bad jane

under what circumstances should abortion be allowed? more importantly, how would you go about enforcing those?

the most common ones i hear are when the woman's life is in danger, incest and rape. doctor can determine if the woman's life is at risk. incest can be proven with a blood test. but what are you going to do about rape?

if all a woman has to do is say she was raped to be permitted an abortion, what's the point? if her claim is the only requirement, i'd say this stipulation is only there to make pro-lifers feel better. any woman that wants one will just say she was raped.

now if that isn't enough--how would you like her to prove it?

Amnesia620

Some cannot expect others to obey the same God that they do, to live by the same guidelines or rules.

Abusing this medical procedure should be illegal (i.e. using abortion as birth-control) but no one here has the right to speak for any God, or Goddess, and express what is worthy of acceptance and what is viewed as sinful, deserving of punishment or damnation.

With technology today, soon medical record databases will be available to be accessed by virtually, any practitioner's office with updated, real-time, information available 24/7. They will know (some offices already do) how many operations/surgeries, abortions, consultations, etc. one person's had.

__________________
For example, I find that a lot of college girls are barbie doll carbon copies with few differences...Sadly, they're dumb, ditzy, immature, snotty, fake, or they are the gravitational center to orbiting drama. - Amnesia620

bad jane

in the us that is only if you give them permission though. your medical files can't be shared without your consent, it is confidential information. if you change doctors and he wants your previous medical records, you have to either get them from your first doctor and give them to the new one or sign a waiver that allows your first doctor to release them to the second. afaik sharing your medical info is at your discretion and anyone who provides it to a 3rd party without your consent (or a court order) is breaking the law.

so if a woman went to dr. smith for an abortion and two months later went to d.r jones, unless she told him, dr. jones would have no knowledge of the first procedure.

analog

*slams his head repeatedly into the nearest wall*

This is a neverending discussion. No one will ever say anything someone else hasn't already said. Every case- pro and con- has been stated, every reasoning given, every opinion noted.

There are no breakthroughs in abortion discussions. It not like the more we ramble on about our opinions, the closer we come to "solving" the abortion question.

I don't argue abortion anymore. It's fucking pointless. I will, however, note my opinion just so it's here in this thread, like it is in all others.

I support a woman's right to choose up until viability- which, if i'm not mistaken, is pretty much the furthest point anyone cares about. I don't know of anyone pushing to be able to abort in the third trimester. If nothing else, at that point, you should have decided long ago if it was a good idea to let it grow. If the fetus can't survive- on it's own- outside the mother, then it is not a viable person yet.

The main thing i'm tired of is people arguing about when life begins. Even if you want to argue that a two-day-after-conception cluster of cells is alive, I'd argue that plants are very much alive as well, but no one bombs a horticulturalist's greenhouse if they forgot to water their dandelions. In my opinion, a human life should be weighed from a slightly more educated approach than "we fucked yesterday, it's a BABY now!"

muttonglutton

I believe that whatever it is, alive or not, when it is first conceived, has the CHANCE to be alive.

I believe that it is morally wrong to abort. I do, however, also believe that every woman has the right to choose. I may think it's the wrong choice, but it doesn't make you evil. It just means that, oh darn, you have slightly different morals and a different foundation in religion than I do. Just like everyone else in the world. Shucksdarn.

__________________
Cellar Door.

Kalnaur

The ability to have an abortion should be based on two things, a woman's choice about her body, and the realtive frequency that sadi woman uses abortion as a form of birth control in lieu of condoms, etc.

As in, a woman should have the right to choose what she does with her body, to a certain extent, but I am sure that such procedures eventually take their toll on the body in question after too many of them. Just like a patient is perscribed medication for a set amount of time, so too shouyld the amount of times a woman has abortions be limited to a safe number for their body.

After all, if you don't have your health, you don't have anything.

__________________
PC: Can you help me out here HK?
HK-47: I'm 98% percent sure this miniature organic meatbag wants you to help find his fellow miniature organic meatbags.
PC: And the other 2 percent?
HK-47: The other 2 percent is that he is just looking for trouble and needs to be blasted, but that might be wishful thinking on my part.

cellophanedeity

I'm pro-choice. I don't know what I'd do in the situation, but I want to be able to choose.

