Abortion question for the religious

[ADF]

Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?

 

I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.

 

Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?

[TheLoneSock]

Women have been having abortions since the dawn of time. It's not likely something that is going away. I do think it should be regulated heavily though. Religious views aside, my opinion is that the mother should be denied access to an abortion unless they are a rape victim. My reason behind this is because unless they were raped, it was their decision to have sex- and therefore they should accept the consiquences. Many will argue that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her body, and I agree. But if that's the case, they have control over not having sex. A 12 year old knows what could happen. I think it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy simply because 'it's an inconvenient time for me' or 'oh I'm not ready for motherhood'.

 

IMO, rape victims are the only women that should have the option, since their pregnancy was the result of a violent crime, and not personal irresponsibility. There are enough laws and groups in place for women to get the support they need, be it social or financial. Hospitals now of days don't let the mom leave the hospital until they give the staff a name, the name of the father that is. Once they have the name, they do a DNA test, if it matches- he's paying child support, if not, they go back to the mom for another name until they find someone to pick up his share of the burden.

 

My .02 cents.

Edited October 24, 2009 by TheLoneSock

[disgracian]

You forgot the situations where delivery may be potentially fatal to mother and/or child.

 

Cheers,

D.

[TheLoneSock]

You forgot the situations where delivery may be potentially fatal to mother and/or child.

 

Cheers,

D.

 

Yes I didn't mention that, but I agree. At that point I think it should be the mother's option wether she attempts the delivery or not, and if she chooses abortion, then ok.

 

If she is the type that consistently has miscarriages though, or is genetically unfit to give birth, I think she has a responsibility to behave accordingly.

[disgracian]

I think it's a more clear cut case than that of rape. I don't presume to have any idea how most women would feel in that situation, so I'm not going to suggest that abortion is wrong in such cases.

 

My only question would be that I don't see how it necessarily impacts on the unborn child's right to live. I can certainly see how a child that is a product of rape would be or could be a daily reminder of the event, and that's not insignificant, but I'm still uneasy about it.

 

Complications during pregnancy are a different kettle of fish because in some cases it can become a triage situation.

 

Cheers,

D.

[kdark]

What is to be gained by criminalizing abortion?

 

I can't really see many reasons that would justify a return to the days when they were done with coat hangers and belly punches.

[ADF]

LoneSock, restricting abortion rights to rape victims is no better than banning abortion altogether. Either way, all you'll do is create a huge markey for illegal abortions.

 

Right now in the US, about 1/4 of all pregnancies are terminated. Some reckon it may be as many as 1/3, but I'll be conservative and say 1/4. What plan have the anti-abortion people for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care to the tens of millions of additional children who would be born each year were abortion to be effectively eliminated? I haven't heard a thing. On the contrary, the anti-abortion crowd also tends to oppose day care and everything else that might make raising a kid easier. Honestly, I don't think the pro-life crowd have thought anything through. I don't think they have anything serious to say.

[disgracian]

They are not pro-life at all, they are only pro-birth. Once a child is out of the womb and into the world, they could care less because they've already scored their self-righteousness hit.

 

Cheers,

D.

[always_searching]

Do you think it is possible to believe abortion is morally wrong, yet still see that criminalizing it is bad public policy?

 

I ask becasue the unstated assumption behind the anti-choice (aka "pro-life) position seems to be that if legal access to abortion can be curtailed, the practice will end. This is nonsense. Women had abortions in the US before Row v. Wade. Millions of women have illegal abortions all over the world every day.

 

Since ending abortion is an impossibility, what is to be gained by criminalizing it?

 

I was pro-choice for the majority of my life. I use to feel that, although I wouldn't have an abortion in any circumstance, including rape: it wasn't my place to tell other women what they could/couldn't do with their bodies.

 

However, after my conversion, I became pro-life. It's not, however, my conversion that altered my decision, but understanding the pro-life arguments.

 

For example, if we believe that a human-organism comes to be at conception (which is the predominate view, though there are some that argue that the human-organism doesn't come to be until after day 14, due to possible twinning i.e. Peter Singer) and indicate that the organism possesses a human soul i.e. that organism has the capacity for reason, etc. that helps to indicate that that organism is indeed a person (if we are to understand "person" as a "an individual substance of a rational nature"), then we are claming that the human-organism which comes to be at conception is indeed a person. Now, if we grant the zygote "personhood" and state that being a "person" is what determines having a right to life, then no one has the right to end that zygote's life--not even the mother.

