To staunch pro-lifers : Is abortion always wrong?

This is an open invitation to debate for ardent 100% pro-lifers. I hope we can keep this civil


My question is:

Is abortion always wrong?

In my estimation, there are many cases when abortion is the right, moral choice. Of course, the line differs for many people and I am particularly interested in the views of totalitarian beliefs of pro-life (ie 100% abortion is always wrong).

If a test reveals that an unborn child has down's syndrome is it unethical to terminate it?

If a test reveals that an unborn child has EB is it unethical to terminate it?

Personally I would say that abortion is more moral in those cases as it eases suffering. I know the down's syndrome one is highly contraversial, and so I accept that each person draws the line at a different place.

However let's look at a truly rare case. A woman has just decided to keep conjoined (siamese) twins despite a test revealing that they will be born with two bodies and have only one head. The potential for suffering is immense, while the expected life span is negligible.

Read the full story here : news.bbc.co.uk...

So what do you ardent pro-lifers think of that decision? Is it really moral in your eyes if all that woman is doing is exposing her future child to a life of pointless misery and pain, only to die a short while afterwards.

Are the preservation of her religious beliefs more important than averting the suffering of a highly disfigured set of twins?

Personally I don't think her actions are moral. I think that her decision is selfish.

Let me know your opinion and your side of the coin.

Thanks,

Soul

No takers?

Come on folks, lets discuss something other than Gaza (but probably equally contentious )

It is entirely wrong in all and any circumstance. I would, where the moral question is concerned, draw distinctions between the gravity of moral principles. Do I think we should do all that we morally can to prevent someone's suffering - yes. However, this is subsidiary to the moral obligation to protect life, and particularly those lives which in the course of our existence we find ourselves having a particular responsibility for.

The example of the conjoined twins, with one body and two heads, is a rare one but its rarity does not oblige me to reconsider my total objection to abortion - even if that reconsideration were to lead me to draw the same conclusion as I began with. I suppose an example of the "viability" of such an occurence might be useful, and here were "viability" is more than biological existence but the full scope of human life: feelings, emotions, health, intellect, etc. etc.

Meh, I'm alright with an abortion as long as it occurs during the first trimester. Beyond that, things become a little to human for my taste. I will attempt to make my point.

If a "child" is only three months old in the womb, I'm fairly certain one can say it is less developed in all capacities than an adult dog (though I must confess this is based purely on assumption, I have done no research). If we can put down dogs by the hundreds what is wrong with little undeveloped embryos?

If a women wants to take her time and decide whether she wants a child, I believe three months is more than ample thinking time. After three months, as previously stated, the little undeveloped embryo becomes a little too developed for my taste and I find the manners of aborting them distasteful.

But, I guess addressing the heart of your post, I don't think people should abort a child simply because it will be born with down-syndrome or autism. I volunteered for 9 years at a school for children who were severely or profoundly mentally retarded, and during that time I met many people who were living fulfilling lives in modern environments while struggling against those handicaps.

I don't think abortion is wrong, EVER. I know some people say first trimester, some a little more, some a little less. A lot say never.

To the "first trimester" argument: personally, I think that's a little unfair. You don't always know the exact second you get pregnant and some women continue to get their period or spot during the first trimester and beyond.

If I'm three months pregnant, and I'm just finding out, and I know I'm unable to raise the child: It is wrong of me to keep it. It's wrong for me to bring the child into the world knowing that I am unable to support it and give it a good life. It's wrong for me to make it suffer through life when I know it shouldn't have to. And it's wrong for you to make me keep it.

In the case of the siamese twins, I think the woman is being selfish.

I think all anti-abortion laws are selfish.

Accidents happen, nothing is %100 and sometimes things slip through the cracks. It's wrong for you to force me to bring a child into the world that I am unprepared for or that I am incapable of taking care of or raising.

Me - I belive it is a personal choice. That's not for me to judge, that's what happens in the afterlife.

Given that, I have a question that I ask to all the "wrong in all circumstances" group. I promise, this is a real question, and I am curious the answer, as I think I can actually get a real, well thought out answer from this group!

