A Complicated Subject

[Foamy Dog]

Abortion is a complicated subject. It's not all cut and dried as many would have us think and it's not as complicated in other ways.

First of all, it involves taking an innocent life. There is a lot of mumbo jumbo about "when is the exact second that life begins" and I'm not going there because that's not the point of this particular post.

More to the point (but more to consider): birth control is free at the local health department. Taking an innocent life is not the answer to irresponsibility. If you don't want a child or are not ready to take on the responsibility and/or the complications that can accompany pregnancy or raising the child no matter the outcome -- again, birth control is free at the local health department.

"But what about the right of a woman to do what she wants with her own body?" That unborn fetus did not just appear--people need to take some responsibility for their actions. Furthermore, though the child is growing inside the mother's body, it is the child's body--another body altogther--not the mother's to discard like it was some wart on her big toe.

'What if it's to save the life of the mother?" Here's where it gets complicated. One life to save the other; both the mother and the child could die; the mother may die in child birth but the baby could survive . . .  There is no answer to these questions. This is a very difficult decision that the mother and the father have to make. This is not something that the legal system should try to provide a cut and dried rule for.

"What about rape victims?" Yes, this is something to be considered. There is still the point that there is a life at stake but no, a woman should not have to have the rapists child. Though there are some that would argue, I see this as too much trauma for the mother and it couldn't be good for the child either to be born under such circumstances. There really isn't a fit all answer for this one but one possible solution is to immediately give every rape victim something to prevent pregnancy so the decision doesn't have to be made. Again, this isn't a fit all answer for a very complicated and terrible situation.

Abortion can be a very complicated subject in some cases but taking a life is certainly not an answer to irresponsibility.

-- Foamy Dog

[/font]

[logan42]

I just read this thing where this African tribe was killing hundreds of people every year. When questioned they stated that the people were being killed because they were sick. The researcher thought this was crazy. In his mind, he thought that there was no way that this tribe had so many sick people.
     Eventually he convinced the tribe to do examinations of the people before they were killed. He discovered that only 1% of the people killed, suffered from the sickness that the tribe described as the reason for their deaths. When he tried to convince the tribe to stop this crazy practice the just responded we must be allowed to stop this sickness. The researcher could not comprehend this, why would a tribe continue to allow people to die under the guise of sickness, when only 1% were actually sick??
     I told that tale to tell another, I guess this came about because it’s an election year and I receive Ill radio. See Abortion is a big topic in ILL and one of the candidates is running a campaign attacking her opponent’s position on abortion. “So and so thinks that abortion should be legal even in the cases of rape in incest.” “Even in cases of rape and incest?? That just too extreme….”<br>      So I decided to investigate this idea of abortion. I traveled around the web and talked to friends and came up with a list of reasons as to why abortion should be legal.
     First off lets discuss the idea of a woman’s right to choose. You know I got caught speeding last weekend. Yes, I have what is described as a solid lead foot. Which means I like to lay on gas and fly down the road. Even though I did not get a ticket, it is a good example of my right to choose. I decided to take the risk of flying down the road at breakneck speed. I decided to take the risk of a ticket. If I had gotten a ticket it would be a consequence of my actions and I’d have to deal with it from there.
     See I draw a similar analogy with abortion. A woman has the right to choose, she has the right to control her body. See sex is like speeding down the highway doing 93 in a 70 zone. Your taking the risk that you may get caught by the police or in this case an unwanted pregnancy.
     I guess another way to put it is to quote Bill Mallonee “you say it’s your body and that’s nakedly plain but less than nine months ago it was public domain”. See your right to choose ends when you take the assumed risk of sex. Period, full stop, end of sentence.
     Now here’s the part that I’ve always had trouble with in the past. This is probably the hardest part of the abortion argument. What about cases involving Rape and incest??? You can’t possibly force those people to continue to live with that for the rest of their lives can you?? Can you force them to live with the knowledge that a rape or incest baby exists? Or any number of combination of such.
     See, being a person who doesn’t trust the media, being a person who likes to think for himself. I did a bit of research on rape and incest cases. Using 1993 figures, the most current I could find quickly, I found the actual statistics. So here they are.
     I found 2 web sites that listed the amount of abortions in 1993 as 1.33 million and 1.37 million. The also listed attributed to rape and incest as 13000 and 14000. So averaging them out you come up with 1.35 abortions of which 13500 came from rape and incest. So about 1% of all abortions are because of rape and incest. So to answer the question, yes it’s a terrible thing.
     However we find it ok to toss out 99 lives to save one. Mr. Spock would find this highly illogical. So would other normal thinking people. Your going to toss out 99 cars because one is a lemon. Or how about 99 shirts because 1 has a stain on it. See that makes no sense whatsoever. I know it’s hard to think about allowing 1 rape and incest case to happen. But how much more wrong is it to end the lives of 99 people.
     And you can’t go halfway on this either. You can’t say ok were going to outlaw abortion except in cases of rape and incest. Why? You ask. Well if I told you that all you had to do to get out of a traffic ticket is to mutter a magic word, everyone would be zipping around town like there is no tomorrow. Don’t blame me office it’s not my fault I was raped. I know that’s harsh statement to make but it’s one of those things where people abuse something and destroys it for people who actually need it and don’t even say that it wouldn’t happen.
     Another argument is “how can you be against abortion, saying that its murder and murder is wrong, but be in favor of Capital Punishment?? Isn’t that the same thing? Murder is murder right?
continued...
           