 

Now, that is, of course, assuming that "personhood" is substantial (meaning intrinsic to the thing--the thing's nature) and not accidental (meaning coming to be at some later time as some coincidental attribute), and that there is some moral significance placed upon the life of a person versus that of any other sentient being.

 

To cut a potentially extremely long post short: I believe that we are dealing with a person and not just a human-organism from the time of conception. No one has a right to kill that organism, not even the mother, for ANY reason. Killing of innocent persons is considered murder, and there are rightly laws against it. Why, then, should it be considered morally wrong AND illegal to kill persons, but state that in the case of embryos, it is is morally wrong to kill them, yet legal? Just because abortions will occur regardless of whether they are illegal doesn't mean we should continue allowing legal abortions. That's like saying, "Well, there are people who murder other people, regardless of the law; so, why bother making murder illegal?"

 

Now, there is the issue of whether the mother's life is at stake. Still, I would claim that intentionally (intentionality being the key issue here) killing the embryo is absolutely morally wrong, no matter what the situation. The unintentional death of the embryo is another issue entirely. So, for example, if a woman has uterine cancer and must have an abortion to save herself: if her intention is to kill the baby, then it is morally wrong. If her intention is to take out the cancerous uterus, and the death of the embryo is a foreseeable result but not what she is intending/desiring: then she is acting morally ethical. The morality issue all depends upon the intentionality of the mother (and the doctor, to some extent), which only she and God can know.

Edited October 25, 2009 by always_searching

[ADF]

always_searching,

 

You've clearly explained your views about the human feotus. The questions I would ask you include:

 

1) Considering 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated, how would you go about feeding, housing, educating and providing health care for the tens of millions of additional children who would be be born each year if abortions were no longer performed? I've never heard anyone from the pro-life camp address this issue.

 

2) You've made clear the basis for your opposition to abortion is religious. Do you think religious people should be able to deny desired medical services to non-religious people? That seems like forcing one's own religious views on others.

 

3) How would you go about enforcing the abortion ban? Banning abortions has never prevented them from occuring. How would you make sure it did this time?

 

The last point I would make is that the comparison between murder and abortion is a faulty one. A broad consensus exists within society that settling disputes through murder is wrong. No such consensus exist about abortion.

[always_searching]

LoneSock, restricting abortion rights to rape victims is no better than banning abortion altogether. Either way, all you'll do is create a huge markey for illegal abortions.

 

Right now in the US, about 1/4 of all pregnancies are terminated. Some reckon it may be as many as 1/3, but I'll be conservative and say 1/4. What plan have the anti-abortion people for feeding, housing, educating, and providing health care to the tens of millions of additional children who would be born each year were abortion to be effectively eliminated? I haven't heard a thing. On the contrary, the anti-abortion crowd also tends to oppose day care and everything else that might make raising a kid easier. Honestly, I don't think the pro-life crowd have thought anything through. I don't think they have anything serious to say.

 

There are barely enough resources to care for the people currently living--that's absolutely true. So, what would you have us do in a few years when it won't matter whether abortion is legal or not, because the world is over-populated to the point of depleting our natural resources? Would you advocate some kind of genocide? Kill off those members of society who are not as useful/productive? Maybe the elderly, handicap, and disabled should go first, and then people of a certain IQ?

 

It's absolutely preposterous to indicate that the killing of any person, including those still in the womb should be acceptable because we need some solution to the population/natural resource problem.

 

Indeed, I think what you are saying is indeed serious--at least the necessary logical conclusions are of quite a serious nature.

[ADF]

There are barely enough resources to care for the people currently living--that's absolutely true. So, what would you have us do in a few years when it won't matter whether abortion is legal or not, because the world is over-populated to the point of depleting our natural resources? Would you advocate some kind of genocide? Kill off those members of society who are not as useful/productive? Maybe the elderly, handicap, and disabled should go first, and then people of a certain IQ?

