Reading Other Topics

While we were discussing the ethics on euthanasia, I started wondering about this other important topic. Atleast all the people on this forum unanimously agree on the ethics of Euthanasia - a person should have the right to die (in dignity). And, if anyone else decides on their behalf whether they shall live or die is not acceptable. If anyone else makes the decision that they need to be put to death, then it's plain murder.

Would the same logic apply to abortion? I mean, the child doesn't even know the meaning of life and death. The child has just been conceived a few weeks ago. In what conditions shall one be allowed an abortion? Should abortion be made illegal, as it is plain murder? If it should be allowed then under what circumstances? If the mother's life is in danger, but the child is fine, then should it be allowed? If the child is suffering from some terminal disease, then what shall we do? Just now we have discussed that even if the person is mentally ill or in coma, in some form of oblivion to pain, then also he/she has the right to decide to die or to live, and noone else can take the decision on his/her behalf. Doesn't the same apply to the child who has not even be born till now? Should he be aborted just because there is some disease which the child might have?

What about other reasons of abortion? Just because the parent's feel that they are not in a condition to raise the child because of their financial or other problems? Or, just because they forgot to take the precautions, and there are some social reasons because of which they can not raise the child? Well, IMO, once a child has been conceived, it has all the rights an adult human being has, and abortion is plain murder. It's a violation of the right to live of any individual!

I don't give a damn about any religious reasons behind these topics, so I don't care what different religions says about these. But, this is my personal opinion about both the topics - abortion and euthanasia. Every individual has a right to die and the right to live. No-one, and I mean, no-one shall take away these rights!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

I disagree.....a thirteen year old or even l0 year old female should have to bear a child to term from rape, when a simple pill can stop the pregnancy??

A fetus should be brought to term with dread disease to die a lingering death under the laws as they stand!!

A young woman, struggling through college or high school, should have to bear a child, unwanted, unplanned for, from a one night stand??

A too old mother who is pregnant with a severely mentally disabled child, should have to bear it.......knowing she will be too old to protect it, care for it as it grows...??

Forgive me, but males should only have a voice in these decisions if they are going to be there 24/7 for the child for 20 some odd years....in all ways.

There are too many abused, neglected, starving children in all countries and all walks of life now.....

The answer is responsible sex....both parties should protect each other....from unwanted pregnancy and from disease..you can get the safety net from any corner grocery.....female and male...

The child has not only the right to live, but he should have the right to come into this world planned for, wanted, loved, with two parents prepared to meet his needs and God willing both of the parents mentally stable.

Abortion is not an easy choice, even for the most callous of females, we were made to breed and protect our young. But I salute any female that chooses not to bring a child into an environment that is not nurturing.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In Switzerland we're currently discussing (and soon voting) about two bills on abortion, and opinions are pretty different.
The current legal situation is quite unclear. Altho the laws would prohibit any form of abortion, authorities won't punish you if certain conditions are met (talks with your doctor and the such).
Now there are two bills. The first one wants to prohibit abortion completely (including heavy punishment), except the mother would die and there's no other way to save her life. In exchange, she would get some (financial) support to raise the child.
The second bill wants to make abortion legal for the first 12 weeks, or if the mother's health/life is at risk. The older the baby is, the greater the risk has to be for the abortion to be legal.

My opinion is that absolute prohibition is utterly ignorant. People (women) should be given the choice to do what they think is best for their (and the unborn) life.
Imagine, f'r instance, a 12 years old girl who is pregnant from rape and is forced to keep the child. That girl's youth is pretty much ruined; her parents will have to take care of the baby, and who dares to estimate the amount of psychological damage the girl (and later the child) suffers from this? It's just plain wrong!
And I can't wholly accept that argument about murder. Taking this to extremes, every kind of sex or contraception would be murder, as contraception kills one egg cell per month (a potential human life), let alone the millions of sperms that die! Today even the pill contains hormones that make it difficult for the fertilized egg to get lodged. Is this murder, too? And when you force the woman to keep and grow her child, what do you get? An mother with serious problems, often resulting in a child with serious problems. And sometimes a destroyed family.

OTOH abortion shouldn't be used as a contraceptive, i.e. there should be some sort of controlling mechanism. Probably having to pay the abortion yourself (if it's not an emergency) is enough. An obligatory talk with a doctor would be even better.

As for who makes the decision, IMHO both (woman and man) should both get a chance to express their feelings/opinion. After all a baby would change the lifes of both of them.
I'd leave the final decision to the woman tho, because it's her body, and because (supposedly) only 3 out of 100 men support their girlfriend/wife at all.

Just my .02. :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

In my opinion, every woman who doesn't want her child should be obliged by law to have a talk to a doctor/psychologist/social person (together with the "father" of the child).

I think the Swiss won't vote against abortion.
Anyways, Swiss females would abort in another country or, very worse, try to abort by hurting themselves.

In the past many women felt more than sorry not have been given enough information concerning the topic.

