Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

That's what the pro-aborts say, not me.

You were arguing that since abortion places the child in danger of "extinction", they should count as "endangered." I was just pointing out that if you want to consider human children as an endangered thing, then you must also be in favor of culling them if there turns out to be a surplus of them. It's two sides of the same coin. That's why endangerment only applies to animals.

[Day] Right, I put quotes on "extinction," not to imply that they are an endangered species in the sense of eagles or turtles, but only to emphasize the DANGER the unborn are in if the mother decides she doesn't want the baby.

I think the fact that we do not practice eugenics only goes to show that we do not view the human life as insignificant.

Isn't that what Planned Barrenhood's founder, Margaret Sangster, believed?

I'm not certain what Margarat Sangster believed.

[Day] If I'm not mistaken, this woman believed that the human race needed improvement through aborting black babies. This is tantamount to culling. Margaret was closely intimate with the scientists and theorists who instituted Nazi Germany’s "race purification" program. Euthanasia, sterilization (vasectomies and tubaligations), abortion and infanticide programs were among the many that Margaret Sanger publicly allied with the Nazis. Dr. Ernst Rudin himself, the president himself of the Nazi Medical Experimentation regime, wrote in her Birth Control Review. When it became public what the Nazis were doing, Margaret detached herself and innocently protested that she knew nothing!

It's not really all that important. We as a society do not practice eugenics, therefore we hold that human life is significant in and of itself.

If Chickens were endangered, we wouldn't be eating their eggs either.

But they aren't

I was arguing against your statement that the endangered species argument was a smoke screen. It isn't. The fact that the Bald Eagle, for example, is endangered is the reason why we can't have scrambled Bald Eagle eggs for breakfast regardless of if it would taste super yummy. If chickens had been endangered, the same would true.

so let's call what's in the womb a human being created by God and worthy of delivery into the world.

Even if you consider the developing fetus to have the same claim to personhood as does a fully developed baby, which is not yet established to the satisfaction of the courts,

[Day] If the Supreme Court ruled that at conception life begins as a human being, would you oppose abortion?

there is still a case for allowing abortion, as I illustrated before.

[Day] Using animals, endangered species, etc. are not good arguments to justify killing babies.

One argument from a view of slavery, and one from a view of self defence were offered, both of which grant that the fetus has this characteristic of personhood at the outset.

Where does man get off thinking they have the right to kill what their Creator made?

The same reason that man believes he has the right to defend himself against unwanted harm.

[Day] ?????

No fear of God anymore.

I would think that to be a good thing. Respect was ever so much better to inspire than fear.

[Day] Are you saying respect and fear of God are the same thing?

[Gaunt]

Right, I put quotes on "extinction," not to imply that they are an endangered species in the sense of eagles or turtles, but only to emphasize the DANGER the unborn are in if the mother decides she doesn't want the baby.

Actually, I was the one who put quotes around "extinction". I must have misread your intent in saying "Any baby whose mother doesn't want him is in danger of extinction. Why should endangerment only be applied to animals?" I thought you were equating the fetus to an endangered species. My apologies if this was not the case.

I think we both agree that the fetus is in Danger in the case of an abortion. I don't think there was ever an issue regarding that.

Margaret Sanger stuff

Sounds like she was a racist. As I said, it's not really important. We don't practice eugenics, and voluntary abortion is far different from making it mandatory, as Ms. Sanger seemed to promote.

If the Supreme Court ruled that at conception life begins as a human being, would you oppose abortion?

No, for the arguments listed at the top of page 9.

Using animals, endangered species, etc. are not good arguments to justify killing babies.

I agree, but neither are they good arguments for banning abortion. I'm not saying we should kill babies. Infanticide is deplorable to me. I do not see the Fetus in the same light as a baby at this point in time.

The same reason that man believes he has the right to defend himself against unwanted harm.

?????

The point I'm trying to make is that we are allowed to defend ourselves from harm, even if that defense entails the killing of something.

Are you saying respect and fear of God are the same thing?

I had a paragraph typed out addressing this, but I figured that it didn't really apply to the topic. I'll just say that no, I feel that respect and fear are two different things, with respect being the better of the two.

[TQWcS]

The point I'm trying to make is that we are allowed to defend ourselves from harm, even if that defense entails the killing of something.

In partial birth abortion killing the baby doesn't keep you out of harms way. Actually it can put you in harms way because you still have to deliver the baby and it is a dangerous procedure in itself.

