Social Question

DrMC's avatar

Abortion. Can it be defended by reason, ethically?

Asked by DrMC (2111 points ) January 10th, 2010

Abortion is described as a freedom.

A freedom of choice.

I challenge anyone to defend it on ethical grounds.

I tried in college in a class: the philosophy of ethics. Didn’t get a good grade. Professor said it’s actually very hard to do. (he didn’t look like your typical conservative either)

Very few legal scholars are satisfied with the defense and rationale of Roe v Wade. Right to privacy was just to justify the deed.

Does this mean if I kill my neighbor privately It’s OK?

There are ways to argue it – 2 people on a boat, will sink if you don’t throw one over. See if there is anything on the web that will follow a logical line – and then replace the fetus with a siamese twin. There are other logical tricks.

Good luck.

(sorry)

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

237 Answers

Trillian's avatar

Hello @DrMC . I’m not the least bit interested in defending it on any grounds. It appears that you are against it. Ok.
I will only say that to stop a girl/young woman from getting an abortion has not solved her problem, and everything is not black and white in this life. You now have a girl who is looking at becoming a single mother with inadequate means to care for the child. This sets up dynamics for multiple failures for the child. Low income (most likely) single parent with poor to zero parenting skills. Poor academics, poor physical and mental health. Increased risk of delinquent behavoiur, depression, promiscuity, intimacy difficulties, lack of social cue recognition, poor life choice skills, increased risk of substance use/abuse, increased risk of criminal behaviour. The child you’re trying to save today will be the juvenile delinquent/young adult that you want behind bars tomorrow.
Is there room for another option? Can we change the system to address the issues of the mother to be other than the colossal failure we have now that forces a woman to live in poverty and degradation with not much real chance or hope of bettering her own life? I admit that it is a HUGE undertaking, but I believe that if you stop an abortion from happening, you have in a sense saved a life. You are now responsible for that life. What will your next move be? Will you turn your back on it? To interfere with the process of life and death is to play God essentially. You’ve stuck your hand in and changed something, should you not see it through to the bitter end?
I believe that the father should be found and made to support financially, but too many young mothers are out there who are undereducated and unqualified to be effective parents. Abortion is a plausible ticket out for a mistake. It is not the definitive answer, but I am not qualified to say that it is worse than the alternative life that I just described. If abortion is not the answer, neither does it STOP at preventing an abortion. The girl/woman IS pregnant. You can go home to your nice, comfortable home in the suburbs and pat yourself on the back. You can feel better about yourself, like you’ve made a difference and stopped a murder. What alternatives does she have?

tinyfaery's avatar

Whose ethics? Whose reasoning capabilities? Allowing a woman to choose what happens to her body is certainly reasonable to me.

syz's avatar

What an odd details section.

If you want an “ethical” defense, you’ll need to delineate that boundaries of “ethics”. Good luck with that.

In the meantime, I will continue to support reproductive rights.

DrMC's avatar

@tinyfaery – good question.

since the task is so hard, I would be interested in hearing any logical discussion based on any interpretation of ethics, morality, expediency.

I am a wingnut, but I’m not interested in blowing the challenge. I’ve tried myself.

I’m interested in what the fluther does with the question.

Pseudonym's avatar

The question is not defending it ethically, it is what you think is ethical. When terrorists and suicide bombers destroyed the world trade center on 9/11, was it right? I sure don’t think so. But did they? Yes, they did.
Each side will think that they’re choice is ethical, so I don’t think that that is exactly the right word.

As for me, though, I am against abortion, because I think that their unborn baby could always be the next Albert Einstein or the next Gandhi, and everyone deserves a chance to live.

DrMC's avatar

I might add, that I understand the situation reproductive freedoms and lack therof causes.

That is an argument. Being angry about it, is just motivation.

I want the logic.

I don’t want to interfere wtih the innerworkings of the fluther – I’ll keep my mouth shut, unless questioned

Sarcasm's avatar

Greetings. I’m an unemployed college student, whose degree is nowhere in sight. I have no skills. I could possibly get a minimum wage job, though in this economy, even that’s unlikely.
If, by sheer luck, I was able to get laid, and if, by sheer lack of luck, protection failed, we would have a baby down the line.

That baby would be raised by parents who have little to no resources with which to raise him/her. Myself and my hypothetical “baby momma” would have to put a great burden on the rest of our family members for aid, as well as a great burden on “the system” for whatever aid we can get there.

In my book, straining the system when it’s completely unnecessary is unethical, illogical, and cruel.

Yes, aborting a fetus is sad. But forcing that fetus to grow up in such a stressed out world with such limited possibilities is far more sad.

tinyfaery's avatar

This is why I changed my major 4 classes away from a Philosophy B.A.

What does logic have to do with the choice to keep one’s baby or not? It is a personal decision based on a myriad of factors. I’d say most of the time the decision to abort a child isn’t about logic but emotion and necessity.

ParaParaYukiko's avatar

I was going to answer this question until I read the description.

From what I can tell, you already have a firm stance on the subject. I get the feeling you just want to start an argument that’s been made thousands of times already without the intention of having a different opinion at the end of it.

Watch “Lake of Fire.” It’s a great documentary on the subject that shows both sides equally. I won’t waste any more time stating my opinion if it won’t make any difference.

DrMC's avatar

@tinyfaery – I appreciate the emotional factor, it’s obvious and my essay was given a bad grade as such 20 years ago.

7 justices voted, but legal experts (in the democratic party) have been scratching their heads.

To defend it legally, and ethicall – you need a line of reasoning, which, if your shot is emotional try that.

I’m not going to grade these.

This is just from us, for us.

No one else is really capable IMHO

jackm's avatar

Abortion should never have became a political issue. When you really think about it (which i am sure many people do NOT) it boils down to one issue: Is the fetus a life.

If it is alive, no sane person would still argue for abortion, because that would be murder. If it isn’t alive, no sane person would argue against it, because it just wouldn’t matter what the mother did.

Any person who argues a different point is missing the real issue. @Sarcasm and @Trillian made a point that the baby wouldn’t have a good life, but if it is a life, then those points are moot, because any life is better than no life.

Cupcake's avatar

@jackm I completely disagree that “any life is better than no life”.

Pseudonym's avatar

@Cupcake Understood, but assisted suicide is illegal, so one can’t kill someone in America even if they have a horrible life.

dutchbrossis's avatar

I believe that what @Sarcasm and @Trillian said may be true about the baby not having a good life. I think that the baby should still have a chance to live and decide that for itself. There are people who can live without most things and still be as happy as could be.

@Pseudonym That was the reason my husband gave me for being against it, is we don’t know if that child would have been the next prodigy

filmfann's avatar

I am a Christian who supports a womans right to chose, and I will try and defend it.
In the first month and a half following conception, this isn’t so much a human life as it is a bacteria. It is unable to support itself outside it’s host body.

Likeradar's avatar

@Pseudonym Laws in the US =/= the ethically correct thing.

jackm's avatar

@Cupcake
So everyone who grew up poor, or in a family with one parent should kill themselves because it would be better to be dead?

Or are you talking about extreme examples?

DrMC's avatar

@filmfann – survival outside the uterus is worth exploring, as is the organismal level – like when does the organism have certain parts, and does lack therof exclude “personhood”

This is an argument that could be used, It’s the exact one I tried.

syz's avatar

@jackm You are creating a correlation where there is none. Choosing not to bring a child into the world when you cannot appropriately care for it is not the same thing as saying the poor should all kill themselves.

Pseudonym's avatar

@Likeradar whether the laws are correct or not is one thing; I was only saying why i find abortion to be contradicting American law if the fetus is considered a life.

dutchbrossis's avatar

I don’t remember who said it but “the people who support abortion have already been born”

Cupcake's avatar

@dutchbrossis – what is the child going to decide for itself? That it’s life is crap?

@jackm – woah – where did I say anyone should kill themselves? I gave no indication as to my personal belief in abortion. My comment was in regard to your sheltered and naive statement about life. For some children, every day is hell. It’s not my place to decide if they should have been born – they already were. My point is simply that you don’t have enough information to make such a statement. The agencies in place for ensuring safe and healthy lives for children fail many, many children. Parents fail many, many children.

jackm's avatar

@syz
But it is if we decide the fetus is a life. It is literally the exact same thing. Only we are making the decision to kill the child early

syz's avatar

You have an odd definition of literally.

jackm's avatar

@Cupcake
Please do not make assumptions when you don’t know what you are talking about. I am in no way sheltered or naive. I also didn’t say where I stand on abortion.

You said not being alive can sometimes be better than being alive. We were talking about poor broken families so I figured you were referencing what we were talking about in the conversation. But I also thought no one could actually think that so thats why I asked if maybe you were talking about much more extreme examples.

Either way you just clarified what you meant. You think that it would be better for the children you just mentioned to be dead than alive. I guess I can not argue with that because it is just your opinion, but you have to realize what you are saying.

@syz
actual: being or reflecting the essential or genuine character of something; “her actual motive”; “a literal solitude like a desert”- G.K. ...
without interpretation or embellishment; “a literal depiction of the scene before him”
limited to the explicit meaning of a word or text; “a literal translation”
misprint: a mistake in printed matter resulting from mechanical failures of some kind
avoiding embellishment or exaggeration (used for emphasis); “it’s the literal truth”

Thats the definition I use. Whats yours?

Trillian's avatar

Well @DrMC, is this what you were looking for? Because it looks to be on now. :-)

dutchbrossis's avatar

@Cupcake I am just saying every child should have a chance at life. Who knows, maybe everyone else would feel it’s life would be crap but the child could be happy and love life still. There are people who are just naturally happy no matter what. My life isn’t the greatest, but I am glad I got the chance at my life because I wouldn’t want it taken from me. I love being alive, and want to make my life better as I go

dutchbrossis's avatar

@filmfann Are you suggesting that because it can’t support itself that makes it okay ? If that is the case, then wouldn’t it still be okay at 8 months seeing as the baby still can’t support itself outside it’s host body ?

iphigeneia's avatar

@Pseudonym yes, there is a chance that child will go on to save the world. But I am sure that there is a higher possibility that that child will grow up and become a drug addict, unemployed, and/or a criminal. How many Einsteins have we had? How many maladjusted/psycopathic/unproductive people?

tinyfaery's avatar

Everyone who is against abortion should be forced to adopt a minority, drug-addicted, mentally disabled, physically disabled, or any combination thereof, child. Then you can flap your gums all you like about every child deserving a right to life.

I’m outta here. This is already going downhill. Have fun with your egos.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@iphigeneia That is all true. However, how would we know how many Einstein’s we would have had if we hadn’t of aborted all the babies/fetus’s we have aborted in history.

@Pseudonym Is saying that we just don’t know who we are killing could have became, and that is one of the reasons it isn’t a good idea

DrMC's avatar

guys, I know there is going to be emotion, I’m hoping to keep the discussion going in a mind opening sort of way. Do your best to present ideas

I wasn’t trying to start a slap down

DrasticDreamer's avatar

@tinyfaery Well said. I laugh at people who are against abortion that say, “Giving the baby up for adoption is always an option”. They’re not wrong, it is an option – but who is going to adopt those babies? Do these people know how many children are already in foster care? How many of those children spend their entire lives in foster care, with no sense of a true family? How many of those children in foster care are abused by the people who “take care of them”? How insanely hard and expensive it is, in America, to try and adopt a baby? Probably not.

Pseudonym's avatar

@iphigeneia I find it unthinkable to kill somebody because of what might happen.

JLeslie's avatar

If my neighbor needs blood or a kidney, I should not have to give him blood or my kidney. So, my argument is not whether the fetus is a life or not, but whether you can demand a man or women give their body to support another life? Personally, I feel the first few weeks, especially before the cells begin to differentiate it is not even a life to me, but a bunch of identical cells, but I understand that many believe that life begins at conception and I am fine with respecting that view. Even if it is a life equal to a 40 year old man, It does not affect that you are not required to support another life. I think there is this aura of pregnancy being easy and safe and la la la everything is wonderful and natural. But, pregnancy can be dangerous, and it takes from the mother, it is not a process that leaves no affect on the one who is carrying and delivering the baby.

Especially the government should not be able to demand you support another life.

iphigeneia's avatar

@dutchbrossis my guessing is that the ratio of very great people to bad people would stay the same. @Pseudonym I just went back and read your answer again, and found out I missed the second reason about everybody deserving a right to live. That’s a fair point, and I just wanted to say that if you were using the off-chance that a child could be brilliant as the only reason to be against abortion, that’s hardly sound logic.

dpworkin's avatar

I think I can defend abortion ethically by pointing out that more than 75% of pregnancies never come to term, largely because something goes wrong with the blastocyst, or something interferes with one of the two implantations. The theory is that these pregnancies were naturally terminated because otherwise there would have been a chance of producing a bad fetus (whether teratoform, or something else.)

So my argument (for the sake of this discussion) is that God makes abortions all the time, and just the way we help God decide who should live and who should die when a crime has been committed (and we are urged to do this in the Bible, for various infractions) we then must be entitled, in the absence of explicit prohibition, to help God decide which fetus should survive and which should not.

If there is no ethical flaw in exercising the death penalty, surely there can be no ethical flaw in abortion, am I not correct?

laureth's avatar

I had to do a paper for something like this in my philosophy class.

According to the Talmud, since God breathed life into Adam, the embryo cannot be alive until it has formed lungs. Prior to the development of lungs, the tissue is “like water,” not a person. If a belief in God informs your personal ethics, this may be enough to satisfy a quandary about a fairly early abortion.

According to other groups throughout history, one becomes “a person” at various times. In some old Germanic tribes, for example, a baby didn’t really count as a person until it had a certain ritual performed and a name given. In Rome, the pater familias had the right to expose any children the family didn’t want or couldn’t afford or who were imperfect. My point is not that “they did it so it is right.” My point is that ethics vary from place to place and from time to time.