[logan42]

     This argument is easier. See in Capital Punishment, the state goes through, or should I say is supposed to go through ‘due process’ before sentencing someone to die. They have a trial. In most cases they have multiple appeals and years pass before sentence is carried out.
     In abortion there is no judge, no jury no ‘due process’. I guess if people wanted to make that connection that abortion is like capital punishment I’d have no problem with it as long as they followed the same drawn out process.
     I guess it all comes down to a matter of perspective. See in Capital Murder cases, the defendant made a choice. He decided to do whatever he was accused of. (Assuming he was guilty). In abortion the child has no say.  Here’s where we run into perspective problems. I see a pregnancy as a child. Abortionist sees a pregnancy as “tissue growth”.
     I don’t really think I need to address this “pregnancy is not life” crap or the “life begins at….”. See the way I look at is what if there was no intervention?? If you had a growth and no medical care was sought what would be the outcome? If the answer is something like “I’d have a tumor the size of Gary Coleman in my rectum” then yes that’s a “tissue growth” or “unwanted tissue” or whatever other justification you can come up with. Now if there was no medical intervention and a baby popped out, then it was a baby from the very moment it started and should be treated as such.
     Oh and don’t even try that whole “well people will revert to illegal back alley abortions with hangers and sticks” stuff either. If people decide to do that, well that’s their choice too. If I decided that I didn’t like one of my kidneys and decided to remove it, whose fault would that be…<br> Exactly.
     It’s all about responsibility and the consequences for our actions. Unfortunately we seem quite content to toss out the baby with the bathwater.
     But what do I know; I guess I just think too much.
bill

[Foamy Dog]

logan42 you make some great points! Further, this really shows how complicated this can get.

"Well if I told you that all you had to do to get out of a traffic ticket is to mutter a magic word, everyone would be zipping around town like there is no tomorrow. Don’t blame me office it’s not my fault I was raped. I know that’s harsh statement to make but it’s one of those things where people abuse something and destroys it for people who actually need it and don’t even say that it wouldn’t happen."

How right you are. One the one hand we would have people who abuse the exception if abortion were allowed in cases of rape and on the other we would have the real victims suffering if we don't allow the exception. This is a tough one. Choosing the lesser of two evils so to speak and the taking of a life would have to be the greater evil even though a victim having to bear a rapists child is a very signifigant "evil" as well. There just isn't a good answer for this one.

Perhaps there are ways to lessen the frequency of such cases at least? For example; a woman is raped, she goes to the police immediately and is given something to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. This may help a few cases though I understand that in many cases the victim doesn't always go straight to the police because rape isn't always as clear cut as a stranger attacking in a dark alley.

Which raises a question of incest. In these cases, the victim may not be able to get to the authorities right away. How far along can DNA samples be taken that can prove that this has happened, does anyone have the data on this?