[Gaunt]

I'm not arguing that all forms of abortion are acceptable. I am, however, arguing that there are stages in pregnancy where having an abortion is should be allowed. If the fetus is viable outside the womb, as in the case of a partial birth abortion, then I would agree that an abortion is wrong and should be banned. If the fetus is not viable, then I do not see why an abortion should be banned.

[Daystar]

Right, I put quotes on "extinction," not to imply that they are an endangered species in the sense of eagles or turtles, but only to emphasize the DANGER the unborn are in if the mother decides she doesn't want the baby.

Actually, I was the one who put quotes around "extinction". I must have misread your intent in saying "Any baby whose mother doesn't want him is in danger of extinction. Why should endangerment only be applied to animals?" I thought you were equating the fetus to an endangered species. My apologies if this was not the case.

[Day] No, I was not making this equation.

I think we both agree that the fetus is in Danger in the case of an abortion. I don't think there was ever an issue regarding that.

[Day] But if a human life is in danger, it should be taken out of harm's way.

Margaret Sanger stuff

If the Supreme Court ruled that at conception life begins as a human being, would you oppose abortion?

No, for the arguments listed at the top of page 9.

[Day] So Roe v. Wade only provided abortion doctors and women with freedom from prosecution. Do you think that abortion is a basic right?

Using animals, endangered species, etc. are not good arguments to justify killing babies.

I agree, but neither are they good arguments for banning abortion.

[Day] Only if the fetus isn't a human being. It all turns on the humanity of the fetus. If it is declared a human being at conception, there will be a problem for the abortion industry.

I'm not saying we should kill babies. Infanticide is deplorable to me. I do not see the Fetus in the same light as a baby at this point in time.

[Day] But it still won't make any difference because you seem to think that women shouldn't need a law to grant them what is a basic right to begin with.

The same reason that man believes he has the right to defend himself against unwanted harm.

?????

The point I'm trying to make is that we are allowed to defend ourselves from harm, even if that defense entails the killing of something.

[Day] How does that apply to a woman allowing the destruction of her baby? How do the unborn defend themselves?

Are you saying respect and fear of God are the same thing?

I had a paragraph typed out addressing this, but I figured that it didn't really apply to the topic. I'll just say that no, I feel that respect and fear are two different things, with respect being the better of the two.

[Day] I'm not sure "better" is the right word. If they are different, then each would be applied under different circumstances.

[Gaunt]

But if a human life is in danger, it should be taken out of harm's way.

Not at the cost of another innocent person's freedom.

Do you think that abortion is a basic right?

No, but I believe banning it outright violates other basic rights.

Only if the fetus isn't a human being. It all turns on the humanity of the fetus. If it is declared a human being at conception, there will be a problem for the abortion industry.

The endangered species issue doesn't work for either side. Endangerment works at the species level whereas abortion is at the level of the individual. As you said, it was only brought up to illustrate the danger the fetus was in, which is unnecessary, as no one was arguing that the fetus was not at risk.

I disagree that it all turns on the humanity of the fetus. The only side that depends on the humanity of the fetus is the anti abortion side. If the fetus is not a person from conception, there is no argument. If the fetus is a person, there is still an arguement, at least 2 in fact.

But it still won't make any difference because you seem to think that women shouldn't need a law to grant them what is a basic right to begin with.

I'm not sure what that has to do with "I do not see the Fetus in the same light as a baby".

How does that apply to a woman allowing the destruction of her baby? How do the unborn defend themselves?

The unborn is the aggresser in that situation, whether or not it is conscious of it. It has forced itself on the woman, therefore the woman is entitled to defend herself.

[Daystar]

But if a human life is in danger, it should be taken out of harm's way.

Not at the cost of another innocent person's freedom.

[Day] So a woman should have the "freedom" to dispose of her unborn by killing it because she is in some kind of harm's way. Wouldn't it at least be worthwhile to consider going through the inconvenence of abortion so that another family could adopt it?

Do you think that abortion is a basic right?

No, but I believe banning it outright violates other basic rights.

[Day] I'm not sure what "rights" you're talking about, but If the only "right" being violated is to do what a woman wants with her own body, where is that right found? Who authorized it? What standard of morality is behind it? Is it guided by an moral absolute? Are absolutes necessary for civil and social harmony?

Only if the fetus isn't a human being. It all turns on the humanity of the fetus. If it is declared a human being at conception, there will be a problem for the abortion industry.

