Monday, August 3, 2009

The Abortion Debate

Alright, this is kind of a current issue, but it's more of an ongoing debate. The abortion debate is a huge issue in America, and is constantly being fought for. Right now, America is more pro-choice than pro-life because abortion is legal in the US up until the 20th week. During this post, I'm going to attempt to explain to you why the abortion should continue to be legal and most likely in the future will.

Many people use as a defense that your causing the fetus harm and pain. Well first off, the fetus can't feel pain until the 25th week of pregnancy at the earliest and abortion is only legal before then. So therefore in any legal abortion the fetus will not feel pain nor will it suffer in any way.

Another case I'd like to point out is how often people talk about how the Bible says that abortion is wrong, however there really is no specific bible verse that says that abortion is wrong. People usually just twist verses around and say "They're God's miracles!" Even if there were a verse, one of the great things about America was that we were founded on the basis of separation of Church and state. So really the whole point about how it's sacrilegious really doesn't apply to the law because of that separation.

One last issue is that people are always saying that they're killing "children". This is incorrect. They are aborting fetuses which is a big difference from killing children. These fetuses have the potential for life, but are not really alive or really people yet in my opinion. People always say that you abort because of your own selfish reasons, but lots of times it's for the child's welfare. They may not be able to support a child, and therefore don't want to have one that would be neglected.

I'm sure there are other points that I am missing in this post, and I'm sorry for that. But I hope that those points will me made up in comments which are always appreciated. I also hope that this post has told you something new about abortion, positive or negative, or if nothing else made you eager to debate against it if you wish.

31 comments:

  1. I agree with you that there is no reference to abortion in the Bible. It was no practiced at all in that time. Probably, if society didn't want a baby to be born, they would kill the mother.

    One thing you might talk further about is whether you believe that life specifically begins at birth. Personally, I think it's important to have the abortion before the fetus becomes an embryo. Abortion, though not really an evil, fits into the category of the "lesser of two evils." Well, not exactly that as much as it shouldn't be taken lightly. But I agree with you.

    ReplyDelete
  2. An embryo is the earliest stage. A baby is a fetus until it's born, and it becomes a fetus very early on. And your right, I probably shoudl have talked a little more about where life begins. Personally, I think life begins when the baby takes it's very breath. Well, maybe that's not right. I mean that a baby isn't a real person until it takes it's first breath. And I see what you mean about the lesser of two evils.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with you about abortion. I'm not saying that all the pregnant women should just start lining up, but you're right that sometimes there are good reasons for having them. What if a young girl was raped? I know that if that happened to me, I wouldn't want my rapist's kid growing inside me.

    Plus, it's another check on population control. It's like what Malthus said: War and disease are not good, they are necessary. Whether we like it or not, the planet is incapable of holding much more people. We would greatly surpass the carrying capacity if things like war, disease and abortion didn't exist.

    You made some great points in this post. *handshake* Nice to meet you Alex, I'm Lauren.

    ReplyDelete
  4. That's interesting about population control, I never thought about it that way. It's like when they say that about forest fires begin necessary ever once and a while. They also say that every so often, a new disease comes along that we don't even realize causes a plaugue. The AIDS pandemic for instance is a plague, but since it's a slow killer it's not thought of that way. It's also like the balck death in Europe in the 1400s that wiped out 1/3 of the population. I "accept" your handshake, nice to meet you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hm...I am pro-choice but, like I said before, I don't think abortion should be a casual thing. Birth control comes before abortion on the terms of population control, definitely.

    Since no one offered me a handshake, I shall shake my own hand.
    (Oh, boy. Was that a good handshake!)

    ReplyDelete
  6. It's not casual, but I do believe that when I women goes to an abortion clinic, she should not be asked the reason for her abortion. We would hope that it's a good reason, but I do not think she should have to give one. It's her choice, it's her body, so it's not our call to make. I offer you a handshake Christopher.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alex, you know I completely disagree with all of your opinions on abortion, so there is not any point in telling you my opinion again, it would be like talking to a brick wall. But I do want to say I am pro-choice, too. I am for the choice of the child.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The child cannot make that descion and is not even considered a person under the law. Plus, during the time that the child can be aborted it does not even resemble a child and it does not feel pain. Did you read my post? What are thoughts on it?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I myself believe abortion is wrong. Even if I were raped, and ended up pregnant, it is not the baby's fault that it's father committed a crime. The baby would grow, and I would have it. And keep it. And love it, as God intended. If I go and fornicate, and end up with a baby, that's my fault. If I'm married, and end up pregnant, well, I guess we're having a baby! I do not think abortion is justified.

