Abortion: Murder

[niviene]

All I can say is that I'm glad I live in the USA where people like goku don't get to have control over my body. Because in that case, I would consider goku just as bad as the rapists themselves, and to use his own words, I'd probably kill him with my own hands. Even after what has happened to me in my life to sway my opinion in the extremes of both directions of this issue, I am still able to see where both sides may make a case. I am not for abortion unless it's an extreme circumstance, but the fact that people try and shove religious ideals on me as law makes me hate that religion and pushes me toward a different one. I respect that other people have different opinions - but let those opinions apply to yourself, and my own to myself. Call me a murderer, and I will call you a rapist.

 

If a fetus can be taken outside of the mother and survive under the care of any other human, then it is not "dependent" on the mother. Clay, that's a great photo you posted... it looks just like little Lexy's hand did, so tiny. I despise people who think abortion is an ok way to deal with a pregnancy they turned up with because they "aren't ready" or "are scared" - in my opinion, that is something you should have planned for before you had sex. Someone else made a good point, as well, about rape being a stipulation for abortion - you might have a lot more women claiming "rape" just to have their abortion. But it does need to remain an option for when it is really necessary - and there still should be requirements that have to be met, such as before a certain gestation has been reached. You should be required to go somewhere immediately for treatment - anonymously if necessary for protection - and that way it can be done within a week or two of conception. You should have to sign an affadavit testafying to the reason of your visit - if it is a later term deal and the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother and an emergency abortion is necessary, the doctor (and a second opinion) should also show proof included in this documentation. More than one of these affadavits showing up in someone's file might then trigger an investigation; a finding that information was falsified or that the person lied to have the procedure might then result in charges being filed against her for abuse of an emergency service, or even for manslaughter or whatever would apply in the case. It should not be easy, but it should be an option. And, punishment - swift, severe and certain - should be involved for mis-representation.

 

What do you think of something like that?

 

Do you think there is any way for people to come to a compromise that will protect life while also allowing for emergency cases to be dealt with in some way? Keep in mind that this is the American legal system we're talking about.... we wouldn't get anything extreme either way, which is why I am asking. Would you prefer if it were left to the states, so that each society's values might be slightly more reflected in the law in each area for this issue?

[rockytriton]

well, the problem is that here in the US, people like goku are getting more control every day, so right now, most countries in Europe are more free than we are.

[goku]

one more question goku, suppose that this did happen to your wife (God forbid of course) but if it did happen, what would you do if she found out that she was pregnant and knew that this evil rapist was the father, what would you do if she said that she will not have the baby and that she will get an abortion?

i know that my wife would not do that, but, if she did not sure what i'd do. beg for the babies life i guess. :hyper:

[weakandpowerless]

Hey everyone, I'm new to this forum, although I have been reading several threads on here for the past couple of days now, and I feel this discussion is a very gray topic. My national issues class is doing a debate unit on several major topics such as this one going on in the United States, and I'm doing the abortion issue taking the pro-life stance. I'll be debating this coming Thursday in front of a real audience and judges. After doing about a little over a month of research on this topic the evidence I've found has definately favored pro-life. In a study done by the Alan Guttmacher Insititute they found 21% of people's most important reason for getting an abortion done is either because of inadequate finances or they simply weren't ready for the responsibility (to clarify, both were tied for 21%). Only 1% claimed rape or incest. Also, in my reserach I found that most of the abortions were done on people in their teenage years or in their early 20's. Now I'm not trying to imply that since the rape and incest count is so low that they should be disregarded in this debate since thats going to be a main focal point in my opponents rebuttal. And I'm not saying all the blame should be put on high school and college students lack of responsibility. The purpose of this post was to ask you guys since this is a gray topic, how do I go about my pro-life stance? I'm in a rut here because my teacher has specifically stated that you can't go gray because that will make the opponents argument look better. Well, they would look bad if they made it a black and white issue. I can't go up there and make it seem like it's black and white because it's not. As stated in previous posts the idea of abortion being illegal once the baby is no longer braindead seems like a reasonable idea. I'm almost tempted to put that into my stance. Anyways, before I ramble on any guidance? Thanks.