The endangered species issue doesn't work for either side. Endangerment works at the species level whereas abortion is at the level of the individual. As you said, it was only brought up to illustrate the danger the fetus was in, which is unnecessary, as no one was arguing that the fetus was not at risk.

I disagree that it all turns on the humanity of the fetus.

[Day] Wasn't Roe v Wade all about the "inhumanity" of the fetus. Isn't that what justified killing it?

The only side that depends on the humanity of the fetus is the anti abortion side. If the fetus is not a person from conception, there is no argument. If the fetus is a person, there is still an arguement, at least 2 in fact.

[Day] Right

But it still won't make any difference because you seem to think that women shouldn't need a law to grant them what is a basic right to begin with.

I'm not sure what that has to do with "I do not see the Fetus in the same light as a baby".

it has anything to do with it. I'm only trying to say that some think, like health care, abortion is a basic right. That's why I asked you if the Supreme Court ruled the fetus as human from conception, would you oppose abortion.

How does that apply to a woman allowing the destruction of her baby? How do the unborn defend themselves?

The unborn is the aggresser in that situation, whether or not it is conscious of it. It has forced itself on the woman, therefore the woman is entitled to defend herself.

[Day] You're not serious. How could the fetus be conscious of it? How did the baby "force" itself on the woman? Does it not really boil down to one thing; that most women who get pregnant through irresponsible behavior, just don't want to experience the inconvenience of bringing the child to term in a single lifestyle?

[Jose]

The unborn is the aggresser in that situation, whether or not it is conscious of it. It has forced itself on the woman, therefore the woman is entitled to defend herself.

You're not serious. How could the fetus be conscious of it? How did the baby "force" itself on the woman? Does it not really boil down to one thing; that most women who get pregnant through irresponsible behavior, just don't want to experience the inconvenience of bringing the child to term in a single lifestyle?

The biology is that the unborn is the agressor. The danged embryo, at a very young age, sticks to Mom's tissue and invades it. If it happens to invade the uterine lining, Mom can respond and produce her half of the placenta. If the embryo invades any place else (like in the Fallopian tube), Mom can't respond. The embryo doesn't care, though, and continues invading, sometimes resulting in hemorragic tragedy. It's true that the embryo isn't conscious of what it's doing, any more than heartworms are conscious of what they're doing when they invade their host. Indeed, maybe this lack of consciousness, this lack of gaining permission prior to attack, is a criterion that should be applied to determine whether these blobs of cells should be treated like people.

Now, I seriously question your argument that women get pregnant through irresponsible behavior (etc) because this phrasing makes it sound like it's the woman's fault. I don't know any women who have managed this on their own, though I do know women who have had it forced on them by others. No one seems to say anything in these arguments about the responsibility of the male. It seems to be OK for men to do whatever they want, with minimal penalty, while women have to suffer the consequences of the men's action.

If we were to apply similar thinking to men, I bet we'd get a different answer. Men have the basic right to be in charge of their own bodies. In taking a stand against abortion, we are saying that women don't--yet we pretend that all citizens are equal, and have the same inalienable rights. Did the founding fathers really mean, when they said that all men are created equal, that women are not? If we accept this idea, we're not that far from the "other religions" that punish adultery with the death of the woman, or otherwise treat women as objects rather than as respected equals.

Either abortion must be an option for those women who conclude, reluctantly, that it is necessary, or it should be required that the men involved do the childcare. Perhaps it would be even better, since we are usually talking about people who are too poor to give these children much of an opportunity to succeed in life, the childcare should be the responsibility of the anti-abortion community, since they are the ones who want the children so badly. If someone is willing to forbid abortion, then they should be willing to take their share of the unwanted children that they would force others to bring into the world.

[The Tsar]

I hope everyone gets a chance to read the article in the november issue of Haper's magazine on partial birth abortion. Very interesting, and as someone who has never supported "right to lifers" it brought up some issues for me. I'll not say anymore, and let people read for themselves.

[Jose]

I hope everyone gets a chance to read the article in the november issue of Haper's magazine on partial birth abortion. Very interesting, and as someone who has never supported "right to lifers" it brought up some issues for me.

I'm not surprised. By the time "partial birth" is possible, the embryo looks fairly human. It makes a lot of sense to identify an early-pregnancy time-window during which abortion is less disturbing, and identify methods that are effective with minimal trauma for everyone involved.