Abortion: Right or Wrong?

[Nammy]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else. It is her body. The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.
If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?
And then of course there is rape: violent, incestual, gang, forced, (all of the above): is abortion okay in this case? Or still no?
Abortion to save the woman because of health risks?: Yes or No?

Just a starter if anyone wants to pipe in with their opinion.

 

[InterestedParty]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else.

What about the man who impregnated her? Should he have any say in the matter? If not, why not?

Please don't use the whole "she would have to be the one to carry the baby for nine months" excuse. Nine months is *only* nine months. Hardly a substantial time period. For most of you that equals two semesters of school.

I find it amazing that men don't freak out about not having their rights as the father considered in this.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else.

What about the father.

It is her body.

I don't want to tell a woman what to do with HER body. If she wants to pierce her body 100 times...go for it. If she wants to get tattoos....more power to her. If she wants to get fat by over-eating....I say eat up.

The baby inside is not her body. It is the baby's body.

The unborn entity within the pregnant woman's body is not part of her body. The conceptus is a genetically distinct entity with its own unique and individual gender, blood type, bone-structure, and genetic code. Although the unborn entity is attached to its mother, it is not part of her. To say that the unborn entity is part of its mother is to claim that the mother possesses four legs, two heads, two noses, and — with the case of a male conceptus — a penis and two testicles.

Furthermore, since scientists have been able to achieve conception in a petri dish in the case of the "test-tube" baby, and this conceptus if it has white parents can be transferred to the body of a black woman and be born white, we know conclusively that the unborn is not part of the pregnant woman's body. Certainly a woman has a right to control her own body, but the unborn entity, though for a time living inside her body, is not part of her body. Hence, abortion is not justified, since no one's right to personal autonomy is so strong that it permits the arbitrary execution of others.

It's also important to note that the government tells women what to do with their bodies in other aspects of the law in order to maintain a just and orderly society by limiting some moral agencies: ex. prostitution, suicide, smoking crack, I could go on and on...

The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.

The notion that it doesn’t count as a human because it is not completely developed is simply ridiculous. It is without question living entity. It has a brain, and shortly upon conception, it forms its own, independent heart beat.

A zygote, the immediate result when a male sperm and female ovum unite is unquestionably biologically alive as it fulfills the four criteria necessary:
(1) metabolism
(2) growth
(3) reaction to stimuli
(4) reproduction [cell reproduction called “twinning” – asexual]

In addition, the zygote has its own unique genetic code, thus being a unique human individual (46 chromosomes).

If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

It's all about self-responsibility. A woman should be able to kill a living entity simply because she's not ready for the pressure? I have two responses to this:

(1) Then she shouldn't be getting pregnant

Our entire lives our centered around the principle of responsibility and self-reliance. You don’t want to work hard and get a degree and just want to smoke pot all day? Fine by me, but I don’t want to hear any complaints that you weren’t given a fair shot.

Every American is expected to take responsibility for their own lives and when they are inevitably faced with adversity, you will ultimately emerge a stronger, more wiser person.

But instead, abortion bails out these irresponsible women who are more concerned about sexual pleasure than they are the killing of what could potentially be the next Einstein, or the doctor who cures cancer, or the guy who discovers how to run cars on water. Again, why does this potential human not have a right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?”


(2) The baby will put a burden on the mpother? Well isn’t that convenient? Wouldn’t it be nice if we could simply get rid of every human we thought to be in annoying or burdensome? Under this logic, the killing of all humans we find to be financially burdensome or emotionally taxing should be promoted.

And then of course there is rape: violent, incestual, gang, forced, (all of the above): is abortion okay in this case? Or still no?

This is a tough one. I still think that it is wrong for the woman to simply kill a living being because it's inconvenient to her, but then again, it wasn't her choice so my entire issue of self-reponsibility is out. I tend to have more sympathy for women in these cases, though I believe the right move would be to have the child and put it up for adoption.

Abortion to save the woman because of health risks?: Yes or No?

Depends. Again, I tend to have more sympathy in these instances.

 

[InterestedParty]

Bravo USMC.

Just plain BRAVO!

 

[n0spam4me]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

 

[USMC the Almighty]

Picture this

A woman gets off the bus and enters a clinic, she is there for some time (whos turn is it to time events?) she exits, gets a cab (or?) and leaves,
Now I ask you, what just happened? and is it anybodys business?

The "GOV" intrudes far too much into peoples lives as it is, lighten up....
If any given Citizen and Doctor conspire together to do something that YOU consider immoral, so be it and far be it from me to intervene in anyones private life!

