Yes, I read your first post. Whoever it is seems highly unstable and seems to have religious beliefs about abortion. Not that it is wrong to base some decisions on your religion. But when the author repeatedly labels all pro-lifers "Christian right" and then claims to "pray" for the choice to kill, rather than attacking those against abortion, she is attacking some sort of fantasy world she is in. Thus, she makes comments such as pictures trumping democracy. It has always been recognized that for democracy to work, the people must be informed. Now I'd rather not force someone to look at gruesome pictures, I was once given pictures at an eatery, but those are the facts of abortion. Does she plan to stop us from looking at sonograms as well? She counters with, "we ought to counter with the toll that women did when it was illegal". Can anyone produce valid statistics on this matter? I've heard that the numbers of women committing illegal abortions was made up out of thin air, and this was by a previous abortion supporter.
Abortion and the Religious Right
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
Dr. Reardon does abortion studies in California and seems reputable to me. But what statistic are you questioning? I think the nation wide statistics without a psychological bent come from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is pro-choice. Most of the psychological statistics and interpretation, however, come from Dr. Reardon along with the other citations on the webpage.
Most abortion supporters, who are pro-choice without monetary interest, would like to think of abortion providing a second chance, that women actually need the procedure to get back on their feet after an accidental pregnancy, and that, if nothing else, they would learn their lesson and use contraception. Rather, we see that abortion has the opposite effect. While unexpected pregnancy will always produce some psychological trauma, abortion aggregates this trauma leaving them more downtrodden than before.
Last edited:
okinrus:
I can't speak for any religious beliefs she may have (they aren't evidenced in the article), but I would like to ask you what features of the article indicate that she is "highly unstable". That is far from apparent to me.
You do it all the time, right?
Are you sure you read the article? She doesn't label all pro-lifers as "Christian Right". When she says "Christian Right", she means "Christian Right", funnily enough. As to the fantasy, which of her claims are imagined, in your opinion?
When something is illegal, official statistics are very hard to keep, obviously. On the other hand, it is still possible to make reliable estimates about such things.
I went and looked at the site. It is blatantly pro-life, as I guessed. There are no articles from anybody supporting abortion on the site.
I seriously suggest you widen your reading, then. There are two sides to this debate, but it appears you are only aware of one right now. That is not a good position to be in. Check out the "Elliot" group, for example, which is the apparent source of this "research". It also is a pro-life organisation, which even admits it is not up-front about its own activities (see its own explanation of its name, for example).
If you're not sure where to find information on the other view, let me know and I will dig up some sites for you. On the other hand, I hope you're intelligent enough to find some yourself.
I don't think I have questioned any statistics here.
In my previous post, I certainly questioned the psychological conclusions drawn. How were these conclusions formed? I ask again: show me the studies.
Would they? How do you know what they would like to think? Do you have any support for your statement, or is this just a guess on your part?
Show me the studies.
I can't speak for any religious beliefs she may have (they aren't evidenced in the article), but I would like to ask you what features of the article indicate that she is "highly unstable". That is far from apparent to me.
You do it all the time, right?
Are you sure you read the article? She doesn't label all pro-lifers as "Christian Right". When she says "Christian Right", she means "Christian Right", funnily enough. As to the fantasy, which of her claims are imagined, in your opinion?
When something is illegal, official statistics are very hard to keep, obviously. On the other hand, it is still possible to make reliable estimates about such things.
I went and looked at the site. It is blatantly pro-life, as I guessed. There are no articles from anybody supporting abortion on the site.
I seriously suggest you widen your reading, then. There are two sides to this debate, but it appears you are only aware of one right now. That is not a good position to be in. Check out the "Elliot" group, for example, which is the apparent source of this "research". It also is a pro-life organisation, which even admits it is not up-front about its own activities (see its own explanation of its name, for example).
If you're not sure where to find information on the other view, let me know and I will dig up some sites for you. On the other hand, I hope you're intelligent enough to find some yourself.
I don't think I have questioned any statistics here.
In my previous post, I certainly questioned the psychological conclusions drawn. How were these conclusions formed? I ask again: show me the studies.
Would they? How do you know what they would like to think? Do you have any support for your statement, or is this just a guess on your part?
Show me the studies.