If I got pregnant, no matter how even if it would have been rape, I would keep the child whatever happened. I wouldn't want to kill something inside me. A life. I'd feel something for it and I can't blame the baby for its father.
Another very hard decision for me would be if I knew my child was very ill and wouldn't live very long. I still ha my problems and I would have psychological problems for a lifetime. But maybe I couldn't bare the responsibilty for this. I just couldn't handle with it, I think, but I'd also feel like a Nazi when I'd abort my ill child.

What makes me very angry is to hear of women who are, sorry, fucking through the world without thinking of contraception.
They get pregnant and abort. Maybe they even get AIDS but that's their problems.
I know a woman (she's about 30) who made exactly this: drunk, unsafe sex, pregnancy, abortion. Sure, she is the one that suffers for her life to have killed a baby (or not if she doesn't care) but, I mean, God, where are we!? Every 12 years old kid knows about contraception and these women just don't use it! I can't believe it. I would believe it if such a woman wanted to get pregnant and keep a optional baby but the other way: It shows how ignorant, careless and indefferent we are.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

My point is simple. Abortion destroys life. What if the doctors say that that it is not possible to carry on with abortion due to any reason. So, shall the mother kill the child as soon as the baby is born? Will that be okay? If killing a child after it's born is murder, then why is it not a murder when it's in the womb?

For all situations such as rape victims, teen pregnancies, women struggling through college, or high school, too old a mother worrying about raising the child, unwanted, unplanned pregnancies, through one night stands or any other reason for that matter, my answer is this - when a woman gets pregnant she has the choice to choose life for her preborn by giving her baby up for adoption or by raising the baby herself. There are many people who want to adopt and prolife groups who can help her to have her baby. There is also help on the internet through websites like http://www.lifecall.org and http://www.silentscream.org (This website graphically shows an abortion 11 weeks after conception).

Two wrongs don't make it right. If anyone committed a mistake, whether it was a one night stand, or whether it was rape, the preborn has no reason to suffer. Why should the child be made to suffer for the mistakes of it's parent's?

Forgive me, but males should only have a voice in these decisions if they are going to be there 24/7 for the child for 20 some odd years....in all ways.

Well, I don't think it's a fight of males and females. Of course, no decision should be forced on anyone. The woman should have a choice for abortion, and they should also be given a choice to murder the child after it's born. But, don't tell me that by making it legal it has become ethical. It's a murder and it will remain a murder whatever the laws say. Even if the child is suffering from a terminal disease, would you have killed the child after it's born? If no, then why do you want the power to kill it when it's not born?

Of course abortion is not an easy choice, it's a brave decision, but why is it brave? Because, a woman knows that she is killing a life, and that is why it is brave of her to go ahead with that decision. There is a 'post abortion syndrome' (PAS) which woman usually suffer from. Women get depressed, have life-long regrets, need counseling, have marital problems and even get suicidal after abortions.

Why can't the woman give up the child for adoption? And contact such agencies which offer help in these circumstances? And, let a life live?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

What if the doctors say that that it is not possible to carry on with abortion due to any reason.

Then the female must carry to term.

So, shall the mother kill the child as soon as the baby is born? Will that be okay? If killing a child after it's born is murder, then why is it not a murder when it's in the womb?
Realistically it is murder....many animals will reabsorb the zygote into themselves if conditions in the enviroment would not support the nurturing of the infant to be...unfortunately we do not have that option. Some of the oldest civilizations on this earth...do kill the infant after birth....usually female.

There are many people who want to adopt and prolife groups who can help her to have her baby.

It is an option..the best option....but this thread is about the Ethics of Abortion.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

Grins.......rape is just one wrong done. For a young adult female...a simple pill will prevent the pregnancy....what about the l3 year old or younger being raped by a family member, no one listens to that...where is her recourse??

Why should the child be made to suffer for the mistakes of it's parent's?

My point exactly....in some circumstances...the child will be born into suffering.....To give life is damn easy....to sustain and nurture it takes committment, a mentally stable parent at least, and resources some do not have.

Yes...the decision to abort does have life long consequences...

And no.....I have never opted to abort for myself...

I have just seen the consequences of a lot of unwanted children.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

For all situations such as rape victims, teen pregnancies, women struggling through college, or high school, too old a mother worrying about raising the child, unwanted, unplanned pregnancies, through one night stands or any other reason for that matter, my answer is this - when a woman gets pregnant she has the choice to choose life for her preborn by giving her baby up for adoption or by raising the baby herself. There are many people who want to adopt and prolife groups who can help her to have her baby.

That is your opinion and I respect it, but are you willing to force your opinion upon any woman (or man, for that matter) who might think different?
Even if abortion is legal (partly or fully), you still don't have to abort!
The Pope says that contraception is a sin, and many Catholics (and probably other religions) share this opinion. But would you accept it if they were about to prohibit contraception by law?

Why can't the woman give up the child for adoption? And contact such agencies which offer help in these circumstances? And, let a life live?

I'm not a woman (nor have I ever given birth to a child) and thus can't describe the feelings a mother has.
From the biological point of view, the baby stimulates (via hormones) the maternal instinct. Many many women find it very hard to give their child away (which, IMHO, is perfectly okay). There are even some stories of surrogate mothers who refused to give the baby away once it was born.

