Abortion

[moved from guestbook]

I love your site however one saying from Short Quotes does jump out and speak to me on a PERSONAL LEVEL.

"Gandy only briefly discussed abortion during her speech, ..........
"I’d just like to point out that technically speaking, murder is not a "reproductive right."  How pathetic and selfish and self-deceiving people can be. -Anthony

Anthony do you believe that all counts are, as you put it murder. 15 years ago before I came to America, My very good friend and confidant was rapped! Was she to carry her rapist’s baby for 10 months? And then to give birth to her rapists baby and bear the pain, again? And after  all this has happened, the pain of giving up an innocent child? As men we have know idea what women go through we can only imagine. If these women were your mother, sister or wife would it "technically speaking, be murder" or simply a women’s  "reproductive right".  I know how I would feel. I respect your right to your own opinions and view, I just sometimes feel that until we have had this event in our life (or family) we will never really understand it.  As a point of intrest the next but one quote was very appropriate

"You never know what you have, till you get it ripped out of your chest. - Saves The Day"

Anthony, again this is just my opinion. Great site and useful Linux resource. glad I found it. I will be back.

Posted by Nigel on 14 replies

Comments:

01. May 20, 2003 at 12:40pm by Anthony:

Hi Nigel,

You are espousing the "two wrongs make a right" position, and of course you are entitled to that opinion.  But personally I think that is insanity.  I believe that things are right or wrong based on their internal merits and not based on the level of inconvenience they may pose to the people affected.  I believe that murdering a baby is wrong.  I also believe that raping a woman is wrong.  And I see no logical way to argue that the latter can somehow undo the wrongness of the former.  But you aren’t suggesting that such logic exists; as you’ve shown, your argument is based on your emotional connection to the rape victim.  While I understand that emotion, I don’t believe that it alters the meaning of right and wrong.  You suggest that men just can’t understand because "we have no idea what women go through."  That is irrelevant to any person who believes in right and wrong as absolutes.  I’m not saying it isn’t horrible and horribly wrong to have to go through a rape.  I’m saying that one horribly wrong thing does not justify another horribly wrong thing.

It’s a fundamental difference of opinion between you and I.  I believe that murdering a baby is always wrong, and you do not.  Unless that isn’t your position, then there’s no point in discussing this further, because I don’t believe that appeals to emotion affect the moral value of an action.

02. May 21, 2003 at 8:48am by Glenn:

Anthony

Surely telling a woman that she must keep a child she does not want is a violation of her body, and in effect just as bad as raping her to place the child there in the first place?

03. May 21, 2003 at 8:52am by Anthony:

Glenn, I disagree.  Raping a woman is a violation of her body.  Killing a child is a violation of that child’s body.  Both are wrong and the one doesn’t make the other acceptable.

04. May 21, 2003 at 9:05pm by Daphne:

There is way too much talk about women’s feelings here.  When it comes down to it, this issue has nothing to do with the victimization of the woman.  The issue is should a helpless child have to pay for anothers brutalization.  If someone kills a man’s wife, would you then kill their children because when he looks at them he will be plagued with the brutalization of his wife?  Of course not, that is absurd, but clearly that is the logic this argument follows.  As for the birth of the rapist child re-victimizing the woman:  In every tramatic situation in life we have two choices, be a victim or be a survivor.  In my opinion being the victim means taking the life of an innocent child, being the survivor means valuing life and understanding that no matter how it came about no child deserves death.  If action needs to be taken against someone, have it be the person who did wrong in the first place, not the innocent bystander.  In essence, the rape and the birth or death of the child produced from it are two entirely different issues that cannot be held up against each other.  I know that my mom taught me that two wrongs never make a right.

05. May 22, 2003 at 10:27am by Mom:

Is all abortion ’murder’?  Is every fetus a human being?  Even the ’rapists baby’ IS a human being; therefore killing it for ANY reason IS murder.  You correctly stated that these are ‘innocent children’. I know them as blameless creations of God.

