Abortion.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Almost everything comes down to the question: "When does the organism growing in the womb qualify as a human being?"



This is the centre of the abortion debate, whether people realize it or not.

I thought the debate hinged solely on that until I read Telcontar's post. Now I think not only would we need to determine when the sperm and the egg together (zygote IIRC) turns into a human being, but also if it is okay to end its chance to become a human being - even if we decide that for some of the time in the womb it is not a human being.

Does that make sense? I can clarify (or go back to lurking, which I will do after... I'm a wannabe lurker in this thread anyway. I blame you intelligent posters! )

Oh no, what you and Telcontar have said makes sense.

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

I think that if the fetus doesn't qualify as a human being then it is almost as bad to 'kill' them. It takes away their chance to live and to be a human being. Surely that is almost if not as bad as killing a young child.

I once argued that in an abortion debate. The answer I got forced me to drop that stance. I don't know if it will with you.

If we haven't the right to end the potential child, then taking any action to avoid pregnancy should be considered wrong. After all, it is stopping the potential life, taking away the chance of a nonexistent child to live and be a human. All contraception would be considered wrong, but really one could go much further then it. It almost seems to be right that we have many children, and wrong to have none (unless the woman is barren).

Abortions often take place because the mother doesn't want to face the social, emotional or economical hardships that having a child entails. They also sometimes occur because the mother cannot promise the child a good future.

What we look at the decision of having a child or not, we also look at some of these factors. We want to be sure we can raise the child in a comfortable environment, want to make sure that we can afford the new life.

So what you're saying, if taken along its natural extent, means that we shouldn't consider those factors when we're deciding whether or not to have children. Instead, we should just have babies, babies, babies, babies! Nothing should stand in the way of life! We shouldn't care whether we'll never afford a good education for any of our children, or can't supply health coverage, or any amusements whatsoever. Life rules!



Stopping the fetus from living if it is not really a human being is like smashing an insect under foot. There is nothing considered wrong with smashing the insect under foot, and in this case, it would have enormous benefits to mothers that would go into poverty, and to society as a whole, for we wouldn't have to pay for the vast number of children on our hands.

That's why that argument falls apart, to me. Stopping potential life is like stopping an insect. It's that we're very possibly stopping real life that causes me to be a hardliner.

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

Yes, my wording was a little wrong there. What I meant is that after contraception you're taking away certain oppurtunity for life. It's like telling someone you'll do something and then not doing it. Does that make sense?

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Hmm...Since I believe abortion is wrong anyway, why be so concerned about back street abortions?

Because there will always be innocent victims even if abortions were completely illegal. Because the damage done via these abortions can render a woman infertile - which in worst possible case scenario was caused by a women getting an abortion because she was raped by her father, and didn't want the child. That's why we can't make it illegal, and that's why we can not condone backstreet abortions. There will always be innocents. Besides, as cruel as this sounds, abortion IS another population control. Take it away, and there will be a significant rise in unwanted, abandoned babies. There are a significant number of children currently unable to be fostered out. These numbers would only rise if abortions were made illegal. Btw, I find it somewhat chilling that although you argue for the life of an unborn child, that you'd take some pleasure in a woman being irrevocably damaged, or killed through an illicit abortion. Regardless of her choices, that woman is still a person as well.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Telcontar_Dunedain

Yes, my wording was a little wrong there. What I meant is that after contraception you're taking away certain oppurtunity for life. It's like telling someone you'll do something and then not doing it. Does that make sense?

Well, I believe it's better to tell someone you'll do something and then not do it, then to tell someone you'll do something and (in order to keep your word) do it even though you know the results will be horrible. If the results are going to be horrible, it's better to go back on your word.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Btw, I find it somewhat chilling that although you argue for the life of an unborn child, that you'd take some pleasure in a woman being irrevocably damaged, or killed through an illicit abortion. Regardless of her choices, that woman is still a person as well.

Where did she'd say she'd find some pleasure in that?

I take no pleasure in the knowledge that that would happen, and I'm certain Mertucio doesn't either. However, I feel it's far better to have more of these bad things happening, then for us to commit genocide.

[BeardofPants]

Are you implying that those who have had abortions are undertaking in genocide? Let me provide some handy dictionary definitions:

a·bor·tion ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(-bôrshn)
n.
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.

Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.

The premature expulsion of a nonviable fetus from the uterus; a miscarriage.

Cessation of normal growth, especially of an organ or other body part, prior to full development or maturation.

An aborted organism.

