Real questions about pro choice

[Lestat]

This is a very tough subject...

First, I think it's important to understand that it would've been impossible for any species to survive if it were somehow programmed to keep all unwanted offspring regardless of circumstances. On the ancestral plains, abortion took the form of already born offspring!

On the one hand, there is something inherently morally wrong with killing a perfectly healthy unborn baby in the very latter stages of pregnancy.

On the other hand, there is also something morally wrong to bring an unwanted baby into the world. I sometimes think that those opposed to abortion even at the earliest stages should sign up to take care of, and financially support all these unwanted children. There are cases where it is almost certain that a child born, will have a very difficult life and only become a further burden on not only it's parents, but on society in general.

Not being a scientist, I can't say where the cutoff should be. My instinct says as early as possible, measured in weeks, not months. But I don't know.

I do think most anti-abortionists approach the problem from the wrong direction... The goal shouldn't be on the abortion clinics, or the doctors who perform them, it should be on education in birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Attack the problem at its source.

Unfortunately, most of the nutcases who'd like to see everyone involved in abortions be blown to pieces, are also extremely religious and don't believe in contraception either.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
First, I think it's important to understand that it would've been impossible for any species to survive if it were somehow programmed to keep all unwanted offspring regardless of circumstances. On the ancestral plains, abortion took the form of already born offspring!

[/ QUOTE ]
So your position is that abortion is necessary for our survival as a species. I'm sorry, but that sounds really ridiculous to me. I'll explain why in a second.

[ QUOTE ]
On the one hand, there is something inherently morally wrong with killing a perfectly healthy unborn baby in the very latter stages of pregnancy.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, but I believe it is wrong at any point in the pregnancy. I'll explain why in a second.

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, there is also something morally wrong to bring an unwanted baby into the world.


[/ QUOTE ]
This is a very selfish opinion. I'll explain why in a second.

[ QUOTE ]
Not being a scientist or God, I can't say where the cutoff should be.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

[ QUOTE ]
I do think most anti-abortionists approach the problem from the wrong direction... The goal shouldn't be on the abortion clinics, or the doctors who perform them, it should be on education in birth control and preventing unwanted pregnancies. Attack the problem at its source.

[/ QUOTE ]
Deflecting attention on anti-abortionists is a red herring that has nothing to do with the rest of your post (and this thread) which seems to regard the question of whether or not abortion is morally wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
Unfortunately, most of the nutcases who'd like to see everyone involved in abortions be blown to pieces, are also extremely religious and don't believe in contraception either.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a hasty generalization which has nothing to do with the question of whether or not abortion is morally right.

To address the topic at hand, the two sides in this thread are orginating in far different places and thus, the differences are expected. As a Christian, I believe that the issue of abortion goes far beyond "murdering the innocent" or "bringing an unwanted baby into the world" or "taking responsibility for your actions" or "killing cells that will potentially make a human" or all of the other terms which have been thrown around in this thread. The Christian belief, in accordance with the Bible, is that each of us is uniquely created and loved by God. Abortion, therefore, is not about finding the fine line before a zygote or a fetus becomes human and ending the life there. Abortion is about taking something out of God's hands. If a zygote or a fetus is on the path to become a baby, that zygote or fetus is a gift from God. This is where we get our opinion that ending its life is wrong.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in their responsibility, I'm interested in their culpability. If they had no possible way of knowing what would happen, they are not culpable. Therefore, they did not enter into any implicit contract.


[/ QUOTE ]
Guess what, vhawk? I'm going to let you in on a little secret here. SEX IS HOW BABY'S ARE MADE! If you have sex and it makes a baby, that cannot possibly be regarded as entirely unexpected. And yes, that is an action for which one must take responsibility for its consequences.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Irrelevant. I'm not interested in their responsibility, I'm interested in their culpability. If they had no possible way of knowing what would happen, they are not culpable. Therefore, they did not enter into any implicit contract.


[/ QUOTE ]
Guess what, vhawk? I'm going to let you in on a little secret here. SEX IS HOW BABY'S ARE MADE! If you have sex and it makes a baby, that cannot possibly be regarded as entirely unexpected. And yes, that is an action for which one must take responsibility for its consequences.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sex isn't required and isn't sufficient. Its of no improtance to the abortion debate even if you put it in capitals.

good fun though.

chez

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
Feel free to defend your use of the term 'naturally.' After you do that I will consider your charge of equivocation.

[/ QUOTE ]
naturally
One entry found for naturally.

Main Entry: nat·u·ral·ly
Pronunciation: 'na-ch&r-&-lE, 'nach-r&-, 'na-ch&r-
Function: adverb
1 : by nature : by natural character or ability <naturally timid>
2 : according to the usual course of things : as might be expected <we naturally dislike being hurt>
3 a : without artificial aid <hair that curls naturally> b : without affectation <speak naturally>
4 : with truth to nature : REALISTICALLY

Choose your definition. 2, 3, or 4 sound good to me. The point being, a fertilized egg is already on the path to becoming a baby. This is key, and the difference in the context of your analogy. If your skin cell had already undergone whatever treatment is necessary (or will be necessary) to form a human, then that would be a different issue. Right now, the skin cell when washing your hair is no different than a sperm cell or an unfertilized egg.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion is about taking something out of God's hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sure you've gotten this before, but out of curiosity, should I assume you oppose the death penalty for the same reason?

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
1. If you are pro-choice, what is your "cut-off point" after which the mother has no right to take the fetus' life?

[/ QUOTE ]

After the mother decides to give birth, and actually implements that decision.

[ QUOTE ]

2. What is your reasoning?


[/ QUOTE ]

"Rights" only apply to biologically distinct human beings. A fetus, though alive, has no more rights than the other living cells in a woman's body. It does not acquire them until the mother makes the volitional choice to give birth.

So yes, I think a woman should legally be permitted to abort her fetus during the entire pregnancy.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Abortion should be safe, legal and rare. The only way to ensure the third is to ensure the first two.

[/ QUOTE ]
Really? At risk of sounding counter-counterintuitive, I think the exact opposite: if abortions were both unsafe and illegal, I believe they would become more rare.

I just did a quick search and found that in the US in 1998 there were about 4,000,000 births and about 1.3 million abortions. Based on those figures, safe and legal abortions are more common than hitting a flush on the river, not exactly a statistical anomaly.

But even more to the point, do you honestly think that number would increase if the procedure were to be outlawed and/or could somehow be rendered more dangerous? Please explain your reasoning.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"Rights" only apply to biologically distinct human beings.

[/ QUOTE ]
"rights" apply to whatever we decide to confer them up.

It may be your opinion that they should only be confered after birth. Not going to criticise that at all, but others have equally valid, different opinions.

There's no matter of fact about "rights"

chez

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
Quick Google search on "pregnancy risk condom" to find the stats I had heard before: Best case scenario with condoms, risk of preg = 3%, but that is with perfect use; standard use risk is actually 12-15% . Risk with perfect use of birth control pills is also around 3%.

Do you think you have a 12% risk of being struck with a meteor? Even a 3% risk? Or is it possible your presumption is wrong there?

[/ QUOTE ]
Over how many couplings do the risk figures you cite apply?

I'm quite certain that having sex while wearing a condom results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy. I also suspect (albeit with less confidence) that having sex without wearing a condom and without pulling out, results in less than a 3% risk of pregnancy.