Another example (a more specific one if I may), there are some educations you can't finish when you're pregnant. A very close friend of mine has missed such a chance when she's 'accidently' become pregnant. (She's soon gonna marry tho, so this story has a happy end. :-) ) She's 24 and it'd have been her second apprenticeship (the job she always wanted to do), but what if this happens to a 15 years old girl? Can you expect her to keep the child, give up her education (and many other things), basically destroying many of her future chances just because you think abortion is murder?
What if there is not enough money to raise the child?

As I said before, I strongly oppose abortion as a means of contraception. But I think sometimes it's the best (or least bad) way, and a woman should be allowed to choose the way she thinks is best.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

That is your opinion and I respect it, but are you willing to force your opinion upon any woman (or man, for that matter) who might think different?

My opinion is that forcing people is not really at issue. They will make their own decisions. The point is that the truth of the matter is so very simple and the issues so black and white that we shouldn't even have to wonder what would happen if we forced someone to think one way or another.

Abortion causes death, plain and simple. Willfully causing death is wrong, plain and simple, with very few notable exceptions.

But would you accept it if they were about to prohibit contraception by law?

I think that in general there are too many laws and too few people with common sense and a desire to do good. Society would work much better if people were more self-governing.

So, no, I don't believe that laws are always the answer. However, killing is wrong enough and damaging enough that laws are enacted to prevent it; otherwise we would have innocent people being exploited (and obliterated) by bad people.

As it is, without strict laws against abortion, we have helpless people being exploited by irresponsible people. Laws are needed to prevent that.

Abortion is not a matter of women's rights any more than murder is a matter of killer's rights.

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

I guess, the ratings have changed their meanings once again. I thought the orange ratings were to separate out the average posts from the well-written ones. I really enjoy reading Chris' posts, and I seriously believe that his posts are really well-written. Please don't mistake the *orange* button for showing your disagreement to the opinion of the post!

Jaz, can we allow a person to change it's ratings, just in case there is a change of heart and the person wants to change the ratings at a later stage? Will that be too complicated to implement?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

As an adopted child, I have a rather poignant perspective on this issue.

The only time abortion is okay is when the mother's life is in danger. Period. Note that this can include the severe emotional difficulties inherent in bearing a rape child. That endangers the mother's life in a way that is just as real.

The problem with our society is that we make abortion the choice of the mother in any circumstance. The whole "pro-choice" camp is really misnamed. The way that the issue is championed by so many, it should really be called "anti-responsibility".

(I am making some rather broad statements here, so please forgive me long enough to explain myself. I am aware of the breadth and absolute nature of my statements, and I realize that these issues are more complex than what I have said above would indicate.)

The truth is that to abort is to kill. RCD has it right. Do we run around yelling that nobody allows us to kill ourselves or our neighbors? Why isn't there a major societal clamor for the right to take the life of another? Of one's self? (Casting, for a moment, the euthanasia argument aside--I want to stick with one can of worms at a time ;) )

Contrast that with the major press and attention that the high-noise "pro-choice" movement gets. How would the public respond if they went around with posters saying, "We want the right to kill unborn children!" or "Let us sidestep the natural consequences of our own actions by taking a life! It's our right as women!"? This really does cast a different light on things, doesn't it?

The movement is not really about saving the life of an endangered mother, nor is it about helping people to overcome their errors. It is about wanting to avoid consequences.

Keep in mind that I am talking about the movement, not about abortion in general. As I stated above, I do think that abortion can be justifiable in some circumstances, but those circumstances are extreme and do not involve a previous decision, however bad, of the mother. They are out of her control and have to be dealt with.

To say that abortion is the choice of the mother is to say that some kinds of murder are okay, as long as we don't know the victim yet, or as long as the victim is too young to decide whether it wants to live. Ludicrous.

The truth of the matter is that (except in cases of rape) the mother already made her choice, even if it was a particularly poor one or was poorly thought through. There are natural and proper consequences for bad choices, and this choice happens to be an exceedingly bad one that she will have to live with in one way or another.

It is true that it is unfair that the man should get off "scott free" so often. Men are responsible in these situations every bit as much as the mother is, but they don't bear the burden. It is unfortunate that this kind of irresponsibility is so much easier for men to get away with. The fact is that the woman is the one who gets pregnant. Perhaps, then, it is women who need to take a harder line on unwanted sex and needed contraceptives. One way or another, responsibility should be taken before the child is even a possibility.

I am the result of a poor decision. My very existence today is possible because I was given up for adoption rather than aborted. I have had a wonderful life and continue to enjoy wonderful things. All of that I owe to my biological mother (whom I know), who was wise and kind enough, even at 17 years old, to bear me to term, dealing with all of the emotional difficulties, embarrassment to her family and self, and loss of opportunities that come from doing so, and then give me up without even seeing me. She could not and would not take my life, and for that I am eternally grateful to her.

I call that courage, and I think the world needs more of it. It is the courage to suffer humiliation because one must face the consequences of one's own decisions, and because killing is wrong. It is the courage to get up and move on with life, making the best of that poor decision, because killing is wrong. It is to stand up and say, "Killing is wrong."

