Home - List All Discussions

Abortion or Not Abortion? Only two viewpoints.

Can any pro-choicer claim abortion is morally right?

by: theamericancatholic

I was thinking today that there is so much discussion between pro-life and pro-abortion and in truth, much of the pro-choice is smoke and mirrors.
If you are pro-life you know and understand that abortion is the killing and destruction of an unborn human life still in the womb. There is really no debate about this. Abortion is what it is.
If you are pro-life you believe that abortion is killing and morally wrong.
If you are pro-choice/pro-abortion you believe that a woman has the right to kill her unborn offspring. Why? Because you choose to believe that it is a right? Again why? Rejection of moral norms? Money and the monetary power of the abortion industry? A morally relativistic view of the world that says a thing is wrong only if you choose to believe it is wrong? Perhaps it is a twisted attachment to sexual freedom that does not recognize moral boundries and disregards reproductivity as a consequence of sex?
I am anti-abortion! I am anti-choice! I am pro-life!
I have no problem saying what I am. I am proud that I support life.
Can any pro-choice advocate claim moral rightness for the right to choose? Can they explain their position and why it is not killing and not wrong?

reply from: NewPoster1

These questions are, quite frankly, irrelevant. Even if you convinced me, right here, right now, that abortion is immoral, tantamount to killing, and wrong, it wouldn't change my position. The simple fact of the matter is that a fetus has no right to remain physically inside of and physically attached to a woman against her will.
By the same line of thinking, refusing to donate a spare organ to someone, who will die without it, is immoral, tantamount to killing, and wrong, yet we don't pass laws forcing people to donate organs against their will.

reply from: theamericancatholic

So I am to understand that the right to choose to kill has no relevance to morality? Do you even recognize that morality exists? either objectively or subjectively? The fetus exists in the womb of the woman as a direct result of the womans will in virtually all circumstances.
What I am asking is the most basic of questions.
If you believe that abortion is right and exists as a right, what is your moral justification for that viewpoint? Where does your moral authority to make that statement come from?

reply from: theamericancatholic

If abortion were illegalised tomorrow, what would your argument be to overturn that decision? Do you even have a moral argument to support the right to choose?

reply from: NewPoster1

My position would be quite simple, just as forcing a person to donate organs against their will is a violation of their bodily autonomy, so is forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will a violation of her bodily autonomy.

reply from: AshMarie88

I wonder if you would have thought the same thing, if you were still a fetus...

reply from: AshMarie88

My position would be quite simple, just as forcing a person to donate organs against their will is a violation of their bodily autonomy, so is forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will a violation of her bodily autonomy.
No, RAPE is an example of violation of a woman's bodily autonomy (correct me if I'm wrong)... But pregnancy, is not.
What about if it's a really freezing, snowy night outside and a cold, hungry person stuck in it needs to stay overnight in a warm place, and your house was the only one around? Would you let him stay there, or would you say no and deny necessities for him to keep on living?
Abortion, and even my example above, is about selfishness, because you're denying a person necessities for life, even tho it's temporary.
News flash: Not everything is about you. Giving up a small amount of time in order to let someone live, is NOT that bad.

reply from: yoda

By that statement, you proclaim that right and wrong mean nothing to you. That isn't news to us.
How can you feel so ultra-obligated to someone who is dying from natural causes and yet so totally cold, indifferent, and even hostile to someone who is perfectly healthy and just beginning their life?
Don't you find that just a tiny bit hypocritical? I sure do.

reply from: faithman

professing themselves to be wise, they show themselves to be fools. If we do not protect the least, then all are in danger of the brute.

