nogods4me

Oh, so you are capable of deciding those cases, but the mothers themselves are not capable of deciding in other cases. Children to be born in abject paverty, or to a parent or parents who don't want them, or arre too young to properly care for them. In those instances you have already decided for the parent. What gives you the right to do so?
Why are the situations I mentioned any different from the ones you mentioned. If you oppose abortion because it is the murder of the inocent, then stand by your convictions, if it's murder for a woman to abort a healthy child, freely conceived, then it's murder to abort a child born of rape, or a child likely to be born with debilitating illnesses, is it not?

Toto

Vylo is the one who makes it "easy" - he wants to outlaw most abortions unless they meet his personal test of an approved reason.

I don't know what you find to be disgusting about the idea that a woman should have control over her own body. I suspect that you have never had to face the issue for yourself or someone close to you.

You may choose to wrestle with whatever issues you need to wrestle with. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. But don't impose your unscientific view that an embryo or a 3 month fetus is equal in value to a fully formed human being on the rest of society. Don't assume that pregnant girls or women are unable to make the right decision for themselves without your help.

After all, what is a greater threat to humanity as a whole - a woman's decision to abort one pregnancy, allowing her the option to get pregnant later when she can handle parenthood responsibly, or the current situation imposed by anti-choice zealots that has led to overpopulation and social breakdown?

simian

I just remembered a quote from somebody who would not choose an abortion for themselves (probably butchering it, but you will get the basic idea):

"Any government that can force a pregnancy to be carried to term could in the future force a pregnancy to be terminated."

Simian

Jewel

"The liberty and health of a woman are much more defensible than the potential life of a fetus, especially at the time most abortions are performed."

I find nothing disgusting or disturbing about the above comment. I do, however, find disgusting that anyone would see me, or any other woman, to be nothing more than an incubator. If you can't trust me with the choice then how the hell could you trust me with a child?

CJD

Vylo is the one who makes it "easy" - he wants to outlaw most abortions unless they meet his personal test of an approved reason.

If that's what he wants, then he's wrong, same as anyone else who thinks this way.

I don't know what you find to be disgusting about the idea that a woman should have control over her own body.

Don't put words in my mouth. What I find disgusting is the notion that life must preserved by snuffing out life.

Don't assume that pregnant girls or women are unable to make the right decision for themselves without your help.

Don't put that on me, when I have not even remotely suggested I would do such a thing. Nonetheless, there is no easy answer to this issue, and I reject all the attempts in thread to alleviate the horrible mess.

After all, what is a greater threat to humanity as a whole - a woman's decision to abort one pregnancy, allowing her the option to get pregnant later when she can handle parenthood responsibly, or the current situation imposed by anti-choice zealots that has led to overpopulation and social breakdown?

This is a bit short-sighted, don't you think, Toto? If this truly describes the choice we have, let's not pretend we are justified with either choice. Consider the following (W. Berry, What Are People For?):

We have seen this coming for a long time, folks. And we should never pretend we're only doing what we have to do. That's what Sartre rightly called a decision in 'bad faith.' It's like if I were a judge and the jury came back with a decision for capital punishment, and I said to myself, "It's my job to follow through with this, therefore I must." No, that's bad faith. I could get up and walk out that courtroom and never look back. I don't have to anything I don't want to do. That's why I'll never accept . . .

. . . this as an excuse for anything.

CJD

* edited to add: Jewel, I never once said that I would not trust you to make your own choices. You are assuming. Have you not ever met anyone who left you to your own choice, but nonetheless found your choice despicable?

Jewel

You did not say those exact words, but it seemed to me to be implied in:

If I misinterpreted that statement, then I apologize. However, you weren't the only person my comment was directed toward.

Yes. My mother the day I told her of my atheism.

You are fully entitled to believe any action (or idea) to be despicable that you wish. I certainly do not find the idea of abortion a pleasant one. None the less, if I were to get pregnant I should be able to make my choice -- whatever that may be -- and carry it out. Ideally with the same level of privacy that is accorded to my other medical decisions. There are many who would deny me that choice if they had the chance. I applaud Judge Williams for upholding the reproductive rights of women in Virginia.

Toto

So what are you arguing for?

What exactly are you arguing for?

Sometimes saving one life requires sacrificing another. Sometimes saving the life of a pregnant woman means aborting the fetus, even if it was wanted. Yes, that's disgusting, that life is that way.

If you agree that the state should not outlaw abortions, I am happy, although I don't like your agonizing over the imaginary life of an embryo.

No. It's being realistic.

I don't see what your quote has to do with anything here.

Up until the 70's, most civilized people thought of early abortion as just birth control after the fact. Abortion was a primary means of birth control in Japan and in the Soviet Union. The Catholic Church opposed abortion for basically the same reasons that they opposed birth control in general.

The current anti-abortion movement has had to search around for a justification for their position, since birth control is now seen as acceptable, and too many people laugh at the idea that sex should be confined to procreation. So they have constructed an imaginative scenario of "life begins at conception." They try to pretend that a fetus at 3 months, with no operative brain, can feel pain. They try to convince young women that abortion is murder. That's where your bad faith lies.

yguy

You disagree that murder shouldn't be legal?

The law at present reflects that view, but it is not within the power of legislators or jurists to modify the inescapable objective reality that a fetus is a human life.

The only way pregnancy can be forced on the woman is by rape.

Who are you do declare a fetus something other than an innocent human life?

Toto

I and most of the civilized world disagree that a fetus is a person.

You assert this without proof. Why do you say that a fetus is a human life? What are your criteria for "human life"?

Women who are forced to continue a pregnancy that they do not want to might as well be rape victims.

Are you maintaining that pregnancy is the correct punishment for having sex?

If you think that the fetus is a person, why would rape make any difference?

That is the only logical conclusion I can come to. The fetus has the potential of becoming a person, but only if the woman sacrifices herself to bring it to term. At 3 months, the fetus has no personality, no functioning brain, no ability to feel pleasure or pain, in short has nothing much in common with persons, other than DNA.

yguy

Criterion #1: the entity in question must be alive.

Criterion #2: the entity in question must be human rather than of some other species.

Obviously a fetus meets both criteria. Human eggs and sperm don't fit those criteria, as neither has of itself the potential to mature into an adult human if placed in a womb.

Fetuses which are aborted might as well be Holocaust victims.

Those responsible make it their own punishment. To avoid that punishment, they must insist that the fetus take responsibility for what they did.

It makes no difference as to the humanity of the fetus, but the woman can't be said to have had a choice in the matter. Such cases should be handled according to their specific circumstances.

Or, to put it another way, the woman can only avoid the inconvenience of pregnancy by sacrificing the unborn child without its consent.

This is by no means a matter of scientific fact. All we know is that we are unable so far to state with certainty that an embryo can feel pain. Also, it has not been demonstrated that consciousness is inextricably linked to such neural activity as we are able to observe.