Something malformed or incompletely developed; a monstrosity.

gen·o·cide ** *P***Pronunciation Key**(jn-sd)
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

[Pytt]

i think it should be any womans clear right to abort their baby. and i can't see whats so wrong with it. ok, i see it in some cases, for example where a wealthy couple have sex and the woman get pregnant, and they abort it, beacuse it 'would ruin their llife'.
i see why some mean theese should not have the opportunity to abort.
bt if the baby is in some way handicaped, or the mother, and father, is in economical problems, i an't see why they can't abort.
i mean you must look at the conditions for the child to grove up in, and if they are realy bad, then i mean abortion must be a choice.

[Lief Erikson]

BeardofPants, yes, I do think abortion amounts to genocide. I believe it amounts to killing human beings. If this is the case, then we are committing murder on an incredible scale. To me, murder on such a massive scale as this does clearly amount to genocide.

pytt, do you see the fetus as a living child or as just a glob of cells that don't resemble a human being?

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by BeardofPants

Because there will always be innocent victims even if abortions were completely illegal. Because the damage done via these abortions can render a woman infertile - which in worst possible case scenario was caused by a women getting an abortion because she was raped by her father, and didn't want the child. That's why we can't make it illegal, and that's why we can not condone backstreet abortions. There will always be innocents. Besides, as cruel as this sounds, abortion IS another population control. Take it away, and there will be a significant rise in unwanted, abandoned babies. There are a significant number of children currently unable to be fostered out. These numbers would only rise if abortions were made illegal. Btw, I find it somewhat chilling that although you argue for the life of an unborn child, that you'd take some pleasure in a woman being irrevocably damaged, or killed through an illicit abortion. Regardless of her choices, that woman is still a person as well.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear (since at first I wasn't even sure what I meant).

I did not mean to imply that I like it when women get back street abortions. Rather, I would rather some women choose to do it illegally than many women have abortions legally.

At least those unwanted abandoned babies were given a chance at life, no matter how slim it may be.

IRex-- you asked who/what we are living for. I would say God, which would naturally lead to others. (however that wouldn't apply to you I'd assume). If there is no God, than yes--you would live for yourself and yourself only. If there is no God or eternal life, whatever you do during your life wouldn't matter in the "grand scheme" of things (but would a grand scheme exist? Actually...no...so even more reason why what you do doesn't matter). Everything would be based on you.
Hmm...Rian, does this remind you of a certain few people in the Brothers K? And a certain few conflicts of those certain few people?

[BeardofPants]

It don't amount to genocide unless it's a planned extermination of an entire peoples.

[Mercutio]

Oh yes: Abortion is genocide because it is the systematic mass killing of specific group of people (in this case unborn children), which is sponsored by the government (?--well, at least they aren't really doing anything to stop it)

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Oh yes: Abortion is genocide because it is the systematic mass killing of specific group of people (in this case unborn children), which is sponsored by the government (?--well, at least they aren't really doing anything to stop it)

As I believe is the case in Sudan right now. When the government ignores a mass murder going on within the country, it still can be genocide.

[BeardofPants]

Originally Posted by Mercutio

Oh yes: Abortion is genocide because it is the systematic mass killing of specific group of people (in this case unborn children), which is sponsored by the government (?--well, at least they aren't really doing anything to stop it)

Not to be pedantic and all, but it's not the entire group of people getting "exterminated". Only a small percentage of unborn children are aborted. ::shrug::

[Telcontar_Dunedain]

It may only be a small percentage, but that still is an exetremly large number. To big if you ask me.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

As I believe is the case in Sudan right now. When the government ignores a mass murder going on within the country, it still can be genocide.

I was thinking about Sudan when I wrote that last response.

[Insidious Rex]

Any of you guys been picketing the Sudanese embassy lately?

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Any of you guys been picketing the Sudanese embassy lately?

That would be awesome. You must understand, most of the people you're talking to are still students and have not been picketing abortion clinics either. I do very strongly feel the U.S. should be taking a firm stance in opposition to what's going on in Sudan.

Anyway, about your argument. Abortion is an issue within the United States, something happening within our very own country. I think that we were correct in the U.S. to fight slavery in our own country before we fought other countries' stances on taking care of their citizens. Abortion in America logically should be a more important focus to us then what happens in Sudan.

Are you suggesting that because we're not fighting every battle, we shouldn't fight any battle?

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Are you suggesting that because we're not fighting every battle, we shouldn't fight any battle?

nah. Just pointing out the obvious. and continuing to make my point about focusing on other things rather then JUST on the stopping abortion thing and then just walking away. you certainly cant save every tortured soul around the world. no doubt about it. so yes you should pick your battles. but you should be cogniscent of what responsibilities you also may have by undertaking those battles.

[Insidious Rex]

We should be willing to spend more to take care of those children, if spending more is necessary. Improving sex-ed programs also might be beneficial, and taking away other incentives which might cause women to get into this situation in the first place.