reply from: KaliMajicouBaxt

It seems to me that you are referring to an argument commonly known through the violinist analogy: a kidnapped person is literally hooked up to a sick violinist, and unhooking them means the violinist dies. Does the person have to remain connected? Most would say no - the violinist has no claims against the kidnapped person, and can be disconnected and allowed to die. Likewise, a fetus has no claims against its mother, and can be aborted; the woman does not have to continue the pregnancy simply because the fetus cannot survive without her.
But it's a slippery-slope argument. For one, a newborn is also dependent on its mother - it cannot survive alone. If a mother bears a child and then decides to "terminate" it, she can use the same argument: what is the claim on her to continue caring for the baby? What if a six-year-old gets sick and requires constant care - can the mother then justify killing the child? The rule is already applied in the Netherlands, to a certain degree - any child under 12 can be euthanized by the consent of the parents and medical personnel, if they are in agreement that the child would be better off dead. Already, adults can be euthanized in Holland for severe depression; what if a parent and a psychologist decide that a ten-year-old is very depressed, and should be put down like a sick dog? How is that different (philosophically) than abortion? Of course, in the above cases, adoption is an option - but it is for a pregnant woman, as well.
(For that matter, I don't know anyone who is truly independent of others; if my husband becomes too demanding of my time and attention, and I decide I'm better off without him, can I "terminate" him? No, my only recourse is separation of the relationship; likewise, abortion is morally wrong, but adoption is permissable.)
There is also the issue of the violinist's health; disconnection at any time means death, so the kidnapped person is trapped for life. It is an unnatural act, ending only when the violinist is allowed to die. That's not true with a pregnancy; pregnancy is a short-term thing, a natural state ending in birth and separation. The "Future Like Ours" argument works well in response. The violinist has no future of independence, no hope of a normal human life; keeping connected gives him nothing. The fetus does have a future like ours - after birth, it will grow up and live a normal life, making its own choices, separated from its mother.
The violinist argument admits that the fetus is a person; it looks instead at the conflicting rights of the fetus and the mother. All rights imply duties - a right to property implies the duty of others to not steal, etc. The fetus' right to life implies a duty by others to not take its life. What "right" is the mother protecting here? A "right" to privacy? To her body? Do these rights - and I'm not willing to admit that privacy is a right; I believe it a priviledge and therefore secondary to rights - trump a right to life?

reply from: AshMarie88

Welcome to the forum Kali.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Of course not, an act of omission, not forcing someone to give an organ is not the same as an act of comission -- allowing people to kill.

reply from: sgcooper

you say all this but what right does anyone have to judge another you dont know what the womens circumstances are.it is her choice and only her's.

reply from: Shiprahagain

What right do I have to judge a rapist? I don't know what the rapist's circumstances are. It is his choice and only his.

reply from: KaliMajicouBaxt

This is a perfect example of relativism - the belief that there are no absolute rights or wrongs, that it depends on the individual circumstances. In that case, we can only have false law, false beliefs...there can be no right or wrong. I, however, do believe in right and wrong, and I believe that this knowledge can be achieved through reason. If, through reason, we determine something is right or wrong, then individual circumstances don't matter - only the truth matters.
I don't judge anyone. I have women come to me every day that are pregnant, considering abortion, and/or have already had an abortion (or more). I love them; I help them. I don't judge them - I don't condemn or punish them. But I do know that abortion is morally wrong. Always.

reply from: Sigma

KaliMajicouBaxt,
There is no general duty of care. There is no right to live attached to another against that other's will, person or no.

reply from: Shiprahagain

There is no general duty of care. There is no right to live attached to another against that other's will, person or no.
Course there is, b/c the right to feel convenient is not greater than the right to continue one's life. Everyone has the right to continue throughout all their life's stages, even if one is to naturally be attached to another. People talk about pregnancy like it's some kind of freakish human rights abuse, part of being a human being sometimes entails sharing your body with others. It is a human rights abuse to artificially violate that normal stage of humanity.
Kali, it's great that you counsel pregnant women? Could you describe your job to us? Galen, another woman on the forum works with women in crisis pregnancies. Also, does your name come from the Hindu goddess Kali?