What these three examples have in common is that it was acceptable to abort (or otherwise do away with) a being before it was counted among the People. Once Personhood is attained, it becomes ethically troubling. So the question is not “is abortion ethically acceptable,” it’s “when is someone a real person?”

For myself, I say that abortion is never a choice to be happy about. However, I have to give first precedence to the people who are already here. (Some “conservatives” do this very same thing when they sacrifice environmental responsibility for profits at the expense of future generations, so perhaps they will resonate with this idea more than one might think at first glance.) Until the baby is accepted by the family and named among them (at whatever point the family decides to do this, whether at birth, or before), it is not yet a person, as far as I’m concerned. The proper decision rests most rightly with the people responsible for raising and maintaining the baby, or otherwise dealing with the aftermath of their decision.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I tend to look at it from the Jewish point of view. Jewish law states that a fetus is a full person only after the head is born from the body (feet if the fetus is in breach position). Until that point, the fetus is viewed as potential life. The closer to birth, the greater the potential.

From that standpoint, the “trimester” system used in current abortion law makes sense. Personally, I think the process of getting a second trimester abortion is too burdensome. The laws on the books seem designed solely to make the process difficult, not to help anyone.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@pdworkin How is that? If I was for the death penalty the argument would be the death penalty is committed on people who have already committed murder. Abortions are on innocent babies who haven’t even been born yet.

However I am against both. This thread is about abortion though, so I will stick to the topic

dpworkin's avatar

Of course babies are innocent. So are many people who have been executed. We are not discussing innocence, we are discussing a Biblically supported ethical decision.

dutchbrossis's avatar

“thou shalt not kill”

fundevogel's avatar

@dutchbrossis
“Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock.” Psalms 137:9

Just sayin’. You can find a Bible verse condemning or okaying damn near everything.

dpworkin's avatar

@dutchbrossis, that commandment has been mistranslated. It actually says, “Thou shalt not murder” but there are sanctioned “killings” all throughout the Bible.

JLeslie's avatar

@DrasticDreamer I have found that the very religious seem to not care much about quality of life.

Trillian's avatar

@dutchbrossis, you’re misusing the scripture. As @Dr_Dredd just stated about jewish law, the baby is not a person until….@Laureth just gave three examples about the baby not being “viable” until…To toss off the phrase “Thou shall not kill is frivolous and unsupportable. If you want to use something on which to base an argument, you need to start with something solid, not a misquote.

spiritual's avatar

What I think we should consider is that due to advances in medicine, pregnant women can now be tested, to obain the likelihood of the baby having a genetic disorder.
People who have to face this, I doubt make a decision lightly, and if they already have a child with the said condition, they know what that child may have to go through.
I think before judging the ethics of abortion it is important to think about individual circumstances rather than generalisations.
What about women that get raped? Or suffer terrible sexual abuse from a family member? Are we to say that a poor soul who has endured that unbelievable pain has to have the assault and humilation from such an experience embodied in a child. I would hope that a child would always bring happiness, but we have to consider that does not always happen and we should not take away a women’s right to choose. As we cannot say how we would feel in these circumstances.

Haleth's avatar

@jackm “But it is if we decide the fetus is a life. It is literally the exact same thing. Only we are making the decision to kill the child early”

The mere fact that the fetus is a life form isn’t enough of an argument. Many people have no objection to killing life forms, like animals for the food we eat, bacteria when we wash our hands, or insects that are in our homes.

The usual argument to this is that it may be all right to kill a life form, but a fetus is human and it’s wrong to kill anything human. In the earliest stages of its development, a fetus is no more human than any other cells or tissue in our bodies, but we often perform surgery that removes living tissue, such as appendectomies or liposuction.

A fetus is human in the sense that anything in our bodies made up of human tissue and DNA is human. But before it develops consciousness, it is not a person or an individual.
At the early stages, it can’t form thoughts, but there is potential for the fetus to become a person. Until about 22 weeks when the fetus develops lungs, there’s also no chance it would survive outside of the mother’s body. The fetus is completely physically dependent on the mother for survival, and the existence of the fetus often puts the mother in physical danger. In the US the maternal death rate is 11 in 100,000. Since the mother is the only one in her body with consciousness, her rights are more important than the rights of a fetus if there she is in danger. If you asked the fetus what it wanted, there would be nothing there to say “I,” never mind being able to make a decision about what it wants.

Even without the presence of danger to the mother, her rights still supersede those of the fetus. A fetus is still completely physically dependent on her for most of its development. A fetus in early development can’t think, and it can’t survive on its own as a separate entity. Until it fulfills its potential of personhood, it is only an organism. We have a much greater imperative to protect the rights of the mother.

fireinthepriory's avatar

I think that it is impossible to defend abortion on purely ethical grounds. It is taking a human life, which is considered to be ethically wrong (I doubt many would disagree), and there is really no other argument that can be stronger than that.

Despite this I would never support abortion being illegal. It is simply too dangerous for the women, many of whom it has been proven will get abortions either way. Putting them in danger knowingly is also unethical. If you’re going to have to be unethical, better to save the people who are already alive and can make decisions, I suppose…

Mamradpivo's avatar

The answer to your question is Yes.

GingerMinx's avatar

So many seem to talk about killing a life. Everything requires a death to survive. We kill animals and plants to survive, even plants require the death of animals and plants to give it nutrients. It is the cycle of life.

laureth's avatar

@GingerMinx – I’m pro-choice as they come, but what eats human embryos to live?

oratio's avatar

I think there are good reasons for why abortion is legal, Doctor. There is a moral dilemma, but the question isn’t just if it’s justifiable to have an abortion, but if people can and will care for the child when it’s born. What situation are the parents in? People don’t use abortion for fun or because it’s convenient. It is a choice not easily made. Abortions will be made legal or not. I assume you have seen this one »

Setting children into the world with no regard to the situation, is not morally justifiable either. People living in e.g. Latvia, with one foot out on the street and not much in their stomach, they can’t possibly afford to take care of another child with a future that uncertain. Should a young woman studying in college, to make something out of her life, to make it possible to provide the best possible situation for having a family drop out and put a child in a tough situation? Then of course there are the rape conceptions.

There are 5 million children in the US that face hunger every day. » Kids get beat up, abused for no other reason than not being wanted. But at least they weren’t aborted.

Just making it about the child and making it a simple yes/no question is trying to make it simple for oneself.

What you seem to want to make of the question is if it’s ok to murder children. If that is your starting point, no argument will be credible to you. One also has to decide whether it’s a collection of cells or a sentient being at the time of the abortion. If one chose to invite religion into the discussion as well, you get further complexity.

Abortion was illegal. If you really have looked into why it’s not anymore, and still think that it being illegal is better, I am not sure there are any arguments you will listen too.

I think we must let people have the possibility to make that choice. They are the ones who will be responsible for the children being raised and cared for. And ultimately it is the womans body, and the womans choice.

jackm's avatar

@Haleth
Yes, as I stated above, if you think it is a life (I should have said human) then you couldn’t argue for it. If you think it is not a human life (like you do) then it makes sense to be for abortions.

But simply because we CAN debate whether its a human or not makes me err on the safe side and be against abortions. I just want people to understand where I am coming from. I don’t hate people who are for abortion, and I don’t want people to hate me for being against it.

@JLeslie
When you make the argument that you do not have to support anyone legally, you miss the fact that when a woman has sex they know there is a chance of getting pregnant. It would be like me telling you there is a small chance you will have to donate your kidneys if you walk into a certain room, but the room will be really fun to go into. You make the decision to walk into the room then complain about donating kidneys.

Trillian's avatar

@jackm and I noticed that you only speak about the woman having sex as if there were no contributing male who also presumably knows the ultimate possibility of procreation. Because when only a woman has sex, she’s by herself and NO possibility exists. you know what I’m talkin’ about. You diminish the entire thing into a two dimensional phrase and completely gaaaahhhh! Forget it, one cannot have a rational discussion with a person who sees everything in black and white.
You say you’re against abortion as if it were a uniform object. It is not. It is individual, and personal, and much much more than two dimensional.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Well, I’m sorry you didn’t do well on your paper – that’s your problem. There is no need to use any religious argument because not everyone believes in the same religion, therefore any reasoning using religion is irrelevant because it should not be applied in any uniform fashion – I, as an atheist, would be deeply offended to not be allowed to abort because abortion politics have been ‘informed’ by someone’s religious beliefs. So putting religion aside, the ethical reason to support abortion is because someone else’s body is not yours to decide upon – case closed.

Trillian's avatar

@DrMC. Yep. It’s on all right.

Haleth's avatar

@jackm I do believe that a fetus is human. I said that it is not a person. If, say, a fetus hasn’t developed a brain yet, it’s hard to argue that it is a person in the same way that you or I are people. It doesn’t have thoughts or consciousnesses. There’s no “just to be safe;” we have the medical technology to track the physical development of a fetus, and the developmental stages are well known. A fetus is human life during its whole existence, but during the early stages it’s clearly not a person. That’s why it is ethical to have an abortion early on.

benjaminlevi's avatar

Why should potential people be granted the same rights as actual people?

dpworkin's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I used a religious argument to meet the supposedly impossible challenge: to defend abortion ethically. I believe I succeeded, though there has as yet been no concession, neither has there been a refutation from the OP. However, this should not to be misunderstood to mean that I am in favor of a religious defense of abortion. I am an agnostic and a firm believer in situational ethics; I support abortion as a woman’s right to control her own body, and I depend on no supernatural reasoning for my stand.

jerv's avatar

@DrMC I want you to defend your own existence ethically. Can it be defended by reason either? By definition, “Ethics” involves right and wrong, morality, etcetera and therefore is highly subjective.

The real reason that abortion is not treated as murder is simply that, while we all agree that anybody who has already been born qualifies as “alive”, the same agreement has not been reached on the status of the unborn.

In other words, abortion is no more wrong than practicing Christianity, voting Democrat, or wearing green socks. If you wish to claim otherwise then you must first prove that your idea of right and wrong is actually correct, and then you must draw up a definition of “life” that we all can agree on.

If you pull that off, then we will get into the rights of the mother.

dpworkin's avatar

@jerv If the OP had wanted to do that, he would have asked the question without begging it.

DrMC's avatar

Good work all, as civil as it can be. Brownie points to those still working.

jackm's avatar

@Trillian I am being totally rational in this discussion. I do know how babies are made, I am aware that a man is in the picture. But men can not get pregnant, and therefor can not have abortions. I don’t see why you have an issue with this. I can’t debate anything else you said because it didn’t really make sense.

@Haleth Again, I understand that you say its not a human and that is why you are for abortion. I stated above (before anyone even brought up the argument) that this could be the only reason I would accept for people being for abortions. But don’t say science has come to a conclusion on the issue. Science still has no idea what consciousness is or where is comes from.

@pdworkin I recognize that you do have a legitimate argument for a religious person. The only problem is that religious people can’t listen to logic.

Sarcasm's avatar

@pdworkin, @DrasticDreamer, @spiritual, @Haleth.. I leave for a few hours and all 4 of you come up with such great points that I wish I had thought of. There are plenty of other amazing answers in here! But those 4 stood out to me.

@jackm, question for you (or for any other pro-lifers).
In your mind, would there ever be any excuses, so to speak, to allow specific abortions to occur?
Situations such as, the mother WILL die if labor occurs. Or, the mother was raped and this child is the product of it. Things like that.

Trillian's avatar

@jackm About your response to me; yawn. I’ll skip the next one, but I can’t let alone your final nugget of wisdom. Religious people can’t listen to logic? Can we begin with a definition of “religious people”? You can religiously polish your nails. You can religiously practice on the piano. Are you making a broad generalization and lumping a bunch of very different people and opinions and ways of doing things onto one group? you aren’t seriously trying to make a valid point in that manner are you? Because you must know that generalizations are a surefire way to lose credibility. If you have any.

DrMC's avatar

@jerv – that is an excellent question. And a good example. If one cannot justify ones own life, on what basis can you justify the other.

the simple answer, coincidentally tied to an earlier post is that a right is a freedom from action. An inalienable right derives from nature as per wikipedia.

Any supreme court ruling must mention at least the constitution (they did not).

In essence its the right to continue living. It requires no obligation from another (hint), It does not harm another (second hint). It does not require actions of another, only inaction (in other words don’t kill me please)

The 10 commandments ordains that you have the right not to have that taken away, and the constitution does not refute this.

It is so widely held that it is considered not worth arguing form the point of view from the constitution. We need not start with this assumption, but it may wear people out. Beware however. Any right you argue down will be used in a court of argument in the future. Muhahahh

There are other arguments that could be used.

Utilitarian. I do not have the right to commit suicide as that would disrupt commerce and employment for numerous individuals. My children would have an increased risk of suicide, financial hardship, and this just is the tip. Death is generally bad for the society. (some may not agree)

emotional plea – Oh woe is me, why should I die (like anyone in America would listen to that).

Legal plea – it is illegal to kill me.

This is a start, where would you like me to go with that?

The rights of the mother is dead on. Develop further, using any religion, ethical, logic, or mishmash you might like.

I would really like to see a rights of this versus rights of that. This is where the supreme court showed just how inept they were. I’m certain us amateurs could defend it either way better.

jackm's avatar

@Sarcasm Certainly. If the mother is at risk at all an abortion should be allowed. If she was raped then yes an abortion should be allowed. I probably should have made that more clear.

@Trillian I am quite sure you know what definition I was using. I was merely referencing the fact that many religious people say that logic is man made and therefor fallible. This is why god defies all logic. Plenty of religious people I know would not take it as in insult if I told them they can’t simply listen to logic. In fact they would probably tell you that first. Now could you please refrain from attacking me specifically. You have yet to respond to one of my arguments with a coherent and thought out rebuttal. Because you must know that ad hominem attacks are a surefire way to lose credibility. If you have any.

unless you come up with an actual response, I will refrain from talking to you anymore. Its a waste of my time.

