Abortion and the Religious Right

okinrus said:
Most often the women will be forced to have abortions to hide the incestual relationship.
----------
M*W: Yes, but this can be risky for the perp. No one will ask the girl who impregnated her, but should she willingly make a statement to one of the clinicians, the police would be called to intervene in that situation. The result of this is that the perp would use the usual threats about harming her siblings or mother if she tells. I always found it to be a bit odd when a father or other male figure accompanied a young girl to the clinic. I know there are exceptions like having no mother around, etc., but it always made me wonder.
 
M*W: Yes, but this can be risky for the perp. No one will ask the girl who impregnated her, but should she willingly make a statement to one of the clinicians, the police would be called to intervene in that situation. The result of this is that the perp would use the usual threats about harming her siblings or mother if she tells. I always found it to be a bit odd when a father or other male figure accompanied a young girl to the clinic. I know there are exceptions like having no mother around, etc., but it always made me wonder.
It's direct evidence of the crime. A pregnant women at highschool or at a job would most likely have to be interviewed by teachers, undergo special programs etc. It's therefore more likely that abuse would be spotted.
 
okinrus you are continualy making blanket statements with no factual basis. the only basis is your twisted assumptions. there are no doubt some women that are emotionally distressed. there is a good chance they were unstable ffrom the start. the females that i know who have had abortions is enough to prove most of your points wrong. they were not incestual, crime, drugs, forced by a man, etc. the males typically didnt even know.

also what are some of the evidences that show that the fetus has a soul? you said yourself it is undetectable, so you entirely contradicted yourself. you need to stop imposing your belief system and god on other people.

do the sperm and the egg each have half of a soul? does a man waste billions of half souls a month and the female one if they do not get pregnant? your argument is overflowing with inconsitancies. stop assuming you know what women go through, especially when you dont even know someone who has had an abortion.
 
okinrus:

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.

I think it can sometimes be important to consider future consequences as well as looking at the present. I'm not sure why you are saying the future is not important. But, if you like, we can look just at the present.

Looking only at present issues, therefore, regarding people in comas, I would argue that it is sometimes right to terminate their lives, as much as it is often right to allow an abortion of a foetus. In both instances, we need to carefully consider the drain they place on other people, and whether those people ought to be obligated to care for these people given their current capacities.

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.

A human being is easy to define. A human being is anything which has a human genetic code. What I am arguing is that having a human genetic code ought not to automatically give a being the full rights of an adult human being, or even the full rights of a child. I agree that a foetus has some rights, but not a full, unconstrained "right to life", oblivious of any other competing rights.

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.

This "soul" of yours isn't a very useful concept if it is undetectable, is it? How do I know my dog doesn't have a soul? What about the cow you ate in your last hamburger? Maybe every form of life has a right to life equal to that of a human foetus. What do you think?

Which traits show us unequivocally that something has a soul?

Can you explain what the Christian right has do with this issue?

Sure. They're the main groups trying to push through anti-abortion legislation.

Many of those who are against partial-birth abortion are neither Christian, Right wingers, or pro-life.

Who?

Many women are convinced to undergo an abortion because of the man in their life.

What about the ones who decide for themselves? Would it be ok for a woman who was raped to have an abortion by her own choice, then?

They are, but they are not councelled long enough, though.

That's another debate, which we can have once we clear up the boundary matter of whether abortion is ever permissible or not.

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.

We are agreed then. The majority of people might be pro-life, but that alone wouldn't make them right.

It is actually an interesting question as to whether all moral values need to be legislated, too. Are there some areas of morality where a decision should be left to the individual making it, rather than enforced on them by law? A law which allows abortion does not mandate it. If a woman doesn't believe it is the right thing to do, nobody is forcing her to do it. Why not let her decide?

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

Only if a case can be made that being a human being automatically gives you a non-negotiable right to life. You have yet to establish that.

... 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.

Wouldn't the most prudent course in that case be to let the people make their own choices?
 
