The Problem with Legalized Abortion

There is a spirited discussion going on about abortion already but I wanted to branch off in a bit of a new direction.There are a number of people opposed to abortion. They feel it is killing a human child who should have the same rights accorded to humans already born. Their seemingly preferred means of reducing abortions is to make it illegal to do so. Truly, it would reduce abortions but it comes with adverse consequences, just as legal abortions have their apparent adverse consequences.Anti-abortion websites (typically Christian) decry the "millions of dead innocents" because of the legal abortion. They also make claims about God's judgment upon a nation that allows such things.So, in the opinion of our anti-abortionists...Is the problem with legalized abortion due to the sheer numbers of babies being "murdered"?ORIs it the fact that we put our nation up for God's judgment by sanctioning what anti-abortionists clearly define as murder?ORAre there other issues that this "legalized murder" exacerbate within our society thus requiring our government to remove support for abortion?Opinions by legalized abortion supporters about what they think are key anti-abortionist objections, are indeed welcome.Coffee House?Edited by LinearAq, : If I knew how to type I wouldn't have to do this.

Perhaps I should have waited till after the holidays to propose a topic?

All your concerns here have some validity and show some inconsistency in the anti-abortion positions. At least they seem to. However, if the concern is about babies as the anti-abortionist claim, can't there be some confusion about where the line should be drawn? Complicated issues typically cause this kind of seemingly contradictory stances by people on both sides. Your noticing these problems but failing to recognize the difficulty of their conflicting sensibilities, leads you to say this: Admittedly, this could be a valid conclusion if you could show that the issues above are a result of a conscious effort on the part of anti-abortionists to directly address each objection with the position that you claim they hold. I am very sure that you won't find any literature claiming the women cannot make decisions about their own bodies and must be controlled in some way. The closest I could come to that were claims that these women facing a crisis were not being given all the information because the abortionists make money from performing that service. Truly, Christian conservatives tend to opt for control rather than allow people to make the "right" choice. That's because they are raised to believe that humans "love the dark" and "avoid the light". Therefore, they can't be trusted to make good moral decisions.
Yes, they are anti-sex. They grow up with teachings that put sex within the confines of marriage only. More than pro-baby? I think you will have to provide more than your say-so for me to buy that.The sex ed and contraceptive argument is something that many don't even associate with reduction in abortions. They are "shepherded" toward the belief that what their leaders say is true based on its match with their interpretation of scripture. Their leaders say if you teach someone to drive then they are going to want to drive. The same with sex and more sex leads to more abortions. THAT is what they believe. You have had interactions with that mindset on the creation/evolution debates. They don't believe that comprehensive sex ed and free contraception lead to less abortions because they are taught the opposite and have no need to research it now. Besides if you condone sex, you are just condoning one sin (sex outside marriage) over another (killing babies). God doesn't want you to use one sin to avoid another.

So you would say that a man who dies from pneumonia was murdered? How do you make that distinction? I would say the zygotes that failed to implant died of natural causes. As for SCNT, the purpose seems to be to make a child and the failures are natural deaths in the process of trying for a success. In reality I think your use of SCNT is a red herring for the purposes of this discussion. IVF has failures too. Murder? There are many in the anti-abortion movement who say it is a high price to pay for a child.This is an issue that those who believe a fertilized egg is a child must deal with. It is confusing and quite difficult. On the one hand they believe that each zygote is a child based on its potential. On the other is the reality of so many deaths of humans if this is true. Is is more convenient to just change the point of being human to another place in the development cycle. Probably, but is convenience a good reason to change a human into a non-human? If that were so, then it would be more convenient to change destitute humans into non-humans and get rid of them out of hand. How about old people? They provide no use except to take up space in a nursing home.Obviously, I am being extreme, but that is in reality the very issue that anti-abortionists do wrestle with. Your pointing it out doesn't change their beliefs about the humanity of the unborn, especially since you seem to be bent on proving them wrong based on the numbers game.I guess we could declare soldiers as worthless based on the numbers that are sent to war to be killed by your logic.

And many do not think it should be permissible and thus declare it is murder.
I could just as easily argue that this is an indication that anti-abortionists really care for the woman also. They are willing to allow the abortion for the sake of the distraught mother.

