Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Daystar]

Whether or not a foetus is a human being is moot.

Moot? Why is that? ... It might be acceptable legally, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable ethically. What if it's legal to discriminate against blacks? Would that also mean that it's ethical to discriminate against them?

Moot in that whether or not a foetus is a human being has no practical significance as far as abortion being murder is concerned. Murder is an illegal activity - abortion is not (or should not be).

[Daystar] Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice. I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

[bernee51]

Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice.

one willoverturbn seven?

I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

[Illyricum]

I don't have time to discuss the whole post but I did want to say something about this:

Y'know, I always wonder why the Pro-Life folks are against choice.

The choice for what, to kill? Pro-Abortionists argue that women should have the right to choose. Well, why don't we just give women the right to choose to kill their children outside of the womb? Or why don't we just give people the right choose to do whatever they want to do, the right to choose wether or not they want to steal, or kill, or do whatever? Do you see my point?

[Daystar]

Abortion is not murder because seven justices said so. One day they will find their decision overturned before another Justice.

one willoverturbn seven?

[Daystar] Yes, when they stand before God, they will understand that they made the wrong decision.

I challenge you to show us in the Constitution where it says that women have the right to destroy their unborn babies.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

[Daystar] You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

[Jose]

The choice for what, to kill? Pro-Abortionists argue that women should have the right to choose. Well, why don't we just give women the right to choose to kill their children outside of the womb? Or why don't we just give people the right choose to do whatever they want to do, the right to choose wether or not they want to steal, or kill, or do whatever? Do you see my point?

No, I don't. You're equating a blob of cells with less biological sophistication than a fish to a living child. You're also equating a very personal issue that intensely affects a mother (but no one else) to a series of wacky behaviors that destabilize society. The comparisons aren't valid.

What has the constitution got to do with it?
Personally, I couldn't give a rat's as to what it says and doesn't say - the constitution does not apply to me.

You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

Day! We agree! I knew we'd find common ground somewhere.

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you, and you really do care. If it didn't, you could be grabbed in the night by the secret police and held in an undisclosed location without charges and without access to legal assistance. (oops. sorry. that's happening now. wrong example) I guess it makes a difference where you live, and what governmental policies are in place there. Thus, you make the point that our precious constitution is applied rather unequally, depending on citizenship and, unfortunately, racial and ethnic heritage, and monetary income. Sigh. We make all this noise about how "good" we are, while overlooking the fact that some of us are more equal than others.

[Corvus]

No, I don't. You're equating a blob of cells with less biological sophistication than a fish to a living child. You're also equating a very personal issue that intensely affects a mother (but no one else) to a series of wacky behaviors that destabilize society. The comparisons aren't valid.

Let us also mention the destabilising influence of not having the choice present at all.

The problem with making abortion illegal is that such a law cannot possibly be enforced. Far from saving life, it forces the desperate woman to resort to means that might waste her own existing one.

I recently picked up a book entitled Law for the Rich, written by a Ms Alice Jenkins in 1960. It details the efforts and arguments behind the English anti-abortion movement of the time, and often one comes to a particularly striking passage, such as the one below. Despite the rising level of crime and decline of gentlemanly manners, I still maintain that ours is a fortunate society, and the good ol’ days people often refer to was plagued by so many hidden ills…

Looking through a year’s Press cuttings, it seemed that one-fifth of the inquests on victims, despite lengthy police inquiries, did not disclose who was responsible for the woman’s death. About one-seventh of the fatalities were found to be the result of self-induced abortion, and some shocking facts were divulged in court. One expectant mother had thrown herself under a train, while a woman charged with “using an instrument” (possibly a syringe) on another woman committed suicide by gas poisoning rather than face the charge. Nearly one-half of the deaths from illegal abortion were caused by unqualified “helpers”, and in two cases the helper was woman’s husband. One of these, described in the Criminal Court as “a man of hitherto unblemished character” was unconditionally discharged, the presiding Judge declaring that he had already “suffered enough punishment”. Another husband, the father of five children, wept bitterly in court when charged with the manslaughter of his wife, whom he had helped to prepare an injection. Causes of death following the unskilled operation were found to be blood poisoning, myocardial failure, tetanus, gangrene infection and air embolism; the last being a frequent cause of death through the inexpert use of an ordinary syringe which, although many people are unaware of the fact, is in law described as “an instrument”"

And elsewhere:

A famous pathologist has recently stated that he believes “abortion is second only suicide as a cause of death in women between the ages of “twenty five and forty-four."

The author also describes how she attempted to help a poor young pregnant mother of two children who lived in two rooms of a tenement. She failed, since squalid living conditions weren’t grounds for medical termination. The result was that several days later the author heard from two detectives and discovered that the young mother had died from acute septicaemia brought about by the use of a kitchen utensil (probably a skewer), which had pierced the wall of the uterus.

At that time, the people who had abortions were mothers, housewives who worked tirelessly for her surviving children, to provide them with a good education and the best possible life permissible within her current means, and to whom the introduction of yet another infant comes as a rude shock, and a complete upset to family life. These are not murderers.

In 1939 a committee investigating abortions in Britain estimated from observations of hospitalised women that between 44,000 and 60,000 illegal abortions were carried out every year. This was considered quite a conservative estimate. With the lower figure, we can calculate how at the time there were over 120 illegal abortions taking place every year if the trend continued.

