Abortion - Views?

Remove all ads!

So you are against but still you'd kill a thug you mentioned. Most interesting. Preventive measure you mention often leads to linch. If you could kill why not just stun him and let the police take care of him?

 

Thats the thing, Chev. If someone killed a pregnant mother, they should be charged for one murder, not two, because the foetus is not a full human being yet. Not until it is born is it a full human being.

And i've heard you say that we shouldn't kill potential life. Are you against birth control and condoms, because they certaintly foil a potential life? And are you against masturbation (i know many Christians are, but I don't know about you), because those sperm are potential life?

 

Nationally subsidized daycare makes it possible for a woman to pursue education or employment rather than relying on government handouts. Which is preferable? To have another tax payer or another person dependent on the state for support? Further, it creates jobs for people to work in Daycare, thus increasing the number of taxpayers. Further, the money earned would be spent, thus bolstering the economy, and generating more revenue through sales tax.

I've heard of neighbourd calling police when they suspected domestic violence. if this can be encouraged, then perhaps it can be curbed.

Murder is Murder, and in a situation like that, it's Murder 1, and thus Life in prison with no parole for 25 years (in Canada) is legally mandated. I would shed no tears for someone pulling a stunt like that getting the death penalty...

But it's considered defence of your people, your homes, your family and your country. There may be times when killing may be the only alternative left. It should not be taken lightly, but sometimes it must be done.

 

Or, as the Undertaker said, he could just stun him. Perfectly reasonable solution, I think. If you believe that murder is bad, then why should it be implimented before a less deadly solution?

 

Yes they are such times and they also apply to abortion.

 

Gnarfflinger, you didn't quite answer my arguments. Perhaps I haven't been quite clear on this, so here's what I tried to say by bringing up the honor murders:

First of all, in case people haven't heard the term before: "honor muder" is something that certain people from certain Mid Eastern countries practice, and keep practicing even when they move to Europe or North America, where it isn't widely accepted. It basically means that if a woman has an affair outside marriage, tries to marry someone their family don't approve of, or even - get this - gets raped, she has dishonored her family. Then the males of the family take it upon themselves to "restore the family's honor" by killing the woman - their own daughter or sister.

I wasn't interested in how these murderers should be punished - sure, 25 to life, lethal injection, why not. The point was how to prevent them from happening. One example:

A woman gets pregnated by someone *other* than her husband - from a consensual act or rape, it actually is irrelevant here. Once her father finds out, he will kill her. If the woman's stomach starts to grow, he's gonna find out.

In this case having an abortion done quietly will, without a glimmer of exxageration, *save the woman's life.*

Of course we should try and do everything in our power to stop this barbaric practice. But it's extremely difficult to prevent. It will take a lot of time and resources to change these people's additudes in such a dramatic way. And meanwhile, women will keep getting killed if they can't get abortions.

Someone might now say something like "How is the mother's life more valuable than the child's, a life is still lost here." But when a pregnant woman dies, the unborn dies as well. So in the above scenario the choice is one death vs two deaths, and the choice of which one is the lesser evil should be evident.

 

Whatever anyone says or tries to do to convince me nobody will ever change my view that it is murder. Plain and simple. And however you dress it up you are murdering a person. How can anybody ever justify that? When there are so many people in the world who can't have children and would be more than willing to adopt a child. Abortions are legal in some countries up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, but I bet all these pro-choicers don't tell you that after 13 weeks a foetus can feel pain. So the injection into the heart or whatever, they can most certainly feel after that time.

 

But what about before 13 weeks? While I can agree that even in the first trimester there's a moral dimension involved, I can't accept that a bundle of cells should have the legal status of a human being. Their nervous systems simply aren't developed enough for thought, pain, etc. And I think the "God zips down and attaches a soul to the egg at the moment fertilization" really has much bearing to a secular social issue...

