A Win for Those Opposing Abortion

Remove all ads!

Give me wealth or give me death?

I see the minimum wage scenario as exaggerated. Someone who is unable to get more than minimum wage without studies is hardly able to finish studies and even if, that person still wouldn't earn much, I believe.

There is no such thing as a monetary reason to take life.

Of course, the father should be made to pay and his wanting abortion should be no excuse.

As for Roe vs Wade, the Roe woman has converted to Christianity and is campaigning for the overturning of that verdict. This says all one needs to hear.

 

No, not really, since not everyone is a Christian, and we shouldn't enforce our beliefs on them.

 

It says that even the woman who initiated the whole thing has changed her view.

It's a Christian point of view that we shouldn't force our beliefs on people. But I don't think it's very Christian to allow murder to go on because we don't want to be intolerant towards people who believe it's justifiable.

 

That's probably just because you haven't seen it personally; I have. It can and does happen. Not often, but it does.

Yes, and she's the only woman in the world whose opinion on the subject matters. Which is why Roe v. Wade was overturned as soon as she changed her mind. Oh wait, it wasn't!

That's bull and you know it. The Christian PoV is that they should 'save' as many as possible from going to Hell, converting if necessary. You need only look at missionary work to confirm that.

 

Read the Bible or something.

What's the point of that?

If something happens not often and is cited as always happening, then what do you call exaggeration if not that?

And I was born to a single mother under a communist regime so don't pull "you haven't seen that" on me.

 

That's your opinion and not established law. Legally, abortion is NOT murder. We can argue over whether it is morally justifiable, just as some of us argue that killing women and children in Iraq is justifiable "murder" as well. But just because you keep crying "murder" does not make it so.

 

Been there, done that, still surprised it's on the bestseller list.

The point is that one person changing their mind doesn't mean jack. Dozens of people (probably more, but I'm just estimating) change their minds on various subjects every day. I'm also pointing out that clearly her changing her mind afterward doesn't invalidate the ruling or it would have been struck down by now. On a personal note, I also have a very low opinion of people who believe something only as long as it suits their purposes and then switch sides after they've gotten the benefits. Or would she really be willing to go to jail for life now because she's "changed"?

Who said always? Not Rally, and certainly not me.

Dude, chill. I said probably.

(BTW, why'd you go backwards through the quotes? )

 

What if the woman was raped, and they can't find the rapist? Or better yet, what if the rapist is caught, but can't support his victim because he's doing time in jail and has no income?

I don't think that most women who get abortions do so thinking: "O no, I better get rid of the kid or it'll keep me from getting rich!" I think that they don't want to be dragged down into poverty, and drag their child into it with them. Or, if they will still be able to manage a comfortable life with a kid, they don't want the kid because it would keep them from ever achieving their dreams (finish collage, take a shot at their dream job, etc.). Now there's always the adoption argument, but does that make the woman feel much better? I mean, its one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" kind of situations. Either the woman gets rid of her baby and is forever haunted by the question of whether or not she killed a human life, or she is forever haunted by knowing there is a child of hers out there who may still be stuck in an adoption center or in foster homes, feeling abandoned by its mother.

 

Why is it that abortion only ever seems to be discussed, debated or legislated upon by those who are sitting at one polar extreme on the matter?

Nobody - and I mean nobody - thinks that abortion is an objectively "good" thing. It is, at best, a solution to be considered when all other options have been exhausted or rendered untenable. It should never be something that's actively proliferated, to the point that the first and only thought of anyone who falls pregnant out of wedlock or a committed relationship is "Who do I see to get an abortion?" However, by taking it off the list of options available - and for what seems to largely be an exercise in giving secular liberals the middle finger - all that is really achieved is to polarise the debate, at the expense of actually looking at the complete range of actions and options available or (heaven forbid) addressing the surrounding issues.

Furthermore, there seems to be a logical disconnect, here: does anyone seriously believe that a law prohibiting abortion will actually end the practice? If anything, all it will do is force it underground, into more dangerous, traumatic and unsafe territory. I don't wish this on anybody, but I wonder if an anti-abortion advocate would remain so vehement if their daughter or sister found themselves faced with that choice (whether for medical reasons, following a rape, or the breakup of a relationship).

