Abortion

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

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:18 pm

How many circles are we going around here? The fact is that a fetus does fit the definition of parsite and it does live off the host, sometimes endangering the host's health or even life. We don't like to think of it that way, but it's true.

I don't understand why anyone would grant rights to something that has not been born and is contained within the body of a person. How can it have "rights"? The pregnant woman has many responsibilities -- to herself, to other children, to whatever. Most women take these responsibilites quite seriously and do, in fact, feel a responsiblity to the child growing within her. When a woman choose to have a baby, it is a baby -- not a fetus -- from the moment she know she's pregnant. But that's her choice, not her obligation.

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Tue Nov 23, 2004 9:19 pm

tcay584 wrote:Hi Spongemom,
Wow! It's been so invigorating chatting with you! However, I have to go to bed or I won't be up in the morning Hope to see more posts from you, and others, tomorrow. God bless (whether you want it or not )

Good, because I'm getting ready to go cook something. (Place name of chosen diety here) bless you too.

Corvus · Post by **Corvus** » Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:04 am

tcay584 wrote:Hi Spongemom,
Sorry to all...we were rerouted to this forum from another.
Are you seriously asking me to say that infanticide is bad, so abortion must be good because at least the little critter doesn't know what's going on? Give me a break! I saw the same article you did regarding the mom who killed her baby, and it repulsed me. Do I think it would have been "better" if she had aborted? No. You cannot seriously think this woman was even close to sane. She will not be judged eternally for what is obviously a severe form of insanity. All I'm saying is that if a woman does not wish to become pregnant, she should abstain from sex.

But the bible even councils that those who can't help themselves should marry so that they have an outlet for their lustful thoughts.I Corinthians 7:8I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 7:9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." I think it is unreasonable to expect a wife who is married with three children to never be intimate with her husband ever again out of fear that she will get pregnant. Of course, since I do not believe a foetus is the equivalent of a fully conscious child, then I can't agree with your conclusion.

In my opinion, abortion does more damage to the mother in the form of future emotional pain, guilt, shame, than it's worth.

From what I understand, post-abortion trauma has been completely disproven. As has been mentioned very early in the debate, the American Psychological Association conducted studies on the subject that failed to turn up any evidence.

Nada Stotland, M.D, former president of the Association of Women Psychiatrists:

"Significant psychiatric sequelae after abortion are rare, as documented in numerous methodologically sound prospective studies in the United States and in European countries. Comprehensive reviews of this literature have recently been performed and confirm this conclusion. The incidence of diagnosed psychiatric illness and hospitalization is considerably lower following abortion than following childbirth…Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment."

Even so, if it really is so traumatic, I cannot help but wonder why a gaol term is the best response to that, or why 40% of women return for another abortion.

There are so many people willing to adopt....why destroy?

1 million abortions are performed anually in the United States. This does not include the number of "deaths" that are a result of the morning after pill if we take the position that right to life begins at conception, which, in a nation of over 300 million, it would not be an exaggeration to assume might come to over 1 or 2 million anually. To say that adoption will take care of all or even most of the 2 million + children brought to term in the event that abortion is forbidden is, I think, very optimistic.

My concern is what would happen if abortion was made illegal. This did not work well in the past. The result was that we had women drinking gin with metal shavings, inserting knitting kneedles into themselves and doing heavy lifting in an effort to bring about an abortion. Unsafe illegal abortion was the second greatest cause of death for women, right after suicide. Modern education would prevent some of those deaths, but in a place like America, with such a vast population and large number of abortions performed from day to day, I think, in the event of its prohibition, many women would resort to similar measures.

The only modern examples of anti-abortion countries I know of are Portugal and Ireland. In Portugal, a country of 10 million people, according to Agence-France-Presse, 20,000 to 40,000 illegal abortions are performed anually, and medical statistics state that over 1,000 women were hospitalised in 2003 as a result of inexpert illegal abortions.