I volunteer for BirthRight and personally know two ’rapists babies’.  One is now a wonderful adult living an average life (the point: living), which includes the mother who is a woman who survived a devastating assault and chose to do the right thing.  Murder is not a ‘gray’ decision; it is either right or wrong.  ‘Reproductive rights’ is the right of every pregnant woman to give birth and every child to be born.  The other ‘rapists baby’ is a young child and is a really nice, happy kid.  They have normal lives like you and me.  Yes, there was/is pain in their lives.  Who doesn’t have pain?  I’m not saying any of this is easy.  Tragedy seems to invade all our lives from time to time, yet we must know that there is someone in control of all of it.  Rely on help from Him.  I also help women who have survived the brutal assault of rape and thought they would make the ‘easy choice’.  Get rid of the ‘thing’ inside of them that was a constant reminder of the painful attack and killed their babies only to find out afterwards (soon after as well as many years after) that they are suffering pain worse than the attack itself as a result.  This pain isn’t physical but something in their lives that NEVER goes away.

I tend to go off a bit on this subject.  Life is so precious, and so fragile.  Go hug your Mom, if possible, or call if she hasn’t yet been taken home to the Father, and thank her (even silently to yourself) for the tough, right decisions she may have had to make in years past.

06. May 22, 2003 at 10:33am by Mom:

Sorry; I volunteer for Birthright International and tried to insert the link to their home page at www.birthright.org but typed it wrong.  Please forgive the error and checkout the organization for yourself or a friend who may be in need of someone just to talk to at a time to crisis.  Thanks.

07. May 25, 2003 at 7:45am by Kelsey:

wow it all makes sense now.
I totally agree with Anthony.

On a slightly different note pertaining to abortion, I find it odd that people are AGAINST the death penalty but FOR abortion. When the former is guilty of murder and the latter is an innocent child. It makes no sense to me.

08. May 29, 2003 at 2:56pm by Leigh:

The fact of the matter is, the rights and wrongs of abortion are fairly moot at this point. Abortion is legal, just as are many things we as individuals have the right to disagree with.  I, however, am thankful that, rather than being performed in alleys, on dirty tables, or by unlicensed individuals with knives or coat hangers, abortions can be performed without being detrimental to TWO lives.  I would include my personal inclinations on this issue, but as I previously stated, it’s rather moot. Thanks.

09. May 30, 2003 at 9:14am by Anthony:

Kelsey makes a good point.  The fact is, people who are willing to murder unborn babies are cowards.  They can justify it because they can’t see its face, so they can pretend it’s "not human" or "not alive yet" or any number of other ridiculous self-serving fairy tales.

Leigh... I disagree.  I don’t think it’s a moot point because I believe in right and wrong, independent of popular opinion and current law.  It’s legal to sue McDonald’s if you spill hot coffee on yourself, but that doesn’t make it an acceptable thing to do.  It’s insanity, just like murdering an unborn child.

And I especially disagree based on the argument you used.  You’re claiming to be looking out for the mother, but you’re completely ignoring her mental and emotional well-being.  Women who have abortions are something like 500% more likely to commit suicide, and many of them later in life say that the pain from having killed a child is much worse than the pain of having been raped, and they deeply regret their decision.

It’s like those programs that give out clean needles to drug addicts, ostensibly in the interest of their health.  That is the epitome of irony and hypocrisy.  How can you have a two-faced stance on an issue like that, and then be surprised when drug abuse is out of control?

Viewed in light of these things, and in terms of right and wrong, abortion is far from a moot point.

10. May 30, 2003 at 11:21am by Leigh:

Anthony--you’re applying thoughts and context to my words that were never implied.

