Abortion Options

[*kryogenix*]

In this case, specifically, what would you say the difference is?

The pro-life argument looks, to me, to be something like this:

A person born to US citizens is a US citizen.
A fetus is a person (according to pro-lifers).
Therefore, a fetus is a US citizen.

I'm unsure about this, but I think the medical definition for birth is the removal of the baby from the mother's body.

[misoshiru]

^ do you mean the medical definition for birth as in the "creation" of a life? or just simply....birth.

[*kryogenix*]

^ do you mean the medical definition for birth as in the "creation" of a life?  or just simply....birth.

Well, according to this Medical dictionary [nih.gov], birth is defined as:

1 : the emergence of a new individual from the body of its parent
2 : the act or process of bringing forth young from the womb

[*mipadi*]

I'm unsure about this, but I think the medical definition for birth is the removal of the baby from the mother's body.

I don't understand the distinction here. If a fetus is a person prior to birth in other respects, why does it not count as a person prior to birth for purposes of citizenship?

[*disco infiltrator*]

And why is a person counted for two counts of murder when murdering a pregnant person, but the fetus is not counted in any other respects?

[*CrackedRearView*]

And why is a person counted for two counts of murder when murdering a pregnant person, but the fetus is not counted in any other respects?

Probably has a lot to do with the fact that it was a malicious, concerted act of violence, and the fact that the killer took the life of a mother and her unborn child just gives the court another good reason to lock away such a psycho.

In an abortion clinic, however, the "mom" doesn't want the baby.

[innovation]

March for Life was crazy. Soooo many people in DC.

Disregarding ethics, is abortion beneficial to society? In Freakonomics (yes, one of my many hobbies is reading horribly mainstream non-fiction), the author argues that Roe v. Wade prevented the birth of future criminals and was the reason why the crime rate decreased. What do you guys think of this analysis/theory?

[*mipadi*]

March for Life was crazy. Soooo many people in DC.

Disregarding ethics, is abortion beneficial to society? In Freakonomics (yes, one of my many hobbies is reading horribly mainstream non-fiction), the author argues that Roe v. Wade prevented the birth of future criminals and was the reason why the crime rate decreased. What do you guys think of this analysis/theory?

Well, the author clarified that abortion wasn't exactly an efficient was to end crime, and, depending on one's viewpoint, may have resulted in more deaths than the crimes would have caused.

Of course, I don't hold the opinion that abortion is murder, so I think there's some merit to Levitt's point. As he noted in Freakonomics, most women who get abortions do so because they know they cannot care for a child—not only in financially, but also merely in terms of truly loving and raising that child. Most abortions are had by low-income women who would not only be raising their child in poverty, but would be raising their child in a culture in which the child is not loved or nurtured—a culture in which the child will end up making the same mistake as his parents, in terms of drug abuse, crime, and so forth. The question is, is that better or worse than terminating a fetus before it really develops into a person with a personality, etc.?

[Comptine]

^ that theory is interesting and i never thought of it before. but one could also argue that future scientists/great thinkers were aborted too. it works both ways.

i believe this debate is rather exhausted, both on CB and in real life. i love children, i honestly do, and i believe that everyone deserves a chance (although i don't have a very sentimental value towards life). i think that a controlled system is best, not a complete blanket ban. a system that offers other options and counseling.

a system that leaves abortion as the last possible resort while trying to help the mother pick another option leaves both sides satisfy both sides, in a way. with total open abortion, you give tons of careless women/girls a get-out-of-mummy-life card. with a blanket ban, you force tons of women into a desperate corner that would led to an increase number of back alley abortions and suicides.

[*CrackedRearView*]

^ that theory is interesting and i never thought of it before. but one could also argue that future scientists/great thinkers were aborted too. it works both ways.

i believe this debate is rather exhausted, both on CB and in real life. i love children, i honestly do, and i believe that everyone deserves a chance (although i don't have a very sentimental value towards life). i think that a controlled system is best, not a complete blanket ban. a system that offers other options and counseling.

a system that leaves abortion as the last possible resort while trying to help the mother pick another option leaves both sides satisfy both sides, in a way. with total open abortion, you give tons of careless women/girls a get-out-of-mummy-life card. with a blanket ban, you force tons of women into a desperate corner that would led to an increase number of back alley abortions and suicides.

That appears to be the general consensus.

[sadolakced acid]

women will always find a way to get abortions, whether they are legal or not.

if worse comes to worse, they can always take a drug to cause thier bodies to abort the feotus.

anyways; what we have is a stalemate of beliefs.


one side believes they are right and are morally obligated to force thier beliefs upon everyone.

the other side believes they have a right and wish to retain this right.


personally, if we were talking about muslims and, say, control of jeruselum or something, most "anti-women's-rights" people would support the latter side, when they are in face the former.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing economically disparaged women to get abortions.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing prospective mothers considering adoption to have abortions.

this is not china, where the government will force an abortion on you.

but i do see people, supported by judges like alito, attacking women attempting to enter abortion clinics, as current law allows them to.

i do see people bombing abortion clinics.

i do see people attempting to maim or kill abortion doctors.

and i will go by what i see when i determine which side to join.

(i'm considering making signs that have pictures of gang members, convicted criminals, and homeless children with the caption that says "you made my mommy have me. why didn't you mind your own buisness? the world would have been better for it.", then going to oppose the next anti-abortion rally in town. of course, these "pro-lifers" would probably stone me to death.)

