Abortion III

[The Dreaming]

[Mod Edit: Since this is an old thread which long since evolved past the intent of the original post, but was resurrected, I've edited the title. This thread was bumped on page 32, so you can pick up on the new discussion there.

--A ]

Original Title: Why Abortion is Important to Conservatives.


There may have been abortion threads in the past, but I have a manic need to discuss this issue with people who are actually capable of thought.

I have always felt that the most of the left's arguments for why abortion should be legal are completely facile and completely evasive of the Right's argument. I am a completely secular person politically, and I think abortion is perhaps the single most grave issue this country faces. Am I being melodramatic? The left constantly derides us for making it such an issue. But think about it please. To us, it is government sanctioned murder.

Why do we believe this? I arrived at my conclusion in a completely secular way. How does someone define the beginning of humanity? Where is the moment in time where before, a human being is simply an object, biological waste, and a human being with all the "inalienable" rights of a human being? Is that moment the third trimester? An arbitrary amount of time where abortion becomes "just too icky"? I can't believe that, after all, 4 month premature babies can actually live now.

What is the Liberal argument for abortion? I always hear that making abortion illegal violates a woman's right to privacy. Does anyone EVER stop to think how that completely fails to engage our argument at ALL! We are saying that a fetus is a person, and aborting it is murder, and you respond with something as weak as "right to privacy?" So, as long as I murder someone in private it's ok? Can I shove someone into my asshole until they suffocate and call it an abortion? Of course not. Whatever rights you think you have, the right to another human being's survival takes precedence.

So what *should* the discourse be about? Defining the moment humanity legally begins. Rational thought leads to no acceptable answer except for conception.

My mother actually works in the NICU (Neo-Natal Intensive Care Unit) of a local hospital. When she started working there 20 years ago, a 7 month "premy" was most likely not going to survive. Now they can keep 5 and even some 4 month premies alive! It is far from a stretch to think that before long, we will be able to "grow" a child completely outside of the womb.

Why is this important? One of the arguments I hear frequently is that "A fetus isn't human until It can survive outside of the womb". So I guess someone could walk into my mother's NICU unit and kill every child inside without repercussion right?

Hell, a child doesn't become independent of it's parent until sometime between it's 17th and 22nd year in this country. While this doesn't make the argument *completely* sterile, it raises enough doubt for me to nix it in favor of life.

When does humanity begin? Really? Is it at the rise of consciousness? I don't think that happens until a child hits around 3 or so. This may be valid, but I don't think anyone is going to start exposing infants again. Once again, I have enough doubt in this argument to nix it.

Of course, a Christian (or other somewhat spiritual person) might say that it's when the soul enters the body. Well, when does this happen? A soul is, by it's nature, undetectable by science. All we can really know is that it happens sometime after conception.

As you can see, a pattern develops. Any defining factor anyone can imagine, certainly happens at or after conception. The only place we can with any degree of certainty say "it's certainly *not* before this point" is at the moment of conception. You may believe differently. You may argue differently. To me, this makes you automatically better than the vast majority of Pro-Choicers, (including the Supreme Court) who completely dodge the *real* issue.

I still do not see, no matter how good your argument is, any absolutely certain line that can be drawn between humanity and organic waste other than conception.

To those conservatives who approve of it in *certain situations* shame! There is no circumstance which justifies the murder of an innocent. *even* rape. Add that to the fact that a *perfectly* acceptable and available alternative exists. (ADOPTION) and we have a massively unjust and unnecessary waste of life.

To those who would argue that the social benefits outweigh the losses... There would undoubtedly be immense social benefit to killing every human being on their 35th birthday. Would that make it right? Just?

To Conservatives, this is an issue as important as slavery was to abolitionists. All of their blathering about "Right to Choose" is about as *stupid* an argument as "Right to hold men in bondage against their will!" is.

(This of course applies to our misgivings about obtaining stem cells from fetuses. Add to that a certain poetic horror in consuming the young to prolong the lives of the old. Of course however, it's ridiculous to make it illegal in a society that allows abortion."

[storm]

One of my most favorite subjects to debate, nice thread idea Dreaming.