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain,
Absolutely untrue. No person has the right to live attached to another against that other's will, whether the connection is natural or not.

reply from: yoda

EVERYONE......... I say EVERYONE has the right "to judge", oh foolish one:
Main Entry: judge Function: verb Inflected Form(s): judged; judg·ing
1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=judge

reply from: yoda

Finally decide to post under your own nic again, oh great vampire of the blood of babies?

reply from: KaliMajicouBaxt

There is no duty to care, but there is a duty to not take life. In any case where a mother relinquishes her responsibilities of care to another (adoption), there has been no wrong - no duty has been ingnored and no right neglected. BUT a mother still does not have the right to take life from a child - before or after birth.
The duty attached to the right to life is the duty to let live.

reply from: galen

lol Sigma welcome back.... i think kali may be one or two years ahead of you. Did you learn anything over the summer?
Now i don't agree with your way of thinking sigma, and we are connected by the NEt when we are online... does that mean i get to go to the powers that be and have you taken offline for good?... no that would be against your right to life liberty etc...
HMMMMM
BTW Kali welcome to the Forum.... hope you get as much brain stretching as i do around here.
Mary

reply from: Sigma

KaliMajicouBaxt
She does, however, have the right to discontinue the support her physical body is providing. She can do this through adoption (or giving it to anyone else) after birth, or abortion when a live birth is not an option.
There is no duty, however, to sacrifice of yourself to let another live.

reply from: KaliMajicouBaxt

I'm currently the director of a crisis pregnancy center. We provide options counseling, free pregnancy tests, community referrals and material resources. We also give prenatal, parenting, and Biblical instruction (women choose what they want to do). You can see more at www.heartlandcpc.org. I do a lot of counseling, but my primary job is training volunteers and staff, organizing daily operations, public speaking, etc.
That all changes very soon...I'm stepping down as director to spend more time with my baby. Starting mid-September, I'll be writing studies, doing a client newsletter, and adoption counseling (I'm a certified adoption counselor in Kentucky).
My name is not from the goddess; it just sounds the same. The name is actually Romany for "Black Cat Luck" - luck that is odd. That's pretty much how my life has gone - a series of strange accidents that turn out not as bad as they should have been, or a set of unlikely events that turn out beneficial for me. I'm a descendent of the Manush, a branch of the Rom, although I'm traditionally unacknowledged because my mother isn't Manush. It doesn't really make any difference anymore.

reply from: Sigma

galen
Not quite "back". My new responsibilities at work keep me busy, but I have some free time atm so decided to see what was going on over here. To answer your question: Always Life is a continual learning process
Certainly you may have me taken offline, were anyone to have the authority to do that, and were I to violate some policy. On this site, for example, you can certainly have me banned were I to interefere with you in some way that is disallowed by reporting me to the moderator.
Having the connection limits me to the whims of the host of this site.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Absolutely untrue. No person has the right to live attached to another against that other's will, whether the connection is natural or not.
How about conjoined twins when one is dependent upon the other's organs, the twins are 30, and the twin with the good organs is tired of sharing?

reply from: Shiprahagain

That's really excellent about your cpc. And congratulations on your baby! I'm really interested in the culture of the Roma ever since I read the Pariah Syndrome years ago, but I get what you mean about being unacknowledged -- I'm an unenrolled Cherokee -- among other things. Cool name though

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain,
It depends. Which one was born with the body being used?

reply from: Sigma

No, she would be required to give it up for adoption or give it to friends, family, or a police or fire station under the safe-haven law if she did not desire to care for it. No, we would not be justified, under any normal circumstances I can think of, to require her to breastfeed if she did not wish to.
During the first and the majority of the second trimester.

reply from: Sigma

If you cannot understand, it is useless to explain it to you.
Well, strictly speaking it would but that's not the point. It does, however, live off of the woman's body.
Not quite. The context assumes the other is not interfering with the one.

reply from: Sigma

I'm sorry, but I dispute this. Please prove this to be so.
During the first trimester, live birth is not an option.

reply from: Shiprahagain

It depends. Which one was born with the body being used?
The twin with the organs being used wants to separate.

reply from: AshMarie88

Abortion is a woman's choice, correct.
Just like rape is a man's choice, just like killing men is a woman's choice, etc.
Some choices are wrong, and no baby should die by choice.

reply from: AshMarie88

She does, however, have the right to discontinue the support her physical body is providing. She can do this through adoption (or giving it to anyone else) after birth, or abortion when a live birth is not an option.
There is no duty, however, to sacrifice of yourself to let another live.
Sigma, what if a child is born but still attached to the cord? Only, that child will be connected for a while or die if the cord is cut, and the mom no longer wants it to be attached? Is cutting that cord justified only because the mom no longer wants to share resources with that child, even tho that child will surely die if it's cut?