 

 

P.S: Don't give me any religious propaganda please. :hihi: I strictly want to focus on the science of the issue. For one, I don't believe in a higher power.

[goku]

Hey everyone, I'm new to this forum, although I have been reading several threads on here for the past couple of days now, and I feel this discussion is a very gray topic. My national issues class is doing a debate unit on several major topics such as this one going on in the United States, and I'm doing the abortion issue taking the pro-life stance. I'll be debating this coming Thursday in front of a real audience and judges. After doing about a little over a month of research on this topic the evidence I've found has definately favored pro-life. In a study done by the Alan Guttmacher Insititute they found 21% of people's most important reason for getting an abortion done is either because of inadequate finances or they simply weren't ready for the responsibility (to clarify, both were tied for 21%). Only 1% claimed rape or incest. Also, in my reserach I found that most of the abortions were done on people in their teenage years or in their early 20's. Now I'm not trying to imply that since the rape and incest count is so low that they should be disregarded in this debate since thats going to be a main focal point in my opponents rebuttal. And I'm not saying all the blame should be put on high school and college students lack of responsibility. The purpose of this post was to ask you guys since this is a gray topic, how do I go about my pro-life stance? I'm in a rut here because my teacher has specifically stated that you can't go gray because that will make the opponents argument look better. Well, they would look bad if they made it a black and white issue. I can't go up there and make it seem like it's black and white because it's not. As stated in previous posts the idea of abortion being illegal once the baby is no longer braindead seems like a reasonable idea. I'm almost tempted to put that into my stance. Anyways, before I ramble on any guidance? Thanks.

 

 

P.S: Don't give me any religious propaganda please. :hihi: I strictly want to focus on the science of the issue. For one, I don't believe in a higher power.

abortions are deadly to babies

[CraigD]

Hi, weakandpowerless, and welcome to scienceforums!

Hey everyone, I'm new to this forum, although I have been reading several threads on here for the past couple of days now, and I feel this discussion is a very gray topic.

I caution you to not take this thread as typical of these forums. Mostly, this site tries to focus on less topical and controversial subjects more directly pertaining to Science.

In a study done by the Alan Guttmacher Insititute they found 21% of people's most important reason for getting an abortion done is either because of inadequate finances or they simply weren't ready for the responsibility (to clarify, both were tied for 21%). Only 1% claimed rape or incest.

I suggest being very careful with self-reported data like this. There is likely to be a strong reporting bias against a woman admitting to surveyors that their pregnancy is the result of rape and/or incest. These situations very emotionally-charged, and, regrettably, a real stigma toward the woman persists. In addition, many jurisdictions require that information of a crime obtained in pre-abortion counseling (which every jurisdiction in the US of which I’m aware requires), such as rape or sex with a minor, be reported to police for investigation and prosecution. Children, even those who have been mistreated, tend to be protective of their parents and family members, and are hence reluctant to divulge accurate information about rape and incest.

 

More broadly, I recommend you consider the history of legal and illegal abortion in various nations, and its connection to legal and illegal contraception. Many people unfamiliar with US history are surprised to learn that as late as 1965 (prior to the SCOTUS decision Griswold v. Connecticut) not only was abortion illegal in many US states, but so was contraception by married couples. Though many if not most people now opposed to abortion are, I think, concerned only for the life of what they consider to be a fully privileged human being, in the form of the fetus, there remains an element who are opposed to the idea of non-procreative sex altogether, and thus also oppose contraception.

[weakandpowerless]

I don't want to juxtapose these two issues since theres not really a correlation, but it's kind of like the AIDS issue in a way as far as preventing yourself. For example, many educational videos about AIDS suggest you do a background check on your partner if you are to decide on having recreational sex. This can be translated in the abortion issue as advising couples to forsee the possibilities of this action and answer the question if pregnancy were to occur would you be ready to have a child? In the end though, the only way to end this issue is if everyone who wasn't ready to have a child remain abstain. Of course, that is only an ideal idea because some let their "invincibility" blur reality. What do you guys think of educational videos being made on abortion and being played in school's health classes all across the nation?