We do not have the similar figures on hospatilised women in Ireland, but we do know, from British medical records, that over 6,500 women from the nation of 4 million travel to England anually in order to have an abortion. Anglican Northern Ireland, a province of the UK, but retaining the old Offenses Against the Person act, does almost as well, at 1,000 women anually from a nation of 1,000,000. These are women who can spare the expense of going to such great lengths to procure an abortion, by hopping on a train, spending time in an English hotel and paying for the operation, and does not include those who brought about their own abortion using home remedies or physical exertion, or going to risky abortion boats floating off the coast of Ireland. To forbid abortion in America, where the refuge of a nearby pro-abortion country does not exist, is to create a law for the rich, who can afford to travel great distances for medical treatment, and to condemn the poor to unsafe self-induced practices. As I have stated in the other thread, we are dealing with more than promiscuous teenagers. 60% of abortions are by women who have have more than one or more children of their own. I want these women to survive to take care of the children they have, rather than die in an effort to prevent the birth of one they do not want.

Finally, anti-abortion law is something that cannot be enforced. And any law that cannot be enforced is anathema to the authority of the state.

Edit: A more credible source for Portugese casualties of abortion than a feminist news service.

Amadeus · Post by **Amadeus** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:04 am

Spongemom,

Your logic doesn't work...

Either a fetus is a child or it isn't. The mother choosing it is or not doesn't suddenly make it a baby, just as calling a baby a fetus and pretending that is something different than a baby does not make it so.

If I have a carrot, and call it an orange, though I might have logical reasons to call it so, it does not make it an orange.

Spongemom · Post by **Spongemom** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:14 am

Amadeus wrote:Either a fetus is a child or it isn't. The mother choosing it is or not doesn't suddenly make it a baby, just as calling a baby a fetus and pretending that is something different than a baby does not make it so.

If I have a carrot, and call it an orange, though I might have logical reasons to call it so, it does not make it an orange.

I didn't say it was logical.

A fetus is a fetus no matter what you call it. If a woman gets pregnant and she wants to call it a baby, that's her choice. The fact remains that it is still a clump of cells, nowhere near an actual baby, but if she wants to refer to it as her baby, that's fine.

You can call a carrot an orange all you want. It is still a carrot, what you call it makes no difference.

tcay584 · Post by **tcay584** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 11:09 am

Hi Again,
Just went and double checked my dictionary, because maybe all the years I've spent in college and grad school did me wrong. The actual definition of "parasite" includes the caveat that the parasitic organism is of another species from the host. Your parasite argument is misusing the term.

Jose · Post by **Jose** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 12:17 pm

As long as we're playing the dictionary game, here's "fetus":

In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.

The term "baby" usually refers to the infant after it is born, but is often used to refer to the fetus as well.

So, you're both right. We may call a fetus a baby, because sometimes this is accurate enough. In the later stages, the only significant difference is where it is. However, there is a real, technical difference between "fetus" and "embryo," the latter being difficult to distinguish among different species, and showing no evidence of sentience. In its earliest stages, it is a blob of cells.

Despite the official definition of a "parasite" being of a different species than its host, it is nonetheless an apt analogy. The mother has no choice in the matter. The blob of cells physically attacks Mom's uterine lining (if she's lucky--sometimes it attacks the lining of the Fallopian tubes, which spells death for the embryo, and may spell death for the mother as well). Once it attacks Mom, it physically invades Mom's uterine epithelial cells, and grows into an invasive mass, which recruits blood vessels from Mom's tissues by secreting angiogenesis factors. Mom can't escape, but is indentured into servitude, feeding the invasive organism.

This isn't as bad as the embryos of C. elegans (a free-living soil nematode), which, in a particular genetic strain, cannot be laid by the mother, and hatch insider her, then devour her from within. Still, there's a remarkably high frequency among humans (compared to what we would expect) of death in childbirth.

This is all fine, if the mother chooses to become impregnated, and is willing to accept the conditions of the contract. In many cases, it is beyond her control.