I hold to the "abortion should be safe, legal, and rare" line of argument, and I think that many opponents of legalized abortion, in their rush to impose an complete legal ban on abortion as part of making an ethical stand, tend to ignore the very real probability that legalized abortion, along with other steps to educate and empower women, actually reduces the prevalence of abortion in society. For example, Holland, which has less restrictions on abortion than the US, also has a far lower rate of abortions (with, ironically, half of abortions being performed on the relatively underpriveleged 5% Muslim minority, which actively prohibits abortion and promiscuity). Similarly, in the US, the more liberal states, with less restrictions on abortion, tend to have a much lower rate of abortion thanthe more conservative states.

All this leads to the very real possibility that when women are educated and allowed choice, they are less likely to have unplanned pregnancies and seek abortions. It also leads to the very real possibility, which I think should seriously give pause to opponents of legal abortion, that legal activism against abortion has lead to the killing of more fetuses.

 

It should remain legal, IMO.
The fact that there is such a battle over the issue is conclusion enough that this is a religious issue, and as such, should not be banned by legislation in the US.

Personally, I think the use of abortion as birth control is not only abysmally poor judgement, but highly dangerous to the woman.

 

Though I don't often speak up here I have to make a point about the honor-killing argument.

Say a woman gets pregnant in a manner that would cause her relatives to try and murder her, which is an illegal act. (The fact that it is accepted in the country the people come from has nothing to do with it, murder is murder.)

Now comes the stupid part, we just kill the foetus so the relatives won't kill the mother! So we fight crime by taking away the ''cause'' (or reason) of the crime, with a variation of the same crime!

I kow it is not a good way of arguing but still I want to take this rule to a random other crime, thefth for example. Someone I very rich, thieves will try to steal this from her, which won´t be fun. To prevent the person from being robbed we just take away the lesser evil, and we take away all her wealth in a legal way. This is clearly the lesser evil, because a robbery will take her money too, and might traumatize (sp?) her! (this comparison is not 100% valid but the basic idea is the same IMO)

Of course this is stupid, the child has to be born and the woman protected against her relatives, which have to be arrested as soon as they try to make their move. So, fight the criminals, instead of trying to hide facts that will make them angry, this spineless attitude is exactly the thing that give criminals power. It is absurd that people have to murder their children to keep criminals happy...

And yes, of course this puts the mother in a dangerous position, but possible risk to the mother (who knew she could get pregnant, and get killed for it) weight far less than the life of the unborn.

(One more thing, the woman doesn't get hunted for getting pregnant, but for having sex with the wrong person, so abortion is hardly a solution, changes are big that the family might discover the abortion sooner or later and still try to murdur said woman)


(As for the stun vs. kill argument': Chev (he is my hero) clearly states: ''I would kill a thug myself if there were no other sure way of stopping him from murder'' So this includes stunning I'd say)

 

LeFleur.

I very well know honor murders are illegal and murders like any other murder.

In the example I gave the abortion wasn't even *intended* to fight the crime. It would be done to save the woman's life. Putting a stop to this particular tradition is *not* as simple as:

When they make their move, the woman dies. Period. And so does the unborn child. The system can't save the woman from that. She will not be placed in protected custody without actual, tangible evidence of the danger. And where is she going to run to from her family?

Note that the police force of any country has only limited resources. Quite a large number of crimes goes completely uninvestigated.

How exactly do you propose we fight these criminals? Before they actually *do* something, nobody can touch them. Changing their fundamental attitude and way of thinking is a slow process that takes a lot of resources. Unless you propose a cowboy attitude, going in guns blazing or arresting people without a shred of proof and holding them in custody indefinetely. Meanwhile more women get killed.

Denying the woman the abortion that will potentially save her life, waiting until she gets killed and saying she

even if she got pregnant through rape, which I mentioned as a possibility... The above statement seems pretty complacent if not "spineless" to me.

Correct, she could get hunted even without the pregnancy, but this is the catch: the woman's family might very well never *know* she slept with someone - or got raped. In the scenario I suggested the pregnancy gives it away without question.

Again, I didn't propose abortion to be a way to stop honor killing. I proposed it as a way of saving a life, in the immeadiate sense.

Arguing that an abortion in this case would be as much a murder as the family would commit makes no sense to me, because refusing it condemns *two lives.*

Feel free to compare this rare but realistic situation to a completely nonsensical robbery thing "which is not fun", but the prospect of getting killed by one's father is a bit more serious than "not fun."