Her life is good now. She has married and has several successful children. She feels regret for her poor decision, but imagine how much deeper that regret would be if I had never been given the chance to live!

I live; someone else does not because his mother was a "pro-choice", anti-responsibility advocate.

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

This post was edited by chris on May 21, 2002.

Chris makes some good points, but I am one who thinks that it is the womens choice whether or not she wants to keep a child. I don't think abort is to kill, because the supreme court declares that a fetis is not a human. I think that abortion is wrong when the mother is in labor. That I think is wrong, but I would still say that it is the mothers choice.

I'd rather die on my feet, than live on my knees.

If there's one thing I've learned about abortion, it's that it is the woman's choice to decide. What place to men have on whether or not women should get an abortion (in general, not if the man is the father)? I honestly don't think it is the government's place to decide the morals of abortion. In other words, abortion should be legal under certain conditions and left for the mother to decide whether or not it is right.

An abortion clinic should be opened, but it woudn't operate like a normal doctor's practice. Abortions would have to have legal right given by the courts. For example, if the situation is that the mother just wants an abortion because it makes her tummy look fat, then no, the abortion shouldn't be allowed. Only in the case of rape or situation that deems itself necessary for an abortion due to heavy financial burdens, then abortion should be allowed by the woman. Whether or not she chooses to take the offer is entirely up to her.

If I were pregnant (stretching my imagination), I wouldn't have the abortion just because I might one day see my son/daughter graduate and be thankful I never chose otherwise.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jul 09, 2002.

I totally disagree with adoption as a compromise to abortion. If a woman is deciding against her child you can't force her to give birth to it. It's psychologically seen too much for woman and child.
With abortion in the first months, the woman couldn't be able to develop a strong relationship for her child as she can in nine months. Nine months are a very long time to get used to the fact you'll get a child. You also have to go through all the pregnancy stuff: go to the ultrasound (see it!), buy clothes for the belly, participate in several lections and last but not least, endure the pain while giving birth. A pain that can only be calmed through holding the child in your arms. Then you'll see it.
Give me a name of one mother who will say then: "Take it away, I don't need this, don't wanna have it".
Every woman will cry mabye for her whole live and her child will keep asking his "wrong" parents why and who and so on. It's a crack in the soul of a child to get to know that his parents aren't the real ones, that the natural mother was too young and so on. There will be a lot of arguments and in most cases the child wants to see his mother. Who will have to explain and so on.
I would never give a child for an adoption if I could abort.
Can you remember having felt anything by the age of 2 months or so? I don't think you're killing a human being. You're killikng something that could become a human being and you're killing this everytime you f**k or jerking off. (Sorry!)
Every woman should have a choice.
We know quite well what can happen if a woman doesn't have one (see "The Cyder House Rules" by John Irving)

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

I'm sorry, but you are simply dead wrong. It is not better to kill a child than to give it away. Period.

I'm sorry that the woman has to go through 9 months of pregnancy, and then labor, and then give the child away. Really, I am. But, the woman made the mistake, not the child. It only makes sense that some sacrifice should be made in order to avoid killing an innocent child.

In this case, the sacrifice is not only some inconvenience (which I addressed), but also giving the child up. If the woman cares about the child's future, and she can't support it, she will give it up, not kill it.

Like I said, I am adopted, so I am rather biased here. But, I feel that the bias is wholly justified. The problem with our society is that people don't want to pay for their mistakes. They want them to go away. Well, tough. Wanting a mistake to go away doesn't change the fact that killing is wrong. Killing an innocent unborn child is no answer. Giving it a chance to have a good life, and perhaps better than it would have had were it kept, is a very good alternative to abortion.

In fact, when placing the two side by side, there is only one choice.

<soapbox>
Now, this is directed at the negative-rating-happy person wandering around here: rate us down all you want. The posts here have been well written (all of them, by everyone!), whether you agree with them or not.

I may be going out on a limb, here, but I believe that my writing skills and style have never once merited a negative rating. I do not flame people, use profanity, advertise, troll, nor spam the list. Why the negative rating all of a sudden?

If you don't agree, hit the reply button and tell me. Don't rate me down for disagreement. That's not what it is for.

I would not have said anything, but I noticed that a large number of well-written posts on this topic have been rated down, as well. Not a single one of them deserved it.
</soapbox>

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

I'm sorry, but you are simply dead wrong. It is not better to kill a child than to give it away. Period.

Look, this is not about killing a child. I mean, come on, nobody's talking about giving birth to the baby and then wringing its neck! It's something that could become a baby within a couple o' months.

As Martin asked, when does life start?

A sperm and an egg cell have the potential to develop into a baby. Does anybody call it murder when a sperm bangs into a rubber (-->millions of dead babies at one shot!), or the fertilized egg cell can't get lodged and dies because of some other contraceptive?

I can understand that you might be biased because you are adopted (I've got an adoptive brother myself), and I understand that many people wouldn't exist today, had their mothers aborted.
But try the same reasoning with contraception instead of abortion: How many people wouldn't be alive today, had their parents used a contraceptive?
And now tell me that contraception is murder because of this!

But, the woman made the mistake, not the child.

