Abortion

Illyricum · Post by **Illyricum** » Tue May 11, 2004 5:44 pm

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

Angry McFurious · Post by **Angry McFurious** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 11:10 am

I know the discussion is about abortion cause I can read. I'm simply comparing what you said to another situation to further understand what your getting at as "dependence" on something to live.

Maybe you should reread what i wrote.

Post by **otseng** » Fri Jul 30, 2004 3:22 pm

perspective wrote: There is currently no definition of a human being. There is no specific scientific criteria, there is no legal criteria.

Yes, there is no legal definition of a human being. But, simply because we don't have a legal definition of a human being doesn't mean that a fetus is not a human being. As pointed out earlier, it doesn't matter what we do not call a fetus or what we do call a fetus. What it is is not determined by our terms or definitions.

If you define anything that has the potential to become a human a person, then you've just dubbed amoebas and apes persons too.

I do not define a human being as something that has the potential of becoming a person.

perspective wrote: Actually - the issue about abortion is the rights of the person who is inconvenienced by the dependant organism (the woman).

... the rights of a person who is inconveniencing a woman...

Inconvenience should have nothing to do with determining whether a person should live or not. The rights of all people is fully protected by the Constitution, even if they do happen to inconvenience someone else.

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:08 am

Let me preface this first by saying that I do not desire any condemnation toward anyone who has undergone an abortion. Quite the opposite, I would hope for healing. I have known four women (friends) who have had abortions. I never said anything to them previous to their operations, and I wonder what I could have said. I hope only to present my point of view, biased you may say, by my faith, but nevertheless I will try to present facts and logical argumentation, rather than religiosity.

Who you will become, biologically speaking, is defined by your genetic makeup.

Anyone care to take a guess as to the point when your genetic makeup was determined?

Hint... long before three months. Ask your doctor if you're not sure (even if he/she is an atheist)

I once knew a non-religious ultrasound technician who told me that in twenty odd years of her work, when asking the typical questions, e.g. "Is this your first pregnancy? If not, have you ever had an abortion?" she said that every woman who had previously had an abortion, save one or two, replied with almost angry defensiveness of their "choice". In addition, in hearing peoples reasons (not required info) she confessed abortion was only ever chosen for selfish reasons, e.g. career, schooling, convenience, etc.

Personhood is way to subjective. As an example, black people were not considered protected "persons" under the US constitution until the abolition. Was it ever "right" to kill and enslave them? No.
See Dred Scott V. Sandford (1857)

On imposing one's beliefs... What about negative imposition. You think it's wrong but won't tell people? How would you feel if you were about to make one of the biggest mistakes of your life and nobody warned you about the dangers? What was the real failing in Germany pre-WWII? The absence of opposition to the rising ideology of a depraved power. The idea that one should keep one's opinions to their chest is one that isn't followed by those who espouse it anyway. Pro-choice rallies abound. So why do people wish for pro-lifers to remain silent?

Some things to consider:
1) Roe vs. Wade: The most defining case for abortion. It's star, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) now believes the institutionalizing of abortion was wrong.

2) The abortion industry is incredibly lucrative (in the hundreds of million$ in North America): This is important if only because it needs to be weighed against public opinion vehicles (marketing). Pro Life groups are not profitable so their voice is not heard in the public institutions the way Pro Choice groups are. Evidentiary data supporting the Pro Life position is often balanced with a much stronger, "That's not so." by Pro Choice groups. It is possible that much of the pro-choice material you see is that of the corporate machines behind the movement. Many cite the religious groups behind pro-life groups, so let's get things straight and reveal the money and powers behind abortion. I do believe there are many women who believe strongly in the movement for the sake of women's rights. I also believe that corporations abuse those same women, by creating what appears to be grassroots movements that in reality are political and corporate institutions.

3) Abortion has been linked to breast cancer in now numerous clinical studies. Some major publications censor research on the link, but studies have been published in, as an example, the British Journal of Cancer. The smoking/cancer link was also denied for a time. Abortion clinics do nothing to alert women to the even potential dangers.