Trillian's avatar

@jackm I fell no need to answer your arguments as I’ve stated my position quite clearly at the beginning of this thread. Sorry if you feel personally attacked, I thought I was attacking your tactics.

GingerMinx's avatar

@laureth I never said anything ate human embryos. My point was that saying an abortion is wrong based on the fact it is killing a life is ridiculous when we kill every day. Killing is part of our lives.

Sophief's avatar

I agree with abortion if it is through rape, if the couple are financially unstable or not in a loving relationship. I don’t agree with abortion if it is used as a form of contraception.

fundevogel's avatar

@Dibley I think that’s rather rare. It’s far cheaper and easier to procure typical contraception than it is to get an abortion. Any rational person would see that birthcontrol via abortion would be the worst possible means available, exempting a few even more extreme methods.

Plus contraception specifically refers to preventing fertilization, once you need an abortion the spunk has already hit the fan.

Sophief's avatar

@fundevogel My ex friend used it as contraception, because she didn’t want the pill in case it made her fat and her boyfriend couldn’t be bothered to put on a condom.

syz's avatar

@Dibley And some teenage boys stick fireworks up their ass. There are outliers on every bell curve – the rest of the world knows that it’s incredibly stupid.

Sophief's avatar

@syz It is stupid, she is only a baby herself, and she has no idea.

fundevogel's avatar

@Dibley I’m sorry to hear that, if it’s a matter of ignorance someone ought to give them both a solid shove in smarter direction.

Leanne1986's avatar

There are a whole load of reasons why I am more for the right to choose than against abortion and before I say anything I want o make it clear that pro-choice does not necessarily mean for-abortion.

For me the bottom line is this: I believe that a woman who is already fully formed and functioning in both body and mind should have more rights than an unborn feotus which, in the early stages, is little more than a clump of cells. I don’t think it is a question about what is ethical or not because, to me, abortion is no more unethical than forcing pregnancy and possibly motherhood onto a woman. For the childs sake as much as the parents, parenthood should not be forced.

My questions regarding abortion are these. Does the feotus feel pain when it is being terminated (assuming it is done within the legal time limit) and can the feotus think for itself causing it to be aware of what is happening? If the answers to these questions is yes then I am happy to rethink my opinion on this matter but with what I already know I have to remain pro-choice, ethical or not.

Edit: I forgot to mention that, until all the unwanted children in the world having loving parents and homes then I will never judge a woman for choosing an abortion.

mattbrowne's avatar

I think it’s unethical not to offer good sex education. Because this can lead to more unwanted pregnancies which do create ethical dilemmas.

Sarcasm's avatar

@mattbrowne Yes. I think we should all take a page out of Sarah Palin’s book. Abstinence-only education works! and we need to make sure everyone learns it.
While looking for that article I found this. Who would’ve guessed it?

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm Getting into the legal aspect, which seems to hinge on the ethical in many ways, think about this: when I have children who are already born, or a husband I love, and they wind up needing a kidney should the government require me to keep one of them alive with a kidney? I could just not get married and not have children and I would never have to worry about that dilemma; just like I could never have sex and not worry about getting pregnant.

What if I have all intentions of not getting pregnant, do everything right, and then a condom breaks? Then can I get the abortion? I am sure I can’t in your mind.You would just hold to I should never have sex. In the case of rape this might apply for you, but I kind of think if you are going to say abortion is never right then it is NEVER.

Also, I know a lot of pro-life people who are ok with IVF to make babies. If you (I don;t mean you personally) know anything about the science and how it is done, I do not see how you can be pro-life and in support of IVF. The Catholic church is against both and I give them credit for their consistancy.

Personally, I know a few people who are pro-life who have had abortions. One of the examples is Catholic and in the 4th month they found out something was very wrong, no chance the fetus could survive to term. They had tried for months to get pregnant, and were devastated. Anyway, when she got the news, and then sought a second opinion, it was obvious nothing could be done. The fetus basically had no brain. She immediately wanted to get an abortion. She did not like the idea of having a dying fetus in her, she could not imagine staying pregnant knowing what she knew, and she wanted to have a baby very badly, they had already waited months to get pregnant, the sooner she gets rid of this pregnancy the sooner she can try again. She and her husband were terrified to let their family know, because they were big time pro-lifers. What she found out was that Memphis, where we live, does not do abortions after 14 weeks. I honestly don’t know if that is a law, or we don’t have the doctors or what? So, the closest place was over 2 hours away in Little Rock, where her parents happen to live. So, she called and told them, and they were very supportive. She went to Little Rock, it was a two day procedure, so she had to stay overnight. Imagine if she was alone and in a city where she didn’t know anyone? She was very upset about her circumstance, it would have been awful if she had been in a hotel, and more expensive. But pro-life is happy to limit the availability of later term abortions.

Here is what pisses me off about the family of this woman I mention above. They vote pro-life. They think they are pro-life. It seems to me that pro-lifers do not take into account the possibility of things going wrong, which happens more times than we think. I feel sure they did not tell their religious community they, or their daughter had an abortion, so the secrecy, lies, and false beliefs continue.

It terrifies me to think that I will not be able to have control over my body medically, that doctors would be afraid to give me an abortion, if I needed one. The case I describe above she was not in danger at that point, so it is different, but I do think she should be able to have control.

What you miss is sometimes women who desperately want their babies choose to abort. It is not to kill the fetus, it is simply deciding what to do medically in a very sad situation. I guess it is more of a case of euthanasia than abortion, but maybe not even that. What you are doing is taking that fetus off of life support. In a way the fetus is parasitic on the host, completely dependent. This changes at 7 months when a baby can be removed and likely stay alive without extraordinary measures. What our courts refer to as viability. I think viability has actually been moved back to 51/2 months now, since babies are sometimes saved in the 6th month.

Also, I heard a statistic, can’t verify it though, that 90% of fetus’ found to have severe genetic abnormalities are aborted. I think more than 10% of the population is pro-life, so that means logically pro-life people are getting that abortion. Does that mean they present one face to their family and religious community, but act differently? I am assuming they just have not been presented with the bad situation yet and cannot predict how they would feel, but that is a problem to me. I do know women who would never abort under any circumstance, I respect that their choice, but there are ones who never bother to think something will go wrong. This is immature and unrealistic.

Leanne1986's avatar

@JLeslie You have just reminded me of one of the main reasons why I, personally, am pro-choice. You never know what you will choose to do until you have been there. It’s very easy for people to sit there and say “I’ll never do this!” but the truth is, we often don’t know what we would do in many situations. Who am I to judge someone for making a decision when, if in the same situation, I can’t say that I wouldn’t do the same?!

dutchbrossis's avatar

@pdworkin and anyone else who talked about me misquoting. “thou shalt not murder” still says the same thing. You shouldn’t murder someone, especially someone like an innocent baby. Also I am not the one who brought up the religious part of it.

@Sarcasm You are right about rape victims or mothers whose life might be threatened if she has the baby. Those are few cases where it may be a bit more okay. I know if I was raped and got pregnant, I wouldn’t get an abortion because I couldn’t have the heart to do that. I would be more understanding and sympathetic though then a person who had consensual sex and was stupid enough to not use protection. Everyone knows the risk of sex and if you get pregnant you should take care of the baby you knew you had a chance of having, not just kill it
@Leanne1986 Is right in you don’t know what you will do in a situation until you have been there generally. There are things people can feel strongly enough on though to know what they would and wouldn’t do

dpworkin's avatar

@dutchbrossis What is happening to the 75% of pregnancies that do not go to term? Is God killing the innocent babies? Or is He giving us a clue that they are not really babies yet?

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Are you ok with taking a pill after being raped so you don’t get pregnant to begin with? There might be conception already, but the embryo does not get a chance to attach. this happens all the time in nature. Also, you are calling the embryo or fetus a baby. It is not a miniature infant. The first two weeks it is a clump of cells, every cell exactly the same, not differentiated yet. There is no heart, not leg, no brain, etc. Or, do you believe the soul enters at the moment of conception and you are not referring to the physical reality of the fetus at all?

tinyfaery's avatar

So where is dutch’s adopted baby?

laureth's avatar

@GingerMinx – Your point is, if I read correctly, that we kill things every day because it’s the cycle of life. As you say, everything kills for nutrients, to eat. Then you mentioned that we’re talking about killing like it’s a horrible thing, and wondered why, because every day we kill to eat.

I maintain that killing to eat is, yes, necessary, but very different from killing in the sense of having an abortion. One does not have an abortion for the same reason that one kills to eat food. If I am wrong, and they are the same thing, I’d love to know what kills embryos and fetuses for food. That’s my entire point. If, say, euthanasia were legal, it wouldn’t make it OK to murder someone in cold blood because “it’s OK to kill some people, some of the time.”

jackm's avatar

@JLeslie If you look to my last response, you will see that I am not against all abortions. I said if the mother was at risk or if she was raped then an abortion is certainly an options. Just because some pro-life people are crazy doesn’t mean all pro-life people are. I have thought about it very rationally and that is the conclusion I came up with.

@pdworkin “god” kills people with cancer, people with heart disease, babies after they are born, perfectly healthy people in accident and many other people. It this him giving us a hint they are not really people?

fundevogel's avatar

@pdworkin Its closer to 30% of pregnancies ending in miscarriage actually, but your point is still worth considering. I’d hate for it t be disregarded because of erroneous statistics.

@jackm Clearly god is just an indiscriminate killer and I’m not inclined to frame my ethics around his inexplicable behavior or commandments.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@pdworkin I don’t believe in god. so what you said there doesn’t make too much of a point to me. I am sorry.The percentage is more about 10–30%.
@JLeslie I have stated that I believe it is more understandable in cases of rape or where the mother was at risk. I don’t know how I would react if I was at risk if I went through with it, I do know I wouldn’t abort it even if I was raped. It is a more acceptable reason though and I couldn’t judge them.Yes I would be even more acceptable to the morning after pill, I don’t believe it is for sure that there has already been conception.

@tinyfaery I don’t understand why just because someone else has made the decision to have unprotected sex knowing that the risks are much more likely to get pregnant that I should be forced to adopt that baby when I can’t. I am not the one who made the decision to have that unprotected sex. If I got pregnant though just by being irresponsible I don’t feel it is my right to have an abortion. There are way more couples and people who would be much more fit and looking to adopt. Which I will be someday is looking to adopt, that is a couple years down the road though.

I agree with you jackm about what you said about “god”, that would be if I believed in god

dpworkin's avatar

30% of known pregnancies, but far more terminate before the woman is aware that she is pregnant at all, resulting in a likely total of 75% to 77% according to studies (Gallup, et al 1997)

fundevogel's avatar

@pdworkin thanks for the clarification.

tinyfaery's avatar

You preach about a right to life but not given the opportunity to an abortion leaves too many unwanted babies living in foster homes and group homes, never knowing a family. What are you going to do about that life that had the right to live?

GingerMinx's avatar

@laureth My point is that we kill to survive, sometimes and abortion is the only way for a woman to survive. Its life. You are defining a fetus as a person, I do not.

jerv's avatar

Just to add something, here is an article called The Inconvenient Truths (For Both Sides) About Late Term Abortions .

It is telling that 48% of women who get late-term abortions (21+ weeks) cited their reason as having difficulty getting it done earlier, but that is the #2 reason; #1, at 71%, is that the woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation. Regardless of which side of the debate you fall on, I think that it’s an informatice article and well worth a read.

There is also Safe, Legal, and Early . Of note is that many pro-life laws/rules (like restricting the “Morning After” pill) actually increase the number of abortions, and they are generally later. Again, it’s informative regardless of where you stand on the issue.

DrMC's avatar

@jerv I was thinking about a line of reasoning to simplify. If we look before abortions started, when the only choices were unhappy or unready marriages or adoptions (or heaven forbid a coat hanger) – what of the outcome of those lives.

The argument is that those lives are not worth living. Definitely there is reduction of badness for the mother, and society if we are not burdened so.

In this life – what is the suicide rate? Do adopted children, children from forced marriages, with forced mothers chose to retain these forced lives?

I was going to dig up statistics, when I realized this was running better without my interference (and I was starting to get afraid of the demon I had summoned here).

Quite coincidentally It occurred to me that I was such a case. I generally never think about it,and lump it along with – “I come from white trash, what can I expect?”

Spooky coincidences have a certain effect on my, given the cult that I’ve joined has a certain view of these things.

I will tell my mother’s story briefely. A situation you will not be too unfamiliar with.

Catholic girl raised in the mountains, sent to a catholic university in the big city. Winds up pregnant out of wedlock the usual way. Prepares to give the baby up for adoption. The first time she goes it’s all and well and seems right to her.

The next time she goes she witnesses a distraught mother giving up her baby. I got the impression that the woman was extremely freaked out. My mother was disturbed and left the adoption center before her scheduled visit. She changed her mind. At one point she bragged to me that she was engaged to 3 men at once.

Now years later I wonder. Would abortion have been her choice? – I’ve not asked her, I don’t think she could accurately tell the abortee.

And what of this life. Definitely my life was difficult, and it was hard on my parents. Much of their unhappiness I think can be attributed to that. I didn’t ask to be born after all.

I hope no one is on their way to abort me.

I’ll tell you another brief one.

An outstanding student from one of the top universities in china, comes to America, and in graduate school. Falls in love and finds herself pregnant. She tells the boyfriend that she wants to get an abortion, but if they marry she will keep it. She will not try to raise it by herself. The boyfriend is stymied, and after some time the gynecologist says that he would not be comfortable with a third trimester abortion. The student is by now pissed at the the American. The American looks at the face of the baby in the ultrasound. The chin draws in, is it a deformity? No she says. Everything is normal.

They realize they are ill equipped to raise a child. No income other than student loans, both full time students. Neither is comfortable with killing something they can see.

They are quietly married, her with a grossly distended belly. The black baptist preacher scolds the couple in front of them, chiding them against the risk of infidelity etc. When he looks upon her abdomen, he says “Now you chillins are gettin married for the right reason.!”