>>Women who have abortions are something like 500% more likely to commit suicide, and many of them later in life say that the pain from having killed a child is much worse than the pain of having been raped, and they deeply regret their decision. <<

Yes, I am well aware of this. I don’t envy anyone’s decision to have an abortion. But why compound the pain and anguish you say they will be feeling? My point is that women are going to have abortions, regardless of if it is a legal right; it is safer for the woman to be allowed a sterile invironment with an actual doctor. "Right and Wrong" in the criminal and practical sense has been negated by the formation of laws allowing for a woman’s right to choose. Whether you agree with the laws or not is your perrogative--thus you can preserve your personal tenet of right and wrong. 

>>It’s like those programs that give out clean needles to drug addicts, ostensibly in the interest of their health.  That is the epitome of irony and hypocrisy.  How can you have a two-faced stance on an issue like that, and then be surprised when drug abuse is out of control? <<

Drug addiction is an entirely different issue, the analogy is irrelevant, and I believe your analysis of their motives and stance to be slightly narrowminded and baseless.

>>The fact is, people who are willing to murder unborn babies are cowards<<

Or have a different belief system than you.  Yes, life is present at conception, but many choose to differentiate between "life" and "A life"--if you understand what I mean. Many see a formative group of cells in the earliest stages of pregnancy simply as life, without humanity--an "embryo", not a "baby." Again, you have the ability to preserve your tenet and to chastise all you want but the fact of the matter is "right and wrong" are subjective and therefore, however badly you want to be, you are not universally in the right.

Leigh

11. May 30, 2003 at 2:11pm by Anthony:

> Yes, I am well aware of this. I don’t envy anyone’s decision to have
> an abortion. But why compound the pain and anguish you say they
> will be feeling?

That is exactly my point.  You were claiming that it’s good that it’s legal because it keeps women safe from physical harm during the operation; I pointed out that physical well-being is only half of the issue, and the other half is that mentally they are much worse off.  Many many abortions would be prevented if it were illegal.  Not all, but a considerable number.

> Drug addiction is an entirely different issue, the analogy is irrelevant,
> and I believe your analysis of their motives and stance to be slightly
> narrowminded and baseless.

The analogy is perfectly valid, and if you disagree, then explain why.  You haven’t done that.  Many people believe that drug use is wrong; others do not.  The same is true of abortion.  Providing a "safe" way to kill a baby is analogous to providing a "safe" way to use drugs.  The only difference is that abortion is legal.  In both cases, the recipient may want it, but it still has horrible consequences for him/her.

> Yes, life is present at conception, but many choose to differentiate
> between "life" and "A life"--if you understand what I mean.

I understand perfectly.  You’re defending a group of people who invented a distinction that does not exist, between "life" and "a life," mostly in order to avoid the negative consequences of their own irresponsible actions.

> Many see a formative group of cells in the earliest stages
> of pregnancy simply as life, without humanity--an "embryo",
> not a "baby."

What you call it doesn’t change what it is.  And any rational person realizes that there can be no magical moment at which is changes from "elbryo" to "baby."  There is no "Aha!  Now it’s a baby."  That’s preposterous.  And "without humanity"?  What species is it, then, if not the human species?  These are nothing more than word games.

> "right and wrong" are subjective

There is our primary disagreement.  I believe right and wrong are absolute, existing outside of the popular opinion of a given people.  Of course, you are free to believe whatever you fancy about that.

12. May 31, 2003 at 12:15am by Leigh:

>>You were claiming that it’s good that it’s legal because it keeps women safe from physical harm during the operation; I pointed out that physical well-being is only half of the issue, and the other half is that mentally they are much worse off. <<

Yes, physical well-being is only half of the matter, I am in understanding of that, like I said. A woman who has an abortion will undoubtedly suffer mental consequences, I did not dispute this, rather concurred.  Again, I ask, why compound those mental consequences with inevitably increased physical consequences by having abortion be illegal? >> Many many abortions would be prevented if it were illegal. << What is your basis for this argument? Please provide factual information rather than personal rhetoric.