Here's some information on the Polish experience, from the following site:

http://www.waw.pdi.net/~polfedwo/english/reports/report00/rep00_2.htm

The situation is this:

The termination of pregnancy was made legal in Poland in 1956. From 1956 to the early 1990's, abortion was widely accessible, both on medical and social grounds. Terminations were conducted in public hospitals (free of charge) and in private clinics as a paid service.

At the beginning of the 90's, social groups connected with the Catholic Church initiated a campaign against legal abortion. In 1992 the medical professional organization, despite resistance from numerous medical doctors, also issued a statement against abortion at the National Assembly of Doctors in 1992, and adopted the Medical Code of Ethics with regulations stating that abortion on social grounds, as well as, when the pregnancy was a result of criminal act was deemed impossible. The possibilities for termination of pregnancy on medical grounds had been seriously limited.

Different actions restricted access to abortion, making it almost impossible in public hospitals and more expensive in private clinics.

After over three years of discussions and after a number of projects of legal regulations, the Polish Sejm (lower house of Parliament) finally voted for the Family Planning, Protection of Human Fetus and Conditions for Termination of Pregnancy Act, commonly known as the Anti-Abortion Act of 1993.
The legal situation of abortion changed two more times after that. In 1996, the Sejm liberalized the Act, allowing for abortion on social grounds. Nevertheless, after the decision of the Constitutional Tribunal in 1997, the Sejm restricted the conditions once again, withdrawing the possibility of termination of pregnancy on social grounds. This is the situation to date.

Conclusions:

* The anti-abortion law did not eliminate the phenomenon of abortion, nor did it limit the problem. The scale of terminations of pregnancies may have reached from 80.000 to 200.000 abortions a year.

* Illegal abortions are largely conducted in private clinics. This is known as the abortion underground. The termination of pregnancy is very often conducted in a private clinic even when a women is entitled to (lawful), safe and free of charge abortion in a public medical care center

* The phenomenon of abortion tourism is still present, but it has indeed significantly decreased, comparing with the Federation's 1996 research. Currently it is more individual rather than organized.

* Public medical facilities rarely perform abortions, even when legal. Hospitals end to send women away to other hospitals and clinics, making access to lawful abortion significantly harder. The medical staff's attitude towards abortion results from anxieties and fears of possible legal and disciplinary consequences

* Knowledge of legal conditions for abortion in a society is highly unsatisfactory, even among medical staff. This seriously influences the situation of women - restricting the access to safe and legal termination of pregnancy

* The experience gathered by the Federation during their years of activity in this field shows that the anti-abortion law caused many problems with life and health of hundreds of thousands of women in Poland

* Research has led to the conclusion that restrictive abortion regulations have only negative consequences. The Anti-Abortion Act should be changed immediately.
 
Last edited:
Aires:

Well, how can anybody hope to argue with that? You have spoken, and your word is law!

I don't suppose you actually have any <b>reasons</b> for your opinions, do you?
 
okinrus you are continualy making blanket statements with no factual basis. the only basis is your twisted assumptions. there are no doubt some women that are emotionally distressed. there is a good chance they were unstable ffrom the start. the females that i know who have had abortions is enough to prove most of your points wrong. they were not incestual, crime, drugs, forced by a man, etc. the males typically didnt even know.
No, I base them upon the statistics which show that women who commit abortion verses those who decide to go ahead with the pregnacy are more likely to regret the decision, have psychological problems, and die.
 
Most people who oppose abortion are against it because they believe that a fetus has a right to life. If that's how they feel, there probably isn't much chance of changing their mind, since rights are generally supposed to be inviolable; a natural right to life on the part of the fetus would trump any argument for abortion that wasn't based on an immediate threat to the life of the mother.

