Abortion

[Illyricum]

What are you thoughts/opinions on abortion?

[Xueirdna]

In its dependence, the zygote, embryo or fetus alters the chemical and biological makeup of its host by using its resources, injecting it with hormones, etc. Abortion returns the female to her normal state.

Goodness, you make pregnancy sound like some sort of disease. When you say, "returns the female to her normal state," it almost seems as if the process of pregnancy should be shunned altogether. I know this isn't what you're saying, but it is the image that came to mind.

Thus it is unfair to the female to allow the fetus to utilize her resources and alter her bodily integrity, should that usage and alteration be against her will.

Though it may sound strange to say, I think the topic of abortion is a topic slowly moving toward having a "it's not right, but it's not wrong" quality. I will never be pro-abortion, but at the same time there are cases when a woman is raped and impregnated with the child of her predator. This is a hard and difficult reminder for a woman who must recover from not only such an experience, but see the face of the predator for the rest of her life if she chooses to keep the child. I do not think this scenario is an exception; there is always the choice to put the baby up for adoption or to raise the child...but in this day and age, there are so many devious crimes that put potentially pregnant women in danger, it's hard to say "no, you're wrong" to a fourteen year old girl who lives in a foster home and was raped by a man who said he cared for her.

[fried beef sandwich]

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.

Where do you get this data from? Where's your support? Were the participants in your studies randomized? Were they from an unbiased source? If they were, I'd really like to see it. I just googled "guilt abortions myth" and all I got were Christian and baptist articles and websites.

I'm asking you because I know for a fact that the American Psychological Association had a study regarding this supposed "Post-Abortion Syndrome", and they found that such severe negative reactions are very very rare and that this syndrome is not medically or scientifically recognized.

I also know that there was some Christian lady a while back who was touting this "91% of all women who go through abortians suffer horrible psychological stress and consequences and guilt" ... she was eventually discredited for making up data on the fly, and telling fanciful descriptions of what happens in the abortion clinic that were pure fiction.

And besides, I bet people were really concerned about the horrible psychological distress and torture put on women who choose to go through abortions, they'd do something about those people who picket the clinics and yell epithets at the women who come in for appointments. It's disgusting.

[mrmufin]

In its dependence, the zygote, embryo or fetus alters the chemical and biological makeup of its host by using its resources, injecting it with hormones, etc. Abortion returns the female to her normal state.

Goodness, you make pregnancy sound like some sort of disease. When you say, "returns the female to her normal state," it almost seems as if the process of pregnancy should be shunned altogether. I know this isn't what you're saying, but it is the image that came to mind.

No, I certainly don't believe that the process of pregnancy should be shunned altogether. Nor do I think that the decision to bring a child into this world should be taken lightly; it's an awesome responsibility which can drastically alter the life plans for the parents. Sadly, too many discussions about abortion tend to focus on the fetus and its "rights", rather than the rights of the woman. So, no, I'm not trying to make pregnancy sound like some sort of disease, though I try my best to express the sentiments of a woman who is unintentionally pregnant via my choice of words. Of the women that I've known who have had abortions, none would say that their decision to abort was an easy one. As well, none of those women were, in their opinion, prepared to have a child.

To compel a woman who is unintentionally pregnant to remain pregnant against her will means that the rights granted to the fetus are given precedence over the rights of the woman. The fetus is wholly dependent upon the woman until birth, and that dependency affects the woman physically, emotionally and financially.

Though it may sound strange to say, I think the topic of abortion is a topic slowly moving toward having a "it's not right, but it's not wrong" quality.

I don't think that the "not right, but not wrong" perspective is inaccurate at all. While I don't pretend to speak for all the women who have ever had an abortion, those that I have known personally struggled with the decision.

I will never be pro-abortion, but at the same time there are cases when a woman is raped and impregnated with the child of her predator. This is a hard and difficult reminder for a woman who must recover from not only such an experience, but see the face of the predator for the rest of her life if she chooses to keep the child. I do not think this scenario is an exception; there is always the choice to put the baby up for adoption or to raise the child...but in this day and age, there are so many devious crimes that put potentially pregnant women in danger, it's hard to say "no, you're wrong" to a fourteen year old girl who lives in a foster home and was raped by a man who said he cared for her.

Unlike some statements that have emanated from the "pro-life" side of abortion debates, yours at least demonstrate some compassion for the woman. Whether the pregnancy is unwanted because it is the result of rape or any other means is largely a tangential matter. An unwanted pregnancy carried to term will likely result in an unwanted child. Frankly, I can think of very few things which a child can endure that are sadder than being unwanted.

Regards,
mrmufin

[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.

Where do you get this data from? Where's your support? Were the participants in your studies randomized? Were they from an unbiased source? If they were, I'd really like to see it. I just googled "guilt abortions myth" and all I got were Christian and baptist articles and websites.