4) I have seen what a baby in utero looks and moves like, via ultrasound. It is striking. The heart beating is visible, its toes and fingers countable, its shape- HUMAN.

5) A fetus is not part of the woman's body. A simple genetic test will confirm this. Nor do the mother and child "share" blood. The baby has its own blood and type.

I think that ultimately it really is a value of life consideration, as has been mentioned, and what your worldview defines as valuable will trump all arguments and the debate will circle continually. The importance is not to confuse value with quality of life. I believe that God has a purpose for every living being and that gives us and our offspring meaning and ultimate value, whether we can understand that or not. If we simply resort to quality of life conversations, we move to selfish ground. We're thinking with our minds, not our hearts and souls.

There is one verse I think that is insightful on this subject. It was spoken to Jeremiah the profit, but certainly tells of when God speaks of His servant as a person.
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you..." ~Jeremiah 1:5
Since God has existed eternally and His plan was eternally known to Himself, on these terms, YOU are valued as a person, before your ancestors were born.

The Tsar · Post by **The Tsar** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:26 pm

But nik, you fail to deal with the issue of the women or girls that are going through this. In North American, it is likely that a lot of the cases for abortion are for selfish reasons, but I find it overstating to suggest they all are. Think of the massive cases of rape in Africa and the pregnancies that result (not to mention the cases of aids). Should foreign aid in Africa consider providing abortions for children who have been raped and impregnated?

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:12 pm

I wouldn't pretend to understand what women go through when faced with the prospect of abortion or having a child by incest or rape. I do think that women aren't shown the dangers of abortion, mentally or physically. I found a site online which is actually abortion neutral in that it doesn't allow conversations about pro-life or pro-choice viewpoints and it shows the mental anguish so many women experience after an abortion. It's basically set up as a support group to deal with the stress and symptoms post-abortion. There are over 7,000 members.

I saw a long time ago an interview on tv with a woman who carried to term her child of a rape, and she said that it actually brought her healing. That's only one instance, but I imagine she had plenty of support to get to that point (and that support is lacking).

Either way, it is really complicated and I think that women lose out both ways too often. On one hand, women are given a difficult life raising a child that in too many cases doesn't have a father (a second hand). On the other hand, women have an abortion and are condemned by friends and family. In either case, women need love and healing.

Africa doesn't need more abortions. I don't think abortions are any vindication for someone who has been raped. It brings with it its own set of problems to compound the trauma of rape. It provides a false way out for suffering women, who will continue to suffer because of the experience of rape with or with out a baby.

The Tsar · Post by **The Tsar** » Fri Aug 27, 2004 7:50 pm

and what of babies born with aids, or other deformities such as are caused in certain parts of india due to tainted drinking water? It may be a bit of a stretch in saying, "well they just shouldn't have babies." Sometimes this is not an option.

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:29 am

I think babies born with deformities or disease deserve a lot more credit. And many people don't know their babies will have these problems until the babies are born. Many tests which reveal these things can actually cause the complications they're looking for, as in the case with amniosentisis and down syndrome.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:39 am

nikolayevich wrote:I once knew a non-religious ultrasound technician who told me that in twenty odd years of her work, when asking the typical questions, e.g. "Is this your first pregnancy? If not, have you ever had an abortion?" she said that every woman who had previously had an abortion, save one or two, replied with almost angry defensiveness of their "choice". In addition, in hearing peoples reasons (not required info) she confessed abortion was only ever chosen for selfish reasons, e.g. career, schooling, convenience, etc.

I would expect that women who were asked this question would be defensive about it. Abortion is an agonizing decision to make, and women are often judged harshly because of the decision to do so. I would expect a certain amount of defensiveness not because of the abortion itself, but because of the psychological abuse that would have been hurled in her direction. And not just from pro-life people. The idea of either having or not having an abortion is so divisive in this country that if the woman contemplates it at all, there will be abuse from both sides no matter what the decision is.

nikolayevich wrote:On imposing one's beliefs... What about negative imposition. You think it's wrong but won't tell people? How would you feel if you were about to make one of the biggest mistakes of your life and nobody warned you about the dangers?

