The landmark Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was supposed to settle the question of abortion’s legality once and for all, but the Court’s ruling has instead become a fulcrum of debate. Placed squarely at the intersection of civil rights, health, religion and law, abortion is one of America’s most heated controversies.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
Outlawing murder does not necessarily reduce the number of murders, but rather forces murderers to jeopardize their lives and health in order to terminate an unwanted person.
Now, not all abortion is murder, but it should be looked at just as any other killing. Afterall, if a drunk driver gets hurt in a car crash, does that mean we should make drunk driving legal?
- JKM121
September 6, 2008 3:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
I think there should not be abortion because it can lead to people to commitng suicide. What do you think about what i just said. But if you have any info about abortion please let me know because I'm doing a persuasion essay on it and i need facts from people who are against abortion but sorry to the ones that are for abortion.
(Give me your opinions)
- niesha February 27, 2009 8:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So the right to kill a human being is a human right? Great! When does hunting season open? [Please forgive the sarcasm of the previous question].
However, one could use similar language in talking about a man's right to choose; that is, 'Only when [men] are able to control their reproductive capacity can they achieve true equality in society.'
Of course, 'reproductive capacity,' and 'control,' are kind of vague; possibly meaning anything from abstinence to 'slaughter of children,' to 'wanton rape.'
- JKM121 September 6, 2008 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Huh?
Are you suggesting that women don't enjoy exercising their reproductive capacity and desire sexually competent men to Make Love with? You could be an exception and from an outdated group of "persons" carrying what is know as feministic attitudes. With my age group, that is so gone, and we are so much together on a common ground.
Why am I not surprised that it's all men's fault here? speaking of control..wouldn't you just love to be in control over every man's sex?. I hope thought that the time does come that you feel equal like the Ladies that I know do.
How many abortions are in fact a result of rape and not just a form of birth control or philosophical defiance?
- Me2
February 3, 2009 1:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
You know, quotation marks ("") indicate that the words between them come from somewhere other than the writer. In this format it typically indicates the words to which the author is responding. So you should be addressing the author of the original post, but then you would be making my case.
To answer the only worthwhile question in your post; very, very few. If you're really interested, I'm sure a little research would give you several different numbers from which most people should be able to make an educated estimate as to what the actual number is.
- JKM121 April 29, 2009 7:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If the NAF believed in reproductive equality for men and women, then they would be fighting to ensure that the permission of father of the unborn child is sought before any abortion occurs. Clearly, however, men are not on equal footing with women in this regard. Do men not have the right to reproduce without fearing that someone will slay their child?
- ufcarazy February 5, 2009 10:51AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
movie with Schwarzenegger carrying the baby to full term. When that can happen, then you will be on equal footing with women on the reproductive issue. Until then please take your complaints to Mother Nature or god , whichever you believe to be at fault.
- mangueken April 4, 2009 1:51PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
If it weren't for both your father and mother, you would not be able to form any opinion on this issue. If you don't like this fact, take it up with Mother Nature or God, whichever you believe to be at fault.
- ufcarazy April 4, 2009 4:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
aware that I was talking to an oppressed man from Amazonia.
- mangueken April 4, 2009 8:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You are not speaking to such a man. However, there are many men who are oppressed by feminist ideology. Although women have the option of choosing whether to provide life to their children , men do not have the option of choosing whether to provide financial support. Men cannot refuse to pay child support simply on the basis that it is inconvenient. Men are forced to take care of children they do not love, but women are not treated likewise. This oppression affects their lives greatly since it denies them otherwise available opportunities for happiness. Imagine if the government stole money from your paycheck before you could cash it and gave to someone whom you gave a shit about. How would you feel?
If a woman should have the right to murder a man's child without his consent, then a man should have the right to deny financial support for the child of a woman without her consent. Aren't you pro-choice for ALL people?
- ufcarazy April 7, 2009 1:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
The man has no responsibility until the child is born. He might die. He might skip town. He might get thrown in prison. The woman might have had more than one sexual partner around the time of conception.
The man has no rights at all. It's all up to the mother. She has to carry it for nine months(should she choose to have it). The man is irrelevant in this situation. The choice is and should only be the mother's.
- Dank April 29, 2009 6:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
So you're only for abortion when the woman would take responsiblity for her child anyway?
- JKM121 April 29, 2009 7:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why should the father be responsible for the child only after it is born if he played no role in creating the child in the first place?
If you are pro-choice only for the one with responsibility, then since the paycheck of the father belongs solely to him, he and only he should be allowed to decide how that money is spent. Thus, he should not be forced to pay child support if he doesn't feel like it. The mother has no rights at all. It's all up to the father. He has to work 8 hours a day five days a week (should he choose). The woman is irrelevant in this situation. The choice should only be the father's.
- ufcarazy April 29, 2009 9:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
"abortion is one of the most common and safest medical procedures"
Isn't that like saying the electric chair is completely safe, because the executioner doesn't get hurt? The whole purpose of the procedure is to kill someone. Not very "safe".
- Freeman July 24, 2008 5:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
While the argument is about the lesser of evils, you are absolutely right. Laws have to be written from an informed and practical point of view. Moral purity is great for conversations, but the unintended consequences of trying to force your moral code on other people can be worse than the original problem.
- Adam Hammond September 3, 2008 6:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
One could say exactly the same thing about assassins, vigilantes, robbers, and other criminals.
In effect this argument is: 'politicians shouldn't restrict private murders because they interfere with the murderer-victim relationship.'
- JKM121 September 6, 2008 4:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Why? Because it isn't a Federal matter. It should be a states rights matter. The ONLY solution is to allow the individual states to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. That's the way it was before Roe vs Wade. In States where the majority of the population favored legal abortion it was legal (ie: NY). In states where the majority wanted abortion illegal it was illegal. It's the only fair and Democratic way to solve the problem of this very divisive issue.
- tbcass January 22, 2009 4:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
I may not agree with abortion , but I do feel it is totally up to the woman involved. I would never do it myself because I could deal with the unknowns that go along with it. As far as I am concerned to each therer own and leave it that way. Roe Vs Wade legalized abortion why change it now?
- erbk1981 February 22, 2009 9:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I am sorry to disagree with you.
I think it should never be up only to the woman to decide because:
1. There are two humans involved: the mother and the unborn child.
2. The father has to be taken into account because the unborn child is 50%"his"
3. Such a decision should always be thought out well seeking the help of family, friends, experts, etc...
4. The unborn is not property of it's mother. he has it's own human rights (to live for example). If no one bothers to defend it's rights (it's own mother refuses) society has to protect him instead.
Roe vs Wade is flawed in many ways: http://www.abort73.com /?/abortion_facts/us_abortion_law/
- ussitano
March 13, 2009 7:58AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This post by the ARC is just the tip of the ice burg. If I understand the argument, the full argument involves the view that a person's right to life involves the right to live it by their own judgment of how best to do so. Since a fetus has no such judgment it has no right to live by it, just as it has, with some exceptions clearly spelled out in law, no right to on the food he/she eats, or the TV shows watched, or the education it receives. The age of majority is the recognition of the fact that person-hood and the full support and weight of the law is reserved for those who have developed the capacity and ability, as far as the law is concerned, for reasoned judgments about how best to lead their own lives. This is the source of a woman's right to have an abortion.
- Atlas Fan August 30, 2008 9:56AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
Ayn Rand said to never sacrifice the actual to the potential in reference to abortion. However science shows that a fetus is undeniably human, regardless of its ability to care for itself. The mother's own free action created the child so her duty it so the child until it can care for itself.
Location does not determine if you are human. If you are in the ocean you do not become a fish, that is insane. So why should something as arbitrary as location determine whether or not you have human rights?
The ability to reason also does not determine who deserves to live, or else infanticide should also be the moral right of the mother.
Now we see the true question, "do all humans deserve to live or only the ones that can make visual appeals to our sentimentality?"
The only logical argument for an abortion is when the mother's life is threatened, as then it can be argued to be self defense. In no other case is abortion justified.
- mkovach September 8, 2008 11:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
Abortions should be legal. To make abortion illegal is to deny a woman's individual rights. Whether a woman has an abortion is entirely up to her. This is an issue of individual rights. If an individual's right is denied or violated, that individual is not free.
To the extent that all women are denied their individual rights, to that extent the nation is not free. When that's the case, males are also affected. In time, the entire nation is under the dictates of whoever has the most pull and the most guns.
The state and church should not interfere with this right. Both government and religious leaders have no moral say in the matter of abortion. A woman might want to consult with the father of the pregnancy to discover his preferences but ultimately she alone has the final choice. It is, after all, HER life. She should be free to live it as she chooses.
Abortions should be legal.
- Sylvia Bokor November 19, 2008 8:05AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This is an issue of individual rights. However, a woman does not have the right to terminate a life, regardless of whether it is inside her body or not. The fetus also has a natural right, to life. If this is not so, then the mother does not have a natural right to life either. One cannot say one human being has more of a right to life than another. What makes this even worse is we all have a right to make our own choices. The mother who terminates her pregnancy had a host of choices that would have prevented the pregnancy, the fetus never had a choice. The fetus' choice is made for them. This is a form of tyranny, as the voiceless does not is not given a choice of freedom.
Denying a woman an abortion is not to deny her an individual right. She does not have the right to terminate her pregnancy and destroy human life, it is a choice not a right. She has a right to make choices, choices that would have prevented the pregnancy.
You are right, she is free to live as she chooses. However as Rand said, "a private individual is legally free to take any action he pleases (so long as he does not violate the rights of others)".
Abortion is an example of the lack of individual responsibility that is being bred into our culture. We have all these rights and don't want the responsibility that comes with exercising them. When the ultimate individual responsibility we will ever have (to that of our offspring) can be neglected and the decision made which leads to this can be accepted with no recourse, our society is degenerating. Creating life (reproduction) is the ultimate gift that has been given to all living things and to demean that gift and take it for granted can do nothing but harm. Abortion is morally wrong, biologically wrong, ethically wrong, and violates all natural rights humans have been endowed with. It is truly one of the largest violation of human rights the world has ever seen and since the abortion movement (Planned Parenthood) systematically targets poor minorities, I would claim it is borderline genocide. http://www.blackgenocide.org/black.html
- ajligs November 20, 2008 5:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
ajligs wrote and I quote: “The fetus also has a natural right, to life.”
No. A fetus has no rights. “Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generating action.” (Ayn Rand)
Simply because a thing is alive does not give it rights. Many things are alive, including insects, weeds and algae. One does not attribute rights to such things. Individual rights have a specific meaning and it applies only to human beings. A fetus is totally dependent on its host. It cannot think or act without its host. It is not a human being until the moment of birth.
“A right is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context.” (Ayn Rand) The born have a right to exist because they are born. Not vice versa. The pregnant woman has a right to abort because she has the right to life. The fetus has no such right.
ajligs wrote, and I quote: “the fetus never had a choice.”
This is true. It cannot have a choice because it has no capacity to choose. It cannot think. It has no power of volition because it is not a self-sustaining, independent entity.
Your entire argument is based on a mistaken premise that a fetus is a human being. Since you believe that, you give it rights. But a human being refers to a specific living organism of a specific kind. By definition a human being is “a rational animal.” But a fetus is not rational. It is impossible for a fetus to be rational before birth. It does not yet have a mind. It has no means to form a mind. As best it is a parasite. It may look human after a certain development, but it is not yet human until it has an independent conceptual consciousness, i.e., until it is born. Rights may not be attributed to the non-human.
Women have individual rights. Fetuses do not. Abortion should be legal.
- Sylvia Bokor November 22, 2008 7:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Interesting argument Sylvia; technically filled with many errors, but interesting.
What evidence do you have that a fetus can not think? Later term fetuses definitely exhibit brain activity.
A fetus most definitely has human DNA. It has a heartbeat. It has a brain and brain activity. It is, in scientific terms, every bit as much human as you are.
You are correct when you say a human being refers to a specific living organism of a specific kind. That specific kind is determined by its DNA. Fetuses are living, and they have human DNA. That makes them human.
By what basis or by what evidence do you make the observation that a fetus has no mind, or that it has no independent conceptual consciousness? Please provide the evidence to support that comment. What is the magical transformation that takes place in a matter of seconds that transforms a parasite into a human being?
A human fetus, from as early as 21 weeks into development, is a fully functional human being. From that point forward they continue their growth and development to improve their chances of surviving on their own outside the womb. But that does not mean that they do not have everything that is required to live on their own at 21 weeks. Your argument is based on very simplistic terms; if you can’t touch it, and you can’t see it with your own eyes, then it’s nothing more than a parasite. This makes it easier to morally justify terminating it, but it does nothing to change the facts that any abortion that is performed after 21 weeks is terminating a life that could very well have survived and gone on to a full, normal life and do great things.
If you’re really interested in the subject and not just trying to make excuses for why it’s OK to abort a fetus at any point of it’s development I would recommend the following site for an interesting read; http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html
- Pepper December 17, 2008 10:26AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Dear Pepper:
You asked: "What evidence do you have that a fetus can not think? Later term fetuses definitely exhibit brain activity."
Brain activity is not thought. Every organism that has a brain, has brain activity. Cats have brain activity. So do rats and birds and dolphins and so forth. Brain activity per se is not the defining characteristic of thought.
Thought is a complex set of identifications and integrations of two or more percepts, which means thought requires some perception of that which exists independent of one's own consciousness. A fetus inside a womb has no material to be conscious of. One cannot be conscious when there is nothing to be conscious of.
The evidence that a fetus cannot think lies in how it must function. By its nature, it relies on its host. If, for instance, the host smokes or drinks, we know "out here" that this is not good for the fetus "in there," but the fetus does not know that such things are bad for it. It cannot identify or evaluate the things the host sends to it. It can only passively absorb what the host gives it.
You wrote: "A fetus most definitely has human DNA. It has a heartbeat. It has a brain and brain activity. It is, in scientific terms, every bit as much human as you are."
Not true. A fetus does have the things you mentioned but none of it adds up to the human. Human DNA or a heartbeat or brain activity are not defining characteristic of a human being. The essential defining characteristic of a human being is conceptual consciousness. DNA is the building block of the physical organism, which includes the brain.
You wrote: "You are correct when you say a human being refers to a specific living organism of a specific kind. That specific kind is determined by its DNA. Fetuses are living, and they have human DNA. That makes them human."
No. As I indicated above, when one is discussing the human, one must consider the essential that differentiates the human from other mammalian life forms, which is rationality. The human is the rational animal. The rational animal alone has a conceptual consciousness.
You asked: "By what basis or by what evidence do you make the observation that a fetus has no mind, or that it has no independent conceptual consciousness? Please provide the evidence to support that comment."
I've already answered this above.
You asked: "What is the magical transformation that takes place in a matter of seconds that transforms a parasite into a human being?"
There is no magic involved. The transformation involves essentially two fundamentals: existence and development. Ordinarily, at a particular stage of its physical development, a mammalian organism is ejected from its host. At that moment, it is plunged into the entire array of things that make up the universe, including light and gravity and objects and so forth.
The born organism cannot immediately perceive everything available to him. It takes considerably longer than a few seconds to ignite the operation of his consciousness. Upon birth it is still on the pleasure-pain principle. He can sense discomfort and hunger and will react. The fetus has a potential. When it is born into a different environment, that potential is activated. But it takes him quite some time to learn to focus his eyes. It takes even longer for him to sense that the object looking at him is "good for me." It takes even longer for him to SAY "mama." This is the nature of the development of a consciousness from the perceptual to the conceptual, which is unique to human beings.
A conceptual consciousness cannot begin to function until it has material to be conscious of. It cannot have access to that material until its perceptual mechanism is activated and utilized. It cannot activate and utilize the perceptual mechanism until it is born into an environment where there is material to perceive and be conscious of. So, we say: the fetus upon being born is now in an environment that supplies him with perceptual data, which enables him to develop his conceptual consciousness. Ergo, he is now human.
You wrote: "Your argument is based on very simplistic terms . . .but it does nothing to change the facts that any abortion that is performed after 21 weeks is terminating a life that could very well have survived and gone on to a full, normal life and do great things."
