ARCHIVE: Abortion is always murder

[Nathon Detroit]

Beanie asks....

Are you ready for people who die because they may go to back alley abortion clinics?

If crime is going to occur, I would rather have it in our back allies and be a punishable offense, than in our hospitals sanctioned by our government.

Are you prepared for in increase in welfare? It is a very likely possibility.

I assert that there would be a decrease in welfare. However, assuming you were right I would say one stupid government policy (welfare) shouldn't be the justification of an EVIL government policy (abortion).

Are you prepared for an increase in unwed mothers?

I assert there would be a decrease in unwed mothers as girls would know they could not rely on abortion to get them out of a situation caused by irresponsible casual sex.

Are you prepared for an increase in young girls having kids?

See previous answer.

Furthermore, even if your assertions were true (which we have no evidence to suggest they would be) I would still trade a million mothers turned into murderers for a million unwed mothers.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Firechyld states..

However (still talking about our very specific example) I think it has to be admitted that until these very nifty ideas are feasible, our hypothetical woman is still in a situation where saving her life means aborting the pregnancy.

Well, the "nifty' ideas could start immediately! But your right, the success rate initially and tragically would be very low! Just like currently the success rate is almost zero for separating conjoined twins without having one or both of the twins dying, however we still try to save both! It is a mindset difference.

You continue...

Remember that we are talking about a wanted pregnancy... I specified that so that we could be sure doctors and family were doing all they could to save both lives.

You talk as if every unwanted pregnancy is aborted? Many woman have unwanted pregnancies but that doesn't mean they opt for abortion.

Firechyld writes...

Regarding the pill... I'm actually quite well informed on matters of contraception, and I'd like you to explain why you think it's an "abortifacient", if it's not too much trouble. For clarification... are you referring to the standard combined pill, or the progesterone-only or mini-pill?

Lets make this simple.... Are there any birth control pills that are abortificants?

 

[firechyld]

No, I wasn't implying that every unwanted pregnancy is aborted.

Define "abortificant", and I'll let you know.

No offence... but I'm noticing you won't actually straight out answer the question. You also ignored my question about copper/hormonal IUDs. Umm.. I don't want to be rude, but are you actually all that well informed on the nature and makeup of these forms of contraception?

firechyld

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Firevhyld writes...

No offence... but I'm noticing you won't actually straight out answer the question.

What question?

You continue...

You also ignored my question about copper/hormonal IUDs. Umm.. I don't want to be rude, but are you actually all that well informed on the nature and makeup of these forms of contraception?

Your right! I am NOT an expert on these contraceptives. But you agree that IUD's can act as an abortificant since you did say that yourself.

P.S. I gotta go now.... I will be back later

 

[firechyld]

I gotta go sleepy... it's 4am over here.

But I'll clarify before I do: By "abortificant" do you mean "thing that changes the interuterine wall, making it hostile to implantation"?

And the question I referred to was simply the matter of why contraceptive pills were "abortificants".

firechyld

PS Now go and play the "Battleground god" game on the philosophy board!

 

[Amazing_Grace]

Oh, I don't know if I'd want to make that argument if I were you. It really ain't true, especially concerning poverty.

In reference to my quote about abortion being illegal in the 40s and 50s and there being less crime and poverty back then.

Kurt, if you honestly think that there isn't more crime in this day and age than there was back then I believe you are mistaken. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with that. Yes, I realize that there were many crimes that went unreported back then, but I don't for one minute believe that the world isn't more dangerous today than it was then. So I have to be at least half right.

Like I said in the post I made following this one, I did not state my point clearly enough. I was getting to the fact that at one time abortion was illegal and society did not fall apart. Beanie brought up many good points as to what may happen if abortion were outlawed, I was simply pointing out that abortion was outlawed at one point in time and I don't recall there being a huge single-mother epidemic in the 40s and 50s, that's all.

 

[Amazing_Grace]

I think Jaltus made a very good point about adoption. There are many who go outside of the country in an attempt to get children. I don't think there would be a problem finding parents for these children. (That would also help with the whole 'increased welfare cases' question.)