I would hope that in a free society, I would be able to make my own mistakes without the imposition of a paternalist state telling me what was good for me. Inform us of the consequences if we ask, but don't make the decision for us.

nikolayevich wrote:What was the real failing in Germany pre-WWII? The absence of opposition to the rising ideology of a depraved power. The idea that one should keep one's opinions to their chest is one that isn't followed by those who espouse it anyway.

This isn't a valid analogy. Abortion is a choice, and the availability of it does not imply totalitarianism. The fact that there was little public opposition in Germany was due to a great many factors, including the national humiliation from the Treaty of Versailles, ambivalence towards Jews, and a serious Weimar power vacuum. This is an entirely different topic, and I don't really want to get into the reasons behind the rise of the Third Reich. But I do object to this kind of rhetoric when it comes to simplifying history.

nikolayevich wrote:Pro-choice rallies abound. So why do people wish for pro-lifers to remain silent?

Pro-choice rallies were originally intended to bring down the pro-life bureaucracy, which they did. Now that pro-life rallies wish to bring down the pro-choice bureaucracy, it only makes sense that there should be pro-choice rallies to counter them. Eliminate the pro-life rallies and I can virtually guarantee that there will be no more pro-choice rallies if only because the system is already pro-choice.

Some things to consider:

nikolayevich wrote:1) Roe vs. Wade: The most defining case for abortion. It's star, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) now believes the institutionalizing of abortion was wrong.

No offense to Ms. Roe, but her opinion on the matter does not matter to the legal argument. Nor does it matter to the emotional argument. It is entirely relevant to the idea that abortion is a choice, however. Ms. Roe is entitled to her opinion, whatever it may be, whenever it may occur. But so am I, and so are we all.

nikolayevich wrote:2) The abortion industry is incredibly lucrative (in the hundreds of million$ in North America): This is important if only because it needs to be weighed against public opinion vehicles (marketing).

It is much more profitable for an institution to assist with a live birth than to perform an abortion. The same medical specialists do both, and more billable time is spent on births.

nikolayevich wrote:Pro Life groups are not profitable so their voice is not heard in the public institutions the way Pro Choice groups are. Evidentiary data supporting the Pro Life position is often balanced with a much stronger, "That's not so." by Pro Choice groups. It is possible that much of the pro-choice material you see is that of the corporate machines behind the movement. Many cite the religious groups behind pro-life groups, so let's get things straight and reveal the money and powers behind abortion. I do believe there are many women who believe strongly in the movement for the sake of women's rights. I also believe that corporations abuse those same women, by creating what appears to be grassroots movements that in reality are political and corporate institutions.

I disagree. There are much more powerful interests behind pro-life groups. The fact that their annual budgets are lower than, say, Planned Parenthood, is not proof of anything. Many pro-life groups are made up of very committed and unpaid volunteers. The real uphill battle that pro-life groups face is public opinion.

nikolayevich wrote:3) Abortion has been linked to breast cancer in now numerous clinical studies. Some major publications censor research on the link, but studies have been published in, as an example, the British Journal of Cancer. The smoking/cancer link was also denied for a time. Abortion clinics do nothing to alert women to the even potential dangers.

The link between abortion and breast cancer is indirect at best and has never been proven. The fact that carrying a baby to full term has a protective effect against breast cancer, for example, is not a reason abortion augments the risk. The risk is the same for women who do not ever get pregnant or miscarry. Further, there is something called "recall bias" in studies that find links between the two. Women who get breast cancer are more likely to state whether they had an abortion (due in part to defensiveness of their choice), and so more of them are counted as statistics in the studies.

nikolayevich wrote:4) I have seen what a baby in utero looks and moves like, via ultrasound. It is striking. The heart beating is visible, its toes and fingers countable, its shape- HUMAN.