 

@ Gnarff:

I know others have said it, but it sounds like the Church of LDS is strongly committed to a truly humanistic set of solutions. These rely heavily on support, education, assistance and welfare-like measures to work for a better outcome and to limit suffering, either through proactive prevention or trying to find other options. Good, practical ideas, and ones which I 100% agree with.

@ Felinoid:

Absolutely right - if you're going to have sex, and you don't want kids, then you should use contraceptives or forget about not wanting a child.

@ Susipaisti:

Good point about honour killings - although, being unfamiliar with the cultural implications of them, I am not certain that abortion is always a solution. I will confess my ignorance on this one, and leave it to the more knowledgeable SPers to discuss. It does illustrate the problem of reality interfering with Weberian "ideal types" when attempting to come to a solution, though.

@ Chev:

I don't think you'll find too many people who think abortion is anything other than tragic and/or unfortunate. At no point have I ever stated that I feel abortion is a "good thing" - in fact, I have said exactly the opposite. There is a difference between sorrowful acceptance and surrender, just as there is a difference between campaigning for prevention or support and moral crusading.

I do not accord a foetus with "human" status until several weeks into the pregnancy (up until about 12 weeks). Until that point, I do not accord it a "right to life" which supercedes the mother's "right to self-determination". Yes, there are selfish people who will abuse those laws; I do not see why a group of unethical people should override the liberties of all others (whether those liberties are acted upon or not).

Re: zoophilia/homosexuality/necrophilia points - humans and animals have different rights. Besides that, I struggle to see how an animal could give informed consent (and I don't want anyone to make any suggestions, either!). If someone's will states that someone can have sex with their corpse... well, that's their business, and I think it's disgusting, but it's not my decision to make.

I'll unreservedly retract the misogynist comment, Chev - but I'd ask that you take a step back from the image of the abortion-seeker which you seem to be presenting and ask if that comment is entirely unfair. I overstepped the line, yes - and I apologise. Then again, with a background in social sciences and sociological research, I always prefer to know much more than the results when statistics are presented to me.

In response to that, all I will suggest is that you ask that question again, only changing the 5th word in the quote to "isn't". I don't see it as black-and-white as you do, Chev; "good" and "evil" are just made-up words, as far as I'm concerned, with the value attached to them being dependent on the individual or societal group.

Child destruction is a criminal offence, and one which I support entirely. It is qualitatively different from emergency abortion for medical health reasons.

I knew saying the "G" word would get me in trouble...

Off-topic: Genocide can include the forced abortion or sterilisation of a target population or people. The definition of "genocide" has become sufficiently broad to include "cultural destruction" as an element of genocide; one which is not physically fatal to individuals. The qualitative difference between genocide and homicide is a desire to destroy a people, including (in this instance) the destruction of their ability to reproduce. Abortion is not typically aimed at achieving such a goal; when it is purposefully deployed for such reasons, it constitutes a genocidal act.

 

Here in Holland there are quite a few people who are known to be on a death list, for their political ideas or for ridiculing a certain religion. Still these people keep speaking up in public, they accept the risk of getting killed by fanatics because they find their message more important than their safety.
So if freedom of speech is important enough to stay in a death list, why would an unborn child not be?
The pregnant woman can easily be brought to a ''safehouse'' in another part of the country, maybe even a house speccially built for this purpose, where they get professional protection at least until the child is born. This takes away the one-life vs. two lifes argument.
Still I see this will causes a VERY inconvenient situation, the woman can't be protected forever, the family will surely suspect the pregnacy if the woman leaves without a trace etc. etc. But IMO the unborn life is as sacred as the woman´s life, so a situation in which the child survives and the mother is still in danger afterwards is for me preferable above the situation in which the child dies for certain and the woman might be safe afterwards.

I think you misunderstood me here, I didn't try to say the crimes were equal in any way, but just that fightnig crime by doing the same thing as a precaution is very weird.


