People have done abortions for thousands of years, it's shameful that ignorant fanatics try to shift the method of doing an abortion from trained professionals to desperate girls with clothes hangers.

I don't agree with abortion, and I certainly wouldn't agree with someone trying to kill a doctor that performs abortions since that's pretty hypocritical, but I think this doctor has one-sided priorities. Sanitizing terminology by saying pro-choice or terminating a pregnancy just simplifies the decision to end a life. There's a baby growing in the womb that could be born, grow up, and lead it's own life if wasn't cut short by a mother's "decision." The way I see it, you made your decision when you had sex. That's where your control over "my body, my choice ends." Once you're pregnant, there is another body in there. The possibility of pregnancy is always looming, regardless of protection, so maybe you should rethink your actions instead of taking it out on the baby. Yes, it's sad that there are girls that suffer from serious medical conditions, or even kill themselves, in attempts to perform their own abortions, but it's just as sad to kill an un-born baby out of fear. I find the doctor's ending story to be very hollow. He is proud of himself for "saving" two lives, but at what cost? Is it right to kill someone to prevent something you suspect might happen in the future? To kill a baby that had no say in its conception to save a man from facing the consequences of his actions? I don't see how that is noble or praiseworthy without numbing yourself to what you've just done.

There's alot of things criticise in your post, Lurch, but I'm a bit tired, so I'll just point out 2 of them. You say:

"The way I see it, you made your decision when you had sex. That's where your control over "my body, my choice ends."

I guess you didn't think about rape and incest victims before you wrote this. Pretty typical of you "pro-life" folks. Oh, wait....we aren't euphemizing anymore. I meant you "use the power of the state to hijack the uterus of a fellow citizen" folks. You also said:

"Is it right to kill someone to prevent something you suspect might happen in the future?"

In many instances, YES. I take it you can think of several examples of such cases yourself, if you put your mind to it. I'll give you a hint: the term used to describe them begins with an S, and ends with ELF-DEFENSE. And yes, there are even many cases where it would be okay to kill another person--where, unlike in the abortion case, their personhood is uncontroversial--in self-defense, even when that person is innocent or otherwise blameless for the threat they are posing to you. If I have to give examples, I will, but as I said, you should be able to think of cases like this.

Lurch's comment got me thinking about the drive to preserve human life. Its an interesting concept from a biological perspective; instinctual drives towards self-preservation and preservation of ones local gene pool make sense. Where does the drive to preserve potential life of strangers coming from? Is this simply an extension of the instinct to care for the next generation, extended dramatically in some individuals due to a particular social upbringing?

A large number of pregnancies (~25%) end in miscarriage. When are these deaths? Millions of speaking and breathing people are murdered each year in violent acts. When are these justifiable?

If abortion is perceived as a genocidal threat to the next generation, perpetuated by evil people, the action of eliminating this threat and protecting the extended human gene pool is not particularly extreme. Waaay on the other side, the victim of a rape wanting to be free of what is perceived as a parasitic organism now growing within her may not be making a particularly extreme decision in having it removed.

blah blah... maybe getting carried away now

Roe Vs Wade has lead to the largest drop in crime rates in the US. Those who could not financially support themselves and a child could now abort their children, reducing those born out of wed lock, into poverty, into drug abuse, and eventually those who enter into crime due to inability of the parents to support them fully. Not to mention reducing burden on social services, foster homes and so on. Over the decades since Roe Vs Wade this had lead to the largest crime rate drop in the US, currently the only reason it seems there is more crime is because there is over reporting of what crime does occur due to the 24 hour nature of our news services.

As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider, if that was really the case then those very same pro-lifers would adopt African babies living in utter poverty to provide a chance for them to develop properly. That never happens. I find the whole movement to always possess an inability to see the issue beyond the sanctity of life, which even then is ironic for while one wants babies to live we support wars that kill so much more, yet had the conditions of rape or incest applied to them the tables turn.