 

There are more than enough resources to care for the people already living. For example, the world's population now stands at a bit over 6 billion. We currently produce enough food to feed almost 12 billion. The problem is not lack of resources. The problem is unequal distribution. That is why I asked about a plan. I wasn't being sarcastic. Some kind of plan to care for all those additional people may be possible. I just haven't heard it yet.

 

As for genocide? That's a red herring. No one is seriously suggesting the mass killing of the old, inform, or mentally handicapped. That slippery-slope logic is unsound. It is the same logic that says extended marriage rights to homosexuals will result in people marrying animals. It's absurd.

[always_searching]

always_searching,

 

You've clearly explained your views about the human feotus. The questions I would ask you include:

 

1) Considering 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated, how would you go about feeding, housing, educating and providing health care for the tens of millions of additional children who would be be born each year if abortions were no longer performed? I've never heard anyone from the pro-life camp address this issue.

 

2) You've made clear the basis for your opposition to abortion is religious. Do you think religious people should be able to deny desired medical services to non-religious people? That seems like forcing one's own religious views on others.

 

3) How would you go about enforcing the abortion ban? Banning abortions has never prevented them from occuring. How would you make sure it did this time?

 

The last point I would make is that the comparison between murder and abortion is a faulty one. A broad consensus exists within society that settling disputes through murder is wrong. No such consensus exist about abortion.

 

 

I think I just answered question 1 in a previous post.

 

Question 2: LOL, religion didn't come up in my argument against abortion. I just stated at the beginning that I was pro-life before converting, but that it wasn't the conversion that changed my mind. It was rereading pro-life arguments and understanding them that altered my view. I would never claim it is acceptable to deny services to someone who is non-religious. If, however, you mean someone desiring "treatment" that could be deemed as unethical: I think as long as said "treatment" is legal, a religious person who chooses to go into the medical field should not deny services. If they feel that strongly about it, they should either have reconsidered their field, or they should work for a hospital where they can practice medicine that coincides with their religious views i.e. work at a hospital that has religious affiliations.

 

Question 3: Enforcing the law has always been difficult. I would go about forcing the ban just as the law goes about enforcing the ban of various kinds of drug use, murder, rape, theft, etc. Of course, that isn't to say that it won't still happen, but, nevertheless, it doesn't indicate that abortion should be legal because it is difficult to enforce.

 

The murder distinction is valid if you claim murder to be the killing of innocent persons, and that personhood comes to be at conception.

[TheLoneSock]

always_searching,

 

You've clearly explained your views about the human feotus. The questions I would ask you include:

 

1) Considering 1 in 4 pregnancies in the US are terminated, how would you go about feeding, housing, educating and providing health care for the tens of millions of additional children who would be be born each year if abortions were no longer performed? I've never heard anyone from the pro-life camp address this issue.

 

To say it would be too expensive to care for all these children were they allowed to live is a very weak argument. Especially when you point out that there are more than enough resources considering we produce twice as much food as necessary to sustain life. To demand a firm, worked out plan from people who's opinion is pro life is absurd when you yourself have no plan either other than "continue aborting". Where there is a will there is a way. If we can afford to give AIG executives millions in bonuses, we can afford to cloth, house, and feed children given up for adoption. You make very weak arguments.

 

2) You've made clear the basis for your opposition to abortion is religious. Do you think religious people should be able to deny desired medical services to non-religious people? That seems like forcing one's own religious views on others.

 

She also backed up these religious views with scientific facts, a fetus is a living thing, it has a heartbeat, breathes, and requires nutrition to stay alive. Don't ignore scientific fact and focus merely on religious views. Another weak argument.

 

3) How would you go about enforcing the abortion ban? Banning abortions has never prevented them from occuring. How would you make sure it did this time?

 

As stated before, abortions have been happening since the dawn of time, and are not likely to stop happening any time soon. But to say that heavy regulation wouldn't have any effect on abortion rates is absurd. You're assuming that all women will simply have it done anyway in an illegal manor- wrong.

 

The last point I would make is that the comparison between murder and abortion is a faulty one.

 

Just like ALL of your arguments against abortion.