If you want to argue about whether or not a fetus has a right to life, you quickly descend into fundamental issues about religion and ethics. If a person believes that a fetus has a right to life because their god told them so, suddenly now you're really arguing about the person's religious beliefs rather than abortion. On the other hand, if someone isn't religious or just doesn't believe in natural rights, how are you going to convince them that abortion is bad?
 
okinrus said:
No, I base them upon the statistics which show that women who commit abortion verses those who decide to go ahead with the pregnacy are more likely to regret the decision, have psychological problems, and die.

im still waiting for any statisitc that you can offer that isnt totally contrived
 
I think it can sometimes be important to consider future consequences as well as looking at the present. I'm not sure why you are saying the future is not important. But, if you like, we can look just at the present.
If one sets out to create their own moral values then they must be consistent with how they judge actions. One cannot ignore the future state of the fetus while at the same time ignoring the future state of someone in a coma. Nor can someone define the fetus in terms of physical knowledge received while at the same time respecting our own knowledge. Because if all of human's physical knowledge comes from the environment, then the difference between us and the fetus is not there.

Looking only at present issues, therefore, regarding people in comas, I would argue that it is sometimes right to terminate their lives, as much as it is often right to allow an abortion of a foetus. In both instances, we need to carefully consider the drain they place on other people, and whether those people ought to be obligated to care for these people given their current capacities.
Well, those in a coma could be in a coma for over 9 month and come out . Capacity and possible benefit to society, the fetus

A human being is easy to define. A human being is anything which has a human genetic code. What I am arguing is that having a human genetic code ought not to automatically give a being the full rights of an adult human being, or even the full rights of a child. I agree that a foetus has some rights, but not a full, unconstrained "right to life", oblivious of any other competing rights.
This is a biological definition, which in itself cannot really be quantified or tested. The constitution says, "right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness." Any reasonable intepretation would put the right to life ahead of the rights to liberty and the persuit of happyness.

Sure. They're the main groups trying to push through anti-abortion legislation.
If you consider the Catholic church a right wing Christian group, then perhaps so. But the article was about banning partial-birth abortion.

What about the ones who decide for themselves? Would it be ok for a woman who was raped to have an abortion by her own choice, then?
No, and most rape victims go ahead and have the baby anyways.

We are agreed then. The majority of people might be pro-life, but that alone wouldn't make them right.
Yes, though I should warn you that we will be treated how we treat the least.

, rather than enforced on them by law? A law which allows abortion does not mandate it. If a woman doesn't believe it is the right thing to do, nobody is forcing her to do it. Why not let her decide?
The decision of whether a moral law should be enforced by the law or not, must be based upon several factors. The law must be enforceable, and in general, not hurt the victim more than the perpetrator. In addition, the law must not be too harsh, in order that there's not a moral backlash against it.

Yes, I believe that "force" could be used for many of the abortion cases. If a women is young and impresionable, how much influence will her boy friend, parents and peer preasure have over her?

im still waiting for any statisitc that you can offer that isnt totally contrived
A <a href="http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html">study</a> from Finland shows that women who commit abortions are four times more likely to die than women who undergo child birth.
 
okinrus:

If one sets out to create their own moral values then they must be consistent with how they judge actions.

Yes, and I'm willing to bet we'll find that your values aren't consistent if we look at them more closely.

For example, are you a vegetarian, okinrus? Is killing an adult cow morally worse or not as bad as killing an unborn human foetus, according to you? You see, for a start I'm wondering if you're really pushing a "right to life", or just a right to <b>human</b> life. And, if it's the latter, what makes humans special?

One cannot ignore the future state of the fetus while at the same time ignoring the future state of someone in a coma. Nor can someone define the fetus in terms of physical knowledge received while at the same time respecting our own knowledge. Because if all of human's physical knowledge comes from the environment, then the difference between us and the fetus is not there.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here.

Well, those in a coma could be in a coma for over 9 month and come out . Capacity and possible benefit to society, the fetus

Again, I'm not clear. Are you saying a foetus has rights because of what it currently is, or because of what it might become, or some combination of the two?

