When, If Ever, Is Abortion Justifiable?

Bill...

i'm not going to argue this one with you, because it is so pointless it's not worth a debate.

you feel how you feel, and i feel how i feel, and neither of us are going to influence each others stand on this issue.

i'm just going to say i agree with a whole lot of what you say. not all, but believe it or not, a vast majority of it.

where we differ is that i believe, even tho i do NOT approve of abortion except in the case of saving the mothers life, i believe that it is neither my place, nor your place, nor any other person on the planets place to say what a woman can or cannot do with her body.

yes... i understand that the fetus, the potential baby cannot speak for itself - has no voice to defend itself. i hate that, i really do, and i agree it's unfair.

however, the fact remains that without the womans body, the fetus has zero chance of survival. it's not an independant entity. it has no ' rights' to defend, except those percieved by the opponents of abortion, for reasons all of their own.

i won't argue the morality of abortion. that is God's domain. if God has a problem with it, He will take it up with the women Himself.. he has no need for my input. a woman who has an abortion has her reasons, and she doesn't need to explain them to me. it's not my job.

but as strongly as i believe abortion is wrong, i believe the choice belongs to the pregnant woman alone just as strongly. not you, not me, and not a bunch of old people in DC.

as nothing better than members of the human race, no aspect of divinity, no divine right to pass god's judgement, we don't have the Authority to tell another human what they can do with somethign that is a part of their own body.

we don't have the right to prevent a woman from aborting any more than we have the right to prevent a man form having his gall bladder removed. gall stone won't kill you, but they feel like they will. so there is no life-saving reason to remove the gall bladder.

no, the gall bladder doesn't have a potential person, but without the host body, the embryo/fetus has no chance to do so either.

i'm not sure i can say this in a way that you can understand.....

i dislike abortion, except in the case of preventing harm to the mother. then i heartily approve of it. the mothers life is always paramoount.

i WISH no one would ever choose to abort except for that one reason. i hope no one else has another abortion.

but i do not, can not and will not force what i believe onto another adult human. i might not like it, but i will defend her right to make the choice.

i don't like what the KKK has to say. i dislike them and everything they stand for. i wish they ceased to exist, and i hope they never recruit another member with their message of hate and fear.

but i will defend their right to say it.

 i disagree with a lot fo the things YOU say in here. i think you are amazingly wrong and pigheaded and blinded by your own sense of holy right-ness.

but i won't try and stop you from spreading your message.

not because i can't, but because even if i could, i don't have the right.

i'm mostly likely not going to bother coming into this thread again, so you shouldn't probably even bother to reply.

you stated your opinions.. i stated mine. we won't change each others mind, so it's pointless to discuss it.



Hi Nagel,

You argue for the woman's right to choose.  I agree that the woman has the right to choose whether she will get pregnant or not.  She can do this in a number of ways -- through protected sex, through legitimate birth control methods, or through abstaining.  All of these are her rights -- because, as you said, it is her body.

But, if she chooses to ignore all of those preventive steps -- and gets pregnant; she is no longer just responsible for her body, she is also responsible for that life God has implanted within her through the act of a God ordained and blessed marital sexual relationship. 

At that point, the baby, regardless of its age -- from conception through birth -- has equal rights.  And, as you said, the woman can speak for herself; but, the baby cannot.  So, we who value life speak for it.   We speak loud and clear that abortion, Infanticide, is wrong -- Biblically, humanly, and even in the eyes of many secularists.

Nagel, did you get upset when Michael Vick was caught hosting dog fights?  Did that animal cruelty upset you?   Then, why do you not get upset when a baby is burned to death by soaking it in saline solution?  Why do you not get upset when a full term baby has a hole punched in its head and its brain suctioned out -- halfway through the delivery process? 

Why do you not get upset looking at photos of small babies ripped apart by the abortionists tools?   Forget animal cruelty!  Abortion is pure human cruelty -- committed against the ones least able to defend themselves, innocent, unborn babies.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