I happen to know them both. She is unhappy, doing less research than she would have liked, the son is doing well in college.

Sometimes when I look at his well formed jaw I sometimes wonder…

jerv's avatar

@DrMC I recall the story of an acquaintance of mine from Texas who wound up pregnant. The boyfriend broke up with her, disavowed that he was the one to knock her up and all, the whole nine yards… until she said that she was going to have an abortion. Then he was all, “You can’t kill my kid!” yet he had no intention of ever being the child’s father or even kicking in some money to help raise it.

mattbrowne's avatar

@Sarcasm – Thanks for the article. Yes, she’s extremely dangerous and hope she never reappears on the national stage. There are very few people who are more ignorant than Sarah Palin. Sex education is just one issue she’s messing with. I can’t imagine the Republican party being so foolish in 2012. I mean they got some reasonable and educated people who could be nominated.

I’ve said this before. Bashing fruit fly research in 2008 really did it. I couldn’t believe what I was reading. How can the most innovative country in the word pick a complete ignorant fool like Sarah Palin as a vice president candidate? Portraying scientists as a complete bunch of idiots because they waste valuable tax dollars on fruit fly research. Palin really declared war on science as a whole with her remarks. It really shows the danger of creationist thinking seeing evolution as a hoax.

Maybe we should tell Palin this: Do you know what happens if you take the ‘build an eye’ switch-on gene of a mouse and insert it into a defective fruit fly genome without that gene? Palin will probably not believe this but the fruit fly with the mouse gene will construct eyes. This is how we are all related. The potential for humans studying fruit fly genes is enormous. Scientists do this research for a reason. Making fun of this disqualifies a politician to run for an important office. If Palin tries again in 2012, I would hope the Democrats will have a field day. I would ask all fruit flies in the US to invade Alaska and scare Palin so much that her ambition gets limited to shooting wolves.

http://www.salon.com/env/feature/2008/10/27/sarah_palin_fruit_flies/

laureth's avatar

@GingerMinx – Please do not assume that I define a fetus as a person. I do not.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis @jackm When I asked the questions I was not implying or assuming what your response would be, I was asking to find out your opinions. I realize not all pro-life people think the same on all parts of the issue.

Can you explain to me if you believe abortion is murder why you are ok in the case of rape? I am the one who said I kind of think if you are going to say abortion is never right then it is NEVER. I am not asking you to make the exception in the case of abortion, I am just looking for logic and consistancy. I understand why people more easily accept abortion in the case of the mother’s life being in jeopardy, because if the mother dies the fetus dies.

Cupcake's avatar

I agree with @JLeslie. If you believe abortion is wrong, why is it ok in the case of rape? What are the ethics involved with your belief?

In the case of incest, the mother’s typical young age would put her at greater risk of morbidity/mortality by carrying to term, as well as introducing genetic anomalies by the presumed close biological relation between biological mother and father. This, ethically, may fall under a similar category as when the mother’s life is at risk. Rape would typically not meet either criteria.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

abortion debates are always so long – and interesting once we get beyond the usual

Leanne1986's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I was just thinking the same thing. These threads never fail to surprise me though. Someone will say something either for or against the subject and I will often think to myself “good point, I never thought about that”. It rarely makes me change my mind but it always makes it worth coming back!

JLeslie's avatar

@DrMC If you had never been born you wouldn’t know it. I guess unless you believe that your consciousness goes to heaven and you have awareness? I’m not saying your mother should have aborted you, just saying you are looking at it from having been born.

I feel for you mother. I cannot imagine ever giving up my baby, except in incredibly dire circumstance where the childs life was in imminent danger (although I will say I do not have children, so you never know how you will actually feel in a situation). I was raised by a mom who talked about not getting pregnant, and if I got pregnant it would be on to the line at the abortion clinic. If I had refused I would have been raising the baby, and I feel sure my parents would have helped in the end. There was never any conversation about giving up a baby. I had never heard or thought of such a thing until in 11th grade someone I knew got pregnant and gave her baby up. I was shocked she would give away her baby.

I think adoption is a wonderful thing, I am not judging people who give up their babies, I am just explaining how I was not raised with the idea.

I am kind of confused by middle class people who can afford to keep the baby, grandchild, and give it up though. I know someone who knows someone whose teen daughter gave up her baby in an open adoption. She sees the baby every weekend. I think she should have kept the child.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie Considering how hard (and expensive) it is to raise a child, I can see it. My own mother was on public assistance for my early years and even when she was pulling in almost as much as a median two-income household, things were a little tight until my late teens when I started working myself.

I also know of a widow who is a mother of two and she got denied unemployment benefits because she couldn’t work any shift; she had to work around the schedules of the day care who would’ve eaten up enough of her paycheck that she would not have enough left to live on. Of course, when I tell some Conservatives about this, they say that her husband should’ve had a big life insurance policy to take care of them or that she shouldn’t have become a mother in the first place.

It seems increasingly like reproduction is a privilege that only the rich deserve, at least in our unsympathetic society. Unfortunately, abortion also has a stigma attached to it just like poverty, so that means that those who can’t afford to raise a kid on their own shouldn’t even have sex since pregnancy is a risk you run when you bounce the mattress; if you can’t afford the consequences, you shouldn’t take the risk, so therefore only the rich are even allowed to have sex (according to some Far Right wingnuts I’ve heard).

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv I find parts of what you said very interesting. I think it the insurance policy comment would more likely be coming from people who have higher incomes rather than political party or liberal/conservative, I don’t associate a comment like that with conservatives.

Also interesting your comment that reproduction is a privilege. I think I have sounded like that on other threads. I recently commented that people should think about if they can afford children before they have them. Now, my comment really has little to do with abortion, I am talking about planning children. Really considering, not letting it happen by accident. I do have room for birth control failing, and teenagers being teenagers, I am forgiving, understanding that anyone can make a mistake or have something not go as planned, but I am critical of those who just have one kid after another, because the middle class for the most part is controlling how many children they have. How come they have to and the poor don’t?

I have been especially judgemental about people having children while on public assistance, not to be confused with having children already and winding up on public assistance due to a bad turn.

Also, if there is an intact family, does not have to be a mommy and a daddy, might be two mommies, might be a mommy and a grandma, but more than just one person who can help be responsible for the child and be a consistent role model, I think that makes things easier and better, even if they are poor.

My father grew up VERY poor. They had enough to eat, lived in a one bedroom apartment, he, his sister, and parents. Luckily, the city had very good public schools and he was able to go to college for free. It’s not like I think badly of the poor, far from it. I think things can change in a minute for anyone, and there but for the grace of God go I type of thing.

I also have said there is poor and there is poor. Poor, living out in the country, with at least a roof over your families head and maybe a farm, and enough food to get by, is a very different than living in the inner city, in an unsafe environment, difficult to pay rent, etc. Wouldn’t it be better to just have one or two children and live in a safer place, then to have five and live in the ghetto? Or, to delay having children to save some pennies and establish a better life economically before having children? This is where I get a little judgemental, there should be a little bit of planning.

These far right wignuts as you put it, I don’t think of them as dwelling on the money, I think of them as dwelling on the morality. Your view is very very thought provoking for me, an angle I really had not thought of. A Catholic friend of mine said she had a priest in the past who used to say that the best thing you can give your children is siblings; he did not give a damn how well they were provided for financially.

jackm's avatar

@JLeslie I wouldn’t judge someone who had an abortion after a rape because they were forced into pregnancy with no thought or action of their own. It would be like if I snuck into your house in the middle of the night and hooked up someone’s life support to you. Now I would say the “moral” thing to do would be to keep the baby and put it up for adoption, but I know that morals are relative, and also that is a lot to ask of someone.

The abortions I am against are abortions where the couple has sex willingly and accidently gets pregnant.

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm So, do you feel like it is their punishment, or that people have to live with their mistakes? Is that why the couple has to go through with the pregnancy? What if it is a 14 year girl who just did not act responsibly? Can’t we give her an exception like we would in jeuvenile court for a crime?

I still have ahrd time wrapping my mind around the baby being able to be killed because it was a rape, but I am glad you feel that way.

Since you are ok with rape or mother at risk, do you see any responsibility to make sure women can have safe abortions? Abortions that are minimally physically traumatic to the mother? I worry that as pro-life makes more headway they discourage doctors from going into the field, fewer doctors are trained in the procedure, especially late term abortions. I mean if it is your daughter, with a failing pregnancy, do you want the baby removed in the best way so she can go on to have children again if she wants, and can recover quickly?

One last question, does it matter to you when the abortion happens, or do you see it all as equal?

I appreciate your answers. I hope you see that I am not trying to be combative, just interested in understanding how you think about these things.

Likeradar's avatar

@jackm How do you feel about abortions when people get pregnant despite being on birth control?

GingerMinx's avatar

@laureth This example you used, “That’s my entire point. If, say, euthanasia were legal, it wouldn’t make it OK to murder someone in cold blood because “it’s OK to kill some people, some of the time.””, Suggests you assume a fetus to be a person, otherwise I can not see a reason for citing it. Perhaps I missed your point.

jackm's avatar

@JLeslie No. I certainly do not think it is a punishment. I am not trying to teach these girls a lesson at all. I simply think it is a life that should not be taken. Say if someone got an STD from sex, I wouldn’t think they should keep it just as a punishment. If someone had heart failure from a bad diet, I wouldn’t be against surgery to treat them. You don’t seem to get that I think it is a life. Once you are able to understand that I think it is a life, then it makes more sense I am sure.

I still have ahrd time wrapping my mind around the baby being able to be killed because it was a rape
As I stated, it is still killing the child, but the mother had no doing in creating the baby. I can’t ethically force her into carrying the child.

@Likeradar No birth control is 100% effective, and everyone knows it. It is a risk that you knowingly take. So you should have to deal with the consequences. So yes, I am against these abortions.

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm it’s confusing to me. The baby is a life. If it is a life from a rape, then I guess you are willing to kill it for the mothers sanity? And you said to @Likeradar people should have to deal with their consequences, I kind of think that is like punishment. Jane can kill her baby because some man forced himself on her, but Cindy who barely knew what she was doing at the age of 14 and gave into peer pressure has to live with her decision.

I am not trying to convince you to change your mind about your beliefs for yourself, your own situation, if you had an unwanted pregnancy. I just want you to allow for law that can give people the freedom to get an abortion if their view does not agree with yours.

Likeradar's avatar

@JLeslie Good point, and it’s an argument I’ve heard anti-choice people make before and I don’t understand. If life begins when sperm and egg join (as many people believe), why is it ok to end the life in one situation and not another? Why is some murder ok and some isn’t based on how the life was formed?

dpworkin's avatar

And why would God ever allow it to happen spontaneously, if it is such a sin and a crime?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@pdworkin insert something about having one’s faith tested here

dpworkin's avatar

Yeah, there is always some fuckin’ explanation.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I think the rape exception can be defended on these grounds. You may think that a fetus is a life from the moment of conception, but the right to life is not absolute. For instance, as someone above said, we don’t force people to donate bone marrow or other organs to save a life. We execute criminals, which should be anathema to anyone who is pro-life.

If that’s the case, then we as a society can decide that a fetus’s right to life does not outweigh a mother’s psychological health in the case of rape.

My own personal belief is that a fetus is only a potential life, up until viability.

Fernspider's avatar

@jackm: “I am not trying to teach these girls a lesson at all.” and “As I stated, it is still killing the child, but the mother had no doing in creating the baby. I can’t ethically force her into carrying the child.”

I don’t understand the mentality of your statements which suggest it is the womans fault and responsibility. The man has equally taken part and equally responsible for the result.

My other issue is that an accident life is more of a life or has more rights in your mind than a life resulting from a rape. I thought that the “baby” was a life, right?

I just get so confused because it does seem a little off that in your mind abortion is wrong if the sex is consensual and therefore the option should be taken away from a couple to abort but if it was a rape then the “baby” suddenly is exempt from it’s right to life. It does unfortunately sound like a punishment type of situation and a contridiction of moral.

A resentful parent would not be the best parent, I am not sure that forcing the pregnancy would be healthy on the family or the child.

JLeslie's avatar

@Dr_Dredd My most religious friend who is pro-life on the subject of aborting downs syndrome babies, says that she thinks it awful that we value a certain type of life differently than another. So how can we value the mother more than fetus? Even in the case of rape? Maybe it was God’s plan for the woman to get raped? Some reason we mere mortals cannot understand? I don’t want to put words in @jackm mouth, maybe he is ok with aborting fetus’ who have genetic defects.

@pdworkin I think the religious would say only God has the right to decide when it is someone’s time, even a fetus.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@JLeslie By the same token, then, how can your friend value the fetus more than the mother?

JLeslie's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Do you mean value the mother’s decision if she wants to abort a fetus with genetic problems? Or, do you mean she should be ok with a woman who wants to abort in the case of rape?

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I actually mean any reason for aborting that involves the life or health of the mother. I guess I’m different from your friend in that I don’t think the right to life of the fetus trumps all else.

JLeslie's avatar

@Dr_Dredd I agree with you. She is saying that people who abort a genetically abnormal fetus in her mind are demonstrating they don’t value that baby as much as they would a “normal” baby. She finds that abhorrent, because she feels it is not for us to judge which life is more worthy. So, this is not a case of mother vs. fetus. But once a person starts talking about life, and which life is ok to kill or save my mind starts trying to put dots together. I don’t know how she feels in the case of rape. Again, I am always looking for the logic and consistency, I think you are also.

laureth's avatar

@GingerMinx -Yeah, I used a bad analogy and I apologize. My point would be more clearly stated as, “Because we kill some animals/plants for food, doesn’t mean that all killing everywhere is okay.” I don’t give a fetus personhood, but if it is not a person, is an abortion killing?