reply from: NewPoster1

She does, however, have the right to discontinue the support her physical body is providing. She can do this through adoption (or giving it to anyone else) after birth, or abortion when a live birth is not an option.
There is no duty, however, to sacrifice of yourself to let another live.
Sigma, what if a child is born but still attached to the cord? Only, that child will be connected for a while or die if the cord is cut, and the mom no longer wants it to be attached? Is cutting that cord justified only because the mom no longer wants to share resources with that child, even tho that child will surely die if it's cut?
This "scenario" (to my knowledge) could never happen, but for the purpose of "hypothetical" discussion, I'll answer it anyway.
Yes, the woman has the right to immediately disconnect and remove anything that is physically attached to and physically inside of her, against her will.
Now, I have a question of my own, if some sort of fetal distress arises and a ceasarean section becomes necessary to prevent it from dying, should the woman be legally required to undergo the surgery?

reply from: bradensmommy

Wow, I think a few people never learned the meaning of "sharing" in kindergarten...that is really sad indeed...
Maybe they never were loved by mommy and daddy? Who knows...
(I started my psychology class in college BTW!!)

reply from: AshMarie88

Even tho I did expect that answer, I'm still sickened by it.

reply from: NathanG

Absolutely untrue. No person has the right to live attached to another against that other's will, whether the connection is natural or not.
Abosolutely false. Every human being starts life by being attached to their mother (other than the brief, free-floating period, or being conceived in a testbu tube), as this is the natural and God-ordained beginning of human life! No human life naturally starts any other way. For human beings to have any legitimate right to life, that right to life must include the right to sustenance and refuge in their mother's womb! Natural (i.e.--created by God to happen naturally in the order of His creation) has everything to do with everything in this discussion! It is not natural for people to be artificially joined together after birth, but it is natural for every human being to be joined to their mother for a period of about nine months before being born! This right should not be denied to anyone by human decision! No born person has the right to decide that an unborn person doesn't have the right to live!
You are trying to make pregnancy and childbirth appear to be no different then any and every bizzare and unnatural linkage of two humans that one could imagine! Pregnancy and childbirth exist for a purpose, and that purpose (bringing new human life into the world) should not be denied by any human decision to murder a child!
Period! .
May the Truth prevail, Sigma,
and may God bless you in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: NathanG

Yes, there is, when you are a parent. Being a parent has the inherent responsibility of sacrificing of yourself for your children, including a mother's responsibility to provide nourishment and safe-haven for her unborn offspring.
And even where there is not duty, there is still moral impetus to sacrifice of yourself to help others live, it's called love and compassion, but you probably know very little of these words.
I hope that that changes.
I hope that I can show love and compassion to you, somehow through this electronic exchange that we have.
We shall see.
God bless you in the Lord Jesus, Sigma,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: NathanG

Hello, Kali,
I am pleased to meet you!
I am ignorant of who the "Rom" are, and the Manush, though searching for "Romany" links the word with gypsies. I would love to know a little more about your heritage, if you would care to share.
I am also glad to know that you participate so much in a crisis pregnancy center, that is wonderful.
Are you a follower of Christ yourself?
God bless you in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: NathanG

Good question, NewPoster. Personally, I would favor such a law, because it would express a moral concern that an unborn child's life is even more important than a mother's right not to undergo surgery she does not want to undergo, but I do acknowledge that forcing a woman to have an invasive surgery to save her child's life is different from forcing her to not intentionally take her child's life. I am for the second unequivocally, but I am not for sure yet whether I would have the same level of support for the first. I will have to think about it more. There may be variables to consider. If it simply came down to the mother's not wanting to have a c-section because it will leave a scar or be unpleasant, etc., then I would support a law that said, "no, your unborn child's life is more important than your desire not to have a c-section; as a parent, your responsibility to care for your child's life demands that you submit to this surgery so that your child can be given treatment," but I would not see this law as being on exactly equal footing with the just law that would prohibit all abortion. At least for now, that is how I see it.
God bless you in the Lord Jesus Christ, NewPoster,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: ColdIce

