A Non-Religious Abortion Debate

Originally posted by kaylaluv

How are you going to stop people from having sex? I'm open to your ideas.

I'm not, because that would be impossible. Instead I'm going to take away all of your excuses for having abortions, but that'll be the topic of another thread.

reply to post by Bone75


Well let's make it simple. Women have been making the decision of when their offspring live or die from the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is when that decision can be made. We know from the fossil record that newborn babies were commonly killed shortly after birth for what could be a number of possible reasons. Most likely having to do with a strain on resources that would put the survival and well being of the family in doubt. This is just fact. So if we have been making this decision for as long as people could reason it out, it has to be by definition a natural inherent right. It is that simple women have been making this decision all along, and will continue to make this decision. If you want to end abortion because you find it morally wrong, then maybe instead of outlawing it your energy would be better spent creating a world where it isn't necessary to begin with.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Bone75

 

But if you ban the means to prevent a woman from getting pregnant, by taking away the female controceptives, then what is left but condoms?

From a Pro-Choice blog post I'm sure you'll enjoy...

“Combination birth control pills [made with hormones progestin and estrogen], vaginal rings, or patches interrupt ovulation and do not harm fertilized eggs. Eggs are not released in these cases.

Link

WebMD

Hormonal contraceptives (the pill, the patch, and the vaginal ring) all contain a small amount of man-made estrogen and progestin hormones. These hormones work to inhibit the body's natural cyclical hormones to prevent pregnancy. Pregnancy is prevented by a combination of factors. The hormonal contraceptive usually stops the body from ovulating. Hormonal contraceptives also change the cervical mucus to make it difficult for the sperm to find an egg.

Hormonal contraceptives can also prevent pregnancy by making the lining of the womb inhospitable for implantation.

reply to post by Bone75


You're very adamant about a fertilized egg being a human aren't you? Does a fertilized egg have a brain? Does it have two eyes or two ears or two arms or two legs etc.?

A fertilized egg is nowhere near being a human being, and you thinking it is is kind of ridiculous. An egg does not think or feel, so your argument doesn't make any sense.

How can you be for "killing" sperm yet against "killing" a fertilized egg? Sperm are just as alive as an egg, maybe even more so. So why are you not against using spermicide but are against using contraceptives? You have set a double standard, and your argument falls apart because of it.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
It is also interesting how a woman can decide if a fetus is their child or just an "it". We can will an unborn child property, we can call it a double murder when the mom is killed, or the mom can just refer this unborn child as an "it" when it becomes convenient to do so.


Somewhere in all this we are failing....

It is called double murder because Pro-life legislators, decided that should be the law following the Laci Peterson case. It was all part of their pro-life agenda to give a fetus personhood and the legislation was not passed without this very same criticism. It is all a part of the strategy to outlaw abortion and that is all.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Well let's make it simple. Women have been making the decision of when their offspring live or die from the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is when that decision can be made. We know from the fossil record that newborn babies were commonly killed shortly after birth for what could be a number of possible reasons.Most likely having to do with a strain on resources that would put the survival and well being of the family in doubt. This is just fact.

We know that women commonly killed their children shortly after birth from the fossil record? Really? Can you back that up with a source?

If you want to end abortion because you find it morally wrong, then maybe instead of outlawing it your energy would be better spent creating a world where it isn't necessary to begin with.

There's hope for us afterall. You're right... seriously. I could use a little help with that though. Where do you suppose I start?

reply to post by KeliOnyx


reply to post by Bone75


Sad but true. If you think abortion is an agonizing decision..........

How and why were the bones of nearly 100 infants discarded like trash in a late Roman, early Byzantine sewer beneath a bathhouse in Israel? Found in 1988 in Ashkelon, the remains indicate that the babies died before three days of age, and show no signs of disease or skeletal malformation. While scholars hypothesized that the babies were girls, since female infanticide was common during that time, tests have since shown that many were male. The reasoning behind their death is still a mystery.
weburbanist.com...

Infanticide, the killing of unwanted babies, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study. The study, which has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Archaeological Science, explains that "until recently, (infanticide) was a practice that was widely tolerated in human societies around the world. Prior to modern methods of contraception, it was one of the few ways of limiting family size that was both safe for the mother and effective."

Nearly 100 infants all died at Ashkelon at about the same full-term age. They were not buried, but instead were cast into a sewer that ran beneath a brothel. Researchers suspect that most such victims were suffocated to death.

www.nbcnews.com...