1. I want to start first with your last sentence on stem-cell research. I've had this argument on here with other members, they try to tell me that privately funded stem-cell research can succeed and all the bush administration did was prevent federal funding. My thoughts on that argument are well-known, but you bring up an even better and more compelling argument, in a country where abortion is legal, how can embryonic stem-cell research be illegal (i know its still legal, but lack of federal funding cripples it, regardless of the objections of some of our respected watchers). The fact that we can now obtain progenitor stem-cells from skin lines is great, but had we not, the president ruling from the pulpit could have effectively destroyed promising research.

2. I'm one of the few conservatives who is actually pro-choice. I'm not all too concerned with the rights to privacy. My reasoning for pro-choice is this: I have grown up in a rural area where 17 year old girls with promising futures get knocked up because some redneck got her drunk and her judgement faded. If this same girl had the chance to go to college, start a career, etc. she could provide a much better life for her child. You mother as a NICU nurse (kudos to her btw, NICU takes a strong person) has probably seen those kids who with their smiling faces and glowing eyes who will grow up poor and behind the curve because their parents made the right choice at the wrong time. I know this sounds barbaric, but what is worse, to prevent a birth or to bring kids into this world you can't take care of. I think its the latter.

3. Your argument about what is life is a good point. Its one i've thought about a great deal. I can't truly reconcile it one way or the other. If you could grow an embryo entirely outside the fetus, then abortion really is murder after conception. I don't have a rebuttal to your viewpoint, as i can't truly draw any line in the sand on this particular issue.

4. Your point on it never being ok. This one i will disagree with you on. I would like you to consider for a minute that your sister, cousin, etc. was raped and impregnated. Now, it may be possible that the woman has the child, loves it, etc. She may be strong enough emotionally to separate the act from the child, but maybe not. Do then punish and judge the woman who can't handle having a baby by a rapist? How about the woman who has a boy that looks just like the man who raped her. Everyday of that childs life she will be reminded of the worst thing that has ever happened to her. Not only does she have to deal with the emotional and psychological distress of being raped, but she has to provide for the product of that violent act. In saying that women who are raped have to carry the child, you are placing the rights of an unborn child ahead of the rights of a living, breathing woman who has to have someone's child she did not consent to sex with. For some women, that kind of stress could make them kill themselves or have a psychotic episode. Would you willingly do that to your sister or your mother?

[Cail]

I wrestle with #4 quite a bit. Rape is non-consensual, so I have a hard time holding the line on abortion, but it's still murder, and there's still the adoption option.

Storm, I think you're dead wrong on #1, and it would appear that with your response to #2 you're condoning murder for the sake of quality of life (possibly). Sorry man, it's not OK to off your kid so you can go to college.

[Zarathustra]

1. I want to start first with your last sentence on stem-cell research. I've had this argument on here with other members, they try to tell me that privately funded stem-cell research can succeed and all the bush administration did was prevent federal funding. My thoughts on that argument are well-known, but you bring up an even better and more compelling argument, in a country where abortion is legal, how can embryonic stem-cell research be illegal (i know its still legal, but lack of federal funding cripples it, regardless of the objections of some of our respected watchers). The fact that we can now obtain progenitor stem-cells from skin lines is great, but had we not, the president ruling from the pulpit could have effectively destroyed promising research.

Actually, Bush is the only president to have ever allocated federal funds to stem cell research. I don't understand why people say that he crippled it, when he's the only president in history to have spent a dime supporting it.

[Ur Dead]

Personally, I don't approve of it when it used as a means of birth control.
It would be banned on that account. Other issues are something else and would be a means.


What gripes this old pharte of a guy is that US polticians have used it as a "Political Wheelchair" for over 50 years. The UK voted on the issue and allows it. Problem is the UK is not the US. (The UK landmass is about the size of Oregon with a pop of 60 million) The US is totally different in the repect of it's people and size. It's very huge.

It should be determined by state by state. Let the people of that State allow it or not ,or allow it in some limited forms. Vote to keep it, change it or ban it every eight years. States that provide assistance to it's residents are only responsible to that states residents (The person must be a resident for 1 full years to quality for assistance when needed) All others(other state residents must pay for the services and the non-abortion state is not responsible either for it's own residents whom get the procedure)
But no state can deny a US citizen wanting an abortion if they have the means to pay for it, if they are from another state (which has an abortion ban) to where a state where abortions are legal.
This is the only way it will keep those misfits in Washington from using the abortion issue as the political crutch and it's out of their hands.
You don't like the law of a particular state, then move there and spent your time and money to change it.

