The Great "Social Issues" Abortion Debate!

This thread is for an all out debate of the abortion issue and all its personal and social ramifications.

Let the debatin' begin.


[edit on 2006/7/25 by GradyPhilpott]

Abortion is bad. Some people say it is good. I think it is bad. I knew this guy once who said his mom was going to get an abortion, but then she didn't.

I'll start mine off with a little controversy. Due to the inability of some adults, and some children, to care for children, and due to the violent nature of parts of society, abortion could be a mercy.

EDIT: Wrong Thread.

[edit on 25-7-2006 by WestPoint23]

The only restrictions here are those covered in the T&C. This should be interesting.



[edit on 2006/7/25 by GradyPhilpott]

The debate in this issue is whether a fetus is alive or not. I believe that they are. Accordingly I believe that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. There are much more acceptable manners of birth control available. It's irresponsible to use abortion in this manner imo.

EDUCATION is key in this. More education, to kids and adults alkie would curb a number of unwanted pregnancies.

However, sometimes there is no other alternative.

Originally posted by intrepid
The debate in this issue is whether a fetus is alive or not. I believe that they are.

I'll repeat myself from the other thread, since you brought up that you think that a fetus is alive: If the right judge can be found, I believe that the argument over abortion could be turned into a custody issue, and skirt abortion law. Any legal scholars know?

Originally posted by intrepid
The debate in this issue is whether a fetus is alive or not.

Wrong. The debate in this issue is over whether a fetus is a human being.

There is no debate whatsoever about the fetus being "alive." OF COURSE it's alive. That's a medical fact. So was my pet cockatoo, when I had one. So's the lemon tree in my back yard. So's the spider on my shower wall.

We "destroy human life" all the time and think nothing of it. When I cut myself shaving, I "destroy human life," but we don't call that suicide. If I accidentally hit someone with a briefcase and broke his nose, I would then have "destroyed human life," but we don't call that manslaughter. Because, although "human life" was "destroyed," in each case no HUMAN BEING was killed.

And THAT'S what the debate is about. Not whether an embryo at conception is alive and human (heck, the sperm and ova before conception are alive and human), but whether a single-celled organism without a brain can be called a "human being," except in potential. And if we do say that the potential equals the reality for this purpose, then we must explain why we do not take the same approach to an unfertilized ovum, which is also a human being in potential, requiring merely one additional step.

Accordingly I believe that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. There are much more acceptable manners of birth control available. It's irresponsible to use abortion in this manner imo.

I would tend to agree, except that all of the more acceptable forms of birth control are fallible. Abortion as a back-up form of birth control to be used when a better form fails, is nonproblematic to me.

EDUCATION is key in this. More education, to kids and adults alkie would curb a number of unwanted pregnancies.

However, sometimes there is no other alternative.

With this, I agree completely.

Abortion is a touchy subject for some, there have been many questions raised as well as concerns by both pro choice and pro life. IMO it is the womans choice what she does with her body, although i think that there should be guidelines regarding how far in the pregnacy that u can have one.bortion should never be used as a contrception device this is not only stupid but very damaging psychologically(sp?), there should be councilling given before such a desision is actually made and councilling offere afterwards as well.
In regards to when the question of whether and at what point a fetus is a person differs between the pro life and pro choice goups. I will quote from a site to get the fundemental points across

Some say that it begins at conception;
A few say it only begins when the newborn is separate from her/his mother and breathing on its own.
Peter Singer, a professor at Princeton University, believes that personhood only comes weeks after birth.

Many others point to a time after conception but before birth.

Another reason for the lack of dialogue is that supporters of the various belief systems assign different meanings to common words, such as life, human life, pregnancy, human personhood, baby, child, unborn, etc.

And so, the conflict continues. There is little hope of resolution because of the fundamental disagreements between the two sides.

Some say that having an abortion under a specific set of circumstances is immoral.

Others say that preventing a woman from having an abortion under those identical circumstances is immoral.

t the pro-life and pro-choice movements agree on:
The media, religious leaders, and others often emphasize uncompromising conflicts between pro-life and pro-choice groups. This is often reflected in their terminology: Many pro-life supporters refer to abortion as the murder of an unborn child. Some equate abortion to the Nazi Holocaust. They associate abortion clinics with Nazi death camps such as Auschwitz and Bergen-Belsen.
Many pro-choicers refer to a pre-embryo or embryo as "products of conception" or as a simple blob of tissue.