[always_searching]

There are more than enough resources to care for the people already living. For example, the world's population now stands at a bit over 6 billion. We currently produce enough food to feed almost 12 billion. The problem is not lack of resources. The problem is unequal distribution. That is why I asked about a plan. I wasn't being sarcastic. Some kind of plan to care for all those additional people may be possible. I just haven't heard it yet.

 

As for genocide? That's a red herring. No one is seriously suggesting the mass killing of the old, inform, or mentally handicapped. That slippery-slope logic is unsound. It is the same logic that says extended marriage rights to homosexuals will result in people marrying animals. It's absurd.

 

It's not unsound logic, nor is it absurd if you claim that these embryos being destroyed are human persons. If that is true, which I state over-and-over again that I believe it is: then it is just as wrong to kill embryos as it is to kill any other person, despite age, IQ, etc.

 

Regardless of age, race, intellect, sexuality, religion, etc.: A person is a person is a person. Persons have a right to life. Murdering a person is always morally wrong. Period.

 

And if you don't think we are well on our way to depleting our natural resources regardless of the number of children that would be saved from the illegalization abortion: you should perhaps reconsider your sources.

 

And no one of any kind of sound logic would claim that homosexuals are in the same arena as non-rational sentient beings i.e. animals. This counter-example doesn't seem at all relatable to mine.

[ADF]

You say personhood begins at conception. That is an opinion, not a fact. You've addressed my questions somewhat, but haven't really answered any of them. I still need to hear a plan for taking care of tens of millions of additional children. I am still wating to hear how your plan to enforce an abortion ban would differ from pervious plans. You are kind of repeating talking points, not providing answers.

[TheLoneSock]

ADF, see my last response on page 1.

 

Also, you keep asking for proof that a fetus is a living thing, a person. Can you proove that it is NOT? You're armchair quarterbacking everyone's opinion without putting forth any valuable information yourself.

 

In what ways is a fetus not a living thing, ADF?

[always_searching]

You say personhood begins at conception. That is an opinion, not a fact. You've addressed my questions somewhat, but haven't really answered any of them. I still need to hear a plan for taking care of tens of millions of additional children. I am still wating to hear how your plan to enforce an abortion ban would differ from pervious plans. You are kind of repeating talking points, not providing answers.

 

Or you're just refusing to understand the arguments.

 

Well, I think personhood beginning at conception is factual. Tell me: how do you define and indicate personhood? Let me take a swing at your potential response: personhood comes to be when an individual has the ability to exorcise reason and has some kind of self-awareness? If that's the case, then people in comas, some of the mentally disabled, infants and children, as well as those people suffering from mentally degenerative diseases i.e. dementia are no more persons than embryos. In which case, they have no right to life.

 

You should really consider how you define who is a person i.e. has a right to life, because the route you're bound to take is one with detrimental logical conclusions, I assure you.

 

There's no way there would be tens of millions of additional children if abortion was made illegal. Maybe if people knew that they couldn't go around having unprotected sex without having to worry about the consequences because they can just go to their local clinic and get it "taken care of," they would actually be more responsible in their actions.

 

Just a thought.

[ADF]

you keep asking for proof that a fetus is a living thing, a person.

 

The burden of proof is not on me, socks. In any case, it is by definition impossible prove a negative. For example, I cannot prove that there isn't planet populated by pink unicorns somewhere in the universe. Does that mean we should assume they exist, since we cannot prove they don't?

 

But here's some useful information. There's been a lot of controversy over the issue of stem-cell research. Embryos used in stem cell research are usually about 3 days old. That means they comprise approximately 150 cells. There are over 500,000 cells in the brain of a fly. To suggest there is no difference between a 3 day old embryo and a fully-formed human being seems absurd to me. Do you see what I am saying?

[always_searching]

TheLoneSock:

 

Thanks for backing me up! I'm glad we agree on something!

[TheLoneSock]

The burden of proof is not on me, socks.

 

LOL. Well I guess that's an easy out, now isn't it.

 

On the contrary. You support taking action to interfere with something that would normally happen. Introducing an outside force to terminate a pregnancy. Intentionally altering the outcome of something does require a reason.

 

It is you that must proove why this is necessary, and why it isn't wrong.

Edited October 26, 2009 by TheLoneSock
typo

[ADF]

Maybe if people knew that they couldn't go around having unprotected sex without having to worry about the consequences because they can just go to their local clinic and get it "taken care of," they would actually be more responsible in their actions.