Whatever happened to ultimate individual sovergnty and LIBERTY.

Far too many things are legislated because its in the interest of somebodys MORAL standard to force everybody to behave a certan way.

If I where to sunbathe on my front lawn naked, what harm would be done, oh the neighborhood brats may be exposed to the sight of an natural human body OH MY - can't have that!

I PROTEST! Live and let live and stay OUT of peoples private lives!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and as we all know
the emperor is NAKED!
.

The irony hurts. You cite the Declaration of Independence which guarantees the American preservation of LIFE in addition to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

You then complain about gov't intrusion. My guess is that you also support tax spikes, social security, welfare, medicare/medicaid, etc.

Irony.

 

[Enlightened One]

Abortion is taking life. When a cell divides in half it shows basic life functions, like.. trying to grow and survive. And when someone aborts that, it's killing the cell, right? I am pro life all day long. Who are we to say that life needs to be extinguished? in certian situations like war, although we are killing our fellow man, we are perserving a way of life we are used to. When we kill off a life that never had the opportunity to decide if it wants to be here or not, that's taking away someones destiny, and that my friends is wrong!

 

[Nammy]

What if the mother's life is on the line?

 

[Enlightened One]

What if the mother's life is on the line?

Death is inevitable, As much as I am opposed to death making the ones that are unavoidable, as compassionate as possible would be a must if it was up to me. I wish we could not have such hard decsions as those, but the reality of it is that we cannot. No life is not pro life.

 

[1krazykapt]

As an adopded child have a strong stance an the issue. Because if abortion was leagle in 50's and early 60's i might not be here. Pro life for ever.

 

[palerider]

The issue is not how you define “life”; but rather how the law defines a “person.”

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. Here is the definition of "person" from various legal dictionaries:


http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=person&type=1

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

person n. 1) a human being. 2) a corporation treated as having the rights and obligations of a person

http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/sc...com&topic=e4/e4b1efffd2c970a94531d44ee63d3d3b

person 1: "natural person" 2: the body of a human being

natural person - A living, breathing human being, as opposed to a legal entity such as a corporation.

There is little doubt that unborns are human beings at whatever stage of development they happen to be and the law makes it clear that all one need be, in order to be a person, in the eyes of the law, is a human being.

 

[palerider]

No. It is how the law defines a “person” under the Constitution. As Justice Blackmun stated in Roe v. Wade, “the word ‘person,’as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.” Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 159 (1973). This conclusion followed a review of both common law and constitutional precedent, as well as known facts of fetal development advanced by the appellee and amicus curiae arguing that a fetus is a person within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at pp. 133-157.

First, the constitution does not define what is or is not a person. The declaration of independence establishes as a defining principle of this nation the idea that we are endowed by our creator, that is, we come into being with the right to life , liberty and the persuit of happiness. Those being in the order they are for a very specific reason.

Interesting how you cherry pick the words of Justice Blackmun in an attempt to make your point. If your point isn't made by the entire statement, in context, your point isn't made. Justice Blackmun said:

"The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [410 U.S. 113, 157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument."

Later in the decision he says:

"Indeed, our decision in United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S. 62 (1971), inferentially is to the same effect, for we there would not have indulged in statutory interpretation favorable to abortion in specified circumstances if the necessary consequence was the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection."

In 1972, an argument, of sorts, could be made that unborns were not, indeed, human beings. In fact, an argument could be made, at that time, that the unborn was a part of its mother's body. Medical science has come a long way since then and no credible medical source suggests that unborns are either part of their mothers body, or are not individual human beings at any stage of their development from zygote to mature individual reached sometime in the middle to late 20's.

At present, several men are in prison for killing pregnant women. They were charged and sentenced not only for killing the woman, but for killing the child as well. One can not be sentenced for manslaugher for killing a non person so legal precedent is established for the personhood of the unborn.

 

[palerider]

Both the analogy and argument are inapposite. The quoted argument was not the rule of the court. Roe v. Wade was a Fourteenth Amendment case involving criminal prosecution for violation of a state abortion law. A legal abortion is not a criminal homicide (viz. "murder"). See, e.g., California Penal Code, Section 187. A woman’s right to have an abortion is subject to state (not federal) law; and so long as the state does not infringe upon a citizen’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, laws regulating abortion are valid and enforceable.

The 14th amendment does not only apply to citizens. Here again, you seem to have a basic misunderstanding of what is being said in the constitution. Whether it is deliberate or simply a failure to understand, I won't hazzard a guess.