Of course, all of this brings us to another point. Making the exception in cases of rape and incest but trying to prevent it from being abused may be putting too much of the burden of proof on the victim? The counterpoint to this is that we are dealing with human lives. No easy answers here as both are very valid points.

Ideas anyone?

[/color]

[[e-mail]]

I really think you ought to 'go there' when it comes to the abortion question because I have some serious questions as to when life starts.

First of all 80% of a womens fertilized eggs end up on sanitary napkins during those delightful few days when they are rinsed and flushed out of her system. Does that mean every women is a serial killer after their first period?

Alot of people are talking about the sanctity of life and that the fetus is an innocent life, but personally I think thats a bunch of crap. I mean really we call a human egg an innocent life, but a chicken egg is our morning breakfast.

I guess I'am just trying to find alittle consistency when it comes to the abortion question. Its getting to the point where the unborn have more rights than those of us who are already here. That is simply not right. The only thing I can call that is Anti-Women, plain and simple.

I really think your article should quantify when you think life begins because IT IS the hardest question to answer when it comes to abortion. Your glossing over of it was a great disservice to your article and your readers.

[[e-mail]]

_I don’t mean to tread on your article foamy dog, but I’d thought I’d toss my 2 cents in and try and answer David’s questions…<br>      David, you have some great points and effectively hit some major areas of contention when it comes to abortion. Everyone has serious questions as to when life begins. If we knew definitively the exact moment that life began this whole conversation would be nothing more than spinning out wheels. (Which it might be anyway)?
     I guess I look at it from a naturalist standpoint. A naturalist would state “what would be the outcome if there was no medical intervention??”<br>      See without medical intervention, a fetus should develop into a baby, thus should be considered a life the entire time, “Ends justify the means” if you will.
However what if, like you pointed out,  “80% of a women’s fertilized eggs end up on sanitary napkins during those delightful few days when they are rinsed and flushed out of her system”
     A naturalist view of this would be that a woman is not a serial killer because there was no intervention on her or others part. See if she would have willingly forced the destruction of those eggs we’d be having a different conversation. But, because she played no active part in their destruction, I would say that situation should be reasoned as a “natural selection” event.
     Now on to your point “I mean really we call a human egg an innocent life, but a chicken egg is our morning breakfast.”<br>      I guess I’m not sure if you’re serious about this or not???  Why do we hold human life precious and animal life is not? I guess I’d point to intelligence, natural order, the food chain and evolution.  I guess I’ve never seen chickens participating in abortion. I’ve never seen my cat decide that they didn’t want a baby right now… The reason for this is fairly clear… There not humans. They don’t operate on the same plan of existence as we do.
     As a counter point I’ve always said that the first time a deer tells a hunter “don’t shoot me I want to live”, would be the last time he would hunt. See I guess as a society we cannot have pity or extend any consideration to any thing that cannot communicate with us. It is so easy to objectify things that can’t talk back.
     Honestly if a fetus scream or cried during an abortion, Do you think that they would continue?? Of course not.
     “It’s getting to the point where the unborn have more rights than those of us who are already here. That is simply not right.”<br>If you read my previous thoughts on this you know exactly where I stand on woman’s rights and the rights of the unborn. I believe that woman have the right to choose. Absolutely 100% no doubt about it.
     However in my opinion that right should end when they use that free will, Freedom if you wish, to have sex. Sex is an assumed risk. Every time you have it there is a chance of pregnancy.
     For me that’s the problem people see it as woman VS unborn. Where I see the issue as already being over by then. If people (men are just as, if not more responsible here) were to practice a little known thing called abstinence, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
     

[[e-mail]]

This is mainly a response to Logan42, as I was intrigued by his Naturalist point of view. I still disagree that the fetus is a life the entire time just because it ends up that way. I mean that arguement loses its luster when you consider other things that develop in stages. I could say that the lumber in a pile will develop into a house. That doesn't mean the lumber gets the same respect and value that a house does.

I am serious when it comes to the chicken egg vs. human egg for two reasons. One is my point I just made above, and the other being that life is still life regardless of what 'plane of existence' that life operates on. I am not saying fry up some human eggs or anything like that. I would be totally willing to use human eggs for medical research because improving and protecting the quality of life of those of us who are already here should outweigh any consideration for the unborn.