This issue has never been about abortion, as such.  There is no physician with whom I have ever been associated who would rip and tear a from the womb deliberately killing it.  Equating a fetus to a baby is something none of us is really qualified to do.  The real issue is and always has been about women's rights to make their own medical decisions.  This on-going discussion forever and ever about the mechanics of abortion, equating it to infanticide, and all that sort of emotional stuff got started as a means of negating the real argument.  As an example of that will perhaps help you to understand, when I wanted to have a tubal ligation in 1978, my husband had to sign the paperwork giving me permission to do that.  That was true for my mother as well, when she had given birth to four children, had an equal number of miscarriages.  My father would not sign because the first four were girls and he wanted a boy.  The last child was a boy.  Because my mother was rH negative (before the days of the shot), the pregnancy was very difficult and the baby had to have several blood transfusions without which he would have died.  I couldn't possibly look at my brother today, a wonderful human being, and say I wish she had never had him.  But I do believe she should have had the right to decide along with her doctor whether she physically, emotionally and otherwise felt able to go through another pregnancy and childbirth.  If only all of the people who keep themselves wrapped up in an emotional argument about a woman's right to make a medical decision with her doctor's advice and consent would put their energy into taking care of all of the children we already have who are not treated well, perhaps abortion itself would become a moot point.  It is my understanding that statistically by far the majority of abortions are performed on women who already have other children and live in poverty, drug addiction, and/or have health conditions that make childbearing unwise.  In Lauderdale County, 20% of families live below the poverty line.  This is not a black and white issue that needs to be decided based on how we "feel", but on a more logical assessment of what is in the best interest of women.  An opinion about it based on religious interpretation and feelings is not the same as logic.

I lived in California for years and killing someone with your car unintentionally isn't first degree murder. I don't think it is in Alabama either. You can't compare a drunk to a vicious criminal who shoots everything in sight. I can't imagine that many people would feel as you do about that.

No it's not a black or white clear cut issue. This is 2011-no reason in the world for there to be so many abortions except irresponsibility running rampant. Things happen, and one of the worse things I can think of happening is having a doctor tell me I had to kill my child for my own health or life. Those are the abortions I just can't speak to because never being in that situation thank goodness, I have no idea of the turmoil a woman goes through IF she wants that child as much as I wanted mine.

 Unob tells me there are no late term abortions done unless it's a health issue. That's not true but he won't hear anything else about it, his mind is made up it doesn't happen. Well it does happen and I know one that aborted twins at 7 months because she got ****ed at the boyfriend and his family. This heartless bytch even had a baby shower. There were NO health issues involved.  Now how often it happens I couldn't tell you, but there are plenty of doctors that have no problem doing it.

There are women that have multiple abortions. How do we explain that if it's not just irresponsibility or laziness? And yes it is the woman's body, and true the baby couldn't survive without the woman's body, but it is also the "flesh" so to speak of the man that helped create the baby. That's another problem I have with abortion, men that want the child but have to stand by while the woman kills it, sometimes for no other reason than he ****** her off.

It is my opinion, and that is ALL that it is, that an abortion would be acceptable in cases of rape or incest, and to save the mother's life. It IS NOT acceptable as a 'form of birth control'.

One argument is that people against abortion want to interfere or tell a woman what to do with her body, and won't admit there are people opposed because they think it's a baby from day one, and the idea of killing it is repulsive, icky, gross, grisly and all the other horrible adjectives you could come up with.  Someone posted it was barbaric. Perfect word for it.

The problem with the restriction to "rape, incest, health . . ." is that it would require a legal process to determine whether or not it's going to be permitted.  If you did the kind of work I do, you would know the courts are clogged up already with all manner of horrible stuff families do to each other.  The last thing a woman in this situation needs is to go through a lengthy, stressful legal hearing to determine what she is to be permitted to do to resolve the situation.  Proving rape or incest has a history of being pretty impossible anyway, so most people would end up getting an illegal abortion as they used to do.  Mostly not by a doctor!

Any physician who would agree to terminate twins at seven months  . . ..  Fill in the blank.  They all take an oath to preserve life whenever possible -- that is their passion -- and it keeps them very busy.

Where do they keep statistics on the reason women have abortions?  I think I found where the 3% figure came from, but it is not verified by the sources whose statistical methods are credit.

I'd think if a woman called the police and reported a rape, a doctor confirmed the rape, that would be all that would be needed for the "morning after" pill. Reports I've seen have it at around 1% for abortions due to rape or incest, that could be higher or even smaller.  

I guess how it was determined whether rape or incest had occurred would have to be legal process, if law is involved.  Otherwise, all a woman would have to do is say she was raped and we'd be right back where we started.  In other words, if abortion is illegal EXCEPT in certain cases, wouldn't you have to prove you fit one of those cases?  And wouldn't there have to be a hearing?  I'm not a lawyer, but  . . ..  lol. The 1% figure was what I found, although its well known that the statistics are dependent on self-reporting.    In any case, I think Roe V Wade was decided based on privacy rights.  It was determined based on the government having their noses in a woman's medical decision.   If the man who impregnated her is going to be medically castrated, maybe that would be more fair!  (kidding guys)

There are plenty of false reports of rape, and there is a law against doing that, but I guess it all boils down to one thing, if you can't fight it make it legal. I have no interest in controlling a woman's "medical" life. I don't march in front of abortion clinics. But I can't help the way I feel about women that have abortions because they were to lazy, drunk, high or whatever to take precautions. The same goes for men that hop on those women without any thought or care that they might be starting a life that will just be flushed down the drain.