I'm asking you because I know for a fact that the American Psychological Association had a study regarding this supposed "Post-Abortion Syndrome", and they found that such severe negative reactions are very very rare and that this syndrome is not medically or scientifically recognized.

I also know that there was some Christian lady a while back who was touting this "91% of all women who go through abortians suffer horrible psychological stress and consequences and guilt" ... she was eventually discredited for making up data on the fly, and telling fanciful descriptions of what happens in the abortion clinic that were pure fiction.

And besides, I bet people were really concerned about the horrible psychological distress and torture put on women who choose to go through abortions, they'd do something about those people who picket the clinics and yell epithets at the women who come in for appointments. It's disgusting.

Hm. Then I renounce my previous statement. Obviously, reading my reply, you know I am pro-choice, and I am not inclined to quite that sort of bias. I had just always taken the existence of these symptoms as a given. I tried googling "abortions guilt" and "abortion shame" and yes, got mainly pro-lifers. But then, they're the ones with a fixation on it, so it's not surprising that most results would be from them.

[Xueirdna]

Unlike some statements that have emanated from the "pro-life" side of abortion debates, yours at least demonstrate some compassion for the woman.

I'm all about some compassion for the woman; she who is in a position to decide whether or not she will birth a child is a very heavy burden. What I can't stand about a lot of pro-lifers that I've encountered in life is that they will start picket lines outside abortion clinics, but they will not do a damn thing...what I mean is this; if you have the audacity to make a woman feel like the scum of the earth because she is in a trying position, then you better back up your words with some actions...Those pro-lifers should step up and offer to adopt the child or financially/medically assist the woman in question. Pissing the woman off will only encourage her to "realize" that the baby really is a burden considering it is the reason why she is hunted by crowds of alleged Christian folk. I know this isn't always the case, but I've seen it happen.

Pisses me off.

There are two victims in the abortion clinic...one has a say and the other does not.

[otseng]

Persons are generally regarded as those who eat, breathe and excrete as sentient, independent beings; in other words persons consist of those who are born.

An unborn child also eats, breathes, and excretes.

How would you define sentient and independent?

Babies are not aborted; zygotes, embryos and fetuses are. Prior to birth, the zygote, embryo or fetus is entirely dependent on the female for its sustenance.

When we went to the doctor's office several weeks ago for a prenatal appointment, everybody called it a baby. Nobody ever referred to it as a fetus.

In its dependence, the zygote, embryo or fetus alters the chemical and biological makeup of its host by using its resources, injecting it with hormones, etc. Abortion returns the female to her normal state.

Pregnancy is not a normal state?

conception may very well be an unintended and unwanted consequence of sexual intercourse, just as an automobile accident may be an unintended and unwanted consequence of driving. Thus it is unfair to the female to allow the fetus to utilize her resources and alter her bodily integrity, should that usage and alteration be against her will.

The analogy is faulty. Conception is not the same as an automobile accident. The primary purpose of intercourse is to procreate. Crashing into another car is not even in the 10 ten purposes of driving a car.

Frankly, I can think of very few things which a child can endure that are sadder than being unwanted.

Um, perhaps killing a child?

[otseng]

I'm all about some compassion for the woman; she who is in a position to decide whether or not she will birth a child is a very heavy burden. What I can't stand about a lot of pro-lifers that I've encountered in life is that they will start picket lines outside abortion clinics, but they will not do a damn thing...what I mean is this; if you have the audacity to make a woman feel like the scum of the earth because she is in a trying position, then you better back up your words with some actions...Those pro-lifers should step up and offer to adopt the child or financially/medically assist the woman in question. Pissing the woman off will only encourage her to "realize" that the baby really is a burden considering it is the reason why she is hunted by crowds of alleged Christian folk. I know this isn't always the case, but I've seen it happen.

I readily agree with you.

And I'd like to add that abortion is just the tip of a much deeper problem. More attention should be spent on addressing root problems. And I'm not just talking about giving away free condoms to every horny boy. Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Fidelity? Chastity? Why isn't the Church helping out single women more?

What is sad in abortions is that, the party who is the most innocent of all, the baby, is the one to suffer the most.

[perspective]

Babies are not aborted; zygotes, embryos and fetuses are. Prior to birth, the zygote, embryo or fetus is entirely dependent on the female for its sustenance.

When we went to the doctor's office several weeks ago for a prenatal appointment, everybody called it a baby. Nobody ever referred to it as a fetus.

Surely you're not implying that because people refer to something with one term that is sufficient to legally and morally define it as so? Would you like the general public to define morals for you, or would you rather define morals for yourself? Just because the general public uses a term one way doesn't make the publicly-accepted definition true. Try looking up the legal definition of theft sometime, you'll be surprised.

In its dependence, the zygote, embryo or fetus alters the chemical and biological makeup of its host by using its resources, injecting it with hormones, etc. Abortion returns the female to her normal state.

Pregnancy is not a normal state?