Are you saying that if a fetus is terminated before 21 weeks, that's okay. You know it won't do great things. But if it's terminated after 21 weeks, then you know that one is killing something that might do great things?
In any case, this does not deal with the most important issue: A woman's individual rights. Why should a pregnant woman do what you want her to do? Why should her rights be violated? Why do you advocate using force upon human beings in the name of the human? It does not make sense. Abortion should be legal because it acknowledges and affirms a woman's individual rights.
- Sylvia Bokor December 18, 2008 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Should Abortion be Legal?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Legalize Abortion - it's a personal decision
Abortion is an issue that should be discussed between the mother and or father, not the public - government.
There are many questions to consider before one makes a decision - what is my financial situation? Do I have time to take care of my infant? Will my child be able to develop in a safe and healthy environment?
I am not arguing that women who are pregnant should not be responsible for their actions; however, sometimes incidents occur without planning. Since a crises has occured, the best thing to do is to face the situation - be realistic and ask ourselves these questions.
Rising a child takes time, care, and money. The infant deserves to be raised properly or they will not contribute to the society positively but to harm it and harm themselves.
- wendiland June 6, 2008 2:28PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ok
then one needs to consider all those questions before you lay down and have unprotected sex. sexual awareness is becoming more and more prominent. on the other hand, i think that most would agree that there are extenuating circumstances. ie: rape, or if the birth itself would place the mother in danger. but, it should not be a cop out for a night of bad decisions. i also think the fathers should be given more of a choice when it comes to abortion . not all father's are dead beats, and some would love the opportunity. in many cases this is taken from them. it is just as emotionally traumatizing for some men. where's the fairness in that. woman don't want us telling them what they can and can't do with there body's. well, start considering the fathers a little.
- jt5542002
July 17, 2009 1:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Would you
Upon hearing that a sexual partner of yours became pregnant and was considering abortion , carry the child yourself if medically possible?
- quantummechanik
July 20, 2009 3:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just Exactly Who is The Family Research Council?
I just made a long call to the Family Research Council in Washington DC, I was interested in possibly supporting them, I agree on many of the positions they claim to represent. I am setting here very disappointed, to use mild comparisons they appear to be modern day Pharisees and Sadducees. For you non Christians they may be people who have hidden motives and are not who they claim to be. It is impossible to determine who or where there funding comes from. For all we know they could be funded by interests in China who wish to have much more control over the USA. The Fact is we just don’t know who the money comes from or if they have hidden motives. Do any of you know exactly who there money comes from? Please don’t use the Evangelical Council as a resource to find more on this subject, you will get only general meaningless data from them. How about it Family Research Council, give us a list of your top twenty contributors and there amounts.
- Super Expert
October 21, 2009 1:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Women have the right
A woman has the right to decide what happens inside her body. In the end making it illegal will only punish poor woman, as wealthy woman will always have the option of having an abortion.
- Ralph July 16, 2008 12:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But
They don't have the right to kill another person just because it's inside their body.
The ONLY solution is to allow the individual states to decide whether abortion should be legal or not. That's the way it was before Roe vs Wade. In States where the majority of the population favored legal abortion it was legal (ie: NY). In states where the majority wanted abortion illegal it was illegal. It's the only fair and Democratic way to solve the problem of this very divisive issue.
- tbcass
January 22, 2009 5:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Actually, they do have that right
A human being has no moral obligation to another person to allow that person the use of what is theirs, even if that second person needs it to survive. If you disagree, I've got a really excellent proposition for you.
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Life
Hi Cameron.
You are using a pretty sophisticated philosophical argument first made years ago in print, by a female philosopher. A friend of mine (a University Professor of Philosophy) wrote an entire book on this and a couple of other important, pro-choice of abortion , philosophical arguments.
You seem somewhat sophisticated, using the argument that you do. Are you also a Professor of Philosophy, or an interested philosophy student, or maybe just a very bright and thoughtful individual? Perhaps you might actually know my friend: Professor Steve Schwartz.
Cameron? I'm not sure that I spelled his first name correctly (maybe it's "Stephen"). Google his name and perhaps the title of his book will also appear.
I'm sorry. I'm a little old, now; and I can't remember the title of his book just now. It was more than a decade ago.
Let me know if you can/can't find the book. I'll try to get you plugged into it.
raymond
- raymond
May 15, 2009 1:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is he the Center for Islamic Pluralism guy?
If not, I've got nothing. You're going to have to give me a link.
And I'm a poli sci student.
- quantummechanik
May 18, 2009 10:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
URI Professor Steven Schwartz
Hi, Cameron:
I googled him for page after page, and came up empty. He's retired from URI and is working at another educational institution.
I have his phone number. I'll see what I can do.
- raymond
May 20, 2009 2:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That's one way to look at it
However, unlike raymond I find your argument simplistic, not sophisticated. Unfortunately when it comes to moral issues like abortion all logical arguments are useless. I could come up with all kinds of logical reasons to allow homeless and disabled people to die etc. A lot of my tax dollars go to help disabled people. I have no moral obligation to help disabled people yet the government uses my money to do it anyway. My solution has nothing to do with morality but instead recognizes that we have 2 opposing moralities that divide the population into roughly equal camps. Let the people decide on a non Federal level.
- tbcass
May 15, 2009 2:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Is morality based on geography?
So abortion is okay in areas where more people like it than don't?
- quantummechanik
May 18, 2009 10:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ha Ha Ha
It amazes me that no matter how many times I say it that my solution is not based on morality people just don't get it. Aren't you reading what I say? What is moral is not something that is part of some cosmic truth. It is based on religion , culture, history, personal beliefs etc. What we have are two groups that are diametrically opposed on this issue. The reason being, I believe, is that the issue of abortion is a relatively new one. Greater scientific knowledge complicates the issue. What it boils down to is we have 2 groups, one who believes that the life an unborn child, the Fetus, takes moral president over the rights of the woman to have control over her body. The other group believes the opposite is true. The two groups are about equal in number. It is impractical, unconstitutional and undemocratic for the Federal Government to impose the morals of one group over the other. Consequently letting the states decide is the only fair and practical solution. As for it being "OK" as you put it, yes, to some people it is "OK", to others it is not. It's like alcohol laws. The Federal makes no laws restricting the sale of alcohol but leaves it up to states and local municipalities.
- tbcass
May 19, 2009 5:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about slavery
Why do you think that slavery became a federal issue? Would you have said that the southern states were fine to continue it as long as the northern states were allowed to abolish it, and vice versa? Abortion is a federal issue, and I know that because it was ruled on by a federal court. It's a constitutional issue. States cannot simply refuse to observe the wills of the Supreme Court or the constitution because most of their constituents dislike them.
- quantummechanik
May 19, 2009 11:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
1 maternal death = 3,613 child deaths
Quote from previous commenters: "...in 2002 alone there were 357 maternal deaths in the USA." It is true that indeed giving birth is NOT without its risks.
But successful abortion carries a 100% rate of risk of death to the child. And in contrast to the unfortunate 357 maternal deaths we see an unfortunate rate of almost 1.3 MILLION infant deaths in 2002 to abortion ( http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/facts/abortionstats.html ).
I suspect it is one's ego that is willing to value one life more than another... or one life more than 3,613 others.
In response to "A woman has a right over what happens inside her body," actually I believe what the previous commenter was trying to say was "A woman has the right over her own body." But science tells us that the child inside is not her body, but a completely different body and person. Common sense concludes that nobody has the right to control the life or death of another person regardless of their location, age or status (born or not).
- beachbrian July 24, 2008 4:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (5)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So Beachbrian, how many times have you been pregnant?
I can only assume by your moniker that you are a male and consequently will never experiance facing an unwanted pregnancy. Infants are not "being killed" because an embryo is not an infant. Until that "child" can function and breath on it's own it's still considered part of the woman's body. A woman does not give up her human o legal rights simply because she conceives. Like I've said, unless the woman involved is your girlfriend, wife, mother, sister, ect. you have no right to tell her what to do with her body. It's of no financial burden to you if she chooses abortion . It's of no concern to you if she chooses abortion. The woman is a stranger to you. You have no knowledge of her financial or emotional circumstances. It's none of your business unless you plan on supporting the child for the next 18 years of it's life.
- Thedes
November 29, 2008 12:31AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does my vote count more?
I've been pregnant 5 times, if that means that I am uniquely more qualified than a man to make a decision about something that relates to women.
Abortion kills a human offspring at the stage of human development called either embryo or fetus. That doesn't make it non-human. Infant, child, adolescent, and adult are names for other stages of human development.
An embryo has, from the very moment of conception, it's own unique DNA. That is a scientific fact. It is not a part of a woman's body but a unique being that happens to be developing in the place where it was designed (by God or nature, your choice) to develop until the time it is ready for birth.
It absolutely does affect everyone if abortion is legal. There are many consequences to society, whether financial (when taxpayer funds are used to fund it, or in dealing with the medical consequences that often follow) or not (as in the higher rate of child abuse that we have in the time that abortion has been legal).
I support groups that help women when they are in crisis pregnancy situations. If a woman has a financial or emotional circumstance that may cause her to think that abortion is her only choice (or if she is pushed into an abortion by a boyfriend, husband, parent, or someone else), we as a society should stand up and let her know that there are ways that we can help her besides telling her that killing her child is the only option. The way to help a woman with a crisis pregnancy is to help her solve the crisis.
Abortion is a betrayal of women - even early feminists like Susan B. Anthony believed that. Those who didn't are women like Margaret Sanger, who was a proponent of eugenics and a racist who supported Hitler.
- jayzee2000
December 8, 2008 8:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Since you brought Hitler into the equation
You better study your history dear child. Hitler was all for eugenics and forcing abortions on those he didn't consider racially pure but if a German woman wanted an abortion whoa Nelly! It was illegal to have an abortion for them and anyone who performed an abortion on their racially pure German women were executed for their "crime".
Let's just agree to disagree. I believe that the woman is here and now. Her health, her body, her life is paramount. An embryo is an embryo. No one forced you to have an abortion against your will but yet you feel you are so morally superior that you have the right to make decisions regarding other women. 99.9% of them are total strangers to you. If you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. End of argument. I support your right to have as many pregnancies as your body can tolerate and if by chance it may kill you in the process, then I support your right to commit suicide in order to bring the fruit of your conception to delivery. It's your business and your life just stay the hell out of other women's privacy. We have thousands of children languishing in foster care, hundreds of thousands without homes living on the street or in homeless shelters because their parents don't have jobs (or don't make enough to pay rent), millions more without healthcare because their parents make too much money to qualify for state assistance but not enough to purchase health insurance. Millions of children in this country go to bed every night hungry. Why aren't you working your ass off to see that these problems are addressed FIRST before demanding that all women must be forced to live by YOUR moral code??? Many women wouldn't seek to have an abortion if they made a decent wage and had affordable health care so why don't you put your efforts into passing legislation to increase the minimum wage and make national healthcare a reality. I bet you'd be surprised at how much that would reduce the numbers of abortions. Oh, and since your side tends to be anti-birth control I'd suggest you also make sure that women of childbearing ability have all the access to that. We don't need more pharmacists telling women that they can't take birth control pills because it offends their moral standards.
- Thedes
January 3, 2009 9:38AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wrong again
You Said "It's of no concern to you if she chooses abortion . The woman is a stranger to you. You have no knowledge of her financial or emotional circumstances. It's none of your business unless you plan on supporting the child for the next 18 years of it's life."
Did you ever hear of adoption? Your arguments are based on emotion and not very well thought out. By your reasoning if a woman has a child and can't support it then she might just as well kill it. A child is biologically just another phase of development on the way to becoming an independent adult that starts at conception.
- tbcass
January 22, 2009 5:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Gee, ya think?
Of course I've "heard" of adoption. Golly, did I fall off the turnip truck today? Your arguments are based on emotion, my arguments are based on fact and experience. No one should force another to have a medical procedure against their will nor should you have the 'right' to impose your religious views on other women. You have no right to interfere in another woman's right to privacy. Banning abortion won't stop women from having an abortion it forces them to seek out an expensive and unsafe medical procedure that has a far greater chance of complications and death than having a safe procedure done by a qualified doctor. I took care of women who aborted themselves and it wasn't pretty. I found it rather disgusting to have a police officer come to her bedside when they should have been chasing real criminals. We have nearly a half a million children in foster care and almost half of those need homes. They may not be cute babies but they are no less deserving. As I have said so many, many times before, if you don't believe in abortion then don't have one. Work to make it a better world where few children are in foster care. Where they can be born wanted, have access to shelter, food, medical care, education and their mothers/parents can make a living wage so they don't have to worry if an unwanted pregnancy happens. You are the same kind of people who want to ban birth control. I find it outrages that people who work in pharmacies refuse to fill women's prescriptions for birth control pills because they 'don't believe' the have the right to prevent pregnancies. Why people feel they must force their brand of religious insanity down other women's throats I'll never know. There will always be cases where a woman's health requires having an abortion. Her life and health will ALWAYS take precedence over a hunk of cells as far as I'm concerned. There's no 'there' there when it comes to an embryo but a woman is very much 'here and now'. Besides tbcass, you still haven't addressed my comments regarding the fact that unless the woman is a member of your family you still have no right to interfere in her privacy. Again, it's none of your business so get on with YOUR life and let others live there's. You can't keep insisting that all pregnancies must be brought to birth and then just dump them out in the cold to fend for themselves..really, try and think this through.
- Thedes
February 21, 2009 12:24PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
mistaken
For some reason you think that I'm against abortion for religious reasons. Guess what? I'm an Atheist! I'm against abortion because I believe that it's wrong to take a human life period. I'm also against the death penalty. As a person with a degree in Biology I realize that Human life begins at conception.
Of course no one has forced any medical procedures on anybody. There would be other options. It also depends on the circumstances of the pregnancy. If it's due to lack of or improper use of birth control I have no sympathy. Religion has nothing to do with it. While many religions oppose abortion they also oppose murder. Is making murder illegal imposing a religious value?
>"There will always be cases where a woman's health requires having an abortion. Her life and health will ALWAYS take precedence over a hunk of cells as far as I'm concerned. No one should force another to have a medical procedure against their will nor should you have the 'right' to impose your religious views on other women."<
If a woman's health is in jeopardy then I would make an exception and the choice would be hers. Repeat I am an atheist. Since I consider a Fetus a human and killing the Fetus is next to murder I believe the State has the right and an obligation to protect that human.
As far as "right to privacy". Protecting a human life takes precedent over privacy. If a husband is trying to murder his wife in their home the Police have the right to enter that home without a warrant to protect the wife. Protecting the fetus should take precedent over the woman's right to privacy.
>"You can't keep insisting that all pregnancies must be brought to birth and then just dump them out in the cold to fend for themselves..really, try and think this through.'<
Of course the mother could raise the child herself. The mother could choose to go through proper channels to make sure the child is raised by a good family. It's done all the time.
The basic problem I have with abortion besides my own morality (not religion, I have none) is the selfishness of the mother who the majority of the time became pregnant through carelessness and then decides, because she doesn't want to bother with the inconvenience and hassle of pregnancy, to kill a human being to prevent that inconvenience.
It's funny how you jumped to so many incorrect assumptions about me. Of course I care about the foster care system that needs revamping but I don't believe that abortion is the answer. I don't want to ban birth control, who does these days? Birth control is the best alternative to abortion.
Your rather lengthy rant was obviously driven by emotion. Your emotional involvement has clouded your reasoning so much that you fail to even consider another persons opinion. You have stereotyped all who are against abortion to be the same, Wrong. You are only able to see one side (yours) of the argument without acknowledging that other points of view have validity.
A little aside. Are you aware that if a pregnant woman is murdered then the murder is guilty of 2 murders, the mother and the fetus yet it is allright for the mother to kill that same fetus.
- tbcass
February 22, 2009 6:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Coercion
"Guess what? I'm an Atheist! I'm against abortion because I believe that it's wrong to take a human life period. I'm also against the death penalty. As a person with a degree in Biology I realize that Human life begins at conception."