I agree. After about 7 weeks, the fetus starts to appear human.

nikolayevich wrote:5) A fetus is not part of the woman's body. A simple genetic test will confirm this. Nor do the mother and child "share" blood. The baby has its own blood and type.

I agree. The fetus has its own genetic makeup and is identifiably different from the mother.

nikolayevich wrote:I think that ultimately it really is a value of life consideration, as has been mentioned, and what your worldview defines as valuable will trump all arguments and the debate will circle continually.

As it should be. We all have our own ethics, consciences, and relationships with whatever we might call "God", including the lack thereof. This is all that choice means.

ST88 · Post by **ST88** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 1:50 am

nikolayevich wrote:I think babies born with deformities or disease deserve a lot more credit. And many people don't know their babies will have these problems until the babies are born. Many tests which reveal these things can actually cause the complications they're looking for, as in the case with amniosentisis and down syndrome.

Down Syndrome is caused by a genetic abnormality, not by any physical procedure. Amniocentesis does not cause such abnormalities -- the risks it poses include infection, uterine bleeding, outright miscarriage, and physical damage to the fetus from the needle.
http://my.webmd.com/hw/being_pregnant/hw1810.asp
http://yourmedicalsource.com/library/am ... tions.html

nikolayevich · Post by **nikolayevich** » Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:58 am

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:On imposing one's beliefs... What about negative imposition. You think it's wrong but won't tell people? How would you feel if you were about to make one of the biggest mistakes of your life and nobody warned you about the dangers?
I would hope that in a free society, I would be able to make my own mistakes without the imposition of a paternalist state telling me what was good for me. Inform us of the consequences if we ask, but don't make the decision for us.

Don't inform if not asked? Why should it be that way when it isn't for other procedures. That seems like overconfidence... to say only if I ask, inform me. It is a surgical procedure and so has risks. The abortion support site I mentioned earlier in the thread is littered with horrible experiences women have had, and it is NOT a pro-life perspective so can't be reasoned to be irrelevant. They are first hand accountings. Even if you believe that say, abortion can result in later trauma or complications in some cases, wouldn't you think women should be told about even slim risks?

What if there are mental traumas you aren't prepared for in the current pre-abortion counseling session? Why would it infringe on your rights to inform you?

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:What was the real failing in Germany pre-WWII? The absence of opposition to the rising ideology of a depraved power. The idea that one should keep one's opinions to their chest is one that isn't followed by those who espouse it anyway.
This isn't a valid analogy. Abortion is a choice, and the availability of it does not imply totalitarianism. The fact that there was little public opposition in Germany was due to a great many factors, including the national humiliation from the Treaty of Versailles, ambivalence towards Jews, and a serious Weimar power vacuum. This is an entirely different topic, and I don't really want to get into the reasons behind the rise of the Third Reich. But I do object to this kind of rhetoric when it comes to simplifying history.

Out of context and misrepresented. I did not say nor imply that abortion is totalitarianism. Preface to this was the issue of warning people of what you feel to be right, as I believe it is necessary for people to stand up for what they believe. Actually, I was speaking to those who believe abortion is wrong but would hesitate to tell someone close to them. I mentioned that Germany - the tragedy - was a failing by many people, and entire countries for that matter to warn of the dangers of ideals which were rising to commonplace. I believe it is fair to warn people, most importantly those close to you. Germany is of particular interest to me and so it is often in my thoughts. I see it as a tragedy as I do abortion, but that's as far as I'm taking the analogy. I'd be happy to discuss Germany elsewhere if you're concerned I would negate the lessons it has for us.

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:Pro-choice rallies abound. So why do people wish for pro-lifers to remain silent?
Pro-choice rallies were originally intended to bring down the pro-life bureaucracy, which they did. Now that pro-life rallies wish to bring down the pro-choice bureaucracy, it only makes sense that there should be pro-choice rallies to counter them. Eliminate the pro-life rallies and I can virtually guarantee that there will be no more pro-choice rallies if only because the system is already pro-choice.