I'm sorry, but I dispute this. Please prove this to be so.
You deny that it is a criminal offense to neglect your child? You believe the law allows mothers to starve their children?I, personally, deny that it is a criminal offence for the mother to not let the child feed on her, even in the case of near starvation.
Sure, it is a crime to not feed them stuff from the fridge.

reply from: yoda

My bad, I overlooked the phrase "on her".

reply from: ColdIce

You are ill-informed. In most states, such neglect of a minor child is indeed considered criminal neglect.So said states would rather you allowed the child to eat you, rather then both of you starve?
Well, in this case, why does the child get priority over the adult? Do we actually get less rights as we age?

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent
lol. Poor concernedparent. Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.
The fetus does indeed live off of the nutrients she ingests... as well as using her organs to process its waste, uses her cardiovascular system to her detriment, in fact her entire body is changed to accomodate it. It lives off of her body. Do no minimize the impact pregnancy has upon the woman. And yes indeed she requires a defense. The fetus tries to draw as many nutrients as it can, while the woman's body tries to keep enough to survive. Usually this works well. Sometimes it doesn't, which is why pregnancy kills as many women as it does.
Same old concernedparent. Cannot answer the argument in the spirit it was given. Quite amusing, really.
I believe the law allows mothers to not breastfeed their child if they do not wish to. In fact, I believe laws allow mothers to get rid of their children if they no longer wish to care for them. Prove me wrong.
If you cannot answer the argument in the spirit it is given, please don't bother. If anyone is playing semantic games, it is you.
During the first trimester, abortion is an option. Live birth is not.

reply from: Sigma

Shiprahagain,
What criteria do you use to say one or the other owns the organs?

reply from: Sigma

AshMarie88,
If the woman no longer wants it attached and live birth is an option, then birth is the method to remove it. Cutting the cord does not kill anything, and so cutting the cord is an option.

reply from: Sigma

bradensmommy,
Wow, I didn't realize sharing was now a legal requirment in kindergarten.

reply from: Sigma

NathanG,
No, there isn't. Children can be put up for adoption if the parent no longer wishes to sacrifice of herself.
Yes, I agree there is a moral impetus to sacrifice of yourself. There is and should be no legal requirement for a moral cause. Otherwise it is not moral, imo. If it was a legal requirement to leap through flames to save a dying person I believe it reduces the moral correctness of the person commiting the act.
Oh, and if you wish to show me love and compassion, perhaps you should start with eliminating the insults.

reply from: Tam

You state this as a fact, but it is merely your opinion.
Just for the record.

reply from: Tam

Well said! Welcome to the forum!

reply from: Tam

Just as in our society a human life can be taken if convicted of a capital crime.
Only abortion supporters condone the taking of innocent lives, however.

reply from: Tam

No. First of all, "becomes necessary" is a matter of opinion. Plenty of times things a doctor says are necessary turn out to be either unnecessary or outright harmful.
Second, no one should be forced to undergo surgery against his/her will.
That includes unborn children.

reply from: Tam

You are ill-informed. In most states, such neglect of a minor child is indeed considered criminal neglect.So said states would rather you allowed the child to eat you, rather then both of you starve?
Well, in this case, why does the child get priority over the adult? Do we actually get less rights as we age?
Your use of the phrase "eat you" in reference to breastfeeding says that you are both ignorant about breastfeeding and also motivated by an agenda to support babykilling. You might want to reconsider this whole topic.

reply from: Tam

I bet in matters of life and death, it is. A teacher who in an emergency hoarded all the food and let the class starve would be charged with murder, I suspect.

reply from: Sigma

tam
Except you're wrong. Abortion is legal.
Innocent, guilty, it doesn't matter. I am subject to the whim of the owner of this site while I am connected to it.
True, but she wouldn't be charged if the only food available was her own flesh. Even if she would survive removing some, she would not be required to share of her own body even if those who depend on her would die without it.