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
okinrus do you know anyone who has ever had an abortion? if they are emotionally unstable after it is because they are unstable before
She said, "While they've been looking away, the Christian right has been chipping away at all the freedoms they take for granted," which asumes that or anyone disagrees with her are Christian and are conservative. This is false and illogical appeal to emotion based upon an issue that has <em>nothing</em> to do with religion but morality, of which one could base upon religion.
She then makes another claim that I would suppose is based upon her belief that those who are disfigured and genetically damaged are not entitled to life.
"This would make a mockery of the right to choose not to bear a genetically damaged child."
Another false appeal to emotion. Abortion is not a gender issue, nor is medicine an abortifacient. Needless to say, many of those who are aborted are female.
Who is she praying to?
I find this claim highly doubtful, since most women were and stayed married raising a family. Nevertheless, some statistics should be used to base an estimate on. For instance, by a summary of deaths caused by illegal abortions someone could obtain a rough estimate. There is really no reason for me to trust any claims that were made by the abortionist before abortion was seen as right, since most of these people were ultra-feminist willing to lie and murder to advance their ideology. For instance, in the Roe verse Wade case, Roe even <a href="http://www.ccofwa.org/newsletters/2003/january_2003.html">lied</a> under oath about being gang raped. Thus, I see no reason to accept one feminist claim that illegal abortions were prevalent without further evidence.
The Elliot is a pro-life group, though I think <a href="http://nichole.simonweb.com/~afterabortion/biograp.html">Dr. Reardon</a> is first supporting extensive counciling before an abortion due to the psychological effects; this is in fact quite pro-women. This would would raise the cost of abortion somewhat; but really this is alligned with the moderate pro-choice stance of abortion being the last alternative.
The statistics, however, must be funded by either the pro-life movement or the pro-choice movement. In fact, the Alan Guttmacher Institute is pro-choice, and this is where most of the statistics on abortion come from.
What I really don't like about the pro-choice movement is that they believe that whatever goverment decides must be right, and therefore the "rights" given to them are somehow ordained by God.
Last edited:
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
well i dont consider the miscarriage in the category of abortion. abortion is a chosen course of action. if it is traumatizing then one wouldnt have it done. it is not forced upon anyone. the females that i know that have had abortions didnt think twice about it and are not psychologically distressed as a result. they as well as me hold a different belief system than you, so it is not distresssing in the slightest. if you want to properly understand the issue of abortion you have to realize your religious beliefs are not universal and cannot be applied to those who do not believe in the,\m.
also it isnt the government establishing what is right or "ordained" it is leaving the decision up to the individual. if you are against abortiion, then dont have one. it is not your business if a woman chooses to be pregnant.
----------Proud_Muslim said:
M*W: I know it is not always possible, but abortion should be performed as soon as possible after the sixth week from the date of the last menstrual period. After the 12th week, it becomes more complicated.
----------okinrus said:
M*W: okinrus, early abortion is nothing more than a dilatation and curettage for menstrual irregularities. An embryo (0-12 weeks) is not a complete human being. It's more like a tadpole. It is a parasite in a woman's body. It cannot survive on its own.
After 12 weeks gestation, the procedure becomes a little more complicated. I don't understand a woman who could carry a fetus for 25 weeks and then abort it. I still believe in mother-infant bonding. That would by far be more emotionally traumatic. Yet, the fetus most likely could not survive on its own, and it is still a parasite on it's host's body.
Courts of law, and I only speak for Texas here, do not recognize a fetus as a citizen. It cannot live on its own, it is still a parasite in the mother's body. It has no SSN. Essentially, it doesn't have an identity or even a nationality. It's definitely not emancipated from its parent(s), so it cannot sue the parents for injury to a child, because it doesn't exist as a child.
Abortion has been a fact of nature since the beginning of time. The nomads in ancient times would put figs into the uteri of camels so they wouldn't breed while on a caravan. Even the ancient midwives learned that seaweed aided in abortions. They would put a twig of seaweed into the woman's cervix, and after three days, her uterus would empty its contents naturally. It's nothing more than survival of the fittest.
okinrus said:
Stay objective on the issue and make no assumptions about human behavior...half the stuff we do has a negative effect on us. I believe the vast majority of those commiting abortion in the US are Christian; I don't see how it's relevant to the issue at hand; the extent of the moral argument is that murder is wrong and abortion is murder. Nevertheless, the women you've spoken to may have been in self-denial, or perhaps they'd rather discuss something else.