We've come a long way, baby.

reply to post by Bone75


A Brief History of Infanticide

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.

There is ample historical evidence to document the incredible propensity of parents to murder their children under an assortment of stressful situations. In nineteenth century England, for example, infanticide was so rampant throughout the country that a debate over how to correct the problem was carried out in both the lay and medical press. An editorial in the respected medical journal Lancet noted that "to the shame of civilization it must be avowed that not a State has yet advanced to the degree of progress under which child-murder may be said to be a very uncommon crime.

Infanticide has pervaded almost every society of mankind from the Golden Age of Greece to the splendor of the Persian Empire. While there are many diverse reasons for this wanton destruction, two of the most statistically important are poverty and population control. Since prehistoric times, the supply of food has been a constant check on human population growth. One way to control the lethal effects of starvation was to restrict the number of children allowed to survive to adulthood. Darwin believed that infanticide, "especially of female infants," was the most important restraint on the proliferation of early man.

While female infanticide has at times been necessary for survival of the community-at-large, there have also been instances where it has been related to the general societal prejudice against females which characterizes most male-dominated cultures.

Does this help?

Originally posted by windword


So do we agree, then, that there is no abortion if a fertilized egg hasn't yet implanted in the uterus?

I do agree, there is a point that it has basically not evolved into what we would call a human yet, but it does at some point and that, I guess, is where the debate lies. My view is I feel that this point is before birth, and many feel that up to the point of birth it is still an "it" that can be aborted. I do understand this is a very touchy point for all, and I'm not saying I'm 100% correct in my beliefs, but what I do feel is at some point it is wrong to abort. I also feel that at some point before birth it no longer becomes only the mother's decision since she has let the "it" become a human, and so the unborn child has rights too. In a simplistic way I would suggest once we have a heart beat it is now a unborn child.

I also feel that society as a whole has taken a big morality hit due to this as we start to define what is considered acceptable life and what is not, I do not see this going in a good direction.

First off, I'm a dude and I honestly don't think men should have an opinion, unless we are talking about the father. I'm only here to give my opinion.

Want an abortion? well its not that simple...because like any homocide/murder case, there are consequences for taking a life, there are trials, evidence, and a verdict is issued. I mean, we all agree that a life is lost when a baby is aborted...no? I think many disagree anytime from contraception to a certain amount of fetal development (days to weeks) but after a certain period of time there is no doubt that there is a living being inside the womb.


At the end of the day, people should probably come to a mutual and scientific understanding and/or compromise of when life actually begins, that is the point where we can start to agree on what type of punishment must be necessary to take the life of an unborn baby.


In messy situations like rape, where a woman did NOT have a say in whether she was to to be impregnated, I think a trial by jury is the most fair way to decide guilt or lack there of. If the evidence makes sense, the jury will find the woman not guilty. Let's look at murder accidents or incidents of murder by self-defense. You still go to trial and if your evidence is solid, the jury finds you not guilty. Sure there is a lot of emotional stress attached for somebody who never asked for it nor deserves it but we are talking about human lives here.


Lastly...
I like the argument that you can't legislate morality and force someone to have or not have an abortion but to all of the so called "leftists" who use this rhetoric, please be consistent and apply that logic to everything. How about NOT legislating morality to take anothers' tax dollars to pay for this or pay for that? Same thing....is it not?
/non-religious abortion post

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
It is called double murder because Pro-life legislators, decided that should be the law following the Laci Peterson case. It was all part of their pro-life agenda to give a fetus personhood and the legislation was not passed without this very same criticism. It is all a part of the strategy to outlaw abortion and that is all.

Kind of a cold way to see it, how about the dad that had not only a loving wife but a baby to be born in a short while and now he has neither? I do believe it is a double murder if not for any other reason but this one.

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
Well let's make it simple. Women have been making the decision of when their offspring live or die from the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is when that decision can be made. We know from the fossil record that newborn babies were commonly killed shortly after birth for what could be a number of possible reasons. Most likely having to do with a strain on resources that would put the survival and well being of the family in doubt. This is just fact. So if we have been making this decision for as long as people could reason it out, it has to be by definition a natural inherent right. It is that simple women have been making this decision all along, and will continue to make this decision. If you want to end abortion because you find it morally wrong, then maybe instead of outlawing it your energy would be better spent creating a world where it isn't necessary to begin with.

Women have been treated as cattle since the dawn of time too, so should we keep that going as well as we see in many nations still today?