[Yours] is a biological definition, which in itself cannot really be quantified or tested.

It is easy enough to test if something carries a human genetic code.

The constitution says, "right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happyness." Any reasonable intepretation would put the right to life ahead of the rights to liberty and the persuit of happyness.

The question here is: who are these rights extended to?

If you consider the Catholic church a right wing Christian group, then perhaps so.

Not all Catholics are right wing, but some certainly are. I'm sure the article meant to include them.

...most rape victims go ahead and have the baby anyways.

Do they? Do you have statistics on that?

I should warn you that we will be treated how we treat the least.

Is that a religious warning about some kind of afterlife, or are you talking about something else?

The decision of whether a moral law should be enforced by the law or not, must be based upon several factors. The law must be enforceable, and in general, not hurt the victim more than the perpetrator. In addition, the law must not be too harsh, in order that there's not a moral backlash against it.

Yes, I believe that "force" could be used for many of the abortion cases. If a women is young and impresionable, how much influence will her boy friend, parents and peer preasure have over her?

Anywhere from none to quite a lot; it depends on the individual. We've already agreed that appropriate counselling is very important.
 
okinrus said:
A <a href="http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V8/n2/finland.html">study</a> from Finland shows that women who commit abortions are four times more likely to die than women who undergo child birth.

4 times more likely? everyone is likely to die.
 
For example, are you a vegetarian, okinrus? Is killing an adult cow morally worse or not as bad as killing an unborn human foetus, according to you? You see, for a start I'm wondering if you're really pushing a "right to life", or just a right to human life. And, if it's the latter, what makes humans special?
No, I'm not a vegetarian. A "right to life" statement refers only to human life.

Do they? Do you have statistics on that?
<a href="http://hills.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~jinouy01/abort/abort_victims.html">Yes</a>
<font color=darkRed>Not according to a new survey of 192 women who became pregnant through sexual assault and either had abortions or carried term. Instead, the
consensus opinion of these women who have actually been in this situation
is that abortion in their circumstances was injurious. Indeed, the results
of this new study suggest that most women who become pregnant through
sexual assault do not even want abortions.</font>

Is that a religious warning about some kind of afterlife, or are you talking about something else?
No, what I mean is that if you treat a fetus as unworthy of their position, expect to be so treated.

I'm sort of confused why you're not differentiating between a human being and a member of the human species. The definition of a human being must be able to gleam light on the specialness of human being, with out this, any law respecting murder is groundless. A definition that does not say why human beings are special should be rejected for moral ethics because it never can answer the question of why we are allowed to kill animals but not humans.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here.
Any complete definition of a human being should not be defined with respect to the outside environment that the human being lives in. That is, we are human beings by nature and not circumstance. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that we can murder when a given circumstance arises. There are, needless to say, many examples of the denial of rights in human history; these mistakes are due to mistaking circumstance rather than human nature. Nevertheless, crimes that are duly punishable are that which are commited due to the wickedness that is within a human being. Hence, they are a matter of human nature and not the result of outside environment.

Not all Catholics are right wing, but some certainly are. I'm sure the article meant to include them.
Some. But I don't see how being pro-life makes someone automatically a right-wing Christian. When someone refers to a right-wing Christian they usually refer to the evangelical or fundamentalist strains of the Christianity. Nonetheless, I would surmise that it some sort of derogatory term in liberal society. I can only say that this is a deceitful attempt to religiously polarize an otherwise non-religious issue.

Furthermore, she is being completely hypocritical, rather more than I would have thought. Most liberals that I've spoken to are for exposing crimes of others and free speech. She cannot complain that right-wingers post abortion pictures, yet support free speech. The conclusion, and an obvious one at that, is that if she does not want to see abortion pictures, then make abortion illegal.