>>The analogy is perfectly valid, and if you disagree, then explain why. You haven’t done that. Many people believe that drug use is wrong; others do not. The same is true of abortion. Providing a "safe" way to kill a baby is analogous to providing a "safe" way to use drugs. The only difference is that abortion is legal. <<

Yes but you are not differentiating between drug use and drug addiction. Addictions should be and are treated as illnesses (i.e. alcoholism), and the provision of sterile needles to heroin addicts is, for all intents and purposes, considered a "necessary evil" in the "War on Drugs," which has long since been considered a losing battle. Look at the number of addicts in our country and society: the concept of zero tolerance, the hard-line views taken by many governments and law-enforcement agencies, clearly are not the answer. 

"The chief executive of the ACT Department of Health and Community Care, David Butt, told of his visit to Frankfurt, Germany, this year, where he went to see injecting clinics in operation. He said Frankfurt had had a "very open drug scene", with as many as 6000 users a day in just one known local shooting haunt. There would be 20 calls a day to treat overdoses. But opening Government-administered clinics had had a deep and profound effect. In 1991, 141 had died of overdoses in Frankfurt. By 1997 the number had fallen to 22. An estimated 70 to 80 per cent were diagnosed with HIV. By 1998, this ratio had fallen to 18 per cent."
Taken from http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98.n701.a04.html

>> In both cases, the recipient may want it, but it still has horrible consequences for him/her.<<

Again, I’m not disputing this fact.  I’m still not convinced this is an applicable analogy.

>>I understand perfectly. You’re defending a group of people who invented a distinction that does not exist, between "life" and "a life," mostly in order to avoid the negative consequences of their own irresponsible actions.

No, you misunderstand. I am not defending, rather representing. You will notice I did not explicate these as my personal contentions, rather the contentions of "Many."

>>What you call it doesn’t change what it is. And any rational person realizes that there can be no magical moment at which is changes from "embryo" to "baby." There is no "Aha! Now it’s a baby." That’s preposterous. <<

I understand what you are saying Anthony, and want to point out again that I did not state these as my personal contentions. However, there is a medical distinction between an embryo and a fetus, just as there is a difference between haploids and diploids, between acorns and oaks; these aren’t necessarily word “games” per se, unless Merriam Webster and those at Merck are cracking up as we speak. 

>"right and wrong" are subjective < >>There is our primary disagreement. I believe right and wrong are absolute, existing outside of the popular opinion of a given people. <<

"Right and Wrong are absolute."—and who governs that? I assume you mean in God’s eyes? Is this right and wrong dictated by the Bible? If so, I will still need you to explain how it is absolute. You appear to be a fundamentalist so I will assume you believe that the Bible is not open to interpretation. However, there is always a level of interpretation. Language is intangible: words have different connotations in the minds of every individual. Your understanding of written and spoken language is unique to you, and therefore your understanding of the ‘absolute right and wrong’ must be also unique; the quintessence of subjectivity.
Regardless of whether or not we agree, or whether you believe I’m in the wrong, I do have to compliment you on your ability to debate without obloquy. Also, props on the site, and on your photography.

13. Jun 3, 2003 at 11:57pm by Tasha:

If it isn’t right, and it isn’t wrong, then what exactly is it?

14. Jun 4, 2003 at 2:49pm by Anthony:

> Again, I ask, why compound those mental consequences with
> inevitably increased physical consequences by having abortion
> be illegal?

You’re missing my point altogether.  A woman who has not had an abortion would not suffer the mental consequences of having an abortion.

>> Many many abortions would be prevented if it were illegal.
>>
> What is your basis for this argument? Please provide factual
> information rather than personal rhetoric.

