News Article: Obama Lifts Ban on Abortions

[uafan4life]

Keep it simple. If you abort the process of creating life, that strongly suggests that said life does not yet exist.

Sorry, every now and then the English teacher in me gets loose.

Well, you know the point I'm trying to make. Care to help me find the simplest way to convey it?

My 10th grade English teacher told us of a quote from someone that mattered (you can tell how much attention I paid) that "good English" can be defined as any English that correctly conveys the idea that is trying to be communicated.

Sometimes that's easier said than, uh, said.

It's amazing sometimes how many words in a discourse are required to convey a relatively simple idea when talking with someone of a differing opinion. We tend to hear, or read, what we think people are saying not what they actually are. Then we respond in kind and it hinders communication. And we wonder why people who do this for a living spend so much time in it.

 

[bamabake]

You have really made some good points throughout this thread.

One thing that bothers me about this post is that you define the issue in terms that--by your own admission--deny even the possibility of opposition, which is a little disingenuous.

In addition, your primary point, "Abortion is a human choice that directly prevents the life of another" can easily be extended into the realm of birth control, which is clearly a choice that prevents the life of another.

I'm hoping that the inevitable descent of this thread into chaos can be forestalled a little longer.

This is a poor analogy in my opinion. Contraception stops, well, conception. Abortion stops a beating heart.

 

[Pluck and Grit]

This is a poor analogy in my opinion. Contraception stops, well, conception. Abortion stops a beating heart.

Every sperm is sacred.

 

[uafan4life]

Every sperm is sacred.

Yeah, just ask Onan. (Gen. 38:8)

 

[Relayer]

You're sick.

Why do you say that?

Those kids were once just fetuses, right? It would have been fine to abort them at that time, right? Not sick at all. It was just fine to actually do the deed then, but "sick" to think now that it should have been done?

I don't understand your logic.

 

[jthomas666]

This is a poor analogy in my opinion. Contraception stops, well, conception. Abortion stops a beating heart.

I wasn't making an analogy, I was pointing out a weakness in uafan4life's choice of words.

 

[It's On A Slab]

Every sperm is sacred.

Well, of course!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47P59ha9k9s]YouTube - every sperm is sacred[/ame]

 

[rizolltizide]

This is a lesson that I am trying to learn, myself. I have a long way to go... :biggrin:

Acceptance is the first step. You're doing great so far.
:biggrin:

 

[GreatDanish]

I must say that I am very impressed with the civil and thoughtful debate on one of, if not the most sensitive political topic out there. Well, I haven't read every post, but I'll be optimistic and assume the posts I haven't read are very civil as well.

I just want to make a point as to "where life begins". I think we humans have tried to make a defining point, but I don't think it is there. I don't think a baby is "non living" at one point, and "living" one moment later. It is a process. I don't think that traveling the magical 4 inches through the birth canal makes it an official life. My personal opinion though.

There are babies that are born three, and even four months early, for a total gestation period of five to six months. I am not a proponent of abortion by any means. However, in my opinion, if we are going to try to find any common ground of this subject, I hope it is in late-term abortions.

So, a question to pro-choicers: Are there any situations in which you think abortion should be limited, or do you think women should be allowed abortion at any time for any reason? I'm not baiting you, I am sincerely interested.

 

[92tide]

So, a question to pro-choicers: Are there any situations in which you think abortion should be limited, or do you think women should be allowed abortion at any time for any reason? I'm not baiting you, I am sincerely interested.

my personal position is that it should ultimately be a decision between the mother and her doctor.

 

[CrimsonCT]

Abortion prevents life after the process of creating life has begun. Birth control, abstinence, and foregoing IVF are decisions that prevent life before that process has begun.

Your argument is a good one. But is rests on a premise that is completely arbitrary: life begins at conception. And that's fine, because my notion is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. Just don't make of the mistake of believing your view is infallible, because there hasn't been a perfect argument posited yet.

One could argue that the "process of creating life" renews monthly where a woman's body is in a constant cycle to prepare for fertilization. Would denying sperm be a tacit abortion of this process? Would hormone contraception, as JT pointed out? Right now, you use a specious term that needs more explicit definition. The process of reproduction represents a continuum that involves the explicit decision to have a child. Would any financial stress that disrupts these plans count as an abortive effect? If you decide to draw the line defining the start of this process at more overt human action, which I suspect you would, is sex with spermicide lubrication a disruption of this process (an abortion by your own definition)? Or what of the morning after pill, which induces hormone "abortion" often soon after fertilization occurs?