The same committee listed these methods of desperate women seeking to end a pregnancy:

Things inserted into the womb, often with disastrous consequences, included knitting and darning needles, crochet and button hooks, pencils, scissors, and hairpins… The use of the syringe is common, and even if a harmless liquid is used, there is danger of air being pumped into the blood stream, which, if the woman is pregnant, can cause death through air embolism… When disinfectants, washing soda, vinegar and other irritants are used, there is a grave risk of serious injury to tissues and organs…Drugs are widely used, and women take them as a routine precaution whenever menstruation is delayed and pregnancy feared. Methods of violence used included shifting heavy furniture and jumping downstairs. Drugs taken include quinine and pennyroyal, and preparations used were water in which pennies and nails had been soaked, and stout and gin said to be often taken with iron filings.

Now, I will not pretend that all of this is still applicable. We are, on the whole, a more educated society, and contraceptives are also easily avialable and probably considerably less expensive than they were in the 1960s or 1940s. But there are also a great deal more of us, and, if the methods of preventing pregnancy have improved, and people are still seeking abortions, then this means that those pregnancies are truly unplanned and unwanted. These are women are desperate enough to seek an invasive medical procedure to prevent a child, or more children, and they would not do this without sufficient reason. If one honestly believes abortions to be an action undertaken frivolously, then methods can be suggested for reducing them, by, for example, charging a percentage of the family or mother’s income, so as to not prevent it from being available to the poor. For poor mothers with too many children, free sterilisation should be suggested.

******************************

A foetus or embryo simply is not what we would identify as human. In the early stages, it would be impossible to differentiate between the embryo of a human and the embryo of, say, a chimpanzee. At one point in time, it is even furnished by gills and a tail.

One in two or one in three of all fertilised human ova, if they can be considered human beings, are killed by some strange design of the Creator when they absorbed or re-absorbed by the woman’s body. This vast wastage of human life provokes no emotion from most people, and not a death certificate or tear is issued, nor a funeral. Sanctity of life means very little when we are discussing to a tiny piece of tissue fertiled by one of several million sperms. As for fundamental human rights; I do not believe this is applicable here. Ask a lion about a right to life, and he will give an example, through his actions, that no such thing exists in the way it is phrased. The right to life is the expectation that a civilised human being should be sufficiently enlightened or compassionate enough that he would not kill his neighbour without reason. Outside of human society, this rule is not applicable, though it can be extended to the kindly sorts of animals we like to keep as pets. In times of war, it is not even extended to our enemies, because it is an unrealistic expectation to forfeit one’s rights for an enemy. There is only one person I know of who was allegedly capable of such a thing, and that was Christ. He was such a rare sort he amassed a large following.



In the John Kerry and Abortion thread, Proverbial Student made this point;

It hurts another person too...the mother. Have you ever had a baby? Do you know how heart rending it is to have to make that decision? There are many young girls who decide NOT to have an abortion and give the child up for adoption and later change their mind and keep it. How many women would change their minds about abortion if they allowed the fetus to grow and be born? I think it hurts many more people than just the fetus.

If abortion comes with its own punishment, it does not make sense to make it illegal and punish for a second time whoever offends against the law. If this really is true, why not provide the information freely to expectant mothers, or even include it in a sexual education course in high school? Who in their right mind would do such a thing knowing full well the consequences?

[bernee51]

You sound angry, like you really have a chip on your shoulder.

No I'm not angry - why do you think I am? What anger have you seen in my post?

I do, however, get a little miffed at those who hold a particular stance e.g. abortion is wrong, and want their POV to apply to all. This is particulary so when the decision an individal may or may not make is not going to impact on those pushing a particular POV.

Tell me, what is the effeect on you if your neighvbour chooses to abort? What right do you have to tell her what she can and cannot do with her body. How would you feel if she pushed to enact a law that prevented you from praying?

[bernee51]

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you,

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA. I know it is sometimes difficult for you 'Mericans to understand that there is a world outside you country. Remember, the USofA is only 5% of the world's population.

and you really do care.

I care in so much as I believe that human rights should be applied universally. Telling an individual what they can and cannot do with their own body (assuming they are sound of mind) is a basic human right which the RTL's want removed.

f it didn't, you could be grabbed in the night by the secret police and held in an undisclosed location without charges and without access to legal assistance. (oops. sorry. that's happening now. wrong example)

the USofA used to be the land of the free...is it now the land of the paranoic. (Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you)

We make all this noise about how "good" we are, while overlooking the fact that some of us are more equal than others.

not much has changed since we dragged ourselves out of the swamp has it?i

[Corvus]

Bernee51, the constitution does apply to you,

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA.

I thought he allowed for this possibility by saying: I guess it makes a difference where you live, and what governmental policies are in place there. Thus, you make the point that our precious constitution is applied rather unequally, depending on citizenship and, unfortunately, racial and ethnic heritage, and monetary income.

Even so, I don't believe there are any civilised countries that do not have a constitution. The Constitution may not apply to you, but a constitution should.

[Jose]

Jose I would have thought that you at least would be thinking outside the box a little here. The constitiution does not apply to me because I do not live in the USofA. I know it is sometimes difficult for you 'Mericans to understand that there is a world outside you country. Remember, the USofA is only 5% of the world's population.

I was too cryptic. I'd figured that out, as I'd hoped I'd indicated in the next few sentences, as Corvus noted. The prior bit was a jab at the Bushies. A bit off-topic, though.

Back on-topic, Corvus, you make a strong argument. Without legal protection of abortion rights and qualified practitioners to ensure that abortions are performed with minimum health risk, we are in danger of reverting to that nasty time when self-induced abortion was a major cause of death.