    I have no real proof for this in the eyes of many. It is a personal conviction on my part, much as homosexuality and the like is in the eyes of many.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Do you think that other people should have a choice? I believe pro-choice is the best method because if you don't wnat to have an abortion (which I can completely understand) you don't have to. But if you need you or want one, you have that option. America is a country founded on the basis of choice and free will. Everyone has a choice even if some people thinks it's wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I'm not sure. I think that if we wanted to outlaw it, we would have to prove scientifically that a fetus IS a baby. I think that could be done, if someone were to put up the money for such a project. I would, if I had it. ^.^ In the meantime, I think that we can't make the choice for other people.

    However, I do think that the issue of lawmaking about it should go back to the states. The states still have laws on the books about abortion, and I think that would be much better- and Constitutional- than our current, arguably unConstitutional Roe vs. Wade.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I still stand by the belief of pro-choice. I don't see what's so unconstitutional about Roe vs. Wade, the whole point was that we have the constitutional right to abortion and whether we want it. I just think it should be there as an option.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Under the Constitution, things not specifically stated in the Cons as the Federal Government's job are to be left to the states. Some people say that RVW was unConstitutional, since the FG was usurping the states' authority- which I agree with. I think our federal gvt does a lot that would fall under that heading.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I see what you mean, but I still think it should be all around legal. Since I'm bit a bit more liberal, I usually support Federal more than state so there is some bias here. I think the states should have power, but ultimately it's the Federal government's choice. I think the the abortion laws in states were unconstiutional because they didn't give you an option. Therefore, I believe that taking it to the supreme court was justified because the law that made it illegal was unconstitutional and only the supreme court has the power to declare what is and what is not unconstiutional.

    ReplyDelete
  15. There are a lot of opinions being presented here. The main one I see is "It is a woman's body, so it is her choice." The only problem with that is that it is just not true.

    At the moment of conception, 23 chromosomes from both parents join together to create a brand new being of 46 chromosomes. This instantly is NOT a part of either parents body, so saying that the woman should have a choice does not work.

    Let me give you an analogy. If you were in a building as a hostage and the military was going to level the building unless they thought a hostage was still alive. Would you want them to assume you were dead unless they could prove you were alive, or assume you were alive unless they could prove you were dead? The ethical choice is to assume you are alive until there is absolute proof that you are not.

    I understand that the supreme court decision in Roe vs. Wade, but this is more of a moral issue than a legal one.

    ReplyDelete
  16. That just what I don't believe. And your metaphor is a little off. Until a a baby emerges from the mother's body, it is not a citizen of the US or any other country for that matter. It has no legal rights. And at the moment of conception, a fetus cannot survive on it's own. It takes quite awhile before (with the help of modern medicine) the fetus possess the necessary means to survive. And this is much more of legal issue. Maybe morally, you think it shouldn't be allowed, but we'e talking about legally here. Everyone has a different set of morals, so saying it's a moral issue really doesn't change anything.

    ReplyDelete
  17. There was a time when it was legal to own slaves, so there was no moral issue then right, because it was legal. So you would have been the one saying, "I know you think it is morally wrong to own another human being, but it is legal. After all, it is not like they have any rights as a citizen anyway!"

    My analogy was not a little off, it has nothing to do with citizenship. You may not be aware, but we protect the life of people in this country EVEN if we don't know who counts them a citizen.

    Yes, in order to avoid admitting that they could not say that a fetus was not alive, the Supreme court decided to address the issue based on viability (the ability to survive outside the mothers body). That was the wrong choice, but like slavery once was, it was legal because the court says so.