Re: abortion OK in cases of rape, but not cases of oops – I, too, don’t understand how a fetus can be a person worthy of protection in one case, and not in the other. To me, also, it is like saying, Well, if a man raped you and beat you up, it’s not your fault and we’ll bandage your wounds at the hospital, but if you were skiing and fell down the slope and broke your leg, you can suffer because you were just skiing for recreation.

jackm's avatar

For every who seems so confused as to why an abortion should be allowed in cases of rape and not of accidental pregnancy, here is my last explanation. If you seriously still don’t get it then that suggests either you aren’t reading what I am saying, or you are specifically ignoring logic to support your case.

In general I am pro-life, just as almost every human being is. I support people living. I support people not killing each other. I don’t support war, I don’t support the death penalty. I do however know the world is not perfect. We can’t stop all killing. Sometimes we kill people in self defense. Sometimes we kill people in accidents. Cars kill many thousands of people each year, but just because I support people’s right to drive a car does not mean I am for killing people, it also does not mean I do not consider those people who die “people”

Does this make sense so far? (I am guessing a lot of people who are for abortion can use this logic, and do)

Now, here is where is may get tricky for some of you. I DO think that a fetus is a life. So logically, I do not want to kill it. Now, just as above I realize that this can’t always be the case, but for the most part I do not want them dead. When a woman is raped she is forced into that pregnancy with no act of her own. So she can choose to abort. This does not mean I do not think it is a life, just as it doesn’t mean I don’t think it is a life when someone kills another in self defense. This also does not mean I think the woman SHOULD abort, just that I shouldn’t be able to stop her.

If you think a 14 year old “barely” knows what she is doing, you are lying to yourself.

GingerMinx's avatar

@laureth You can kill things that are not persons. So yes, abortion is killing a life form.

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm When I say a 14 year old barely knows what she is doing, I only mean that teens take stupid risks all of the time. It is known by observation and has been supported by science that teens do not completely process consequence, or the real possibility of consequences. I did not mean the girl doesn’t know what sex is, or is unaware it makes babies.

I am fine with your explanation of why you are willing to be ok with abortion in the case of rape in as far as you are comfortable enough in that extreme case you can be understanding, in the same way we all might have exceptions in extreme circumstances for many different topics. So what is your opinion if the woman gets pregnant and is going to have a nervous breakdown if she has the baby? You seem to be focusing on the circumstance of HOW the baby was created, rather than the affect on the mother if she continues the pregnancy. I have a close friend who just put herself through surgery so she doesn’t have to worry about getting pregnant anymore. She could not get it done at the hospital she usually goes to because it is a Cathilic hospital. She is 42 with one child (who is a handful) and divorced. After 5 years of not dating anyone, she finally found someone special, but was freaked that she could get pregnant. Pretty much if you use birth control properly you are not going to get pregnant, but on the off chance, she would not have abortion available. If the accident does happen is she supposed to give that baby away? I can’t fathom it. Giving away a half sibling to her child? Not to mention giving away her baby. I mean I have trouble with the idea in the first place, giving away a baby, it is such a foreign idea to me. I don’t judge, I have great respect for women who do it. Is she supposed to never have sex again, because she can’t see marrying again? This particular friend would not abort, because she is pro-life, that is why she had the surgery, which is against her church, but if she was pro-choice are you ok with that abortion?

tinyfaery's avatar

Pro life is never the term to use in this case. Use anti-choice. As @jackm points out, most people are pro-life.

JLeslie's avatar

@tinyfaery good point. I will do my best to remember. I also want to change the language of the pro-choice people to stop saying womens rights, because I think it is a human right not to be required to support another life as I implied in my first answer. Especially, when speaking of the topic in regard to law. I don’t understand why many times the same people who say they want less government, want to empower the government to order you to maintain another life with your own life’s blood with punishment of jail or whatever punishment they want to dish out. Or, maybe they don’t think of the punishment they just want the illegal nature to stop doctors from performing them in fear of losing their license. To be honest I am not sure what they are really going for ultimately? Jail if you get one?

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I’m sure some of the anti-choicers would like to see doctors who perform abortions in jail. They can’t say they want to put women who have abortions in jail, because that would be a political nightmare for them. The more radical anti-choicers want abortion as a death-penalty offense.

JLeslie's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Now that is scary. What an irony, death penalty offense, but thou shalt not kill.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@JLeslie What I find the most frightening is that Roeder (the guy who murdered Dr. Tiller) is trying to use a “necessity defense” in his murder trial. He’s going to argue that he HAD to kill Tiller in order to prevent future fetuses from being aborted. The scary thing is that the judge is going to allow it. (Not completely, but he will allow Roeder to argue that he should be charged with manslaughter instead of murder.) What the hell is this country coming to?

JLeslie's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Obviously I am disgusted and horrified by the murder of Dr. Tiller. Legally speaking people have used a defense for murdering someone out of self defense, even when they were not in the moment of attacking saying that their life had a high predictibility of being threatened in the near future. I think they have done it in cases where women have killed their abusive husbands.

I tell you the emphasis on hatred towards late term abortion doctors is actually very very upsetting to me. Almost worse than abortions as a general subject. The vast majority of late term abortions are women who wanted their babies.

I have had unsuccesful pregnancies. A couple were etopic, the rest miscarriages. If I was ever lucky enough to get pregnant again, I would be nervous to stay here, in the bible belt south to be treated throughout my pregnancy. I have St. Francis, Methodist, and Baptists hospital here in town. My sister worked at Holy Cross for a while in another state, and she remembers one time a woman was told she had cancer and her best chance was to abort her pregnany so she could get treatment. She had to be transported to a different hospital to get the abortion. Isn’t it enough that she had a horrible situation to deal with? Isn’t that close enough to choosing the life of the mother and the life of the fetus?

JLeslie's avatar

Slightly changing the recent direction the thread is going. Have any of you read Freakonomics? The authors make a point of drawing statistical correlations between legalization of abortion and a large deline in crime. Crime rates went down significatly several years later when these unwanted babies would have started to become teenagers, and then continued to decline. We can’t be 100% sure it actually had an effect, but if it did, if it has a positive affect on society at large does it matter? Kind of the idea of the few for the many.

dutchbrossis's avatar

Just to make it clear to everyone I agree with Jack that it is a baby/life therefore I am against abortion. I don’t think I am hypocritical, I don’t think it is right in the cases of rape either. I think it is more understandable because like Jack said she didn’t make the decision to have sex.

Jack isn’t saying that it is not the man’s fault when it is consensual, but the reason he talks about the woman mainly is because the woman is the one who ultimately makes the choice.

I am pro-life, I am against abortion, against the death penalty, and against war

@JLeslie I have a question. Why do you say it is hypocritical for people to be anti abortion and be okay with IVF conception ?

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Well, I guess it depends on why you are anti-abortion, but basically when you do IVF you create embryos, you only put 2 or 3 back in the women, statistically it is likely to fail. So you are creating “life” just to let it die the majority of the time, especially if a person chooses to ignore the science which @pdworkin has pointed out many times that spontaneous abortion happens in nature all of the time it seems hypocritical. Not to mention that once you get the 2 or 3 put back, the rest are going to be kept in a deep freeze, unless you destroy them. The deep freeze could be forever, unless you donate them to someone else, or just keep using them for yourself even if you already have more children than you wanted. I don’t see how a person can feel a life or soul is created at conception and then be ok with the realities of IVF. But maybe there is a reasonable rational I have not thought of?

DominicX's avatar

@JLeslie

I just thought I’d say that I don’t think saying because spontaneous abortion happens, being against abortion is hypocritical. People die in nature all the time, so is it hypocritical to be against murdering someone?

JLeslie's avatar

@DominicX Ok. Hypocritical might be a bad word. I just get frustrated with the lack of attention to science by many against abortion, not just this, but other things like the embryo isn’t differentiated yet, but it is still considered a baby to them. I think it really depends on each person, some people who consider themselved pro-life are ok with the morning after pill for example, but some aren’t.

How do you feel about being ok with IVF and against abortion, is that hypocritical?

jackm's avatar

I just want to throw this out there.

Many of your arguments FOR abortions are debunkings of crazy pro-lifers. Just because there are crazy people arguing for it does not make it wrong. I am for marijuana legalization but I am not a crazy hippy.

If you could focus on specific reasons why you are for abortions it might actually sway me. Like someone said above (can’t be bothered to look for it now) that just because I think its a life, doesn’t mean I should force my ideas on other people. This made me think, and I have nothing to say to that. To be honest I may have just become pro-choice.

Cupcake's avatar

Woah… a fluther breakthrough!!

Just kidding, @jackm. I applaud you for being open minded.

DominicX's avatar

@JLeslie

Yeah, that would be a little hypocritical, and some people I’ve met who are against abortion are against that as well. As far as they’re concerned, they’re the same thing.

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm That is the whole point of the whole thing. Since we have different ideas of when life begins, we cannot have a government deciding it for us, or which life is more important a mother or a fetus. I don’t think you are a crazy pro-lifer by the way, if in any way it came across like that, it was not my intention. Just a discussion you know :).

JLeslie's avatar

@DominicX Sure, like I said above I respect the Catholic church for being against both, because it is consistent.

jackm's avatar

@JLeslie
I do still have a problem with people arguing as their reason something other than it not being a life.

JLeslie's avatar

@jackm Ok. My main argument is that the government should not be able to demand another person supports another life, so I’m covered :).

My biggest worry is safe abortion for those who need one. I am not even arguing for those who want it at this moment, I mean need it.

Cupcake's avatar

@jackm – I don’t think there are great arguments for abortion. Who wants abortion? It’s a heart-wrenching decision to make as a mother.

There are some situations in which a lot of people can agree that abortions may be appropriate: when the mother’s life is in danger, when the fetus has an anomaly incompatible with life outside of the womb, possibly cases of incest or rape.

There are other situations in which some people can understand the choice of a mother to terminate her pregnancy: potential health concerns, domestic violence, economic issues, life goals/timing, maternal age, etc.

There are some people who look down on others for using abortion as birth control, or instead of “proper” planning.

It appears as though many people who are “pro-life” have certain religious or moral convictions that they wish to impose on others. I, for example, follow a religious teaching that the soul is present at conception. Therefore, I would carefully consider an abortion, through consultation with my partner and medical provider, only in the circumstance of the continued pregnancy threatening my life. I would probably not engage in IVF, knowing that fertilized eggs could be disposed of after a successful pregnancy or facing the possibility of needing a selective reduction.

However, these are my personal beliefs. Socially, I am avidly pro-choice. I don’t believe abortion should be on the governmental radar whatsoever. I believe abortion, as a medical procedure, should be a decision made between a mother and her health care provider.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cupcake IVF you choose (well you and the doctor, but most doctors put 2, some 3) how many embryos are placed back in the womb, so very unlikely to get more than 2 babies. Artificial Insemination (AI) with drugs that make you produce many eggs is the procedure that can give you bunches of babies at once. You choose what happens to unused embryos after an IVF cycle, freeze, dispose, donate etc. I was not sure you were clear on all of that.

Cupcake's avatar

@JLeslie Drugs that produce many eggs are used in IVF so that they can remove many eggs to inseminate. Then sperm is introduced and the cells are incubated and watched for days. The patient and doctor decide how many to implant. The rest are frozen, donated or discarded.

I’m an analyst in a NICU. I read mother’s charts all the time. Many IVF patients are encouraged to undergo reduction. That, IMHO, would suck.

Plus, I have a major issue with having “extra” embryos out there… frozen, discarded or otherwise.

My point was along the lines of our previous comments about consistency.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I think @JLeslie hit the nail on the head here: “Since we have different ideas of when life begins, we cannot have a government deciding it for us, or which life is more important a mother or a fetus.”

Exactly. Reasonable people can and do differ on their definition of life and when it begins. I don’t have a problem with that. I do have a problem when someone (usually in the name of their religion) tries to impose their belief on me. I come from a religious tradition that believes personhood begins at viability. I won’t force that on someone else, and I expect the same courtesy.

jerv's avatar

I think @Cupcake pretty much nailed it. I don’t know of anybody who is pro-abortion to the point where they actively go out and try to get pregnant women to terminate their pregnancies, and I seriously doubt you will find anybody who is.

However, you will find many people who believe that others are entitled to at least a little latitude in their morality, that we have the right to believe something other than the official party line, and that we humans are entitled to free will. So long as the belief that life begins at conception is not 100% universally accepted, abortion pretty much has to be aa legal option if we are to be considered a free country.

And one thing that people often forget is that “pro-choice” means that you can choose not to have an abortion.

JLeslie's avatar

@Cupcake They remove many eggs, but they only put back 2 or 3 embryos, usually 2. The octomom is a horrible exception, and she had agreed to putting back many more than 2 embryos. I was not questioning your consistency, I was just explaing that IVF rarely produces 4 and 5 babies. It would mean each embryo split into twins or triplets, etc. During IUI a bunch of eggs are released, can be 10, 20, and possibly all of them can have conception. During an IUI cycle if a women had 20 the cycle should not be completed; but, actually the AI part is not necessary, if the husband/SO has a strong sperm count they can just have sex and see what happens.

Likeradar's avatar

@jackm Awesome. :) I love that not only are you open-minded enough to actually think about other people’s opinions, but you’re secure enough to say so.

tinyfaery's avatar

Pro choice not pro abortion.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

According to my mom, an embryo isn’t viable until it graduates from medical school.

Cupcake's avatar

@JLeslie I get your point. Sometimes, though, even with twins there are reasons to reduce. That happened to my coworker after several rounds of IVF and it was horribly painful for her (she had lost 2 young children in a fire years before). Fortunately she ended up with a healthy little girl.

dutchbrossis's avatar

Can someone please provide me a link to the IVF process and all that so I can understand why it would be hypocritical to be pro-life and pro-IVF ? thanks

jerv's avatar

@dutchbrossis Well, the obvious choice for am in-a-nutshell view is Wikipedia but the gist of it is that multiple eggs are fertilized yet not all of those fertilized eggs become babies; some are frozen (and of those, many are never used), some are used for stem cell research (BIG no-no in the eyes of most pro-lifers), and some are merely discarded.

laureth's avatar

Stem-cell research (where allowed) often uses these leftover IVF embryos. That’s why I’m amazed at the arguments of people who are against stem-cell research because “it’s a life.” It’s not like they’re performing abortions to get stem cells. I suppose they believe that life should end up as medical waste in a dumpster as God intended?