I find it interesting that the view of True Christians is usually to desire that abortion be outlawed, when doing so will have no effect on themselves, but will increase the numbers of non-Christians. True Christians, of course, would never think of an abortion for themselves (unless, of course, they change their minds when they are actually faced with an unplanned pregnacy). Usually, religions seek to increase their own numbers, rather than increase the numbers of the opposition.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 8:32 pm

Corvus Wrote:

My concern is what would happen if abortion was made illegal. This did not work well in the past. The result was that we had women drinking gin with metal shavings, inserting knitting kneedles into themselves and doing heavy lifting in an effort to bring about an abortion. Unsafe illegal abortion was the second greatest cause of death for women, right after suicide. Modern education would prevent some of those deaths, but in a place like America, with such a vast population and large number of abortions performed from day to day, I think, in the event of its prohibition, many women would resort to similar measures.

Well this shouldn't be a factor. Life would be a lot easier if things could be rationalized in this way:
Q: What would happen if the world didn't do everything that a group of terrorists demanded?
A: They would involve themselves in grusom murders, suicide bombings, and other acts of terrorism.

I doubt the number of women that would resort to these methods would be incredibly large and at all sound-minded.

Spongemom wrote:

I didn't say it was logical.

If your argument does not follow logical reasoning, than am I permitted to refute it with illogical reasoning? In that case...

Your argument is underpants. So that makes it invalid.

A fetus is a fetus no matter what you call it. If a woman gets pregnant and she wants to call it a baby, that's her choice. The fact remains that it is still a clump of cells, nowhere near an actual baby, but if she wants to refer to it as her baby, that's fine.

Although Jose's post brings up a good point, I am curious as to what YOUR opinion is: At what point does the baby become a baby, and stop being a "lump of cells"? When it's fully developed does it stop being a "lump of cells"? In that case... mom's should be permitted to kill their baby months after it has been born, for it is not fully developed yet. Why do you think nobody has any solid memories before the age of roughly 2 yrs?

We are all a "lump of cells"... but we are also human beings. We should all be treated like one.

Jose Wrote:

I find it interesting that the view of True Christians is usually to desire that abortion be outlawed, when doing so will have no effect on themselves, but will increase the numbers of non-Christians. True Christians, of course, would never think of an abortion for themselves (unless, of course, they change their minds when they are actually faced with an unplanned pregnacy). Usually, religions seek to increase their own numbers, rather than increase the numbers of the opposition.

I find that to be a rather pessemistic vision of True Christianity (I would like to comment on how sad the times have become, that we have to differentiate between "Christianity" and "True Christianity"

). It is true that Christians try to take extra special care when deciding such matters. Christians seek to increase their own numbers by representing Christ, not out-breeding non-believers.

(sounds funny to say it like that). Aside from that, it is not really up to us, but up to God. We try to live the way God has led as an example. Also, it is not up to us who becomes a Christian. Our own children are also born sinners, and while they most certainly do undergo influence, it is ultimately up to God and then it is up to them.

tcay584 · Post by **tcay584** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 9:35 pm

Jose,
The mom does have a choice...don't have sex. This was addressed in a previous post, with tenuous exceptions for rape, incest, etc.....
The fact of the matter is that most "unwanted" preganancies result from the mother "not wanting" to own up to the fact that she was indiscriminate and made a decision that could affect the rest of her life.
If someone develops an addiciton, say smoking, most people would say....well you deserved it...how dumb of you to get caught up in a stupid situation like that. At least that only kills the smoker. Abortion kills two people....the one who was stupid enough to believe that any birth control is 100% effective...and the innocent child SHE helped create. How can you kill a part of yourself and be OK with that? Especially knowing that had you just had a tiny bit more self control, you wouldn't be in that situation.

chrispalasz · Post by **chrispalasz** » Sat Nov 27, 2004 10:24 pm

Hmmm... better pick a different drug for an example. I can already hear somebody crying, "second hand smoke!".