[gnaztee]

I haven't read the thread, as this is a subject with no endpoint to the discussion. Which is kind of how I'd respond to your original post here:

I think this is exactly how you should feel, and leave it at that.

Unfortunately, this is one of the grayest of issues we have in our modern society, and I don't think there's an answer. Ultimately, I feel very similar to you. I am vehemently opposed to restricting a woman's right to choose, but I'm for doing everything we can to keep abortions to a minimum. What those things are is where the debate should take place, I feel, once the right to choose is solidified as untouchable in the argument. All I'm saying is that I think every human should feel conflicted about this, as it shows he/she is a rational thinker grappling with a very tough subject.

Anyone else conflicted about abortion rights? For me it goes like this:

I support a woman's right to choose, but I am distressed by the idea of abortion.

I am turned off by efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, but I find myself feeling silent gladness to hear states are requiring abortions be done within first 20 weeks, or requiring an ultrasound prior to abortion.

I hear the arguments that a fetus feels nothing, but I remember when doctors said someone in a coma was dead to the world, but then it turns out this guy was aware of the entire 23 years of his supposed "vegetative state."

If we terminate life, shouldn't we err on the side of caution?

[Ash]

The survival of the baby is a technical and financial matter.

There is more to life than just survival.

[newarts]

There is more to life than just survival.

Yes of course.

My point is that in most cases a pregnant woman does not choose abortion because she seeks the baby's death. Abortion like adoption is sought to give up responsibility for a child.

The baby's death in abortion is logically a side effect. Society has important rules prohibiting killing & it is breaking these rules that is at the heart of the abortion conundrum.

A mother is free to give her child away but not to kill it; if that is so then why not deliver the baby live and transfer responsibility for it to the state.

Whether the baby lives or dies is then state's problem.

This sounds callous and crude; indeed it is. But it seems to fit society's rules about killing and is a reasonable answer to a pregnant woman who does not want or cannot care for the child she is carrying.

I hope this helps clarify the difference between choosing abandonment and choosing death of a child whether born or unborn.

I am not suggesting that the transfer to the state scenerio described above become routine practice. I'm trying to make it clear the distinction between abandonment and murder.

If the state forces a pregnant woman to carry and deliver a child against her will that child's welfare is the state's problem, not hers. Further, the state should be responsible for the mother's welfare while she carries the state's unborn child.

The next step in this progression is to ask: whose child is it? Hers or the state's? If it is hers the state has no business telling her what to do with it. If it is the state's the state is responsible for its welfare.

Forcing a woman carrying an unwanted child to "Choose life" then disclaiming responsibility for either is likely to result in a life of pain for both victims.

[stevewig]

This topic is difficult for me to debate because I know that nobody’s mind gets changed during such discussions and usually this is one of the topics that involves, or ends up with, name-calling and anger. To make it worst (for me), it is a subject where a man always has the emotional disadvantage because he can never conceive a baby in his womb and then have to deal with the results.

I do reject that argument logically, incidentally, because this is primarily a moral or ethical question (at least for me) and thus independent of gender or who bears the baby but that does not make this disadvantage go away.

Many men also need to examine themselves and their real, innermost self, on this issue. It is a much deeper question than the politics of the abortion issue would have you believe. It is so easy to neglect that internalized process and totally avoid the niggling doubts about terminating a life. Casting that life to the wind and then forgetting about it, rationalizing the “woman’s right to chose”, avoiding your own part in the decision making process for your own convenience. Let her decide!

I am an Agnostic regarding religion because although I do not believe in any form of God, I don’t “KNOW” that there is no God because that “knowing” is also a faith and additionally, I cannot explain “conscious existence” and the outside world or how it was created. The point here is that I do not speak from any form of religious faith.

However, if I did become a believer in God and if I believed therefore that this God was involved in the creation of each life, if in fact every person was from God, then who would I be to decide to kill that life and why would, therefore, abortion not automatically become a sin much as the Roman Catholic church preaches?

Having no religious faith relieves me from this particular dilemma but many, many other people are not relieved from this religious burden and I do not know how they rationalize their way around this problem. I do know however that a human being has an enormous propensity to rationalize inconvenient facts.

How many abortions occur per year in the US?

Well, that depends on whose propaganda you read but I have seen one number of 1.3 million souls - and therefore 1.3 million rationalizations (some easy, some hard).

It will be clear from the above that I am totally against abortion except in the rare case where the woman’s own life is threatened by the pregnancy.

Most if not all arguments around the abortion issue are violently intense, people kill over the issue. No body has their mind changed as a result of discussion because nobody is open to having their mind changed. There are ‘canned’ questions and ‘canned’ answers about every aspect of abortion including the well known emotional ones.

What about rape?

What about incest?