In other words, one human being can coerce another human being to provide services for them, regardless of whether the other human being (providing the services) consented to this contract of sorts?
- QuinceyQuick
February 22, 2009 6:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More
>"You can't keep insisting that all pregnancies must be brought to birth and then just dump them out in the cold to fend for themselves..really, try and think this through. As if this was the only alternative to abortion . Think about this. Since Roe vs Wade births to unwed mothers has increased. Single parent families has increased. Obviously abortion isn't the answer. Education and better access to birth control is the answer.
- tbcass
February 22, 2009 9:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Check these out
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/nvp/consistent.html
- tbcass
February 22, 2009 4:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Agreed!
This is definitely true. Women and teenage girls should be educated about this and they should have used protection!
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
?
Why do you think that abortion should be Legal? It's like killing a human. Why not give them the chance to live! Women make choices everyday! They made the choice to get pregnant and here are the consequences. They should learn from their mistakes and adoption is an option!!! Because an unwanted child can lead to an abused child, therefore they can choose adoption. Going to another topic...Gay marriage should be legal ! There are couples out there that really want to adopt a child in need but they can't. If you need the abortion because of rape or incest, medical complications should be allowed for them to get the abortion. Don't make the wrong choice if you can't handle the consequences!! Most abortions come from teenagers and they need to learn that abstinence is the way to go. Too much to say about this but i'll end it here.
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your Opinion
"I can only assume by your moniker that you are a male and consequently will never experiance facing an unwanted pregnancy. Infants are not "being killed" because an embryo is not an infant. Until that "child" can function and breath on it's own it's still considered part of the woman's body."
That's your opinion. I totally disagree with that. Biologically the Fetus may be inside the Woman's Uterus and is fed by the woman but is absolutely NOT a part of that woman's body. If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant then proper use of birth control is more than 99% effective. What right does a woman have to kill another human being just because she was careless and didn't want the discomfort and inconvenience of carrying a child. We are so spoiled in this society that extreme selfishness has become the norm. Getting an abortion the absolute height of selfishness. Rape and incest is another matter I will agree.
- tbcass
January 22, 2009 5:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
"A woman has the right over her own body"
You're confusing that statement to mean that fetus is part of her body. That's not what we mean. We mean that the woman has the right to her womb (which is part of her body).
As you said "Common sense concludes that nobody has the right to control the life or death of another person regardless of their location, age, or status (born or not)."
But if you really meant that, your own common sense would conclude that the fetus does not have the right to control the life of another person.
Since the fetus is inside the womb, the woman must live her life for that fetus. She gives up the right to control her life because of the location of the fetus. She must, even at risk to herself (and risk is not merely death, but also of stroke, hemmorrage, etc.), carry that unborn "child".
It IS unfortunate, but it the design of nature... "God", whatever you want to say... that the fetus is carried by the woman instead of being laid as an egg. Wouldn't that be nice? Then the egg could be abandoned if she wanted and anyone having a problem with that could take up the responsibility of caring for it until it hatched (was born).
The problem with saying that a woman has the rights to her womb ignores the potential child. I think it perfectly ridiculous to say that a woman can have an abortion is the fetus is mature enough to survive outside the womb. In fact, if it even close to being able to do so, the woman should not be allowed an abortion, but should have a c-section instead. The whole thing is not wanting to be pregnant... for whatever reason. So by having a different procedure done (and it really is about the same), the woman retains control over her body and the problem is solved of 100% death to the babe. If the baby dies, it is only because it was not able to survive. Note, I am not saying that the medical community must ignore it, rather that the woman is merely evicting something she doesn't want from her womb. She has absolved herself of responsibility from whatever happens to that fetus.
Anyway. The ego that says the life of one is more valuable probably depends on where you're standing. Do you value the life of your child over the lives of 3,613 strangers? Do you value your life above that of 3,613 strangers? Of course you do. We all place greater value upon those we love and care about.
Why is it unnatural to place greater value upon the rights of your womb than the rights of a stranger to use your womb as it wishes? The woman who chooses an abortion is merely choosing the right to keep her womb empty. The woman who chooses to remain pregnant is voluntarily giving up her rights, and her life, for the fetus. One is not a bad choice, and one an evil choice... we say we have individual rights, but pregnancy blurs the lines because one individual is actually inside the other. But the bottom line in this is that the woman utimately must be able to have control over her womb. Being able to have an abortion legally protects not only that right, but also the health and safety of the woman to do what is already in her rights to do.
- SocialistBetty
January 26, 2009 1:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow, yeah that's kinda obvious
your exact words "But successful abortion carries a 100% rate of risk of death to the child"
no duh, that's the whole point of abortion, is to KILL THE BABY.
well actually that's MURDER
- BeAuTiFuLdIsAsTeR
March 17, 2009 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Except...
Murder is a legal concept in which one autonomous, self-aware individual intentionally kills another. As a embryo/fetus has no legal status as a person, how can it be murdered? It can be killed, but it cannot be murdered. Your use of the term 'murder' is simply a linguistic device designed to appeal to emotion rather than reason. It is precisely this sort of emotive discourse that hinders rational debate.
- Sesquipedalian
May 21, 2009 8:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Depends when in course of preganancy it's done
If it's done early on in the pregnancy, then I think there is less cause for objection. At some point you're dealing with an intelligent being, capable of feeling pain. I do think partial birth abortion should be outlawed. Jamming scissors into the skull and sucking out the brain shouldn't be allowed in any case.
- phogan July 25, 2008 12:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
its our right to choose
Bottom line....it is the womans choice. Who are WE to tell another woman what she can and cannot do with her own body??? you dont have to be for it...or against it....but if YOU were in predicament....where at a point in your life you were not prepared...wouldnt you want to be able to decide for yourself what to do??? granted....perhaps there should be a point in a pregnancy where if youre a certain amount of time along that abortion couldnt be preformed, but again....i wouldnt dare tell another woman what to do. i dont think pro choice is PROMTING abortion...but it IS promoting the right to choose. this is something i am greatful to have as a young woman.
- lanidee02 July 26, 2008 8:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights
I think it is important to point out that, in the United States, a human "fetus" only a few days from being born has less rights than a dog. Is that right?
And do people honestly think that a baby inside the womb is "part of the woman's body?"
- Benjamin Tuttle July 28, 2008 7:06PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Equally non-person
A dog is not a person. Therefore, it does not have rights. Positive feelings about dogs should have no bearing on the discussion.
A fetus is not a person. Therefore, it does not have rights. Negative feelings about the metaphysically independent status of women should have no bearing on the discussion.
- Wendy
September 1, 2008 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Blanket Dismissal
I'm not sure how you got the idea that animals and fetuses don't have rights. They do. And whether you like it or not, animals in this country have MORE rights than do fetuses (or children as some like to call them).
So I ask: When does a fetus become a person? When it is 100% out of the womb? Can you kill it (as some do) 3/4 out or leave it to die in a utility closet by inducing early labor? Isn't this a moral question that should be taken with more gravity than dismissing it as a non-person to secure a woman's "right" to choose her convenience over responsibility for two peoples' actions in most cases?
- Benjamin Tuttle September 2, 2008 5:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights belong to man
Properly, animals and fetuses do NOT possess individual rights. Rights belong only man. Only man possesses the rational faculty. Do you intend to reason with an animal? Do you intend to instruct neighborhood dogs not to defecate on your lawn or you will file a lawsuit? Do you intend to caution a wild bear that he will be arrested if he attacks you? Animals do not have rights because they cannot reason; they must be dealt with by force.
The fact that some yahoo somewhere decides to pass a law protecting dogs and fetuses does not suddenly mean that animals and fetuses are rationally entitled to rights; it simply means that irrationality has taken hold in that yahoo's district.
A fetus becomes a person at birth. That would be real birth, not what evangelicals arbitrarily redefine as birth. An abortion is not a birth.
No one is simply dismissing anything. Reason is clear on this: A fetus is not a person. And the moral position is that an actual individual should not be treated as a means to the ends of other persons or non-persons.
- Wendy
September 2, 2008 3:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Continuing to Dodge the Question
Animals, and fetuses, have a right to life at the very least. If they had no rights, then animal cruelty wouldn't be a problem, now would it?
Where exactly do you get the notion that animals and fetuses have rights? Where do you get the notion that humans have rights? If you are rationally making the statement that a fetus becomes a person at birth (wherever you derive that standard from), what about that baby that is 3/4 out? What about a baby that can survive on its own after 8 months in the womb? What makes that magical instant where every inch of that baby is outside of the mother the key to its humanity?
The coldness of the argument you present, along with the arbitrary nature of your declaration, is a little scary. Denying that abortion is a moral choice, and that the unborn and animals have any rights whatsoever is also scary.
- Benjamin Tuttle September 2, 2008 6:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
How can I make it any clearer
Animal cruelty is NOT a political problem, unless you are a collectivist. Although animal abuse should be condemned morally, it should not be illegal. Animals do not have rights and are the property of their owners. If you deny this, then you cannot claim a right to eat meat and wear leather. You have lost any principled argument you can make for these practices, and if you make pragmatic arguments, then you confess to being a murderer as well as a hypocrite. You also make a great leap down a very slippery slope.
Degrees of "out of the birth canal" is not fundamental here; what is fundamental is the nature of the entity. Again, a fetus becomes a person at birth. The laws of nature eventually result in a fetus becoming survivable, fully formed, its organs functioning autonomously, and the whole organism becoming metaphysically independent, and at that time, the law of cause-and-effect induces childbirth. Nature, or reality, is what sets the standard, not medical technology or the arbitrary say-so of people. We must deal with a thing as it is, now how we can imagine it or emote it to be.
Frankly, your question, "Where do you get the notion that humans have rights?" is scarier than any coldly rational argument I could ever make about anything. I also don't see you asking about the moral implications of the view that a pregnant woman should be forced into the metaphysical status of a plastic incubator.
- Wendy
September 3, 2008 4:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
In the interest of political correctness, and to avoid a shot later
Might want to change "man" to "human".
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rights
Just because a dog is not a 'person' it does not mean it does not, or should not have rights. It seems bizarre to me that people care more about the unborn foetus than they do about the millions of dogs and other non-human animals who are already alive and suffering at the hands of the human race.
- ladyred
September 10, 2008 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
?????
It's even more bizarre that some people care more about animals than a helpless unborn child.
- tbcass
January 22, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Definition of Person
Person: 1. a human being. (define.com)
Is a fetus a human being?
YES: one of the many stages of development of a human being. Others are: zygote, morula, embryo, baby. toadler, teenager, adult, elder. We have a life of continuous development. From conception to death. these are facts not opinions.
So Fetus=Human Being=Person
Other Human beings deprived of their personhood: Native americans and African American Slaves in the US, Jews in Nazi Germany, All the slaves in history: all considered property instead of persons.
- ussitano
March 10, 2009 5:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dead body is a stage of a human being
Dead bodies do not have rights.
- quantummechanik
May 15, 2009 12:37PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Stage of development, not stage.
1. Dead bodies kind of have rights: there is homocide with barbarity and cruelty.
2. I said stages of development, not stages. I said from conception to death. When someone dies it doesn't develop anymore, it's body starts decaying.
- ussitano
May 23, 2009 8:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Homicide
Cannot be committed against a dead person. A dead body has no rights whatsoever. Legally, it has some PROTECTIONS, but protections do not equate to rights. THese protections are both a) sort of new, and b) not generalizable towards all corpses.
Define development. Everything develops into something else. Corpses have stages of development. If you're defining life as a single-celled organism with a unique genetic code, corpses have a lot of those.
- quantummechanik
May 23, 2009 10:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Corpses development
What are these corpse's stages of developmnent you are talking about? How are they called?
I talk about human life's development which starts at conception and ends with death. While there is much debate on when does the life of a human being begins, there is no doubt on when does this life ends.
You said: Dead body is a stage of a human being.
A stage of "what"? of a human being?. Surely not of the life of a human being because life, as everybody knows, ends with death.
And: Dead bodies do not have rights. To which i answered "kind of" in the sense that to kill doing barbaric acts on a corpse(whichever) is worse than just plain murder.
- ussitano
May 23, 2009 12:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A child is not part of the woman?
Babies ARE part of the mother. They are part of "her" body. Saying otherwise is ridiculous. Where does the baby receive life? From the mother giving it life by letting it live off of her food, water, blood, etc. Does everyone make wrong decisions? Yes. But if a man decides to make a poor decision by having unprotected sex with a woman, he can leave. Now this woman has part of a man in her that she doesn't want as well as no father to bring it into this world. Why does she have to suffer due to someone else being a coward? The government is not going to pay her enough to properly feed herself and take care of the baby before she can birth it to give to adoption. Unless the government says "Here's maternity pay at the rate you were receiving prior to your pregnancy as well as free food for the baby," why should she pay for this? It should be up to her to decide.
- thinkforyourself July 30, 2008 1:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A child isn't part of the woman
I didn't realize that an adam's apple and male genetalia were a common part of a woman's anatomy. Tell me though, which part of the woman is this child? And why, unlike almost every other cell in her body, does this part not share the entirety of her DNA?
- JKM121
November 18, 2008 5:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Totally incorrect
Your total lack of any knowledge of biology is evident. The Fetus is not part of a woman's body. None of the mothers blood blends with the Fetus' blood. If it did both would die since they have different DNA. If tissue from the fetus was inserted into the mothers body it would be immediately destroyed by her immune system as it would be recognized as foreign tissue. The Uterus is technically external tissue folded into the body cavity as evidenced by the opening at the Vagina.
The rest of your argument about the father not supporting the child is an unrelated legal matter and has no bearing on the legality and morality of abortion . Any man who would not support his own child should be forced to do so by the law.
All your points lack logic and are based on how you feel emotionally about the issue. A man can't have unprotected sex unless the woman lets them or he rapes her so what was your point?. I could tolerate abortion if the pregnancy resulted from a rape but if she lets him have unprotected sex it's just as much her fault as his.
- tbcass
January 22, 2009 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
its selfish
its just selfish. ok, i'll exclude cases where there is some sort of complication. if it's a choice between abortion, and both people dieing, i dont have a problem with that.
my main problem with it is that the man has absolutly no say in this. lets say a woman gets pregnant. the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't. the guy can kind of see it coming and may try to talk her out of it, but that's the best he can do. while the male half is already attached to the baby, the female half could be out there having his baby killed without him even knowing. a child that the man wants, and would take all responsability for. financial and otherwise. anything it takes to keep his child alive. it would be absolutely devastating when the guy finds that out.
a sad story, yes? now lest say that story is true. we'll say that because it is. my baby was killed years ago, and it still hurts. i tried everything i could to keep my baby alive, and i failed. it was an impossible battle.
- YellowKeyboard August 3, 2008 5:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
That really sucks.
I am sorry for your loss. Unfortunately, I believe that you are the exception. I am sure that there are many women out there who had abortions and would have kept the baby if they had the same level of support that you were willing to offer. Many women don't get that support. Alternatively on the point that men should be included in the debate, I have personally heard a few men exclaim that it is unfair that they made a mistake one night, and now have to pay child support for 18 years because they didn't have a say in the matter. So men's inclusion in the issue wouldn't necessarily lead to less abortion .
I don't think that the government (or anyone else for that matter) should ever have control over women's reproductive choices. For instance, I would be just as strongly opposed to government mandated abortions as I am towards banning abortion all together.
Many women, including myself, find it unfair that men enter the abortion debate because a man is intrinsically different than a woman. I don't have a say over a man's reproductive organs, nor do I think that I should. Similarly, I don't think that men, the government, other women, etc. should be able to tell a woman that she has to give up her body for 9 months, regardless of what she wants. It is making her a second class citizen and a prisoner to her own womb.
Once again, I am sorry for your personal experience. Maybe people should decide as a couple where they stand on the abortion debate before engaging in sex. Even so, I guess that speculation about what you would do in the event of an unplanned pregnancy can't be comparable to when you are actually faced with the decision.