One thing I'd like to point out (and I point this out as someone who has never been through the trauma of rape, so don't think I'm passing judgement) but many say that abortion is okay in the instance of rape, that carrying the child would be a constant reminder, and so on. What has never made sense to me is that if you abort the baby, you do not forget the trauma you have experienced. It does not make the pain from the rape go away. You will be reminded of that regardless of whether or not you keep the baby. If you opt to put the baby up for adoption, then you may be able to make another family very happy by giving them a child, and maybe get some good out of the tragic situation.

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....

 

[beanieboy]

Knight - thanks for your answers.

I struggle to understand some of the people whom I have heard who to me seem contradictory. I remember a guy who went off about how welfare is unjust, and he wasn't going to pay for someone else. Then he would go off about abortion being a crime. Then he would go of about how poor people shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them. But then he said that all forms of contraception, including condoms, for example, were wrong.

And I would say - so, what is your solution for the poor? And it was that they should abstain from sex, even if they are married.

It seemed impractical, as well as imposing a huge amount of control on other people's lives from someone who claimed to want small government.

I just try to reconcile the contradictions, even with the liberal side of things.

 

[kiwimac]

What we see in Knight's postings are a profound lack of compassion for people who find themselves in situations he can not even begin to appreciate!

He condemns and criticises, he finger-points and carps but does he actually do anything, like standing alongside someone as they agonise over the decision that they must make, does he involve himself in post-abortion counselling?

Does he offer to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?

Not at all likely it would seem!

Kiwimac

 

[KurtPh]

In reference to my quote about abortion being illegal in the 40s and 50s and there being less crime and poverty back then.

Kurt, if you honestly think that there isn't more crime in this day and age than there was back then I believe you are mistaken. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who agrees with that. Yes, I realize that there were many crimes that went unreported back then, but I don't for one minute believe that the world isn't more dangerous today than it was then. So I have to be at least half right.

Like I said in the post I made following this one, I did not state my point clearly enough. I was getting to the fact that at one time abortion was illegal and society did not fall apart. Beanie brought up many good points as to what may happen if abortion were outlawed, I was simply pointing out that abortion was outlawed at one point in time and I don't recall there being a huge single-mother epidemic in the 40s and 50s, that's all.

Perhaps I consider insitutionalized racism to be a crime.

I will agree that there is more crime today than in the 40s and 50s, but does that have something to do with the morality of the time period, or does it have something to do with an exponential increase in the population of your major urban centres in the 1980s and the mess that it created? I personally would offer the latter as more accurate.

As for there not being a huge-single mother "epidemic," in the 1940s and 50s, I'm not certain that I would make that claim. Conventional wisdom would agree with you, but I'm the kinda guy who likes to see the figures. I do know that being an unwed mother was perceived as so shameful, (especially if the mother was still a child herslef), that there have been cases where a relative had raised the child as her own.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Kiwi says...

What we see in Knight's postings are a profound lack of compassion for people who find themselves in situations he can not even begin to appreciate!

[sarcasm]Yea... your right... hacking a living baby into pieces is far more compassionate than giving it the chance to live.[/sarcasm]

He continues....

He condemns and criticises, he finger-points and carps but does he actually do anything, like standing alongside someone as they agonise over the decision that they must make, does he involve himself in post-abortion counselling?

That really isn't a very good argument. Are you saying that if you found out that I stand by people when they are making an agonizing decision then I am more right than if I don't?

I bet you don't stand by a "would be" murderer while he makes his decision if he is going to murder or not, yet you Kiwi would still argue that murderers are wrong and evil wouldn't you?

You continue...

Does he offer to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?

There are literally tens of thousands of people willing (moreover, begging!) to adopt infant children in the USA.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Amazing Grace says...

You will be reminded of that regardless of whether or not you keep the baby. If you opt to put the baby up for adoption, then you may be able to make another family very happy by giving them a child, and maybe get some good out of the tragic situation.

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....

Great point and I agree 100%.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually Knight, I asked if you were willing to:

to pay medical expenses for those who would have their babies if only they could afford to keep them, does he offer to adopt their children or pay their food costs or medical costs or educational costs?

