads for clarity.

so for me, I see the argument or controversy as being framed in two different arguments.

as for the 'getting fixed' option...a freind recently came to the conclusion he did not want to have children...ok, he's known it since he was 13, but he's had time to reconsider, try again, reconsider again, and reconfirm that he did not want to have children...so, he talked to his family doctor about getting 'fixed' and the doctor questioned if he was really ready to make that decision, etc, and that he could not authorize or endorse the decision...so, my friend tried again and again at other clinics, etc, and received virtually the same response. Basically, the doctors were not going to allow this person the freedom to choose to relinquish the responsibility of having/raising children. In their eyes, he was put here to procreate and they would have no part in stopping that permanently...i just don't get why others have to be involved so deeply in a person's ability to have and raise children. i've heard of women experiencing the same problems when going to have a tubal ligation...doctors not performing on unwed/childless women bc they feel the person would have second thoguhts later on.

as for the peopel cutting/killing themselves, i'd also opt for hte gov't to stay out of that as well...and the drug issue as long as it is not in public (no driving while doing crack, etc...) about the way alcohol is now.. it is your body and you should be able to do what you wish...

and yeah, an abortion is the mother's body and possibly another life, depending on viewpoint, but if it is going to happen anyway, at least provide a safer way of doing it

which also brings up another question. The plan B pill, basically a super birth control pill that can be taken up to 72 hrs after sex, is being halted by christian groups/etc bc the FDA cannot determine how teenagers will use the drug..Personally, i'd rather see a teenager use this pill instead of an abortion clinic a month or two down the road, but apparently, people are scared that teenagers will over-use/abuse the drug..


Sorry, way off topic now.

for the pro-lifers:

if life begins at conception, and the fetus is alive, tell me what happens to a delivery that's premature at 20 weeks? or 21 weeks? or 22 weeks?

i'll supply the answer, nothing... it's too early for anything to be done. the lungs aren't developed, the brain isn't fully developed. you'd have a fetus with no to poor organ function, that would likely die in spite of aggressive management. survival for a fetus less than 24 weeks is piss poor (read: 10% at best)... would a woman who has a premature delivery at less than 24 weeks (i.e. less than 6 months) be guilty of murder? would the doctors who don't do anything also be guilty of murder(most, if not all, doctors would not do anything but comfort measures for a woman having a premature delivery at less than 24 weeks)?

in short, whether or not you think/believe/feel that life begins at conception, statistics clearly show that any fetus born earlier than 24 weeks will not survive.

We truly do live in a culture of death, life is of little value, 40 million aborted children would attest to that. Also it's pretty bunk that abortion get largely justified by a cause that accounts for only 1% of all abortions, that cause being rape.

Another funny issue is the hypocrisy of the abortion lobby. A 15 year can't get their ear's pierced without parental consent, yet it's straight if they get a life threatening surgery done w/o said notification?

And they wonder why there is problems with social security, they've successfully aborted an entire generation.

I just dont get it. I think that if most people had experience with not wanting to see someone, we'd give a much different perspective on the whole strangulation concept. As I always tell people, I haven't strangled anyone, so why should I have control over someone who does.

We're talking about a living breathing human here. I'm allowed to swing my fist as long as it doenst hit someone else. She's allowed to have her own choices as long as it doesnt kill someone else.

The Morning After pill isnt abortion. If you look on how it works it prevents the egg from accepting the sperm implantation. The reason the conservatives hate it is because they believe it'll lead to more unprotected sex.

A fetus is "a living breathing human?" Interesting.

Of course not.

I am truly sorry....but this gave me a hearty laugh.
You are joking here....right?

Nope, from the same web site I quoted above:

They do not stop the sperm from entering the egg, they either stop ovulation or they stop the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. If you believe that human life begins when the sperm enters the egg, then the morning after pill can equate to abortion.The key to the argument is when does human life start. You can go from the "Every sperm is sacred" theory of Monty Python fame to "Life begins at first breath". Religious entities argue that life starts at conception, modern medicine goes with a prescribed level of brain activity or survivability apart from the mother.

Either medical definition works for me.

Absolutly not. Notice there is already a nice number crunch involving people paying into SS vs. people taking out. As more and more boomers come of age, the percentage of potentials aborted not paying in will become a bigger factor. Not limiting the problems solely to it, just an added kick in the balls regarding the situation.

Now I've seen everything.

there will be a 2/1 ratio....even when the baby boomers retire.
That is 2 workers for every 1 retiree.

Obviously a woman who delivers prematurely isn't guilty of murder because it's involuntary, that is, she didn't purposely try to deliver prematurely for the sake of terminating her pregnancy.

Has anyone heard of the pro-life propaganda film 'The Silent Scream'? Until I heard about this I wasn't too concerned about abortion, but was on the pro-choice side if pushed. I'm still that way inclined but I think every woman who has to confront her choice, which is already a hard enough choice to make, should be asked to watch the film. I've not seen it myself.

"A Realtime ultrasound video tape and movie of a 12- week suction abortion is commercially available as, The Silent Scream, narrated by Dr. B. Nathanson, a former abortionist. It dramatically, but factually, shows the pre-born baby dodging the suction instrument time after time, while its heartbeat doubles in rate. When finally caught, its body being dismembered, the baby’s mouth clearly opens wide — hence, the title The Silent Scream."
http://www.dogstarmusic.com/Pro_Life.html

Rape-abortion isn't how I personally justify abortion. Or where you talking about something else?

Ask the abortion lobbiests if they think 15 year olds should be allowed to get their ears pierced without parental consent, before you talk about hypocracy.

Clearly, exponential population growth is the answer to all of the world's problems.

Reflex and consciousness are two seperate things. Do you have video of a 12-week old fetus surviving outside of the mother's womb? That would be compelling.

True, but in the same way I don't pull the wings off flies I wouldn't abort a foetus at this stage of development. Neither may feel pain in the same way fully developed humans do, but to cause them any sort of injury is unjust. Having said that, I've no problem killing bacteria, algae or anything I'm going to eat or wear.

Edit: Before anyone complains, no I don't equate a 12 week old foetus with a fly. That's just an example.

So if a 3 year old had a medical problem that caused him to need a breathing machine to get enough oxygen, he doesnt classify as a human being and can be thrown in the trash and forgotten about?

Wow nice logic.

Yes, that's exactly what i said, but you seemed to have overlooked the part where i called all irishmen drunkards./sarcasm

My logic is sound, i believe it is yours that needs work.