The culpability murder extends to those who observe but did nothing.
Many humans cannot survive on their own.
Are you sure? Are those convicted of killing the mother with child guilty of a double murder? Can fetus' be considered future heirs in wills?
Thanks for the advice.
What you do with your body is constrained by law.
Wouldn't you want to know as a parent if your minor child is having a potentially lethal procedure?
shrubby pegasus
Registered Senior Member
okinrus said:
again, you call it murder and i dont. there in lies the problem. we have a different belief system. you cannot draw assumptions based upon them being in self denial. the fact is many people do not find anything wrong with an abortion. to you it is a human life, to many others it is something no more complex than a reptile embryo
to the first line about young americans losing the right to abortion and contraception. In Australia, things are going the opposite way. The morning after pill used to be available by prescription only, now it is over the counter. The only reason i think abortion is wrong is because there is a chance of death for the mother, but if she knows the risks then its her choice
okinrus:
Here's your argument in a nutshell:
This is a very simplistic analysis. Murder is the wilful killing of a person. A person is a human being who has a particular set of abilities and characteristics.
Pro-choicers agree that murder is wrong. They do not agree that abortion is murder. There are several different reasons for this, and not all pro-choicers are pro-choice for the same reasons. Some say it is inappropriate to accord "person" status to a foetus. Some say that, whilst a foetus has some rights, these do not override the rights of the mother, for various reasons. There are other arguments, too.
The mistake that many pro-lifers make is to assume, without even thinking about it, that all human beings are persons. If you have human genes, you're a person automatically, according to pro-lifers. I'm sure this is what you currently believe, okinrus.
I am willing to explore these issues in more detail with you if you wish, since you clearly haven't thought about them very much, so please let me know.
No it doesn't. It means what it says: that the Christian Right is attacking certain freedoms. There may well be other people who aren't the Christian Right who also want to see these rights removed, but she isn't talking about them here.
The article is a warning about the erosion of rights, and not itself an argument for abortion rights.
Here, she is simply stating the fact that the law as it exists at present allows termination of a pregnancy in the 2nd trimester. Some of these terminations take place on the grounds that the child is likely to be severly disfigured or genetically damaged. Restricting terminations to the first trimester would remove the ability to test for these things, and hence effectively remove the right to choose a termination on this basis.
Note, this is a statement about the practical effect of the proposed change in the law. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice; it is a simple matter of fact that the proposed change will have the effect she highlights here, regardless of anybody's belief in whether it is acceptable or not to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester.
You are also reading things into her statement which aren't there. She makes no statement concerning her beliefs about the right to life of the disfigured or genetically damaged.
What's an "abortifacient"? I'm guessing it is something which aids abortion (?)
Abortion <b>is</b> a gender issue. Only women can have abortions, but often it is men making the decisions about whether they are allowed to have them or not. Also, surely you can appreciate that women are much closer to this issue than men? It's a no-brainer.
God, I would assume.
Are you sure you're clear on who's being emotive here and who isn't?
There is plenty of evidence on backyard abortions. If you want a current example, you might consider looking at the incidence of medical complications encountered by doctors dealing with the aftermath of botched backyard abortions in present-day Poland - a country which has made abortion illegal (again) only recently. Or would you like me to look this up for you?
I agree totally that women should be counselled before undergoing this procedure. Most of the time, I believe that happens.
Where do you get these strange ideas about what pro-choicers believe? If the government decided tomorrow to outlaw abortion, pro-choicers would not suddenly turn around and say "Well, whatever the government says must be right, so we won't fight to have that law changed!"
I'm not sure why you keep bringing God into this. Some pro-choicers don't even believe in God.
Here's your argument in a nutshell:
This is a very simplistic analysis. Murder is the wilful killing of a person. A person is a human being who has a particular set of abilities and characteristics.
Pro-choicers agree that murder is wrong. They do not agree that abortion is murder. There are several different reasons for this, and not all pro-choicers are pro-choice for the same reasons. Some say it is inappropriate to accord "person" status to a foetus. Some say that, whilst a foetus has some rights, these do not override the rights of the mother, for various reasons. There are other arguments, too.