It all boils down to the morality of society, and I wouldn't use our past as examples of what we would want morality be like today.

To put the argument back at the women here. How would you all feel if the mother decides that she wants to keep the child and the dad wants to abort it, and pay for it etc?

a. Should she abort it since the man has 1/2 the interest in it?
b. If she elects to keep it should the dad have the right to not have ANY involvement at all, including financial support?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Your argument has a degree of merit, but what happened before the law was written that way? Do you think judges and juries ignored the fact that the mother was pregnant? Of course they didn't so there was no reason to charge for a double murder. If your convicted of murder you are convicted of murder sure it may look good for an elected prosecutor or judge to run ads saying I got this guy sentenced for 270 years, but back in reality you only need a life sentence around 50 or 60 in most cases. In death penalty states you only need one murder conviction, it isn't like they are bringing them back to life to kill them for each conviction.

It was only made law for one purpose to promote the idea of personhood. It was designed not for justice's sake, it was designed to create the illusion of a double standard in the application of abortion laws expressly to undermine abortion.

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Women have been treated as cattle since the dawn of time too, so should we keep that going as well as we see in many nations still today?

It all boils down to the morality of society, and I wouldn't use our past as examples of what we would want morality be like today.

Separate issues entirely. One is a social construct, the other is a natural ability to decide what is best for the individuals chances of survival. You say it is a question of morality and perhaps it is. I find it morally offensive that people claim to care about a child's life and force a woman to carry it to term. And then once it is born, not care if that child gets an education, has food to eat or clothes to wear; crying well it isn't my responsibility to do those things. To me if you are going to take a pro-life position and require women to have children they can't afford to raise then you are making yourself responsible for their care. You don't get to have it both ways.

Originally posted by Bone75

Originally posted by eletheia
reply to post by Bone75

 

It is a parasite because it cannot survive without it's host.

A human parasite but still unable to survive without it's maternal host.

Which means that its not part of the mother and has it's own identity, correct?

INCORRECT

The gestation period of a fetus is nine months ... prior to mans 'scientific ability' no

baby born naturally before the full gestational period would have survived, because

putting it politely 'The fetus is totally dependant on its mother to give it 'life'

And putting it bluntly

The 'parasite' (baby) is totally dependant on the 'host' (mother) which makes it

unviable of an independent life.

reply to post by Xtrozero

reply to post by eLPresidente


There's been a lot of talk lately about how the pro-life community and the pro-choice community are fighting over the proposed 20 week, elective abortion cut off period. This is not the real argument, it's what the media is using to misdirect the real debate. Here's why:

The Supreme Court ruled, in Roe V Wade that elective abortions were legal up to the viability of the fetus:

, while affirming Roe's central holding that a person has a right to abortion until viability. The Roe decision defined "viable" as being "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid", adding that viability "is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks

The court goes on to acknowledge that that point can shift with scientific and medical advancement. Many states have already limited elective abortions to between 19 - 22 weeks based on the fantastic advancements in neo-natal science. Premature babies have a much better chance of survival at earlier and earlier ages because of these breakthroughs.

No pro-choicer worth a penny would honestly argue against the medical consensus of modern day medical opinion of aprox 20 week cut off on the basis of fetal viability. The real fight between the two factions are much more about limiting legal abortion, by putting up obstacles, making it harder and harder for poor and young women to access these services. For more on the real issues in the pro-life vs pro-choice, see the thread: They're Coming For Your Birth Control

I'm not keeping up with this thread, just popping in from time to time to see what's going on.

reply to post by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Xtrozero
To put the argument back at the women here. How would you all feel if the mother decides that she wants to keep the child and the dad wants to abort it, and pay for it etc?

a. Should she abort it since the man has 1/2 the interest in it?
b. If she elects to keep it should the dad have the right to not have ANY involvement at all, including financial support?

a. No woman should be forced to EITHER abort or carry and birth a child. Period. Both are direct violations of her person.

b. Yes. Absolutely. 100%. He should have the opportunity to "opt out", just as the woman does. There would be some legal stuff to be worked out, such as time limits, informing the father, etc, but he should have a window in which he is informed of the pregnancy and given ample time to decide whether he wants to be a father to the child, within a time frame that she could still have a safe abortion after he decides.

reply to post by windword


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Equal Protection Clause? "A state should provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction."

reply to post by Nephalim


Are you saying that women are not people or citizens who qualify for equal protection under the law?