In reality, there is broad agreement by the two opposing sides: A common belief among pro-lifers and pro-choicers is that an ovum is alive. Thus, because it contains human DNA, they consider it to be a form of human life. According to most scientists, an ovum is not actually alive. But the belief dies hard.
An ovum is not considered a human person.
Similarly a spermatozoon is considered a form of human life by many, but not by most scientists.
A spermatozoon is not viewed to be a human person.
There is a near consensus that at, or shortly after conception, a zygote or pre-embryo -- popularly called a fertilized ovum -- is a form of human life. The zygote is "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life:
metabolism,
growth,
reaction to stimuli, and
reproduction." 1
Its reproductive ability is only demonstrated in about on in 250 births, when it reproduces itself through twinning. This can happen at any time up to about 14 days after conception. This is how mono-zygotic (identical) twins are caused.

An embryo is also a form of human life.
A fetus is still another, more developed, form of human life.
A newborn baby is both a form of human life and a human person.
During the entire nine months between: The meeting of an ovum and one very lucky spermatozoon at conception, and
The birth of a newborn baby,
human life has continuously existed.
Pro-choicers and pro-lifers believe that at conception, or at birth, or at some time in between, human personhood began. The new person has rights including the right to continue to live.
After human personhood is present, both sides agree that an abortion should not be allowed, except under very unusual circumstances, such as: To save the life of the woman,
Perhaps to avoid serious long-term injury or permanent disability to the woman,
Perhaps if the pregnancy had been initiated by rape or incest.

What the pro-life and pro-choice movements disagree on:
The major differences between pro-lifers and pro-choicers can be expressed as three questions:

"When does human personhood begin?" Most pro-lifers believe it happens at conception because that is when a unique DNA first appears.
Some believe it happens very shortly after conception when the ovum first divides and becomes a pair of cells. This is the first evidence that the pre-embryo is truly alive.
A case has been made, based on a biblical theme, that personhood begins when blood first appears in the pre-embryo at perhaps 18 days after conception.
Most pro-choicers say that personhood happens later in pregnancy. Some say that it happens: When the embryo loses its tail and looks vaguely human;
When the fetus' face begins to look fully human;
After 21 weeks gestation, a limit imposed by many state & provincial medical associated;
When the fetus is viable -- able to survive outside its mother's body with current medical technology;
At about 26 weeks, when the fetal brain's higher functions are first activated and the fetus attains consciousness;
When the fetus half-emerges from is/her mother's body. This is a Jewish teaching.
At birth, when the fetus becomes apart from her/his mother -- a newborn.
When the newborn's umbilical cord is cut and she or he is breathing as an independent, separate person;.
etc.

Some Aboriginal people worldwide believe that the newborn only becomes a human person when he or she is named.
As noted above, Peter Singer believes that personhood is only established weeks after birth.

Read More here
Imo opinion i believe that once the baby/feotus or whichever u choose to call it becomes viable once it starts to move around etc (this usually occurs at 10 - 12 weeks aprox) Abortion should not be made illegal alothough i see the issues that some may have with the procedures involved ( and some aint good), but it should be the womans choice, but then we have another issue that arises and one not talked about much, what about the men? Should they have a choice or say in what happenes? IMO they should have councilling offered aswell and certainly consulted, but the decision has to lie with the woman as ultimatly she has to carry it

Well the Bible says you don't get your soul until you take your first breath. So, anytime before that you aren't human. So Abortion being wrong? No, according to the Bible you aren't taking a soul because the fetus has not taken the Breath Of Life.
Consider first, Genesis 2:7,

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Besides, God has done thousands of Abortions, if it was wrong would He do them?
www.evilbible.com...'s%20not%20pro-life.htm

SO a fetus is not a person for it doesn't have a soul, as the Lord Says.

Is all life valued the same? Is a zygote have the same value as a 1mo old baby?

What if you look at the value of those developing cells in the light of benefits of stem cell research in healing burns? Is there a moral equivalency between a zygote and a burn victim with 3rd degree burns over %75 of their body?

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward

Originally posted by intrepid
The debate in this issue is whether a fetus is alive or not.

Wrong. The debate in this issue is over whether a fetus is a human being.

There is no debate whatsoever about the fetus being "alive." OF COURSE it's alive. That's a medical fact. So was my pet cockatoo, when I had one. So's the lemon tree in my back yard. So's the spider on my shower wall.

Well thank you for your condecention, your point is taken.

Accordingly I believe that abortion as a form of birth control is wrong. There are much more acceptable manners of birth control available. It's irresponsible to use abortion in this manner imo.

I would tend to agree, except that all of the more acceptable forms of birth control are fallible. Abortion as a back-up form of birth control to be used when a better form fails, is nonproblematic to me.

This is a VERY small % of birth control uses. The largest problem is in NOT using BC.

Abortion as an issue should be discussed in society because if affects both male and female.

But when it comes to abortion rights and laws this is an issue that only will affect the female.

That is why abortion is such a hot topic and one that brings so many different respones.