It's essential for women to legally have the choice. Abortion will happen, legal or not, and at least when it's done professionally there's almost 0% chance that the woman will be hurt and that there won't be a non-uterine fetus developing.

Legal abortion = safe abortion

aphroditeskiss1

I very highly doubt that there are many women who make the decision to have an abortion lightly. Becoming pregnant before one is ready to actually go through with the pregnancy and has the emotional capacity to give up a human that you made is not a choice that any person, male or female, is not a choice that anyone in their right mind can make lightly.
I personally think that Tamdarkdeamon needs to talk to a woman who has had an abortion and see the impact it had on her life. Is she in college? Is her life going the way she wanted it to be pre pregnancy? Most importantly, is she happy?
If he does this, I think he will see that abortion, or at least the ability to have that option is not a bad thing, but rather a very, very good thing.

__________________
"You always said destiny would blow me away. But nothing's gonna blow me away"- Something Coporate
" I do not pop pills! I take them and I eat them..."
- Foamy's friend

bad jane

i'm right there with you. the only thing that would compel me to go to med school is if abortion becomes illegal.

89transam

Legal abortion is not a safe abortion, people die of complications all the time.

__________________
I'd rather be rich than stupid.

Gatorade Frost

I'm going to go out on a limb and ignore most of what everyone else has said and just give my thoughts.

First, I'm going to say that I firmly believe you can't have a real opinion on abortion until you'rep ut into the situation of needing one.

I grew up in a Baptist family ironically, but I grew up pro-abortion for some reason. When I hit around fourteen a friend of mine convinced me about the conception of humans and that they're people from birth, he went through all of these pictures of aborted children, went through all of these types of abortion, and pretty much just made me sick to my stomach at how wrong abortion was. I st uck by this until I was seventeen. I always fought the conservative-pro-life sentiment because I was honest to god convinced.

Then I started having sex.

Mind you, I never got my girlfriend pregnant (thankfully) but come two weeks late into her period the idea of pregnancy floated around several times (We were young and stupid, and for some reason we didn't use condoms - Something about my parents finding them and giving me what for, which is a whole different rant in itself). We were scared.
Society looks down on pregnancy.
Her sister had a son that was unplanned and it caused my girlfriend to despise her sister, the son caused a whole lot of problems for everyone. If it made my girlfriend despise her sister, how would she feel if she were pregnant herself? How would her family react? An unemployed parent having to raise two grand children without much money... Not pretty per se.

So we floated around the idea of abortion, and you know, it made me realise that you can't say what's right or wrong. What if we had gone through those nine months of pregnancy? She would've been sent to special programs in school, would've had to work, both of us, so she could go to the doctor, get everything she needed to grow a baby for nine months, and between us and our families it just didn't add up. Her being pregnant and giving up the baby wouldn't just possibly have messed up the baby but also my girlfriend's life and that wasn't fair for either of them.

I'm a firm believer in abortion. I think that it should be legal at practically any point because sometimes it's just what's best for everyone.

bad jane

women will have them, legal or not. give me a dr. who knows what they are doing and a safe environment over a coathanger in an alley any day.

pregnancy isn't without risks either--women die from complications during pregnancy and childbirth all the time too.

hilbert25

This is an argument that does not make sense. If one truly believes something is morally wrong, then one shouldn't believe others should have the choice. This is more of a cop out answer. People don't say, "Well, beating someone to death with their own shoes is morally wrong, but I believe it's the person's choice if they want to do that." Have a backbone. If you think it's morally wrong, then it really shouldn't be relative. If you think it's right, make damn well sure that you fight for that right.

william

I may smell like a troll, but I don't see people lining up to adopt the babies given up. People don't want to deal w/other peoples problems. They criticise those that have 6 or 7 kids, but they do nothing to help them. They don't take the time to say "Back up, maybe you should think about what you're doing". They want to use the children as some high and mighty pulpit. Instead of "clearing" the neighborhood of prostitutues, why not clear them of slackers who don't care about bringing another child into this world. Why not do more to help a girl respect herself enough not to do it? My Governor (Jeb), and my President (GW) talk a good game of education, but when you look at the facts, they could care less.