Sometimes, yes. Sadly enough there are enough people who chose abortion as their means of contraception.
But what is (f'r instance) a woman supposed to do when she's about to get raped?
"Wait a minute sir, would you please use this rubber?"
What about sexual abuse within the family, or with rape drugs? Put some Rohypnol in her drink (your local drug dealer will happily help you) and she won't even remember being raped!
There are some circumstances where abortion is the best possible solution, even for the unborn child. It might cause worries, but everything else would still be worse.

PS, I agree with you on the rating thing.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on May 22, 2002.

I see your point. I addressed the issue of rape in my earlier posts, and I feel that abortion can be justifiable in that case, as well as when the mother's life is in danger. So, I think we are in agreement there.

However, your arguments about contraception do not and cannot hold water. Contraception is not murder like abortion is. A dead sperm or a dead egg is about the same thing as the cells in your hair or fingernails. A fertilized egg that has a chance of making it without negative intervention is a living (albeit early-stage) human being, and is different from either the mother or the father. It is a new person, a new life.

Killing one's own cells (growing hair, shedding dead skin, contraception, etc) is a far cry different from killing a brand new soon-to-be independent life.

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

A fertilized egg that has a chance of making it without negative intervention is a living (albeit early-stage) human being, and is different from either the mother or the father. It is a new person, a new life.

Let me ask you a dumb question.

When a woman takes the pill, and an egg gets fertilized anyway (nothing is 100% safe), and the fertilized egg can't lodge (which is one of several effects of the pill), the pill has basically killed the baby in its earliest stage of development. So there's a chance that by taking the pill, a potential mother kills a new life and doesn't even know it.

Is this negligent homicide?

Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to sound sarcastic. I'm just trying to explain my point of view (which might differ a little bit from yours).

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on May 22, 2002.

hmmmmm......well to be absolutely medically technical.....fertilized eggs do not always attach in the appropriate areas.

If they attach or get blocked in the fallopian tubes, they are life threatening and will kill the host

Fertilized eggs are sloughed out of the uterus all the time during a women's fertile years if there is a problem with the uterus, infection present, chemical imbalance, trauma, etc.

Also in one cycle there is usually only one zygote at risk, one egg is released and millions of sperm try like heck to be the winner to fertilize....

I am not picking up how you guys know how ratings are being done.....to be quite honest, if I don't see a red on someone, I figure we are trucking along quite well.

No one here is going to change anyone's mind on something they have strong views on, and if they do have strong views....it is usually due to personal experience or knowledge.

I thought the idea is like a group of people around a kitchen table......discussing different areas in an free thought forum.
Hopefully getting a different view, or seeing another side from someone else's experience or knowledge. You may disagree totally, but you support everyone's right to express their views.

If you let it get too heated.....then we are losing what makes it very special.

And lol.....I can't figure out where Chris or Frank got lousy ratings....dang it..Chris did the bestest Pun and is wise and for Pete's sake.......Frank is pregnant......his hormones are driving him crazy....we gotta give him a little leeway here till he is a Father.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on May 22, 2002.

Again, I see your point. Let me just acknowledge that you have made a very good point, and then clarify my statement a bit.

A fertilized egg that is not able to stay embedded never really had a chance to begin with, and therefore fits within my definition above. The effects of the "pill" are really in place before conception ever occurs, and the fertilized egg never really has a chance beyond that. Now, I acknowledge that things get even thornier when you take into account the "day after" pills, etc.

An egg that can't embed is not negligent homicide, in my opinion. If it was, then all of the natural abortions that happen in the extremely early stages when people are trying to get pregnant would also fall into that category.

So, I agree that splitting hairs on this point is not very instructive nor very helpful. It does nothing for the arguments on either side, since things rapidly degenerate into the finer points of what is alive and what is not. I agree that when you get down to this point, that is a question that is very difficult to answer.

Having said all that, I think my arguments make more sense when split into a few simple points:

1) Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong.

When is it not murder? It is clearly murder when the child has a human form (we have these emotions about how things "look" for a reason), but that point is easy to split hairs on, because abortion can happen at many different developmental stages. So, where clarification is necessary (especially in the early stages, like embedding after fertilization, etc), I invoke point number 2:

2) Abortion is an unhealthy and incorrect escape mechanism. These escape mechanisms represent much that is wrong with society today.

This goes along with the notion that a big problem with people is their readiness to sidestep responsibility for their own actions. It's easier to make someone else suffer for my mistakes, so why not do it? The patent unfairness in this is evident when one considers that a woman who exercised poor enough judgement to be part of a one night stand will readily make the innocent unborn child pay the price for it.

Is the child at fault? Not at all. Is it hard for the woman to go through pregnancy and birth, only to do what I consider is the right thing and either keep the child or give it up for adoption? Yes. Is that a reasonable price to pay for a spectacular mistake? I think so. Is killing the child a reasonable price for it to pay for the woman's mistake? How could it be? It hasn't made any mistakes.

(For my thoughts on the man's part in this, see my other posts)

Now, like the first point, this one can get down to some crazy hair-splitting as well, especially when one considers rape, danger to the woman, danger to the child, or pure emotional trauma. In these difficult issues, I invoke the final point:

3) Abortion is justified when the mother is in immediate physical or serious emotional jeopardy.