That's not to say I think abortion should be an on-demand service. It's something that people do regret later, even if they feel they had no other options. Abortion shouldn't be seen as the panacea to unplanned pregnancy - that much is hard for anyone to deny. However, I cannot understand how the greater good/justice/God's will is served by denying options to women on the basis of a spiritual belief, the focus of which is on an unqualifiable status of a developing zygote/foetus. In my experience, it has never been an easy choice for anybody I know that has made the decision to terminate a pregnancy.

Anti-abortionists can counsel, encourage, or offer other options, by all means, but they should do it in a meaningful way. Just banning abortion won't help anybody - well, a few people will feel good about it, and many more will probably suffer for it. If there's one thing that's guaran-damn-teed to fail in reducing the human cost of unplanned pregnancies, it's imposing a blanket ban on abortions without lifting a finger to help in any other way (I'd be breaking forum rules left and right if I said what I really thought in its entirety).

Absolutely. You can argue with those in favour of legal abortion until everyone's blue in the face, but in the end, no-one should be able to force anybody to do anything on such contestable grounds.

BTW, Chev - I applaud your consistency. We both know we won't agree on this one, though.

 

If there was no co-ersion or deception, then it should be treated as consentual, and thus no go for Abortion. But the majority of incest cases are not mutually consenting. It's not that I'm encouraging abortion in those cases, but I'm refusing to judge in that case.

Well, I'd like the death penalty to be an option for sentencing rapists. A crime that causes that much trauma to someone shows a callous disregard for others, and Society would be better off without this jerk. I'm not saying make it automatic, but exceptionally violent rapes and serial rapists should run the risk of execution...

But would she go to jail? In Canada, she could be found not Criminally responsible, or even acquitted on grounds of self defense if she believed she would be targetted again in such situation...

In the case of a rape victim, it's a case of shut your mouth and let the Lord handle it on the last day. Jesus said in the Sermon on the mount "Judge not, lest ye be judged." He went on to say that we would be judged by the same judgement as we judge by. If we judge a rape victim harshly for aborting, the same harsh judgement will await us.

He's stating his opinion (for the most part I agree). Doesn't defending your opinion count for anything?

If she is truly repentant, then she must answer fro what she's done--even if that means incarceration.

Yeah, so? Why should we shed any tears for someone wantonly killing an unwanted child then facing side effects that cause great harm to them. If it is outlawed and forced underground, the risks would play into the decision...

 

Really? How shocking. She certainly would be culpable in the U.S. Although, I guess it would depend on the exact situation. If she knew the rapist, and drove immediately over to his house after the rape and killed him, that's probably not murder, or at least not pre-meditated murder. But if she goes to the hospital and several days later comes back to kill him, that's 1st degree murder.

You know, I never looked at it that way, but you have a point. If you view abortion as murder, and want to see it be made illegal in the vast majority of cases, then why would you care about someone who is trying to circumvent the law in order to receive an abortion she couldn't legally obtain.

That's the biggest problem with any debate concerning abortion. No matter what side of the isle you're on, it is difficult to rationally accept people's views on the other side, because you're not thinking along those lines.

Some one who is pro-choice looks at it completely differently. Because as of now, unless you happen to live in South Dakota, abortion is legal. Murder is not legal. Therefore, under the context of current law, abortion IS NOT MURDER. So for the pro-choice advocate, the woman isn't doing anything wrong by wanting an abortion, so they want to see it done as safely as possible. It's logically consistent with their view point.

But it is equally logical to say that if you think abortion should be illegal, that you equate abortion to murder, so why in the world would we care if some "murderer" goes and gets some back alley procedure done and winds up with severe complications in the process. It's probably the least that such a godless heathen deserves.

And that last sentence was placed there not for emphasis, but to prove a point. No matter how you go around it, opposition to abortion typically stems from a religious basis, if not direct religious teaching. And that's why I don't think we can or should legilate it. You're basically legislating morality, which is very tricky unless an overwhelming percentage of the population shares the same morals, which clearly isn't the case here.

And I also agree that any type of compromise is virtually impossible, because the people who make the most noise are the people who are the polarizing elements in this debate. Most people believe that abortion should be allowable in cases of rape and incest. Most people believe that abortion should not be allowed on demand. But those aren't the ones engaging in the arguement. Instead we have people who want it legal in all cases, on demand, and people who want it universally banned. Those aren't the type of people who are going to be able to see middle ground on this issue.