Some of those examples are silly, I know, and that's intentional. Your conception of where life begins is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. For someone who doesn't believe life begins at conception, "aborting" the process after two weeks or two months is no different than wearing a condom and "aborting" prior to fertilization. Both are human behaviors that disrupt the process of creating life at some point before it begins (remember the perspective, here). Your entire argument flows from the notion that conception is the sacred point at which life begins, and that is the premise vulnerable to attack.

Bayou, I'm not trying to convince anybody. Like I said, no position is unassailable, and we all hold pretty arbitrary views on this one.

 

[ValuJet]

Every sperm is sacred.

Uh oh.

:aiwebs_010:

 

[bamanut_aj]

Uh oh.

:aiwebs_010:

A sperm is a terrible thing to waste. Surely you've seen the commercials??

 

[GreatDanish]

Your argument is a good one. But is rests on a premise that is completely arbitrary: life begins at conception. And that's fine, because my notion is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. Just don't make of the mistake of believing your view is infallible, because there hasn't been a perfect argument posited yet.

One could argue that the "process of creating life" renews monthly where a woman's body is in a constant cycle to prepare for fertilization. Would denying sperm be a tacit abortion of this process? Would hormone contraception, as JT pointed out? Right now, you use a specious term that needs more explicit definition. The process of reproduction represents a continuum that involves the explicit decision to have a child. Would any financial stress that disrupts these plans count as an abortive effect? If you decide to draw the line defining the start of this process at more overt human action, which I suspect you would, is sex with spermicide lubrication a disruption of this process (an abortion by your own definition)? Or what of the morning after pill, which induces hormone "abortion" often soon after fertilization occurs?

Some of those examples are silly, I know, and that's intentional. Your conception of where life begins is just as arbitrary as anyone else's. For someone who doesn't believe life begins at conception, "aborting" the process after two weeks or two months is no different than wearing a condom and "aborting" prior to fertilization. Both are human behaviors that disrupt the process of creating life at some point before it begins (remember the perspective, here). Your entire argument flows from the notion that conception is the sacred point at which life begins, and that is the premise vulnerable to attack.

Bayou, I'm not trying to convince anybody. Like I said, no position is unassailable, and we all hold pretty arbitrary views on this one.

I admit, that this is a tough line to draw, and it is one that science can't answer, so we have to go by opinion.
If I may provide the counter...
In an abortion, you have a life in your hands at the end that is thrown away into the disposal. Even if the morning after, there is nothing to be surgically removed, there is a fetus, albeit small, that must be disposed of, even naturally - something that is eventually a child.
In contraception, there is no life thrown away, only prevented. Nothing tangible is dismissed. A sperm is deflected, killed, etc., but sperm by itself is not life. An egg by itself is not life. They must be combined. When they are combined, a human begins to develop. If they are not combined, then the process is prevented, not destroyed.

 

[uafan4life]

I admit, that this is a tough line to draw, and it is one that science can't answer, so we have to go by opinion.
If I may provide the counter...
In an abortion, you have a life in your hands at the end that is thrown away into the disposal. Even if the morning after, there is nothing to be surgically removed, there is a fetus, albeit small, that must be disposed of, even naturally - something that is eventually a child.
In contraception, there is no life thrown away, only prevented. Nothing tangible is dismissed. A sperm is deflected, killed, etc., but sperm by itself is not life. An egg by itself is not life. They must be combined. When they are combined, a human begins to develop. If they are not combined, then the process is prevented, not destroyed.

That's exactly what I was trying to say. I like your wording better.

 

[gmart74]

Here is another aspect to consider. What if the current fetus and future human being will turn out to be a rapist, murderer and all around malcontent? Does that future life hold the same amount of value as any other life? Many studies have shown that crime perpetuates crime, addicts perpetuate more addicts etc etc. So why do we hold the same value for a fetus that would be raised in a horrible environment as that of a fetus raised in a loving environment? These are just statistics so for every 100 future criminals we aborted we would also abort an Einstein. However isn't society better off without these future criminals on the balance of things?

 

[TRUTIDE]

my personal position is that it should ultimately be a decision between the mother and her doctor.

On the surface, this is a simple statement. A statement I would almost agree with in a perfect world. If a woman (not a child) decided to have an abortion, had a doctor who agreed to perform the abortion and had the means to get it done, then I would have less of a problem with it. I would still think it is immoral and even socially wrong but if there is a large percentage of the country that looks upon this as acceptable, then so be it. The problem is that this is not a perfect world.
-When we start forcing doctors to do things that they think are unethical and not in the best interest of the patient.
-When the government (our tax dollars) is paying for abortions or paying groups like planned parenthood to advocate for such things and teaching our kids in our public schools about abortion/birth control.
-When the government makes it where kids can have abortions without parental consent.