[drew]

I personaly will not share my view on abortion here.

BUT

It seems a little off, that the two different sides are called

Pro-Life and Pro-Choice.

They're not really opposites are they?

It's not Anti-Abortion and Pro-abortion

[Rawedge Rim]

One of my most favorite subjects to debate, nice thread idea Dreaming.

1. I want to start first with your last sentence on stem-cell research. I've had this argument on here with other members, they try to tell me that privately funded stem-cell research can succeed and all the bush administration did was prevent federal funding. My thoughts on that argument are well-known, but you bring up an even better and more compelling argument, in a country where abortion is legal, how can embryonic stem-cell research be illegal (i know its still legal, but lack of federal funding cripples it, regardless of the objections of some of our respected watchers). The fact that we can now obtain progenitor stem-cells from skin lines is great, but had we not, the president ruling from the pulpit could have effectively destroyed promising research.

2. I'm one of the few conservatives who is actually pro-choice. I'm not all too concerned with the rights to privacy. My reasoning for pro-choice is this: I have grown up in a rural area where 17 year old girls with promising futures get knocked up because some redneck got her drunk and her judgement faded. If this same girl had the chance to go to college, start a career, etc. she could provide a much better life for her child. You mother as a NICU nurse (kudos to her btw, NICU takes a strong person) has probably seen those kids who with their smiling faces and glowing eyes who will grow up poor and behind the curve because their parents made the right choice at the wrong time. I know this sounds barbaric, but what is worse, to prevent a birth or to bring kids into this world you can't take care of. I think its the latter.

3. Your argument about what is life is a good point. Its one i've thought about a great deal. I can't truly reconcile it one way or the other. If you could grow an embryo entirely outside the fetus, then abortion really is murder after conception. I don't have a rebuttal to your viewpoint, as i can't truly draw any line in the sand on this particular issue.

4. Your point on it never being ok. This one i will disagree with you on. I would like you to consider for a minute that your sister, cousin, etc. was raped and impregnated. Now, it may be possible that the woman has the child, loves it, etc. She may be strong enough emotionally to separate the act from the child, but maybe not. Do then punish and judge the woman who can't handle having a baby by a rapist? How about the woman who has a boy that looks just like the man who raped her. Everyday of that childs life she will be reminded of the worst thing that has ever happened to her. Not only does she have to deal with the emotional and psychological distress of being raped, but she has to provide for the product of that violent act. In saying that women who are raped have to carry the child, you are placing the rights of an unborn child ahead of the rights of a living, breathing woman who has to have someone's child she did not consent to sex with. For some women, that kind of stress could make them kill themselves or have a psychotic episode. Would you willingly do that to your sister or your mother?

1. I reckon that watcher would be me , and as you noted, since fetal stem cell funding was disallowed, they found an alternative. Things like that happen sometimes.

2. If the 17 yr. old got knocked up because she got drunk, I still don't see this as any more of an excuse than if same 17 yr. old got drunk and ran over a kid. You have to take things like that into account when you drink. Either her, or someone will take care of the child.

3. I don't have an answer to this. If "life" begins at some point after conception, then abortion, except for saving the mothers life is wrong, OTOH, if it doesn't, then we need to determine what "life" means and I'm not sure I want to go there.

4. Rape or incest....love that line....not. If, the fetus is considered a human being, then it's irrelavant how it was concieved, it's a human being and therefore deserves at least the same chance at being born as a fetus concieved by two people doing the "beast with two backs" in the back of a van after a concert.

[Zahir]

I think it important to remember that an un-fertilized egg is exactly as human and as alive as fertilized one.

But it isn't a human being.

To be sure, given time it will probably become a human being--but until it does, no way do the "rights" of some cells trump those of a genuine human being (i.e. a pregnant woman). When it does, then there is a conflict.

[storm]

I wrestle with #4 quite a bit. Rape is non-consensual, so I have a hard time holding the line on abortion, but it's still murder, and there's still the adoption option.

Storm, I think you're dead wrong on #1, and it would appear that with your response to #2 you're condoning murder for the sake of quality of life (possibly). Sorry man, it's not OK to off your kid so you can go to college.