On the other hand, there are advocates for the embryos (which they refer to as “snowflake babies” or “snowflake children”). Some of them go to couples who wish to adopt them and bring them to term. As their website says, “There are over 400,000 frozen embryos in cryo-banks in the United States. These are pre-born children waiting for a chance at life.” While I question their definition of the word “born,” I do admire pro-life people who are willing to take that step and actually take care of the beings they cause to be brought to birth.

Leanne1986's avatar

To everyone who provided the info on IVF, thank you. I’ve learnt something new from this thread!

JLeslie's avatar

Just to reiterate it is up to the couple what happens to their frozen embryos. Whether it be for research, donated to another couple, destroyed, etc.

@dutchbrossis I don’t think there is any conflict with pro-life and AI (although can be irresponsible in my opinion, because they are not willing to selectively reduce), many people confuse the fertlity procedures, and they are very different, which is what I was explaining above.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie Many people confuse the procedures thus creating the conflict.

Sampson's avatar

I think we should abort ALL the babies.

DrMC's avatar

I don’t think it’s fair to hold the abortions against the mothers or doctors in this debate, any more reasonable that it is to hold the genocide of world war 2 against the German people.

My grandfather was against throwing hand grenades into bunkers – they were just scared ignorant farmers in those villages, with dictator after dictator coming through, demanding recruits, wheat, and horses. It was hard to hold the war against them.

In society we have decided (without clear published and universally accepted line of reason) that abortion is allowed, therefore right.

The doctor who follows the law, ignorant of the ethical complexities, is like the prison guard in a concentration camp where mentally ill people are being euthanized. The woman is symbolic of the benefit to society by removing the unwanted.

One argument you have to defend if you consider it a life, but worth terminating for the greater good was asked to me long ago in that philosophy class

Is it worth all the greater good in the world, if it comes at the expense of a single soul tortured to death? – this is the weakness to pragmatism – not all means can be easily justified by the ends.

The issue of people, potential people, etc disturbs me. I Hitler’s view – those outside the circle were not people. To the Japanese – after taking Nanjing – they took thousands of prisoners, but did not have the resources to retain them

This was the solution ordered by the emperor

To the Japanese, other Asian races were a waste of skin.

I think we need to be 100 miles away from the question of personal value of an individual.

dutchbrossis's avatar

My view about this IVF conception, the eggs may be fertilized but they still don’t live off of a host body yet right ? Like once the egg is fertilized in the mom’s womb it would be a living baby in my eyes…

laureth's avatar

@dutchbrossis – so, for you, life does not begin at conception?

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Laureth took one of my questions, the other two are: are you ok with the morning after pill then? And, Are you ok with embryonic cell research?

dutchbrossis's avatar

@laureth I believe life begins at conception when it is inside the hosts body

I don’t know enough about embryonic cell research or the morning after pill to decide…..

tinyfaery's avatar

Host—just like a parasite.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Interesting. Thanks. Do you vote on the issue of abortion one way or another?

dutchbrossis's avatar

I haven’t no. If I was to I would not be pro choice though

laureth's avatar

”...At conception when it is inside the hosts body” – that’s a very interesting definition. Location, location, location, eh? :) So there’s something about being inside the womb that allows life to enter the body created by the conception, but life is powerless to enter the body when not in the womb? It’s a definition I’ve never heard before.

jerv's avatar

Like the law, morality has to adapt to technology that our forefathers never dreamed of.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@laureth Without the host or being frozen it would die anyway right ?

laureth's avatar

Can it die if it is not alive?

dutchbrossis's avatar

That is what I mean. If I believe that it is a life at conception inside of a hosts body where it is alive but not when it is outside the hosts body not then I don’t see how that is hypocritical to be against abortion but okay with IVF conception ?

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Seems with your beliefs it is not hypocritical. I just have never heard that before. Is that based in any religious belief, or just something you came up with yourself? Are you saying that in a woman’s body the embryo has a soul, but in the petri dish there isn’t one?

dutchbrossis's avatar

It just seems like without being in the hosts body where the baby can grow it isn’t a baby. Which is why I am against abortion is I feel it is a baby

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis It doesn’t make sense to me. If it is 4 days old outside of the woman’s body or 4 days old inside, the embryo itself is exactly the same. The “baby” is exactly the same, so why is it different?

dutchbrossis's avatar

@JLeslie How is it exactly the same when inside the body it is a growing baby, outside the hosts body it can’t be a growing baby until it has a host ?

oratio's avatar

@dutchbrossis To bump in, from what I have read, we today have the technologies to create sperms and eggs in vitro, fertilizing them and growing an embryo to three months old. Likely even longer to viable babies and “birth”. It seems the only reason this haven’t been fully done is law restrictions. Just as we know that as we can clone animals, we should be able to clone humans. Are they alive? I would have no problem letting them vote.

Would this be a common way of having children? I don’t think so. The interest of the technology is to support human procreation, not replace it. There would be no point in it, unless one is barren and wealthy. It could also help women with several miscarriages. If that would be wrong or not morally, I don’t know. I think we have done many things that are worse than producing life though, even if it’s in a chamber.

But it seems In vitro or human incubation chamber births would very much produce living babies. I suspect that you would oppose such a thing as being wrong. I would respect that.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis the embryo itself is exactly the same no matter where it is. It is dividing and multiplying. If you tink that is a baby you are killing, then you are killing it no matter where it is. But, I guess maybe you are agreeing that at this very young stage you are ok destroying the embryo? So the morning after pill you might be ok with, but an abortion in the 8th week is not ok?

And @oratio point becomes more important as science improves. Is it not a life as long as it is outside of the mother, even if it is 7 months old in a lab? I’m not ok killing a 7 month fetus in a lab that is most likely viable by its’ own right, no longer parasitic on its host if removed.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@JLeslie I wasn’t agreeing it was okay to destroy the embryo. I just didn’t understand it much to have an opinion about it. From what @oratio was saying though, I think I would be against that also.

As far as the morning after pill, I don’t know enough about it. I do think that is possibly a better thing than an abortion, I am not sure how against it I am though if i am.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis I appreciate that you are unsure at this point, that’s honest, and better than jumping to an opinion without all of the information. I want to suggest that you are pro-life for yourself, but possibly pro-choice when it would come to making law or voting, because from what you have said I think you can understand why people have different opinions about when life begins.

dutchbrossis's avatar

I see where you would say that. I am actually pro life all around, I am against abortion except in cases of rape I am more understanding, however I still don’t think it is okay or the right decision.

However if someone has an abortion, although I feel it is murder. If they don’t think it is a baby I don’t think of them as a murderer because they don’t think they are murdering a life.

jerv's avatar

@dutchbrossis Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about Scott Roeder, the person currently on trial for the murder of Dr George Tiller?

The way I see it, regardless of whether he thought he was doing right, his request to be tried for voluntary manslaughter due to defending the unborn falls flat according to the definition of “voluntary manslaughter” simply because of the amount of premeditation involved.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@jerv It is so incredibly frightening that the judge is letting him present a “voluntary manslaughter” defense at all. Roeder stalked Tillman and killed him in cold blood (in a CHURCH). It doesn’t get any more murder than that.

JLeslie's avatar

I am horrified by the murder of Tiller.

jerv's avatar

Sometimes I almost wonder whether the whole abortion debate really is about the unborn or whether it’s just a “straw man” argument made by people who feel like instigating a conflict just so that they can some faux legitimacy when they engage in persecution and other ass-hattery.

Of course, sometimes you just have to laugh at the arguments some people make. (At least that one is meant to be satirical.)

dutchbrossis's avatar

@jerv I haven’t heard of that case. I don’t know what my opinion is

jerv's avatar

@dutchbrossis Long story short, Mr. Roeder shot Dr. George Tiller, a doctor that performed abortions, and claimed that it was justified in a form of “defense of others”; that he killed Dr. Tiller to prevent the deaths of more unborn children.

According to him and his lawyer, what he did was “Imperfect defense”, which is basically a good faith belief that deadly force was necessary to repel an attack, even though that belief was unreasonable… such as the belief that Dr. Tiller’s death was necessary to defend anybody.

According to the news yesterday (29 Jan), the court disagreed and took less than 40 minutes to convict Mr. Roeder of First-degree Murder.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@jerv
While I don’t think that abortion is right and that it is murder. I also don’t believe in the death penalty, so to me he didn’t need to die, to me two wrongs don’t make a right.

If that was the reason he killed him, I believe the doctor was murdering babies, I also agree with the courts decision.

JLeslie's avatar

If I agreed to give blood to my neighbor every day to keep him alive, and then after 3 months decided I did not want to do it anymore, did I kill him?

Dr_Dredd's avatar

No. His own body killed him. You just weren’t able to keep him alive any longer.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie There is a difference between not going out of your way to save a life and going out of your way to end one, so it’s hard for me to see how that is more than tangentially relevant.
That said, I agree with @Dr_Dredd on this one.

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv The fetus’ life is dependent on the mother. The same way the man in the example is dependent on someone else for blood. Their own bodies cannot sustain their lives. I agree it is complicated. What If a diabetic cannot afford medication, is it society who killed him when he dies from a diabetic coma? The drug company who came up with the drug and then will not give it to him for free? (I think I might have come up with a noter argument for single payer healthcare?) That is why I think the courts have it right that viability matters.

I have no problem with people who feel for religious reasons or even ethical reasons that they would never terminate a pregnancy, I just have a problem with people who want to make it punishable by law. I personally don’t believe in the very beginning stages, when it is an embryo that it is a “life.” It is a bunch of similar cells. When it first develops a heart beat it is a not a fully formed four chamber human heart yet, it is more like a pulse, the beginnings of a circulatory system, but a similar life found floating in the ocean most people would not give two thoughts about if it accidently got squashed by a speedboat jetting by. I prefer people know the science, I am not saying you in particular don’t. If a person believes in a soul, and the human soul enters at conception, then I really can’t argue with that. But, the pro-life movement has advertisements that have big pictures of full term babies, like that is what is being aborted when someone takes medication at 5 weeks into a pregnancy. That is not what is being aborted.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

There was an interesting court case regarding a man who refused to donate bone marrow to his cousin. The cousin sued to force the donation, and lost in court. The court held that “common law has consistently held to a rule which provides that one human being is under no legal compulsion to give aid or to take action to save that human being or to rescue[...]For a society, which respects the rights of one individual, to sink its teeth into the jugular vein or neck of one of its members and suck from it sustenance for another member, is revolting to our hard-wrought concept of jurisprudence.” The case was McFall v. Shimp.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@JLeslie Here is my opinion on your question. The people you mention are already born who have a chance at life. Yes it is unfortunate that they got stuck with diseases or being dependent on someone else for life.

When someone decided to have an abortion, they are deciding to not give that baby a life in my opinion, which is murder.

I don’t get mad at mothers who their baby dies inside them like a miscarriage or something that was not the mother’s choice. Also it is a nice gesture to keep that person alive with the blood example. It is not their responsibility though, when the mom decides to have sex and gets pregnant then it is their responsibility to take care of their own actions. In my opinion that doesn’t mean just kill it.

laureth's avatar

I’ve declined to give a baby it’s life every day I don’t have sex. That would be murder too, no?

dutchbrossis's avatar

@laureth That seems to be taking it pretty far. When someone has sex and people know that sex can = pregnancy and decide to kill it, that is murder. For a lot of people it seems not having sex would be more like saving lives, because they are not creating them.

laureth's avatar

I think that “tiny clump of cells = a living person” takes it almost as far. Every time I don’t create a baby, it’s a potential life snuffed out before it was ever realized – which is just like a very early abortion, to me. On the other hand, sometimes having an abortion is taking responsibility for what you’ve done.

There are so many ways to look at this, and individuals vary so widely in their opinions, that it seems almost impossible to legislate morality on this issue. That’s why I lean toward the side of letting people choose what’s appropriate for their own situation, whether it’s keeping the baby or not. I can’t decide for you. You can’t decide for me.

oratio's avatar

Everything should be discussed. That is how we got our rights in the first place. This subject is difficult, and it is connected and a part of many fundamental issues. Does a woman have a right to say no to sex? Do women have the right to their own bodies? We know that even in the west, rape in the marriage is not seen as much of a crime. To my knowledge, most countries that recognize rape in marriage only count it as one rape statistically. In my country, every single occurrence is counted which will make it look like rape is rampant in comparison to another country who count only one; even if there have been hundreds.

It is a womans task to carry children, and she is married to a man. Now, do a married woman have the right to say no to sex with her husband? The children that would have been born if she would have sex will not be born if she refuses. She could be deemed guilty of manslaughter. In that light, it could be just to sentence her to death. Stone her, hang her, get a new wife.

Would that be extreme? Well, where do women rights begin and end? Who gets to have a final say in the matter? Does a man have an equal right to his children or are his rights subordinate the woman’s? Are there sexual and procreational rights? Do we have sex for other reasons than procreation? Is it a fundamental right to have children? Did we mass murder children with the introduction of contraceptives, denying them the possibility to get born. Does a man have a moral right to masturbate? Is a man that has sex with a pregnant woman a murderer?

As many things in life, the choice of having an abortion or not are often both bad choices, and a choice of a lesser evil so to speak. Whether or not people realize it, this is at the core of womens rights, and a part of social issues in society. If one wants to fight abortion, the correct way to do so, is to guarantee support for single mothers, education, poor families, health care and chronic illness in families, combatting the root causes of crime and more. These are all connected to womens constitutionally defended right to have the ultimate say over her body. Abortion is still regulated. To take it away, is to undermine those rights.