My thought with regards to Pro-Lifers is always, if you would adopt, cloth and feed and provide an education for the aborted child then go ahead, I support you.

But don't mandate the abolition of abortion to the State and then refuse the increased costs in taxation in creating foster homes and other social services to support them.

Because thats exactly what would happen.

"As to preserving gene pool, I think that's too wide to even consider..."

I agree. But even if it wasn't, I'm not sure why preserving the gene pool would get anymore moral weight than, say, preserving your toenails (by not cutting them) or preserving your sperm (by not masturbating). After all, those things contain your complete genetic code, too. You might be able to argue that there was some importance to it in a situation where we were running out of people, but no one in their right mind believes that's happening. If anything, there are too many of us running around mucking things up.

We're looking at it from two completely different sides. I see a life being formed, regardless of the circumstances that brought it into being. You see a fetus that does not yet count as alive. This is a major difference. From the first perspective, abortion is like killing a small child because it's burdensome, just at an earlier and impersonal stage. From the other, abortion is terminating a potentially troublesome pregnancy, or a standard medical issue. I personally view it like this: You would definitely think it is vile crime for a mother to kill her child after they had been born. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between killing baby in the nursery and aborting a fetus is that you have a face to associate with the child already born. It becomes more important to you because you can see him/her.

Tofumar, a self-defense analogy is a bit weak. I was referring to the story the doctor gave at the end of the article about the muslim boy. The doctor's ultimate point was that since the boy feared the girl's brothers would kill him, he saved a life by aborting the baby. My point was that viewing the aborted baby as being alive means the doctor killed an unborn child to save a man from fear. Were the girls brothers going to kill him? How does the doctor know that's truely what will happen? If that was the case, there are no better reactions than to murder a child to save a man that made poor choices? I don't mean he should be killed either, but he can't find a better way to deal with his problems? I think in this situation it should be viewed as courageous for them to find a way to give that child a chance to live, not for killing it to buy themselves temporary happiness. To bring that back to self-defense, what does killing the baby have to do with it? Self-defense is defined as "the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant" or "a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack." Under those circumstances, killing the brothers would be self-defense if they attacked him. A defense against someone that has chosen to attack you, not against someone completely different to prevent a suspected attack at an undetermined point in the future. Killing the baby is just plain murder.

Farhad, you're using some pretty flimsy logic to connect Roe vs Wade to "the largest drop in crime rates in the US." Could it be a factor? Possibly. Is it the sole cause of a decrease in crime. Certainly not. You're usually really good with framing logical arguments so I find that one pretty out of character. The small-government part of me can definitely see your point about social programs and adoption though. It all comes back to the core issue, how do you view the pregnancy? As a fetus, or an unborn baby? If you believe it is not yet alive, then it becomes a clinical issue to you. No different than removing a tumor or other harmful condition. If it's an unborn baby, it's much more complex. Everything else has to be weighed against the idea of ending a life for convenience. Is it worth the money to support these children so they have a chance to live, or is it better to chose for them and kill them before they are born?

*quality

Awarding kulpims with one star point for this contribution to Sift Talk - declared quality by E_Nygma.

You seem to have conveniently side step the points we both raise, bringing the issue back to whether or not a fetus constituents a human life.

The standard question of whether one sees a fetus as an unborn baby or as a human being is pretty standard pro-life argument, once someone starts to clarify that they don't see fetuses as human beings its easy to call us murders. Its not surprising that such arguments almost always stem from a religious stand point devoid of scientific or medical reasoning.

But who determines when life starts really? The definition of such is murky, some say that its from the point of conception yet scientifically that is preposterous since there is a lack of consciousness when cells simply start to subdivide.

The same analogy is seen in brain dead patients, remember Terri Shavio? Was she technically alive then? She was a human being but totally brain dead. Were we committing murder when disconnecting her from the machine? A fetus is much the same relying totally on the birth mother for life.