Its a line in the sand issue Cail, i certainly respect your viewpoint, i just disagree. I see poor kids with mothers who made a poor decision, a life filled with poverty and resentment of their children is not better, it just makes people who think abortion is murder to sleep better at night because typically they aren't the ones living in poverty. If those same mothers waited til they had an education and a career their kids wouldn't be trapped in the vicious cycle that keeps many of the lowest segments of the population down. I see cultures that still practice infanticide as a method of population control, much more barbaric than abortion IMO. I don't take your "offing your kid so you can go to college" to be in that light, abortion isn't infanticide, I think you are making the two equivalent. I also realize that for many this is a responsibility issue, with people having to face the consequences of bad decisions. But, why do innocent children have to be bearers of that responsibility...because inevitably, by forcing people not ready for kids; either financially or emotionally, you condemn the child.

[sgt.null]

storm - poverty isn't fatal. many poor people go on to great things. it requires the parents to work hard, and that is a problem in today's quick fix society. an entire generation came through the depression.

[storm]

Actually, Bush is the only president to have ever allocated federal funds to stem cell research. I don't understand why people say that he crippled it, when he's the only president in history to have spent a dime supporting it.

Just not embryonic stem cell research. Considering your outspoken beliefs on Atheism, i'd think that you of all people would be outraged that someone in power used their own theology as a reason for making a science/medical policy decision rather than cost/benefit. You should consider just how long stem-cell technology has been viable when saying Bush is the only one to spend money supporting it, its not like we've had this for 50 years.

[storm]

1. I reckon that watcher would be me , and as you noted, since fetal stem cell funding was disallowed, they found an alternative. Things like that happen sometimes.

2. If the 17 yr. old got knocked up because she got drunk, I still don't see this as any more of an excuse than if same 17 yr. old got drunk and ran over a kid. You have to take things like that into account when you drink. Either her, or someone will take care of the child.

3. I don't have an answer to this. If "life" begins at some point after conception, then abortion, except for saving the mothers life is wrong, OTOH, if it doesn't, then we need to determine what "life" means and I'm not sure I want to go there.

4. Rape or incest....love that line....not. If, the fetus is considered a human being, then it's irrelavant how it was concieved, it's a human being and therefore deserves at least the same chance at being born as a fetus concieved by two people doing the "beast with two backs" in the back of a van after a concert.

1. Yes, you are the one i had in mind. My point still stands, that science succeeded where Bush failed us is not a measure of his foresight, simply that we have smart scientists who found an alternative. He still made his choice based on religion, which pisses me off.

2. You can't bring back a dead kid hit by a truck, you can prevent an unwanted pregnancy. We could probably even discuss how it should be easier for girls to get a prescription for the morning-after pill, of course i'm sure there are those who say that's abortion to. So, as you said, either her or someone else has to pay for the kid. Well that's great, we have a strong likelihood that there is going to be a very liberal president elected, more of my tax money goes to pay for some kid i didn't participate in making and the mother didn't even want to have. Adoption is a great alternative, its just under-utilized and the adopting parents have to go through so much red tape it turns many people off to the option unless they are barren. It boils down to trading one life for another, the mother may live, but unless she's a truly extraordinary women or has a great family you condemn her to a life of poverty and living off the government handouts. As i said to Cail, that's easier to swallow for people who think abortion is murder, as long as they aren't the ones who have to struggle its ok.

3. Agreed

4. Again, more people who think an unborn kid's life means more than the mother who got raped. I made my point earlier, I think punishing a victim is pretty brutal.

[storm]

storm - poverty isn't fatal. many poor people go on to great things. it requires the parents to work hard, and that is a problem in today's quick fix society. an entire generation came through the depression.

Some do, some don't. I speak from experience, most people where i grew up were poor...they did not have great intellect or great athletic ability to stand them out from the rest. I was blessed with a particularly phenomenal mother, she was poor, but still had values. Most people in that situation these days don't.

Feel free to be nostalgic to the greatest generation and use their example, still doesn't change the fact that we live in a world where the gap b/w those who have and those who don't is widening and one's bad choices are so much harder to fix ...a single indiscretion in the depression era may have caused embarassment, but the sense of family and community was stronger, the old adage about it taking a village to raise a child was actually practiced. We don't live in that same world anymore my friend. I'd prefer to not see abortion used as birth control, but either more people need to be on 'scripts for the morning after pill or parents need to start controlling their teenage kids. We cannot have this limitless population growth by people who can't pay for their kids and depend on those with money to do so, it breeds socialism.

