Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

Most true. Chev, I think you remember the ship "Lanenort" when it came to Poland. Classic way of avoiding the law.

 

Or, God forfend, we go back to coat hangers. *shudder*

 

There's a line in the sand mate... .

 

You know Barmy, you missed a perfect opportunity for a poll here. I'm working on one now. Obviously, my intent is not to hijack your thread, so I'm going to focus more on the legality, than personal views of abortion. Good topic, gave me some good ideas.

Oh, by the way, I think abortion should be legalized up to the first trimester.

 

Putting limitations on abortion is problematic. Either completely legal or completely illegal -- there really is no middle ground. Once you start putting limitations the big question to ask is 'who will govern the limitations?'

While I am pro-choice, I am also against doctors being forced to do abortions -- it should also be a choice for the doctor. Doctors should never be forced into breaking the Hypocretean oath to perform an abortion. Doctors specifically swear to never kill the fetus EVEN to save the mother's life.

 

In that way both child (maybe children) and mother would die. Why not try to save the mother? If a doctor refuses to perform the abortion which is legal, he should send the woman to a doctor who would perform it.

 

Actually, Chev, parasite is a correct term. If you go by scientific definition (which is the real definition, because parasites are completely and totally in the category of bilogical science), a parasite is any organism that feeds off of an organism without helping it, and possibly harming it (which, in this case, it does, physically).

So, by definition and unborn baby is a parasite up until the umbilical cord is cut.

And now, I am ending my arguments and just saying:
PRO-CHOICE

 

Illegal. From my point of view, you can as well ask if murder should be legal...

 

I didn't want to do this...

/me dons flame suit

It seems that everyone is adopting a position which is based on a prioritisation of a person's rights. For pro-choice SPers, it's the mother's. For pro-life SPers, it's the foetus'. Most people are not going to budge on those principles - I could no more change Chev's or Arendil's perspectives than they could change mine, or Arabwel's, or Carcaroth's. That's fine with me. From a perspective of personal morality, it's not worth debating, IMO. What matters more to me is the real-life consequences of policy in relation to abortion.

Getting back to BA's point about criminalisation - if you make something illegal, you aren't going to stop it as long as there's a demand for it. For example, illicit drugs and prostitution are still extremely lucrative industries for their architects. The people who lose out when these things are criminalised are the ones consuming or selling the drugs at a street level (since they get busted or OD) or the sex workers.

Now, apply this to abortion: does anybody actually believe that making it illegal will stop it from occurring? If you do, then I'm sorry to inform you that you're completely delusional. It has been occurring for centuries, using traditional "medicines" and substances to achieve the same result, albeit much less precisely. People will even go so far as to violently abuse themselves to cause a miscarriage. As Felinoid has pointed out, the return of "coat-hanger" abortions would be a likely consequence. Add to that the fact that corrupt police and organised crime have a history of being involved in protection rackets with the "illegal abortion industry", and what have you achieved by criminalising abortion?

You save a large number of foetuses from death, yes; at what cost to society and women? I don't presume to tell you folks which is the better option (although which one I prefer is obvious), only that it's hardly a rosy story, no matter what view you have.

I have serious concerns about abortion. I don't think it's desirable, but I believe that the dangers and costs of not making it available far outweigh the benefits. I am saddened by the fact that it's necessary and believe that we should be actively working to reduce the size and scope of the issue. Abortions should not be performed lightly. However, they are preferable to the alternative, IMO.

Any self-righteous, sanctimonious moralising - from ANY side of the argument - completely ignores the gravity and importance of the issue. In the end, what is needed are workable solutions, which such blindly dogmatic responses will never be able to provide. It's a terrible situation to be involved in, let alone BE in (and I can speak from experience on the former) - the last thing anybody wants is a lecture when what they really need are options and answers.

Sorry about getting so angry, here - but this issue is far too important to be left to ideological or religious convictions alone. People seem to be forgetting that a society's approach to abortion is not solely a tug-of-war over rights; it has the capacity to affect much more than that.