Stil I have to agree that in this case of a woman (.5) who gets pregnant (.3) by a rape (.00??) ha a honor killing tradition in her family (.000??) and no means to flee to a safe place (.?)and the family knowing nothing about it if the child gets aborted (.?) comes very very close to the point where I say ''let's kill the foetus''

 

It is assumed by that statement, that less deadly solutions have been exhausted or are impractical. For ecample, if I had repeatedly knocked out someone that had a beef with my mother to the point of desiring her death, sooner or later, I would have to kill the offender if no other permanent solution could be achieved. If, however, the attacker came armed with a weapon which would be highly likely to inflict lethal injury and I got the drop on him, killing him might well result.

But these would be exceptionally rare. Rape, Incest or dire threat to the health of the mother aree the only such circumstances in these cases. Further, my behaviour would be more of a case of not talking about it rather than advocating it.

Susipaisti: When they come to our country, they agree to uphold our laws. If a woman finds herself in this situation, there are supports within the communtiy where she can get help (assuming North America or western Europe for this point). If such a woman believes that she will be killed by her husband or his family because she gets raped, then she can seek refuge from women's shelters. There are things called Restraining orders to make it illegal for her husband to approach her. There are protections in place for the woman, therefore that shouldn't automatically justify an abortion...

A more proactive solution to the problem is, of course the best, but I still think that it should be illegal to terminate a pregnancy on simply a whim. Could the problem be more of laziness on the part of the opponents of Abortion, rather than the willingness to help those in need?

 

I'll readily admit the chain of events "rape-pregnancy-honor killing-no place to run" is a rare one, but quite possible still. I googled "honor murder" in search of a specific case that happenend in Sweden a few years back, but sadly couldn't find it. It didn't involve rape or pregnancy, but was a good example of how difficult it is to prevent these things. The woman was independent and educated and did seek help from authorities, but got killed nevertheless.

Instead I found this: http://www.mediterraneas.org/article.php3?id_article=345

This has nothing to do with pregnancy either, but it showcases a woman having tried to escape to another country, but the authorities sent her back to her family. After a severe beating from her family members and a trip to the hospital, she again got sent to the family home. Needless to say she got killed.

Are you suggesting that people should intentionally be placed in a life-threatening situation against their will, because some other people do it voluntarily?

I'd like to clear up a little misunderstanding I had with chevalier, the first comment being mine:

Granted. I understood the point of the statistic and your previous comment a little differently. I looked at it like this: "I can understand why someone would not grant an abortion to a rape victim, but a raped *incest* victim? C'mon!" That's why I made the above comment, which I suppose was a bit pointless.

I'd also like to address what chevalier said a few posts back.

I think this goes against the whole issue you made about the wrongness of killing. First of all, I'd really like to hear an example of a case scenario where it *isn't* possible to shoot a man in the leg, knock him unconscious etc, but *is* possible to kill him.

Second, you said "stopping him from." You're suggesting at killing an innocent being. I don't mean the thug goes to Sunday school and loves puppies, but he *hasn't yet committed* the murder you would kill him for. Here we might ask: Why is the thug's life less significant than the life of his (possible) victim? I'm asking because all the way people have asked why a woman's life should take precedence over her child's. Even when people have brought up life-threatening complications in a pregnancy, all counter arguments have been along the lines of "shouldn't have had sex."

 

I came late to this subject, but back on the original question - definitely pro-choice. There was a statement earlier on to the effect that doctors when pressed cannot give a situation where termination of a pregnancy is the best way to save the mother. That's not true: several conditions spring to mind - pulmonary hypertension, chronic renal failure, cardiac failure; there are others. All of these conditions worsen during pregnancy (due to the natural changes and increased demand on a woman's body). Some have a greater than 50% maternal mortality; these woman are all strongly advised never to get pregnant.
Unfortunately some do - often because they do not think they will be able to, due to their medical conditions or the drugs they require.

BTW pregnancy and childbirth is a doddle compared to the hard work of raising a child in a responsible fashion; a job that usually falls far more heavily on women than men, regardless of ethnicity and socioeconomic status. And it goes on for years....... Currently in Australia (male) politicians are getting v self-righteous about limiting women's choices in this area, whilst bringing in legislation that makes actually raising children more difficult for many women.