[goku]

some have said a woman has the right to do what she wants with her body. i have no problem with that.

the problem is that the baby is a different body. the mothers mind is not connected to the baby, no nerves come from the baby's body and connect to the mother's spinal cord.

two seperate bodies living together.

 

would this bodily right include walking around butt naked? :hihi:

[jettlarue]

if you masturbated wouldnt that be killing thousands of piotential babies. if you had sex with a woman and she didnt get prgnant and all the sperm died would you feel bad for each of them? if two cloned children had sex and got pregnant would you care if they got an abortion because obviously they were not created by god. or if you got a woman pregnant and you killed her on purpose would god think you killed your wife or your child. you wouldnt have killed the child you would have killed your wife and your child would die. so would that be considered an abortion to you? or if you cut out a womans reproductive organs after she was pregnant. you arent killing the fetus but it will die anyways. So maybe next time someone gets a woman pregnant and they dont want to have an abortion they could just cut the womans reproductive organs out and they would go to heaven. sorry to anyone who is younger because this is a more gruesome post but it is my opinion and questions.

[goku]

if you masturbated wouldnt that be killing thousands of piotential babies.

nope, just sperm

if you had sex with a woman and she didnt get prgnant and all the sperm died would you feel bad for each of them?

nope, just sperm

if two cloned children had sex and got pregnant would you care if they got an abortion because obviously they were not created by god.

yep, still a baby

or if you got a woman pregnant and you killed her on purpose would god think you killed your wife or your child.

both

you wouldnt have killed the child you would have killed your wife and your child would die.

no, both

so would that be considered an abortion to you?

nope, murder

or if you cut out a womans reproductive organs after she was pregnant. you arent killing the fetus but it will die anyways.

yep, murder

So maybe next time someone gets a woman pregnant and they dont want to have an abortion they could just cut the womans reproductive organs out and they would go to heaven.

what? the organs would go to heaven?

sorry to anyone who is younger because this is a more gruesome post but it is my opinion and questions.

okay :hihi:

[rockytriton]

would this bodily right include walking around butt naked? :hihi:

 

Now you're against a woman's right to be naked?

[CraigD]

if you masturbated wouldnt that be killing thousands of piotential babies.

nope, just sperm

I think qoku expresses the view held by the majority of protestant Christian that masturbation and contraception do not involve the destruction of a human being, but that abortion does.

 

One should note that, as late as the 18th century, there were 2 significant and conflicting scientific explanations for human and animal reproduction. Both emerged in the 17th century as alternative theories, spermism and ovism, under an encompassing theory know as preformationism. Both held that human being existed, more or less fully formed but in miniature, within either individual sperm or egg cells. The spermist theory appears to have been the more popular for explaining human reproduction. In it, the sperm was viewed as a “seed”, that “planted” within a “fertile” woman, grew into a newborn infant much as a mellon grows in soil. That this language was compatible with biblical descriptions of human reproduction likely bolstered support of it.

 

Under this theory, masturbation or contraception is essentially as great an act of destruction of a human being as abortion or infanticide.

 

By the late 18th century, the influence of biologists such as Maupertuis had begun to erode preformationsism, leading to increased scientific acceptance of the essentially modern theory of reproduction known as epigenesis. By the mid 19th century, the work of biologists such as Mendel and Darwin had effectively ended mainstream acceptance of preformationism, so that masturbation or contraception, while still considered moral misdeeds by many religious people, were no longer considered equivalent to abortion or infanticide.