(ironic, isn't it? that the people who value this "life" or a feotus don't seem to value the life of those with differing opinons.)

[*CrackedRearView*]

i do see people bombing abortion clinics.

i do see people attempting to maim or kill abortion doctors.

and i will go by what i see when i determine which side to join.

(i'm considering making signs that have pictures of gang members, convicted criminals, and homeless children with the caption that says "you made my mommy have me.  why didn't you mind your own buisness?  the world would have been better for it.", then going to oppose the next anti-abortion rally in town.    of course, these "pro-lifers" would probably stone me to death.)

(ironic, isn't it?  that the people who value this "life" or a feotus don't seem to value the life of those with differing opinons.)

Classic case of selection bias. And you of all people? I'm disappointed.

[*kryogenix*]

women will always find a way to get abortions, whether they are legal or not.

if worse comes to worse, they can always take a drug to cause thier bodies to abort the feotus.

anyways; what we have is a stalemate of beliefs.
one side believes they are right and are morally obligated to force thier beliefs upon everyone.

the other side believes they have a right and wish to retain this right.
personally, if we were talking about muslims and, say, control of jeruselum or something, most "anti-women's-rights" people would support the latter side, when they are in face the former.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing economically disparaged women to get abortions.

i do not see pro-choice people forcing prospective mothers considering adoption to have abortions.

this is not china, where the government will force an abortion on you.

but i do see people, supported by judges like alito, attacking women attempting to enter abortion clinics, as current law allows them to.

i do see people bombing abortion clinics.

i do see people attempting to maim or kill abortion doctors.

and i will go by what i see when i determine which side to join.

(i'm considering making signs that have pictures of gang members, convicted criminals, and homeless children with the caption that says "you made my mommy have me.  why didn't you mind your own buisness?  the world would have been better for it.", then going to oppose the next anti-abortion rally in town.    of course, these "pro-lifers" would probably stone me to death.)

(ironic, isn't it?  that the people who value this "life" or a feotus don't seem to value the life of those with differing opinons.)

Both sides have loonies.

[sadolakced acid]

one side believes they are right and are morally obligated to force thier beliefs upon everyone.

the other side believes they have a right and wish to retain this right.

the point still remains.

[*kryogenix*]

Aren't the people for abortion forcing their belief on the babies?

[*mipadi*]

Aren't the people for abortion forcing their belief on the babies?

The key difference is that with the pro-choice movement, no beliefs are being forced. If you are against abortion, you don't have to get one, even though they are legal. Even though the pro-choicers support abortion, they don't force anyone to actually get one; whereas the pro-life movement forces an individual to adopt its views on the matter.

[NoSex]

Aren't the people for abortion forcing their belief on the babies?

That's inherently absurd as a fetus does not have the compacity to compehend and believe anything, whether it is forced upon it or not.

[*kryogenix*]

The key difference is that with the pro-choice movement, no beliefs are being forced. If you are against abortion, you don't have to get one, even though they are legal. Even though the pro-choicers support abortion, they don't force anyone to actually get one; whereas the pro-life movement forces an individual to adopt its views on the matter.

That's why I didn't say pro-choice, I knew someone would attempt to point out the difference...

That's inherently absurd as a fetus does not have the compacity to compehend and believe anything, whether it is forced upon it or not.

The mentally retarded? The comatose?

[NoSex]

The mentally retarded? The comatose?

Sure. Some of these people truly do not have the capacity to believe certain things. However, when it comes to upholding a right to life, these individuals have a representative who cares for them and their rights, even if they can not understand the duties that follow. Their guardian takes the responsibility to uphold their rights and duties.

Guess who is in control of the fetus? The mother is.

[sadolakced acid]

Aren't the people for abortion forcing their belief on the babies?

not any more than those forcing people not to get abortions; as who knows? the feotus could want to be aborted.

the mentally retarded generally have some comprehension of who they are and hvae some mental capacities.

the comatose also have these mental capacities; they just cannot express it for the time being.

the people in persistant vegetate states, however, have no mental capacity, and they should be placed under the control of thier next-of-kin or otherwise stated person.

[*CrackedRearView*]

the feotus could want to be aborted.

First time I ever heard that one.

[*mipadi*]

That's why I didn't say pro-choice, I knew someone would attempt to point out the difference...
The mentally retarded? The comatose?

I don't mean to nitpick or single out old material, but that doesn't exactly nullify my point.

[sadolakced acid]

First time I ever heard that one.

doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

i hear a lot about how the feotus wouldn't want to be aborted, but that's not any more provable than the feotus wanting to be aborted.

[*CrackedRearView*]

doesn't mean it couldn't happen.

i hear a lot about how the feotus wouldn't want to be aborted, but that's not any more provable than the feotus wanting to be aborted.

What scientist backs up the idea that a fetus wants to be terminated? Tell me that same scientist doesn't live in a basement in suburban Ohio and write sci-fi books about space invading aliens from the planet Mars.

[sadolakced acid]

what scientist can back up that a feotus doesn't want to be aborted?

tell me that same scientist doesn't accept tens of thousands of dollars from people, usually republicans, to say that intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory?

what kind of theory is that? "it's too complicated, so there must be a god"