abortion question

As long as this is an abortion discussion thread, could someone please tell me why some people believe that abortion is OK for select reasons? For instance, where there's dangerous health risk to the mother or where the baby was the result of a rape.

If one views the fetus as a person, with a god-given right to live, why should extenuating circumstances be taken into account? I've never understood that stance.

 

Originally posted by giddyup
...Left to nature, that creature/fetus/blob/baby will become a human being. It has a right to life.

No, left to its MOTHER AND HER BODY it will become a human-being.


Enough said. Anything else is self-serving.


Wow! Such a contentious issue finally resolved for us after all of these years! Thanks giddyup!

 

On mother at risk. Its life vs life. I'm still for taking out the fetus whole if possible.

On rape. I don't know if this happens too often because I heard the stress of the situation makes it even more dificult for fertilization, but that may just be pro life propaganda. I'm for taking the fetus out whole and giving science a chance. Hey it may take 20-30 years of killing fetus's by taking them out early, but since they'll be aborted anyway why not try to save a life.

 

Right on, Desert Scar. I know the foetus is a living thing, not a 'mass of tissue'. I call a spade a spade. But that doesn't make me anti-choice. I'm pro-choice because I think the mother's well-being and happiness is more important than that of the foetus. No apologies.

I also think 'safe and legal' is better than using a coathanger and dying in some trailer park. Call me heartless, giddyup, but I'm funny that way.

 

What about these li'l fellas: http://novaivf.com/index.php3?page=cryo ?

 

Hey, giddyup. We have something in common, sort of. I was a born-again anti-abortion Christian until I got out of that "great liberating factory" the university.

I had a change of heart too.

 

Or, when science improves to the point where the fetus can live without the mother and her body. If scientist can clone a sheep without a womb, its only a matter of time till a baby can be grown without a womb.

All humans are is matter and chemical reactions caused by a freak occurrence that produced life. Its only a matter of time till someone can create a fake womb.

The line has been drawn because that's where technology is not because there is some magical line after so many weeks a fetus is alive.

 

I still don't understand why conservatives are against abortion....other than the fact that they've aligned themselves with the bible thumpers.

Hell, they should be lining up to pay for them. The people who want abortions don't want to take care of the babies. That means we (meaning society) has to take care of them. Instead of wasting all that cash on welfare, let's spend it educating babies that are truly wanted.

Damnit!! where's my soul. I laid it down somewhere, and now I can't find it.

 

You're welcome, <b>cohen</b>. The contention is not coming from me. I would leave the living alone. The contention is coming from those who would destroy them for their own selfish reasons.

You did use the conjunction AND which indicates that the fetus/baby is an independent being and deserving of protection. Who would presume to know what it wants save to live?

The pro-Choice movement has convoluded the argument in an attempt to justify their position. It really is elegantly simple. You make a baby; you have a responsibility to, at least, give birth to it or find a home for it through adoption.

Killing it off is an unconscientable solution.

 

But it's not really a fair question . It's one of those lovely little questions that puts other people on the defensive about their beliefs and insinuates all sorts of things, without being an honestsly admitted as a rhetorical device.

One could as easily say: from the scientific perspective, it's very difficult to not justify a pro-choice perspective now. Does this mean that you're in opposition to science? Do you like your air conditioning, then?

Such a stance is really not too far-fetched. The entire argument that a foetus is sacred is based on religion, which cannot be substantiated scientifically. From a purely evolutionary perspective, it might make sense for a mother to divest herself of certain young that she's not prepared to adequately nurture and might prohibit her from adequately nurturing future off-spring.

That's not my perspective. But it's just as fair as your question. I prefer to reject either conception.

Bah, a cabbage is a living thing, too. So is an ant. What constitutes the sanctity of life is one's status as "sentient." A foetus is not sentient. Of course, it would become so at one point... but so would any egg that gets fertilized in the "natural course of events." One might as well outlaw birth control.

From a stance of pure political philosophy, we have "rights" because muturally coercive laws are necessary to protect ourselves. While in one fashion anarchy supplies unlimited freedom, in reality, such freedom is valueless because of the inability to exercise it if someone knocks you over the head with a club.

In order to prevent that, and provide for all sorts of nice things like sewage, running water, and public education... we have governments. A foetus isn't exactly a coercive threat to anybody. So it's not going to be awarded rights on those grounds.

Of course, the huge problem with this argument is that it doesn't really supply an answer to the question of helpless individuals, such as invalids or small children. The routine answer is that such people are sentient, and therefore part of a category which is capable of coercion. I've never really been comfortable with that answer, however, since it seems to undermine it's own premise about scoiety. That's why I can't really buy into the "rights oriented" perspective.