The last point is intentionally subjective and vague. If you can get past the first two points (and I believe that the majority of abortions would not make it past point number 1, and that a vast majority would falter at point number 2) then abortion becomes a very difficult judgement call. It is an emotional and a difficult decision to make, and nobody can make it for anybody else. At that point, and at that point only, does the woman really have a choice to make that nobody can blame nor judge her for, no matter what the outcome.

If she makes the choice against the direction of the first two points, in my opinion, she is clearly in the wrong, and the choice to abort does not really belong to her.

I think that pretty well sums up how I feel and what I think about the issue in toto.

C

PS: It wasn't a dumb question. I do respect your viewpoint very much, so I apologize if I got a little heated a few posts ago :)

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

This post was edited by chris on May 22, 2002.

I think this discussion is going a bit too far.
We could also say (hard gone) that abortion helps regulate the population because when every woman keeps her accidental child where will we go? There will be many adoptives. I know there are some few families (but thanks to modern medicine they become less) who can't (or don't want) get children and so want an adoptive.
There are thousands of organisations who will look for one for you and mostly because millions of children are dying in South Africa and other 3rd world countries. Families who want to adopt help saving a life. You know contraception is a big problem in these countries! The woman just get pregnant and pregnant but can hardly nurture themselves.
So we European etc. have big privileges: contraception and social help.
But what I want to say is: A woman should have the opportunity to decide for herself, together with the father and after several discussions with experts. Abortion is a shock for every woman and noone is doing it for fun. Every one sure had many sleepless nights on that topis because it's a hard decision. Sure, some people say it's easy to take two tablets and go home but it isn't. And also afterwards the woman has to deal with it.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Wow, you've got me.

I don't quite agree about the murder thing (I guess I'm too pragmatic a person). Other than that, I totally share your point of view. There should be a considerable inhibition treshold for abortion. The problem is, how dou you make it difficult enough for most, but not too difficult for women in need?

And were we proclaiming the same opinion all the time without noticing it? :-)

Anyways, thanks for taking so much time. You're a great partner in discussion.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

There should be a considerable inhibition treshold for abortion. The problem is, how dou you make it difficult enough for most, but not too difficult for women in need?

1. A considerable inhibition treshold?
I don't understand. I always thought there is a very, very high psychological inhibition treshold, don't you think? Do you think it's easy for a woman to abort like going shopping?

2. Please explain the next sentence to me, I don't get it. I'd like to answer it, too. I don't want to misunderstand you maybe your explanation makes clear what you want to say.
Thanks!

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

There should be a considerable inhibition treshold for abortion. The problem is, how dou you make it difficult enough for most, but not too difficult for women in need?

The thing is that this ought to be self-regulating, like most things really ought to be. Like I said, there are too many laws and not enough people with common sense. The threshold should be self-imposed because people don't want to abort as a first option.

The trouble is that many do want to because (and this is where Orchid jumps on me) it's the easy way out.

Now, it's not easy for most of them, but it is easy for enough of them (read "teenage girls who would rather abort than tell their parents that they're pregnant") that it's a big problem, and the threshold is not self regulating.

Wherever a good threshold is needed and it just isn't self regulating, that's where laws are needed. I am not a law maker, so I have no idea what kind of laws would strike the right balance, but I believe that laws right now are far too lax.

And were we proclaiming the same opinion all the time without noticing it? :-)

You know, I think we were! It's always nice to come to a consensus, isn't it?

Anyways, thanks for taking so much time. You're a great partner in discussion.

Ditto to you. It's been a good discussion.

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

Wherever a good threshold is needed and it just isn't self regulating, that's where laws are needed. I am not a law maker, so I have no idea what kind of laws would strike the right balance, but I believe that laws right now are far too lax.

I think it's not only about making abortion more difficult. Preventive measures like (e.g.) better sex education would probably help avoid many potential abortions.
I kinda like the idea that you need to have a talk with a specialist before you're allowed to abort (as it is in Switzerland). The specialist has to explain you all the alternatives before you make your final decision.

Another thing is the cost of the abortion. IMHO women should have to pay it themselves if it's not an emergency or so.

Oh, and if their partner pressures them to abort, he should at the very least be forced to pay for it & be with her (=present) during the actual abortion. :-)

Ditto to you. It's been a good discussion.

Merci! :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Did you read my questions?

Doesn't seem like... :-(
Maybe my participation isn't needed anymore anyway...

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This post was edited by Orchid on May 23, 2002.

I agree with every statement Null just made.

With that, I think I'll start wandering more in the other topic areas. I'm exhausted!

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

Amen to that......I feel like gave birth to a calf. Sideways.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

This post was edited by gentledeepwaters on May 23, 2002.

Amen to that......I feel like gave birth to a calf. Sideways.

A quick poll for everyone. Which is more graphic? That statement above, or the "silent scream" videos?

:)

C

Sig Wanted -- Apply Within

No matter which one it is, GDW's example sure sure hurts a lot more!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Can you remember having felt anything by the age of 2 months or so? I don't think you're killing a human being. You're killikng something that could become a human being.