bad jane

what? first, comparing an illegal activity to an legal one is hardly fair. murder isn't just morally wrong--it's illegal. some people find eating meat morally wrong, but it is a legal activity for those that wish to do it. beating someone to death with their shoes is no more right or wrong than shooting them with a gun or stabbing them to death with a pencil--dead is dead and murder is against the law.

and what is wrong with saying something goes against your personal beliefs but you respect the right of others to make their own choices based on their morals and religious beliefs? it's a cop out to respect other people and their beliefs?

pattycakes

but if she did not have an adoption you wouldent know.

This is the problem, we as people get hurt all of the time. we get in a crash we need surgery.... yes surgery hurts. sometimes we die but when we die we dont rember so it cant hurt. because pain has to be something current, or something you personaly can rember

sorry pro choicer here

__________________

pattycakes

on this subject... if you have sex withsome one using birthcontrol and condoms or contreceptive gell, and you and thi sguy break up and hate each other. the guy should have some sort of say in the matter.

why should a guy pay child support because of product failure? (not all children live with their moms but 85% do)


this remids me of this woman who used a guys sperm to make herself preg, then she claimed child support. its a bunch of bs if you ask me

__________________

ironmaiden7o7

I don't support abortion atall, I do believe that if you aren't ready for such responsibilities, you shouldn't have sex, and if you do, you should take better precautions. Abortion is taking the life of a child in my opinion, though some women usually have not many options and abortion seems like the best thing for them, but even in that case, adoption is always a greater option. I was adopted also, my mother gave me up because she was too young and didn't have the support from her parents. So, the same way she saved my life, others can save their babies lives also.

shakran

Oh. OK. I expect you're going to starve now, because plants and animals feel pain too, or at least they exhibit negative reactions to damaging stimulus, which is what the fetus does.

So if you're going to be upset at "murdering" something that is not human, then you need to stop murdering ALL things that are not human.


And let's not forget that a fetus is not a human. It is a potential human, and to assign the rights and privildeges of a human to it because it is a potential human is absurd.

By the same argument, a 12 year old should be allowed to go into a bar and have a beer, because an adult has the right to go into a bar and have a beer, and the 12 year old is a potential adult.

lindseylatch

He's going to be paying 50% (unless the child is put up for adoption), so I think his input is very important. Comparing it to circumcision is not even CLOSE.

There's a lot more things that go into the decision to have an abortion than have been mentioned here. That said, I've never seen anyone change their minds over this issue, although one of us has. I think most people are too polarized to change their minds, I know I am.

I'm pretty impressed that the arguements have been really civil. Makes me proud of TFP and it's members.

__________________
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him."
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."
-Voltaire

Hektore

I know I'm new here, but it seems to me if you're sick of hearing about the abortion debate, you're hanging out in the wrong thread. Nobody(that I'm aware of) is forcing you to be here. Also, while I'm at it, yes this debate has been going on for a long time. The fact that it has been going on for a long time makes it no less significant.

That being said, how I feel as a 20 year old college male born to a 17 year old mother who, because of her pregnacy, got kicked out of her house and led a much worse, worse life than she could have had without me:

Abortion is just plain wrong(surprise surprise).

If you aren't socially or emotionally ready, or just plain to want to have to deal with a pregnany, you shouldn't be having sex. I know sex is fun but by the same token the whole point isn't just for it to be fun.

Women should have have a choice about what to do with their bodies? I agree 100%, but she did have a choice: before she jumped in the sack. See my above sentiment.

Here's another thing you have to remember; it isn't just their own bodies that the descision is affecting. There's a person in there that her descision will affect. You want to claim that it isn't a person in there how? If she doesn't have an abortion, barring the intevention of nature(which is very different from you in that it doesn't have the ability to differentiate right and wrong) what is in her belly is going to be a person, just as you and I are. I count that as a person. I do not consider this belief absurd, Ever have a garden? Think about it.

I see the argument about a 12 year old getting into a bar more of an argument against a drinking age than pro-abortion.