For me looking over what it means to be alive from a scientific and philosophical standpoint, a fetus is not a human being, its a forming human, not totally developed until the latter stages of pregnancy. I seen various attempts by pro-Lifers to convince me otherwise but come on do you recall being in the womb? You didn't because the neurons in your brain didn't even form then, your eyes were still developing its a reason they refer to a pregnancy as bun in the oven. But then again I come from a medical family.

But that doesn't matter me much, I doubt I can convince anyone with my own views but what we can agree is on the wider social aspects about what abolishing abortion means.

As I mentioned before if pro-lifers want abortion to be gone then they have to agree to adopt, raise, cloth and educate each child that is not aborted. Or pay the high taxes that result to support a first class foster and social assistance program for these children. Not aborting someone but making them live a incomplete existence through lack of a family, education, opportunities and a good upbringing for me is worse then abortion because then you are really fucking up someones existence.

Furthermore living in a world that is close to hitting a 7 billion population mark, with most of it living in the 3rd world with children who possess no parents through war, famine, disease, poverty and so on. I see no problem in curbing the birth rates through abortion. If Pro-Lifers are so concerned they should really go to Africa and adopt some kids and give them a shot at a normal life, they are already born, trying to make their way in this life. We don't have to argue if they are alive or not.

But simply saying abortion is wrong and not looking at the wider picture of where humanity is as a race in the 21st century on Earth is narrow minded.

Oh, and its not actually flimsy logic its a study that has been conducted in the 1940s, 70s and most recently in 2001 within the US, Canada and Australia that correlates legalized abortion with drops in crime.

I think you should be able to abort children up to age 10.

I would have a very hard time believing anyone arguing that abortion is murder. To me it seems these people need to realize the sanctity of life doesn't end at birth.
Much like how I read Farhad's post, I submit that the people who protest a woman's right to do an abortion should instead of picketing clinics or killing doctors take responsibility for the birth they so want to defend. But that will never happen, will it? That would be a nuisance for people, having to go out of their way to uphold their view on the sanctity of life. Because as I hope everyone participating in the debate knows, by commiting yourself to the birth of a child you're commiting to the whole life of that child and not just the first 9 months. That's something I think many people who's never had to deal with a pregnancy fail to realise.

There is in fact a correlation between crime and living conditions, and this is where I think the real issue lies. By deciding to do an abortion the mother is taking responibility while the people arguing against it, however, do not. It's very easy to take the position of being against abortion when you don't have to worry about the consequences of the birth. Fact of the matter is that most women who go through with an abortion do so for a few very (in my mind valid) reasons, for instance:
- They'll be unable to love and provide for the child (as in the case of rape victims for instance).
- A pregnancy would cause the mother and/or her surrounding harm (as in mother and/or family getting murdered, mother and family getting banished or that a birth would put both the mother and baby at severe risk).

And it's never easy to do an abortion, never for a moment think otherwise. It'd take quite the psychopath to not fully grasp the implications of ending a pregnancy.

In closing, let me share a little something about my sphere of existence. One of my brothers work as a nurse delivering prematurely born babies. He's seen fetuses born several weeks too early, and they're simply not fully developed human beings at that point. They've had to turn off respirators and other life-support units when the babies were born with too many complications and as such would live extremely painful, short and straining lives. I think I need to mention that their hospital has got if not the highest, then pretty close to it, survivability rate for prematurely born babies in the world (as to not paint them up to be cold-hearted killers in the abortion opponents eyes). They do the most amazing things to save these children, things you wouldn't believe.

abortion is cutting short a potential life.
ablolishing social services is cutting short potential prosperity.
war is guaranteed to cut short many lives, including potential ones.
washing your hands reduces life.
masterbation wastes DNA.
economic embargos are potentially deadly as well.

we kill for self-preservation. we have since time immemorial and we will continue to do so until alternate methods are invented.
I think abortion sucks, but its reality. I wish women felt that having a baby was an awesome wonderful thing and had no qualms about bringing every baby to fruition. But we'd have to alter society radically in ways that oftentimes the very people who call themselves "pro-life" would never allow.