I mentioned nothing about others, this is directed specifically at you!

Kiwimac

 

[Elena Marie]

Now I realize that if you have just found out that you are pregnant by the man who just raped you, you probably aren't going to be too concerned with making someone else happy, but abortion is not going to make you feel better about the rape.

Just something I have pondered before, would like to hear your thoughts....

Hi AG--

Projill and I are discussing these very topics on the "Projill--I moved it over here" thread in the current events category.

As a side note, I'm surprised that more people aren't chiming in on that discussion, but I think I know at least a few reasons for the relative silence. For one, no one can claim that I don't know what I'm talking about; second, we are quite civil with each other although our perspectives are quite different; three, we are working toward each other rather than attempting to condemn one or the other to hell.

It's sort of sad, actually. . ..

 

[Amazing_Grace]

Hi AG--

Projill and I are discussing these very topics on the "Projill--I moved it over here" thread in the current events category.

As a side note, I'm surprised that more people aren't chiming in on that discussion, but I think I know at least a few reasons for the relative silence.

It's sort of sad, actually. . ..

I'm still following it, Elena, and am enjoying your civilized discussion!

 

[Amazing_Grace]

Amazing Grace says...Great point and I agree 100%.

Oh Goodness, I'm not sure that's ever happened before!

 

[Amazing_Grace]

Perhaps I consider insitutionalized racism to be a crime.

I will agree that there is more crime today than in the 40s and 50s, but does that have something to do with the morality of the time period, or does it have something to do with an exponential increase in the population of your major urban centres in the 1980s and the mess that it created? I personally would offer the latter as more accurate.

As for there not being a huge-single mother "epidemic," in the 1940s and 50s, I'm not certain that I would make that claim. Conventional wisdom would agree with you, but I'm the kinda guy who likes to see the figures. I do know that being an unwed mother was perceived as so shameful, (especially if the mother was still a child herslef), that there have been cases where a relative had raised the child as her own.

I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!

As far as the morality/increased population debate, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think that the morality of the 40s and 50s was altogether different and had an effect on the number of abortions needed in the first place.

I am sure there were plenty of relatives who raised the children if they were born out of wedlock, but I would say that more often than not the couple simply were married when the woman discovered she was pregnant.

Daddy getchur gun...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Kiwi...

Actually Knight, I asked if you were willing to:

Yes, I am willing.

OK... now how does that change the debate?

 

[beanieboy]

I must be having a brain freeze, but what are you referring to in your first statement? Did I say something racist? I sure hope not!

As far as the morality/increased population debate, we'll have to agree to disagree, because I think that the morality of the 40s and 50s was altogether different and had an effect on the number of abortions needed in the first place.

I am sure there were plenty of relatives who raised the children if they were born out of wedlock, but I would say that more often than not the couple simply were married when the woman discovered she was pregnant.

Daddy getchur gun...

There's a couple of things I have to disagree with. It is hard for me to say that the 40s or 50s were morally superior. Germans were killing off Jews, and we kind of sat on the sidelines and picked our nose. In fact, we even turned away Jews seeking asylum. We also looked the other way when there was lynchings, segregated blacks as much as possible, etc.

Were there less abortions in the 40s and 50s when it was illegal than there are now that it is legal? I am unsure how you would go about getting the data for that. It's not like people are going to report illegal activity. How many people in the US smoke pot? At best, it can only be estimated. If it were legalized, you could get the information without landing in jail for devulging if you do. If one has an abortion, and no one knows they are pregnant, no one will be looking for a "body" the way you would in a murder - noticing that someone hasn't called in a while, is not at work, didn't come home, etc. You could have the abortion, and no one would ever know, really, because the fetus doesn't have relationships with other people.

That being said, why is it that there are so many people that want to adopt and are unable to get children unless they wait several years? It would seem that if there were so many unwanted pregnancies, that there would be some ProLifers and ProChoicers that chose to give the child up. It seems like there is a baby shortage. Is that true?

 

[Jaltus]

There is a baby shortage, yes.