It's tough, because no-matter what perspective you take, it's impossible to provide a proof that trumps the other sides pure assumptions. Each side's conclusions are incompatible with the other side's basic premise.

So why do we argue about this? It all comes down to whether or not you believe life is sacred from the moment of conception. If you do, I don't see how it's possible to come down to any other conclusion than "abortion is wrong." Rights of the mother are good and well... but isn't the end of life an a priori wrong? Worse than inconvenience?

And if you don't believe that... then who gives a **** about a cluster of tissues?

 

I understand your point, but what are we going to do when science allows us to 'grow' a human from cells in your bone marrow?

Also, don't sell those real wombs short. Newborns die w/o human contact; the fetus may have special requirements also that science will be challenged to replicate.

 

Let me throw in a curve ball.

I don't like abortion. I don't think it should be allowed for anything except if the mother's life is in danger. Rape...I don't know.

 

I can't help but wonder where you went to U.

I became anti-abortion long before I became a Christian-- at least 8 years.

Jeff, you who celebrate all living things: both canine and human. How do you justify in your own mind being pro-abortion? Okay, call it pro-Choice if it makes you feel better.

 

I went to UH.

Do I like abortion? No. Would I personally recommend it to my wife? I seriously doubt it.

However, I have been around a lot of pregnant young girls who can barely support themselves let alone a young child. Insurance won't pay for birth control even if they could get it. Medicare won't pay for it either. No one wants to teach sex education. Welfare moms are berated for having children.

I think that women are often abandonded by society when it comes to child birth. You hear complaints about welfare mom's but rarely about deadbeat dad's. Insurance covers Viagra but not birth control.

For poor women, it is even tougher considering that 1 in 3 women are sexually abused by the age of 16 but the number doubles if they live below the poverty level.

I don't like abortion but, ultimately, I don't believe life begins at conception either. I do value life but, for me, that means the person who is alive as much as the lifeform who hasn't yet become a human.

 

I can just see the number of messages in this thread piling up... it was bound to happen.

Some people support abortion "only in certain circumstances" because they're trying to find a middle ground or they don't want the woman to carry the child if she wasn't responsible for its conception (rape, etc.). Most people who are pro-life, however, still think that is not a good reason to allow abortion, because the fetus is human. Unfortunately, in that situation there is no easy or fair alternative. It's not fair for the woman to have to carry the child, but it's even less fair for the child not to have a chance at life. In these situations (or any other), the woman should not be pressured to raise the child herself.

As for supporting abortion when the mother's life is at risk, that is more understandable. It's not like the fetus could survive without the mother anyway. For example, tubal pregnancies. Some types of abortion will always be necessary (unless you want to see lots of women dying in childbirth, like years ago).

As for the availability of birth control, etc. - who says you have to be having sex all the time??

I am married and, no, I do not want to get pregnant anytime soon. I am not looking forward to the impact on my body or my career. My method of avoiding pregnancy has worked very well. However, if it doesn't work one of these days, I do not want society tempting me with abortion as an option. It would be a relatively easy fix for the problem. However, that doesn't change the moral meaning of what you have done.

Someone needs to stick up for the unborn... as well as for others who cannot speak for themselves (the elderly, handicapped, children, etc.). Unless you just want to propose a world without morals at all. I too am surprised that most animal-rights activists are pro-choice. If an animal's life is so precious... and I'm not denying that it is... I wonder why you wouldn't feel the same about a human's life.

 

...because some people just don't think that it is a human life. It's almost that simple.

 

I don't think a woman's rights to her body give her rights to the life and body of the human growing in her.

 

This is my stance exactly. Even at the age of 20, with a job and a mom and family who really supports me, I know I couldn't take care of a child. And at one time, I was way to small to physically be able to carry a child safely, and I probably still am. I would prefer ways to avoid even conception (like the pill or abstenence) rather than abortion, but it's not always avaiable.

I've known guys who are pro-choice simply because they didn't want to be responsible for a life. I don't think that's wrong necessarily, but smart. However, anyone with this idea should have enough sense to be safe, rather than solely relying on abortions.

I heard about dead beat dads a lot when I was growing up (in fact, mine basically falls into that category). They got that label when divorces became more frequent and dad's weren't being dads anymore. Lately though, I think good dads are tired of the label and more dads are challenging the moms. I think divorce is terrible and no parent deserves their kids more than the other one, but when it comes to that, the better person should win, whoever it is.

Maybe that's not what you meant by deadbeat dads vs. welfare moms, but I thought I'd offer my two cents!