That is why Abortion should never be politicized, or be use by religious rights to get into political agendas.

The rights or wrong of abortion should be kept between the woman and the man involvedin the issue.

It should never be use as a tool for personal, religious or political agendas.

It should always be the woman rights to chose.

I'm pro-choice which is admitedly an odd stand for a Catholic. I believe that in some cases there is no choice but to end the pregnancy. Should it be a form of birth control NO. However in cases of rape, incest and when the mother's life is in danger it should be available to the woman. Can we really expect a 12 or 13 year old girl to carry a baby to full term especially if she is a victim of rape or incest? I certainly can't. This should be an option available for any woman who is a victim of sexual assault.

Education is of course key to avoiding the need to use it as birth control. Parents of both boys and girls should talk about birth control openly and often starting at an early age. Let's not fool ourselves teenagers have been having sex since the beginning of time and we as parents are responsible to educate our children.

In the end however, abortion is a choice that the woman must make. It should be her decision as it is her body. No government, church official has the right to tell me or any person what they will or will not do with their body.

Originally posted by gallopinghordes
No government, church official has the right to tell me or any person what they will or will not do with their body.

You are quite wrong about that. The government tells you that you cannot use certain drugs without a prescription and and some drugs not at all. The government requires that we inoculate ourselves against many illnesses. There are really quite a few things that the government regulates with regard to our bodies.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
You are quite wrong about that. The government tells you that you cannot use certain drugs without a prescription and and some drugs not at all.

Yes you are right but is one thing that the government can not regulate and is sex.

It can regulate the age of consent but it can not tell a man where to put his private parts or what a women will accept inside her body or not.

Big difference Grady.

Originally posted by marg6043
It can regulate the age of consent but it can not tell a man where to put his private parts or what a women will accept inside her body or not.

The government does regulate sexual activity beyond the age of consent, prostitution being one example.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

The government does regulate sexual activity beyond the age of consent, prostitution being one example.

Yes you are right but still is very well practice in the US in this time and age.

Society has change the name to make it legal

Grady:

I think confusion is occurring because you and Marg are using the word "right" in two different (but both equally justified) meanings. When she says the government has no "right" to regulate what a person does with his/her own body, she means that, in her judgment, it has no moral right to do so, and when it does, it is acting wrongly. When you counter that it does have that right, and point out the drug laws and the laws against prostitution as proof, you are using "right" in a legal rather than a moral sense.

As a matter of law, you are of course correct. But since that's not what Marg meant, may I suggest that you instead address the question of whether the government should be regulating private bodily activity?

Vagabond:

It might be interesting to see what percentage of abortions performed for non-medical reasons involved pregnancies that resulted from deliberate non-use of birth control. By "deliberate," I mean to exclude situations where couples weren't planning to have sex at all, but did so in the heat of passion, and since they weren't regularly having sex, had no birth control methods in proper use.

Why exclude that? Because, if I understand your position correctly (which I may not), you are talking about people who deliberately use abortion as a form of birth control, instead of condoms, the pill, etc. I don't have statistics available, but intuitively I would be very, very surprised if there were many people who did that. Abortion is often expensive and always invasive and uncomfortable. Anyone with any sense would prefer to use some other method.

I didn't mean to be condescending. It's just that the "when does life begin" argument amounts to a fallacy employed by the anti-choice side. In effect, they are saying, "If an embryo at conception is human life, then abortion is murder." But there is no doubt whatever that an embryo at (and before) conception is "human life," and it does NOT follow from this that abortion is murder.

Whatever one may say about the human individual personality, human biological life is a continuum, generation linked to generation. A human body is not "a" living thing, but a collection of living things all organized into a tight-knit community. Each cell of the human body is human and alive, including the procreative cells. So while it is certainly true that an embryo at concetion is "human life," it is not the act of conception that generates that life. It merely transforms the life that pre-existed it. When we speak of "a human being," we are referring to an individual personality, tightly linked to, but not identical with, an individual human body. Depending on one's spiritual views, we may see that personality as an emergent function of the brain, developing as the brain develops, or we may see it as a soul, linked somehow to the brain and manifesting as the brain develops.

Either way, the act of conception creates nothing except the potential that a personality (or physical manifestation of a soul, if you prefer) may develop over time. And it is not its quality of being human and alive that accomplishes this.

In most cases I find the practise to be abhorant in most cases. Not all, just most. There are so many other options available for both the mother and the baby. In my opinion the only times an abortion should be available on demand are cases of rape, incest, and medical problems that could be life threatening for the mother. There may be other circumstances, but those are the big ones.

Now having said all that, I also feel its a womans right to choose. My point is that the practise should be more tightly controlled than it is.