I agree with Jennifer 100%. Most abortions are do to laziness.

Life should be respected. It is precious. I'm sure glad my Mom

didn't abort me.

Skippy

So, if your wife, or sister, or mother was pregnant and became very ill, and you were told by your doctor that the only way to save her life would be an abortion, you would want the government to make the decision for you, rather than your family and your doctor? If you are really "pro life", then you have to allow the government to make that decision. Do you really want to give the government that much power? 

Jimi, you need to read all my posts. No where did I say I wanted government to decide anything. Try to keep up. I said that would be between the woman, her husband, and her doctor to make that life or death decision, not me, not you, not anyone else.

In the All in the Family Series,

Edith was talking to Gloria when Gloria was reluctantly considering aborting

Little Joey. Gloria asked her Mom if she ever considered abortion. Edith said,

If I did She(Edith) would have been talking to herself, instead of Gloria.

Thank you Norman Lear. Sorry Jimbo, this one is above your head.

Skippy

Jenn, that is ILLEGAL as far as I can tell.  I would not support such a heinous procedure.  I've no doubt that it happens from time to time but my point is that the fact that late term abortions are performed (at less than a half of a percent of all abortions) will not change if all abortions are made illegal.  Women will find a way as your claim demonstrates.  For the protection of all concerned, abortion should be (and is) regulated. Those that break the rules should receive the full force of law and punished accordingly.

 

My opinion as stated in the original post is that I don't believe answers are that easy on either side of the issue.  I am not pro-abortion for convenience.  I am also convinced that a 14 year old girl, raped by her Uncle, Step-Father, Father, etc. should NOT be forced to carry that child by law or Government.  It is a moral issue here for me.  I am not a Bible scholar and won't pretend to be one but doesn't the Bible say all sins are equal?  If this is the logic, that therefore it is immoral so it should be illegal.  Then shouldn't lying also be just as illegal, therefore require a prison term?

If the percentages I keep seeing quoted are 97% - 3%, then I guess my best answer to the question is:

I am 97% pro-life and 3% pro-choice.  The questions aren't that cut and dry, and for me neither are the answers.

Now pro-choicers will claim I am on their side since I am not 100% pure.  Get a grip, I am no where close to being on your side.

Pro-lifers may claim I am evil for my 3%.  Get a grip and get in touch with reality.  There are situations that warrant humane consideration.

Would you also agree that these situations are best decided by the people involved and the medical professionals rather than by the government?  Except, of course, I understand that you would be opposed to late-term abortions.   My contention is that hardly anyone believes ALL abortions should be illegal, and that the rest of what we disagree on has to do with disagreements regarding the privacy rights of women (and families) to decide these things.

What about the Father of a baby? Should he have any rights over the life of his child if the Mother wanted to abort?

Semi, that's one thing that has always seemed so unfair to me. If he wants his baby he can't do anything but stand by and watch if the woman decides she wants to kill it, and that has happened.

A little off the subject but I'm curious.
Are all of you who despise the idea that pregnancies can happen to careless, lazy, uncaring, drunk/high, irresponsible individuals, willing to subject that precious new life to the hands of the very same careless, lazy, uncaring, drunk/high, irresponsible individuals who created it?
Is life for life's sake, at all costs, all that matters?
Is there room for consideration regarding the quality of a child's life and the consequences of that life?
Do you accept that there are real-life consequences to the very lives you purport to protect and, to a lesser extent, to the tax payers that will often need to support them and their families? 
What do you think are the odds that the progeny of lazy, uncaring, drunk/high, irresponsible people will, in turn, themselves become lazy, uncaring, drunk/high, irresponsible parents of lazy, uncaring, drunk/high, irresponsible offspring? 
How many productive, caring, sober, responsible people (often with their own precious families to care for) does it take to support a single family that results from the brief union of lazy, uncaring, drunk/high and irresponsible individuals?
Just curious.

Hi Melli,

Personally, I do believe that an abortion should be the absolute last resort.  And, I do believe that an abortion is the killing a living baby -- regardless of its age.  Life begins at conception; so, abortion is taking a life which God has created.