 

The current state of the abortion =?= murder debate can be seen as an continuation of this process, with increasingly advanced scientific understandings of gestation leading to differing opinions about the precise moment that sperm, egg, zygote, fetus, or infant ceases to be mere tissue, and become a human being. Some hold that the instant sperm enters egg – conception – marks this moment, while others hold that the fetus must develop a sufficiently mature nervous system to have some characteristic neural activity – consciousness. Some cultures, particularly among the rural Chinese, hold that even after birth, an infant is not human until it reaches a certain level of development, such as weaning, rudimentary language, or the first birthday. These cultures tend to be permissive of the practice of infanticide, typically in the form of infant exposure, wherein infants up to a certain age may be left outside to die. This tradition is sometimes combined with one of adoption, where people not wanting children abandon them in a prescribed place, and infertile people desiring children visit this place to recover them.

[rockytriton]

any steps backward can lead right back to banning contraception

[Buffy]

So to follow through with Craig's wonderful historical background, it is clear that the definition of the moment at which the point is crossed establishing full human rights--and I'll note here that many teenagers have and will always complain that they are indentured servants and treated as subhumans until 18 or even 21--is a grey area that varies greatly dependent upon culture.

 

The critical question becomes, in a heterogenous culture as our own, how does one reconcile the varied beliefs of the citizenry? Those who believe that an ovum penetrated by a sperm is a full-fledged human are opposed to any of *their* tax dollars being spent on abortions or even distribution of contraceptives of any kind (as is the foreign policy of the current US administration), while those who see a later dividing line see those same activities as being essential to promoting good health, good economic policy or good will and feel equally strongly that it is important to carry out these policies.

 

I'm personally on the side that sees this as being a difficult issue that is not cut and dried and there has to be an open debate about it, which will not happen if one side just screams that we're all "murderers" and "baby killers" and one political party adopts this most extreme view for political purposes. My grandmother--a life-long Republican--ended her very large annual contributions to the party when the extreme anti-abortionists took over in the 80's, and she made it a practice to take on state party leaders at state party meetings that she attended until she was 90.

 

The rest of the world has found a middle ground on these issues, and there's no reason we can't either.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[rockytriton]

you really can't argue with blind faith

[weakandpowerless]

So to follow through with Craig's wonderful historical background, it is clear that the definition of the moment at which the point is crossed establishing full human rights--and I'll note here that many teenagers have and will always complain that they are indentured servants and treated as subhumans until 18 or even 21--is a grey area that varies greatly dependent upon culture.

 

The critical question becomes, in a heterogenous culture as our own, how does one reconcile the varied beliefs of the citizenry? Those who believe that an ovum penetrated by a sperm is a full-fledged human are opposed to any of *their* tax dollars being spent on abortions or even distribution of contraceptives of any kind (as is the foreign policy of the current US administration), while those who see a later dividing line see those same activities as being essential to promoting good health, good economic policy or good will and feel equally strongly that it is important to carry out these policies.

 

I'm personally on the side that sees this as being a difficult issue that is not cut and dried and there has to be an open debate about it, which will not happen if one side just screams that we're all "murderers" and "baby killers" and one political party adopts this most extreme view for political purposes. My grandmother--a life-long Republican--ended her very large annual contributions to the party when the extreme anti-abortionists took over in the 80's, and she made it a practice to take on state party leaders at state party meetings that she attended until she was 90.

 

The rest of the world has found a middle ground on these issues, and there's no reason we can't either.

 

Cheers,

Buffy

 

 

Thats what I hoped this debate I'm taking part in would exactly be, an open debate. However, the debate I'm in is a competitive one, and thats not going to unite anyone to any sort of middle ground. I'm pretty much forced into an extreme and must stick with it because my teacher feels middle ground would only strengthen the opponents argument, which in this case is utter ludicrous. I'm going to feel like such a hypocrite on Thursday.

[Buffy]

...I'm pretty much forced into an extreme and must stick with it because my teacher feels middle ground would only strengthen the opponents argument, which in this case is utter ludicrous. I'm going to feel like such a hypocrite on Thursday.

If Hilary Clinton can get up and say that "its not simple," then its okay to be in the middle ground. It would be nice to see some leaders in the Republican party have the same sort of guts to stand up to the extremists as well, but that sure looks like waiting for Godot at the moment...

 

Feminazi and proud of it,

Buffy