- illusion
June 10, 2009 2:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
its called prevention
Even rape victims can prevent their pregnancies. its called the morning after pill. since the egg hasn't implanted yet it can not be consitered an abortion since the woman isn't pregnant yet.
murder is not legal so i'm not sure why abortion is even a debate
Roe of roe vs. wade. is now pro life and fighting to over turn that death sentence
- superherom03
August 11, 2008 6:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Almost
This would almost be a decent compromise, except rape is a lot more complicated than that.
Many times violence is also involved in rape, and in a hospital emegency room your immediate health is what they are focused on, and you may not be able to get a pill within that 24 hour window. And there are many places that refuse to sell morning after pills. What happens then if you live in a small town and the only pharmacy around won't give it to you? What if they're raped by a family member, and can't get away within 24 hrs? What if you can't afford the pill? It can cost more than $300 to get one from a hospital ER, which is the only thing open during off-hours.
Say what you might against abortion, rape victims should always have that option. This includes statutory rape. No 15 year old should have their dreams shattered by being forced to have a baby, be it by violent rape, being coerced into sex by an older male, incest, or anything else that may have been out of their control.
- TwentySomethingAndSmiling
August 19, 2008 2:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yes rape is complicated
but i am responding as a rape victim. i am holding in my arms the results of that rape. my son is the world to me. an abortion would be just as tramatizing as a rape
- superherom03
August 30, 2008 11:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What about when it is the other way around?
For some women having the rapist's child would be more traumatizing than abortion . You are a very brave and strong woman. You had the choice though, to continue the pregnancy or not. That option should be available to all women, whether or not you personally agree with their ultimate decision.
- illusion
June 10, 2009 2:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
If abortion is murder ...
If abortion is murder in some cases, then it is murder in every case. If a fetus has rights, then there is no moral basis to make an exception for rape. That just takes the rape victims feelings into account, which can't be put above the rights of the fetus.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 6:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The right to life
is not the right to exist under any and all sets of circumstances. No human being has that right. And the development of the distinctive characteristic of human being's to reason and make judgments is the operative context in which the law defines the ages at which the full support of (recognition) and weight of (punishment)the law extends in any set of circumstances. Children, for example, do not, under normal circumstances, have the right to decide how they will be raised. By the same token, parents do not have the right to beat a child into submission, either. In both cases, it is the adults who are in judgment, not the children. Since it is the adults who are considered to be 'of the age of majority' it is they to who have the right to raise their child and they who are punished for the abuse.
- Atlas Fan
August 30, 2008 10:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dangerous ground
You make a distinction between conception and implantation? How is the fetus less of a human before implantation. If you argue that there is something that has rights because of a unique combination of genetics, then IUDs and Morning After pills are murder and implantation has no relevance.
If, instead, you argue that implantation is the important event, then I would wonder, why not some other event in development? Gastrulation is a miracle, so is the rearrangement of the MHC complex (where the fetus defines what is self and what is other). How about a heart beat or a first breath. They all seem like equally momentous events in the creation of a new human being.
- Adam Hammond
September 3, 2008 6:21PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
another possibility
One could look at the womb as an organic life support system. If someone is alive, but needs mechanical aid to breath, then taking that away would be murder. One could reason that the same would be true if it were non-mechanical. On the other hand, if someone needed life support, and they were in the process of trying to get it from you without your consent, then denying it would probably not be murder. If it did not pose a hardship to provide the aid, then it might be depraved indeifference to human life, but if it did impose a hardship it might not even be that.
- ockraz
January 30, 2009 12:04AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not completely true
Too many times hospital ER's (usually Catholic) refuse to give woman the information that they can take the 'morning after' pill or pharmacists refuse to give them out because it's 'against their religion'. Hence the rape victim must then resort to the medical procedure.
- Thedes
February 21, 2009 12:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Morning after pill is not 100% effective.
The morning after pill has a failure rate. What do you suggest for these women who have taken Plan B after rape, and the Plan B fails? Then what?
- illusion
June 10, 2009 2:09PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Was Pro-Choice Until I Saw The Results
I was pro-choice for many years, ever since I knew what abortion was. As much as I hate to admit to being wrong, I was definitely wrong on my stance on abortion. The horrors of the procedure are real, and the results are absolutely devastating. Just look at pictures of aborted fetuses with their arms and heads chopped off. It's truly a disgusting thing. We also now know that these fetuses can indeed feel pain, therefore it is a very abrupt, painful death to an unborn child.
Most women who have them regret their decision. For all you know you might have just aborted the person who found the cure for cancer or diabetes. However, we'll never know as they didn't get a chance.
Abortion is unethical and those who perform them are murderers.
- bagpiper2005
August 15, 2008 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Could it be ...
That those who regret their decision do so because they don't understand the fundamental moral right they have to make it? The issue has not been well-defended. See the comment from the Ayn Rand Center.
- Atlas Fan
August 30, 2008 10:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no
those who regret it do so because they know the have killed their baby. my mother says this after her abortion 27 years ago
- superherom03
August 30, 2008 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
IF...
your mother feels that she killed her baby, of course she regrets that -- particularly if she felt that having a baby would have been a good thing. And she must have. She had at least one other child -- you.
But bagpiper2005 said 'most' and I wanted to issue a ittle challenge to get some more thinking along with the obvious emotion that, for some understaable reeasons, goes with this issue.
If we have had children and wanted them and loved them we can, mistakenly I believe, see our own child being killed. What a devistating thing that would be!
As ARC has commennted on this thread, it is the first trimester that is the basic issue. Though I am not associated with ARC, I agree. Rights are recognized in context. And in the context of a woman's adult life, it is her right to decide, within the first trimester, that must be recognized.
If, after she decides on an abortion, she is remorseful, that is certainly sad. But her remorse is not grounds for denying the righ to an abortion to those who regret having a child and kill them -- either physically or emotionally -- after they are born.
AF
- Atlas Fan
September 1, 2008 3:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A fetus is not a person
"Just look at pictures of aborted fetuses with their arms and heads chopped off." Okay, look at pictures of fetuses. Do they look like actual people? No, of course not. They look like fetuses. That is because they are fetuses, not human beings.
"...unborn child." Contradiction in terms. Children have been born. A fetus is not a child.
"For all you know you might have just aborted the person who foudn teh cure for cancer or diabetes." People are not aborted. Fetuses get aborted. Fetuses are not people.
"...those who perform them are murderers." Murder means to deliberately kill another human being justifiably. Fetuses are not human beings. Therefore, those who perform abortions are not murderers.
- Wendy
September 1, 2008 12:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Typo
I meant "unjustifiably" in that last paragraph. Apologies.
- Wendy
September 2, 2008 3:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Take a closer look
- A fetus at 39 weeks: looks just like my son 5 minutes after birth ( http://www.birth.com.au/InfoBits/Pics/5-37.gif )
A fetus at 15 weeks: head, body, arms, legs, fingers, toes, eyes... that's not a cat ( http://www.birth.com.au/InfoBits/Pics/67-10.jpg )
An embryo at 9 weeks: i not know exactly what it was, but it is definitely an animal (not a plant) and it has a head, arms, legs, fingers. ( http://www.birth.com.au/InfoBits/Pics/66-30.gif )
An embryo at 6 week: just by looking I would have not idea what this was ( http://www.birth.com.au/InfoBits/Pics/66-28.gif )
Conclusion: a fetus looks remarkably like a newborn human person; there must be a connection.
(I couldn't find actual pictures, so the medical style depictions will have to do for now. Can someone find actual pictures?)
- ces September 6, 2008 12:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A picture is not an argument
But even if it were, you would have a very poor one. A fetus simply looks like a fetus. It can clearly be identified as such. Imagining it as a person doesn't make it so.
- Wendy
September 8, 2008 2:15PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A picture is a pretty good argument
I guess you did not look at the pictures. Even a 3 year old will identify a fetus as a human baby... mine did, and she is not unique in that respect.
I'll expound on this tomorrow.
- ces September 9, 2008 9:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Simple
If you don't want a baby, Then keep your legs crossed and/or use protection!!!!!!!!!
Yes an embryo is a stage in life like an infant, adolescent, adult and etc.
It is human. Why be selfish and take a life just so you can live yours all happy after. Take responsibility!!! ;D
It's not that complicated.
- SCV
May 31, 2009 1:13PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
An embryo isn't a human being.
And the logic follows. If you don't want to have an abortion , don't have one.
- quantummechanik
May 31, 2009 1:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes i'm sure it is.
How and why do you think that an embryo is not an alive and living soon to be human being?
- SCV
May 31, 2009 3:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fetuses are not people?
Ok, this is actually kinda funny..Technically fetuses are not people, but come on Wendy.. Fetuses eventually WILL BE people and children, without question if they weren't KILLED. So, how is any of this relevant? And also, a murderer is someone who takes another's life.. and that is exactly what they are doing when KILLING A CHILD or fetus or whatever you would like to justify it as to make yourself feel better. I do not understand how people would want to kill their own child when they knew all along that pregnancy could happen. I do not see why the child should have to suffer for their parents horrible decisions..a baby is so innocent..they have done nothing wrong to the world...so have the child and bless someone else with the privilege that one is taking for granted.
- ijordan
October 2, 2008 11:23AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ridiculous
Using your 'logic' then every woman of child bearing age must be constantly pregnant because not fertilizing every one of her developed eggs would mean the 'death' of a potential human being or that every man's ejaculate should be preserved because each sperm could result in a 'potential' human.
Again, this issue will never be resolved because I don't consider abortion 'murder'. To me an embryo is a potential person but the woman IS the person therefor her rights and her health are paramount. End of discussion. Don't believe in abortion...don't have one.
- Thedes
February 21, 2009 12:35PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Prove it
Wendy, or anyone for that matter, prove that a human embryo, or a human fetus, is NOT a human being; note that being is definded as something having the quality of existence, something that actually exists, or a life - Webster's.
So to rephrase, you must now validate your claim by proving that a living human embryo/fetus is not an actually existing human life.
- JKM121
November 18, 2008 6:02PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mission accomplished
See all my other posts on this forum, but particularly my recent one in which I show that you are definition dodging in your use of the word "human" and also explain that "alive" is not the essence of "person," and show how there is no basis for claiming that the two concepts together have significance synergistically.
- Wendy
November 19, 2008 8:20PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It's so tempting ...
But seriously, I've seen your posts, nowhere do you refute the HUMANITY of a HUMAN embryo/fetus. Can I be any more blunt? You cannot prove the absence of the subject, nor can you deny the race (the human race) to which he/she belongs. Therefore, and since I have here proven that an unborn human is still a human being; and since it is also true that said humans are alive, they are therefore, by definition, persons. End of case.
- JKM121
November 21, 2008 4:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh, the humanity!
I believe I refuted the "humanity" of fetuses when I pointed out on multiple occasions that they do not possess consciousness or metaphysical independence. I could be mistaken, but there are no known fetuses who give to their favorite non-profit, write great works, or express admiration for sublime music and poetry. Let me know when that happens, and I will be glad to revise my concept of fetuses. Heck, I would even give way if they merely showed their humanity by considerately offering their unwilling, burdened hosts a break by taking up residence in an incubator somewhere instead.
But since you like dictionaries, dodge this: "1. The quality of being human; the peculiar nature of man, by which he is distinguished from other beings."--Webster's Revised Unabridged 1996.
Hmmm...What is peculiar to man? By what is he distinguished from other beings? The rational faculty. Aristotle already proved this.
- Wendy
November 22, 2008 2:17PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What fetuses?
pig fetuses?
By the way, I don't recall any proof that the fetus lacks the 'rational faculty,' and since you're bringing it up, the burden of proof is on you. However, just because a being doesn't speak, doesn't mean it's irrational. Furthermore, if you're going to differentiate between beings, then you must include supernatural beings (whether or not they exist) into your assertion, since God is a rational being (even if only in concept), your logic dictates that He must be a man, hence your choice of differentiation is flawed.
- JKM121
May 24, 2009 9:49PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thats do wrong
thats true i looked at the pictures of the fetuses thats just a crying shame. and the babies look so sad and scary lol. i chose not have an abortion but i did have my baby so i have experienced it.
- niesha
February 27, 2009 8:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
A fetus is a human being and so a person
Does a fetus looks like we expect it to look? Does we expect it to look like a baby?
Does we expect a baby to look like an adult? No of course. Still the three of them are all humans beings and all are in continuous development.
Child: 2.a human offspring (son or daughter) of any age. (define.com) Since the offspring comes into existence at conception it is absolutely correct to say "...unborn child."
Person: 1. a human being. (define.com)
"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being." Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
Fetuses are human beings at a early stage of development. They are the same entity that through development evolves from zygote to embryo then fetus and then baby and so on until death.
You are right about one thing: it is not Murder: UNLAWFUL premeditated killing of a human being by a human being (define.com). It is homocide: the killing of a human being by another human being
(define.com)
- ussitano
March 10, 2009 6:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What you saw was more the exception...
Those gruesome pictures the pro-pregnancy crowd likes to display are not the usual aborion procedure. Late term abortion are usually rare and only to save the life of the mother. Besides, these pictures have been around for decades so they were probably done ages ago. The majority of abortions happen in the first trimester and you'd be hard pressed to find anything that looks human. In fact, it would require a microscope to find the embryo. You have every right to consider abortion an act of "murder" even though there isn't a fully formed human involved. Just remember, it's the woman is the fully formed human with feelings, a life, and a future. Your God aborts almost half of all conceptions in the first 8 weeks so I guess God isn't so anti-abortion as you are.
- Thedes
November 29, 2008 12:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Nonsense
Late term abortions are the exception not the norm. The majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester and you'd need a microscope to see the results of that. Those pictures that you speak of are over 40 years old. Many of these were performed in places outside of the US where they didn't have more sophisticated medical means of termination. Late term abortions are only done if the mother's health is at stake. In other words, she's at risk of imminent death or in some cases if the fetus won't survive birth and it puts the woman at risk.
Again, you don't believe in abortion don't have one. What other women do in their decision making is none of your business and you have no right to make those decisions for them. To you it's unethical and you consider it murder. To the majority of us, we consider it a health issue and a privacy issue. I wouldn't support a country that forces a woman to have an abortion against her will anymore than I would support a nation that forces a woman to give birth against her will. It's a privacy issue. Unless you are willing to pony up more tax dollars to help support these 1.2 million more births I'd suggest you should stop passing judgment on the decisions of those 1.2 million women who have to make difficult choices regarding their lives. Until the fetus is able to breath on it's own, it's still considered part of the woman's body. It's stupid and selfish to force a million more children to be born into poverty and suffering when you continue to ignore the one's here who need help. You'll never find enough people to adopt a million children per year every year. Besides, not every woman would want to put them up for adoption. If women were making a living wage, had affordable health insurance, housing, affordable childcare, you'd be surprised at how many fewer abortions were done every year. Why not but more of your time and energy into those problems and help get those put into place instead of browbeating women over their private decisions?
- Thedes
January 3, 2009 9:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Modern Pictures
Here you can look at more recent pictures of abortions:
http://www.abort73.com /?/print/14/
These are graphics of abortion procedures:
http://www.abort73.com/preview/images/techniques/suction/02.jpg (9 weeks fetus)
http://www.abort73.com/preview/images/techniques/de14/thumb/02.jpg (14 weeks)
http://www.abort73.com/preview/images/techniques/de23/thumb/02.jpg (23 weeks viable fetus)
Extract from plannedparenthood: "Either a hand-held suction device or a suction machine gently empties your uterus". Still think this is gently?
- ussitano
March 10, 2009 6:37AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
rich vs. poor
I'm almost at the end of my reproductive years, so I will not be personally burdened by any future government rulings on the subject. My darling daughter however, is just beginning her reproductive years, I want her and her children to continue to have the right not to bear any ill-conceived offspring. For us, our family would simple cough up the money for a plane ride for someplace where a legal and safe abortion could still be obtained. But what's a poor woman to do? Butcher herself? Or face the risk of childbirth with a child that she did not love and did not obtain proper prenatal care for? Sigh, as if we need more kids like that around.