Why can't you say that the consent was implied by the mother and father participating in an act that would cause it to happen?

Yes she is less distraught, generally. She is not a victim of an assault. Her level of anxiety is heightened by any judgment by others around her about her pregnancy. This has been observed to be less no for unwed mothers. They are more accepted.If she were allowed to take her baby to term then give it up, she would be able to return to a relatively normal teenager's life.A rape victim's pregnancy would be a constant reminder of the rape and thus cause more anxiety regardless of how accepting society would be of her pregnancy.

molbiogirl specifically wrote about zygotes that didn't make it to implant on the uterine wall. Therefore they were "sent" to become babies, so to speak. The reference to soldiers that were killed in a war is valid. The way she used the large numbers of zygotes that die before implantation to devalue a zygote that makes it to the uterine wall would be the same as saying the large numbers of soldiers that die in a battle devalues the soldiers that get through the battle.As far as your ideas about making it illegal for women to do things that endanger the child she is carrying, I don't know. If she were to endanger her child after it was born, the child could be taken away from her. However, you are still in the position of trying to convince me how wrong it is to think of a zygote as a child. Telling me how much more restrictive the mother's life would be if it is classified as a child really does little to change the idea that it is one. A mother and father lead a more restrictive life after a child is born, yet that is not used as an argument to devalue the life of that child. Why should it work just because the location of said child has changed.

Blast! All these ideas that abound in literature! I knew that First Amendment was a bad idea. Yes, I have read that. Amazingly enough I also understand the value of individual rights. I just don't agree that those rights usurp the rights of another individual who cannot defend himself. I also don't think those individual rights are more important than taking responsibility for your actions. If you're hungry and steal to eat, that doesn't absolve you of your obligation to pay back the person you stole from. If you drink and drive, then get in a car wreck that kills someone, you should be held responsible. If you smoke and get lung cancer you can't kill another person to get new lungs.
From a certain point of view, women and men who have sex run the risk of creating a child, and they shouldn't kill someone to get out of the responsibility that results from running that risk.
By referencing this novel, are you trying to say that not allowing abortions-on-a-whim is the first step in the slippery slope toward the complete subjugation of women? Has this happened somewhere else? Is there some country where restricting abortions has caused the enslavement of their women? Every rebuttal you provide, makes me wish more and more that I had kept up with modern biology. I have to confess my ignorance. I really did not know that you could implant a skin cell in a woman's uterus and it would become a child. Amazing! What journal can I go to and read about the research in this field?
So all our skin cells are exactly like a zygote? Wow!!!
Maybe this is off topic but I have to ask. What keeps the uterine wall cells from becoming babies? Is there some mechanism within the uterus that recognizes its own cells and prevents a profusion of babies from being produced? Is that how multiples occur...through a uterine wall cell being somehow converted into a baby? Maybe a hormone imbalance from the implantation of the original zygote?And here I was with that outmoded idea that zygotes and blastocysts contained stem cells that could become the various cells of the body, and that was one of the things that made zygotes and blastocysts special.Thanks for clearing that up for me.

Well, you've won me over. Of course women should be able to do what they wish with their bodies no matter what the consequences. Prostitution should be legalized and if minors want to be prostitutes that's ok too. Their parents shouldn't have any say on that. It's their body. Who are we to tell them what to do with it? Since you seem to be putting forth the idea that the restriction of reproductive rights has led to subjugation of women in these countries, perhaps you could detail the causal links for we stupid people in the peanut gallery. It is terribly complacent and naieve of you to think that we can't lose our society. I mean, didn't everyone think that there was no way that we in the US would openly support pornography on television? We have lost that fight, however and lots of others, thanks to the Liberals.It isn't a matter of "making abortion legal on day and degrading all the women the next". It is the slow erosion of our decency and civility, including respect for human life, that we allow, step by step, out of our own lust. Lust for money, lust for sex, lust for other peoples things.That lust, if we allow ourselves to give in to it, will enable indecency and irresponsibility to gain more and more power in our country.Who would have thought it would be so easy?I knew I recognized your argument somewhere!