This may come off as a personal attack, please understand that is not my intention. How many times have you died that you can say this with such certainty? Nobody knows what happens when you die, because nobody has directly observed it and come back to tell about it. At least nobody I will consider a reasonable source. By the same token I'm unaware of anyone who has memories of the womb, or memories of being aborted that they can say with certainty it is or is not a painful experience.

My personal opinion aside: Making abortion illegal now could be one of the worst ideas I've ever heard. That can of worms has been opened and taking it back now would be disastrous for women. If a woman really wants an abortion shes going to find a way to get one, and that being the case, I want her to have the ability to use the best resources we have to assure its as safe as it cant be.

__________________
The advantage law is the best law in rugby, because it lets you ignore all the others for the good of the game.

la petite moi

How ironic that I'm doing a paper on pro-choice right now.

skysooner

I remember a comedy routine that Rich Little (the impressionist) used to do where he was playing Ronald Reagan. He was asked when life began, and he said, "When they vote Republican".

I have no real opinion on this subject. Adoption is a great thing. My sister adopted a little girl from China about a year ago. My step-sister adopted a little baby boy from Russia. My sister couldn't have children. My step-sister has two of her own, but her husband wanted to do something good since he has done so well financially. I also understand the case for abortion. Without knowing someone else's circumstances, it is hard for me to answer one way or the other on this subject.

KMA-628

Negative.

Take the time to understand someone's position before you criticize and slam them.

He is saying that for him, it is morally wrong, but he doesn't believe in forcing that moral opinion on everyone else.

With so many people up in arms about having morality shoved down their collective throats, this is a very admirable position. He has his morals and stands by them, in the meantime he won't criticize you for your morals nor will he try and force his opinions on you.

Judging by the wording and tone of your post, you could learn a lot from him.

__________________
Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

la petite moi

My paper on abortion:

So, I did my argumentative research paper on pro-choice. Give me your feedback by Wednesday night, if you please (or if you get through it all).

---

According to Auriana Ojeda, book editor of Should Abortion be Restricted?, “Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American society and politics today”(6). The argument of whether abortion should be allowed or restricted has lead to many passionate debates among governments, religious organizations, and political advocates. By believing that abortion should be legal, a “pro-choicer” supports a woman’s right to her own body and the right to choose. Also, by keeping abortions legal, women will have the opportunity to have a medically safe abortion in clean surroundings. If restricted, which “pro-lifers” (also called “anti-pro-choicers”) support, young women and teenage girls will have back-alley abortions performed, leading to illness and death. If abortions are kept legal, as dictated in Roe v. Wade, women will be able to achieve much more, control their own reproductive lives, and fulfill basic personal goals without being hindered by an unwanted pregnancy.

The path to women’s right to choose has not been an easy one. Although legal until the mid-1850’s, abortion laws banning abortion after the first fourth months of pregnancy began to emerge by the 1820’s. By the turn of the century, every state had restricted abortion. Soon women were risking their lives to have illegal and highly dangerous back-alley abortions. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in the 1930’s, approximately 800,000 illegal abortions were being performed each year, leading to 8,000-17,000 deaths annually. Early reformers saw these extreme risks of keeping abortion illegal, and pushed for legalization. Finally, between 1967 and 1971, during the push for women’s rights, 17 states legalized abortions. Also, according to the ACLU, “In 1968, only 15 percent of Americans favored legal abortions; by 1972, 64 percent did” (Ojeda 62). This shift in public opinion led to the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade most existing states’ abortion bans.

The final decision of Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th amendment, the constitutional right to individual privacy. This amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” (U.S. Constitution…). The Court found this right “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Ojeda 62). The Court upheld that the state could not interfere with a woman’s rights to abortion, unless there was a convincing cause for regulation. A compelling reason in protecting the possible life of a fetus could only be declared once it became “viable,” typically at the beginning of the third trimester of a pregnancy. Thereafter, abortion was also allowed for certain health reasons (birth risks for the mother, extreme deformities, and etcetera). As the Supreme Court later restated in 1992, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Ojeda 62). By legalizing abortions, women were given the right to manage their own reproduction.