Background - As a teenager, a friend of mine was fairly brutally raped. Raised in a very conservative home and having a led a sheltered life, she was as traumatized as a person could be. You can imagine the shock and grief when she found out she was pregnant as a result of the attack.

Now, being from a "good Christian home" (no sarcasm intended, I promise - my friends words not mine) her parents would not allow her to get an abortion. Now, the rest of the details are not necessary (she just got exponentially worse mentally as it went on) would abortion be ok in a case like this?

SINCE YOU ASKED ...

Abortion is always wrong except in the case to save the life of the mother.

You can't tell someone to give up their life for another human being.

They have a right to self defense, and that is what abortion to save their life would be.

Otherwise - abortion is just killing someone to make life easier for yourself.

Same goes for the death penalty. It's wrong except in the extreme cases of self defense. If a prisoner is deadly to guards and other prisoners, or if keeping him alive would put others at risk somehow, then that is the only time the death penalty should be used.

Originally posted by CeltAngel
brutally raped. ... would abortion be ok in a case like this?

Don't punish the unborn child with death because of the sin of the biological father. Don't punish the rape victim by pushing her to murder her own child, because that child IS HERS and killing him/her will haunt the rape victim.

Adoption is the option.

Thank you all for your comments.

The point I am trying to make is essentially:

Is all life worth protecting?

If you knew your child would like a life full of uninterrupted pain and suffering, would it not be in their best interests to not be alive.

I guess the fundamental difference between your point of view and mine is twofold:

1. I believe that quality of life is more important than quantity. In some cases, this means that the quantity becomes zero = abortion.

2. I believe that the natural rights of the child are only gained automatically at birth. Prior to that, it is not a separate entity and is the material posession of the mother, the same as an ovum would be.


Now to refute my points of view, what would you state? Would you not have to refer to some religious text? In which case, why must your religious text and beliefs extend to others also?

reply to post by FlyersFan


Adoption is the option?

The uncertainty and identity problems that can come about to a child that has been adopted is an unfair thing to force upon a child. Abortion doesn't occur "just to make life easier" on the mother. That's a pretty harsh judgment to make there don't you think?

Honestly I think I would feel more guilt if I brought a child into this world that I could not raise properly or that I knew would suffer and then threw it into the hands of a stranger. That's not right.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Thank you all for your comments.

The point I am trying to make is essentially:

Is all life worth protecting?

If you knew your child would like a life full of uninterrupted pain and suffering, would it not be in their best interests to not be alive.

I guess the fundamental difference between your point of view and mine is twofold:

1. I believe that quality of life is more important than quantity. In some cases, this means that the quantity becomes zero = abortion.

2. I believe that the natural rights of the child are only gained automatically at birth. Prior to that, it is not a separate entity and is the material posession of the mother, the same as an ovum would be.


Now to refute my points of view, what would you state? Would you not have to refer to some religious text? In which case, why must your religious text and beliefs extend to others also?

You are not only anti-religious you are a eugenicist.

Forget religion...Who gets to decide what life is worthy of continuation? You?
A committee of governement officials/religious officials/doctors? Or just the parents?

Adolf Hitler believed that Jews were unworthy of continuation along with gays, trade unionists, mentally retarded, blacks,Poles, and pretty much anyone not Aryan.

Where is the line drawn?

Retarded? At what level of retardation? Dwarfs? Hydrosyphallics? WHat if it can be cured but it will take years of surgery?

I think it is wonderful that you have decided that some people are not worthy of life. It is a good thing your mamma did not make that choice huh?

Really? All this person is asking is if it's a little selfish to bring a child into the world that you know will spend it's whole life suffering. Comparing this situation to Hitler is an exaggeration.

reply to post by crmanager


*snip*
I said in my opening post lets keep things civil...

I don't take the label of being a eugenicist as overly offensive... there are worse things to be.

You are entirely contorting my entire position. If I were the parent of a child who would be born with, say EB, I would want to prevent my future child from suffering chronic, interminable pain. A normal life is out of the question.

Here is what EB results in :

The skin has two layers; the outer layer is called the epidermis and the inner layer the dermis. In normal individuals, there are "anchors" between the two layers that prevent them from moving independently from one another. In people born with EB, the two skin layers lack the anchors that hold them together, and any action that creates friction between the layers (like rubbing or pressure) will create blisters and painful sores. Sufferers of EB have compared the sores to third-degree burns.