Personally, i would not support my wife or girlfriend having an abortion. If i was poor i would find a way to support my family, but its not that way for everyone. A constitutional ban on abortion could bring about some very nasty things.

[The Dreaming]

I still think that whatever arguments you make to rationalize abortion, you can't argue that adoption is the *better* option. It's just significantly harder. There is NO shortage in this country of people who want to adopt children.

Of COURSE my mother sees plenty of unfit parents in the NICU. She complains about them constantly Poverty is hardly worse than non-existance.

Certainly, I cannot dispute the social benefits to allowing abortion. There were massive social benefits to slavery in the 18th and 19th century. The point is that *people* are being deprived of their right to life.

[Cail]

Certainly, I cannot dispute the social benefits to allowing abortion. There were massive social benefits to slavery in the 18th and 19th century. The point is that *people* are being deprived of their right to life.

Well put.

And I'd suggest a basic biology course to anyone who believes that an unfertilized egg is exactly as human as a fertilized one. That holds about as much water as the "Stork Theory" of human gestation.

[The Dreaming]

Certainly, I cannot dispute the social benefits to allowing abortion. There were massive social benefits to slavery in the 18th and 19th century. The point is that *people* are being deprived of their right to life.

Well put.

And I'd suggest a basic biology course to anyone who believes that an unfertilized egg is exactly as human as a fertilized one. That holds about as much water as the "Stork Theory" of human gestation.

Yeah, I came close to telling a vegan friend of mine that if eating an unfertilized egg is wrong, than having a period without trying to get pregnant is even more *wrong*.

As a reminder, the debate is about drawing the line between humanity and non-existence. All other nitpicking about the issue is meaningless until a consensus is reached on that one issue.

[storm]

I still think that whatever arguments you make to rationalize abortion, you can't argue that adoption is the *better* option. It's just significantly harder. There is NO shortage in this country of people who want to adopt children.

Of COURSE my mother sees plenty of unfit parents in the NICU. She complains about them constantly Poverty is hardly worse than non-existance.

Certainly, I cannot dispute the social benefits to allowing abortion. There were massive social benefits to slavery in the 18th and 19th century. The point is that *people* are being deprived of their right to life.

I wouldn't say abortion is better than adoption, one of my best friends is adopted, i wouldn't trade her for the world. I just don't like the idea of defining abortion as murder when there isn't even a consensus on when life actually begins.

Can you actually prove poverty isn't worse? An aborted child never knows, feels (emotionally) or even has true consciousness. A child who grows up in the poorest sector of society lives in their own personal hell. The viewpoint that one is better than the other is impossible to verify because you can't ask the aborted child. You would assume that a child would prefer life to death, but even living people might prefer death depending on the conditions, its all conjecture.

I see where your going with the slavery point, but that's overdramatic. Can you really equate the plight of a lifetime of servitude and brutality to abortion? I mean we could take this further, I could say that if you don't support universal healthcare, you are willing to allow people who would otherwise live to die because they couldn't afford treatment. You are by proxy effectively killing those people (if they have a chronic/terminal condition)...the extrapolations can be infinite depending on how nitpicky one wants to be about this. For me the bottom line is that the life of an unborn child in the early trimester is a collection of cells that has the potential to be a human life, that potential does not outweigh the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of the person carrying that child. We can discuss personal responsibility, when is the fetus viable, etc., but it still boils down to the same thing, you either think the rights of the unborn trump the rights of the mother or the rights of the mother trump the rights of the unborn.

[finn]

The point is that *people* are being deprived of their right to life.

The (your) point is surely the definition of *people* as used in your context.



Your vegan friend might of course be Catholic and have a different opinion again as to the merits of the contraceptive argument; is her opinion any more right or wrong than yours?

The debate is also more than merely drawing a line in the sand which I agree is arbitrary in most arguments. The simplicity of saying life/no-life may be apparent to someone who is religious but is less so to those who hold no religious views or have little to no respect for religions and those whose prosthletize them. To some, myself included, the argument you put forth may lose some credibility if pitched as evangelism. The words "right" and "wrong" are terms that should be used with care.

