Abortion

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

>>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.

> 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.