Leanne1986's avatar

@dutchbrossis Regarding your response to @JLeslie‘s question, surely the fact that the person in @JLeslie‘s scenario is already living as a fully functioning (in mind and body) human being and aware of the world around them with definate emotions and feelings makes denying them lifesaving blood more like murder (although I don’t believe it is murder just for the record) than aborting a clump of cells that can’t think or feel emotions or do anything for themselves?!

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@Leanne1986 Legally and ethically, it is NOT murder. The right to bodily integrity is fundamental, and no one can be forced to submit to a medical procedure to help another. See my answer above regarding McFall v. Shimp.

jerv's avatar

@JLeslie That makes a little more sense, but not much. See, if a women were going to a medical facility of some sort and going through a procedure to sustain the life of a baby inside their body then I could see it. However, humanity and every other live-bearing species has managed to reproduce just fine by getting knocked up and waiting for the sprogs to drop. Hell, pre-natal care is still unheard of in many places and unavailable to many Americans, yet there are still people managing to pop out babies every day. Therefore, the analogy still fails. It is entirely possible for a pregnant woman to bear/deliver a healthy baby without going that far out of their way.
That said, I think you and I are pretty much in agreement overall.

I still maintain that the real issue on abortion is whether or not the government (or anyone else) has the right to legislate what ones moral code can/should be. Either way could lead to sever consequences, so where do we draw the lines?

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv I agree that the real issue is how far the government can go to enforce a moral code.

Too many woman would die or be badly damaged without medical intervention. So, I reject the idea that women simply push out babies in the middle of the forest all over the world thoughout time. Even in my own family a relative who is barely 5’2” and petite, who had an over 9 pound baby labored for almost 20 hours with the baby never getting into correct position, and they questioned whether it would be able to fit through her birth canal anyway, ending in a c-section, Without medical help she would have labored until she and the baby died.

Here is from wikipedia on Maternal mortality

“Lifetime risk of maternal death” accounts for number of pregnancies and risk. In sub-Saharan Africa the lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 16, for developed nations only 1 in 2,800.

In 2003, the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA produced a report with statistics gathered from 2000. The world average per 100,000 was 400, the average for developed regions was 20, and for developing regions 440. The worst countries were: Sierra Leone (2,000), Afghanistan (1,900), Malawi (1,800), Angola (1,700), Niger (1,600), Tanzania (1,500), Rwanda (1,400), Mali (1,200), Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau (1,100 each), Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Mauritania (1,000 each).

This does not even touch on other health problems women can have during pregnancy and as a result of childbirth.

I realize we are in agreement overall, I just thought you might be interested in the stats.

Leanne1986's avatar

@Dr_Dredd I know but I was referring to @dutchbrossis‘s response to @JLeslie‘s question where she said that abortion was worse because the people in @JLeslie ‘s scenaro have already been born and have had a chance at life. To me, neither is murder but I can’t see how aborting a fetus that doesn’t have any knowledge of what is going on and most probably doesn’t feel any pain if aborted before a certain time is worse than denying someone who does know what is happening to them and can definately feel pain, lifesaving blood. That’s was all I was getting at, I don’t think that you are responsible for murder simply by denying someone your blood but @dutchbrossis reasoning here doesn’t really make sense to me.

JLeslie's avatar

I skimmed above to see if this one was mentioned: what about the idea that the needs of the many outweigh the few, or would you let one person die to save 100? In the book Freakonomics it is shown statistically that since the time of abortion being legalized in the US there is a correlation between when these aborted children would have been in their teenage years, and a significant decrease in crime, which continued to decrease. So, if it is actually true that abortions of unwanted babies is a cause for lower crime rates; better for society, then would it sway people? I know some people did touch on the idea above that we have to take care of these children, and the pro-life movement needs to come up with better solutions for that. Anyway, I know two people personally that this idea solidified their view on being pro-choice, they were kind of undecided and had not given much thought to the topic previously.

jerv's avatar

I happen to personally know someone who nearly died from a “back alley” abortion, so regardless of one’s feelings about abortion in general, any sane person has to concede that they will happen whether they are legal or not.

So if abortions are going to happen regardless, then in my mind the question boils down to whether abortion is better performed by medically trained personnel in a controlled environment or by people with no real medical training under dangerous conditions, whether it be merely the lack of an autoclave for the instruments or something as crude as the stereotypical coat-hanger. Or maybe the mother who didn;t want the kid will let it be born and leave in a dumpster somewhere and return to the senior prom.

Personally, I feel that those that are strongly pro-life are idealists. They don;t understand human nature at all. A child born to a mother that doesn’t want them is worse off than a child that was never born. You cannot neglect/abuse a clump of cells. So I want the strongly pro-life people to answer this:
Which is better, years of abuse and/or neglect, malnutrition, being thrown against the wall, dangled my one ankle off of a third-floor balcony, etcetera OR not having a chance to even develop to the point where you are capable of enduring (let alone understanding) such abuse? Before you answer, look at the Romanian orphanages. Look at how some people who wanted a son treat their daughters (especially “traditional” Chinese or medieval Europeans).
Maybe my life experience has given me too good a look at the atrocities humans are capable of, even (or especially?) against the helpless, but I think that the hard-core pro-lifers seem to think that life is all sunshine and lollipops and forget that the decision to get an abortion in the first place is often a heart-wrenching one, and in the few cases where it isn’t then the kid is likely better off dead in the first place since any biological mother with even an ounce of compassion would choose to have the kid and give it to an orphanage.
Many pro-lifers assume that every child is a wanted child yet they rarely adopt any of those children that were given up by someone who wanted their kid tnevero have a better life than they could offer, and the treatment in some orphanages and foster homes is worse than death, but the pro-lifers don’t seem to care!
Some go so far as to say that people who do not want children should not have sex. I never took biology and even I know that that isn’t feasible for any member of the animal kingdom. Or is it that only people of a certain religious persuasion are even allowed the “privilege” of following genetically hard-wired behavior and the “heathens” must die off?

I don’t get it. There is too much to the hard-core pro-lfe “argument” that just does not make sense.

jackm's avatar

@jerv
So should doctors be administering heroin?

JLeslie's avatar

@jerv After your post it made me think about how Christianity finds greatness in suffering. They (when I say they, I realize not all Christian’s feel this way) watch movies of Christ being bloodied and nailed to a cross and they worship it as the great sacrifice, suffering is good. No matter the living standard, no matter the quality of life, it is not for us to judge. They are outraged by medical insurance coverage for end of life counseling, they rise up against unhooking Terri Shiavo, they desperately save premie babies who will be mentally and phsyically handicapped their whole lives, they are outraged if a pregnant woman aborts a Down’s syndrome baby. I saw on The View Elisabeth Hassleback trying to argue that taking care of a mentally handicapped child is the same as raising any other child and Barbara Walters (who had a special needs sister) tried to tell her that is ridiculous to say. They are idealistic.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

I think @JLeslie hit the nail on the head (again!). It’s too bad they don’t realize that everyone doesn’t have the same view of suffering.

jerv's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Nobody else has any valid opinions. Either you embrace God and follow what He says (or what your clergyman told you God said) or you are unenlightened and either evil or sub-human.
Fortunately, most current-day Christians are not that hardcore, but there are still quite a few of those types out there, and they are quite outspoken. If you don’t believe me then read this .

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@jerv Holy Crap! Intolerant and grammatically incorrect. What newspaper is that from?

JLeslie's avatar

I can’t wait to hear where that paper is from. Just once I would like to be wrong, I’ll keep my guess to myself for now.

jerv's avatar

@Dr_Dredd @JLeslie Sorry, but all I saw was the clipping on Friends of Irony , though a quick Google search on “Soldotna” turned up Alaska. That wasn’t my first guess, but considering Sarah Palin, I guess it stands to reason (unless it’s just a hell of a coincidence).

dutchbrossis's avatar

i just cant see how anyone can tell what it feels or not…..did it tell you it didnt feel anything ? no one truly knows. laureth there is no disrespect intended here but i think that is a pretty crazy comparison we are not talking about potential lifes i just think an abortion is killing a baby and not giving that life an equal chance

jerv's avatar

@dutchbrossis Just remember that that is your opinion as opposed to an empirically provable fact, and I think we can all get along :)
Personally, I am of the opinion that having some form of nervous system is a prerequisite for feeling pain and therefore it isn;t really an issue during the early part of a pregnancy. There is less support for 2nd-trimester abortion and considerable opposition to late-term abortions even amongst pro-choicers.
I also feel that anybody who feels that contraception (emergency or otherwise) is abortion should also be against antibiotics, cancer treatment, and many other medical things to avoid hypocrisy. After all, a tumor is living tissue made of human DNA, Give tumors a chance!

It’s not a definite black/white issue, and if you ask ten people “Where do you draw the line?”, you will get twelve different answers.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis It is really difficult for me to think a 2 month fetus is the same as a 35 year old man. If you believe a soul is a soul, then maybe; but medically, scientifically, the first weeks the embryo/fetus is a primitive being, it is not a small baby. This is a 7 week fetus, (9th week of pregnancy) about a centimeter and a half http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:9-Week_Human_Embryo_from_Ectopic_Pregnancy.jpg found from wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_development that describes each week. I am not trying to change your mind, really I am not. Abortion is an emotional thing, along with being tied up in religion and science.

laureth's avatar

@dutchbrossis – When I think of a baby, I think of a wailing needy little person. I do not think of a clump of cells that is too small to see, or which resembles a tadpole. When an embryo or fetus is growing, not yet born, it is potentially life, much as an apple seed is potentially an apple tree – someday. An abortion is the decision to not allow it to reach full potential.

And when I have sex, I am potentially creating a new human being. If we must, morally, allow all potential human beings to come to fruition, mustn’t I also have sex as much as possible, unprotected of course, to allow as many possible human beings to be born? Seriously, that’s how I see it. Yet, if I have twelve job interviews (potential jobs), I am not obligated to take every one that is offered to me. If I have five friends all invite me out on the same night, I can choose one or maybe two, because I am not obligated to see every potential thing to its realization. And if I am pregnant and have a potential human being in there, giving birth is one option – and not one that I’m in any place to embrace.

The confusion here is between the “potential” and the “actual.” The obligation to give birth to any potential life that develops inside of me is really only one step ahead of the obligation to allow those embryos to be conceived inside of me unhindered. The difference is so small, physically speaking, that you can only see it under a microscope. Either women are obligated to serve as baby incubators no matter what, or they are not.

dutchbrossis's avatar

Thank you for the pictures Jleslie.
My issue is this. Everytime I see those pictures, this is the second time I see a tiny little baby inside of the womb. I don’t see just a “lump of cells” I see a baby, and thinking about killing it saddens me very much. I only want to say this once more so it is clear and don’t want to argue with jerv and laureth, it isn’t about “potential life” as laureth keeps trying to make her point on which I truly don’t understand at all, or life forms like tumors as jerv mentioned. My whole thing is this, that picture I saw even at 8 weeks to me is a baby, that is why I look at it as murder.

JLeslie's avatar

@dutchbrossis Even though it is less than an inch? OK, I won’t argue with that. You seem sure of how you feel about it. But, at one week when it is a clump of cells, literally identical cells dividing and multiplying do you feel the same? Sorry if you answered that already, I tried to go back but the thread is so long.

dutchbrossis's avatar

@JLeslie My final answer is that to me no matter what if you have sex, get pregnant and kill it you murdered it.

jerv's avatar

In my more cynical moments, I see even full-grown adults as mere lumps of cells.

Seriously though, one difference between human/animal life and mere life like fungi is that there are differentiated cells performing different functions. The cells in my muscles carry the same DNA as the cells in my eyes or my brain, yet all three are otherwise different. I think that the point that @JLeslie is trying to make is that until you get a few days into the pregnancy, the embryo is still a bunch of undifferentiated cells and, regardless of what it may eventually become, at that point it really is no different than bread mold or toe jam.
Now, a little further along and once the cells start to differentiate, then you have something that could be considered a little more human. And by 8 weeks, there is enough of an actual nervous system to think that the fetus may actually be capable of experiencing pain. Of course, that moves us into the 2nd trimester, and there are a lot of pro-choice people who change their minds at that point, figuring that it’s too late to pull the plug then.

I also think it safe to say that there are more than a few people who use the point of cell differentiation as a dividing line between “life” and “not life”. Some people believe that even condoms are murder, and I am not going to judge that belief beyond saying that I strongly disagree.

Every time a woman has a period, there is another egg that could have become a human life, so is menstruating considered murder as well? The same goes for non-reproductive ejaculation, whether it be masturbation, oral sex, or just plain-old nocturnal emissions. Are all guys who ever blew a wad without naming it nine months later also baby-killers?
I ask not to be difficult, but merely to point out that there really are some people who are that rabid about the issue.

Dr_Dredd's avatar

@jerv 8 weeks is not second trimester. It’s still the first trimester. Plus, the prevailing medical opinion is that fetuses cannot feel pain until well into the second trimester.

jerv's avatar

@Dr_Dredd Forgive me; 8 week is 2 months, not 3. In the future, I will try to remember not to do math in my head near bedtime. Aside from that math error though, the rest of my point still stands.

As for prevailing medical opinion, I tend to take it with a grain of salt considering how long it took them to accept the Germ Theory and start washing their hands before surgery, their near-total cluelessness on Aspergers, and a few other similar things.
Considering how many failures medical science has had, especially when it comes to the human brain, I stand by my assertion that there is still PLENTY of room to at least make a legitimate argument that prevailing medical opinion is in error. Whether it actually is or not is beyond the scope and therefore not worth discussing here.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. Abortion could never be ethically supported, and those who try are frauds who would not even stand behind the fallacious arguments they try to use to ramrod abortions if applied to other areas of life.

The favorite cause célèbre, it is not a child it is only tissue. Yet they can’t point to any other organ or tissue in the body that is ejected (unless a transplant that did not take) that lives on by itself as its own entity; and only when its specific time in the body is up. I don’t know of any tissue that grows on its own in the body unless a cancer. Also if it is only tissue if a person murders a pregnant woman it is not a double homicide, so all those who picked up a dbl homicide off the death of a pregnant woman is being short changed.