The mistake that many pro-lifers make is to assume, without even thinking about it, that all human beings are persons. If you have human genes, you're a person automatically, according to pro-lifers. I'm sure this is what you currently believe, okinrus.
I am willing to explore these issues in more detail with you if you wish, since you clearly haven't thought about them very much, so please let me know.
No it doesn't. It means what it says: that the Christian Right is attacking certain freedoms. There may well be other people who aren't the Christian Right who also want to see these rights removed, but she isn't talking about them here.
The article is a warning about the erosion of rights, and not itself an argument for abortion rights.
Here, she is simply stating the fact that the law as it exists at present allows termination of a pregnancy in the 2nd trimester. Some of these terminations take place on the grounds that the child is likely to be severly disfigured or genetically damaged. Restricting terminations to the first trimester would remove the ability to test for these things, and hence effectively remove the right to choose a termination on this basis.
Note, this is a statement about the practical effect of the proposed change in the law. It doesn't matter if you're pro-life or pro-choice; it is a simple matter of fact that the proposed change will have the effect she highlights here, regardless of anybody's belief in whether it is acceptable or not to terminate a pregnancy in the second trimester.
You are also reading things into her statement which aren't there. She makes no statement concerning her beliefs about the right to life of the disfigured or genetically damaged.
What's an "abortifacient"? I'm guessing it is something which aids abortion (?)
Abortion <b>is</b> a gender issue. Only women can have abortions, but often it is men making the decisions about whether they are allowed to have them or not. Also, surely you can appreciate that women are much closer to this issue than men? It's a no-brainer.
God, I would assume.
Are you sure you're clear on who's being emotive here and who isn't?
There is plenty of evidence on backyard abortions. If you want a current example, you might consider looking at the incidence of medical complications encountered by doctors dealing with the aftermath of botched backyard abortions in present-day Poland - a country which has made abortion illegal (again) only recently. Or would you like me to look this up for you?
I agree totally that women should be counselled before undergoing this procedure. Most of the time, I believe that happens.
Where do you get these strange ideas about what pro-choicers believe? If the government decided tomorrow to outlaw abortion, pro-choicers would not suddenly turn around and say "Well, whatever the government says must be right, so we won't fight to have that law changed!"
I'm not sure why you keep bringing God into this. Some pro-choicers don't even believe in God.
I disagree with your definition, namely because it does not include those in comas whose abilities and characteristics are even less than that of a fetus. Firstly, defining a person as what he or she was before is no more different than claiming a fetus is a person, because he or she will be. Both have the inherent problem of judging the present with traits that are not manifested in the present. Secondly, the definition of a human being cannot rely on outside observers such as the mother or any other person, for that would compromise what being human being is, a definition that should be self-contained.
No, I would not try to define a human being within the physical realm; my definition of the human being relies on the soul, which is undetectable wthin the physical realm. Certainly, though, there are traits that would suggest that a fetus is a human being with a soul.
Can you explain what the Christian right has do with this issue? Many of those who are against partial-birth abortion are neither Christian, Right wingers, or pro-life. Nevertheless, if she was actually debating the issue, she would have said conservatives, which does not have the same type of religious overtones.
Many women are convinced to undergo an abortion because of the man in their life.
I was speaking only of the United States, which has better support for adoption than Poland. But, yes, if you can find them than post them.
They are, but they are not councelled long enough, though.
Having a large body of people believing some action is right does not make the action right. A case in point would be the roman gladiators and slavery. Thus, at the fundamental level, moral law cannot be decided solely by popular vote; hence, we have judges. If murder was truly such a grave action, the court should make decisions based upon that fact. If they are unsure if the fetus is a human being, then the prudent decision would be to ban abortion; and if the people are unsure if the fetus is human being, by the disparity of the vote, then the most prudent decision would be to ban abortion.
okinrus said:
Well, you're not posting a sample of the population. At best, your only speaking of women you've had in contact. I believe it would be a difficult thing for a women to be pregant and not to ponder what the fetus would look like. The psychological effect of abortion would be to destroy this possibility.
Physical complexity is not a good measure of the value of human life. If we say that a fetus is not human because it is not physically developed, then we are defining human life based upon physical time, an outside factor. The fetus' reactions to the environment, such as growth, should not determine whether the fetus is a human being or not.