    If viability is the issue, why don't we have a human size garbage disposal at the hospital for all those folks that can't survive on their own? The thing is that the fetus should be allowed to survive in it's current environment until it can survive outside the mother. Then, I have no problem if the mother wants to put it up for adoption.

    ReplyDelete
  18. You are comparing abortion to slavery! How can we debate if you are comparing two things like that?! And also, a slave can survive on it's own. It is not biologically connected to it's master and is not a minor. And the did count as 3/5 of a citizen. That's 3 more fifths than a fetus has.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Just because a fetus requires a specific environment to survive doesn't make it less alive. The fact is that in the vast majority of abortions, if the fetus were left in that environment (the mother's womb), they would survive just fine. The only threat to their life is the abortion, so what does it matter if they can survive without the mother?
    My point about slavery was that the masters had the legal right to dictate life and death to the slaves, but that didn't make it right.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No, I blieve that towards the end it became illegal to kill slaves, but you could beat them half to death. You just couldn't do it twice. (small pun) The point is, the 'enviroment' is the mother's body. It's not like the fetus just crawled in there. It's her body, which gives her the right to do with it what she wants. If the fetus could live outside her body, than just remove it from the 'enviroment'. But it can't, so it's the mom's choice.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So, based on that argument, if you were drowning, and grabbed onto the side of my boat, it is my boat, so it is my choice whether I shove you back into the water to drown or not.
    Yes, the environment is the mother body, but there are two points on that.
    First, the vast majority (I would guess better than 99%) of pregnancies arise from the woman’s choice of what she does with her body. She could avoid the responsibility for the child by making a different choice with her body (refrain from sex).
    Second, if somebody’s life is in your hands, and you can do what they can't to preserve it, it is morally wrong to do otherwise (even if it is legal).

    ReplyDelete
  22. Yes, you would have that choice. However, that is different because I would be a person, not a collection of cells that has the potential for life. And what about rape, or maternal health or incest? Most conservatives who are pro-life at least say that those are the right conditions. And a fetus isn't a person. No matter how hard you try, it isn't. So it's not someone's life.

    ReplyDelete
  23. It can't survive on it's own, there is no garantee it will make it out of the mother's womb and it has not even breathed on it's own yet. That's enough evidence for most people. Prove that it is a person!

    ReplyDelete
  24. There are many people that can't survive without medical assistance, or even with it, but they are still people.

    A fetus has a DNA pattern completely different from the parents.

    A mosquito larva can't survive out of water, but it is alive. A fetus can't survive outside of the mother’s womb, but it is alive.

    You haven't proven anything, you have assumed something that you would hope wasn't assumed about you when you were a fetus.

    ReplyDelete
  25. It has a different DNA pattern, but it is incredibly similar. If my parents had wanted to abort me, so be it. It is their choice, not mine. Would I have wanted that? No! Of course not! But I would be a hypocrite to say that it should be different for me. A fetus can't survive even with modern medicine, it really needs it's mother's womb. Once it reaches a certain point, it can live with medical machinery, but by then an abortion would be illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, this is my final post on this, we can't seem to make any progress.

    It boils down to this for me, in the absence of being able to prove scientifically when life begins, which we can't, it is wrong to make an assumption that could be ending a life.

    The Declaration of Independence states:

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    Abortion directly threatens Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness with disregard for our ignorant scientific position on the beginning of life.

    If you do not want to admit it is murder, you must at least concede it is manslaughter.

    ReplyDelete
  27. It is not manslaughter. I don't owe you that. And it isn't. It's not an accident. And also, since I'm guessing you're a strict constitutionalist, I'd like to point out the right to privacy that is usually ignored by conservatives in the constitution. You can say whatever you want, but it's not your descision to make. Sorry. It isn't. Women should have the right to choose reguardless of your personal stance on the issue. Can't you see past that and see that a women is truly a living creature with rights as well?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes, a woman is a living creature fromthe moment of conception.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It has the potiential for life, but that's it. Your not a woman, and I'm not either. But I think that it's right to fight to give women the choice regardless of whether or not they want to excercise it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I do not think it is right to fight to give a woman the right to destroy something that we can't determine is DEFINATELY not life.

    ReplyDelete