In 1992, the Supreme Court was faced with another legal debate concerning reproductive choice in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court protected the constitutional right for a woman’s individual choice, and proclaimed that under the “undue burden test,” state regulations cannot put “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” (Abortion Timeline). U.S. Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter supported the individual rights of women by asserting, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence…and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could net define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State” (Ojeda 44). When women have the individual right to their own body, they are also given the right to lead a better life.

When allowed the choice of abortion, women are able to prevent irreversibly ruining their lives. Not all pregnant women are able to adequately care for a child. Some suffer from mental and physical problems that disable them from managing a very active baby. Still others are deep in financial debt, unable to provide the huge expenses of a child. What’s more is that in high-visibility jobs (like waitressing), women are often forced to quit their job once their pregnancy becomes noticeable. Very few women are paid full wages when on maternity leave, and rarely are their jobs held open for them. After a pregnancy, women may discover that they have been demoted to a lower-status “mommy track” (Currie 42).

If forced to give birth, a mother will not only have ruined her life, but her child’s as well. In one study, 41 percent of women deprived of abortions regretted giving birth, and a third of those surveyed “harbored anger and resentment against these unwanted children” (Currie 39). If women are not allowed the choice to have an abortion, they will not only be dramatically affected mentally, but physically as well.

When abortion was made completely illegal by the early 1900’s, it did not stop women from finding other means to get rid of their pregnancy. During these times, illegal clinics were run by inexperienced doctors with no true concern for their patient. One story by Susan X, describes Doctor Harvey Lothringer, who performed an illegal and brutal abortion on her when she was only 18 years old. She illustrates a picture of absolute horror, explaining how the doctor charged her a large sum of 400 dollars, would not allow her boyfriend stay with her while she was paralyzed with fear, scraped the lining of her uterus so much that she was later unable to menstruate for a year, and then used a German Shepherd to “dispose of the evidence” (Lest we…). This doctor later served four years in prison, when, after a 19-year-old girl died during an illegal abortion he performed, he dismembered her body and flushed it into the sewer system. Other lawful doctors had to treat these maimed women when an illegitimate abortionist caused extreme damage to her body. There are countless cases of doctors that could do nothing for women after they were infected with gas gangrene, septic shock, kidney failure, and a variety of other fatal diseases during an illegal abortion.

It is obvious through these stories and the death toll of illegal abortions that if restricted, women will not just stop having abortions. As commentator Anna Quindlen writes, “It is a great mistake to believe that if abortion is illegal, it will be non-existent” (Currie 37). That is why it is essential that women have the right to their own bodies. If abortion is criminalized, the reality is that women will just once again turn to uncertified butchers. If regulated, the death toll of abortions will dramatically fall because the environment in which to get an abortion will be safe, sanitary, and much less painful—mentally and physically.

An argument that many pro-lifers bring up is that killing a fetus that could potentially be a baby is murder. The key point in this is that the fetus is a potential human being, not actually a human being. Although a newborn baby can feel pain, as seen through observations, there is practically no real evidence that a fetus can feel pain. Pro-lifers typically translate simple bodily reflexes as pain; however, as Stephen Currie writes, “The synapses are not yet well developed enough to permit the feeling of pain as a true human would experience it” (24). Most importantly in this argument is that almost nine out of ten abortions are performed in the first few weeks after conception, when really the fetus is an embryo, only a two inch long ball of cells that hardly resembles a newborn at all

Pro-lifers contend that a fetus could have been born and then grown up to be the next Einstein; however, it should be noted that the fetus could have also grown up to be the next Adolf Hitler. As stated by the webmaster of ‘I’m Not Sorry.net,’ “The potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.”

In addition, pro-lifers are particularly fond of quoting the Bible in order to back the notion that abortion is murder; however, these biblical references are far from convincing. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but it does not prohibit it. In fact, if any evidence can be drawn from the Bible it would imply that abortion is not at all like murder. An example of this is in Exodus 21, where a man is sentenced to death for killing a woman; however, if he hits a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarriage, he is only fined. Such a light punishment is contradictory to the belief that aborting a fetus is murder (Currie 26).