[TheSerf]

David,
The problem with your argument is when does human life start?   When you get into defining that point, you can end up with people like Peter Singer(sic?) who say we should be able to kill an infant up to a year old.  By defining the begining of life when the egg and the sperm merge (or possibly when the egg implants into the uterus), you have a very difinitive moment when human life begins.  If human life does not begin there, then when?

[Foamy Dog]

I would have to agree with logan's naturalist approach in that intervention is what qualifies abortion. If you wish me to speculate as to when life begins (and I emphasize that this has not been medically established) I would have to say that in my opinion life begins when the fertilized egg attaches to the uterus and begins cell division. At this point, it is growing and this would seem to me a pretty solid indication of life.

As for the chicken egg, I hope this info. helps. It is common practice not to harvest fertilized eggs for consumption. Chickens lay eggs every day whether they have been with a rooster or not. The hens that lay the eggs for consumption are normally kept seperated from the roosters.

In answer to the Anti-woman aspect: again, I agree with logan that a woman has the right to choose, that sex is an assumed risk and that the right ends when the risk is taken. Here is where I come back to the point that birth control is free at the local health department but I would also like to add that it is the responsiblility of both parties.

[logan42]

David,
       There is a difference between a house and a pregnancy. See a house does not build it's self.
        A house requires several people working to make it happen. pregnancy requires only 2 people to technically work together once, then nature takes over.
         When you bring up the area of medical research (I'm assuming your talking about stem cell here), well I just don't have an answer.
          Do we sacrafice the unborn , for the chance of maybe helping those who are already here?
If so what babies would be chosen? how would they be chosen? the questions are endless.
           As a temporary way to answer this question I would suggest offering to people who are going to have abortions anyway the chance to have their babies harvested for research. I know that is a horrible thought and honestly I doubt people would accept it. Some times life just sucks.

[[e-mail]]

I think that much of the debate about abortion misses vital key points. Firstly the point as to when does life begin can be considered irrelevant, the important fact is when does life begin to matter morally. Personally I find it hard to accept many of the arguments advanced against abortion due to their inconsistency and often illogical or contradictory conclusions that are drawn. For example:
Many argue that life begins at conception, the fertilisation of the egg. That this is the morally (for that is the nature of the abortion debate, the morality of it) significant moment and from that moment on it is a 'person'. Two points. Firstly what is it that makes a 'person' special, as opposed to a human being? Many (Such as John Harris) argue that an adult human
possesses consciousness and self awareness (a theory first advanced by John Locke) and is able to value their own existence, and this is what is valuable, the ability to value ones own existence. Killing is therefore wrong as it stops the individual from whatever it is that they value. A fetus cannot value its existence, it lacks the capacity to do so and it cannot be harmed  (in the sense of preventing it valueing its own existence) and so abortion would be morally permissible. This is taken by Michael Tooley an extended. His concept of personhood places the origin of self awareness at around 2 years, and so would allow infanticide (as referred to by a previous reply). This is a repugnant concept for many and a reducto absurdem of this theory.
Another problem with the theory of life beginning at conception is the phenomena of twinning. If an individual of moral significance is formed at conception then what is the status, morally, of the monozygotic twin? alternatively when 2 embryos fuse in the womb what is their moral status, are they 2 people or 1?
These present only 2 of the problems asociated with the conservative view of abortion. (I wont go into detail on any more as its running on a bit). If anyone wishes to partake in further civilised discusson on this subject feel free to contact me.

[Foamy Dog]

When life begins is in fact relevant because the point that it begins IS when it starts to matter morally.

You say that Conservatives make contradictory statements but you present the argument that it's morally okay to take a life that is not self aware. Somehow morals and the taking of innocent life seem to be quite contradictory to me:

The fetus not being able to value life just makes this life all the more innocent. To me, protecting innocent life is moral. The fact that it is a life means to me that it has the right to have the opportunity to develop this value.

In response to the statement that since the fetus is not self aware and can not be harmed; my answer is that taking life is the greatest of harm.

[[e-mail]]

David said:

First of all 80% of a womens fertilized eggs end up on sanitary napkins during those delightful few days when they are rinsed and flushed out of her system. Does that mean every women is a serial killer after their first period?

