DEBATEitOUT.comHave Your Voice Heard, 24/7.

Of course it isn’t. A fetus is a human. Abortion is murder. Take it from a born and raised Texan, pro-life is the only way.

Jeremy – Everything may be bigger in Texas, but apparently your brain/intelligence doesn’t quite “agree with the status quo”. A fetus is a thinking, functioning, human being? I think not. Abortion is not murder, it’s a medical procedure.

What do you think about a 14-year-old girl who is raped and subsequently pregnant asking for an abortion? Is pro-life the only way then?

Morals are unique to the individual. So that which is “morally acceptable” differs from one to the next.

Eli – Are you some left-wing extremist?

If you are so smart, you would know that brain size doesn’t equate to intelligence. BOOYAH

Having been involved in the healthcare industry for over 20 years now, I can honestly say that determining whether or not an abortion is morally correct often depends on the situation at hand. I’ve seen many things in my time…To comment on a scenario so fragile must be attempted with full knowledge of the situation.

And must we really turn this debate into a hostile attack on character? Can anyone hold a conversation (on touchy-feely topics) anymore without going at each others’ throats?

No.

Very well said Doogie.

I’m no extremist, Jeremy. I just give thought to important issues…instead of mindlessly following the cattle.

Intellectually, this topic violates the intuitions of everyone. Neither pro-life nor pro-choice can generate a logically consistent position on abortion without abandoning other personal beliefs which are vehemently and widely held.

Life begins at embryo implantation. Abortion is effectively murder.

Banning this type of murder will simply push it underground as it’s fairly easy to perform and nearly impossible to trace (Easier if you don’t take necessary precautions) which will result in a black market, and healthy women dying from complications, as well as cutting off ANY hope of reliable data on how many people are having such procedures.

Abortions is only a symptom, the problem is why so many women want to kill their babies rather than look at other options, or simply using contraception which is approaching 100% effectiveness.

I agree with Doogiel Eli, and Mr. Jugs. I am staunchly pro-choice: if a woman elects not to have an abortion based on her conscience and believing it's murder, she shouldn't. It's no one's business to force someone to carry a child against her will. If a woman chooses to have an abortion, she should be allowed that choice.

In cases of rape and incest, abortion should absolutely be an option. I cannot imagine a more horrific scenario than if abortions were not available to women who suffer such terrible trauma. Do any of you realize the pain of the birth process compounded with the knowledge of how the conception occurred? In this case, Jeremy, I clearly see why a other cannot, and should not "just go through with it."

Contraception can fail–if a man and woman take precautions, and if the woman gets pregnant, should she be forced by law to carry a child she doesn't want? What happens to the child? There are thousands of unwanted children in orphanages that are unadoptable because they aren't cute little babies. What do we say to these children who feel unwanted all their lives?

If abortion is murder, and I won't deny it well could be, I believe each person must answer for their own decisions or sins when they pass on. The only solution I can offer is I will respect your opinions if you respect mine.

Taking out someone's heart is a medical procedure, too, but someone can be murdered in this way. Who wants to agree with the "status quo" anyway?

Yes. Why punish the fetus and deny it the same opportunities as you, namely LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Why should a 10-year old girl hurt from pain if someone beats her or why should her arm fall off if someone cuts it off? Sometimes the nature of things doesn't match up with niceties.

LOL. So your brain agrees with the "status quo"? What does this say about following a herd?

Or, abstinence which IS 100% effective.

Abstinence is not 100% effective. Because it is not 100% used and never will be, and in the absence of other approved methods, like contraception, it results in far more teenage mothers or STDs.

I have never heard of someone practicing abstinence getting pregnant. It is quite impossible. Just like abstinence, contraception can be taught but it is up to the individual to actually put it into practice. When practiced abstinence beats contraception hands down.

The point is that abstinence without the option and understanding of contraception does not work in the real world. Not that it cannot work when it is applied.

But the interesting question is "when is it applied?". And the answer is: not that much. Therefore, insisting on it as a first line of defence might be okay, but it cannot be the only line of defence. Because it's not 100% effective (because almost no human being, much less no human teenager, uses it).

My point is, when applied abstinence is much better at preventing pregnancy than contraception. Is it so unrealistic to expect someone to practice abstinence? If the fact that abstinence is 100% and contraception is not in preventing pregnancy is taught at least they will know their chances for whatever choice is chosen.