That’s the thinking im talking about. I couldn’t agree with you more. If you want to fight a battle you need to fight it on many fronts. The more fronts you take it from the more you increase your chances of success. The only problem is spreading yourself too thin with this strategy. But it seems to me that when you approach it in THIS way you swell your numbers tremendously from the few fundamentalist who simply want to be hostile to abortionists and those that want abortions, to just about everyone who agrees that helping teens and women into a better situation where it would be less likely that they ever choose an abortion by providing them reasonable alternatives and the support system and the infrastructure to make this an actual possibility.

You know Insidious, I think our debate is about finished. Almost everything comes down to the question: "When does the organism growing in the womb qualify as a human being?" This question isn't the main point to everyone, and then it's possible to take a high moral ground in arguing. That's impossible to do with you, Insidious.

Well I agree that its absolutely vital as to what the status of the “victim” involved is. If a full grown animal of some kind had locked on to a women unfortunate and careless enough to stick her arm into a dark hole without protection… and she remained alive but horribly encumbered by this animal we would think nothing of destroying the animal, full grown or not, to allow the women to recover, put her life back together and go on. But yet when it’s a tiny collection of cells no bigger then the dot at the end of this sentence and with no true brain function or spinal chord to speak of its your contention that we would be doing a much greater wrong by dispatching it and thus never allowing it to develop into its potential? (note Im in no way comparing a human fetus to an animal. Im simply illustrating that a full grown animal is still considered inconsequential even though the animal is sentient and conscious and aware of its surroundings and can survive on its own unlike a 2 week old fetus).

I can understand the arguments of possibly feeling pain and having separate brain function and what not when the fetus is highly developed (as with the infamous partial birth abortions) but those same arguments don’t apply at the earliest stages of pregnancy. Yet many many prolifers are all or nothing in the way they view it. which leads me to conclude that’s its not so much about the fetus itself as it is about the potential of that fetus to become something that has the same rights as you or I.

Its interesting to note that 50% of all successful fertilizations end in natural abortion (more apply re-absorption of the fecal material) within the first 2 or 3 weeks of pregnancy. This is a natural function of the human animal and completely normal. Im guessing for you, you would consider this an act of god and therefore ok? So in that way only god can decide who should not be given life, not you or I? Well then you are right that we have basically met the edge of our respective limits on this issue. Because yes I certainly think that the physical development of the fetus is what is paramount here. Where as you believe there is a moral aspect to this that goes beyond the physical development of the fetus. More to do with the potential for human life if I understand correctly.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my last two posts, in detail, as you always do . I respect your stance on the subject, and your arguments seem to me in general (adding the "in general", in case there's something way back here that I find myself accidentally approving, which I don't wish to ) on this to be highly rational.

Well I think it’s a horrible subject to be honest. It’s a lose lose proposition really. So I can certainly respect your point of view on it that it’s a potential human life that we may be snuffing out. That’s a sad thing no matter what the reasons. But it reminds us of the true harshness of our world. And its imperfect nature. I have the utmost respect for people who believe in their hearts that abortion is wrong because we need to protect human rights and the innocent. So many groups have been persecuted in our history that we DO need to ALWAYS be vigilant for being advocates for justice and equality even in the face of great opposition (anti-slavery movements, suffragettsim, lunch counter sit ins in the south, hiding jews, etc.). So if your passion for defending the unborn is rooted in defense of the innocent and the defenseless then I respect that completely. Even though we disagree on the science involved. If, on the other hand, you had been one of those country club republican types who mouthed prolife sentiments because it fits with their political ideology then turn around and go back to their 3 SUV’s and their expensive house and their tax cuts and their chardonnay life style and for whom the very notion of being responsible for their fellow citizens and putting their money where their mouth is is abhorrent or inconceivable, well then I would have no respect for you at all. But im pretty sure this aint you lief.

Apologies if I sound pompous in this post.

pompous? Where do you get pompous from? In all my time posting with you ive never felt any “pompous vibe” at all so I wouldn’t worry. I think of the two of us Im significantly ahead of you when it comes to acting pompous at times. But then I respect the pompous ass if he can back it up.

[Lief Erikson]

Lol. Well, I'm glad this discussion is pretty much resolved, for I have to disappear for five days (I only very rarely post on weekdays at all). I also have pretty much finished, I believe, a debate with Nolendil in the "why you believe what you believe" thread. Nobody's left arguing really on the Theology thread; I'm just chatting theology with Nurvingiel. So that pretty neatly concludes things here for me, until the next five days are over.

No doubt I'll be talking with you again in five days, Insidious!

~Lief