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?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

quote:

---

Is the problem with legalized abortion due to the sheer numbers of babies being "murdered"?

---

Many will say that it is, yet this position is usually a very inconsistently held one.Anti-choice advocates often have no problem with many forms of birth control which have the action of preventing implantation of what they would call babies. They also often have no problem, and in fact, very much support, in-vitro fertilization, which generally, for each treatment, kills around ten of what they would consider babies. They also don't seem to be too concerned with all of what they consider babies which fail to implant in uteruses being flushed down the toilet inside of used tampons. They also don't seem to trouble themselves with the problem women exercising a great deal, since doing so is known to interfere with implantation.Their "key objection" is that they don't believe women are capable of making medical, moral, and practical decisions about what is best for her own body and her family.All of this focus on making abortion illegal is a typical conservative response to a preventable issue.It surely appears to me that conservatives are far more "anti-sex" than they are "pro-baby".If they really, truly cared about reducing the need for abortion, they would be pushing hard for comprehensive reproductive health education for all people from an early age. They would be pushing hard for free and easy access to safe and effective birth control to anyone who wants it.Because the reality is that people, especially young people, have sex. Why religious conservatives think that keeping kids ignorant of contraception methods and making it difficult for people to get contraceptives somehow is effective in preventing unwanted pregnancy, I have no idea.If they really, truly cared about preventing abortion, then they should be willing to deal with the reality of people having sex.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

excellent point.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Well, conservatives seem to have a hard time dealing with reality in general.

---

It has become fashionable on the left and in Western Europe to compare the Bush administration to the Nazis. The comparison is not without some superficial merit. In both cases the government is run by a small gang of snickering, stupid thugs whose vision of paradise is full of explosions and beautifully designed prisons. -- Matt Taibbi

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.

There is no confusion on the part of anti-choice nuts about where the line is drawn. Egg + sperm = child.The following is a cut and paste from the other thread as it is relevant here: So. SCNT, IVF, IUD, The Pill, exercise, and 30-60% of all naturally occurring pregnancies that fail to implant all result in "children" that are BRUTALLY MURDERED.That's the fact, jack.Let's run some numbers. (All figures for 2006.)LIVE BIRTHS = 4,265,996UNIMPLANTED = 1,279,799 - 2,599,598 (30%-60%)IVF = 134,260 attempts x 4/attempt = 537,040IUD/PILL = 38,440,000EXERCISE = UnknownTOTAL = 79,708,118 - 81,027,917ABORTIONS = 1,360,000Abortion is the least of your worries, pal.

Truth be told, the government should be out of the debate, in the same way that the Supreme Court should never have decided its verdict for the entirety of a nation. The Supreme Courts sole function is to interpret existing laws, not pass new ones.In my opinion of what is Constitutional in this regard is that the decision either needs to be made through a national vote, or it needs to be a States decision. Get the Federal Government out of it.Now, as for why I view it as an illegal act is because, in my opinion, it is tantamount to infanticide. That it I even have to explain why, irrespective of some theological perspective, seems ridiculous to me. It seems to be something completely axiomatic. For whatever reason, there is not a consensus.I suppose I find it most ironic that those who approve of abortion often disapprove of capital punishment. That makes no sense to me. And conversely, those who disapprove of abortion often approve of capital punishment.That position at least makes sense to me -- completely innocent (fetus) versus guilty of heinous crime. Though it makes some sense to me, I am still against capital punishment.I think there is a real sense of life being viewed rather flippantly. Eugenics programs, abortion, assisted suicide, etc, are just degrading the value of life more and more, to the point where Russian gulags and Nazi concentration camps don't seem so far off. I think we sort of scoff at the notion that things like that can happen again... But they can, and do!Now, you mentioned a backlash over taking away its legal status. Maybe there would be. There is also the sentiment that making it illegal will produce similar effects in the drug trade. Making it illegal only makes for racketeering. Maybe this is so, and maybe this is just hype.But I know this much. The world my grandmother lived in was far purer than the world I live in now -- a purity I may never know. And until we stop peddling death and sex as if its supposed to be comical, the more we will become like Rome, and essentially rot from the inside out until there is no remnant.

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Juggs, you never addressed the question I put to you in the other thread.Why is a zygote a "child"?

Do they "clearly define" what they consider to be murder, though?Many anti-abortionists make a distinction that abortion is permissible in the case of rape. How does the identity of the sperm donor make it not murder?

---

Disclaimer: The above statement is without a doubt, the most LUDICROUS, IDIOTIC AND PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WILLFUL STUPIDITY, THAT I HAVE EVER SEEN OR HEARD.

Because that's what young humans are -- children. Why isn't a zygote a child?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

A zygote is a cell-ball that contains a genetic blueprint.How is this a "child"?

You are trying to appeal to the ignorant folk out there by making a reductionists argument. Yes, what you say is true. Alas, that isn't all that it is anymore than you are just a mass of cells.Are you just a mass of cells? What precisely makes you more human than they, especially when they are genetically no different than you?

---

“First dentistry was painless, then bicycles were chainless, and carriages were horseless, and many laws enforceless. Next cookery was fireless, telegraphy was wireless, cigars were nicotineless, and coffee caffeineless. Soon oranges were seedless, the putting green was weedless, the college boy was hatless, the proper diet -- fatless. New motor roads are dustless, the latest steel is rustless, our tennis courts are sodless, our new religion -- Godless” -Arthur Guiterman

Good.Now. Would any cell that contains a human genetic blueprint be considered a "child"?For example, would an egg cell that contains a full complement of human DNA via SCNT be considered a "child"?Edited by molbiogirl, : typo