I often find it "funny" that the same people who are of the opinion that fathers should be allowed "more choice" in child-birthing and rearing (esp the ability to "opt-out" of fatherhood) are also pro-lifers. After all, it's not FAIR that the woman can chose abortion without his say OR she can choose not to abort and he has to support the baby for life. Wah wah wah. HE made that choice when HE had sex but no one talks about that either.

Everyone wants it their way. But what's not going to happen is that "your way" becomes mandatory for everyone. We have to draw the line somewhere - pre-birth is the line we drew.

...and as a mother let me tell you: CHILDREN ARE A BURDEN, YES THEY ARE.

No mother in her right mind would admit to anything less. To say it as if it is some kind of trivialization is ridiculous. There's nothing trivial about the burden of caring for a child. it's a burden, a HUGE burden. I get really sick of pro-lifers using that phrase as if it's such a shallow reason for not choosing pregnancy. There's nothing shallow or trite about admitting you cannot shoulder a burden. saying "they just do it for conveniance sake" um excuse me but I can't think of anything more "inconveniant" than pregnancy and motherhood. Yiou can make it sound trivial but it's FUCKING NOT.

I adore my kids, wanted every one of them. But I will be the first to admit they are "a burden" and an "inconveniance".
Yeah, kinda like wining the lottery is "a burden" and wearing a parka in order to climb mt everest is "inconveniant" Yeesh.

Farhad, as far as I see it, the issue of whether or not a fetus constitutes a human life is the core of the whole issue. Everything else is secondary if you can't agree on whether you're killing someone or not. I think there are some interesting arguments on both sides, and some of the same accusations fly back and forth. Pro-abortionists say the anti-abortionists don't want to take responsibility for the children they fight to have born. Anti-abortionists say Pro-Abortion parents don't want to take responsibility for the children they created. The inconvenience argument flys at both sides, as pointed out by Smibbo. Speaking from a Christian perspective, I think there is a life in there being cut short. Religion shouldn't determine government policy, but this enters a gray area surrounding when life begins. That exits the realm of religion and enters the protection of human life. You also have cases which confuse the issue where murderers are tried for double homicide when killing a pregnant woman. In regards to aborting to prevent living in poor conditions, it's not our job to be the judge of whether conditions are too terrible for the child or not. Being born into poverty doesn't mean you would be better off dead.

I don't stand outside abortion clinics waving a torch and pitchfork around calling for the death of doctors, nor do I write to any government officials calling for it's ban. I just don't agree with it. I would fight against something like partial-birth abortion, but that's already banned. Ultimately, my only real involvement is that I would recommend to anyone I know faced with this decision that they should keep the baby, and I would help support them in any way I could.

"They want live babies, so they can create dead soldiers." -George Carlin

>> ^Lurch:
The way I see it, you made your decision when you had sex.


That's sort of a fairytale mentality. I got no problem with "you made your bed, now lie in it" but why should the child suffer too?

>> ^Lurch:
In regards to aborting to prevent living in poor conditions, it's not our job to be the judge of whether conditions are too terrible for the child or not.


Actually, yes it is. I'd say that's a critical part of becoming a parent. Ideally, you'd figure that out before a pregnancy, but not everything goes according to plan.

>> ^Lurch:
Being born into poverty doesn't mean you would be better off dead.


Being born into a poor family is one thing. You've still got a chance for a good life if you really work. How about being born into a family that can't afford to feed you or get you medical care? Is it better to live in constant pain, disease-ridden and malnourished only to die at 10, or to not have lived in the first place? I'd have to go with the latter.

Of course there's no way to be certain about what kind of life the child would ultimately have, but it's a would-be parent's responsibility to make the best determination they can.