- philomom August 15, 2008 4:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Human Rights
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." - Declaration of Independence
I cite this since I'm assuming we're talking about American Law, and to note that this inherrently axiomatic assumption by the 'Founding Fathers' is why this wasn't addressed in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. On a side note: the existence of a Creator is herein considered the basis for all American law, and therefore the lack of consideration (or abolition thereof) removes any premise to consider any right of anything whatsoever (including 'choice').
From high school biology, the cell is the fundamental unit of life; if there exists a living cell (whether whole or otherwise), there exists life. The distinguishing factor between humans and everything else, if nothing else, is our DNA. Human DNA is unique and quite distinctive; as is generally phenotypically (according to looks) obvious.
As was stated before; the presence (or lack thereof) of appendages or other parts (eyes, ears, etc.) is irrelevant and arbitrary; otherwise we could justify the murder of the legless. Therefore it is likewise irrelevant in qualifying a human being for fundamental rights (in this case, life).
- JKM121
September 2, 2008 6:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No to theocracy
On what grounds do you claim human DNA as the "distinguishing factor?" On what grounds can you now logically object to granting inalienable rights to human unfertilized eggs, sperm cells, and tumors?
Supernatural entities as the basis of individual rights is an irrational concept. And in practice, despite the flowery language, religion has never served as the basis of our politico-economic system. It simply isn't, and that is a fact. Our system is a secular one, based on the predominant ideas of the Enlightenment, and it should remain that way.
- Wendy
September 4, 2008 6:36PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Human Rights 2
DNA is what distinguishes any organism from every other, according to science (Biology specifically). Again, we're talking about HUMAN DNA. I'm sure you'd agree that something like bipedality is trivial. Tumors aren't organisms - they're part of an organism; or rather the corruption thereof. Unfertilized eggs & sperm don't have complete DNA; only half; and again, aren't complete organisms, only part of another organism. The union of a human sperm cell, and human egg, produces a new human being - (see the above).
Now the debate isn't about the theological foundations of the United States of America; though it's undeniable. If you don't like it (whether rational or otherwise), you are free to move - China has a nice Godless government; Russia does too. However; the argument is purely logical. If you deny a Creator, you deny any reasonable source for the "inalienable rights", and therefore all rights, including the so-called 'right to choose', since there is no longer any rational basis for equality. Justice, Morality, and Ethics are inherently non-secular. If our system were truly secular and based on the Enlightenment, there would be no reference to a Creator, and the First Amendment would never have included anything remotely pertaining to religion.
As for the practice, where else do you get laws against murder, rape, and theft, except from religion? Relativism holds no standard, for the one on trial can always say "well that may be good for you but ..."
Now you may object that the law isn't relative, but that which has a relativ basis is inherently relative. Thus if our justice/legal system is based on something as relative as 'cultual/social norms', it is likewise, fundamentally relative.
But this is a tangent and I'll discuss it no further.
You're job is to refute that an embryo or fetus isn't a human being. There's only 2 ways: 1. they aren't human (they are); 2. they aren't living beings (they are).
If you claim something as obscure as dependency, then you are no more protected than they are, for you are not biologically or ecologicaly or socially independent, and therefore your reasoning for abortion could be extended to you. If you make the claim 'it doesn't look human' that only applies within the first 3 wks, and then your ratioale could also apply to the handicapped - or even people of different hair, eye, or skin color.
- JKM121
September 6, 2008 3:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
DNA is not fundamental
Traveling down the Hitlerian road, now, are we? Since there is very little in the way of DNA differences between chimps and humans, 0.8% difference in sequence identity, and there is a .2% average difference between whites and blacks, does that mean that blacks have a sub-white status? Or do we bring apes into the inalienable individual rights fold? Tell me, please, what is the cutoff number?
Biologically, DNA is only half the story. A LOT of unique things have to happen inside a cell and modifications must be made TO its DNA in order for a fertilized egg to even develop into a fetus, so don't call on biology to help you with this argument. A scientist will merely shrug and tell you that what defines a species is reproductive isolation - not DNA.
Merely having human DNA does not make a fetus a person. DNA may be a precondition of an organism, but it is not fundamental to this discussion. What is fundamental is the actual nature of the entity involved. A fetus is not a person.
- Wendy
September 8, 2008 2:57PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Never said it was
Yes, yes you apparently are, for I but mirror your argument.
Now, since you bring it up, the first and primary (and therefore legal) definition of the word person is "Human Individual" or humand being - Webster's.
So what makes a human being? DNA for one. Like you said, there are other factors, but development isn't one of them, and niether is age. There is, however, another way to determine one's humanity; when both parents of the child are human. Since there has yet to be shown (and never can be) any incident where two organisms of the same species successfully reproduced a member of a different species (hence the 're' in 'reproduce').
- JKM121
November 18, 2008 5:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The limit as Characteristics approaches infinity...
So human parentage is your latest criteria? This is starting to bore me. So you are saying that if there were cognitively advanced alien life forms and we ever encountered them, they would not have rights since they are not human and certainly not of human parentage? And if they do have rights, what is the basis for those rights, since the aliens are not "persons?" Or are they? Why? What does your Webster's have to say about that?
What about anencephalic fetuses of human parentage?
You keep changing your criterion for personhood. First it was body parts/general morphology, then random physiological characteristics, then DNA, then parentage. Each time, I invalidated your criterion, so like a Darwinian species, you evolved and latched onto another one. You have now reached the point where you in effect argue for multiple criteria for personhood to keep your argument going, but you cannot specify which ones are essential, and why they are essential.
If you continue to follow your line of argument with the alien example and on to its logical conclusion, you will either reach the same self-contradictory end that you keep reaching, or, if you made a serious intellectual effort to resolve the contradictions as you keep increasing the number of characteristics that go into a human, you would reach my point: Concepts, e.g., "persons," are ultimately referenced demonstrably--that is a person, there is another person--and they include all their characteristics. The only way to know what is a human being is by looking at reality, not inward into your consciousness.
Reality exists independent of the human mind, reality does not reside IN definitions, and the function of the mind is to look at reality and integrate its observations into concepts. If you do so, you will literally see that a fetus is not the same thing as a person. A definition's function is to distinguish a class of existents from each other, not to dictate or replace reality (or one's grasp of it).
- Wendy
November 19, 2008 7:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Show me the aliens, then we can talk semantics
You're the one who's claiming body parts as criteria, as per your question of ancephalics, who are recognized as human beings (even you would, if you'd let 'em live long enough), I never did.
I've never changed any criteria for humanity (to say that it no longer was), I've elaborated, and suggested additional criterion, always stating that it's unwise to restrict one's basis for humanity to any particular criteria (plural form intended).
I still maintain that DNA is a major factor for determining humanity, though you'd know that if you'd even read my last post, I clarify my position that DNA may be essential (depending upon whether there is any truly distinctive set of genes for humanity), but parentage certainly is, as per all known empirical evidence, like produces like.
You have yet to invalidate any of my arguments; you haven't even given a source for your percentages, which are highly unbelievable.
I have yet to contradict myself, and you have yet to say anything substantial.
By the way, if you look at a fetus, it does look like a human being, except for size and development, in fact the distinguishing characteristic of a fetus is that it has the "basic structural plan of its kind" - Webster's - which means all bones, organs, and tissues, whether functional or otherwise.
- JKM121
November 20, 2008 8:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Here's what's undeniable
"The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - Treaty of Tripoli, 1797, signed by John Adams, passed unanimously by the Senate, with no sign of public dissent.
In other words, the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. Straight from the horse's mouth, it doesn't get any clearer than that. The Founders conscientiously derived their secular political philosophy from Enlightenment ideas. It deliberately recognized and secured individual rights, a unique historical achievement. Religion never has, and in fact, has only ever acted against it. Tell us, what does the Bible have to say about individual rights, checks and balances, veto power, Constitutional amendments, bicameral legislatures, republican government, enumerated powers, etc.? I thought so.
Moral relativism vs. religion is a false alternative promulgated by religionists. Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand, provides the secular, absolute, rational basis for individual rights and the American system of government. It does so flawlessly, unlike religion, which has only ever caused an erosion of individual rights. Its ethics is fully secular. It is not based on moral relativism. Objectivism formalizes what every culture knows: That legal prohibitions against murder, rape, theft, etc., are necessary to secure the lives of its members.
- Wendy
September 8, 2008 3:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reason vs. religion
A fetus is not *metaphysically* independent. That is the fundamental issue. The other types of dependence are worse than irrelevant: Every living thing is biologically interdependent.
An embryo or fetus is what it is. No one denies the facts that I have stated about their nature. What is denied is their significance, in order to make room for a religious interpretation. There is no escaping it: Either reason or religion must be used to answer this question. And religion is not a valid basis for government.
Further, reason clearly states that the burden of proof is on you to establish that a fetus is a person entitled to individual rights, not on me to disprove it.
- Wendy
September 8, 2008 3:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
religion doesn't necessarily conflict with reason
Funny that you should be using metaphysics in an argument; but thanks for making my point: dependence isn't a criteria for life, humanity, or lack thereof.
Okay, good, so who cares about pig embryos? In other words, a fetus and an embryo are both living beings; more specifically we're talking about HUMAN embryos and fetuses, and thus HUMAN beings, and therefore we are talking about persons, the plural of which is people. Thank you once again for making my case.
Now, I believe you are confusing this argument with arguments for existence in which the burden of proof is logically one-sided. We're not debating whether unborn human beings (persons) exist, that's already proven. We're debating whether these beings are human or not. You can prove whether or not they're human; I have. Now the burden of proof still remains with you that they are not human, or not alive. You cannot make either case, because the contrary to both of these assertions is false.
- JKM121
November 18, 2008 5:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dissection
First, religion is entirely based on faith. Faith is a means of knowledge other than reason. Religion and reason are irreconcilable.
Second, metaphysics is not a religious concept; it is a philosophical one, so it is not funny at all that I should mention it.
Third, you are putting words in my mouth. I clearly said that independence--metaphysical independence--IS a criteria for personhood, an absolute requirement. That is because a person has an independent, functioning human consciousness. A fetus by its very nature does not have that. You are the one obsessed with physical and biological dependence and interdependence and umbilical cords, not me.
Finally, you have not proven anything; you have simply definition dodged again. You are in a beg the question situation. When we talk about "pig" or "human" embryos, we are referring to their biological heritage (from Homo sapiens), not their moral-legal status (person). The biological heritage usage constitutes an alternate definition of the word. Indeed, in another post, you do go so far as to say that "human parentage" is what makes the definition of a human being or person, and since these fetuses are of human parentage, they are therefore human beings or persons. I have already invalidated human parentage as the essence of the concept "person" in another post.
I have also invalidated "alive" as the essence of personhood. It is simply a precondition.
Nor is there any basis for claiming that "alive" and "of human parentage" together have significance synergistically. Again, in another post, I explain that fetuses and humans are what they are out there in reality; they are not their definitions or an assembly of random characteristics.
- Wendy
November 19, 2008 8:11PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Semanitcs
Blind Faith is a means of knowledge other than reason, pure faith is based on reason i.e. you have faith that the air you breath is beneficial to your health because of the reason that you know that the oxygen (which you take by faith to be in the air) is required for cellular respiration (a process that you also take on faith - as is the case with almost all of your knowledge).
metaphysics is the 'study' of the theoretical especially the supernatural, and it is funny because you're trying to sound like naturalism supports your cause; furthermore the distinction between the religious and the philosophical is negligible.
So you're saying that the presence of a soul is the requirement for personhood, and are requiring proof that it inhabits the being from conception? I therefore challenge you, prove that you have a soul.
If conciousness is your criteria, a fetus is conscious of itself and its surroundings; it can feel pain, for one proof, as evidenced by its neurosystem if nothing else. Furthermore, what about the victims of accidents who fall unconscious: do they suddenly lose their humanity? So then, someone could legally kill you if they knocked you out first and did it while you were out, right? But you still failed to prove that a fetus, at any stage lacks consciousness - or that it matters.
Techincally, you are the one obsessed with 'phyisical/biological dependence and ubilical cords'; I've repeatedly said they're irrelevant - that's the point.
Semantics. The biological heritage is the most verifiable criterion for personhood. A person, by official, authoritative definition, is a living human being. Their biological heritage is the foundation of their moral-legal status.
Now, I never claimed that life was a component of humanity (it's not a prerequisite either though, as many dogs are also alive); but you can't kill a corpse, so the question of life is relevant and therefore has 'synergistic significance.'
Now, I've clearly stated my definitions. I draw them from the dictionary. You have failed even on this count, and you have failed to independently support your position whatsoever.
- JKM121
November 20, 2008 10:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
rights...
I love how for so many years women have fought for women's rights and we use it to kill our own children. Pretty sad.
- ijordan
October 2, 2008 11:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
wow
Wow - the vote option of this web site shows something like 70% pro-abhortion.
I'm shocked and sad.
As for myself, I seem to be in the minority and agree with Mother Thersa (although I am not Catholic). She said:
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
- Oasthad September 15, 2008 7:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
30% are then Anti-Choice
I posted below. Perhaps you didn't read it. The issue is not when life begins, or if there is a life at all. The issue has to do with right of the individual to retain the right to her body. Simply because there is another life involved doesn't resolve this issue.
If it is such a poverty that a child must die so that you may live as you wish, I would just be curious to know which child you donated your kidney to. Or how many times you've given bone marrow so that a child may live who would otherwise die.
If you say that the government has the right to decide what to do with your body parts, you would be forced into giving away a kidney so that another might live. If you say the government has a right to decide what you with your body parts you would be forced to endure the painful process of bone marrow transplant.
While it is indeed a sad fact that abortion occurs, it's only logical to say we cannot make the choice for a woman in regards to her womb. We cannot govern another's body parts based on emotional appeals. We cannot govern your kidney or my bone marrow based on emotional appeals that doing so will save lives. Our bodies are ours completely. A fetus, zygote, baby, etc. depends upon another human for life. That woman has right to govern her body.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2008 6:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Proudly Anti-Choice
I'm against the choice to:
Drink and drive
Commit armed robbery
Rape
Steal
Murder (publicly or privately, regardless of victim's age)
Slander
Trespass
Lie
Cheat
Enslave
Arson
Assault
Batter
and any (other) crime you can think of.
of course there's always another life involved in each of these scenarios, yet they're resolved.
Your error comes from the fact that boys aren't part of women. the Y chromosome is completely foreign to them, therefore the human embryo or fetus isn't a body part; the loss of a body part always, intrinsically results in some degree of harm to the organism, the destruction of an embryo results in the ultimate degree of harm, but not to the mother, not intrinsically at least.
So, if I use my hand [body part] to shoot you, you're fine with that, right?
Does a man then have the right to choose what to do with his loins?
You too are dependent upon another human for life; you're just not attatched by an umbilical cord. Does that mean we have the right to decide whether you live or die?
- JKM121
January 16, 2009 12:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What?
My error? I never said anything about chromosomes, nor mentioned anything about a whole fetus or a whole human as being a body part.
If the government has a right to govern a woman's womb (a part of her body... as in... body part), you do no retain the right to any of your body parts. You do not retain the right to you bone marrow, nor your blood, nor one of your kidneys, as those things don't belong to you. They can be taken at will whenever the need arises because the use will save a life.
Where you get this retarded analogy of shooting me with your hand, I'm not quite sure.
And that's a very good point. If the government has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her womb, then the government also has the right to tell a man what he can and cannot do with his sperm. If the government wants it - they'll get it because you no longer retain the rights to whatever your body produces, or sustains. The same for the eggs of the same woman.
The very point of dependency IS the umbilical cord. You nor I are dependent for life upon anyone else. If we cannot survive because we are too stupid to know what to do - that is our own fault. I do not depend upon someone else to breathe for me, feed me, keep me warm, etc. You do not depend upon anyone else for the same things. If someone wanted to attach themselves to you for nine months in order to live, you have every right to say "Thank you, but no."