Yes it is unrealistic to expect someone to practice abstinence. Because it doesn't happen very often. As a result there are social costs that go into it. Social costs such as a higher number of abortions or higher rates of teenage pregnancy (or just plain single mothers generally).

If your goal is reducing the number of abortions for example, then you can use abstinence as a tool, sure. But it's not a very effective one by itself. Witness the amount of public, government, religious, and social supports for it and its complete failure to accomplish simple ends like reducing teenage pregnancy rates (which may be safely assumed to be a related factor to abortion-seeking rates). Those rates, in locales which employed abstinence only sex education, have gone up.

It might be fine to expect something, but when what you are expecting doesn't happen, you have to admit maybe there's something wrong with what you are expecting.

What about the will of the carried child? Should we consider that?

Pregnancy can be caused by terrible acts, but why blame the fetus and punish it because of a woman's selfishness.

Abstinence can not fail. I wonder what the "unwanted" children would answer if asked if they should have been aborted.

Our task is to protect life from direct harm, which abortion is. We do all answer for our own sins, but we should also strive to do our best while alive. With all due respect, abortion just seems to be an easy fix instead of doing one's best.

First off, by being pro-choice, I am far from the "status quo" – In most places, people are divided right down the middle.

My reference to following a herd had nothing to do with Jeremy's pro-life or pro-choice opinions; it referred to the action of taking a stance because of what you are told to believe, as opposed to having your own ideas.

Your reference to heart surgery is quite extreme, and honestly, I don't understand how it relates to my statement.

And if I'm "denying a fetus life", then that would imply the fetus doesn't have "life" yet, so how would it be murder?

Abortion was created by lazy people that don’t want to take responsibility for their actions.
If you want to know why people make millions because they spilt hot coffee its because they don’t want to take responsibility.

and good luck with the not regretting killing your own flesh and blood. I’m sure you won’t end up regreting it and falling into massive depression such as other greedy killers.

I respect your opinion, but I have to question the fact that you are pro-choice and yet don't deny the fact that abortion IS murder.
I am 100% pro-life. At the moment of conception a life is being created and what right do we have to take that life away? If a woman were to kill her baby after it was born she would be charged and sent to jail for infanticide. However, if that baby were still in her womb and she had an abortion that act of murder is seen as completely acceptable. Does nobody see the contradiction here? A life is a life no matter where he or she is located, no matter how old he of she is.
In cases of rape and incest I still believe that the baby should be born. I am extremely saddened that any woman or girl would have to be put through that but I stand by my conviction that a life is a life and that aborting the fetus is murder.
And as far as the unwanted children in orphanages I bet if you asked them if they would rather not be born and aborted as opposed to being granted life they would choose life.

Abortion is a mere hiccup in the evolution of society, just like witch hunts and racism. History will look with shame upon this ridicoulous idea, just as much as we scorn our ancestors for owning slaves.

Pusty, I'm amazed you admit the evolution of human society and elightening of human nature here; but vehemently deny it everytime you argue the point with me!

I have never denied the evolution of society, maybe you misunderstood me, which debate was it?

The debate on NASA funding. I thought it was pretty clear that you were stating human nature was unchangeable and was therefore always going to continue in its current manner. Not that I want to start a personal debate with you on what your intent was or wasn't. But I thought it was a pretty big inconsistency.

The evolution of common thought will always change, our human nature will be with humans for all time, that is what I meant.

You are spot on, Sun Tzu! !

Pusty: "Abortion was created by lazy people that don't want to take responsibility for their actions."

Oh, really…and would you say this is true in the case of rape!?

I Believe Touchman and Sun Tzu both have very good arguments. I personally being a teenager myself believe that it is good to teach abstinence; however I do realize that we do need to know about contraception, because there are a lot of people my age who are going to go have sex anyway, with or without protection, and these are typically the same kind of people who don't want a committed relationship either, so I say it's much better for them to have protection then for everyone to have another single mother, who can't easily provide for the innocent child, thus hurting the mother (because she feels helpless), and the child (who cannot be cared for in the best way.)

Personally, as I said I am for both. I know about contraception, because my parents have talked to me about it. I know the risks of having sex, with and without contraception. I don't have sex because both my girlfriend (of over 1 1/2 years) and I have decided that we are both unwilling to take the risk. Although we get temptations, we know that we'll have our day (or several nights ; ) eventually).

