Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,645 Year: 4,902/9,624 Month: 250/427 Week: 60/103 Day: 4/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Problem with Legalized Abortion
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 1 of 293 (442123)
12-20-2007 9:18 AM


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"?
OR
Is it the fact that we put our nation up for God's judgment by sanctioning what anti-abortionists clearly define as murder?
OR
Are 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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 7:53 AM LinearAq has replied
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 4:31 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 11 by ringo, posted 12-22-2007 5:19 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 16 by Taz, posted 12-22-2007 6:27 PM LinearAq has replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 2 of 293 (442522)
12-21-2007 2:49 PM


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

  
AdminSchraf
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 293 (442653)
12-22-2007 7:24 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2255 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 4 of 293 (442659)
12-22-2007 7:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
12-20-2007 9:18 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 12-20-2007 9:18 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by bluescat48, posted 12-22-2007 8:21 AM nator has not replied
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 12-22-2007 9:08 AM nator has not replied
 Message 7 by LinearAq, posted 12-22-2007 9:40 AM nator has replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4275 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 5 of 293 (442662)
12-22-2007 8:21 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
12-22-2007 7:53 AM


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.
excellent point.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 7:53 AM nator has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 293 (442668)
12-22-2007 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
12-22-2007 7:53 AM


If they really, truly cared about preventing abortion, then they should be willing to deal with the reality of people having sex.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 7:53 AM nator has not replied

  
LinearAq
Member (Idle past 4761 days)
Posts: 598
From: Pocomoke City, MD
Joined: 11-03-2004


Message 7 of 293 (442674)
12-22-2007 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by nator
12-22-2007 7:53 AM


nator writes:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 7:53 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 4:00 PM LinearAq has replied
 Message 17 by Rrhain, posted 12-22-2007 7:46 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 21 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 9:46 PM LinearAq has not replied
 Message 107 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 9:35 AM LinearAq has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 8 of 293 (442760)
12-22-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by LinearAq
12-22-2007 9:40 AM


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?
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:
Linear writes:
Huh? Could you provide a little more clarity? You are saying something besides a fertilized egg can become a child.
SCNT. Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer.
The nucleus of a somatic cell is placed in an egg et voilá.
And before you protest, no it hasn't been done with humans ... yet.
But that doesn't change the fact that a somatic cell (any of the cells in your body), if given the right conditions, contain the genetic blueprint necessary to produce a child.
So. Why is a zygote special?
Or would you consider an egg that contains a somatic cell's nucleus a "child" too?
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 = 4,265,996
UNIMPLANTED = 1,279,799 - 2,599,598 (30%-60%)
IVF = 134,260 attempts x 4/attempt = 537,040
IUD/PILL = 38,440,000
EXERCISE = Unknown
TOTAL = 79,708,118 - 81,027,917
ABORTIONS = 1,360,000
Abortion is the least of your worries, pal.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by LinearAq, posted 12-22-2007 9:40 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by LinearAq, posted 12-23-2007 8:02 AM molbiogirl has replied
 Message 108 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-27-2007 9:37 AM molbiogirl has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 293 (442776)
12-22-2007 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
12-20-2007 9:18 AM


My three cents
Is the problem with legalized abortion due to the sheer numbers of babies being "murdered"?
OR
Is it the fact that we put our nation up for God's judgment by sanctioning what anti-abortionists clearly define as murder?
OR
Are there other issues that this "legalized murder" exacerbate within our society thus requiring our government to remove support for abortion?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 12-20-2007 9:18 AM LinearAq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 4:58 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 23 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 9:51 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 25 by nator, posted 12-22-2007 10:02 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 10 of 293 (442787)
12-22-2007 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2007 4:31 PM


Re: My three cents
Now, as for why I view it as an illegal act is because, in my opinion, it is tantamount to infanticide.
Juggs, you never addressed the question I put to you in the other thread.
Why is a zygote a "child"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 4:31 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 5:40 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 497 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 11 of 293 (442795)
12-22-2007 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by LinearAq
12-20-2007 9:18 AM


LinearAq writes:
Is it the fact that we put our nation up for God's judgment by sanctioning what anti-abortionists clearly define as murder?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by LinearAq, posted 12-20-2007 9:18 AM LinearAq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by LinearAq, posted 12-23-2007 8:08 AM ringo has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 293 (442804)
12-22-2007 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by molbiogirl
12-22-2007 4:58 PM


Re: My three cents
Why is a zygote a "child"?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 4:58 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 5:50 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 13 of 293 (442808)
12-22-2007 5:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2007 5:40 PM


Re: My three cents
Because that's what young humans are -- children. Why isn't a zygote a child?
A zygote is a cell-ball that contains a genetic blueprint.
How is this a "child"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 5:40 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 6:13 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 293 (442820)
12-22-2007 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by molbiogirl
12-22-2007 5:50 PM


Re: My three cents
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 5:50 PM molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by molbiogirl, posted 12-22-2007 6:21 PM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 27 by Silent H, posted 12-22-2007 11:46 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2727 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 15 of 293 (442823)
12-22-2007 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Hyroglyphx
12-22-2007 6:13 PM


Re: My three cents
Yes, what you say is true.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-22-2007 6:13 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Hyroglyphx, posted 12-23-2007 7:10 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024