Again, I'm not clear. Are you saying a foetus has rights because of what it currently is, or because of what it might become, or some combination of the two?
No, what I believe is that a fetus deserves the right to live because of the fetuses present condition. Whether this present condition seems miniscule to modern eyes, is not my concern. Those who ignore will be ignored. Nevertheless, if the fetus seems miniscule to their eyes then they cannot hope to only look more miniscule through their own eyes with the realization that they are only a fetus that has lived a little longer.

In practice, however, the present condition is lofty goal that complete knowledge of is impossible. Included within the present condition is any knowledge that might pertain to the future. Thus, to judge with knowledge that pertains the future is in fact judging with respect to the present knowledge.
 
okinrus:

okinrus said:
No, I'm not a vegetarian. A "right to life" statement refers only to human life.

Then you need to establish that the human life of a foetus is more valuable than, say, the life of an adult animal. Why that should be is not at all obvious to me. I think your view is not self-consistent.

Not according to a new survey of 192 women who became pregnant through sexual assault and either had abortions or carried term. Instead, the
consensus opinion of these women who have actually been in this situation
is that abortion in their circumstances was injurious. Indeed, the results
of this new study suggest that most women who become pregnant through
sexual assault do not even want abortions.

Your source is hopelessly biased. Look at where this comes from: The Pro-Life Infonet. Then, consider that this group of 192 women was selected for inclusion in a pro-life book. It stands to reason that if you set out looking for pro-life opinions, you will be able to find 192 of them. No surprises there. There's no reason to expect that these views represent any kind of average or typical view; on the contrary, there is much reason to suspect that these views are atypical.

No, what I mean is that if you treat a fetus as unworthy of their position, expect to be so treated.

I don't understand why you think I am treating a foetus as "unworthy" in some way. I respect a foetus for what it is, nothing more.

I'm sort of confused why you're not differentiating between a human being and a member of the human species. The definition of a human being must be able to gleam light on the specialness of human being, with out this, any law respecting murder is groundless. A definition that does not say why human beings are special should be rejected for moral ethics because it never can answer the question of why we are allowed to kill animals but not humans.

Have you ever stopped to think about whether killing animals is justifiable? Maybe it is immoral to kill animals, just as it is immoral to kill human beings. Yet, even in the case of human beings, I am sure you would recognise exceptions to the "thou shalt not kill" rule - e.g. self defence.

Any complete definition of a human being should not be defined with respect to the outside environment that the human being lives in. That is, we are human beings by nature and not circumstance. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that we can murder when a given circumstance arises.

We have human genes by nature. We are people both by nature and circumstance. You must admit we are shaped by culture and upbringing as much as our genes.

As I've already pointed out, there are circumstances in which killing another human being is generally considered acceptable.

Nevertheless, crimes that are duly punishable are that which are commited due to the wickedness that is within a human being. Hence, they are a matter of human nature and not the result of outside environment.

If a starving man steals a loaf of bread, he is committing a crime which is duly punishable. Is it because of his innate wickedness, or due to the effects of an outside environment, do you think?

Some. But I don't see how being pro-life makes someone automatically a right-wing Christian.

It doesn't. Nobody has said it does.

When someone refers to a right-wing Christian they usually refer to the evangelical or fundamentalist strains of the Christianity.

Not necessarily. The expression "right-wing Christian" probably encompasses most evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, but it is not limited to them.

Nonetheless, I would surmise that it some sort of derogatory term in liberal society.

The term "Christian Right" identifies a group of people who hold both Christian and right-wing political views. How is that derogatory? I can't see anybody complaining about being called an "Atheist left-winger" if that is what they are.

I can only say that this is a deceitful attempt to religiously polarize an otherwise non-religious issue.

But the Christian Right thinks abortion <b>is</b> a religious issue. They oppose it on what they think are religious grounds (despite the fact that the bible, for example, says that a foetus becomes a human being only at the moment of birth). Most are up-front about this. They march up and down outside abortion clinics holding signs saying "God hates baby-killers" etc. They are sure that their God shares their views.

Maybe for you the issue of abortion has nothing to do with religion, but for the Christian right is has everything to do with religion. I must say, though, that even in your case I get the impression that you tie the issue to religion.

Most liberals that I've spoken to are for exposing crimes of others and free speech. She cannot complain that right-wingers post abortion pictures, yet support free speech. The conclusion, and an obvious one at that, is that if she does not want to see abortion pictures, then make abortion illegal.

She isn't complaining about the pictures being available. She is simply suggesting how pro-choice people should counter such propaganda. I'm sure that if you asked her, she would say that she totally supports free speech. It is the pro-lifers who are trying to remove the right to free action, not the pro-choicers.

No, what I believe is that a fetus deserves the right to live because of the fetuses present condition. Whether this present condition seems miniscule to modern eyes, is not my concern.

A cow has a higher degree of consciousness and more capacity to suffer than a foetus, yet you say that it is ok to kill the cow and eat it, whilst it should be forbidden to kill the foetus. Why? Aren't you being inconsistent?
 
Then you need to establish that the human life of a foetus is more valuable than, say, the life of an adult animal. Why that should be is not at all obvious to me. I think your view is not self-consistent.
It is your side, nonetheless, that must establish the value of human life by the biological definition. A biological definition of human life that is no different than an animal will of course lead to moral law of the lowest denominator. Now, I've already mentioned that the value of human life is because of the soul. "The flesh counts for nothing." Although there is no physical evidence that directly implies the existence of a spiritual entity, mankind has other ways to receieve such knowledge. That is, through the holy Spirit along with the innate given conscience.

Your source is hopelessly biased. Look at where this comes from: The Pro-Life Infonet. Then, consider that this group of 192 women was selected for inclusion in a pro-life book. It stands to reason that if you set out looking for pro-life opinions, you will be able to find 192 of them. No surprises there. There's no reason to expect that these views represent any kind of average or typical view; on the contrary, there is much reason to suspect that these views are atypical.
No, I've read similar figures in other places. Information provided from a pro-life does no more make the statistics false than a pro-choice group. I don't see how you can make the claim that the statistics is faulty when I believe you have not read either the book or the original study and have not posted counter studies. All studies, I believe, will show that 15-30% of women who are rape undergo an abortion.

If a starving man steals a loaf of bread, he is committing a crime which is duly punishable. Is it because of his innate wickedness, or due to the effects of an outside environment, do you think?
Yes, he may be somewhat guilty, though not by much. I believe, in fact, that the Church would not consider stealing in such circumstances a sin if it can be proven that the bread was in excess of the owner's basic need and the starving man did all that was possible to avoid stealing. The owner, however, could be guilty of mortal sin for not giving the man bread.

But the Christian Right thinks abortion is a religious issue. They oppose it on what they think are religious grounds (despite the fact that the bible, for example, says that a foetus becomes a human being only at the moment of birth).
This is inaccurate. The bible does not say that the fetus becomes a human being at birth, though the muslim Hadith says something after 5 weeks(ask PM). Besides, I rarely hear religious arguments being used by the religious right. The extent that is used is that God hates murders. Well, that's not too much of an assumption.

Most are up-front about this. They march up and down outside abortion clinics holding signs saying "God hates baby-killers" etc. They are sure that their God shares their views.
Yes, they are quite sure. Really, this is no different the claims that pro-choicers make. They assume to have knowledge that they cannot have. The graveness of murder requires absolute knowledge that abortion is not murder. To support a women's choice requires the same amount of knowledge.

A cow has a higher degree of consciousness and more capacity to suffer than a foetus, yet you say that it is ok to kill the cow and eat it, whilst it should be forbidden to kill the foetus. Why? Aren't you being inconsistent?
As I said before, any physical definition of a human being will have this same amount of inconsistency. Abortionist, and those who disbelieve in the existense of the soul, must answer this, not us. The reason that murder is wrong is not because of the physical pain that it inflicts.
 
Here is some information on abortion. I have highlighted in <b>bold</b> parts of the text which address some of okinrus's arguments. I did not write this, but I am not providing a link because the information is taken from an adult site, and I do not want to link those kinds of sites to this forum. Note, however, that this is NOT from a pro-choice site. In fact, the main purpose of the site is to sell various sex toys and things, as far as I could tell from a quick look. The information here is, I believe, accurate and unbiased.

In abortions performed before the 13th week of pregnancy, some follow-up surgery, for example, to remove a blood clot or to repair a tear in the cervix, is needed in only 0.5% of cases. In abortions performed between 13 and 24 weeks, complications are somewhat more frequent, in part because of the use of a general anesthesia. The death rate for women who have medical abortions is one in 160,000. By comparison, in full term pregnancies, the death rate is one for every 16,000 successful deliveries.

In the years before abortion was legal, from the late 1800s until the famous Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision of 1973, more pregnant women died from infections, retained placentas, poisoning, shock, profuse bleeding and other complications brought on by self-induced abortions or abortions performed by unqualified practitioners than from any other single cause. In parts of the world where abortion is still illegal, these remain a leading cause of maternal death. By contrast, today's legal medical abortion is one of the most common and safest surgical procedures in the U.S. Approximately 1.3 million women choose to have a medical abortion performed each year. Major complications and side effects occur in only about 1% of medical abortions. Some women experience menstrual-like cramping during an abortion and for up to an hour afterward. Most women report that this cramping is uncomfortable but not painful. Vaginal bleeding, similar to a menstrual period, generally occurs after an abortion is completed. For the most part, the earlier in pregnancy an abortion is performed, the less likely there will be medical complications.

Despite the limited complications and risks involved, medical abortion is one of the most controversial domestic issues in American society, with anti-abortion and pro-choice supporters embracing diametrically opposed stances on the morality and legality of abortion. Those who oppose abortion, usually on moral or religious grounds, generally maintain that abortion is murder. Additionally, anti-abortion activists argue that there is evidence suggesting that abortion increases the risk that a woman will develop breast cancer, and that women who have abortions tend to experience significant complications in later pregnancies. They also assert that many women casually use abortion as a form of birth control, and that they generally come to regret choosing abortion after it is too late. Finally, they argue that husbands, boyfriends, or parents force many women into having abortions, while others have abortions for very selfish or frivolous reasons.

To express their opposition to abortion, activists have formed local and national organizations that seek to change existing laws allowing abortion, to restrict funding for abortion, or to otherwise limit the capacity of health care providers to perform abortions. Some anti-abortion activists also engage in disturbances at clinics that perform abortion, picketing, blocking the entrances or chaining the doors shut, and interfering with clients seeking to enter clinical buildings. In addition, there has been a steady rise in anti-abortion violence. Many clinics that perform abortions have been subject to vandalism, arson, or bombings. Additionally, the medical staff of clinics and women's reproductive health centers have been threatened, injured, or, ironically (given the pro-life agenda of the anti-abortion movement), murdered in a number of cities. While abortion continues to be a legal procedure, anti-abortion activists have achieved some success. In part due to narrowing access to legal abortions (as well as to improved use of contraception and the aging of the large "baby boomer" population), the number of abortions performed each year declined from a high of 1.4 million in 1990 to 1.27 million in 1994.

People who support a woman's legal right to choose to have an abortion counter all of the assertions made by anti-abortion activists. A recent study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Jan. 9. 1997), reporting on the largest examination of the alleged linkage between abortion and breast cancer, found no increased risk of breast cancer among women who had abortions during the first 18 weeks of pregnancy. Among the small number of women who have abortions after 18 weeks, the study found a small increase in the rate of breast cancer. Other researchers have found little if any support for the claims of abortion opponents that abortion increases emotional distress in women. Women who report emotional problems after abortion tend to have had similar conditions prior to their abortion. Supporters of legal abortion note that relief is the most common emotion expressed by women following abortion. Contrary to the suggestion that many women are using abortion as a birth control method, it has been found that it is a failure of birth control used at the time of conception that leads to about half of the unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion. One study found that the proportion of women who have abortions because they became pregnant due to condom failure increased from 15% to 32% in recent years. Most women (55%) who have abortions are under 24 years of age (20% are under 20 years of age), and 81% are unmarried (63% have never been married). Many (33%) have incomes below $11,000 a year. Moreover, they represent all major religious traditions, including 16% who describe themselves as born-again Christians and over 30% who report they are Catholic.