 

I consider myself pro-life, and I am not religious. I don't, however, consider abortion murder. The reason is simple. Murder is a legal definition. I think that abortion is killing.......because something that is alive dies in an abortion. On the other hand, most people would argue that not all killing is wrong. War, in some cases is considered justifiable. Most people have no issue with the killing of livestock. (I do. But this thread isn't about veganism.) For some, the fact that the fetus is killed is not reason enough to ban abortion. For others, this reason is enough on its own. What this means is that the debate must be made on other grounds if we wish to get anywhere with it.

On to why I am against abortion: women who abuse drugs while pregnant are, in many states, arrested for child abuse, negligence, or even manslaughter in those cases (all to frequent) in which the child dies. If a woman can be punished for what she does with her body while pregnant, then she shouldn't be able to have an abortion, either. In order for there to be a crime like manslaughter, there needs to be a victim. In this case, the victim is an unborn child. This precedent can be used to argue that if an unborn child can be considered a victim of it's mothers self-abusive behaviour, then the child could also be considered a victim in the case of an abortion. Terminating one's life is generally considered a bigger violation one's rights than, say, forcibly addicting someone to crack cocaine. The crack addiction is treatable. Death, on the other hand, is not.

 

@Drew:
Some good points, but I look at the second one from a rather different angle. The woman being charged with those crimes (child negligence, abuse, and/or manslaughter) is not being charged with them because of the child. No, they're charging her with everything they can possibly throw at her because she was using drugs; they don't give a damn about the fetus. Of course, they really shouldn't be able to, not even on the unsteady logic of her intending to birth and raise the child as opposed to actively trying to kill it.

Double standards suck. Though, isn't there something in the laws (US) about killing through negligence being worse than intentional killing?

 

No. Unintentional killing is called manslaughter and carries a lighter sentence than murder.

There is one other way to interpret my statements, by the way. One who is pro-choice could merely point out that this hypothetical drug addicted mother should be given the exact same treatment given to any other addict......therefore they would see this not as legal precedent, but instead view it as an example of a law or practice which needs to be stricken from the books.

 

No right back at ya. I'm not talking about unintentional killing AKA manslaughter, I'm talking about killing through gross negligence, which is called Criminally Negligent Homicide, IIRC. Like a crane operator who's too lazy to check that the area he's lowering that gigantic crate onto is clear.

 

The Charge would be Criminal Negligence, which still carries a lesser sentence than Manslaughter.

Also Impaired Driving causing Death carries a maximum of 14 years where as Manslaughter is higher than that. I know a guy who killed two people in an accident caused when he was drunk and only got 4 years...

 

Criminal Negligence doesn't sound right by itself either; it makes it sound like noone got seriously hurt or killed. Dang it, where's BTA or dmc when you need them?

 

I think the term is actually Criminal Negligence causing death.

 

Regardless of the term we use for it, or even if criminal negligence is the correct term or not, as BTA says, premeditated acts are always punished more severely than negligent acts. 1st degree murder is a capital crime in states that allow the death penalty, and in states that don't allow the death penalty, it's typically life in prison with no chance of parole.

I don't know what the maximum sentences are if some one dies through your negligence, but you certainly aren't imprisoned for life or put to death. To use a real life example, I imagine that every year dozens of hospital patients die through negligence on the part of their doctors. My brother is a doctor and he tells me that one of the things you learn in medical school is that during the typical 30 year career of a doctor, you will likely be directly responsible for the death of 2-3 patients, because you made a bad decision concerning their care. But the doctors aren't imprisoned for the rest of their lives. Usually the worst that happens is they are stripped of their medical license, and in severe cases may serve a brief prison term. I suppose the most extreme case is Dr. Kevorkian (sp?), and not even he served a lengthy prison sentence IIRC. So certainly, the punishment for negligent homicide (or whatever the correct term is) is less than a case of premeditation.

Further, in most states in the U.S. there are separate laws for crimes committed for driving while intoxicated. Generally speaking, the punishments if you kill someone in a car accident while drunk are more severe than negligent homicide, but less severe than premeditated homicide. I think the rationale behind them is that you made a conscious decision to drink, and didn't take the necessary precautions of taking a cab or something home when you drank too much. They still can't say there was premeditation involved, but it's worse than only being negligent. The doctor thought he was making the right decision, but was wrong. The drunk driver likely had some idea he had too much to drink, and got behind the wheel anyway, even though he had to have some idea he shouldn't be driving.