There exists some nonzero number of people who consider the law and its consequences when they make decisions.  Furthermore, some nonzero subset of that group consists of people who would in fact decide against a particular action on the basis of its illegality.  No rational person would dispute that statement.  Also, there are over one million abortions in the US alone each year (and have been for decades).  Therefore it is a statistical impossibility that lives would not be saved if abortion were criminalized.  Even if only one-tenth of one percent of women were influenced thusly by the law, that is still one thousand lives per year.  And in all likelihood, the number of women who heed this hypothetical law would not be so infinitesimal as one-tenth of one percent.  You can disagree with the estimated number, but you cannot possibly disagree that at least some people would heed the law -- that at least some fraction of 1.4 million women would heed the law.  And my point of view is that 1) abortion is wrong, and that alone is reason enough, and 2) even one murder prevented is reason enough.

> I’m still not convinced this is an applicable analogy.

I’m having trouble thinking of how to make this any clearer.  The analogy is this: in both cases, you believe that an acceptable solution is to actively support the root issue (drug abuse, abortion) by providing an avenue for its execution which will eliminate some of the harmful consequences.

My objection to your stance is that these actions have harmful consequences which are entirely unrelated to the method by which the actions are executed.  Whether in a doctor’s office or in an alley, whether with clean or dirty needles, these actions by their nature have very harmful consequences that are not the result of poor medical treatment or dirty needles.  Your stance does not condemn the root issues, and because of that it can never make any significant progress toward eliminating them.

> there is a medical distinction between an embryo and a fetus

My point is that the distinction is not meaningful relative to this issue.  Being an embryo instead of a fetus does not logically imply that it is "not yet human" or "not yet a life."  The decision of what to call those "stages of development," and even of where to place the boundaries of those "stages," is entirely arbitrary.  The reason they have been named at all is to provide a common lexicon to facilitate communication.  They weren’t named to delineate "not human" from "human" or "not life" from "life."  So in the context of this discussion, it is in fact mere semantics to suggest that the names/existence of those stages says anything about whether it’s murder to artificially end its growth.

> Is this right and wrong dictated by the Bible?

Yes.  But the knowledge of right and wrong is also present inside each of us.  There are things that we all understand and agree are wrong, even without referencing the bible.  (When I say "we all," I mean all people capable of rational thought.)  Everyone agrees that murder is wrong.  Murderers might try to argue that it isn’t wrong, but that doesn’t mean that they believe it isn’t wrong.  I personally have no doubt that they understand that it is wrong, irrespective of the fact that they have chosen to do it.  It isn’t as though they committed murder because they thought it was "right" or "good" but rather that they would gain some benefit from it.  It’s not a case of "Oh, I didn’t know that was wrong."

The only question is, where did he get the idea that murder is wrong?  Not everyone hears (or believes) the bible, and not everyone has good parents/role models.  Does that mean that there are some people who simply are unaware that murder is a bad thing?  Not people who disagree that it’s wrong, but people who are unaware that virtually all of humanity says that it’s wrong?  I think it’s doubtful that such a person exists -- I think that by the time a person is old enough to understand the concepts of right and wrong, he will have somehow heard that "murder is wrong."  But if such a person did exist, and was presented with the question "Is murder wrong?", I believe he would answer in the affirmative.  I believe that any person who has life (redundant, intentionally) understands that life has value, and that it would be harmful to rob someone of that value.  I also believe that this can be generalized from murdering a person to hurting a person.  Hurting a person is wrong, because every person has innate worth that you are damaging when you hurt him.  I believe that these are things that every rational person understands (whether they choose their actions based on that understanding or not), and I believe that the entire framework of "right and wrong" can be built -- indeed, is built -- upon these simple and obvious concepts.

This can get fuzzy in the details, but it is never "subjective" in the sense that each person can simply choose what to believe.  If you want to say that a particular thing is or isn’t wrong, you need to make and prove the case for your statement, based upon the understanding that things which are harmful to human life are wrong.

That is why I believe right and wrong are absolutes and not subjective.  People will sometimes make decisions based more (or entirely) on their personal biases, but I do not believe that changes the value of right and wrong.

Reply to this message here:

Your name
Email
Website (optional)
Subject

HomeCreate PostArchivesLoginCMS by Encodable ]