 

As far as I'm concerned, I really have more important things to shed tears on than someone who suffers over the decision to murder an innocent child. The only people truly under such obligation are those involved in the decision and it's execution. If the woman's health suffers from the procedure, it is the consequence of the decision. What of psychological effects? That sounds like "Godly sorrow for her sins". I have a cure for that--repentance. Not that anyone wants to hear it, but it DOES work. As far as I know, it is the only thing that will work...

 

I'm thinking that it should be legal - because no one else should have the right to order someone not to do something to their own body (and yes - it's killing the foetus - it's still being done to the woman's body).

However, I would really really prefer it if people didn't go that far. I dislike the idea - but really, it should be no government's business. People should provide options instead, but it should be legal without restrictions.

 

@Saber: Ever heard of breeding and prolongation of species? Parasites are organisms unrelated to the other organism's vital functions, unlike foeti, which are a natural result of breeding and breeding acts, such as sexual intercourse.

@T2Bruno: And perjurers' place is in prison.

@NonSequitur: If abortion is morally right or neutral, why limits, not taking it lightly, whatever such? If it needs to be consider, then it is a moral problem.

@Undertaker: First, the mother's wishes are irrelevant next to the foetus' right to life. I am in favour of post-coital contraception in case of rape but not abortion, nonetheless. As for that ship, if I were a public prosecutor, I'm sure I would come up with something. The whole thing was at least advertised and directed partly from Polish soil, so here we have a claim on the offenders.

 

So you say that the rapist has no right to live? Death is not the punishement, cutting the balls off is one
BTW We are aruing about rape but what about situations in which without the abortion both mother and the child would die? Would you let a woman die?

You could do nothing unless they would break polish law. And IIRC they didn't.


And foetus is parasiting on woman. It doesn't matter that it's parents creation. A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of that host, absorbing nutrients from the host's body fluids.
This definition (taken from Wikipedia) applies to foetus.

 

I think it's generally understood that a pre-requisite of parasitism is that it be a different species. Let's get straight on our definitions.

The "Fetus = Parasite" argument is loopy and self defeating and one of the weakest ways to try to justify abortion. There is no way to equate a parasite with a part of the reproductive process...this principle isn't replicated in any way in nature.

 

I haven't said Fetus = Parasite nor I wanted to justify the abortion with this argument. I only stated that the unborn baby is parasiting on woman.

 

But it isn't "parasiting" Undertaker...to try to make that claim is distorting the scientific and natural meaning of parasite.

I can understand those who make the "clump of cells" argument, or those who claim that the baby isn't an individual yet and therefore still part of the mothers body...but to equate the in-womb relationship of a mother and child with parasitism is unsound. It can't be considered "parasiting" from the simple standpoint that the womans body undergoes profound changes to protect and grow the baby within her. Were it not for hormonal and physical changes instigated by the woman's body, the so called "parasite" could not survive.

Yes, the baby is helpless and dependent on the mother for survival...but so is a 2 week old. By your definition of "Parasiting"...this dreadful, draining, life sucking action by the fetus continues for months while the newborn baby breast feeds.

 

@Hacken Slash:
Aye, but breast-feeding is a choice made by the mother; she could just as easily smack the child as offer it her breast. But when it is in the womb, there is no choice; it drains her and forces her to consume more simply to keep herself alive.

Though I'll admit that it is something of a symbiotic relationship that benefits the fetus without doing any permanent harm to the mother (unless you count the sagging mammaries and the weight gain), it is still a temporary parasite that feeds off of a helpless host.

Generally understood by whom? I've always thought it simply required a different being, regardless of special familiarity. If I had my dictionary with me, I'd look up and post a definition, but perhaps you would be so kind? I'd kind of like to get my facts straight, too.

 

Apparently, it doesn't have to be a different species, just a different organism. From dictionary.com:

 

Let's make it clear about the parasites:
-separate organism that lives on or inside the host
-it's absorbing nutrients from the host's body
-almost always it's weakening the host
-in many cased the death of the host results in death of the parasite

Basing myself on this definition IMO I had 100% right to call the unborn baby a form of a parasite, no matter how cruel this may sound. And does anybody says that those arguments are false?