Not only does the Bible illustrate how murder and abortion should not be viewed in the same light, but so do other manuscripts of other mainstream religions. In the Talmud, a Jewish script, it is stated that “the fetus is as the thigh of its mother”; that is, it is only a part of her body. Although cautioning against having abortions on a whim, many American Jewish leaders concur that abortion and murder are simply not the same thing. As a Catholic theologian visiting an abortion clinic reports, “I have held babies in my hands, and now I held this embryo. I know the difference” (Currie 26). In fact, as a universal rule, even present laws in the United States do not identify a fetus as a “person,” and murder is defined as killing someone already born. Hence, the pro-lifer’s argument against abortion because it is murder is moot.

Although some may be opposed to the idea, a woman must be at liberty to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. If a woman is not given the freedom of choosing to have an abortion, essentially her body is not hers anymore but the government’s and an unborn mass of cells called a fetus. As author Roger L. Shinn asserts, for a woman “to be forced to give birth to a child, against her will, is an overwhelming violation of her freedom” (Currie 40). Moreover, if denied access to medically sound abortions, a woman will instead only be forced to relinquish herself to an unreliable illegal abortionist. All of the achievements women have accomplished over the last century will be in vain if abortion is made illegal again.

---

Works Cited

“Abortion Timeline.” The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle Online. Accessed 12 March 2005 < http://archives.thedaily.washington.....Griswold.html >.

Currie, Stephen. Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.

“I’m Not Sorry.net: Celebrating the Right to Choose FAQ.” 2003-2005. Accessed 15 February 2005 < http://www.imnotsorry.net/FAQ.htm >.

“Lest we Forget…” Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, Inc. Accessed 17 February 2005 < http://www.wcla.org/articles/lest.html >.

Ojeda, Auriana, ed. Should Abortion Rights be Restricted? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2003.

“US Constitution: XIV Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. 1999. Accessed 13 March 2005 < http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut...ndmentxiv.html >.

---

hilbert25

I understand him just fine and iI believe that it's a cop out answer. I do not hold it against people for trying to peacefully stop something that they in their hearts believe is wrong, especially when it has an impact on an another human being's life. Would you say that Martin Luther King should have kept quiet, since he shoved his personal morals down America's throats that "Hey, maybe we should treat people equally?" Would you have admired him more for seeing something wrong but not doing anything about it? We see this as a rediculous answer now since racism is so repugnant, but think 200 years ago when slavery and racism were the more popular choices. How many people then complained about having some city people's morals force fed down their throats? Since the pro-choice movement is popular now, it's "admirable" to not want to go against the popular voice? I'm a worse person for wanting somebody to have a backbone rather than accept what they see as morally wrong? That's the attitude that leads to events that lead to the pizza thread in General Discussion.

EDIT:
I realized there is now a different thread about pizza in General Discussion, I was referring to the one about the fight.

hilbert25

Actually it should not be any different when your talking about morality. Why is it illegal? Is it illegal for moral reasons? Why is it illegal to kill someone who we happens to live in the same country as us, but it's not to do so to someone who's following a leader that we do not approve of? That's a whole different argument altogether, and please let's not discuss war, but only use as an example of how arbitrary legality is.
How about shoving scissors into their heads, opening them up, and inserting a vacuum? Morals should have nothing to do with legality. Not to compare the two, but I used slavery as an example that was legal and immoral in certain people's eyes earlier. Where do you draw the line?

I see it as a cop out when the morally wrong thing negatively impacts the life of a human being. Disregard first trimester abortions, that's a grey area. Disregard non-viable in the scientific sense of not being able to possibly live outside the mother's body (we have rather good incubators right now, so this is a smaller grouping that it once was). This is talking about directly impacting the life of a potential human being (I only use potential here to avoid an useless argument about where life starts) very negatively.

I will not hold it against people who have them now, I will not hold it against people that believe that it's right, but that doesn't mean that I can't get my jollies arguing over it in an anonymous forum, or that I won't try whatever way I can to fix what I see as a tragic loss of human life.