 

Chevelier,

I wonder sometimes why I argue with you. I admitted my examples were oversimplified, and I also thought it was self-evident that they were hypothetical. I made some assumptions in that as well, and I guess I should have pointed them out when making the post, and I would have, if I had anticipated your response. Some of the assumptions I made included 1.) That the professional woman would not lose her job, have her government issued unemployment cheques run out, and end up having to raise her child on the streets or in a homeless shelter and 2.) That the teenager could only support her child by dropping out of high school, and getting a menial paying job somewhere, and have to live with her parents for the rest of her life until they died, at which point she'd likely wind up on the streets.

This was said in regard to my statement about the professional woman. As I did not advocate abortion in this case, it seems like we agree on this position. The only way offering a counter-point does any good is if you are arguing that she should get an abortion.

Agreed again for the most part. You shouldn't get an abortion if it is going to be an inconvenience to have a child that you are fully capable of caring for. In fact, it's reprehensible behavior.

It is different because the situations are different. I can see the difference between living in inconvenience, and living in poverty-induced misery quite clearly, as I think most people can. I would qualify raising your child on the streets as something more than merely "inconvenient". That you do not wish to see the difference, or find that difference irrelevant is your perogative, but it doesn't make the difference disappear.

When did I imply such? I specifically stated that I did not think it was good for the professional to have an abortion. And I certainly never implied that I respected such a decision.

*sigh* Again, I suppose I should have stated my assumptions at the start. I'm assuming that dropping out of high school is not the best way to earn a decent paying job. I'm further assuming that she isn't going to win the lottery and become independently wealthy. And finally, with the inability to get a job above minimum wage, she will not be able to afford any type of housing and it is likely that both she and her baby will eventually wind up on the streets. Great life indeed.

Ideally, yes. But I also factor into my reasoning value of life elements that don't make it for me, a black and white issue. I beleive that death isn't always the worst thing that can happen to you, believe it or not. I would rather be dead than live like Terri Shaivo for 15 years. If my wife died in a car accident because she went somewhere by herself when I could have easily accompanied her, I would wonder if I could have prevented the accident had I been driving. In such a situation, I would prefer to be in the car and die with her, rather than second-guessing and living in guilt the rest of my life. To relate this back to my original example, you see to teenager getting an abortion as destroying a human life. I see her decision to have the child as destroying two.

[ October 17, 2005, 17:15: Message edited by: Aldeth the Foppish Idiot ]

 

Anyone who says 'if she doesn't want a baby, then she shouldn't have sex' really needs to get laid. Trust me, that argument would soon go .

 

I really think I need to throw my two cents in here.
First off, killing a child, born or unborn, to prevent an Honor Murder is not an acceptable solution. One, it does not guarantee that the family will not find out, and two, you are trading one life for another.
Secondly, as the statistics showed, the vast number of abortions in America at least are 'comfort' abortions. This means the mother, mothers family, someone else, doesn't WANT a child or can't support it THEMSELVES. Has no one thought of adoption? I know it has problems itself, but at least everyone has a chance to live. The entire idea of killing a child, or foetus, or whatever you want to call it, just so someone can be more comfortable seems absolutely abhorrent to me. Not only that, but the majority of them will not be more comfortable.
A friend of mine is a counselor at our church and every week she gets women, from all religions and all over the community, who can't live with themselves anymore because, as much as 50 years ago, they had an abortion. Many were so torn up about it that they never told anyone, not even parents and spouses. And those that do don't feel any better. The trauma of knowing that you have ended a life for your own comfort is not something most people get over, ever.

 

I do so love the rhetoric of abortion, from both sides.

"It's plainly murder" -- well, no, it's not. If it were, there wouldn't be a debate, as it, erm, would already A: be illegal and B: be recognized as immoral by upwards of 99% of the populace.

"It's plainly about a woman's right to have sovereignty over her own body" -- No, not quite. It's about whether or not the fetus is in fact part of her body, and at what point it can be called a human being.