Now I have a problem with it.

I am not about telling another what they can or cannot do even if I may think that it is morally and socially wrong. In the case of abortion, I think that it is not only the killing a innocent baby but that it is also causing emotional harm to the mother but these are my personal beliefs. I do not want others personal beliefs pushed onto me and my family and I can see others as feeling the same way. I see it more as a state's rights issue. What most do not understand is that the federal government should not be mandating our moral or religious beliefs in this country. To federally fund such things that majorities in parts of the country are against is wrong. People in states like NY and California can have totally different beliefs than people in states like TX, FL and AL. For instance, some states may believe in capital punishment and some may not. Different states handle killing in self defense cases differently. Should proponents of capital punishment be able to controll the states that are against it? Should our federal government force all states to use capital punishment, define how to use it and mandate that all doctors participate in it? As I said, I am against pushing my moral beliefs on others but I am more against others trying to force their immoral beliefs on me. This is what it all comes down to. I think that most Americans do not want other's beliefs forced onto them. Non religious people did not like their kids being subjected to school prayer. This is just another example of far left extremist being hypocritical.

 

[RammerJammer14]

Here is another aspect to consider. What if the current fetus and future human being will turn out to be a rapist, murderer and all around malcontent? Does that future life hold the same amount of value as any other life? Many studies have shown that crime perpetuates crime, addicts perpetuate more addicts etc etc. So why do we hold the same value for a fetus that would be raised in a horrible environment as that of a fetus raised in a loving environment? These are just statistics so for every 100 future criminals we aborted we would also abort an Einstein. However isn't society better off without these future criminals on the balance of things?

What??????

I think one of the biggest issues with abortions is the "none of your business" issue. Some draw the line with the mother, others with the child. I draw it with the child.

To answer your question (I hope), it is none of our business to judge a completely innocent person. You cannot say that 100 out of 101 aborted children would grow up to be rapists and murderers. That is the whole point. An abortion pevents a a baby from ever having a chance at living a good, meaningful life. It denies the child any chance of ever making decisions, making friends, falling in love (and creating more life), and living to its potential, 100% of the time. It denies the child choice. At the begining, all life has the same value. Heck, it always has the same value. Some people just decide to waste the value of their life, and in some cases forfiet it. But we cannot say which person's life will have value and which will not. To take away life from a child because there is a possibility of that child becoming a criminal is completely unjust.

This reminds me of the movie "Minority Report" where police arrest people for crimes they haven't even thought of commiting yet. To continue your argument: Should we just abort the entire black race in America because the majority of crime is commited by members os the black community? I mean, there wouldn't be any more crime, right? It would benefit society, right? I really really really hope you don't think that would be a viable solution to crime. So why should we do it to completely innocent humans? Because they don't yet have a name, because you can't physically touch or see them?

 

[gmart74]

Abortion is interesting bc it is one of the few areas where the country is split pretty evenly on it AND we have seen what happens when abortion is legal and when it is illegal. From a practical point of view- People will have abortions whether you make it legal or illegal. That is a fact, it has been proven very clearly in the past. The question we have is- can we sleep at night knowing we are allowing abortion to occur with the approval of the government, or can we sleep at night knowing we are forcing pregnant women to subject themselves to dangerous practices from unscrupulous people to have the procedure done. Half the country will choose option #1. For the other half of the country there is no good choice between those two.

 

[gmart74]

in response to rammerjammer:

funny how you immediately mention blacks despite me not using race anywhere in my post. take a read of freakonomics sometime or just google it in regards to abortion versus crime. it explains the argument much better than i can.

as far as aborting all black babies: no, i do not support eugenics. what i am saying is that if you take every race and single out the families that have generational problems with crime, drugs, violence, etc, then you can be reasonably sure that the next generation from that family will most likely show the same tendencies. Many people use the phrase $1 of family planning is worth $x of future spending. Even Pelosi said something to this effect in the last day or so. What they are saying when they use that phrase is basically a very nice way of saying that if we spend $1 on a condom today we wont have to spend $10,000 on your criminal drug addict once he grows up. As the mods say here- it isn't what you say but how you say it. That phras is an extremely PC way of saying we don't want your future criminal draining society bc you cant raise your baby properly.