That's where we'll never see eye to eye. Mainly for the reasons I've already listed above. I can't agree that a critical part of being a parent is deciding to kill your child. Extreme scenarios mean nothing when viewed from the perspective of killing an unborn child. There are always alternatives that may sound terrible, but at least don't end in death.

I suggest you read the above posts again, then think about them for a while, then re-read them. Then you can stop posting that what is argued above is for parents to kill their children.
I'm not sure if you're intentionally flamebaiting, but I'll assume that's what you're doing since you're flinging such wild accusations around without a second's thought.

I don't flamebait, I just state my opinion. If that's enraging you, that's not my intention and entirely on your shoulders. There have been no more wild accusations from me than from anyone else here. I've read the arguments above and I still don't see satisfactory reasons, the same way you don't see satisfactory reasons in mine. I just stated my opinion and now I'm done.

Licenses for childbirth.
Most parents in the US are unfit to "raise" a child, though there are currently no guidelines for stupid motherfuckers who can't keep from fucking even though they know they are unfit to raise another human being (not simply food, clothes, and shelter either.....most animals are instinctually capable)

The more young adults I encounter, the worse this phenomenon seems to be playing itself out. Ever see Idiocracy??? That's the choggie vision of a future left to idyllically click along, like most folks seem to think the world will continue......

abortion???
a goddamn symptom of a greater psychic ill we suffer from as humans-addiction to Babylon, and this world's contrived, and fubar'd paradigm......

>> ^Lurch:
I can't agree that a critical part of being a parent is deciding to kill your child. Extreme scenarios mean nothing when viewed from the perspective of killing an unborn child. There are always alternatives that may sound terrible, but at least don't end in death.


I never said killing your child was a critical part of being a parent. I said judging whether the conditions are right to have a child was a critical part of being a parent. (in response to your statement that "it's not our job to be the judge of whether conditions are too terrible for the child or not")I also said that should be something you figure out before pregnancy, but sometimes things don't go according to plan and you've got to make that decision after the fact.

The one thing I will agree with you on is that there are usually other good options. I'm not "pro-abortion"; I don't think any sane person is. I'm pro-choice. I think abortion is horrible, but I don't think it should be illegal. I think you reduce abortion by reducing unwanted pregnancies.

Overcast, I did phrase that a little harshly and I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. I do agree that judging conditions is an important part of being a parent. I don't agree that if something does not go "according to plan," that abortion should be at the top of your list of options. I see you don't believe that either, but I know people that do. I think that's mainly because there are lots of people that view pregnancy as a lifeless fetus and not a growing human being. There's no face to associate with it. A better phrasing of my previous comment would be that while I agree with responsible parents planning for proper conditions, when an unexpected pregnancy occurs in poor conditions, who is the parent to say the baby would be better off dead? That should not be decision of a responsible parent, but a desperate one. If you are really in such a terrible position that you think your baby will be starving to death and diseased, there are always other options beside abortion. To the critics that say people who are against abortion don't care about shouldering the burden, that's a bit of a broad generalization. There are people that do help and charities for just that purpose. I would personally help anyone I knew, and I have friends that would do the same. I'll attempt to stop a second time now. I just didn't want you to get the wrong impression that I was trying to attack anyone here.

Kreegath, leaving all the extreme scenarios out of the picture, I think we can all agree that something abortion should not be used for is birth control for "inconvient" pregnancies. One would hope people could just wait a little longer and share the life with a childless couple in an endless adoption queue...

When I am King of the Universe, reversable vasectomies will be mandatory for every boy over age 8. If you want to have children when you are 18, (no exceptions) then you may apply for a permit and pay the increased percentage of taxes if approved. But the vasectomy reversal will be done while you are awake, without anesthetic. (no exceptions)

Problem solved.

i have a better idea - disband all religious institutions and use the money they stole from us during the last centuries to convert their churches into libraries and bowling alleys. less painful...

Libraries WITH bowling alleys!!

It's always a bad thing. It's never frivolous. People should always have the choice to do it.