Would you like to live your life with continuous, whole body third degree burns?

The difference between genocide and selective breeding is admittedly a fine line, but it is one worth exploring. What if we would select embryos to not have EB. Would you still be against that? If so, are your personal religious beliefs not incredibly selfish as they may result in a child having to live with unbearable pain their entire life.

My stances may be unacceptable to you, and you can liken me to Hitler as much as you want in an attempt to deflect from the real issue here- and that is the inexplicable and indefensible proposition that your religious beliefs are supreme and absolute, and must be imposed on all others.

Oh and by the way, only the mother can choose whether or not to have an abortion to cease the birth of a severely abnormal child.

[edit on 13-1-2009 by alien]

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
The uncertainty and identity problems that can come about to a child that has been adopted is an unfair thing to force upon a child.

DEATH is unfair. And you are assuming 'uncertainty and identity problems'. My daugther is adopted and has no issues in that area. I personally know two dozen adopted people and NONE of them have issues like that and certainly none of them wish they had been killed rather then adopted.

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
Is all life worth protecting?

Yes. Not unnecessarily prolonging. But definately protecting.

The unborn child of a rape victim deserves to be protected from being murdered. The unborn child of someone who made a bad decision deserves to be protected. LIFE deserves protection. This is different from unnecessarily prolonging life that would NATURALLY end due to extreme physical disabilities.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Yes. Not unnecessarily prolonging. But definately protecting.

Interesting distinction.

What about a baby who will almost certainly die in the few moments after birth, if it is not given life extending medicine?

How many of you boys here have actually had an abortion?

Do you know how heart-rending it is to live the rest of your life knowing you killed someone?
That in your first trimester, you thought it was a small, cluster of cells and it wasn't?
How cavalier that you could be for abortion and then say, "It's up to the woman."
You're not responsible?

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What about a baby who will almost certainly die in the few moments after birth, if it is not given life extending medicine?

Then let the child be born and let nature take it's course. There is no reason to kill the child in the womb. Doctors get diagnosis' wrong all the time.

There is no need to place the added burden of 'child killer' upon the parent of a child who will probably die naturally.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I'm not assuming anything, you may know two dozen people that have no problem with it but I know about the same amount who DO. Death is NOT unfair in this case.

Let's say I'm pregnant and know I can not raise the child properly, or that I know it would suffer pain it's whole life, OR that I am unprepared for raising the child. Let's say I was raped. That this was not a child that love created.

If you're going to create a life, you better as hell be able to nurture and take care of it. There are too many children in orphanages in this country alone, we don't need to keep putting more there just because some people think it's wrong to abort the child before it has to suffer. Before it has to ask the questions about WHY it had to be abandoned by it's own parents. Before it has to go through all the pain or struggle through life.

The bottom line is: it is the responsibility of the mother and the mother alone to decide whether or not she should keep the child and bring it into the living world. Not the states, not the governments and not religions.

It's not right for anyone to force anyone else to go through with having a child. Abortion is a choice and it's not wrong. It's a sad thing when you know that you can't take care of a child you are pregnant with, and it's a sad thing to know that it's better for you to go through with an abortion.

But it's an even sadder thing to bring a child into a life of poverty, or pain, or hardship.

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by 44soulslayer
What about a baby who will almost certainly die in the few moments after birth, if it is not given life extending medicine?

Then let the child be born and let nature take it's course. There is no reason to kill the child in the womb. Doctors get diagnosis' wrong all the time.

There is no need to place the added burden of 'child killer' upon the parent of a child who will probably die naturally.

See, to me that seems madness because all it will result in is a child being born into suffering.

Are you basically saying that its worth taking a gamble on the off chance that the child may pull through?

reply to post by TasteTheMagick

Yeah, that's pretty much why I had my abortion. It wasn't love, but lust that put me in that position.
Also, I couldn't afford a child.
That's why I ended up in a mental hospital for 6 months.

You know adoption is different than an orphan, right? What I found out later, is that an 'open' adoption would've allowed me to keep up with the child. To keep a relationship. Now that child's dead.