The rights to your body parts are immutable. This doesn't mean you can do whatever you want to with your hands. It means no one can take it away from you. It doesn't mean you can spit on whomever you want to, it means no one can demand that you give them your spit or face jail and fines. It means no one can take your bone marrow from you. It means you are not responsible for giving blood. It means you do not HAVE to give your Aunt Judy a kidney nor anyone else for that matter. It doesn't matter if someone else will live or die based on your choice. YOU have the immutable right to your body. It may be crappy that a person (or a potential person) will "die" or just not live because you choose to retain your rights, but fortunately for you - and everyone else - you have those rights. The rights to my womb and vagina are immutable. The rights to you testicals and what goes on in there are immutable.
If you say that because a life is at stake that a woman does not have the right to her body or any of its parts, you say our bodies are not our own. In which case - I you had better be registered and prepared to donate your bone marrow, and your kidney. You should have a living will that gives away your eyes, and your heart and whatever else is salvageable in the event you're made brain dead, or it's clear you won't live. Since you seem to be so big on this "life" thing, and the idea that our body parts do not belong to our own selves.
- SocialistBetty
January 16, 2009 7:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (3)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I hadn't looked at it that way.
I now understand what exactly proponents of abortion mean when they put forward this idea of "my body, my choice." It had never made sense to me before, probably because I was looking more at the fetus, and less at the womb. Now that that clarification has been made, and the position has been truly explained well, I think it will be much easier to come to an understanding. This is certainly the best argument for abortion that I have ever heard. I think there is an issue separating abortion and refusing to give up a kidney, and that issue is that of activity vs. passivity. A child in need of a kidney will die unless you give it to him. Refusing to do so would cause the child to die, but it would not be actively killing him. Doing nothing would cause the child to die, but action would save him. It is very difficult, if not impossible, (as it should be) for the government to require a person to take action to save a life. An abortion, on the other hand, is actively killing the child. Doing nothing would allow the child to live. Taking action to ensure that another human dies, whether they are dependent upon your body parts or not, is generally illegal. Unfortunately, there aren't many good analogies for the unique relationship a fetus has with its mother. A possibility could be siamese twins. I'm not sure how well this analogy will work out, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say that actively killing and removing your siamese twin because she relies on your heart and she inconveniences you would be more equivalent to abortion than denying a child your kidney. Of course, this example doesn't take into account whether a fetus is a person, which brings us right back to where we started.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 2:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ever Watch the Boondock Saints?
In the opening scene, the McManus brothers are sitting in church and then get up to kiss the feet of the crucified Christ while the Father gives a sermon. He tells the story of how this girl was stabbed in broad daylight... "and no one so much as called the police." At the end of the scene, as the brothers are walking out, he says "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another evil.. which we must fear even more. and that is the INDIFFERENCE of good men."
The claim that inactions are not as harmful as actions is a fallacy. What we choose to ignore because it's an inconvenience to us to face the truth bears the same moral condemnation of the actual actions that are considered to be "evil", or wrong. A woman gets an abortion for many reasons... mainly though, because it's inconvenient for her to be pregnant. Why don't I donate my bone marrow? Because it's inconvenient. I'm choosing to kill someone through my inaction. I, at the very least, recognize this. I'll probably end up taking action and registering at some point, but at this point in my life - it's not convenient for me to do so. For now though, I am still morally wrong for what I do NOT do, as morally a woman who aborts is wrong for what she does.
Anyway. That's a good movie.You should rent it if you've not seen it.
- SocialistBetty
January 18, 2009 5:40PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One of my favorite quotes.
Unfortunately, it is not relevant here. We have already established that it is immoral to have an abortion , and I never said that it was moral to refuse a dying person your kidney. Really, it's pretty cold. Nor did I say that it was not as harmful. In both situations, someone ends up dead. The debate however, was not about the morality or the harmfulness of either. It was about the government's ability to make laws. The government cannot make laws requiring you to go out and actively save lives. There are no "Good Samaritan" laws. If there were, Ted Kennedy would be in prison, not the Senate. Murder, the active killing of another person, on the other hand, is illegal. There might not be a moral difference, but there is a legal one. Morality and the amount of damage done have nothing to do with it.
- richardsonkr
January 18, 2009 8:16PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Does that mean ...
that a serial killer should be allowed to shoot as many people as he wants because he finds their lives inconvenient?
- JKM121
May 24, 2009 7:58PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Generally agreed
While I recommend your post, what we need to consider is the notion of a justifiable homicide (i.e. self defense), which, while it rarely comes up with regard to abortion in the US, is nevertheless a concern.
The solution is that abortion should be legal , just like shooting a gun, but it needs to be looked at just like any other killing. Most abortions are murders, and the mothers are at worst accomplices - the ' doctors ' are the murderers.
- JKM121
May 24, 2009 8:26PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Body parts
You can do whatever you want to your womb, but when you start doing stuff to a fetus inside your womb, that's different.
By the way, in this entire post you make this assumption: that the fetus is just part of the woman's body.
Also, men's body parts are restricted. Notably with regards to rape and gunfire: can't go sticking things anywhere one pleases, can't adjust one's fingers when there's a gun between them pointed at someone else's head.
Again, you can do what you want with your body, it's when you affect someone else's body that there's a problem; and a fetus is another body: fact of biology, women don't have male genetalia as part of their anatomy, but baby boys do (even before birth).
- JKM121
May 24, 2009 8:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
no offense, but this conversation is out of your league
okay.
either you didn't read it, or you don't understand it. that's okay. there's nothing wrong with you if you didn't.
"you can do what you want with your body, it's when you affect someone else'se body that there's a problem; and a fetus is another body"
so you've just said that there's a problem with a fetus affects another person's body. that's the whole point. there's a problem when a woman is forced to be affected by another person in a way she does not want. so the fetus can do what it wants with its body, but if the woman is ill-affected and does not want to be affected at all she has the right to terminate the "relationship".
and, you great reader, you, i've never said a fetus is part of a woman's body. duhr. it's IN her body and is essentially sucking her life and using HER as a means of living.
it does not matter if the fetus will live or die, but you cannot -- through use of law -- force a woman to be enslaved to the wants/needs of a another person. if you force a person to do so, it is slavery.
i don't expect people to sift through hours worth of reading to find a solution, but there is a very simple one:
if the fetus is determined to be viable: meaning the life could be sustained without the use of the womb, instead of an " abortion " the fetus is simply removed via c-section. the only cost to the woman should be that comparable of an abortion until the 7th month of pregnancy . at which point - the woman is being a complete douche-bag and should have to pay for the full cost of HER treatment... but NEVER for the cost of the fetus (which is now a full-fledged baby), since she does not want the baby. that will be covered by the state. much like what happens when women have children now who don't want them, and couldn't afford them anyway... but were just "moral" enough to punish both our tax system and the child by giving birth and keeping it.
- SocialistBetty
June 3, 2009 6:25PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
an analogy
so if someone kidnaps you, chains you in a cabin in the arctic wastes, and force feeds you, all at their own expence and inconvenience, they then have the right to 'terminate the relationship'? to better equate the analogy, they'll hire someone to cut you up with a chainsaw, then throw the pieces out the door.
So, while it's true that the smaller human affects the bigger one, the question becomes whether the child is infringing upon rights of the mother that warrant the mother's infringement upon the child's right to life. If you believe that convenience is a just criterion for taking someone's life, then you must consistently support a serial killer's 'right to choose' as well.
- JKM121
June 5, 2009 11:30PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
viability
if viability in an arbitrary environment is the criterion for life, I contend then, by your logic, that you are not alive, and therefore cannot be killed. Therefore, there can be no legal consequences for anyone who wishes to 'change your current environment' (i.e. the Marianas Trench).
your alternative, however, is at least more reasonable than wanton termination, and so I give you some credit for that.
- JKM121
June 5, 2009 11:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
dependence
So doctors and nurses have the right to terminate patients who are physically dependend upon them?
What your body produces is undeniably your property, that which is sustained by your body is not, or else, anyone who's accepted my blood becomes part of my body, by your reasoning.
What happens when you force someone to become dependent upon you (i.e. sex, -rape)?
Body parts contd.
Perhaps a better hand analogy is if someone were to hold your neck with their hand, and then skewer their hand. They're doing what they want to their hand ...
- JKM121
May 24, 2009 8:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jeez.
I'm confused with your argument.
Are you saying that it should be legal or illegal?
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No, we are NOT pro abortion
We are PRO-choice, PRO privacy. If you have been paying attention to national polls you'd discover that a majority of Americans support a woman's right to a legal abortion .Abortion does not kill "children" it simply stops the growth of an embryo. Denying children access to healthcare, housing, food, parents who can make a living wage is far more a case of "murder" than allowing a woman the right to make her own medical decisions. It's a privacy issue and that means what another woman does is none of your business. If you want to agree with Mother Theresa, fine (she never experianced being pregnant) but to tell others who don't share your religious beliefs what they can or can't do is morally wrong. Remember, the Catholic church always chose the fetus over the mother. This usually left many motherless families. Too many times the father had to put his children into orphanages because he couldn't work and take care of them. It would have been better to let the woman live so she could be there for her other children. This is the same church that denied woman access to birth control so they could prevent getting pregnant. Besides, almost half of all conceptions are spontaneously aborted in the first 6-8 weeks so if God doesn't have a problem aborting embryos why should you care what a woman, who is a stranger to you, does? I'm sure you're not willing to pay more taxes to help support all these millions more children you so insist must be brought into this world. I usually find that the enforced pregnancy crowd are all for protecting "the innocent fetus" but once it's born it then becomes "someone else's mistake" and "not my responsibility". Yeah, let's all applaud that moral stance!
What I also find interesting that the Bible says nothing regarding abortion except where if a man causes a woman to abort he has to financially compensate her for the loss of the pregnancy. If God can be so specific about what foods we are allowed to eat, when we can have sex, and what clothes we are suppose to wear, it seems odd that "He" was so silent on this subject. No where in the Bible does it say that "no woman who has conceived shalt abort her conception". I mean, isn't God suppose to be timeless, able to see into the future, ect., ect.,? Yet, the subject of abortion was never addressed.
The question of abortion will never be settled. Those of us of feel it's a medical/privacy issue would rather a woman have access to a safe, legal abortion. Your side will always consider it immoral and murder but since no one is forcing your or your daughters to have an abortion against your will I think it's a procedure that should remain legal. Don't believe in abortion, don't have one.
- Thedes
January 3, 2009 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Diploma Mill Murder
So if someone gets an M.D. from a diploma mill, and decides to 'draw blood' from a 'patient', then the government can't intervene, right?
- JKM121
January 16, 2009 1:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
...
I agree. It's such a shame that someone would do that.
Women should take responsibility for their actions.
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes it should be legal
A woman should have the right to choose. Period.
- GinaM September 15, 2008 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pro-choice fails choice test
A pro-choice position on any issue should maximize the number of free choices, present and future.
The pro-choice position on abortion fails to maximize the number of free choices because it unilaterally eliminates the future free choices of individuals aborted.
The pro-life position maximizes the number of free choices because it preserves the present and future free choices of as many individuals as possible without taking away any choices arbitrarily.
- Face September 20, 2008 2:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Issue is moral, not necessarily religious
I have respect for ALL life forms, human and non-human. We as a human race need to learn to respect life forms, human and non-human, and treat them with the dignity and respect they deserve.
A blastocyst is indeed life. It is a ball of rapidly dividing cells. This action causes significant energy to be spent. These cells already produce adenosine-triphosphate (ATP), thus, are biologically alive. Biological death occurs when cells can no longer produce ATP.
I've known a couple of women who had C-sections 3 and 4 months premature, and the baby managed to survive. It's possible, yet it's still legal to abort during this time? OK...there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with this picture if I do say so myself.
Continuing to allow this morally repulsive procedure to take place is just an indication of the state of moral decay that the USA is in and it's not going to get any better unless people with good consciences step up and straighten things out.
- bagpiper2005
September 27, 2008 2:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, Abortion Should Be Legal
Rape
If a woman is raped, and becomes pregnant shouldn't she have the right to abort the fetus? Put yourself in her shoes. Would you want to be constantly reminded that you were raped? Every time that woman would look at that child she would probably(at least on some level) remember her horrifying ordeal. Some women could overcome this, and they would choose to have the child. And good for them. But it is understandable if a woman would want an abortion in this case.
What if it Happened
Let's say that America goes back to making abortions illegal. What would happen then? Some women with money would travel to other parts of the world where abortions are legal. And some women would simply break the law, and find someone to perform an abortion for them in the United States. Others, would simply attempt to rid themselves of the child on their own. This creates risk for both the woman and the child.
And then some women would just have the child and throw it in the trash after it was born. Or leave it on someone's doorstep. This is what would happen if we elected to make abortions illegal. And yes, some women would give the child up for adoption. But many wouldn't.
The God Card
Many religious people seem to think that God(s) is against abortion. The honest answer is that it's unlikely that anyone really knows how a divine entity thinks(assuming they exist). You may have your holy book that seems to suggest that such and such is an evil act, but that doesn't mean it is so.
And there is no way to know whether or not what you're reading is really what was said thousands of years ago. Perhaps something was mistranslated throughout the ages or never said to begin with. I'm not saying that you're wrong for thinking that your God(s) despises abortions, I'm just saying you might be.
A woman should have the right to decide whether or not she wants to keep a child. If women were to lose that right then they might take drastic measures, which would probably cause more harm then good. Just let the mother decide.
- Aries
November 19, 2008 7:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reasons Why Abortion Should Be Legal
1. Laws against abortion kill women: Prohibiting abortions does not stop them. When women feel it is absolutely necessary, they will choose to have abortions, even in secret, without medical care, in dangerous circumstances. In the two decades before abortion was legal in the U.S., it's been estimated that nearly a million women per year sought out illegal abortions. Thousands died. Tens of thousands were mutilated. All were forced to behave as if they were criminals.
2. Legal abortions protect women's health: Legal abortion not only protects women's lives, it also protects their health. For tens of thousands of women with heart disease, kidney disease, severe hypertension, sickle-cell anemia and severe diabetes, and other illnesses that can be life-threatening, the availability of legal abortion has helped avert serious medical complications that could have resulted from childbirth. Before legal abortion, such women's choices were limited to dangerous illegal abortion or dangerous childbirth.
3. A woman is more than a fetus: Some people argue these days that a fetus is a "person" that is "indistinguishable from the rest of us" and that it deserves rights equal to women's. On this question there is a tremendous spectrum of religious, philosophical, scientific, and medical opinion. It's been argued for centuries. Fortunately, our society has recognized that each woman must be able to make this decision, based on her own conscience. To impose a law defining a fetus as a "person," granting it rights equal to or superior to a woman's — a thinking, feeling, conscious human being — is arrogant and absurd. It only serves to diminish women.
4. Being a mother is just one option for women: Many hard battles have been fought to win political and economic equality for women. These gains will not be worth much if reproductive choice is denied. To be able to choose a safe, legal abortion makes many other options possible. Otherwise an accident or a rape can end a woman's economic and personal freedom.
5. Outlawing abortion is discriminatory: Anti-abortion laws discriminate against low-income women, who are driven to dangerous self-induced or back-alley abortions. That is all they can afford. But the rich can travel wherever necessary to obtain a safe abortion.
6. Compulsory childbirth laws are incompatible with a free society: If there is any matter that is personal and private, then pregnancy is it. There can be no more extreme invasion of privacy than requiring a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. If government is permitted to compel a woman to bear a child, where will government stop? The concept is morally repugnant. It violates traditional American ideas of individual rights and freedoms.
7. "Every child a wanted child:" If women are forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, the result is unwanted children. Everyone knows they are among society's most tragic cases, often uncared-for, unloved, brutalized, and abandoned. When they grow up, these children are often seriously disadvantaged, and sometimes inclined toward brutal behavior to others. This is not good for children, for families, or for the country. Children need love and families who want and will care for them.
8. Choice is good for families: Even when precautions are taken, accidents can and do happen. For some families, this is not a problem. But for others, such an event can be catastrophic. An unintended pregnancy can increase tensions, disrupt stability, and push people below the line of economic survival. Family planning is the answer. All options must be open.