Abortion is not an ideal solution to anything, but it can be better than some alternatives. Making something illegal does not eliminate it but may succeed in driving the practice of it underground; backroom abortionists were a combination of struck-off midwives, butchers and crones with gin and knitting needles.

The societies we live in have demands and they, more often than not include both men and women in relationships working to be able to maintain an "adequate" lifestyle one which may be stretched to near breaking point keeping a couple of kids going without more mouths to feed; a parent may choose to ensure that their existing familiy numbers are maintained to provide the best chance for those existing family members, a practice not unkown in nature.

Medicine and social improvements have dramatically reduced infant mortality meaning that the need to have a family with 5,6,7 or more children on the expectatino that at least 2 will die before they are 10 years old has gone. Also people live longer and there are issue about population control which certainly advocate contraception if not post sex remedies such as the morning after pill or abortion.

Dreaming, I am happy to respect your beliefs and how you feel about them, but in return I expect to be treated with a similar degree of respect, arguing from a perspective of a belief in rightness, tends to suggest everyone who does not agree is wrong. The seperation of church and state is specifically to prevent the secularisation of the law and give each person a vote in their democratic system, if the majority have weighted in on having a choice; that then makes it right.

[shadowbinding shoe]

The Dreaming - As to your original question, I don't consider abortion in the early period of pregnancy a crime. You take an argument that to kill a human being is murder backward ad infinitum to your fertilized egg, but to me that's ridiculous.

A cell does not have rights in my book. It has potential to become something more but that's just it. It's just potential. Then this cell propagate into a volleyball of cells. Does this ball have rights? Still, no. A ball of cells is less complex than practically all multicelled organisms in the world. The point where I'd say the fetus even gets on the map of righthood is when his brain starts to develop. Abortions are done after this point and you can say in these cases they are violating his rights. Still, I'm leery of saying this early stage fetus is already a human being. He may have a brain, but it is an empty brain. He won't start having thoughts and experiencing life to any great degree until much later (third trimester?) I'd call him a being with rights at that point only.

Yeah, I came close to telling a vegan friend of mine that if eating an unfertilized egg is wrong, than having a period without trying to get pregnant is even more *wrong*.

I'm pretty sure you completely missed the point there. It's not the unfertilized egg's rights that concern your friend but the rights of the chicken hens that produce them. To create the eggs in the quantity, size and so forth demanded the chickens are made to live a life of pain, misery, bereftness (their potential chicks are constantly taken from them) and serious illness.

The analogy shouldn't have been made between fertilized egg and an unfertilized one. The right analogy would be to a viable skin cell. Is it your right to scratch it off and murder it when you know perfectly well that with today's tools it could be nourished and made into a fetus that will grow in time into your clone?

[The Dreaming]

I guess some of it's a matter of perspective. Having a life in bondage seems a hell of a lot better than not having a life. If a zygote is *potential* life, when does it become life? When it becomes *alive* isn't the debate, the debate is when it becomes *human*. There are no *degrees* of humanity and unhumanity. Either something is human, and enjoys all the rights of humanity, or something is not human, and has no rights. To us, the issue *is* about stopping government sanctioned murder. To you it is about preserving a comfortable and convenient method of birth control. Of course we are going to take it more seriously.

I can respect a person, but some beliefs are wrong. No matter how you cast and recast the same points, the results remain the same. Whether abortion is murder or not is a tough one to call. Whether it is *right* or not remains fairly clear.

I don't know about you, but I would sure as hell prefer living in poverty or living in slavery to never even getting a chance to live. An unfertilized egg is potentiality, a zygote is a new life. Some issues just can't be compromised on. The question of taking an innocent human (?) life isn't one that is exactly ambiguous. Defining the nature of that life is the trick. Logic dictates that there is no line that *can* be drawn between humanity and inhumanity other than conception. Sure, it's an indirect proof, but I don't see how anyone can accept that humanity begins at conception and rationalize abortion. Yes making abortion illegal will... make abortions criminal. I'm sure any slave in the united states lives far worse now than most did in the 19th century.

In Short, it is impossible to tolerate every perspective. As a slave to logic, I simply cannot tolerate a practice I see as abominable to every principle I have morally, ethically, and politically.