I think this is the most absurd argument I have ever heard. Sorry Orchid, but I don't have any words to express my feelings! Do you know that at the age of 4 weeks (gestation period - which is 2 weeks after the pregnancy) the baby's heart has already started beating? Do you know that at the age of 8 weeks, the brain has also started functioning? This is ridiculous! How can you be so ignorant of a life inside you?

After reading your argument I decided to actually watch the abortion video on silentscream.org. It is in 5 parts. It shows an abortion of a 12 weeks old foetus (a woman is not able to feel the baby until it is 20 weeks old). 20 weeks is the legal age of the baby to be allowed for abortion by many countries (India has that age, and abortion is legal in India since 1970). And believe me Orchid, I vomited when I was watching part 2 of the video. By the time I finished watching it's 4th part, I vomited again. I just couldn't watch the little baby trying to escape the instruments that the doctor had inserted to kill the baby. The baby did open it's mouth, as if trying to scream, before it's head was torn apart from the rest of the body. I just didn't have the courage to watch the 5th part of the video in which the brain of the baby was crushed! Sorry, if I am being gory here in explaining the details, but I challenge you, and everyone on NAO to just watch all the 5 parts of the video which show an actual abortion thru an ultrasound at this website!

Please no one is trying to force you for anything. I am not with people who will force a decision on anyone whether it is a decision to kill your baby or a decision to not let you die, when you don't want to live. Everyone has the power to make the choice. I am just trying to say that whatever decision anyone takes, don't tell me that since it's legal, or since you don't have any attachments to the baby, it's okay to kill. I don't want to go into a debate as to when does a life start, but I do know when you are killing a preborn, it is alive! And, can express it's pain, just like any human being would do.

Just watch the video and let me know what do you think, when the doctor is trying to crush the body parts of 12 week old foetus, and the heartbeat of the baby increases from 104 times per minute to 120 times per minute, and the baby is trying very hard to escape the clutches of death? Just let me know then whether it's okay to kill?

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

[thinkmode]well, well, well...okay then, lets enter another round....<sigh> why does it always have to be me, then?[/thinkmode]

Once again I have to ask the same question again: when does life start?

What you, rather the abortion antis, are doing here is a forbidden stimulus of lower human instincts. Something that looks human does not necessarily have to be human. Of course everybody looking at these pictures got at least a bad feeling with it. But one has to ask first why is that so? Because you're looking at something that *looks* like a human being that gets killed.

But I dare to question two facts in this statement: is it in fact a human being? And can something be killed that's not alive?

Let me give an example for this emotional guided misjudgements: everybody smiles and gets a warm feeling while looking at a butterfly gently weaving in the wind. How many people think about killing it? How might other people react if someone does in fact kill it? But about all of these people crying about the dead butterfly wont hesitate a single second to kill a spider or a bug crawling up their leg. Why?

Or: how many fish is caught and killed everday to feed us? Noone, well, only few people show resistance to that. But think about the outcries about reports of dolphins being caught in those trawls. Suddenly the same action that feeds us on the one hand becomes murder on the other hand. Why?

As soon as there are emotions involved logic is switched off. So if you really wonna discuss the facts about a difficult topic like this, at least *try* to leave emotions outside (I know its difficult or nearly impossible anyway). But stoking these emotions and using its effects for own purposes is something I'd like to call manipulation!

Correct me if I'm wrong, wasn't it you, RCD, who demanded the use of nuclear weapons against your neighbour? Wonder how you will tell your bomb not to kill unborn babies, but their so mighty evil Daddies only...

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

No, I won't watch this video, I will never watch a execution (what would lead us to the next topic) and I would never watch an euthanasia nor will I ever watch a butcher killing an animal.
I just can't look at it. Now you will take out your flame thrower again to flame me because you think I am ignorant of not seeing a difference between killing an innocent human being, an nnocent animal and a guilty human being. But I can. I just can't see the act of it. These pictures seem to me a bit like those anti cigarette campaigns (you know, pictures of lungs on the box and so).
Do you want every woman in big trouble (not able to raise the child) to watch this video and then say: "Look you devil, look what you're going to do"? It's blackmailing in some way and in another way it's "making her a bad conscience and reproaches".
But if it must be it just must.
And every waisted egg and sperm has got human DNA and cells so a living being, too.
As I already stated I'd have problems with a woman who wants to abort like my neighbour who kind of lost her best friend because she couldn't understand she could have sex without contraception and then aborted. (The hight was that she said she had kept it if the father would have been her friends brother who didn't feel any affection for her... but that's another topic).

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Maybe I'm missing your point completely, but hey, did anybody ever say abortion is fun?
It's always a difficult (and painful) decision, and nobody here tries to deny that!
You know, the Swiss anti-abortionists had to withdraw one of their (very penetrant!) campaings. They showed images of abortion 'leftovers' and the such, hoping that it would produce bad feelings about abortion. However, their campaign badly backfired because the pictures were so disgusting that people started protesting against them.
I don't think trying to make people feel guilty about their (possible) decisions is a good way to argue. Abortion is a tough decision anyway, disgusting pictures only make a hard way even harder.