I am Pro-Life except in cases of emergency, or Rape.

OK Teachme, if you want to nit pick, (insert a playcating tone) then no abortion in the case of rape is not a case of laziness. My bad, I guess next time I’ll have to list it as an afterthought, that steals the impact of my words.

Actually they didn't accept that "abortion IS murder". They said it could be, not that it IS, as a starting point of argument. If someone does accept that, they are not required to have an abortion.

What annoys me, as a pro-choice person, is not that people think abortion is murder, a metaphysical belief that they are entitled to hold, but that they are typically people who are also opposed to methods and policies which could actually reduce the rate of abortion and thus the net level of harm upon society as they see it. (ie, they oppose contraception, comprehensive sex education, expenses on prenatal care through insurance). They are effectively waging a cultural war against a woman's sexuality, and by some extension, her cultural role in society as anything other than a mother and wife, rather than a war on what they see as a culture of murder. This explains why there is such strong resistance and why there are, outside of cultural enclaves (such as the South), few gains in the pro-life movement politically.

Once that glaring inconsistency is cleared away, I don't think there will be much reason to worry about banning the practice itself (with the limited exceptions that seem to get broader acceptance like rape, incest and health complications), because it will become less and less commonly demanded. If you must be pro-life, at least find some tactics and strategies that would actually help accomplish your professed goal of having fewer and fewer abortions.

As a side note: cutting out the supply through bans and restricts doesn't do much. Women of means will always have access, and women who are poorer (ie, those women whose abortions are more of economic necessity than an expressed lifestyle choice), will have to go underground to satisfy demand.

Adoption procedures are not that simple in the US, unless you're referring to abandoning the child to the care of the state. There are contractual elements that have to be satisfied. I admit this is a strange concept, and I'd prefer that the contracts were simpler and the procedures easier to manage by having little or no state supervision over them (other than enforcement of the contract through arbitration).

It's also not very simple for the women involved. Some studies indicate that mothers surrendering their children up for adoptions can suffer from considerable depression, comparable to that of miscarriages or postpartum depression. It is not really any easier a choice to make than the agony most people would feel over a potential abortion.

Well i am Pro-Life all the way even in a emergency, or rape. I believe that all life should be have a chance and not be punished just because its mother was raped, or if she might die. If there is a chance the mother might die, so what one death should not replace another. Plus, I've heard many cases where the mother was supposed to die if she gave birth, but the mother didn't want to give up her child, and they both survived. If you had to chose between your life or your unborn child don't you think it is selfish to chose your own.

No. Assuming the medical problem wasn't related to the instruments involved in producing children, she can just have another kid some other time and it isn't selfish at all. If she dies already, during the birth for example, you're also directly limiting the amount of hedonistic and social value the child would later have extracted by having and bonding with their mother.

Leave that up to the (potential) mother to decide and get the state out of it.

They still (usually) have an easy opportunity to bond with somebody that they can call "mom".

I don't understand how a collection of zygote-embryonic cells is to be imbued with personhood. Women have miscarriages all the time (pregnancy is not automatic). So replacing one potential child with another seems perfectly logical to me. Women do this all the time naturally (though not always without some mental or physical complications), and have throughout human history when infant mortality and childbirth were far more hazardous risks than they are now. It would seem logical to adapt to the changing circumstance and allow more selectivity on the part of people who wish to exercise it (you are not required to) rather than to equate the same level of rights and personhood on a biological function.

My grandmother was almost aborted because the father didn't want a baby and the mother cared more about keeping her man than keeping the child. If my grandma had been aborted then I wouldn't be here and niether would my 7 siblings. I was a fetus too, at one point, and I think I prefer life.

Incidentally, what was wrong about her original comment that it was deemed to be inappropriate enough to merit removing it? I disagreed with it and I think it was sloppy logically as I've since pointed out. But she seems to be equally entitled to whatever strange or extreme opinions and beliefs people can hold and no less entitled to air them for public consumption and have them argued over.

I am Pro-Life all the way. If a birth mother doesn't want her child put it up for adoption. In anycase ,emergency or rape, that is still a child in their, and it would be murder. Why should murder be right just because it's unborn. That fetus in their is a human being, and deserves the right to live.