I take it you don't deal with sarcasm very often. You know, I have been trying to make my best argument for the "personhood" of a zygote. I did not insult anyone from either side while enduring the veiled insults at my intelligence, the motives of conservatives in general and anti abortionists in particular. I realized from the beginning that my position was tenuous at best. I accept that I may have to concede my original point.Now it's my turn. I believe that fertilization is not the best point to establish personhood. You have already stated that birth is that point. So, what makes a 7-month old fetus not a person. Why is it different enough from a child to not deserve any rights?

It's not, I just figured that I could be as ridiculous as you. I guess I have to be more well known in this forum before I am allowed that kind of latitude. First, I don't have any problem with that outcome in my own life. If my wife and I happen to wind up with another child on the way, then we will have it regardless of the precautions we took to avoid it.Second, your obvious disdain for that outcome tells me that you think it is ok to kill someone to avoid the consequences of your decisions. No it is not. However, that's not the real issue here. What makes you think that preventing the deaths of unborn children will lead to a patriarchal religious US government? You brought up the slippery-slope justification for continuing the being-pregnant-makes-me-grumpy abortions. You need to provide something to support your contention that one will ultimately result in the other.My repeating your little rant about the ultimate doom of our society was just to show you how ridiculous it was. Sure. That is as valid a statement as your saying that removing the right to a being-pregnant-gets-in-the-way-of-my-partying abortion will cause the downfall of society. And you equate women's reproductive rights with being able to have abortions on a whim? (sidenote: Men don't have reproductive rights on par with women)
Please provide more information showing that those two things are actually "directly linked". That is, unless you mean that happen to show up together. How do I know that it wasn't the gain in political and social power that was the cause of abortion becoming legal? Well, I'm sure you will straighten me out on that with some overwhelming evidence. Earlier in your post you say that they aren't linearly linked but here you do your damnedest to imply that they are.
I, apparently, am not as able to piece things together as well as you, so I'm gonna need a little help here.So your saying that allowing abortions is what enabled some countries to become prosperous with the highest standard of living, and the best gender equity. Conversely, making abortion illegal, cause dictatorships to flourish, ruined the education systems and caused war in other countries.Forgive me if I don't see the link. I do see that abortion would be illegal in a country or society where women aren't respected. I don't see legal abortion as a necessary element in making a society prosperous. That's probably where I need assistance.BTW: I understand that prostitution is legal in many of those high-living-standard countries. Maybe that is also a key element in obtaining a prosperous society. I don't recall ever stating my theological beliefs here. That quote you sneered at was part of my slippery-slope argument. Frankly, I don't think it is any more valid than yours is. I see. You believe my motivations are governed by the actions of the lowest members of a group that I am not even associated with. If I were a Fundamentalist Christian, I would still not understand how you can determine my motivations based on the actions of a small number of others within that millions-strong group. I guess that's one of the things that makes you connect all those dots that I can't.

I am unaware of the informed consent waiver you signed, but I don't live in the Neanderthal-ruled state of Florida. What did it inform you about? You seem to be saying that the "they" that introduced this requirement are anti-abortionist. How do you know this?
There is acne medicine that you also have to sign informed consent for. Is this another conservative conspiracy to keep women ugly in their teens so they won't have sex?

No, but since adoption is apparently illegal in your world, it is the best we can do without resorting to the obviously better answer of killing the child.
Look, I am all for easy and even free access to contraception. I fully support whatever sex education method results in the least number of unintended pregnancies. I would even support easily accessed and (maybe) free 1st trimester abortions despite my reservations about abortions. The alternative is more horrific in my opinion.
I just think choosing to abort should not be a frivolous decision and that is how it seems to be now.
You point out individual problems that you feel justify abortions and that most abortions occur early. But late term abortions are still legal and those special cases you bring up don't comprise the bulk of abortions.
You say the the woman should not have to "pay" for her decision to have sex but have no problem with the father "paying" if she decides to keep the baby. In that, you fall right in line with NOW and other women's organizations. Seems inconsistent and contradictory to me, unless I am missing something. You don't want any men telling you what to do with your body or the rest of your life but think it is perfectly alright to tell men what to do with theirs.

Why do you think that their failure to go to those extremes is an indicator of their "true" motivations?
What are they really "in favour" of, since they obviously don't give a damn about the "rights" of the fetus?
Can you support your contention about their real intentions with something other than your dreamland idea of what they should be doing?Maybe some of us don't feel that a "proper Christian burial" is a requirement for a dead body.