If you do not believe abortion is negatively affecting someone's life, then why do you see it as immoral? That is where I am confused.

hilbert25

Since I can't sleep at the moment, I have a few nitpicks/suggestions:


Just a suggestion, bu though a gruesome and vivid story, it seems to conflict with your repeated suggestion that the fetus is a cluster of cells and part of a woman's body. By assigning special significance to it's disposal, it almost seems like there would be an emotional attachment to it. But it is not rational to be as emotionally attached to clusters of cells like ones hair, nor is it especially compelling if the dog eats my toenail clippings. If in fact the fetus is simply part of the woman's body that is hers to dispose of, why would it matter how it's disposed? So what I'm saying is that although the rest of the anecdote is moving, this part seems inconsistent with the overall argument of the paper.

Bible version is necessary, since we're talking about translations of translations. Unless your quoting Currie directly, then it should be in quotation marks, but if possible, the primary source is probably the best. Also, you might want to address Genesis: 38.9 the infamous passage where a man is killed for contraception, which is awfully close, and argued by some theologians to cover abortion.

One issue is that the Talmud is completely incompatible with the Christian Bible. Another little nitpick would be "who is the theologian, and why does anyone care?" The Pope is considered to be the official leader of the Catholic Church, and if "while sitting on his throne" meaning with the agreement of the Cardinals, he is infallible, so if he says abortion is bad, and another says it's ok, it has very little impact. If you could explain who the theologian is and why he matters, it would help your argument.

kiaora

Heres just 4 of the reasons why I believe abortion is wrong.

1. size: Are you any less human if you are 6ft compared to 5ft? So just because an unborn baby is tiny doesn't make it less human.

2. level of development: are you less human if you have the language of a 3 yr old compared to a 21 yr old or if you have a mental or learning problem. so just because the baby isn't very developed doesn't mean it isn't a life. we are always growing.

3. environment: are you less human if you are somewhere else. eg. if i go to the moon am i less human. so if a baby moves about 20cm - from the womb to outside of it are they less human?

4. dependency: Are you less human if you depend on something else to live. we all depend on oxygen.

this is why I think life starts at conception.

la petite moi

Hilbert, great advice. I don't know who the Catholic theologian is; I found the quote in a book where he simply called that. Also, how is the Talmud incompatible with the Christian Bible, and why does that matter in the argument?

About the fetus being "disposed" by the dog- it mattered how it was disposed because if evidence was found, that doctor could be arrested for illegal abortion (even though he did end up being arrested anyway). The fact that women were turning to this just to get rid of an unwanted pregnancy is SCARY.

Willravel

All I can do is ask really nicely for women not to have abortions, as it is a morality issue and ther whole forcing of beliefs is totally wrong.

bad jane

ok, war is a whole nother topic! but to follow your example, do you think i wouldn't be put in jail for killing a citizen of iraq in the united states? i'm quite sure i would.
was the ban on partial birth abortions lifted? if so, i missed that in the news. some people were opposed to it, some people weren't. do i find the methods of partial-birth abortions abhorrent? no, i don't. i can see how some people would find it disturbing. for me however, i only care about what is best (safe and effective) for the woman. if she chooses one method of abortion over another for whatever reason, fine with me. the objective is to terminate the pregnancy and as long as that is accomplished in a safe and effective manner for the woman, it doesn't matter to me what method is used to accomplish that goal.

i think the line is drawn when the majority of the population in question agree on a particular set of morals. abortion is a heated topic because both sides feel they are right and both want to claim they have the support of the majority.

it is morally wrong to you--but not to everyone. the other poster was simply acknowledging that they respect the right of others to have different values and beliefs.

i don't agree with the kkk or christians, but i respect their rights to have their own beliefs that differ from my own. i also respect the right of those who believe abortion is morally wrong to not have one.

if you are mean "you" as in me personally, i don't see abortion as immoral. i've very pro-choice. if you are using "you" in the generic sense and refer to the poster who respects the rights of others to have beliefs that differ from their own--it isn't a matter of whether you (generic) view abortion as moral or not, but that you understand and respect the right of others to hold a different belief.

abortion may not be a choice i would ever make--but i fully support the right of women who may want that option to have it.