Abortion in America. Keep it? Or lose it?

Originally posted by SmookieP
I do not agree with abortion, but it has always happened through the ages.. why put women at such a big risk when you know it's going to happen anyway?

You cannot stop teen sex in the same way, you can only prevent what it causes.. condoms do not encourage sex, only make it more safe.

To me, this is obvious 😕

True. Condoms should be highly available and there use encouraged so that abortions are not needed.

Originally posted by SmookieP
I don't have any stats in front of me, but I do remember reading about mortality rates of women getting 'back room' abortions in the 60's, and it was horrendous... is this the alternative that pro-lifers want?

No, I bet most pro-lifers would not want women scratching out fetuses with wire hangers... but I can not speak for everyone.

Originally posted by lepomis
No, I bet most pro-lifers would not want women scratching out fetuses with wire hangers... but I can not speak for everyone.

Like Joan Crawford said... "NO MORE WIRE HANGERS!!!!!"

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Another instance where this should simply be a matter left to the individual. Its the woman's choice, she has to live with her decision. But it personal responsibility again (except in a case of rape).
So if a woman wants to have an abortion.. thats fine.. just don't make me the taxpayer, pay for it.

It's that simple SMSBear.

Bring on the day when the maggot (ooops I mean foetus) can be transplanted into the bellies of the anti-choicers (male and female) so they can go through the pregnancy. Let's see them put their hand up then.

Originally posted by jofaz
There is nothing wrong with abortion. Like any medical procedure the patient should consult a doctor and make a decision. There is no need for government to interfere. There are pleanty of good reasons to have one (1) rape (2) victims of incest (3) medical problems of fetus (chromosome damage). Teenagers especially may realized that they are not ready to ...[text shortened]... eople think they know what it is better for others in ALL situations and would deny free choice.

rape i understand, but there are thousands of people who want a child who can't have one and you gotta go through the pain anyway so just get the child adopted. victims of incest, Same with rape. medical problems of fetus (chromosome damage), check before hand. and for those teenagers they must deal with their mistakes and stop being sluts sleeping around. there are organizations for single parents who can bring their child into another persons home, live there, there are plenty of people who would again, love to have a child. there are so many other choices that i don't think abortion needs to be an option. i say LOSE IT.

Originally posted by Crusader Scott
Things are starting to change for the better. Even NARAL and NOW surveys indicate that a majority fof women now believe that there should be greater restrictions on abortions. The country isn't ready to completely ban it, but clearly America is starting to feel that we have taken this issue too far.

i didn't know that but thats better.

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
there are millions of kids in foster homes that no one adopts. The right to lifers are just hypocrits who want to limit free choice and punish people when there is a medical solution to an unfortunate situation.

What part makes them hypocrits?

Originally posted by myteamtrulystinks
maybe insincere is a better expression. They tell people not to have abortion people will adopt and there are a millions of people who need to have a home and they don't adopt them.

I agree, it would be silly for women to expect someone else to bare the burden of their irresponsible behavior.

Originally posted by lepomis
Thats the same line of reasoning that slave owners used to make them feel better about their horrid behavior towards another life. Not really human = ok to disregard.

That's not what I wrote. Of course the fetus is human. It is after all a member of homo sapiens sapiens. I was pointing out a flaw commonly found in pro-life thinking which says that because a fetus has the potential to become a person that terminating a fetus is equivalent to terminating a person.

The basic argument goes something like this:

(Assumption 1) It is always wrong to kill a human person.
(Assumption 2) A human zygote/embryo/fetus will naturally become a human person.
(Conclusion) Therefore killing a human zygote/embryo/fetus is wrong.

Note that either assumption 1 could be poor (that is, it may be justified in some cases to kill a human person) or assumption 2 could be poor (the majority of zygotes are aborted naturally, and a high fraction of embryos are as well). Nevertheless, even assuming that they are good assumptions, there is no justification in making the leap from assumption 2 to the conclusion.

Just having the potential to be something does not entitle one make one equivalent to that something or to the privileges of being that something. For example, my young daughters have the potential to grow into teenagers, then into 20-somethings, then into 30-somethings, and so on. Does this mean that they should be allowed to drive, vote, drink alcohol, run for US presidency, and draw social security? Of course not!

Now to further the discussion (or really just to get back to where other earlier abortion threads have ended up), it is important to recognize that we kill humans all the time. Killing a human may not be wrong or at least may be an unfortunate but justified action. Some examples are killing humans in war or in self-defense, as a consequence of their being in a persistent vegetative state, or in order to administer punishment for a heinous crime. It is important to recognize that these are cases where killing a human may be justified. Any one of them can be argued for or against just like abortion.

If I were to argue in favor of killing a human in a persistent vegetative state, I would point out that the human is no longer really a person and that it is personhood that should be protected not humanness. A human in persitent vegetative state has lost all higher-order mental capabilities. As the name of his condition suggests, he has been reduced to being very much like a vegetable, able to perform the basic actions to sustain the body (with some degree of help) but unable to engage in any of those processes that make us a person. But is that alone enough to terminate the life? In my estimation, no, it is not. There must be some negative effects from allowing the human to live. In this case, the large expenditure of resources for his care provides a compelling argument in favor of termination.

On the otherhand, if I were to argue against capital punishment, I would set out to undermine the reasons for executing criminals who commit a heinous crime (e.g. retribution, fear of recitivism, deterrence) by arguing that they are not sufficiently compelling to justify the action of killing a human (and this case a human person).

Using these examples as models for arguing abortion, I will take a course like that employed for terminating persistent vegetative state victims and claim that while a zygote/embryo/fetus is human, it almost certainly does not possess the higher mental faculties necessary to be called a person. Furthermore, allowing these humans to live causes a sufficient degree of harm (often considerable) to the mother's happiness to justify termination. Note that I will only argue this for abortion within the the first trimester. Performing abortions after that point may still be justified, however I would not find the above reasoning compelling to show it. This is because I do not believe that being born makes one suddenly a person. Rather somewhere in the process of fetal development the human becomes a person. IMO further reasoning must be offered to justify killing such a human than just the mother's will. Serious medical risk to the mother, for instance, or a catastrophic aberration in fetal development might be compelling.

So now, why are my reasons for maintaining legal abortion not compelling in your estimation?

Originally posted by lepomis
Thats the same line of reasoning that slave owners used to make them feel better about their horrid behavior towards another life. Not really human = ok to disregard.

Let me point out one other thing about your post. Even if I had made the argument "not really human = ok to disregard" (and I most certainly did not!), there is no immediate or obvious reason to think that the actions and arguments of slave owners have any bearing on a discussion of abortion.

Originally posted by Smider
rape i understand, but there are thousands of people who want a child who can't have one and you gotta go through the pain anyway so just get the child adopted. victims of incest, Same with rape. medical problems of fetus (chromosome damage), check before hand. and for those teenagers they must deal with their mistakes and stop being sluts sleeping around. th ...[text shortened]... re are so many other choices that i don't think abortion needs to be an option. i say LOSE IT.

Becoming pregnant outside of marriage in no way implies that a women is a "slut." Moreover, being a "slut," or more intelligently labeled a women with many sex partners, in no way implies that she will become pregnant.

It seems to me that you have a problem both with sex outside of marriage and pregnancy outside of marriage and seek to equate the two for the sake of poor moral argument.

Originally posted by lepomis
I agree, it would be silly for women to expect someone else to bare the burden of their irresponsible behavior.

Engaging in sex outside of marriage is not irresponsible. It could be argued that in some cases (even most cases), willfully having sex and unwantingly getting pregnant as a result is irresponsible, but I don't think even that is necessarily true.