 

Just a thought.

 

But they wouldn't be more responsible. We don't have to wonder about it, we know it. We know it because there are plenty of societies where both contraception and abortion are hard to come by, and we can see the results.

 

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned Brazil. In Brazil, abortion is illegal and contraception not readily available for many women. This is largely due to the influence of the Catholic Church. As a result, the streets of Rio, Sao Paulo, and other Brazilian cities are overrun with mobs of abandoned street children. They rob and steal to survive. They are often murdered en masse by gangs of thugs hired by store keepers to prevent them from shop lifting. That is what "pro-life" creates in practice.

[ADF]

LOL. Well I guess that's an easy out, now isn't it.

 

On the contrary. You support taking action to interfere with something that would normally happen. Introducing an outside force to terminate a pregnancy. Intentionally altering the outcome of something does require a reason.

 

It is you that must proove why this is necessary, and why it isn't wrong.

 

It is not an easy out, socks. It is basic science, basic logic. Don't take my word for it. Read Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins, and scientist at all. Take a science course in shool, for Pete's sake. They'll tell you the same thing.

 

And I have spent this entire thread explaining the reasons why altering the outcome is sometimes necessary. That is all I've been talking about this whole time. Have you read ANY of my posts? Either you haven't or your reading comprehension is very, very poor.

[always_searching]

But they wouldn't be more responsible. We don't have to wonder about it, we know it. We know it because there are plenty of societies where both contraception and abortion are hard to come by, and we can see the results.

 

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned Brazil. In Brazil, abortion is illegal and contraception not readily available for many women. This is largely due to the influence of the Catholic Church. As a result, the streets of Rio, Sao Paulo, and other Brazilian cities are overrun with mobs of abandoned street children. They rob and steal to survive. They are often murdered en masse by gangs of thugs hired by store keepers to prevent them from shop lifting. That is what "pro-life" creates in practice.

 

It isn't necessary that being "pro-life" in practice creates a nation overrun with mobs, etc. That just proves a lack of imagination.

 

As a Catholic, I don't necessarily think contraception is the best solution; but, regardless, in America contraception is made readily available. Of course, it would even further eradicate the issue if oral contraception were included in health insurance (as I think it should be).

 

I certainly don't foresee the same problem here that is apparently occurring in Brazil.

 

Still, you never did answer my question: how do you define a person i.e. someone who has a right to life?

[TheLoneSock]

But they wouldn't be more responsible. We don't have to wonder about it, we know it. We know it because there are plenty of societies where both contraception and abortion are hard to come by, and we can see the results.

 

Earlier in this thread, I mentioned Brazil. In Brazil, abortion is illegal and contraception not readily available for many women. This is largely due to the influence of the Catholic Church. As a result, the streets of Rio, Sao Paulo, and other Brazilian cities are overrun with mobs of abandoned street children. They rob and steal to survive. They are often murdered en masse by gangs of thugs hired by store keepers to prevent them from shop lifting. That is what "pro-life" creates in practice.

 

The best part about what you just said is that you have no idea how rediculous you sound. I'm convinced you're either a teenager, or a troll.

 

It is not an easy out, socks. It is basic science, basic logic. Don't take my word for it. Read Karl Popper, Richard Dawkins, and scientist at all. Take a science course in shool, for Pete's sake. They'll tell you the same thing.

 

And I have spent this entire thread explaining the reasons why altering the outcome is sometimes necessary. That is all I've been talking about this whole time. Have you read ANY of my posts? Either you haven't or your reading comprehension is very, very poor.

 

Instead of telling people to go find sources for your statements, provide them on your own or else your arguments look very weak.

 

I took 3 years of college biology. Here is simple logic for you. If it's not a living thing, why is there a need to 'terminate' it? If it were not really a living person, the pregnancy would never progress. The fact is, if not for the introduction of an outside force to intentionally alter the outcome, that LIVING fetus would eventually be born. Again, it has a heartbeat, it requires nutrition to sustain life- it's ALIVE.

 

I've already addressed your argument about not being able to 'afford' to let these children live. You simply ignored it. It's still a very weak excuse to terminate a pregnancy.