Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[otseng]

Welcome to the forum Illyricum. The question you pose is a bit too broad and prone to subjective responses. I'd suggest narrowing it down to make the thread more debateable. Thanks.

[Illyricum]

Ok, thank you otseng, I will try to narrow it down. Should woman in America (or anywhere for that matter) have the right to have abortion? Or should abortion be banned?

[otseng]

Should woman in America (or anywhere for that matter) have the right to have abortion? Or should abortion be banned?

I believe abortion should only be made available when a pregnancy would put the life of the mother in jeopardy.

[adherent]

Yep I agree with otseng. Abortion should not be used as a way to get rid of the consequences of sex before marriage. If a girl decides to have sex and get pregnant, they should suffer the consequinces. Then girls would get pregnant from it, and say "Oh no, I'm pregnant, oh wait, I can just get a pregnant." And then they would just have more sex because their is no more consequences unless maybe your parents do not condone such practices.

[Corvus]

I have to be sceptical of the belief that women would use abortions as an easy way out. The people who do go through with abortions often suffer the most terrible feelings of guilt and shame, not to mention whatever physical pain the procedure entails.

My stance is that first a government should define in a constitution what exactly is a "person". Then, once that matter is settled, it should be decided the rights to which a person is entitled.

As it stands, we have seen how non-citizens have no rights, and can easily be blown to smithereens and dismissed as collateral damage. If a government treated its own citizens in the same way, it would be obligated to make reparation.

You are probably sick of hearing the word Iraq all around you, but the comparison is a fitting one, and can't be helped.

My own definition of "person" requires some (minor) signs of intelligence, so I would probably be classified as a pro-choice, abortionist, murderer, or what have you.

[adherent]

Corvus:
The people who do go through with abortions often suffer the most terrible feelings of guilt and shame, not to mention whatever physical pain the procedure entails.

So I guess they do not escape all responsibilities or consequences, but, with out society being obsessed about money and pleasure, they would easily kill a unborn baby instead of losing their future. Abortions are not done to morulas, the baby is almost fully grown when it is killed inside. Most of the time, the dead fetus is expelled through the vagina looking like a normal baby except that it has deformed skin or the like.

[otseng]

My stance is that first a government should define in a constitution what exactly is a "person". Then, once that matter is settled, it should be decided the rights to which a person is entitled.

That would be a good solution. However, I don't think anybody would ever be able to give a definition of a "person". It might seem intuitively obvious, but to put down on paper is a bit tricky.

It does all boil down to this though. What is a person? If a third trimester fetus is a "person", then obviously an abortion is equal to murder.

[Corvus]

Corvus:
The people who do go through with abortions often suffer the most terrible feelings of guilt and shame, not to mention whatever physical pain the procedure entails.

So I guess they do not escape all responsibilities or consequences, but, with out society being obsessed about money and pleasure, they would easily kill a unborn baby instead of losing their future. Abortions are not done to morulas, the baby is almost fully grown when it is killed inside. Most of the time, the dead fetus is expelled through the vagina looking like a normal baby except that it has deformed skin or the like.

Well, it depends when the abortion is performed. Late abortions - in the third trimester for example - are pretty gruesome procedures where the babies skull is collapsed by striking and churning it with a tube and then pulling out the baby with pincers. At least, that's how I remember it used to be done, and I am unsure if the procedure has changed recently.

The problem with banning late-term abortions is that they are very rarely done for the purposed of an unwanted baby, but usually for the reason that the birth could be of considerable danger to the baby, the mother, or both if it went ahead.

The choice, I personally believe, should be given up to, at the very latest, the middle of the 2nd trimester, but possibly closer to the end of the 1st trimester. This isn't my final word, though, it is a sketchy judgement. To me, life comes into its value when it becomes aware of its surroundings instead of merely reacting to them. It's the same reason we can kill a fly with impunity but when it comes to killing animals, the most difficult animals to kill are the ones that we personally find the most sentient or most "human", like dogs, cats, horses, and most pets.

It does all boil down to this though. What is a person? If a third trimester fetus is a "person", then obviously an abortion is equal to murder.

Not murder, but "killing". There is a difference. "The Torah states Thou Shalt Not Murder", but the King James Bible states, "Thou Shalt Not Kill". The difference is that killing means bringing about someone's death for any reason. Murder is killing that is not justified, by law, by creed, by whatever.

So, the Torah would excuse war, but the KJB condemns it. Either way, the soldiers, even you would agree, aren't doing any (or much, anyway) "murdering". If the law accepted abortions, it would no longer be murder either.

[perspective]

We allow individuals to opt out of life saving procedures. We allow people to sign DNR (Do Not Resuscitate) papers. An individual is allowed to designate the circumstances that dictate conditions in which the person would not wish to continue living. Only if that person is legally competent to make that decision. Children cannot enter into legally binding contracts. The parents or guardians of children are permitted to enter into legally binding contracts on behalf of their children. Children are not allowed to enter into legally binding contracts because they are unable to make appropriate decisions due to their lack of education, maturity, or understanding of an issue. A parent has the best interest in making decisions for his/her child.

If a parent decides that the lifestyle that their child would lead is unacceptable in some way, that parent should have the option of entering into the legally binding "Do Not Resuscitate" agreement of abortion for that child.

Interesting way to look at it.

Of course I believe that a woman has the right to choose because she ought not be used as a means to an end. We wouldn't make women produce healthy kidneys to donate to other people against their will, how can we use their bodies to produce anything against their will? Where does it stop? Not only does a person own his/her body, but everything his/her body produces. If a woman wants to produce kidneys to donate to people, she gets to decide who gets her kidneys. The government can't step in and say, "since you're willing to donate your kidney, we get to decide who it goes to". It's her gift to give or to not give. Any government that wants to step in and try to regulate part of a person's body is completely overstepping its bounds. People who believe that abortion is murder can refrain from having abortions. Those people who believe otherwise make their own decisions. Making abortion illegal is not going to stop abortions, it's going to cause more casualties in the long run because women will use unsafe methods to have them, costing the mother's life as well. Anyone who believes that abortion is murder must also concede that forcing women to endanger themselves with black market abortions is a form of murder too. Taking away options of safe health care in any other circumstance would be considered murder. (For example, denying a prisoner proper wound dressing that caused an infection that eventually caused his death - the denial of care, not the wound, is the murdering factor in this case, because the prisoner would have lived with proper care).

Not everyone in this world believes that life is the be-all end-all. In this society, even, life is very arbitrarily valued. To say that murder is ALWAYS wrong is hypocritical of our government, because our government murders - directly and indirectly - all the time. Religious folks need to understand that to some, life is only valued in as much as it relates to keeping the immediate, local society civil. Not everyone has some divine instruction never to kill in any circumstances. Not all who do have that divine instruction actually follow it strictly. So to make an absolute - Murder is always wrong - might be one person's own personal mantra, but it isn't the personal mantra of all people. I think such a mantra could never be endorsed by a country who breaks it consistently.