reply from: Tam

Except you're wrong. Abortion is legal.
First of all, I didn't say "Abortion is illegal."
Second of all, the basis of the legality of abortion is not "No person has the right to live attached to another against that other's will, whether the connection is natural or not." and you should know that much if you're trying to debate abortion.
You know full well that neither pregnancy nor nursing requires the mother to make a cannibal of her child by chopping off hunks of her flesh to feed to the baby. Of course you would try to make this disgusting comparison to the most beautiful and natural food in the world--mother's milk.

reply from: Sigma

Tam,
What other scenario requires one to be attached to another?
Oh, and LOL
It's true nontheless, which is why I say it. If I say "no person should have that right" then it's opinion.
ROFL
LMAO. Since the analogy has to do with pregnancy, that was the closest I could come to the sharing of one's body. How about "she wouldn't be charged if the only food available was her own milk. Even if she would survive suckling, she would not be required to share of her own body even if those who depend on her would die without it"

reply from: Tam

What other scenario requires one to be attached to another?
You are the one who keeps coming up with bizarre attachment scenarios, not me.
It's true nontheless, which is why I say it. If I say "no person should have that right" then it's opinion.
You're simply wrong. The fact that you really believe it does not make it factual. If you'd care to offer proof otherwise, feel free to try.
Since the analogy has to do with pregnancy, that was the closest I could come to the sharing of one's body.
That is the closest you could come? Unsurprising. It is a terrible analogy.
But she *would* be charged. What on earth makes you think she wouldn't?

reply from: Tam

He makes it seem as though the mother has to feed the child pieces of her liver or something! How disgusting to suggest such a thing. It is so far from the reality of gestation that it is really disturbing that someone could think of it as analogous.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,
If sharing of the use of an organ is not by choice then she is being forced to sacrifice that use.
Long term detriment, while it occurs, is not the only measure of detriment. There is a detriment during pregnancy.
In terms of evolutionary biology it is very realistic. Pregnancy is hard on a woman's body. It is not sunshine and sweetness. That is all I am trying to convey, while you seem to wish it viewed as nothing to worry about.
Pretty piss-poor try, though.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,
What you stated may not imply such, but I do believe they have the right to refuse to breastfeed even if no alternative is available. They may (and must) persue other avenues, but when it comes down to it they may refuse to breastfeed. Prove me wrong.
lol. Since I haven't stated they could, "is that so hard to understand" applies more to you than to me. They can get rid of them.
Blah blah blah. Keep dancing, fool.

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent
My argument does not address this. Since this never happens, it isn't required to
Uh duh. I didn't say they could.
Nope. They may leave it on the doorstep of the police station. The only thing restraining them is the physical time it takes to get from point A to point B.
I am speechless, though I shouldn't be at your lack of understanding.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent
Oddly enough, I haven't mentioned intentionally harming children of others.
No, but she would be justified in removing them if they latched on, even if it causes their death. That is a little closer to abortion, especially early abortion. Your scenario is a means of preventing the connection, not removing it once it occurs.

reply from: Tam

That's what every abortionist does for a living.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,
Is your contention, then, that pregnancy is not detrimental in any way to the woman?
Oh my God. Do you really believe this? No great strain is put on the woman during a pregnancy?
You're right. If she isn't allowed to use another's body, she wouldn't exist.

reply from: Sigma

Tam,
One-liners do not an argument make.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,
If the word "detrimental" can apply, yes.
No. Though there is not usually.
I'm not involving the perceived personal "value" of any individual. If you wish, the one who owns the body being used is of greater "value" in my eyes than the one who is living off of that body.