- Aries
November 19, 2008 7:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh,
Wrong!!! ;]
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comes down to fundamental rights...
This is what it comes down to. Government is held with the responsibility of protecting certain unalienable, natural, inherant rights that humans are endowed with. These rights are basic and fundamental, among them are; LIFE, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. Abortion should be made illegal due to it taking the fundamental right to life from a human, the fetus.
The " pro-choice " argument doesn't hold water. Choice is the foundation of freedom. You have the right to choose, SO LONG AS THAT CHOICE DOES NOT VIOLATE ANOTHER'S RIGHTS. The choice of having abortion does exactly that to the fetus, it strips a human of a fundamental right and as a consequence, EVERY single other right.
More importantly, pregnancy is a choice in itself. A woman has the choice to have sex, she then has the choice of using a contraceptive; furthermore, she has a choice as to which contraceptive is used. So she has many choice, however, those choices become irrelevent once life is conceived. Pro-choicers say the woman has her civil rights violated if she cannot have an abortion. What then is it called when the innocent, who doen't have a voice to defend their own inherent rights have them violated.....
It's as basic as the weight of individual rights. The fetus' right to LIFE trumps the woman's 'choice' to destroy it every single time, no exceptions.
I am astounished that an organization such as the Ayn Rand Institute would abandon reason on this basic fundamental issue that rests solely upon natural rights of individuals vs. the third round of choice for a woman (after the choice to have sex and then the choice to use contraceptive).
- ajligs
November 20, 2008 3:12PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abortions, 97% for pure convience
It has always been convenient for King Henry of England to kill his newly born daughters because they were not males. It was always convenient for Germans to kill their POW during WWII. It was convenient for a father to abandon his own children. Sound bad to you. Why isn't the 97% of abortions that are not from rape, incest, of threatening life of a mother any different?
- The Other Conservative Guy
November 29, 2008 12:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Individual Rights vs The Body as Community Property
The bottom line in this debate is this: A woman is housing the fetus. Whether or not that fetus has rights is immaterial.... the right of the woman to do with Her body as she wishes is the ultimate right.
To say that the fetus has right to life is debatable, but without the woman that fetus would have no life at all. It is her body sustaining it.
If we give the right to govern our own bodies to other people, what would prevent these governing bodies from making choices that you don't agree with concerning your body parts?
There are thousands of children who have a right to life dying at this very moment from the lack of functioning kidneys.
If we had the right to tell a woman what to do with her womb, why would we not have the right to demand a kidney from a man? or a woman? To do so would violate the man or woman's right to his or her own body, but it would save a life... and this is supposedly a justifiable reason to make such demands.
Similarly, thousands of children are in need of bone marrow. If women lose the right to govern their wombs, where is the protection of the right to govern our bone marrow? The same reasons given to justify the "anti-choice" (or, " pro-life ) argument are the same reasons that would make it legal to force individuals to not only register for the bone marrow transplant list, but to give one's bone marrow to the person in need of it.
Bottom line: The right to the self is immutable, despite the most passionate objections to what another chooses to do with one's self.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2008 3:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Body is Not Community Property
Betty, your argument dismisses the fact that the unborn fetus is a separate life entity. The decision to have an abortion is a decision to terminate not the mother's life but the life of the fetus within. You are arguing for the right to terminate someone else's life.
With that said, there are many reasons why a pregnancy should not continue. Certainly when the health of the mother is at risk is one of them. If the pregnancy is as a result of rape or incest is another. And finally, like it or not, sometimes accidents happen.
The problem society has is it can't seem to understand the concept of compromise. It's always an all or nothing deal. Either we don't allow abortions at all, or we allow abortion at any stage of development for any reason. But I truly believe the answer is one of compromise. During the first trimester abortion should be universally allowed. During the third trimester abortion should only be allowed to protect the health of the baby. Abortions during the second trimester should be allowed, but should be somewhat restricted (i.e., perhaps require the father's permission, or require counseling first.. something that forces the decision to be carefully reviewed, but still allow for it).
It is a slippery slope, and finding the right balance is not easy. I, for one, would never ask a rape victim to carry the results of that rape. But I can never done legalizing the murder of a baby that is, in most cases, viable outside the womb.
- Pepper
December 15, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I'm aware of the definition of a clinical abortion.
The real issue isn't when life begins, or what constitutes life. The question isn't when an abortion should be legal. The real question behind abortion is the woman's right to her body. That is what I am arguing.
You have failed to address the issue I have just raised. It doesn't matter if there is a life living inside that woman, that is the woman's body. Either she has the right to govern her own body or she does not.
If the fetus can sustain its own life outside of the uterus - or science can advance itself to the point where this is possible there would be no debate. As it stands, when you support the government's right to tell a woman what to do with her body because it "saves a life" you should be just as much in favor of the government forcing you give away one of your kidneys, or to undergo the painful process of bone marrow transplant even if you object. That there is a life involved in an abortion doesn't resolve the fact that this is a person's body that you are allowing government discretion over.
There is no compromise. Either you have control over your body parts and what is done with them or you do not.
If a woman no longer wishes to host a life that is parasitic in nature and that life can survive outside the womb the medical community can help it survive.
But then what?
In this right to life that is supported, what kind of life are you supporting? If you are going to vote in favor of forcing women to do your bidding with her body, are you going to vote in support of using tax-payer money to support all the lives you are "saving"? Are you then going to vote that couples must adopt before trying to conceive through non-conventional methods (I.V.F.)? Or should the woman then be forced to care for the child herself? Should she be compensated for the pain and suffering that was forced upon her in the form of not only childbirth, but the physical ailments that accompany pregnancy?
Ultimately, you have to decide which is more important - your right to your body or the right for someone else to live.
If you say the individual's right to his or her body is greater than the right of someone else to live, you cannot vote in favor of repealing Row/Wade.
If you say the individual has no right to his or her body when another's life is at stake, you should already have given away a kidney and donated your bone marrow for as many times as you're matched.
If you can prevent a person from dying and yet you do nothing, are you then murdering that person?. How many people have you killed from your refusal to share your body? How many lives have I let die from my decisions to keep my kidney and my bone marrow? That some women choose to keep their uterus' (uteri?) intact through abortion isn't a separate issue. You're arguing in favor of forced sharing of body in order to save lives, so I had to ask.
So which is it? Do you support the right to govern your own body? Are you willing to be told what to do with any part of your body that can save a life? That's the real issue.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2008 5:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Government Control of Your Body
If someone needs a kidney and I don't donate it and that person dies, I did not kill that person. I didn't do anything to help them, but nature took their life, not me.
If a woman is otherwise healthy and at 26 weeks into her pregnancy she decides, for non-health related reasons, that she no longer wants the baby and has an abortion then she deliberately terminated that life.
I'm not obligated to save a life, but I am obligated not to take one. There’s a huge difference.
At some point morality needs to become the priority. Restricting late term abortions is not about dictating to a woman what she can do with her body; it's about protecting a viable human life, even if the woman wants to interpret it otherwise. Pregnancy is both a blessing and a burden for women, but it is the process decided by nature.
And I’m sorry if I sound insensitive to your concerns but trust me, I am not. I merely want to find the balance between a woman’s choice and protecting human life. There is no simple answer and I understand your concern.
- Pepper
December 15, 2008 7:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Morality Doesn't Have an "Off" Switch.
Pardon me for pointing this out, but late term abortions already are illegal.... they Have been restricted so I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
But. If you're going to speak about morality, please clear this up for me:
It's immoral for a woman to have an abortion , or clear her body of a parasite that she does not want, but it is perfectly moral for you to ignore the impending death of the already viable, innocent life of a child. An actual child. when you have the power to save that child. It's perfectly moral for you let a child die and not do a single thing to prevent it.
Because you're not morally obligated to save a life if you know that you can.
Did I get that right?
Morality, then, can be turned on and off according to whatever suits the mood. Life is precious and needs to be protected at all costs - except if it will inconvenience you. If it's another person's body, by all means... dictate to her what she can and can not do with her body. Doing nothing is just as immoral as doing something (if you're going to use the reasoning that a woman cannot retain government over her body parts because it saves a life).
If you're going to use the "it is the process decided by nature." defense, how do we respond to something like a heart attack. Is it immoral to save a woman having a heart attack? After all, it's just nature taking its course. Should we simply watch and hope for the best? Perhaps we should just watch as the newly born baby struggles for breath. That's nature taking its course. We have no moral obligations to save lives, only moral obligations against taking lives.... so we should do nothing as the newborn struggles to breathe instead of clearing out the cavities and giving the baby oxygen. Or does this seem unreasonable? I'm thinking it sounds unreasonable. Yet if I your reasoning, this is the conclusion that is reached.
Also, there are "Good Samaritan" laws which do, in fact, make it illegal to do nothing if one does, in fact, know that inaction will result in great injury or death. Not that any judge would stretch this to include not giving blood, or not donating a kidney... but that's precisely the point. No one can force you to do those things.
Again, what that woman decides to do is her decision... regardless of the outcome... because it is her body. To say otherwise is to deny that she, yourself, or anyone else has the right to govern their bodies.
The fact that you do nothing and the innocent child with leukemia will die because nature took its course means you knowingly let that child die. Your body parts could have prevented it and you simply chose the other direction. You knowingly make that choice everyday and no one calls you a murderer. No one looks at other people standing in line in the grocery store or pumping gas and thinks "That guy just let that kid die. What a douche!". It's simply easier to not think about the things that we do not do (but could be doing) to saves lives. Why? Because it's an inconvenience. Yet the logic that will morally condemn a woman who has abortion means that everyone is guilty. There is no difference in those choices. The choice is yours to make. No one can force you to become a marrow donor because to do so would mean that you are not free to make decisions about your body. *even if* those decisions can "save" lives that might otherwise die.
- SocialistBetty
December 15, 2008 11:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Twisting the logic to make the case
Betty, you are so badly twisting the logic that I needed to go back and read what you wrote three times and I'm still not sure I'm following along.
No, you are incorrect in your interpretation of what I am saying. I'm suggesting that abortion is taking a life, or murder if that helps frame the argument. That is illegal. Not taking action to save the life of someone, as in any life or death situation, always has moral implications, but it’s not nearly as cut and dry as you’re trying to make it out to be. Do I risk my own life by undergoing major surgery? Am I willing to live my life with only one kidney and, should the other be damaged by any number of things, potentially die? What if I give up my kidney and then a member of my family needs one? I never said it was perfectly moral to sit by and do nothing when I could be saving a life, but that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to have all my spare body parts out. I do donate blood every six months and that IS saving lives. We do what we can do.
But now, let me see if I understand what you are saying. If I have this right, you're saying there is no difference between failing to donate a kidney and deliberately killing someone. They are both immoral and thus equal. Do I have this correct?
You also wrote; “If you're going to use the "it is the process decided by nature." defense, how do we respond to something like a heart attack. Is it immoral to save a woman having a heart attack? After all, it's just nature taking its course. Should we simply watch and hope for the best?”
This one I read three times and am completely lost with where you are going with this. All I was saying is ‘sorry that this is a woman only issue but that’s the way nature planned it.’. How you got from that to letting someone die from a heart attack I have no idea. The point being, if men could also carry a fetus I wouldn’t change a thing in my argument. A fetus in the third trimester is a living human being that has gone past the point of being a mere organism to a pre-born person and I believe it should have a right to life regardless of who is carrying it.
- Pepper
December 16, 2008 2:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
This isn't 1955... there's no twisting on this dance floor.
Okay, then. And if you see any mistakes please just skip over the spelling... my backspace key was ripped off through some freak accident (as was the space bar a few months ago).
If you say abortion should be illegal - which I hear what you're saying about the late term thing, but I'll just throw it out there again that third term abortions Are illegal - you are saying people (women, men, anyone) do not have government over their own body parts. Which means you should not have government over any of your body parts.
The fact that there is a potential life means nothing. It would not matter if men could carry a fetus. The fetus is literally living off the carrier. If you had a grown person hooked up through an i.v. who would die if the cords were cut and only you could provide life to person you would still retain the right to say "No, thank you, but I think I'm fine without you." This, of course, might never happen, but it is not murder to retain the use of your body as you see fit. It is entirely within your rights. To use your argument, sorry for the fetus, but nature designed it that the fetus couldn't live outside the womb. Not my fault. That's just nature taking it's course.
"I'm not obligated to save a life, but I am obligated not to take one. There’s a huge difference."
This is what you said. This is why I responded that morality can't be turned on and off to suit whatever fits Your argument at the time.
Why did talk about nature?
"I did not kill that person. I didn't do anything to help them, but nature took their life, not me." So standing by and doing nothing is morally acceptable to you, apparently. You're now trying to change it. I'm not twisting anything....you're changing your words to suit yourself.
But.
To answer your question, you do not have that right.
If you are going to force a woman to go through a dangerous process because otherwise another person will die, it is equally moral to force anyone else to go through a dangerous process because otherwise a person will die.
Your logic says that a woman cannot retain the rights to her uterus because if she doesn't use those parts to give life, she is immoral. By your logic, you cannot retain the rights to your body parts because if you don't use those parts to give life you are immoral.
Deliberately killing someone and deliberately doing nothing and letting someone die IS the same thing. You thought about the actions and the consequences beforehand for each of those things. You weighed your options and made a decision. The deciding factor in each case is you. If all you have to do is push a button to save a life and you know it - you see it happening - you can push the button but you don't, you are deliberately killing that person. If all you have to do is push a button and someone dies - you know this and you push it, you are deliberately killing that person. There is no difference. Your decision will kill a person.
"Do I risk my own life by undergoing major surgery?" Is there no risk in pregnancy?
"Am I willing to live my life with only one kidney and, should the other be damaged by any number of things, potentially die?" Is there no potential for death in pregnancy? Can we not be damaged irreparably during pregnancy (I'm just assuming you're a woman. Forgive me if I'm wrong)?
"What if I give up my kidney and then a member of my family needs one?" No one has rights to their body, remember? Someone else will be forced to give your family member a kidney.
"I never said it was perfectly moral to sit by and do nothing when I could be saving a life, but that doesn’t mean I’m compelled to have all my spare body parts out." Well, actually you did say that you were obligated to save a life. But that aside, why should a woman be compelled to use her body parts to sustain the life of someone else if she doesn't want to so?
So, I've answered your question but you've yet to answer *the* question:
Do you have the right to govern your own body?
That's the only answer you need to give in this argument and that's the only one I'm asking you to answer. It doesn't matter if we're talking about forced birth or the forced donation of kidneys or bone marrow. It's not a debate that those things "save" lives.
Do you have the right to govern your own body?
This isn't a woman's issue for this very reason. If abortion is illegal, not only is it women who don't have the right to govern their bodies, but it follows that all people do not have that right.
So which is it?
- SocialistBetty
December 18, 2008 11:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Go read Roe v. Wade
Apparently you are familiar with this ruling. You say that during the first trimester abortion should be universally allowed, some restrictions in the second and even more in the third. Well, this is exactly what Roe states. Third trimester abortions are only allowed if the mother's life or health are in grave danger or if the fetus has such tremendous health problems it wouldn't live beyond birth but what few abortions are performed in the last trimester are usually to save the life of the woman. So you see, compromise already exists. Also, a fetus can not be a seperate entity until it is able to function outside of the womb. This can't happen until about the 29th week. Granted, there have been cases of 26-28 week deliveries but these usually result in very physically and mentally damaged children. If a fetus delivers and doesn't take a spontaneous breath, the physicians usually won't try to resuscitate it because it means the respiratory system is too immature to function. They don't want to put that child through any torture forcing it to try and live. I've seen the miserable lives those children have gone through and was thankful when they finally died from all their medical complications. Death is a normal part of life. From the moment we are concieved we are on the path that will eventually end in our death. It may come a few weeks after conception or years after our birth but it will happen. Let's take care of those who are born and here in need of our help. We don't need to drag more unwanted children into this world until we can give the one's living here and now a decent life.