That said, I do realize there are times when one of the two lives -- the mother or the child -- must be sacrificed.  In such an situation; I, too, would opt for saving the mother's life.  I would be very sad because of it; but, I do believe that is the right decision.

But, abortion because of rape or incest, as horrible as those are -- do not truly warrant the killing of an innocent baby.   The place to avoid this type of abortion is to prevent the necessity -- stop the rapist, stop the incestuous adult.  Again, I realize this is the ideal;  but, not necessarily the realistic solution -- for who can stop the person who is so evil as to commit such acts?   But, stopping even one -- can stop the killing via abortion of one child.  And, that, is a victory!

Abortion is never right; even though, in some rare instances, it is a necessity.   This is my belief -- and, yes, I would apply this to my own wife, daughter, or granddaughter -- to anyone I love, as well as to others.

We must keep in mind that, while the evil, despicable act of rape or incest is emotionally very difficult for a young girl or woman -- to build upon that emotional distress by adding a second evil, that of abortion, on top of it is not the solution.  Regardless of what many have said -- studies have shown that most women who have abortions at a relatively young age -- do suffer emotionally from this, later in their lives.

Melli, our society needs to find a better solution than Infanticide.

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

I find all attempts to discuss this subject with someone who has the beliefs you have, all based in your religious interpretations, to be a morass that leads nowhere.  You are entitled to those opinions, but I disagree and that is about all that can be said.  Good luck trying to abolish rape and incest.  They have been around since the beginning of recorded history as crimes mostly (though not universally) committed against women. 

Sorry --  I don't think I'm doing a good job of directing my comments.  The last were intended for Bill, and I understood from the get-go where you were coming from.

To the other point as to whether the potential father involved should have legal rights, I think that is a very tough one.  For the most part, a woman can terminate a pregnancy before the person who impregnated her even knows about it, if he EVER does. I guess it depends on the relationship the two have as to what would happen.  Where there is no marriage, paternity has to be determined, etc., etc. etc.  Just seems like it would be impossible to enforce a requirement.  And what if it's a girl's father or her mother's boyfriend?  Does he have those rights?   I'm not saying things should be the way they are, they just are what they are, if that makes sense.  Not everything that is immoral can be resolved by making it illegal.  But the idea of a man having control of a woman's body in this is problematic in so many ways.  Where does that end? 

Hi Robust,

Let's make sure we are all clear on what you are suggesting.    Your thought is that all pregnancies which occur to people who are not up to YOUR STANDARDS -- should absolutely be aborted.  Is that about what you have said in your post above? 

This makes me wonder.  What would have happened when YOUR mother was pregnant -- and another "Judge Of The People's Qualifications To Become Parents" had decided that your parents were not fit to birth you?   I guess you would have been aborted.   Not saying that is a bad thing; but, for you it would surely have sucked.

Robust, my Fishy Friend, every child, every baby, born or unborn -- is a precious gift from God.  And, every one deserves the right to live.   When YOU begin to judge that innocent child's right to life -- based upon its parents morals or other qualities -- what makes you different from those who created the holocaust?

God bless, have a wonderful, blessed day,

Bill

Bill is not pro life. He is anti choice. Ask him if he believes in the barbaric death penalty. He believes that killing a human being is OK if you have a good reason, which is the same justification used by many murderers, which makes him no different than them.

When he gets pregnant he can decide.

Well gee jimi, how does she get pregnant without him? I know you could care less but there are plenty of men who happen to love and want their children.

Jimi, just consider the death penalty a "late term abortion" and you will be all for it.

Originally Posted by Bill Gray:

I do realize there are times when one of the two lives -- the mother or the child -- must be sacrificed.  In such an situation; I, too, would opt for saving the mother's life.

Bravo. Bravo.

Thats the way Jenn. Good one. I think, I say, I think we may have the boy on the ropes.

Bill,

I can always count on you to miss the point entirely and to not answer any questions. Thank you for being you.

I got your point A. Robustus and it is the same one I have tried to make before. I got about as far as you did. Seems to just go right over some peoples heads.

As for the man having a say, well I think no. As Melli has said that would get extremely complicated and in the end not work very well. Abortion is a woman's right and I sure hope it stays that way. Making it illegal would not stop abortions, only push them back in the alleys as they used to be.

When Obama appoints a few more justices to the Court in his 2nd term, the legality of abortion will be safe for many, many years.

Thats good..thats real good...implying that Obama will be re-elected. Thats good.