The Abortion Post
08.29.06
This is the continuation of a debate that started in a previous post. It was out of place, so I figgered I’d haul it over to it’s own stomping grounds. Abortion is a sensative topic to myself. I know it is to my friends as well. The meat of the conversation has already been said, so I’ll reproduce it here.
Our regular, Simple Simon wanted to debate the topic and started this one off. I do get a bit dramatic, I’ll admit. I’m just strong on my convictions. 
Simon Says,
Ah, abortion. that terrific divisive issue. a question: do you guys support abortions for rape victims?
Chad Says,
no. we don’t support “allowable” murder for rape victims. Ever hear of adoption? Nothing big. Just the humane and sane way of handleing the tragic situation of a rape birth.
Simon Says,
Adoption sounds nice, but the fact is that there arent enough adoptive families to take the children up for adoption already. Most likely, such a child is condemned to a life as a ward of the state (an orphan), without a family. Either that, or the woman must keep the child, and is provided a living reminder of how she was sexually violated.Also, as Van Zant says, pregnancy is rarely without health consequences for the mother. Despite what modern medicine might have you believe, no pregnancy is without serious risk. A mother might well die or become permanently impaired giving birth to the child of her rapist.
Thirdly, in cases were probably fatal medical complications are forseen by a woman’s doctors I think it should be the choice of the woman whether she wants to take that risk.
In fact, pro-choice is an almost liberatarian policy, giving the freedom of discretion to the individual. That some mothers might abuse the right to abort (Side note: I think Roe vs. Wade was a bad judicial decision as it had little or no basis in the Constitution. The “right to abort” was written into the constitution, but that’s another matter.) is no argument against it because all of our other freedoms (e.g. of speech) are abused by some people.
Basically abortion is a very case by case thing, and therefore difficult to legislate. Sometimes I sympathize with the mother and think she should be allowed to have an abortion and sometimes i dont. It should only be a last resort.
Chad Says,
Adoption sounds nice? adoption IS NICE. My family has fostered children all through my growing up. Some of these foster siblings were then adopted by folks in our church. these kids came from messed up homes where their single mothers would whore themselves out to feed drug habits. They would leave there kids in the park during an entire day, half dressed, while they went off of drug binges.
The only problem with adoption is that the state looks to make a profit off of it, by charging so much darn money to adopt. (the other side of that, it ensures the family is dedicated to caring for them)
if pro-choice is libertarian, then so is pro-murder-at-will.
Do a little research, and you’ll find tons of instances where a “doctor” told a lady that it “might possibly, slightly cause her… hmm… some discomfort” to have a baby, so she should feel free to late term abort the 8 month old living, breathing, feeding human being. This way the doctor gets paid, and coulden’t care less about the slaughtered offspring. Of course those doctors are going to hell twice, in my opinion.
Here’s the main FACT. Birthing has been risky since the fall of man. That means all of history.
So for you to support the conscious murder of a woman’s offspring…. is completely messed up, and immoral.
And you’re all about nature right? Show me where else in nature a mother would slaughter herself to save her own ass? NOWHERE! Animals gladly sacrifice themselves to preserve their youngin. A doe with a fawn, will lower her head and charge at an oncoming vehicle, if it spooks her just right and she thinks yer fawn is in danger. Of course this breaks her neck and kills her.
For a mother to slaughter her child is the most unnatural, disgusting act of human selfishness I can think of.
Try and rationalize it all you like. In the end, it is complete human degredation and perversion.
and for you think that a beautiful baby child would be a “living reminder of how she was sexually violated” is a thought of complete ignorance. I can safely say this because my cousin happens to be a rape baby. Thats right. Not exactly “awesome information” that folks like to put out there. But she loves him dearly. When he was in highschool he was in a motorcycle accident, became permantly brain damaged, and on top of everything, she has cared for him like he was an infant for over 30 years.
Don’t even try and tell me that isn’t “natural” or that it “scars” her for having her son.
Your opinions are ignorant ones. rant over.
Ahhh.. Not enought familys to take in Kids?? My aunt and uncles waited over a year to adopt a baby.
…”pregnancy is rarely without health consequences for the mother.”
Neither is a trip to the local Mexican resturanut, but every time I go I have to wait in line.
# August 29th, 2006 at 7:45 pmMaybe you might use this - You were a fetus once, Wonder if your mum concidered terminating when she first learned she was carrying you. Would that have been alright.
# August 29th, 2006 at 10:38 pmThink about what you would have missed out on, all of your experiences, happy times, fond memories, you would not exist, your children would not exist, and your wife would be married to someone else. I’m typing this slowly cause I know you can’t read very fast . - Do you get it?
Don’t you think they all deserve what you take for granted,
LIFE. Your one of the lucky ones.
aus blog….
Well my take is this. The US has turned its back on the most innocent of civilians. Taking life is taking life. I think it should be a trial with a jury, atleast then, the little life could have due process. They are sentenced to death without the basic rights we all share.
They haven’t had a chance to comitt a crime or to prevent such crimes. They haven’t had a chance to cure cancer or to further scientific research. They’ve become casualties of a selfish culture. What about rape? If the man rapped the lady then make him pay, if a man rapes a child, put HIM to death. The man gets due process. What’s wrong with that picture? If the lady concieves because of rape then make something good come out of something so bad… give life. Two wrongs don’t make a right. So killing an innocent baby would help heal the hurt of the victim?
I believe, morally and socially, that every spark of life deserves a chance.
# August 30th, 2006 at 6:39 amI don’t want to enter this debate too much since it’s very hard for me to express my thoughts clearly in english, but I just want to awnser this question :
“Show me where else in nature a mother would slaughter herself to save her own ass?”
By this one :
“Show ME where else in nature an animal rapes another one?”
That said, I do think that in some cases abortion might be, I wouldn’t say “solution”, but might be a relief for some peoples.
On the other hand, sentences like “I believe, morally and socially, that every spark of life deserves a chance.” really talks to me and make me rethink my positions.
# August 30th, 2006 at 11:58 amOh, frenchy is still around!
You want to know where else in nature an animal rapes another one? That is neither logical nor relevant to the topic.
Rape is illegal in the human element. So when my dog gets out of the yard, and boinks the neighbors dog, thats not really rape since they are animals and that is their nature(natural). And he won’t be going to doggy jail, and standing before 12 of his doggie peers in a doggie court.
Animals killing their offspring because they don’t “want” them is unnatural.
So for a human mother to “relieve” herself through means of legal baby murder, that is not natural. That is evil.
So to break it down for you.
rape is wrong and illegal.
abortion is wrong and legal.
See how rape doesn’t come into this equation?
Now if someone comitted wrong(#1) by rape, that should not make it okay to commit another wrong(#2) through murdering the baby who had no choice in his creation.
Like CS said. “every spark of life deserves a chance”.
# August 30th, 2006 at 12:32 pmYou have a small country of 35 million that live in a place of paradise. Morality is kept pristine as well as trust, sacred loyal trust. They were in training until an evil corrupt form of freedom started snaking itself across paradise. It began to gut innocence and destroy potential. Using arguments like, the citizens here can’t survive on their own, so citizens - they’ll no longer be considered. We view them as a choice…
One pause of the surgeons hand, somewhere in the back of his mind he thinks, am I killing another Dr. Martin Luther King? Am I killing another Motzart? Another Ghandi? Abraham Lincoln or a George Washington? He makes quick work when his scissors rips through the soft skin and then life is ended.
No standing army in that land no special forces to storm in and save them. Such a trusting people, trusting us to guide them into a place where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness isn’t just a cliche.
35 million plus have been butchered in this land where is our head? How hard can our heart be? Chad put it to the bottom line…
# August 30th, 2006 at 3:21 pmChad, chill out man. I’m still trying to figure out where i stand on this one. ack, this is why I hate talking about abortion. That “loose women” or irresponsible doctors might abuse the “right to abort” invented in Roe vs. Wade is another reason why i dont support that decision - it’s not helpful from a legislative standpoint.
And while I dont think anyone has brought it up yet, there is the ongoing war about when “life” begins. While you may roar that “LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION YOU AMORAL JERK!!”, fact is that a baby starts out as a bundle of stem cells. When its the interest of fully grown woman versus that of a bunch of microscopic cells, i think the woman can take priority. Therefore, I think the discussion about “when is too late?” is a worthwhile one.
but at the same time, i totally agree with you that abortion is disgusting and morally wrong.
as for the adoption question, my younger brother happens to be an adopted Russian orphan. the reason there is a waiting period to adopt is not that there arent enough kids, but that there is a lot of work and legal blah involved in adoption. the 100s of other kids at my brother’s orphanage without families are a testament to the fact that not every child can be adopted. (and in case you’re wondering, the majority of the children spend their entire childhood at the orphanage until they can no longer be supported and a released onto the streets for a life of poverty, begging, and commonly crime.)
And finally Chad, the one thing that really bothers me is that you keep trying to compare human situations to ones “in nature”, whatever that means. Lets stick to our species on this one, please. what other animals do is not especially relevant to a moral/legislative/social discussion.
CS’s point about the rape argument is actually an excellent one. although it is my duty to point out that what might be the next mozart might equally be the next rapist, murder, or just a still born. the one thing that we can be certain of is that the mother is alive. however, “every spark deserves a chance” is an admirable sentiment.
and bruce, this kind of thing - “I’m typing this slowly cause I know you can’t read very fast .” - is just a waste of my reading time. next time, try to contribute positively to the discourse.
# August 30th, 2006 at 4:09 pmoh, and another argument for abortion rights is that abortions would happen anyway (the famous coat hanger, back alley kind) and that making it legal can insure that its done in a safe way for the mother. this frames the issue as “principle vs. practical” which to some extent i think it is. in our laws should we 1) stand up for a moral principle or 2) treat the amoral act as inevitable and try to manage it as effectively and safely as possible.
I can sympathize with both. While I love your principles and morals and wish “every spark could have a chance” and all, part of me thinks “come on, things aren’t so simple in real life.” perhaps that’s why my posts are so confused
anyway, i have plenty of food for thought, so onto the next battle:
# August 30th, 2006 at 4:19 pmwhat of contraceptives?
Oh and one more thing: I’d like to her some female perspective on this, it seems a little silly that a bunch of men are talking about what is, in the end, a female issue.
# August 30th, 2006 at 4:23 pm“oh, and another argument for abortion rights is that abortions would happen anyway (the famous coat hanger, back alley kind) and that making it legal can insure that its done in a safe way for the mother”
Safe for the Mother?? Natural Selection, Baby!!!! Let me get out my file and run around filing all the sharp corners off the world. WHY DO WE HAVE TO PROTECT THE IDIOTS OF THE WORLD????
Maybe these ladies would mess themselvs up to the point they CANT have kids. This way the only person they are hurting are themselves.
# August 30th, 2006 at 5:29 pmWow man, that TOTALLY clarifies things.
# August 30th, 2006 at 6:41 pmSorry. I do tend to git my panties in a bunch on this one.
I guess it just erks me that some people have no feelings for the obvious living human that a “straight” couple created.
just cos some pathetic and sick human would take a coat hanger to themselves is absolutely NO excuse to legalize the murder. i mean there are murderers out there who will always break the law. Legalizing murder so they won’t do it dangerously is just silly.
I do understand how it could be difficult for you to decide on when a fetus might be considered “human”. But I realize that procreation is a beautiful gift from God. It is precious from before it was conceived, and it’s name was known by God before we ever knew it was coming. So I guess I can’t really argue that one with you, because we are on different planes of faith or belief.
# August 30th, 2006 at 9:26 pmAlright, so I did a bit of reading about fetuses, (wikireading, that is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus) and discovered to my considerable interest that the fetus does not exhibit brainwave activity until the 6th week of development. If I were in charge of this kind of thing, and needed to make a compromise, I would say that 6 weeks is the deadline for abortion. It gives the woman plenty of time to get tested and to decide she doesnt want the baby. And before 6 weeks, the fetus literally doesnt know it exists.
I’m not saying abortion is alright, but i think it’d be a good compromise, and more humane than the current state of affairs.
# August 31st, 2006 at 8:27 amChad - I get emotional over this issue as well. If a school room filled with kids being butchered doesnt’ make you emotional then something may be wrong. All I can see is the potential of each “spark of life”.
Simon: The argument about the “coat hanger” takes the edge off the issue from one standpoint. Say we spin it a tad, what if it were a man, a man that just wanted to kill his child. He went to a dark alley and ordered a hit. He paid the bill and during the drive by the man was wounded and his kid killed. Would he get our sympathy? Not from me. We would lament that he wasn’t killed instead of his child. Legal murder is just as bad, a little more “medical”, and the woman may be taken care of a little better. In the end the child still dies. “Coat hanger” style is like ordering a hit. Both may lose out.
When a fetus becomes human misses the point, in my oppinion. It is in the potential. What if a woman just found out she was with child, 2 weeks along. The doctor confirmed it. Then a drunk driver hit her and she lost the baby. Would he be charged with murder? I think he would be.
If the offspring of a rape turns out to be a murderer or a master pianist, who are we to decide the course before it arrives into our world. I think if we put the innocent baby on trial and argue all the negatives with the positives and then come to a conclusion, atleast, then we would be giving the unborn citizen a fair chance. The six week compromise would be more humane - murder still.
# August 31st, 2006 at 9:46 amSo if some shrewd politician or another were to propose that abortion be legal for the first six weeks, would you be able to accept that? (Not that something like that would ever happen. After all, the Supreme Court has already written the “right to abort” whenever you damn well please into the constitution.)
# August 31st, 2006 at 9:19 pmI couldn’t agree with it. As a society, I could see where it would be more tolerable.
# September 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pmOh boy. Ya’ll can’t talk about the Abortion Holocaust without expecting an appearance from me.
Just scanning some of the comments made i have to just reinterate some of the facts.
1)There are a million couples out there waiting to adopt a baby.
2) This is a human rights issue… period. No right supercedes the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
3) Technology is constantly changing. Every year they find out something new about the unborn child, through a new scientific breakthough in medical technology. If we start putting dates on when life begins (i.e. SS’s 6 weeks for brain activity) then start creating legislation that purposes life is only life after 6 weeks in utero, and all abortions before the 6th week is fine (but after is murder)… what happens when scientists find out that it’s actually four weeks that the brain is functioning. In that mindset you just accidentally killed how many millions because of our ignorance.
Trying to quantify life or quality of life is a dangarous game that shouldn’t be played. God and God alone designed this magnificient process and may all the glory go to Him. To mess with His design is to slap Him in the face. Not me, brother.
And don’t get me started on the “Four Exceptions” bull pucky (Rape, Incest, Life of Mother, Possible Birth Defect). These are rare and easily negated by intelligent debate.
# September 1st, 2006 at 11:32 pmnot sure how this landed in the spam box. you gotta give me a heads up sometimes, if it doesn’t show and doesn’t say “awaiting moderation”
# September 2nd, 2006 at 2:47 pmem, i think mine got spammed
# September 2nd, 2006 at 6:22 pmSorry Simon, but I dont see anything in there with your name on it. If its been over 7 days then it was auto deleted. Might wanna re-submit that.
# September 3rd, 2006 at 2:54 pmmeh, i’ve lost my momentum. so let’s move on: What of contraceptives? Do you approve/accept their use?