Respectfully, I think this is a statement that could be said in either direction. A group designed to reduce another group would dissolve if the other group dissolved?

ST88 wrote: Some things to consider:
nikolayevich wrote:1) Roe vs. Wade: The most defining case for abortion. It's star, Jane Roe (Norma McCorvey) now believes the institutionalizing of abortion was wrong.
No offense to Ms. Roe, but her opinion on the matter does not matter to the legal argument. Nor does it matter to the emotional argument. It is entirely relevant to the idea that abortion is a choice, however. Ms. Roe is entitled to her opinion, whatever it may be, whenever it may occur. But so am I, and so are we all.

The significance is that her "choice" was historic, and heard louder than any woman's on this issue as she became the poster-girl for the movement. Her dissent is notable. Many people who are searching for answers listen to her because hers is a story from the inside. It isn't proof that abortion is wrong, but of the abortionist prophets there are but a few... it's just something to consider.

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:2) The abortion industry is incredibly lucrative (in the hundreds of million$ in North America): This is important if only because it needs to be weighed against public opinion vehicles (marketing).
It is much more profitable for an institution to assist with a live birth than to perform an abortion. The same medical specialists do both, and more billable time is spent on births.

Supply and demand... The revenue of abortion is $225 to $575 for a first trimester procedure, times 1,300,000 abortions per year (Both figures from Planned Parenthood as of the year 2000). That live births generate more doesn't make the abortion industry low revenue.

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:Pro Life groups are not profitable so their voice is not heard in the public institutions the way Pro Choice groups are. Evidentiary data supporting the Pro Life position is often balanced with a much stronger, "That's not so." by Pro Choice groups. It is possible that much of the pro-choice material you see is that of the corporate machines behind the movement. Many cite the religious groups behind pro-life groups, so let's get things straight and reveal the money and powers behind abortion. I do believe there are many women who believe strongly in the movement for the sake of women's rights. I also believe that corporations abuse those same women, by creating what appears to be grassroots movements that in reality are political and corporate institutions.
I disagree. There are much more powerful interests behind pro-life groups. The fact that their annual budgets are lower than, say, Planned Parenthood, is not proof of anything. Many pro-life groups are made up of very committed and unpaid volunteers. The real uphill battle that pro-life groups face is public opinion.

The battle for pro-life groups is not with public opinion anymore than it is with pro-choice groups. They are split quite well, despite the institutionalized acceptance of abortion. It is with state law, AMA and others.

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:3) Abortion has been linked to breast cancer in now numerous clinical studies. Some major publications censor research on the link, but studies have been published in, as an example, the British Journal of Cancer. The smoking/cancer link was also denied for a time. Abortion clinics do nothing to alert women to the even potential dangers.
The link between abortion and breast cancer is indirect at best and has never been proven. The fact that carrying a baby to full term has a protective effect against breast cancer, for example, is not a reason abortion augments the risk. The risk is the same for women who do not ever get pregnant or miscarry. Further, there is something called "recall bias" in studies that find links between the two. Women who get breast cancer are more likely to state whether they had an abortion (due in part to defensiveness of their choice), and so more of them are counted as statistics in the studies.

This debate stems back a number of years and now dozens of studies and is not simply an anti-abortion movement. My comment acknowledged dissent, which you have added to, but it doesn't stem the question. Women should be informed at the very least that there is a major debate so they can read the various sides of the issue themselves. Do you believe it is possible that there is evidence that supports the claim of an abortion-breast cancer link? What would be your position on abortion and warning, if you saw evidence to this end?

ST88 wrote:
nikolayevich wrote:I think that ultimately it really is a value of life consideration, as has been mentioned, and what your worldview defines as valuable will trump all arguments and the debate will circle continually.
As it should be. We all have our own ethics, consciences, and relationships with whatever we might call "God", including the lack thereof. This is all that choice means.

We certainly have our individuality which is important. I agree with that. We live in a pluralistic society which brings with it an incredible wealth of viewpoints and knowledge.