The second biggest nescient thought it is her body and she can do what she wants with it. Oh really? The government imposes many rules on what we can and can’t do with our bodies. I can give or donate a liver, or kidney, even bone marrow but even though it is my own body I can’t sell it to the highest bidder on Ebay or Craigslist. I can’t terminate my body (if I fail I get locked up). I don’t get to inject anything I want into my veins because I would be arrested for that. So, that argument hold no water at all.

If one wanted to stretch that logic further then I logically and ethically should be able to just give my kids away should I ever grow tired of them, and can do so in any manner I see fit; I can trade them for a big screen TV, a Lamborghini, a yacht, etc. They would be my kids and they do belong to me so with that logic I can do as I see fit with them. They have my DNA I don’t have theirs.

Lets not forget “freedom of choice” that has to be about the biggest crock in abortion. Have that “tissue” has the DNA of the father. If he wants to be that father but she don’t want to be 4 months pregnant by time Spring Break comes and won’t be able to go out drinking and boinking, and maybe not look sexy in a two-piece then ethically he will be entitled to compensation. Since there is no way to place a value on “living tissue” we will say compensation should be $1,000,000 for the 1st 18 years providing that “tissue” would have become a healthy baby; so she gets to go to Spring Break and he get 18,000,000 for his half of the DNA he didn’t get to enjoy. And if she wanted to keep this “tissue” which if it were merely that why would she not want to rid herself of it less it became cancerous and he cared not to be a father ethically he would be entitled a “legal abortion” he can sign off on the kid within 10 days of birth and never have to pay a dime for the child or be seen legally as the child’s father in any way whatsoever. It would be as if he never existed and it was a miraculous virgin birth.

Then there is the kid will be born into poverty with a teen mother who can’t get a proper education or have the life skills to raise a baby. One, if she thought that much about school and books instead of boinking like bunnies the band geek would not have gotten under her skirt. Two, if she had not the life skills to raise a baby then she should not have been having sex in the 1st place. You give the kid the keys to the motor coach (when deep down you know they can’t handle a vehicle that big) and then act shocked when they plow it into a grove of trees? The smart thinking would to keep them out of the motor coach and on a moped until they got some skills at something bigger.

There is no good logic to support abortion just addlepated thinking to not take responsibility.

JLeslie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central But, you cannot be forced to donate blood or a kidney by the government to support anotehr life, and forcing a woman to be pregnant means she is giving of some of her own life source, strain on her kidneys, Iron from her blood, increased blood volume putting stress on her heart, and nutrients taken from her body. Neither a man or a woman should be ordered by the government to support another life. I tried to find stats on how often complications, which can be minor to life threatening happen during pregnancy, and I am not having an easy time googling. I did find this http://www.healthsquare.com/fgwh/wh1ch25.htm that state 10–20% of pregnancies have complications, not sure how reliable it is. There is a perception that pregnancy is a wonderful natural thing, which it many times is, but it is also a significant medical condition. Someone once said to me “women used to go out into the forest and pop out babies.” Really? Women used to die in child birth all of the time. They still do in more primitive cultures without access to modern medicine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@JLeslie ” Neither a man or a woman should be ordered by the government to support another life.” No person should do any action that creates a life they are not willing to care for. That reasoning would say if I got a dog (I did not create the dog) and I grew tired of cleaning its poop and barking I can go out back with a large shovel and start swinging until the barking stops, then dig a big whole and scoop the furry shell that use to be Spot in the hole, cover it, and go back about my business. One could use that same logic if I were in law enforcement and some hairy situation came up with some bad guys even though I chose the job I can say there are too many bag guys and they have big weapons, the poor vic is on his own, I am not going out there I could get shot. I would think the government would force and compel me to put my life in danger for another; because that is what I chose.

There are risk with many, many things. People fly even though the last 8 to 10 minutes and the first 4 minutes of the flight are the most dangerous. People have complications and die from surgery, so do we outlaw them and if someone gets cancer tell them we will make them comfortable until the cancer kills them because going in after it they might die? If a female cared not to ever be pregnant then stay away from activities that can cause it or get the tubes tied or the ovaries and uterus removed.

And when it comes to my tissue, blood, kidneys, and such of course the government would not make me give it to another person to support them; they don’t have my DNA, they were already here (not here or arriving by my actions) and that would leave me short an organ. The government can take my blood if they get a court order, nothing I can do to stop them from taking it. And if I get busted they will take my DNA even if I protest or not. The unborn baby will develop all their own, when time is up and the body births them, the woman will not be short not one spleen, kidney, toe nail or anything.

JLeslie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Killing your dog is not the same. The dog is a separate, viable, able to sustain its’ own life being. The fetus cannot survive without being parasitic, and so that is why I agree with the Supreme court that viability matters. I would not agree that it is ok to remove a fetus in month 8 and kill it, because the baby is able to sustain its own life.

What the hell does DNA have to do with it? Does that mean surrogate mothers carrying a baby can get an abortion, but genetically related mothers cannot? Why is Joe next door who has always been a good man, contributes to his community, has two young children, why is his life worth less than the fetus? If my bone marrow is a match, with little possibility of causing me harm, why should the government not tell me I have to give it to him? You are saying the government can tell me I must let a baby grow in side of me, pushing around my organs, maybe making me physically ill, I’ll have to watch my blood sugar, blood pressure, and hopefully not get toxemia or something worse.

And then there is the group of people who WANT a baby, and their baby will not be able to survive, and the pro-lifers seem annoyed with terminating those pregnancies also (although I know two pro-life people who did just that, terminated their pregnancies, I am sure they never told their church members). These women want medical control over their bodies and pregnancy, so they can get pregnant again without waiting months for the pregnancy to terminate on its’ own, or sometimes they actually go through 9 months and watch their baby die after birth. I know pro-choice women who chose to finish a pregnancy like this, and I know pro-life people who terminated as I said above. Generally I feel pro-life people have little knowledge of what pregnancy is really like, and what can go medically wrong, and why it is more important to err on teh side of giving women and doctors control, and no fear of prosecution. That is probably why the former First Lady Laura Bush is pro-choice. I don’t know for sure her complete view, but I do know her parents wanted more childen and her mother went through bad pregnancies, and losses that was very sad for the family.

Your answer seems more about living with consequences of actions, almost like a punishment, rather than discussing the science, the realty for the child if born, and the realty for the mother who is not ready to have a child.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@JLeslie
There are risk with many, many things. People fly even though the last 8 to 10 minutes and the first 4 minutes of the flight are the most dangerous. People have complications and die from surgery, so do we outlaw them and if someone gets cancer tell them we will make them comfortable until the cancer kills them because going in after it they might die? If a female cared not to ever be pregnant then stay away from activities that can cause it or get the tubes tied or the ovaries and uterus removed.

And when it comes to my tissue, blood, kidneys, and such of course the government would not make me give it to another person to support them; they don’t have my DNA, they were already here (not here or arriving by my actions) and that would leave me short an organ. The government can take my blood if they get a court order, nothing I can do to stop them from taking it. And if I get busted they will take my DNA even if I protest or not. The unborn baby will develop all their own, when time is up and the body births them, the woman will not be short not one spleen, kidney, toe nail or anything.

” Women used to die in child birth all of the time. They still do in more primitive cultures without access to modern medicine.” People this day still die in primitive areas from diseases and medical conditions that are preventable or that we do not even think about anymore because of vaccines or operations. Complications in childbirth is just the way it is, it is just as risky, or not, for those who desire a child. The world is not perfect if it was everyone would have a nice healthy “Gerber Baby” and live out life happy and satisfied. Life is not perfect but if one has to err I say err on the side of life as we do with everything else.

”The dog is a separate, viable, able to sustain its’ own life being.” You know a dog that can go to the supermarket and buy a can of dog food much less open it up and put the food in a dish? Dogs are not that self-sufficient. Sure you can get a dog out of the house and leave it to its own devices but soon its own devices will be a menace to anyone who comes upon it as it will attack other animals and dogs to eat. And its existence will be cut way short than if living in a home where it is cared for.

”The fetus cannot survive without being parasitic, and so that is why I agree with the Supreme court that viability matters.” This is a good one to run with. There are many potentially “parasitic” people of whom the high court has granted rights to. Guess they have it wrong. If carrying to term a child who’s existence was only initiated by the act (most of the time) of the mother and the father is parasitic because certain conditions of child bearing has the potential to be uncomfortable to the mother is enough to say why put up with that, then having some mentally challenge person sucking up are and resources the next 60+ years has to be worse. Not like they are going to be self-sufficient. The self-sufficient t argument is a weak attempt at bamboozling the feeble minded into thinking it is the child’s doing to invade the body of the mother when it was in fact de factoly invited. To a point all children are “parasitic” if you want to use the loose term of not being able to care for themselves and having to involve the parents. I guess if some teen mom has her baby in the restroom at homecoming dance she can say “Oh s***! My life will be in ruins now”, and drown the baby in the toilet as a last minute post birth abortion, after all it is not like that baby can do anything about it, protest or take care if its self.

”What the hell does DNA have to do with it? Does that mean surrogate mothers carrying a baby can get an abortion, but genetically related mothers cannot?” DNA has everything to do with it, the baby in making has ½ the mother’s and ½ the fathers. It is not some random tumor that spawned from nowhere. No a surrogate can’t have an abortion unless it was in her contract because the only reason she has a child not related to her in her womb is by agreement with another couple or person.

”Why is Joe next door who has always been a good man, contributes to his community, has two young children, why is his life worth less than the fetus?” Really it isn’t, though you believe he is worth way more. How come?

”Your answer seems more about living with consequences of actions, almost like a punishment, rather than discussing the science, the realty for the child if born, and the realty for the mother who is not ready to have a child.” There are consequences to nearly ever action, women just want to escape the responsibility of their actions by using any means to duck, dodge, and hid from having to “own” it. The science has always been there just ignored by those who want to duck, doge, and hide. That parasite is not something that got in the woman by way of a river in the Amazon; fact. It is not some spontaneous batch of cells that went amok and will cannibalize all the other organs until the mother is dead; fact. Millions of women for 1,000s of years have birth children with most coming out OK; fact. More people die from heart disease, diabetes, and driving than birthing children; fact. If left to take its natural course this parasite will become, more times than not, a healthy human; fact. That is the science. If anyone feels it is like punishment they have a saying “don’t do the crime if you can’t take the time” corny but true. Don’t want to have to deal with a pregnancy don’t do things that cause it. That is a no brainer.

JLeslie's avatar

The surrogate does have the right to terminate, it is her body, she has the control legally.

I am not trying to argue Joe is worth more. I am saying if I cannot be ordered to save his life, why amd ordered to save the fetus? You are saying the fetus is more important.

The woman who wants to be pregnant and has complications chooses to go through the physical problems because she wants to. A woman who does not want to should not have to. When would it be ok for a woman to abort in your mind? Is it ever ok? I assume if it is life threatening to the mother you are ok with it, most people are. What if she has severe morning sickness and needs to be hospitalized constantly and cannot function? What if prior pregnancies put her life in jeopardy, and she is advised to never be pregnant again, but accidently does, does she have to wait for complications to manifest themselves, or can she abort early, when it is an embryo, basically a bunch of cells.

laureth's avatar

Perhaps this discussion would benefit from a quick look at the reasons why the vast majority of abortion-seeking women are seeking them in the first place. A ten-year study in Australia found these things out:

“A Flinders University study of 965 women over 30 who used Adelaide’s largest abortion clinic found 62 per cent were using contraception when they became pregnant.

…She said [the women who were not using contraception at the time they became pregnant] were not using contraception for dozens of reasons such as: cultural bans, thinking they could never have children, having been raped or having had what was thought to have been “permanent” birth-control surgery.”

In other words, it’s not just because Suzy wants to look good on Spring Break. Please give us a little more credit than that.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@JLeslie ”….basically a bunch of cells.” That is all any of us humans are, but just because those bunch of cells are not complete or don’t resemble the developed human don’t make it any less human.

”A woman who does not want to should not have to. “ Then lets get real and fair about it. A man should not have to be a father if he don’t want to. He should have the right to sign off on that baby forever irrevocably within 10 days of the birth, he won’t show on the birth certificate and will never be legally seen as having any ties to the baby at all. That would be fair, lets see if NOW can stomach that?

”When would it be ok for a woman to abort in your mind?” Of course if the life of the mother is in danger and not imagined but in a real sense, the kid or the mother. Surely it would be illogical to have them both perish. Those who believe they could not get pregnant but never checked it out, tough, if I thought I was immune to prostate cancer and was never screened and got it, my bad. Rape, I say tragic but why punish the child for the actions of the father? Could be worse, she could be dead then she won’t have to worry about 9 months of unpleasantness. Having birth control fail, sometimes it happens just like sometimes jets fall from the sky when they were designed to stay up in it. You don’t want to die in a jet crash don’t take jets, take the train. Don’t want to ever risk getting pregnant don’t do the things that could cause it, you just have to be more creative in having sex.

@laureth ”In other words, it’s not just because Suzy wants to look good on Spring Break.” But more than half of the time and I would guess near 75% it is for some flippant shallow reason same or near that, they want to play in the garden but not do any weeding.

JLeslie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central You might be interested in this question http://www.fluther.com/49852/do-you-think-men-should-be-able-to-opt-out-of/

The cells in the first couple of weeks are all the same, not differentiated. I respect you feel it is a life, it is fine with me if you don’t change your mind about abortion. I am only stating how I view it, you view it differently.

Don’t want to ever risk getting pregnant don’t do the things that could cause it, you just have to be more creative in having sex. So married couple who don’t want chidlren should never have intercourse on the off chance their birth control fails? I actually have little tolerance for people who are sloppy about birth control, but people make mistakes and many times function in denial, especially young people.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther