 Who would seriously claim a 12-week-old fetus is a person? |  Who would seriously deny that a 24-week-old fetus is a person? |
People say that abortion is divisive, but I don't think they realize just how much consensus there is on the issue in America. That consensus is obscured because the two incumbent parties pander to their hardcore base, but just look at the polling results. People were asked: "Do you think abortion should generally be legal or generally illegal during each of the following stages of pregnancy?" The answers were:
| “Legal” | “Illegal” | |
| First trimester | 66% | 29% |
| Second trimester | 25% | 68% |
| Third trimester | 10% | 84% |
The Democrat/LP position (legal in every trimester) has only 10% support, and the Republican position (illegal in every trimester) has only 29% support. If the Libertarian Party advocated legal in the first trimester and illegal in the third, we would be consistent with the views of the remaining 61% of the public. A sample plank is at http://marketliberal.org/PlatComWiki/Abortion_Plank. I offer a $200 bounty for identifying any other position the LP could take that 60% of Libertarians and 60% of Americans support and that is not already staked out by the Ds or Rs or Greens or CP.
(And no, my position on abortion is not determined by polls. The two extreme positions on when personhood begins -- conception and birth -- are both obviously wrong. The two tenable positions available are viability and neurological development. I used to assert the former, but the technology-driven malleability of that line brought me around to the latter position.)
The abortion issue is a unique opportunity for the LP to position itself as the party of common sense and reasonableness, showing how a sober analysis of individual rights can drive consensus among mainstream Americans. This opportunity is so unique that I'll pay that $200 bounty for a position that ANY of these five parties could take (but hasn't yet) where both 60% of their members and 60% of Americans support it and it is not already staked out by any of the other four parties.
I don't think any other such position exists in American politics. You get my $200 if you can give a counter-example.
The abortion issue is a unique opportunity for the LP to position itself as the party of common sense and reasonableness, showing how a sober analysis of individual rights can drive consensus among mainstream Americans. This opportunity is so unique that I'll pay that $200 bounty for a position that ANY of these five parties could take (but hasn't yet) where both 60% of their members and 60% of Americans support it and it is not already staked out by any of the other four parties.
I don't think any other such position exists in American politics. You get my $200 if you can give a counter-example.
38 comments:
What are you proposing for the legal status of second trimester abortion? Legal, Illegal, or Undecided?
I would personally draw the line at the end of the second trimester, but I'd let the states decide for themselves where in the second trimester to draw the line, and whether factors like health of the mother and viability etc. should influence it.
My opinion is that the choice is between murder and slavery; that's why this is such a difficult question. If you believe that all abortion is murder (it kills a human), then the only way to prevent that is slavery (forcing a woman to continue to be pregnant when she chooses not to). Consider the precedents: if a bone-marrow transplant would save the life of a child and the only viable donor refuses to do the donation, we do not force the donor to undergo the procedure involuntarily. Bone-marrow donation is painful and at least slightly dangerous. Retaining until term is potentially far more dangerous and painful. A bone-marrow donor is not required to be legally and financially responsible for the recipient for the next 18 years. If a government forbids a pregnant woman from terminating that pregnancy, making her a slave, perhaps that government should take all legal and financial responsibility for the child, from the time of enforcing that law forward, and perhaps it should pay her for her service. Where you stand on the trimesters is your responsibility, but you should consider these other issues too.
Obviously, there are two issues here, not one. Yes, it is a choice of freedom for the woman and life for the baby. Here's how we get both: We accept that technology has changed and it is now possible to transplant a fetus from an unwilling host to a willing one, as well as to provide for the unborn child outside the womb with artificial systems.
Therefore, it is up to the woman to choose whether to carry to term, and up to the opponents of abortion to fund the care for the baby over whom they have previously expressed such concern.
It is wrong to violate the zero aggression principle. Therefore, a woman must be free at all times to use up to deadly force to defend herself and her property from parasites, thieves, looters, rapists, and killers, when, as, and how she sees fit. Equally, it is wrong to violate the zero aggression principle, therefore if it is possible to avoid killing the unborn child, that should be avoided.
Dr. Paul makes much of the experience he had of an abortion doctor removing a living fetus and then killing it. He notes that doing so is clearly murder, and wrong. There's nothing wrong with ending the pregnancy, though.
So, we should take the position that we want both the mother and the child to be free.
And if private sector research is needed to make transplants more reliable, that's good, too.
Oh, and, to answer your question, I would seriously argue that a 12 day old fetus is a human being. A person is a person no matter how small. On what basis would you argue otherwise? That the skin color is different? That the size matters? That the shape seems odd? There are people who are adult humans who have oddly colored skin, are larger or smaller than average, or have physical deformities, and you obviously don't want to use eugenics to determine whether it is okay to kill some of them, right? Same thing applies here.
The abortion question does not hinge on selecting a magic number of months or weeks or days, nor years, nor decades to determine that a human being with the genes of a human is a human and entitled to the rights of a human, and is obligated to the responsibilities of a human. The abortion question is a matter of whether you prefer to enslave women for the term of their pregnancy, plus the upkeep through majority, or whether each individual is self-responsible from conception.
And, I firmly believe, the technology exists to divide the question. Let women choose to end an unwanted pregnancy and offer means for keeping the fetus alive outside the womb or transplant it to a willing host.
If no one offers to provide support to the infant, and the infant cannot support itself, it is not clear to me that any affirmative obligation rests on the parents, any more than I have an affirmative obligation to help my neighbor who lost her job. But, by dividing the question, we get at the underlying issue: are the abortion opponents ready to step up to the plate as hosts (men can be hosts as well as women, given the evidence from pregnancies that have been successfully brought to term outside the uterus)? If artificial technologies are used, are the abortion opponents willing to pay for the costs?
It is wrong to impose on a woman's choice over her body through force, just as it would be wrong for one twin to be forced to undergo a difficult and dangerous surgery to provide an organ or bone marrow to her sister. It is also wrong to kill someone when that can be avoided.
I am currently 12 weeks pregnant and can honestly say I have already bonded with the little person inside me. A year ago I had a miscarriage at 12 weeks. I cannot even describe how devastating it was to go to the doctor's office and frantically searching on the ultrasound screen for a heartbeat but not finding one. The loss of a life was absolute. I don't see how legally we could force someone to carry a child to term, but I think if the options were laid out (i.e. adoption, possibly transplanting to willing host, etc...) and the woman was supported and educated an arrangment could be made to most humanely and ethically handle the situation. My biggest problem is that you should NOT be having sex unless you are capable and willing to deal with the consequences, wanted or unwanted. I also believe that in cases of incest and rape or where the health of the mother is at risk those cases should be dealt with carefully but abortion may be the only solution. There is no easy answer here. It just becomes more apparent as to how it is all supposed to be - sex only after married, where in a committed relationship, with a mother and a father a child is brought in to the world. Even if unplanned it is a situation where it can appropriately be handled. I don't think any of our parents regret their unplanned children. I believe that life begins at conception. The immediate growth and development are evidence of life. It is an unbelievable miracle. People that cannot deal with pregnancy as a consequence of their actions should not do the act. Seriously, that's it. We're not animals, you can control yourself. Sex is an act where the consequence may result in your body not really being your own any more. It is a huge responsibility I feel to carry this child. As to supporting the child for 18 years, just look at the huge list of people waiting to adopt who are more than willing to do that. Adoption came about from unwanted pregnancis to benefit mother, the baby, and those who cannot have children of their own. Though not an easy endeavor, it is extremely admirable that women think of the child before themselves, carry the child to term, and give it the best life possible-to loving parents who truly want that baby. I think that is the best solution for everyone.
Thank you for sharing about your recent miscarriage and current pregnancy. It is very important that women bond with the child they are carrying in the womb, and it is certainly no surprise that you had done so by twelve weeks. The trauma of your loss is very sad, and you have my condolences. I also wish you well in your current pregnancy.
It is certainly true that supported and educated parents are more able to take sensible choices. The law, however, necessarily applies to those who are uneducated and unable to support themselves, as well. One of the popular French philosophers once said that the law, in its majestic equality, punishes the rich and poor equally for sleeping under bridges.
Nor is it my view that the law has anything to say about when people have sex. Choices in sexual behavior are entirely outside the scope of powers of government.
Various socialists have tried to insist that the trained bureau-rat should license all parenting, should educate and support with taxpayer dollars every person, cradle to grave, and therefore get to say when an abortion is to be forced on this woman or that. "I don't hold to that," as Mal says in the film "Serenity."
Yes, I do understand that you did not say, "You should be prevented from having sex," but there is often a drift from "you should not be having sex" to this other sort of thinking. And I just want to nip it right in the bud and say, it is none of my business if you or anyone else has sex. It is none of the government's business. And if you want to educate young men and women as you see fit, that's great, tell them they should not be having sex.
On alternate weeks, I think telling adolescent humans they should not be having sex won't get you laughed out of the room.
First of all I would love to cover what the person said trying to relate an abortion to a bone marrow transplant. Number one, of course they wouldn't make the person get a bone marrow transplant.. but really if you found out you were the one and only are you really telling me you are so heartless that you would rather die than suffer a little bit of pain to save a human life? The biggest difference to me however is this... A person that is pregnant (usually) has chosen to have sex, a person that needs a bone marrow transplant hasn't been so thoughtless in their actions. They didn't make one choice that they knew could lead to needing the transplant, however the person that is pregnant chose to have sex (with or without protection) knowing the possible consequences. I am speaking from experience. Yes I was one of those teens that didn't listen to anyone and I got pregnant, yes I went to an abortion clinic. Yes I got told about the "procedure" I was going to have done on me as soon as the next day! However being there and hearing my child be called a "procedure" made me sick and I went into the bathroom multiple times at the clinic to throw up just because of those thoughts. I proceeded to look more into it (however I know many of my friends didn't) I was shocked how the class that was supposed to "inform" me of what was to happen with my body and my baby/fetus really told me nothing except basically I would be there for a few hours, then a few recovery then come back in a couple of weeks to make sure all was well. How is that being informed? Anyway I went ahead with my pregnancy, which I found out was twins. I placed them for adoption and it is the best choice I have ever made. Seeing them now, I can't imagine and I am in fact ashamed of myself for ever thinking I would kill them. They are wonderful children and their family loves them to death. Why should I have the right to take their right to life away? I had the right to procreate, I had the right to chose and I chose unwisely, but I don't think any child should have to suffer such a dire consequence because of their biological parents stupidity or lack of judgement or thought.
One more thing I want to touch on really quickly...
"Yes, I do understand that you did not say, "You should be prevented from having sex," but there is often a drift from "you should not be having sex" to this other sort of thinking. And I just want to nip it right in the bud and say, it is none of my business if you or anyone else has sex. "
Her drift of you should be not having sex is absolutely right. You should not be doing anything if you can't pay the consequences. A consequence of sex is getting pregnant, in fact that is why sex is there... to procreate. If you want to have sex with no worries get your tubes tied or your uterus taken out so pregnancy can never happen, then go be with whoever you want whenever you want. That way you are only putting your life and health in danger not an innocent childs (yes I mean CHILD). Are people really that self absorbed that they can't look beyond a few months of humiliation? Or a few months of being uncomfortable and having to run to the bathroom a lot? I have lived it, and no I still don't buy that crap about a stupid bone marrow transplant being the same thing or even close to it.. IT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!! I agree with planetaryjim, a person is a person no matter how small.
I feel abortion should be illegal after the 1st trimester. I don't understand why a women would wait so long to have an abortion? I have heard of women having abortions at 23 weeks, and I feel thats plain out murder!!! Unless, there is some kind of serious birth defect or a risk to the mother, it should be illegal after the first trimester, and thats my opinion on it!
I feel that there is no role for the state, whatsoever, in making any part of the reproductive processes legal, illegal, punishable by death, or punishable by fine or prison. The state has no role in people's bodies.
Look at the other things that the state has taken a role in: drainage in New Orleans in 2005; emergency response in Greensburg, KS in 2007; campaign finance reform since 1996; a war on recreational pharmaceuticals since 1971; a war on terror since 2001. Does anyone seriously believe that the government's work in the area of reproduction is going to be any more praiseworthy?
I certainly favor the life of every unborn child. All other things being equal, I'd like all children to be loved, to be born, and to become freedom loving adults. I also favor the freedom of each adult woman to defend her life, liberty, and property when, as, and how she sees fit.
And, I reiterate, there is no reason that technology won't divide these issues for us. Pitting the life of the child against the freedom of the mother is a false dichotomy. The sooner people realize it is possible to have both, the better.
As nursing student, there were a few ideas that I noted as grossly assumed or misinformed.
first- the example formerly used comparing carrying a fetus to full term (slavery), and a bone marrow transplant is medically incorrect. Bone marrow transplants are no longer nearly as painful as they used to be due to a newer procedure that involves venous injection of a formula that draws the marrow temporarily into the blood, therefore the procedure is as painless as drawing a blood sample and extracting the marrow.
second- addressing "slavery"- who made the choice to engage in the act that led to the pregnancy? That would be the mother, and if in fact the mother was raped- abortion is an option for her, however, rape victims account for less than 1% of all abortion recipients.
third- the chances of carrying a baby to full term being of a potentially lethal risk to the mother is highly rare, and it's actually more likely for the mother to commit suicide post-abortion than to have her life threatened by the fetus she is carrying.
fourth- if you agree with abortion I strongly urge you to look into the procedures used, during which there is no pain-killer administered to the fetus, who, in fact does feel pain. Abortion is legal until the end of the 12th week, yet by the 8th week the fetus's pain reflex is the same as that of a newborn. We claim to be such a developed society, but I'm afraid we are as a whole, not as ethically developed as we are technologically developed.
I DUNNO WHO READS THESE BUT IM TOTALLY AGAINST ABORTION!! AT ANY STAGE.. IT IS A HUMAN U IDIOTS!! LOOK AT IT DOES IT LOOK LIKE A HUMAN? IT HAS A HEART BEAT SO IF ITS NOT HUMAN THEN WHAT ARE WE WE ALL WENT THROUGH THE SAME STAGES SO IF THAT BABY ISNT HUMAN TO YOU PEOPLE THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS IT? COULD U PLEASE TELL ME? ID LOVE TO KNOW
An abortion at anytime is murder. I do not believe in it at all what so ever. I can see if you were rapped and couldn't bare raising a child from a monster. Other than that it's not cool. I think if you are mature enough to lay down with someone than you better be ready for anything that happens after that. There are way too many forms of preventing pregnancy if you do not want one for abortions to be ok. It's ridiculous to use abortions as a form of birth control, which is what way too many females do.
to the anon lady who said she beleived that sex within marriage was the only way to counter abortion, i'm sorry, but you're being highly unrealistic. i'm 34, married and 12 weeks pregnant too but i was sexually active from the age of 16 and had multiple partners. i was always careful to use protection and never fell pregnant by accident. my mom explained sex and condoms to me at a very young age - without "condoning" promiscuity, she was broadminded enough to know that teenage sex happens, and it's very normal. we always had access to condoms, there was a box in the house with a constant supply that my brothers and i had free unsupervised acces to. she would stress protection every time sex came up and we all listened!
recently i was at a lunch and there were 2 moms discussing their 16 year old daughters. the 2 girls sometimes slept over at boys houses but these 2 moms were adamant that the boys were just friends and the girls still virgins. as if! education is the key to curbing teenage pregnancy.
to the next anon who reckons that many "females" use abortion as birth control - bullsh&t! abortion is painful expensive and traumatic. no woman would put herself thru that rather than take birth control pills or use a condom. accidents happen and 99% of women who have abortions are traumatised by the experience.
To the person who compared the arguement of abortion to the decison between slavery and murder all I can say is how absurd. You leave one very important factor out of your arguement. That factor is getting pregnant in the first place. We all know where babies come from and how to prevent them. At least 99% of the time. We as a people seem to have taken the stance that we should be allowed to do as we please live as freely as we choose but be allowed to some how skate the consequences. How do you advacate that? I was taught that part of being a decent and mature human being was weighing the options and doing only what I can live with. Is that lesson no longer valid, or only when convenient?
I TRULY BELIEVE THAT IF SOME KNOWS THEY ARE PREGNANT, DONT WANNA HAVE THE BABY I WOULD DRAW THE LINE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE 1ST TRIMESTER, BECAUSE AFTER THE FIRST TRIMESTER ITS NOT A FETUS ANYMORE ITS AN ACTUAL BABY AND EVERYTHING. WELL ITS ACTUALLY NOT A FETUS AFTER LIKE THE SECOND WEEK CAUSE BY THE 3RD WEEK IT HAS A BRAIN, A HEART AND A LIVER IT HAS ALMOST EVERY MADE ALREADY.
Middle ground. Our country is built on compromises.
If someone chooses to have an abortion lets try to be somewhat decent about it and get it done within the first few weeks.
A woman has the right to do what she wants with her own body. Well the fetus isn't a body part, it's a seperate individual sent down by God. Old people looked fucked up too, but we don't kill them off. Just because the fetus at some stage doesn't look human you don't think it is? Liberal idiots don't realize it's the dna that makes it human, whatever stage it's in, is moot. It's still human. And oh yeah, the woman does have the right to choose when she spreads her fucking legs open. Anyone that can't see that killing a fetus at any stage is murder is ridiculous, and not educated. It's pure evil to abort a fetus. But civilization moves more and more towards evil to the point where we think it's ok for a man to stick his penis in another mans ass hole, even though it is obvious the ass hole was created for humans by God to excrete shit.
I read with interest all the comments, I guess it goes back to Pro choice and it is only for the woman carring the unborn child to decide. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies or children born but unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world.
I am a 38 year old woman who has two children, I have had a miscarraige and recently a termination.
Unfortunately the guilt of the termination remains with me, but I believe that I made the correct choice, to bring a child into the world under the circumstances I found myself would have been the wrong choice.
I belive in god and I belive my aborted babies are with him in a far better place.
To those that belive abortion is used as a form of contraception is nonsense - Many woman find themselves pregnant although they have taken the necessary precautions.
It is your choice!!!!
It is obviously very important for some people to be extremely self-righteous and sanctimonious about choices other people have taken.
Pregnancy prevention techniques are not perfect. And sinners get into heaven.
We don't live in a perfect world with perfect techniques for preventing pregnancy, with any certainty that the drink you left on the table while you were dancing doesn't contain an hypnotic, so you end up pregnant whether you thought you were avoiding sex or not. We do have a capacity for decency and inventiveness, and I believe we can make the world a better place with technology.
With a technology for transplanting pregnancies, and with artificial wombs, we won't need the state to say who can do what, when. We won't need the state to rule on whether something with all the DNA of a human being is human, yet.
And, frankly, we don't need the state, now. Statists, particularly minarchist statists, are scum. They should be ashamed of themselves, and engage in retroactive self-abortion.
First of all, I am against abortion. Second, PlanetaryJim repeats transferring fetus' but I'm sure that would cost a lot and the majority of women who have abortions are poor. And a person is a person no matter how small. Something doesn't go from being a cat one day to a dog the next just because it changed and grew a little. For all the women who say they had an abortion because they didnt want to bring a baby into their circumstances, that is stupid. Adoption may be a hard decision but so isn't abortion. With adoption not only is that choosing to let a baby live but it's also making another family very happy. Anyone is allowed to get pregnant, but to adopt those people have to go through so much. They have a background check on them and they have to wait for years just to get a baby. So it's not like they're not going to be taken care of. Ask adopted people if they would have rathered their mother have an abortion, and the majority would say they're are happy to be here. My sister is adopted and my life would be so much different if her mother would have had an abortion. She was my playmate, my defender, and my hero. ADOPTION IS AN OPTION!! Think about it...
P.S. don't vote for Hilary Clinton, she is a baby killer, she's for abortion.
Yes, I do mention the technological solution of transplanting a fetus from a woman who wants to live her life without a baby, to a mother who wants one. An artificial womb would be another technology - with the advancing state of pre-natal and premature natal care, we are very close to an artificial womb now. Why do I mention this idea? Because it separates the slavery from the killing. If we could have more freedom with less death, that would be a blessing.
Yes, at first, it would likely be expensive. But, remember there are tens of millions of abortions every year. So, there is a huge market opportunity here for a reduction in death.
When pocket calculators first came out in 1971 or so, they were $1500. And there were only a hundred sold, or something like that, the first year or so. Same for VCRs. Same for every new consumer product. But, today I can go to Wal-Mart and pay about $5 (2007 dollars, to be sure) and get a calculator that does as much as the 1971 version did. Why? Because tens of millions of people are willing to buy a calculator every year.
Wikipedia's articles on abortion set the USA abortion number at around 1.5 to 2 million killings per year, and the global number at 42 million for 2003 alone. Okay, so, tens of millions of people would be in the market for a way of having more freedom with less killing, at least potentially. Which means the unit cost would go down very low, assuming widespread use of this method.
What does that mean about Lydia's comment that it would be expensive? It means that those of you who insist that women may not choose whether to have a fetus in their womb can put up the money to have the fetus transplanted, or you can shut up about the killings. Or just die a hypocrite, knowing that the only thing you needed to do to prevent a killing was spend some money.
Yes, a person is a person, no matter how small, as Horton and Dr. Seuss taught us. And, I think a person is a person from the moment of conception, even if they look weird at that time. I have met many weird looking people.
But, a person is a person no matter how large, too. And if you are going to take children seriously by insisting that we treat them as human beings from the moment of conception, then you should take women seriously, too, by treating them as human being, with property rights in their own bodies, with freedom and liberty, with justice, too. Anything you say about unborn children applies at least equally to born adult women.
Adoption is an option, yes. But, it is not a command performance. It is not an obligation.
Perhaps if technology were available to make it possible to end a pregnancy without ending the baby's life, it would be obligatory. Especially as the cost drops to make it similar in price.
no one knows what it is like being pregnant and not being able to give it the life a chil needs soo i say its your choice you should be in the position before you al judge
I did not say transferring a fetus was a bad idea, it just isn't an option for some people who have no way of getting that type of money. The price will likely go down if this is used a lot but how will it ever be women ever get to use this if it's too expensive to start out with. Adoption isn't an obligation, I just thinks it is overlooked too much. People don't take it into consideration. Who in their right mind would kill a baby rather than give it a life and make a family happy? Women who have abortions without considering adoption are selfish. It seems they have the mindset, well if I can't have this baby and be happy than no one else can either!
Personally I'm on the border of the issue of abortion. What I'd like to see is everyone dig a little deeper and consider this... I went to college with a girl who was sexually molested and raped by her step father who in turn got her pregnant at the age of 15. She lived in fear of not only her father but of people judging her becuase she was considering having an abortion because she said that she could not carry on day to day knowing she would be caring for a child that was the product of such a horrific incident. She ended up keeping the baby only for the sake of being harrassed by all the pro-life activists. She put the baby up for adoption at 16, and at the age of 21 committed suicide. She always lived in fear of knowing that there was a physical manifestation of her childhood trama walking around. She was too young to suffer so much. She dealt with the pain for years and finally could take it no longer. So I think everyone should really think who they harrass, it is up to the individual and the individual only.
As someone who is 3mo pregnant, I couldn't imagine aborting a child after the 1st trimester. If you don't want a baby, take the pill, have your tubes tied, use a condom, or don't have sex. If anything, give the baby up for adoption. I already love the life inside me, and couldn't imagine murdering my child. The one and only circumstance I could see for someone to get an abortion, is if they were raped.
I've seen so many posts on here about "slavery". Please. This has nothing to do with enslaving an irresponsible woman who couldn't use the proper protection. If you don't want a baby, USE PROTECTION or DON'T HAVE SEX! People need to start owning up to their personal responsibilities. You cannot enable this kind of behavior by protecting it. A fetus, zygote, baby, whatever is a human from the MOMENT it is conceived. You would not say that the embryo of a bear is not a bear because it hasn't been born yet. I have had an abortion as a teenager and it is the one decision I regret in life. Since then, I have had 3 kids and a miscarriage and you cannot convince me that I did not kill that baby. I stopped it from living - prevented it from growing into the child it would have become. If you don't believe that, you are insane. It doesn't matter which trimester you are in. Take responsibility for your actions.
A fetus is a human being from the moment of conception. Human beings have the freedom to defend their property, including their own bodies, from other humans, with up to deadly force, as they see fit.
Only the technology of ending a pregnancy without killing the unborn child is going to resolve this issue.
Until then, whatever you think of them, whatever your opinion of their freedom to refuse their consent, women have an absolute property right over their own bodies, and they can use up to deadly force as they see fit against anyone they please. You and all the other apologists for slave holding don't impress me. Slaves are humans, too. And if a slave doesn't want to be in service to another human, she has the option of killing to stay free.
I would like it much better if you would stop complaining about people using force to defend their homes, their families, and their freedom. I would like it much better if you didn't want the government to intervene and force women to bear unwanted children. And I would like it much better if you took responsibility for the lives of some of these unborn children, as soon as they can be transplanted safely to wombs (natural or artificial) where they are wanted.
I think anyone who thinks having an abortion is ok should just kill themselves and MAYBE the problem will fix itself!
Wow, interesting discussion. I am intrigued by planetaryjim's comments especially on technological alternatives to abortion.
However, I'd like to approach this from a purely 'moral' viewpoint as this is a controversy that is enveloped by moralism. First, where do we get our standard of morality? When we create moral standards based on our own experiences or how we 'feel' then you end up with moral relativism. If it feels good to you, then do it. There are many examples of how this creates chaos in a society. However, when you look to something that transcends yourself to set the standards for morality, society operates more smoothly on the whole. That is the position that is taken when a person respects human life from the moment of conception. And then if you move from this concept to a purely religious position, one only needs to look and see what God says about this issue. And, yes, God would be considered the ultimate authority on morality standards. He says that he "knits" us and "forms" us in our mothers' wombs. That "he knew us before the foundation of the world." If this is the case, then our bodies are NOT our own. They belong to God to do with as HE PLEASES. Sometimes God is glorified through the most seemingly unfortunate of circumstances (i.e. rape). I have read the testimonies of ABORTION SURVIVORS, and all I can say is WOW. Ask them whether or not they deserved to live...
Anyway, to take the position that a women's body is to do with as she sees fit is a very humanistic approach and stems from moral relativism. The truth is, we need to be making decisions that keep in mind there is a moral standard that DOES transcend our own whether we want to believe it or not. Moral relativism is just the smokescreen to make us feel better when we make the WRONG choice of thinking abortion is o.k.
I also wanted to add...to the 38 year-old who had an abortion...The guilt you are feeling is God's way of calling you to him to ask for forgiveness. You stated you believe you made the right choice, but the choice you made was for you not for God - therefore it was not the right choice based on his moral standards (the ultimate source). He speaks in length in His Word about the value of human life. But again, one only need ask His forgiveness. He knows your heart. After all, He knew you before the foundations of the world and intimately as he was knitting you in your mother's womb.
Also, to Planetaryjim who stated that sinners go to heaven. That is very true, and we are ALL sinners in God's eyes. Whether it be abortion, lies, bad thoughts, whatever the sin, it is still sin equally in God's eyes. However, the difference is that heaven awaits only those who seek forgiveness and place their trust in Jesus Christ. Again, we (in general) must not make God out to be who we want him to be or who we think he is through our own experiences (moral relativism). God is unchanging - absolute. And he gives us clear, inerrant words to help us live our lives that please Him most.
It annoys me when people say the women are "protecting their bodies" it's usually, except in the case of rape, the womens fault. It's not like the child is trying to hurt the woman... it's there because she didnt take precautions to prevent it from being there. If a women wants to protect her body from a baby she should take precautions b/4 not after she gets pregnant. And the government should not have to intervene but there are so many adults that refuse to take the blame for their own actions so the only way for the right thing to be done is if the government makes sure it is. But I doubt it will happen seeing as how Roe vs. Wade was in 1972 and it hasnt been changed since then.
Protecting their property is what women are doing when they demand that a trespasser leave, or a burglar, or a thief, or a rapist. What makes you in charge of when the woman chooses to defend her life, her liberty, and her property? Who are you, Lydia, to tell any other person what to do for self-defense, or what constitutes a threat? You are nothing in that matter, you are nobody. It isn't your body, it isn't your life, it isn't your choice.
Each and every one of us has an individual right to use up to deadly force when, if, and how we see fit. I have the right to kill anyone that I view as a threat to my life, my liberty, my property, or the lives, liberty, and property of anyone I choose to defend. My judgement is the only judgement that matters when I choose to apply deadly force, and I am uniquely responsible for all of the consequences of my choices.
You don't think a baby can threaten the life of the mother? It is not your thought that matters. You don't think a baby can threaten the liberty of the mother? Your thoughts are not relevant. You don't think the baby threatens the property of the mother? So what? Who died and left you queen of the universe? These women are not your property.
Given a technology to transplant a living baby from the womb of a woman who doesn't want it in her body into your uterus, would you volunteer? Or is it only when the baby is somebody else's problem that you are sanctimonious?
Abortion is wrong plain and simple do you love life are you happy you get to expierence the things you do .you get that because somebody loved you enough to give birth to you nobody is saying that you have to keep the baby but at least be human enough to let it live and be with somebody that loves it give it up for adoption.If you don't want to have a baby then be responsible enough not to get pregnant but don't punish the innocent little life inside of you because your to self centered to do the right thing.I don't care what any ones excuse is it's wrong and not ok there is NO possible reason for killing a baby.
Plantaryjim,
Everything you just said is the biggest load of you know what that i ever heard in my life.somebody killing somebody else because that person is threating you is so different from you choosing to kill your baby the only reason the bby is there is because that person made the choice not the baby in retarded theory the baby should have the right to kill the mother since she trying to kill the baby.you can't make the choice to grab somebody and put them on your property and then say hey i have the right to kill you now because your on my property.it's wrong and immoral.you just need to quit talking.when you have something smart to say then respond
Post a Comment