Same problem with 'is homosexuality natural?'. If it happens in nature, surely it is natural. If it happens normally, surely it is normal. Well, the female human body naturally and normally expels fertilized eggs all the time all by itself(miscarriage). It seems that abortion actually is natural and normal. The woman did not intentionally end the life of the child, but she is not held responsible in the same way that say, a woman who did not intentionally run over a child with an automobile.

conception may very well be an unintended and unwanted consequence of sexual intercourse, just as an automobile accident may be an unintended and unwanted consequence of driving. Thus it is unfair to the female to allow the fetus to utilize her resources and alter her bodily integrity, should that usage and alteration be against her will.

The analogy is faulty. Conception is not the same as an automobile accident. The primary purpose of intercourse is to procreate.

Whoa, not in this millennium. Actually, never throughout history was the primary purpose of intercourse procreation. Perhaps within certain religions this is so, but in reality - sex without procreation is a mental and social health necessity.

Frankly, I can think of very few things which a child can endure that are sadder than being unwanted.

Um, perhaps killing a child?

To some people, living a life unwanted is worse than dieing - these people oftentimes commit suicide.

The issue with abortion is that the morals that you hold are not everyone's. What is the harm in allowing those with different morals to live their way, while you live your way? Society as a whole has made it clear that there is not enough of a consensus to encode one set of morals in this circumstance.

[mrmufin]

Thank you, perspective, for your thoughtful and eloquent responses to otseng's questions. I suspect we're on the same channel on this issue. Rather than regurgitate that which has already been amply stated, I'll just toss in a few additional comments.

An unborn child also eats, breathes, and excretes.

Yes, with complete dependency on the female. Refering to a fetus as an "unborn child" is akin to refering to the living as "undead corpses."

How would you define sentient and independent?

Capable of perception and not reliant upon another body for life sustenance.

When we went to the doctor's office several weeks ago for a prenatal appointment, everybody called it a baby. Nobody ever referred to it as a fetus.

In addition to perspective's sentiments, I offer congratulations and best wishes for a healthy and happy child.

The analogy is faulty. Conception is not the same as an automobile accident.

Unintentional consequences are unintentional, whether driving, painting, jogging, having sex, etc.

The primary purpose of intercourse is to procreate.

Really?
Then perhaps women incapable of conception shouldn't have sex? Nor should post menopausal women? Nor impotent males? There are even some folks, such as the very lovely msmufin and myself, who only have sex for fun.

Frankly, I can think of very few things which a child can endure that are sadder than being unwanted.

Um, perhaps killing a child?

I agree. Killing a child would be a tragedy, indeed. I'm glad that killing children (and teenagers and adults, too) is illegal in all of the several US states.

Regards,
mrmufin

[otseng]

Surely you're not implying that because people refer to something with one term that is sufficient to legally and morally define it as so?

Of course not. Giving a label to something doesn't justify it. Just as calling it a "fetus" does not justify in it's death.

Would you like the general public to define morals for you, or would you rather define morals for yourself?

There is only one issue of morality in play here. The morality of killing an innocent person.

If it happens normally, surely it is normal. Well, the female human body naturally and normally expels fertilized eggs all the time all by itself(miscarriage). It seems that abortion actually is natural and normal. The woman did not intentionally end the life of the child, but she is not held responsible in the same way that say, a woman who did not intentionally run over a child with an automobile.

Exactly my point.

A miscarriage is normal. There is no wrong-doing in a miscarriage. It might be a tragedy for the mother, but she did nothing wrong.

An abortion is not normal. Simply reading on how abortions are performed shows clearly that it is not normal for fetuses to be aborted.

The analogy is faulty. Conception is not the same as an automobile accident. The primary purpose of intercourse is to procreate.

Whoa, not in this millennium. Actually, never throughout history was the primary purpose of intercourse procreation. Perhaps within certain religions this is so, but in reality - sex without procreation is a mental and social health necessity.

I did not state that there were not other purposes for intercourse. There are multiple purposes of sex, enjoyment certainly being one of them.

Now, we might argue if procreation is a primary or secondary or tertiary purpose, but that's not my point. Procreation (conception) is a purpose of sex. Crashing into another car is not a purpose of driving. Therefore, the analogy is faulty.

The issue with abortion is that the morals that you hold are not everyone's.

I disagree. I believe the fundamental issue is "is a fetus a person?" If it's not, then a woman can freely do whatever she wants with it. There is no dispute with that. However, if it is a person, then it's life is protected under the Constitution.

An unborn child also eats, breathes, and excretes.

Yes, with complete dependency on the female.

A born baby also has complete dependence on the female (and/or male).

How would you define sentient and independent?

Capable of perception and not reliant upon another body for life sustenance.

Again, a born baby would also not fit into this description.

In addition to perspective's sentiments, I offer congratulations and best wishes for a healthy and happy child.

Thank you.