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

I do believe they have the right to refuse to breastfeed even if no alternative is available. Prove me wrong.
They can get rid of them.
Sigma, are you saying mothers can refuse to breastfeed their babies if that is the only source of life-sustaining nutrition available? Are you also saying mothers can get rid of their child in any way they desire?
Are you one of those who believes humanity is just the product of a series of accidents (evolution), therefore killing, abusing or neglecting another human being, such as a child, is not immoral? In fact, do you believe you have no responsibilities at all?
You are the product of intelligent design. Not only have been endowed with certain inaleinable rights, but you have been given responsibilities. As one who is offered the opportunity to rule the uninverse, exercising judgment over all, even judging angels, you should take seriously the responsibility to make righteous decisions.

reply from: Sigma

GodsLaw2Live,
I'm saying that women can refuse to breastfeed their babies even if there was nothing else that could feed their baby. All other avenues may (and must) be persued, but when it comes down to it they can refuse to breastfeed.
I'm also saying mothers can get rid of their children if they so desire. I said nothing of "in any way".
No, and yes, respectively.
No.

reply from: Sigma

I would never try to imply that. It is less stressful on the woman's body than pregnancy is in the vast majority of cases however.
Since I don't judge my worth by how far I can piss, I care little.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent
The Violinist Argument is an analogy for a normal pregnancy. What you posted was a hypothetical and extreme situation that was not meant to be analogous to anything of the sort, and instead be an exception to the rule.
Go ahead. Pretend to understand. I know you don't.

reply from: Sigma

concernedparent,
Thank you for agreeing that "duh" is an appropriate response, considering that you were the source.
It is neglect if no other avenues are sought. Duh, concernedparent. You might try reading.

reply from: yoda

Which is why the probabykillers usually deny that even innocent human beings have any moral right to life.
Which of course gives them the "moral right" to kill anyone they please.
And that, sadly is just how they want it.

reply from: Sigma

Oh, sure. For as long as it takes for her to get to the abortion clinic. You are confusing artificial restraints with physical limitations.
I'm sorry, but no. Safe-haven laws do not require any criminal liability on the woman. She may leave it and then go, no questions asked.
Regardless, my statement stands. The mother may get rid of her children if she no longer wishes to care for them.

reply from: Sigma

I see then. So no one was disputing it, yet you decided to try to make a point? Pathetic.

reply from: Sigma

Well, it's been fun as poking holes in your ... well, it seems a shame to even qualify them as arguments. I, however, have work that has caught up with me. If I have free time I'll come back and show you how bad you are at this, concernedparent. Again.

reply from: yoda

Don't let the door hit you in the butt, vampire.......

reply from: yoda

My bad, I overlooked the phrase "on her".

reply from: yoda

One-liners do not an argument make.
Nor a response, oh great vampire of baby's blood.

reply from: galen

The unborn child secretes hormones that are beneficial to the mother, so technically, she is using its body too.
---------------------
Good point .. woman who have autoimmune dieases such as lupus, often go into remission during pregnancy becausee of the immune suppression involved.
mary

reply from: ColdIce

You are ill-informed. In most states, such neglect of a minor child is indeed considered criminal neglect.So said states would rather you allowed the child to eat you, rather then both of you starve?
Well, in this case, why does the child get priority over the adult? Do we actually get less rights as we age?
Your use of the phrase "eat you" in reference to breastfeeding says that you are both ignorant about breastfeeding and also motivated by an agenda to support babykilling. You might want to reconsider this whole topic.No, I'm pretty sure I don't. Can you please refute me, rather then insult me?

reply from: GodsLaw2Live

There is no general duty of care. There is no right to live attached to another against that other's will, person or no.
Did you make yourself Sigma? Did you create your organs for your own personal use?
I will contend that you are your brother's keeper. You were designed to do good works. The Apostle Paul argues that a woman has authority over her husband's body when it comes to sexual relations, and vice-versa. The reproductive system and breasts were made for the benefit of the child and the child has authority over them, not the mother.
Men and women were created for good works. If they are not a gold, silver or wood vessel usefulfor service, then they are dried up dead branches (also referred to as faggots) for the fire.
God created you to be used for His purposes, you are not your own.

reply from: ColdIce

Yay for propaganda ^^

reply from: bradensmommy

Ugh, why must we even respond to idiots like Sigma? Apparently you all got the same idea as to why Sigma responds the way s/he does....
S/HE WAS NOT LOVED AS A CHILD
Period.
Why do y'all even bother? Its like talking to a ***** brick wall.

reply from: ColdIce

Can you even debate? Or do you always respond with comments like this when faced with opinions that differ from yours?