- Thedes
January 3, 2009 10:42AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Very Funny
I know it is a "lapsus" but i couldn't resist: "During the third trimester abortion should only be allowed to protect the health of the baby" How is abortion going to protect the life of the baby, i wonder?
Seriously: i am against all abortion (and this is my opinion) because it simply terminates the life of a human being's life cycle. Science has proved that this cycle begins at conception and ends permanently with death. I simply think it's wrong to make a distinction of humans based on any discimination as declared in the universal declaration of Human rights article2: Size, Location, Stage of development, etc... To argue that a fetus is not human is simply false.
If we agree with this we have to give all humans the same rights.
The only exception to abortion, in my opinion, has to be when the life of the mother is at risk.
This is to save the only life who would survive if we didn't intervene.
- ussitano
March 10, 2009 7:59AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, a "lapsus"
Thanks for catching that. Yes, that should have read "..to protect the health of the mother".
Don't get me wrong, ussitano, I'm not in favor of abortions at all for the same reasons you give. But the reality of it is we will never end abortions; there are just too many legitimate reasons why society wants and needs to have them. I would never want a woman who was raped to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy that may result from that attack. This also applies in cases of incest. And if we know a fetus is severely deformed, I can also understand the desire to terminate it. I'm a little less understanding of those who simply failed to use protection and now think of it as an inconvenience. However, prior to 28 weeks the embryo/fetus is not considered viable and so if there are reasons to end the pregnancy, I'd prefer to allow it then with the understanding that beyond 28 weeks abortion would be extremely restricted.
To those who claim this is already the case I would point out every piece of legislation that attempts to restrict late term abortions has more loopholes than carter has pills. And while the percentage of abortions in the third trimester is low, when you consider the total number of abortions for any given year, it's still a very large number of viable fetuses that are being terminated every year. There is far too much ambiguity in the laws today and the differences in various state laws allow people to simply go to a state that will allow them.
- Pepper
March 10, 2009 12:48PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Watch this - You might think again
To those in favor of abortion , please go to this site and watch the video. It's graphic, and disgusting, but many have not seen this side of abortion. Look at those little children, and tell me, honestly tell me, that abortion is A-Okay.
http://www.abortionno.org /
- Domoman
December 17, 2008 2:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Except...
Late term abortions are rare and only to save the life of the woman. So it's graphic, so is the end results of bombs being dropped on innocent women and children in Iraq. It still doesn't address the issue of privacy. Abortions aren't for public viewing. You can use shock all you want but it's not going to work on everyone. The question of abortion is still a privacy/medical decision. You don't believe in abortion, no one is forcing you to have one. We aren't living in China. You want to have 20 kids, that's your choice and I wouldn't insist that laws must be passed forcing you to limit the size of your family. By the same reasoning, you have no right to tell other people how many children they must have.
- Thedes
January 3, 2009 10:50AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
!!
Ew gross that was so sad!
- SCV
May 30, 2009 12:18PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It depends
I believe that there should be a difference between abortion when the sex that created the child was consensual or if the woman was raped. If she was raped and became pregnant the woman should then be able to decide for herself but if she was just to lazy to make some guy put on a condom then she should have to go through with it. No one knocked her up agianst her will.
- mattbertrams
January 20, 2009 9:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should Abortion be Legal
I see a trend that has become a thorn to the people of America. The trend is that of the courts generating law, be it a regional court, or the so called "Supreme Court"! From all of my study, the function of the court system, as well as that of the Supreme Court is to uphold "Law" which has been legislated by the "House of Parliament"...thus representing the People of America... instead of a group's opinion being honored by a biased supreme court judge. To me this represents supreme corruption and misuse of judicial power which should be indictable or impeachable.
Law for the people need to be legislated through the House, representing the PEOPLE, for the PEOPLE, and of the PEOPLE, to be upheld by the court system and especially the Supreme Court system which should directly represent the HOUSE, in keeping it real.
Here is one major flaw that I hope the New President can bring back to sanity, putting the laws of the land back into representing Democracy and of the people.
The Supreme court system as it stands has become a means for biased minority groups to perpetrate their agenda by finding a judge of similar bias. Democracy is meant to represent the
Nations collective good and common sense and not that of the few in a building of a few people. (Court house).
- Me2
January 22, 2009 12:59PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pro-lifers need better lawyers. Roe is silly
From Canada
The Roe vs Wade decision said that founding fathers/people who made the constitution had a intention to say the fetus is not a human being and future Americans can never say its a human being.
The Roe decision is based on the sole foundation the fetus is not a human being.
This was the error of roe.
Not liberal, activist Judges as such. Though motives are involved.
Roe literally tries to say a very Protestant Christian British population created a constitution where then and later legislatures could not vote that the fetus is a human being.
Therefore the old ones intended the people of the future could not change their minds about the fetus and that at the creation of the constitution they believe the fetus was not a human being.
This ia an absurdity.
Such a early religious people never would put in their ultimate collection of rights the denial that a fetus has no soul and is not human until birth.
They never had such a intent.
They never would of agreed to such two concepts.
Roe tries to stop the people from voting up or down abortion .
Roe says abortion was settled hundreds of years ago.
Roe admits there is no final conclusion on the humanity of the fetus.
Roe concludes the fetus is not a human being.
Roe hints a common opinion that the fetus is a human being could find its place in the constitution apparently nullifying a right to abortion. The right seems conditional.
Roe was a careless opinion and carelessly allowed to exist because of the pro-abortion beliefs of the layers generally.
Destroying Roe's legal credibility is not a big problem. pro-lifers just need better lawyers acting in these small circles.
- Robert Byers
January 22, 2009 10:14PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Murder is illegal, immoral and wrong, even when you rationalize it
I have tried and tried and I can not come to the rationalization that many pro- abortion supporters find so easy - that somehow, a thing that, if left un-aborted, will turn into a human being 100% of the time. (not usually, not almost always, not 99.9999999...% of the time, but EVERY time) can be killed and it somehow isn't murder, or if it is, that it is OK, because it isn't human. How can it not be a human being? This isn't about religion or choice, but about science (the thing that becomes a human, is a human) and basic right and wrong vs. convenience. I don't have to be a woman (I'm not) or a religious nutbag (I'm not) to understand either side of this argument. Why do so many otherwise decent people seem to think it is OK to kill another human? It also sickens me that many of the same folks that are pro-abortion are charter members of PETA, ASPCA, etc. If we cared half us much for each other, as we did for food and companionship, abortion wouldn't be an issue.
- Willis
January 30, 2009 4:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
But is it ethical?
Here's a question that my mom's friend brings up every time human rights are brought up.
Is it ethical for someone to demand services of you for free, or to coerce you into a contract that you did not consent to? Of course not! You never consented to the contract!
Imagine the following situation. One day, you wake up and find a human being attached to you via life-support system. If you remove the life-support system, the human being will die. Question: Is it ethical for that human being to inconvenience you without asking for a social contract?
I think you might know where I'm running with this.
And notice that I never asked whether or not it is -moral-. Morality and ethics are two very different things.
- QuinceyQuick
February 18, 2009 12:56PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Many Objections
1. "Is it ethical for someone to demand services of you for free, or to coerce you into a contract that you did not consent to? Of course not! You never consented to the contract!!
I think it's quite clear that there is a moment when the woman did sign a contract. "by having sex, i hearby accept the possibility that a new life within me will be created and that it will be my responsability to give him life aid until it'll be able to do so by it's own" furthermore the baby did not demand any service, they where graciously given by the mother's womb.
2. "And notice that I never asked whether or not it is -moral-. Morality and ethics are two very different things."
From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
ethics noun 1: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical motive}, {morals}, {MORALITY}]
- ussitano
March 13, 2009 7:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rape?
"I think it's quite clear that there is a moment when the woman did sign a contract. "by having sex, i hearby accept the possibility that a new life within me will be created and that it will be my responsability to give him life aid until it'll be able to do so by it's own" furthermore the baby did not demand any service, they where graciously given by the mother's womb."
So if a woman was raped, she also signed such a contract of her own will?
Furthermore, ethics and morality are far more complicated and confused issues than a dictionary would lead you to believe. I suggest reading the article here: http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=46121 However, that, too, is overly generalized in differentiating ethics from morality.
- QuinceyQuick
March 13, 2009 11:10AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Rape is an exception
Rape counts only for less than 1% of total abortions. Rape clearly is an exception.
Why can't we discuss about the main problem and then address the exceptions?
The problem with abortion these days is that it has become simply another method of birth control.
This is the main problem and one everybody should agree with: abortion is not good for women, nor for society . We should fight the basic problem that is unwanted pregnancy . And i am sorry but the pope is right: Condoms only policy does not work: we need a better sexual education . I really believe in the ABC system used in Africa: Abstinence, Be Faithful, Condoms:
Abstinence until you find a partner, better sexual practices and use of birth control methods. As condoms are not 100 % reliable, to advertize that the problem to HIV and unwanted pregnancy is solved using condoms will not be effective.
- ussitano
March 30, 2009 4:25AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Evidence?
Wait a second. Do you have any evidence when you say that rape counts for less than 1% of total abortions? I'd like to see those statistics, please.
And do you have any evidence of the claim that abortion is being used as another method of birth control? That's ridiculous. Abortions are far more expensive than condoms and pills.
And condoms are always more effective than unprotected sex. I agree that the solution to HIV and unexpected pregnancies is better sex education, but I don't see how that discredits abortion as a possibility. The best way to treat a broken leg is by not breaking it in the first place, but you can't discount surgery as an option to mend broken legs.
- QuinceyQuick
March 30, 2009 11:26AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Of Course
"Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]
• Forty-six percent of women who have abortions had not used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Of these women, 33% had perceived themselves to be at low risk for pregnancy , 32% had had concerns about contraceptive methods, 26% had had unexpected sex and 1% had been forced to have sex.[9]"
http://www.alanguttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html
The AGI is the research arm of Planned Parenthood, the world's largest abortion provider.
So as you can see 46% of women did not use another contraceptive method while a majority of people using other contraceptive methods report having used them inconsistently. This means that a great majority of people are not using contraceptives or are using them inconsistently. Why? Because there's always abortion available as a solution.
The AGI also reports that 1% had been forced to have sex.
Of course condoms are more effective than unprotected sex. I don't say that better sexual education discredits abortion as a possibility. I just think that if we address the problem at the source then less abortion will follow wich is what we should all agree with. I also think that making abortion illegal is the best solution if we want abortion to end.
In poland for instance since the new 1993 law was written abortions went down from
100 000 aprox to only 340 in 2006. The law exempt the woman from being guilty of any crime and allows abortion when there is rape, if the life or health of the mother is at risk or when the fetus health is incompatible with life.
Your example is not valid because in a broken leg situation surgery has a purpose of healing and cure. In the case of abortion surgery is used to terminate a human life. No other surgery does that.
- ussitano
March 30, 2009 2:03PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Freedom of Self-Determination
The question isn't whether abortion ought to be legal but rather - In the United States, and indeed throughout the rest of the world, does a human being have the right of self-determination and, at least in the United States, the liberty to exercise that right. This question, of course, was resolved a long time ago in the writing of the U.S. Constitution. It was answered affirmatively in the bill of rights in which the right of self-determination and the liberty to exercise that right is inherent in freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom to bear arms, etc. The intent of those who composed the constitution is quite clear - unquestioned right of self-determination and liberty to exercise the same. None of these rights and freedoms are possible without that basic assumption. If the tribe - and this is in effect how the nation behaves on a regular basis - chooses to interfere with a woman's right to control the functions of her own body, the tribe undermines the basis of all other individual freedoms thus destroying the heart of U.S. law - those principles written into the U.S. Constitution. If a woman's right to self-determination is undermined, so too you undermine freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, economic freedom, right to private property, and on and on. I believe the majority of Americans, particularly those arguing against the legality of abortion, do not fully understand what they are tampering with. They are, in fact, themselves inserting the wedge that will topple their right to ask and decide such questions in their own personal lives. It is but a short step from disallowing the right to choose abortion to legal control over when and if a woman has a child at all. If a woman does not absolutely own her womb, she at some point will be told when she can and cannot have a child, with whom, how many and how often. This sounds extremist, of course, however, this is the very real logical destiny called for by those who would destroy a woman's right to choose. If a woman cannot decide NOT to bear a child, she also cannot decide when she WILL have a child. The tribe reduces a woman to a mere walking womb belonging to the people.
If the tribe refuses to allow a woman to decide to abort a fetus, then the tribe must necessarily take responsibility for that fetus. It necessarily become property of the people thus reducing a fetus/child to a thing for barter. It stands to reason, if you compel tribal decisions on an individual, the tribe is responsible for the consequences of those decisions, NOT the individual. Also, by promoting the fetus to the status of "full human being", you create a situation where you impose slavery on the mother to the fetus - the slavery of one full human being to another full human being. We, as americans, no longer legally support slavery and therefore, to be consistent, must do all that is possible to liberate the mother from slavery to that "full human being" growing inside her. The child MUST be removed and allowed to survive on its own. After all, it's a "full human being", is it not? If it is a crime for an individual to move into the home of another uninvited and forcibly take up residence, it is also a crime for a a fetus allegedly with full rights and liberties to be allowed to reside in a mother unwelcome. The rights of the "fully human" fetus cannot supersede the rights of the mother. If they are equal, the desires of each must be considered equally. The mother does not want the unwelcome guest. If the tribe decides to make decisions for that unwelcome guest, the tribe must necessarily resolve the situation of illegal residence - otherwise the tribe loses all legitimacy in its interference in the decisions of the pregnant woman and her right to decide for herself is restored by default.
If the tribe condones slavery, the tribe has no legitimacy.
- Naumadd
February 21, 2009 8:08PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
There will never be agreement on this issue
Religious dogma is impervious to logical arguments.
To call two cells a person demonstrates this fact quite well I think.
If they really cared about human life they'd be in Darfur doing something about that holocaust.
- libliber
February 26, 2009 11:23PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Darfur
apparently they are doing something:
http://www.redcross.org.uk/standard.asp?id=70268
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=9518&tid=032
http://www.redcross.ca/article.asp?id=21754&tid=001
And any two cells are not a person. A zygote is because:
1. "[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.
2. From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
person: noun : a human being
- ussitano
March 13, 2009 7:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Do they sell eggs by the pound?
If eggs were chickens wouldn't they sell them by the pound?
Is an acorn an oak tree?
- libliber
March 13, 2009 11:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Humans are special
I am not against all abortions. I am against human abortions. I don't care if trees or chickens are aborted by their mothers (wich by the way no animal specie do). The point in this debate is Humanity. Because all our laws place the highest value on human life. Since we know that life does not begin at birth but at conception we must defend every human being from the moment it comes into being. Without life no other rights are available to anyone.
- ussitano
March 30, 2009 4:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes
I am for abortion rights, although I believe that men should not really have any say in whether or not abortion is legal or not, because it is never going to affect men, it doesn't really matter if a man wants a woman to have the right to have a abortion or not, the idea is ridiculous to me, its as if your having people in Lichtenstein vote on who the president of the United States should be. It simply doesn't make sense!
- halton1995
February 27, 2009 7:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pro Choice?
The title pro choice doesn't make any sense to me. The mother chooses, but does the baby get any say on whether or not they live or die? What if your life was put into the hands of a certain individual, and their choice was to kill you, to protect their "rights" and "privacy". It makes no sense to me that a life that change the world,is taken before it can take its first look at the light of day.
- Just That Guy
May 27, 2009 11:41PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Choosing to not, is a choice
Aren't we all, by true definition, pro-choice ? "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." Choosing to not is a choice, no matter how you look at it. Abortion is a difficult decision, no matter the individual's circumstances or beliefs. Is abortion a legal issue or a personal decision? Should the federal or state governments decide, or should you? We all make choices in life, you are only responsible for your own, it's called accountability.
- tgbliss
August 14, 2009 4:19AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
never to see the light of day
until we can define what it means to be alive this is going to be a tough one, but in the meantime those who live by the scalpel will die by the scalpel.
- isotope
August 14, 2009 12:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.