So…if I were to hold a jug of boiling water over the head of some four-year-old and dump it on him, would all of you freak out? If so, then I think I just found a moral that is pretty dang universal because that is WRONG. -just a thought

You may want to consider whether it is worth it to you to try to equate torture (such as you are describing) with abortion morally. It might be equal for your own consideration, but there are considerable metaphysical gaps that can inform people's beliefs or moral ethics on abortion as on a far different level than torture. It is probably equal to murder if you accept the theological/metaphysical premise that a fetus or a developing embryo is a fully fledged human being already imbued with social and legal rights, but this is merely a theological or subjective premise from which to operate. It is very easily possible on this issue to arrive at a different conclusion as to what constitutes a fully fledged human being endowed with legal and social rights, and more over, to decide that the fully formed woman carrying that fetus has legal and social rights of her own, including the capacity to decide within her own conscience whether to assign these legal and social rights to the potential human being she carries inside her own womb up to or above her own rights, or at some lower level where she might act in self-interest or preservation with some moral justification.

I would imagine this was the original point being made. Not that it is somehow morally or legally acceptable to decide that boiling children alive is okay and that such behavior should be excused under a full-fledged regime of moral relativism. Where a moral position cannot be shown with definite measure to be causing actual harm to society and to individuals within it, which a metaphysical question like this cannot resolve for all of us to some reasonable standard, then it is probably best to allow it to remain a subjective measure that we can still campaign against, study more acutely, and argue over intensely. But generally resolve to leave the authority of the state out of the decisions being made so that we may err on the probability that more decisions will be made appropriately to their circumstances.

Do you really think kids are having sex because they aren't educated about it?

Again nice. Only, to me, wrong is wrong and life is life. How do you know that the child who is having its spinal cord disconnected form it's brain isn't feeling anything? You can't very well ask it and that is a risk I don't think any person should take. To me, it isn't worth it to "end" a potential child under the impression that "it's okay, because they said it is".

I'm not sure how you can claim that I said anything like that. I said "comprehensive sex education" which implies that they're being informed of things like birth control or condoms, STDs, etc. They tend to use them rather than just have unprotected sex when they're reasonably informed and they are available. Which thus means we are less likely to see teenage pregnancies (as well as other adult couples who could more adequately control when they get pregnant). The hostility toward birth control on the part of many anti-abortion advocates is amazingly high and in my opinion, heavily counterproductive toward an actually achieveable goal of reducing the amount of abortions. Which is a goal I would imagine that most pro-choice advocates would be perfectly fine with working on.

You're never going to get rid of all of them because not all states and other nation-states are not going to reissue the bans even if Roe-Wade were (somehow) overturned.

Most miscarriages and abortions occur at a time point well before a late term abortion where the spinal column is disconnected or the skull crushed. For example first term abortions are typically performed using drugs which effectively act to induce a miscarriage. I know however that it's not feeling anything because they don't rip and tear apart the fetal tissue as you describe without administering some sort of drug or procedure to ensure it is necrotic tissue (meaning it's already dead). It's kind of hard to remove a live fetus through the birth canal in case you hadn't noticed. Women don't tend to spend hours in labour delivering babies because it's such a wonderful experience to go through that they want it to last as long as possible. Partial birth methods are a bit less gruesome than this, but apparently illegal in most cases.

In any case, late term abortions like that are very, very rarely made by choice or by some voluntary process. They're almost always due to health complications. This is in part because most states have restrictions on access for such things so that there are only a handful of abortion clinics in the country that perform them. Demand as a result would have to be by this necessity more limited to the wealthy or to people with severe health issues that necessitate the procedure.

So the "it's okay because they said it is" is hardly ever an issue under the logic that most people permit abortions for medical necessities. There are some who are more strident about this still, as can be noted even this debate here, but they represent a minority of moral feeling on this issue. It's basically a moral "self-defence" exception even for the people who feel "abortion is murder" under the typical late-term abortion.
The percentage of actual abortions that this falls under as a result is so extremely low as to be heavily misleading to call it a major problem for society (something like 6% of all abortions occur after 13 weeks and less than .1% after 24). That is consistent across countries with more forgiving access to abortion as well.

There are better and more effective ways to get people to stop needing or wanting abortions than to try to scare them with misleading data and horror stories or to call them all murderers and baby-killers.