# September 4th, 2006 at 10:24 amcontraceptives that don’t kill are ok in my oppinion. the morning after pill is a slippery slope.
# September 4th, 2006 at 2:49 pmyea, i dont mind the jimmy cap. I have friends who won’t use em. But they aren’t against anything i believe.
# September 4th, 2006 at 3:06 pmAll chemical contraceptives are abortifacients. Their main purpose is to prevent ovulation, if that fails, it lines the uterus wall with a thick mucus that will not allow the ‘already conceived’ baby to attach itself… killing it. Jimmy caps are the only thing that doesn’t kill.
Some Catholics and Conservative Protestants believe that condoms impede God’s natural purpose for sex… conception. This may be true to some degree but at least you are not killing babies by using them.
There is also another option: NFP. “Natural Family planning” is actually 99.9% accurate if done correctly. There are some drawbacks to NFP, though. You must abstain 10-12 days a month. Also, the female must take her temp every morning at the same time and log it in a chart. This temp recording acts as a map to ovulation. Very interesting stuff. My wife and I use it, but when we got lazy with it, our newest little one was a result.
# September 4th, 2006 at 5:20 pmJJ blathered: “Natural Family planning” is actually 99.9% accurate…
Bwa ha haa haa ha… you got some “actual” statistic’s to back that one up?
BTW I’m not pickin’ a fight, I agree with your position just have a better handle on reality.
# September 5th, 2006 at 2:04 amI agree with JJ. I’m glad he has the knowledge on this. I went under the knife, OUCH!!! After our second…
# September 5th, 2006 at 10:20 amCondoms are also good for preventing the spread of nasty buggers like AIDS!
# September 5th, 2006 at 6:43 pmyea, well im pretty sure that no one else here has to worry about that. Because we stick with our God ordained mate, and don’t loosely run around with strange wimmin.
you don’t do that either, right simon?
# September 5th, 2006 at 9:59 pmThe whole condom/AIDS BS is such a fallacy (LOL).
If you are in a monogamous loving relationship and don’t have multiple sexual partners or deviant sex then there is nothing to be concerned about.
Maybe those activists should spend there energies teaching some moral fortitude as opposed to insisting governments provide free condoms and cough-up at our expense endless amounts of money to cure a disease that is easily avoided.
# September 6th, 2006 at 9:20 am“Maybe those activists should spend there energies teaching some moral fortitude as opposed to insisting governments provide free condoms and cough-up at our expense endless amounts of money to cure a disease that is easily avoided.”
1) While the government can enforce a particular moral code (hence laws) it can not teach people to live by that code. Plus, under our system of government, people have the freedom to have lots of sexual partners. Is that a good idea? Probably not. Should they be allowed to do it? You betcha.
And the government DOES try to discourage irresponsible sexual through public service announcements and other means, but there’s only so far they can go - sex is largely a personal issue.
2) Condoms ARE NOT EXPENSIVE! You must be joking! Our government may be “Throwing endless amounts of money away”, but it sure isn’t on connies.
3) In many countries, particularly in Sub-saharan africa, the AIDS prevalance rate is so high (about 25% in South Africa, roughly 5 MILLION people) and testing is so expensive and hard to get, that one can never really be sure about any sexual partner. (Note: The spread of AIDS in South Africa, something which i studied briefly, has less to do with lack of moral fiber among the population and more to do with a devastating lack of awareness and accurate infromation about the disease. For example, there is a very common (and persistent) myth in South Africa and a lot of other african countries that the disease can be cure by having sex with a virgin…) In those cases, there is no doubt that condoms are the cheapest and most effective way to spread the disease. That is why it is so disastrous when prominent church figures start telling people that condoms violate God’s will, or whatever.
4) And Chad, I do not have AIDS, nor do I have sex with multiple “loose women”. I have much more respect for women than that. But the people who are most at risk of catching the disease are the ones who know the least about it.
# September 6th, 2006 at 10:10 am