About the movies. I've tried to watch them, but I'm afraid the quality was so bad I didn't recognize much. Is there any player option I'm missing? (Using Windoze Media Player 6.4)

By the way, speaking of the India/Pakistan conflict... when was the last time you've watched a reallife movie about war victims, or Chernobyl? War is murder, too.
Yet you still want India to attack Pakistan.
I know you have your reasons, and I assume you do mind about the victims a war would claim. It must have been a hard decision. Yet you have your reasons and think it's the best (or least terrible) solution. (<-- Absolutely no irony intended)

Please consider this: a woman who wants to abort has to make a tough decision, too. She doesn't want to abort just for fun. Often abortion is the only way to avoid problems she can not solve. If no other choice is left, it doesn't mind whether she's happy with it or not.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I think I was unable to put forward my point-of-view clearly. The rush of adrenalin in my bloodstream while trying to defend my points allowed me a gap to think before writing properly. I would like to say my point one more time, this time trying to be more specific.

0. I don't want anyone to be forced on this issue. It is completely upto the parents (especially the mother) to decide what she wants to do.
1. Abortion is Murder.
2. IMO, some types of murders are okay. I have mentioned this earlier in my middle-east post too that, it is okay to kill in the following circumstances :-
   a) while fighting for your survival,
   b) while defending yourself, or
   c) while fighting for your country in a war,

Abortion in a situation when it becomes life-threatening for either the child or the mother is okay. But, that does not mean it is not killing. It is a murder, but it is okay IMO. Similarly, in a war, when you are fighting for your country, you are definitely killing the opponent, but it is okay, again IMO, because it falls under the above 3 categories.

What triggered my emotions in the earlier posts was that people don't want to accept it as a murder, and even though they are saying that noone does it for fun, they are also adding that it is okay, and that we are not killing a human being, or something that can become a human being. I don't quite agree to that argument. Please, accept that it is a human being, when I see a human figure, when I see a baby responding to different kind of stimulus, when I know that the heart of the baby has started functioning at the age of 4 weeks of gestational age, then please don't tell me that since we don't remember anything at that age, it's okay for our parents to kill us! So, I just wanted to *impose* my opinion on anyone, instead of trying to convince them with real arguments, that it was murder. If you do accept that it's a murder, then I have put forward my point. When is it okay to commit that murder is a different point. Well, that's all I had to say.

And, I believe that Chris has beautifully described the situations when is it okay and when is it not okay to perform that act.

AFA the video is concerned, well, I can not say anything about the veracity of it. If it does sound like a hoax and the baby looks more than 3 months old, then I apologize for pointing you to that website. Yes, I agree that the quality of the video is very bad, but I was able to see a much better picture (still not good enough) when I watched it at a significantly lower resolution.

That's it from my end on this issue.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

So I finally have to comment as well here:

I tried to view the videos (I saw all 5) and I hardly can see anything as the quality is way too bad. In part 5 when the show dead fetuses I have to tell you that they are FAR older than 3 months. I've seen similars on the "Körperwelten" exhibition where they also showed several malfomed ones, most of them died during pregnancy, some were born dead and I also saw similar fetuses at the pathology of the University of Innsbruck.

Therefore I can't handle this as an objective documentation of abortion but as what it is: a prapaganda movie of anti-abrotion guys.

And here we are at the main problem and I fully agree with Martin: If you want to discuss such a topic at least _try_ to be objective (all of you). Otherwise a discussion doesn't make sense IMO.

And as I see it all it's about is the question when does life start. You can try to answer that question medically, you can try to answer it legally but I bet you won't find the correct answer as this is still one of natures secretes.

If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything. -- Mark Twain

This post was edited by madmaxx on May 22, 2002.

You are right on that Mad Maxx....it is still a secret.....

One point that has not been brought up fully, is the reason Pro Choice was fought for and won.

The sad truth is...abortion has been going on for as long as man has had a faint idea of how to go about it.

Pro choice was fought for to prevent the wirehanger, knitting needle, crochet hook, herbs, drugs, do it yourself or quick fix quacks or legitimate doctors breaking the law to prevent the god awful horrors and outright deaths these methods brought about to desperate women.

And if Pro Choice is not in place.....it will come back.

quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Maybe we can discuss the legal issues too in a separate thread. I was reading an article recently about a similar situation in India. India is one of the earliest countries to legalise abortion (as early as 1970). And, since then instead of helping the pro-choice mothers, it has infact made things difficult for them due to the discrepancies in the law.

I will read up on this again, and then will post something soon...

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

I fully aggree with GDW in every point.

My point is simple. Abortion destroys life.

My question is as simple as that: when does life start?
From the biological point of view the unfertilized ovum is alive as well, but nature kills it once a month...
I dont wonna get pathetic here, sorry.
My true belief is noone - especially not noninvolved males - has a right to tell any woman what to do under whatever circumstances she got pregnant. Its her and only her decision, because and she alone has to live with this decision for the rest of her life whatever this decision looks like.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was deleted by request of the author.

Can't be true! If it is, then I guess, one of you *must* be wrong! :)

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

...sometimes even miracles happen! ;-)

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de