Out of everything here, I wanted to address this first.
Obviously, and not to be rude, you know nothing about a woman's repoduction cycle.  No, fertilized eggs (one egg per menstrual cycle, in rare instances two or three, note RARE) are not released during a period, it is a period specifically designed to release UNfertilized eggs.  And your statistic of 80% is completely unfounded since every woman's body produces a different amount of eggs, in the thousands, so there is no way possible that figure is valid.  And to restate that only one egg is usually released, that amounts to less than 1% of a woman's egg count released during the cycle.  

Fertilized eggs stay in the fallopian tubes before embedding into the uterine lining (placenta develops also later).  Miscarriages, when they unfortunately occur, do so when the child has developed into a zygote (pre-fetus) stage.

So a mensturating woman is not a serial killer since her body is releasing only half of life's recipe.  The same could be applied to a man and his ejaculation not used to inseminate a woman.

I, a female OB/GYN, have had a child, and am offended that you use unfounded, illogical premises to promote your statement.

As far as when life begins, I believe it begins at fertilization, when every necessary component of life is present.  You have complete DNA, and in my opinion, that is all you need.  Life is a right, and shouldn't be taken away because someone isn't developed enough to speak out for themselves.  

The error of using a chicken egg as an analogy to a human egg is quite simple.  Humans are rational, feeling, complex creatures.  Chickens are chickens.  it's not specism, it's common sense.  That comparison may be a bit patronizing.  Why not use caviar as an example as well?

And we do not value the life of the unborn over the life of already-born, innocent humans.  We value them equally and believe that everyone should have an equal chance.  

Logan is absolutely correct--rape cases actually amount to LESS than 1% of abortions with the majority using abortion as a form of birth control.  As far as rape and incest, I do not believe that a child should be punished for the crimes of it's father.  And if the mother-to-be in question is a child herself (which is exceptionally, exceptionally rare) that is horrible...unfortunate...sad.  But there are other alternatives.  Childbirth is not horrifying--I've been through it.  No matter how a child was conceived, no normal  woman can look at a child she just gave birth to and want it dead.  And if a woman does, lock her up.

I wanted to clarify and point out the error I saw.  Please gentlemen, and ladies (especially!), if you're going to discuss anatomy, science and biology, please have your facts straight!

Again, Logan and the adminstrator had excellent points and Logan, you're stats were actually pretty much on target.

[[e-mail]]

Abortion means having the right to choose whether or not you want to bring a child into your life.  Having a child changes your life instantly.  The fetus in unborn.  Something that is unborn doesn't exist.  There is however the question of morality.  Why is our life more precious than other animals in this world?  We may be more complex, but we are animals.  More than half of all abortions occur only a few weeks into the mother being pregnant.  I don't think that it is fair to take away this option from a woman.  It is frightening to think of a society where a woman who might have made a wrong decision, and finding herself with no resort.  Rape and incest are certainly good reasons that an abortion could be necessary.  How could a woman control being attacked?  Is it her fault that she has to carry that burden with her for nine months, or even her entire life, if she chooses not to put it up for adoption.
You should not be able to take away this right for a woman.  Just because we are the least dominant sex in our culture doesn't mean that we don't have the right to make the decisions affecting our life, because the fetus is a part of us.

Here is something to think about.
Anti-Abortion is Anti-Life!!!

[Foamy Dog]

We have discussed how attack greatly complicates the matter; this is part of why the title reflects that this is a complicated subject.

I have also agreed that a woman does have the right to a choice. Her opportunity to make that decision is before she becomes pregnant. There are many forms of birth control thus there many options other than murder.


"It is frightening to think of a society where a woman who might have made a wrong decision, and finding herself with no resort."

Having unprotected sex is a risk and when folks take a risk they need to be ready to assume responsibility for the possible outcome. Does society now think that it is unnecessary for one to take responsibility for his or her own actions?

The notion that something unborn doesn't exist is a total cop-out. If a fetus doesn't exist then why consider aborting it if there isn't anything there. A ridiculous statement!

But even more ridiculous:  

"Anti-Abortion is Anti-Life!!!"  

Let's see, anti-abortion means to be opposed to the KILLING of the unborn child. Seems to me that's why it is also called PRO-LIFE!