What about the bad old days of the back-room abortions?

Abortion is a life or death decision – very simple!

Everything else is rationalization and the couple or woman making this decision should not be anesthetized from that fact by pro-abortion propaganda.

[ihasa]

I think in the real world, we do distinguish between an unborn life and a born baby. A one week old embryo could be said to have a soul, if that's your sort of belief, but you'd even an ultra-religious person would be hard pressed to say it possess a consciousness. Pregnant women regularly spontaneously abort the embryo - in some cases not realising it has happened. I think most people would distinguish between such events and the death of a baby carried to full term.

[stevewig]

I..........Pregnant women regularly spontaneously abort the embryo - in some cases not realising it has happened. I think most people would distinguish between such events and the death of a baby carried to full term.

Well I would certainly think so or hope so - this is by definition spontaneous, outside of the influence of decision making people and thus irrelevant to what we are discussing.

[Nesster]

Well I would certainly think so or hope so - this is by definition spontaneous, outside of the influence of decision making people and thus irrelevant to what we are discussing.

Not speaking ethically but legally here - the question of decision making does come into play, even in some of the legistlation recently proposed. What if the state were to have to determine in all pregnancies not resulting in a viable infant whether or not the mother's -or another person's- actions during the pregnancy constitute manslaughter?

[stevewig]

Not speaking ethically but legally here - the question of decision making does come into play, even in some of the legistlation recently proposed. What if the state were to have to determine in all pregnancies not resulting in a viable infant whether or not the mother's -or another person's- actions during the pregnancy constitute manslaughter?

I was not aware of this possibility and I doubt very much that such legislation would pass the test of time even if it came to fruition. However, in this point here about spontaneous abortion I think my point remains valid.

[Parallax]

What if the state were to have to determine in all pregnancies not resulting in a viable infant whether or not the mother's -or another person's- actions during the pregnancy constitute manslaughter?

There really isn't a "what if" here. Most states have laws specific to killing a fetus; some of which could certainly be applied to the mother.
Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 (2005) defines DUI manslaughter to include the death of an unborn quick child. I don't find anything there that excludes the mother from the statute.

[ihasa]

Well I would certainly think so or hope so - this is by definition spontaneous, outside of the influence of decision making people and thus irrelevant to what we are discussing.

My point was that most people don't equate an embryo, a sperm, or an egg cell on the same level as a living human baby. It's a potential human being, but causing it's death, although not a trivial thing, is not in anywhere near the same category as murder. Otherwise where does it end - does me not having sex and therefore not bringing about the existence of a potential human being come into the same category? Or using a condom?

[stevewig]

There really isn't a "what if" here. Most states have laws specific to killing a fetus; some of which could certainly be applied to the mother.
Florida: Fla. Stat. Ann. § 316.193 (2005) defines DUI manslaughter to include the death of an unborn quick child. I don't find anything there that excludes the mother from the statute.

I'm not a lawyer and it would take a lawyer to provide a detailed, definite answer to this point but common sense alone states that abortion in the US is a legal procedure and all of the above arguments remain valid - including the spontaneous abortion comments.

[stevewig]

My point was that most people don't equate an embryo, a sperm, or an egg cell on the same level as a living human baby. It's a potential human being, but causing it's death, although not a trivial thing, is not in anywhere near the same category as murder. Otherwise where does it end - does me not having sex and therefore not bringing about the existence of a potential human being come into the same category? Or using a condom?

I was discussing abortion NOT contraception! Contraception is a different subject and one that holds no interest to me other than the acknowledgment that it removes the need for abortion.

[Parallax]

I was discussing abortion NOT contraception! Contraception is a different subject

If you believe that life begins at conception then they aren't separate issues. The most common types of oral contraceptives, though they are supposed to suppress ovulation, often do not; and fertilization can occur. Their secondary mechanism is to prevent implantation in the uterus if fertilization has ocurred, in effect terminating a pregnancy that may have occurred days prior.

[stevewig]

If you believe that life begins at conception then they aren't separate issues. The most common types of oral contraceptives, though they are supposed to suppress ovulation, often do not; and fertilization can occur. Their secondary mechanism is to prevent implantation in the uterus if fertilization has ocurred, in effect terminating a pregnancy that may have occurred days prior.

OK, I get your point and it truly is a good day when you learn something that you didn't know and I didn't know that!

However, it doesn't change the fact that, today at least, I am only interested in the discussion about abortion, not contraception, although I now need to think about the information you have provided me with. At the moment it doesn't change my above stated opinion but I acknowledge I have to think about it.

[Parallax]

today at least, I am only interested in the discussion about abortion, not contraception,

Understood, Steve.

although I now need to think about the information you have provided me with.

For future reading, here is some information that could go either way as far as clearing up or confusing the issue.