First, lets take a look at the 14th amendment.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first, and most obvious thing to notice is that there is a sentence followed by a sentence that is composed of two clauses separated by a semicolon. It isn't just enough to read the words, you must look at and understand the punctuation used in order to understand what is being said. Some knowledge of the historical context in which the words are written is usefull as well.

Prior to the writing of the 14th amendment, Richard, individual states were in charge of citizenship. A person was first a citizen of the state he or she lived in, and secondary to that was a citizen of the US. The first sentence of the 14th amendment establishes that persons born or naturalized here were FIRST citizens of the US, and secondary to that were citizens of the state that they lived in.

Next we are presented with a sentence that is composed of two clauses separated by a semicolon.

The first clause of the second sentence establishes that since persons who are born or naturalized here are first and foremost citizens of the US that they are entitled to the rights specified in the constitution and the bill of rights. At the time, there were many problems with states deciding that they didn't necessarily have to grant constitutional rights to their citizens.

The second clause is separated from the first by a semicolon. Let me make you completely aware of the purpose of a semicolon in a sentence.

Semicolon - the punctuation mark used to indicate a major division in a sentence where a more distinct separation is felt between clauses or items on a list.

If you read the second clause as if it were no more than a continuation of the first in light of the fact that it is separated by a semicolon, you are reading like a school child and are missing the meaning and intent of the statement.

The second clause of the second sentence establishes that there are certain rights that all persons have whether they are citizens born or naturalized have. Refer to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark 169 U.S. 649 (1898), ick Wo v. Hopkins (1886) 118 U.S. 356, Law Ow Bew v. U.S. (1892) 144 U.S. 47, Fong Yue Ting v. U.S. (1893) 149 U.S. 698, Lem Moon Sing v. U.S. (1895) 158 U.S. 538, and Wong Wing v. U.S. (1896) 163 U.S. 228. These cases established that persons, whether citizens or aliens, "are entitled to the protections of the second clause of the 14th Amendment: "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws."

In the Roe decision, Justice Blackmun acknowledged that if the personhood of unborns is established, that roe will collapse because the unborn would be entitled to the protection of the 14th amendment.

Now feel free to refer to any legal dictionary for the definition of "person". You will find that in order to be considered a person in the eyes of the law, one only need be a human being.

In order for any person to be denied the right to live, law must be legislated that describes which right is being denied, which person is having that right denied, why that person is having the right denied. To date, I have seen no legislation that specifically denies the right of unborn human beings to live. Have you?

There exists, this very day, case law that establishes the personhood of unborns because men are in jail today having been sentenced for the killing of unborns. Such could not be the case if unborns were not persons.

 

[arbitor]

you are so right on. ive been waiting for someone to mention the fact that its homicide if anyone besides the mother kills the baby. i always thought that was messed up. some prochoice ***** on another site said "well obviously its murder becuase she accualy planned on having it" im sure i dont even need to point out the MASSIVE logical flaws in that statement.

 

[The Scotsman]

I feel that a woman should be able to have an abortion if she wants without any pressure from anyone else. It is her body.

Agreed. I can imagine a lot of this debate is born off religious conviction to which I have none so for me it comes down to the choice of that person carrying the baby. I'm sure a pregnant woman will not take a decision to abort a baby lightly? Not exactly a light moment in life determining whether you your child or not! More often than not the woman does not want the kid to start with and I shudder to think of the state of mind of a woman who becomes pregnant from a rapist - jeeeeez that must be frightening. Thus I go with the right of the woman to abort every time.

The debate will always be out as to whether the actual human life starts at conception or birth. I would agree that a "living thing" exists at conception.

Nah... don't like that argument as a few cells doing whats' programmed is just like a computer programme running routines. Microsoft Windows is not alive although it does do some pretty weird things likewise a ball of cells dividing and multipying does'nt do it for me.

If a woman is pressured to not go through with an abortion by any group, whether it be a religious group, an activist group or a political group, where are those pressure groups when the baby is actual born? Where is the help to find a safe, healthy home for this baby that the woman wanted to abort in the first place? Where is the mental and physical support? Is the idea just to get the woman not to have an abortion and then move onto the next pregnant woman who doesn't want her baby?

Yup agree with that scenario.

Religion has been the cause of more grief and suffering down the ages than plague rats thus what rights have religious leaders or religious communities to start dictating the running of other peoples life. I can't imagine wanting to go through with a birth of an unwanted kid just to please some self-righteous group of religious zealots. Which religion is it that bans its members from blood transfusions?....can't remember anyway this bunch of doolally ejits would rather see the death of one of its flock than save their life - do you agree with that on the grounds of gods will?