Abortion is not the issue

[OldGreyEagle]

So, for the record, I see abortion as murder.

 

Then I have said this a few times and it's time to bring it up again.

 

The goal of our society should not be whether or not abortion is legal or illegal, that is not the point, arguing about the legality of a medical procedure is not the issue. It's a quesiton about respect for life. Rather than fighting to live in a society that allows/does not allow abortion, we should strive to live in a society where the respect for life is such that no one would ever think of abortion. That support systems would be such that the thought of an abortion would be so abhorrent that is would not be condsidered. Making abortion illegal reminds me of the slogan "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", well, "When abortion is crminalized, only criminals will abort". Its not about abortion, its about setting up a society where abortion can occur, its just doesnt because its not thought about

[Sentinel947]

I agree with your entire post, but I'll point out that some people don't believe a fetus to be living. So they don't see abortion as murder.

[Brewmeister]

>>some people don't believe a fetus to be living.

 

Yes, it's amazing how people who argue with such technical precision about other areas of biology and science find it logical to put a completely arbitrary date after which life is worth protecting. If life worth protecting doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin? 6 months? Why not 5 months and 30 days, or 6 months and an hour? Why not "abort" post-birth for that matter...oh wait, that's already been proposed...

[qwazse]

S97,

 

There is a clash of world views on this one. But, it's not so much not seeing it as living, but seeing the imposition on an unwilling or inept mother as the greater evil. Abortion advocates see it as the ultimate cruelty to let a child even have have one breath in that context of "unwantedness."

 

I know a few folks who are children of such moms, and their life is hard. They *do* suffer. That said, to my knowledge, not a one of them has asked to be terminated.

[scoutingagain]

" If life worth protecting doesn't begin at conception, when does it begin?"

 

Well that's the $64,000 question. Heck a string bean is life. The question is when does human life begin? How is it defined? Does potential to become human life count?

 

I confess I don't know the answers.

 

SA

 

 

[Stosh]

When one is seeking justification for any act they may wish to do, if they turn over enough rocks, they'll eventually find an answer to allow them to sleep at night. People do it all the time, and abortion is but a small sub-category of a larger issue of the value of life.

[MichScouter]

I think the question is are we as a society willing to pay for the support system. Also who will run the sypport system.

[Nike]

Who has more right to control what's going on in that uterus? The woman? The fetus? The man? The State?

 

 

[packsaddle]

I'll write it again since it seems I need to: Those gametes may be haploid but they are alive and, I would argue, just as human as their diploid product. Life does not BEGIN at conception. It is a continuum that began billions of years ago.

 

Edit: Nike, societies have adopted all sorts of practices to try to control that. In our society, the woman usually has that control. Some of us would like government to limit her ability to exercise that control but that just makes it a question of money and resources. If she has sufficient quantities of both she will have complete control of her uterus regardless of what the state tries to force on her.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[OldGreyEagle]

OK, Pack, I'll give it a shot, not saying this will make sense but it's all I got

 

Haploid cells by themselves will not develop into a human. Put the male and female together and now you have a human,

[packsaddle]

OGE, you are relying on the concept of 'viability'. A fertilized egg, by itself, also will not become a human.

[Brewmeister]

All those fancy words avoiding the fundamental question:

 

"If life worth protecting does not begin at conception, when does it begin?"

 

Any date you pick other than conception will be arbitrary. If you can accept that more power to you.

[fred8033]

Nike has one view of the question. "Who has more right to control what's going on in that uterus? The woman? The fetus? The man? The State?"

 

That's only one policy question. From my view, the question is worded as does one life have the right to end another life in the interest of their own freedom? The question is political and a matter of policy ... not a matter of science.

 

We know when a unique human being is created. We know where the major transition from two separate people, two separate parts into a new single UNIQUE living entity occurs. We also know when the heart starts beating. We know when the fetus can start feeling pain.

 

OldGreyEagle ... I find these articles are very useful when distinguishing the "science" view from the "political" view. These articles are from Princeton, about as authoritative as you can get.

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

 

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/wdhbb.html

 

 

So... The science is clear. The policy is clear. But the combination is a mess.

 

Obviously, women have a right to control their bodies, absolutely, as does anyone. BUT .... the state recognizes the duty to support the lives that people create. For example, mothers and fathers are routinely forced by the state to financially support their children for 18 years. Parents can be jailed for "abandonment". One famous case was in our local newspapers this year. But we hear all the time about the deadbeat dad (or mom).

 

So one life is 100% dependent on another life for nine months.

 

Instead of 18 years of support, we are talking about nine months. Or probably only seven months more by the time of abortion. Or only four months more of support if you already consider the child a life not worth aborting in the 3rd term of pregnancy.

 

From what I understand, most abortions are driven by the economics or the wrong time of life or wrong situation. So if the economics or situation was different, the child would be wanted. That itself itself becomes pitiful. That's playing russion roulette with human life.

 

Obviously, I view abortion as murder. I'm not ready to walk the steets in protest or picket planned parenthood. But as my children grow to adulthood, I find abortion a ghastly concept.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Right Pack, a lot of things have to happen after fertilization before the human is born and many fertilized eggs don't successfully implant, there are misscarriages lots of things can happen without human intervention.

 

Life ends in many ways. Heart Attacks, Cancer, Stroke, many things can cause death that we accept as natural and the way things are. After birth the ending of a life by human actions is murder (well generally, lets not get into justifianle homicide just yet)Should not the same be thought before birth? If a pregnant woman gets into a car accident and as a result of the accident the fetus dies, the responsible driver can be charged with manslaughter, vehicular homicide or something like that (euphemisms for murder). And she could be on her way to a place to get a partial birth abortion. So, terminating the viability of the fetus in the car accident is a crime, but the medical procedure which does the same thing is not. I have a hard time understanding that

[fred8033]

OldGreyEagle ... I'm often confused by criminal prosecutions for causing the death of a fetus. Or the driving laws for negligence and death of a fetus.

 

http://criminal.lawyers.com/traffic-violations/Vehicular-Homicide-Laws-and-the-Unborn-Child.html