For almost all women, the decision to have an abortion is a difficult one. Most women reach the decision to have an abortion because of a lack of money to raise a child or because they feel unready to be a full-time parent or to have additional children. Others make the decision because of a serious medical condition, when they learn that the fetus has severe abnormalities, or because they are in the midst of an overwhelming personal crisis.

Additionally, about 16,000 women each year have an abortion because they were impregnated through rape or incest. Only about 1% of women who have an abortion report that pressure from a husband, boyfriend, or parent was the most important factor in their decision. In fact, some women decide not to have an abortion primarily because of pressure from their male partners, family members, or others.
 
okinrus:

It is your side, nonetheless, that must establish the value of human life by the biological definition. A biological definition of human life that is no different than an animal will of course lead to moral law of the lowest denominator.

Human beings <b>are</b> animals. We share 99.4% of our DNA with chimpanzees.

How else are you going to define "human being" other than by biology? You want to define "human being = thing with a soul", but you admit that it is impossible to detect a soul. There is no objective test you can perform to find out if something has a soul, so by your definition rocks might be human beings, for all we know.

Now, I've already mentioned that the value of human life is because of the soul. "The flesh counts for nothing." Although there is no physical evidence that directly implies the existence of a spiritual entity, mankind has other ways to receieve such knowledge. That is, through the holy Spirit along with the innate given conscience.

In your last post, you were claiming that abortion is not a religious matter. But here you are making a religious argument. Which is it? Are you against abortion only on religious grounds, or can you actually make a case for why abortion is wrong?

No, I've read similar figures in other places. Information provided from a pro-life does no more make the statistics false than a pro-choice group.

Agreed, provided the statistical methods employed are sound.

All studies, I believe, will show that 15-30% of women who are rape undergo an abortion.

And so... (?)

This is inaccurate. The bible does not say that the fetus becomes a human being at birth, though the muslim Hadith says something after 5 weeks(ask PM).

What does the bible say, then?

Besides, I rarely hear religious arguments being used by the religious right. The extent that is used is that God hates murders. Well, that's not too much of an assumption.

Somebody posted a good quote the other day, to the effect that you can be fairly sure your God is your creation when your God happens to hate all the same people you hate.

The graveness of murder requires absolute knowledge that abortion is not murder. To support a women's choice requires the same amount of knowledge.

Pro-choicers are absolutely sure that abortion is not murder. It's true by definition. Murder is the wrongful killing of a person. Abortion is killing, but not wrongful, or necessarily the killing of a person.

As I said before, any physical definition of a human being will have this same amount of inconsistency. Abortionist, and those who disbelieve in the existense of the soul, must answer this, not us.

The physical definition of the term "human being" is perfectly straightforward, and not at all inconsitent. If something has a human genetic code, it is a human being. But that, in itself, is not enough to give a foetus a right to live which overrides that of the mother, as I have said previously.

The reason that murder is wrong is not because of the physical pain that it inflicts.

Why is murder wrong, then? Because God said so? Well, did he say that abortion was wrong, too?

Or maybe murder is wrong because it infringes on somebody else's rights to control over their own body. But wait! A ban on abortion does that too. So banning abortion must be wrong, too, right?
 
James R "Well, how can anybody hope to argue with that? You have spoken, and your word is law!"
leave aires alone. Hes basically showing support and voting for his side, the more people that say abortion is wrong, the more people will be convinced
 
Back
Top