reply from: bradensmommy

For one thing you don't even know what the heck has been going on these past months because YOU ARE A NEWBIE! You have NO idea....
Another thing I CAN debate, its just extremely hard debating with someone with an IQ of a sandflea and caring as Charles Manson.
Need I even go on?
Didn't think so.

reply from: Sigma

LOL! Nice backtracking, concernedparent. "I-I-I didn't mean the whole woman just one organ!" Because, of course, only one organ is affected during pregnancy. I wish I had the time to address all of your trash that you call an argument (the fetus benefits the woman, what a riot), but I don't.
Read something and learn about the conflict between fetus and woman:
From http://courses.washington.edu/biol354/WhyWeGetSick.pdf#search=%22fetus%20secretes%20hormones%20benefit%20mother%22
The fitness interests of the fetus and the mother are therefore not identical, and we can predict that the fetus will have mechanisms to manipulate the mother to provide more nutrition and that the mother will have mechanisms to resist this manipulation.
If the mother happens to be deficient in her production of insulin, this can cause gestationaldiabetes, possibly fatal to the mother, and therefore to the glucose-greedy fetus itself. The fetus would have been well advised to curtail its secretion of hPL, but all it can do is play the odds
In the early stages of pregnancy, the placental cells destroy the uterine nerves and arteriolar muscles that adjust blood flow, and this makes the mother unable to reduce the flow of blood to the placenta. If something constricts other arteries in the mother, her blood pressure will go up and more blood will therefore go to the placenta. The placenta makes several substances that can constrict arteries throughout the mother's body. When the fetus perceives that it is receiving inadequate nutrition, the placenta releases these substances into the mother's
circulation. They can damage the mother's tissues, but selection may have shaped a fetal mechanism that takes this risk in order to benefit itself even at the expense of the mother's health.
Research on oxytocin neurones, which are essential for successful motherhood, is revealing how the hormonal signals from the fetus, placenta and ovary cause adaptive changes in the maternal brain. These changes benefit the offspring, but there can be costs for the mother

reply from: Sigma

GodsLaw2Live,
While I realize this is the mantra of the pro-life movement, few support this view.

reply from: yoda

When you come into a debate such as this one with a new nic, we assume that you may be a newbie...... and maybe not, of course.....
But if you are a newbie, then you'd do well to keep your snooty comments to yourself until you know at least a little about the history of the various individuals here......

reply from: Sigma

Er... ok. I hardly know what to say to this. You realize that the organs are part of the woman's body, don't you? If I say the fetus uses the woman's body, or the fetus uses her organs I'm saying the same thing.
All pregnancies are to the detriment of the woman during the pregnancy concernedparent. Do you agree?
It refutes your contention that the fetus and woman are in harmony.
You are attempting to portray pregnancy as a life and death struggle, a competition between mother and child for survival. This could not be more unrealistic..
It is in fact very realistic. The fetus attempts to take more than the woman's body wants to give.
No, I don't. The risks of complications during early abortion are minimal however, and it is less risky than carrying to full term. This is http://www.pregnancyconsultation.com/nonsurgicalabortion.html:
The risks of having an early non-surgical abortion are fewer than with childbirth
Do you disagree? Do you have evidence?
I ignore the safety of the fetus because abortion almost certainly guarantees it's death. It's implied.
*sigh* I don't justify abortion this way. It is used to refute that pregnancy is sunshine and sweetness as you seem to suggest, or the suggestion that the fetus is a boon to the woman during the pregnancy.
Surely you do, if you wish to contend that a woman may be forced to allow the fetus to use her uterus against her will, or be forced to allow a baby to use her breasts against her will.

reply from: Sigma

Er... and her body includes the organs that are used by the fetus. If I say the fetus uses her body, it means the same thing as using her organs.
All pregnancies are to the detriment of the woman during the pregnancy, concernedparent. Do you agree?

reply from: Sigma

Ah, true, women generally do find pregnancy emotionally fulfilling and the end result is generally a joyous one.
Physically, then. First, pleast provide a source on those "beneficial hormones".
Your contention is that pregnancy is not generally detrimental to a woman's overall physical health during the pregnancy?
All abortions are detrimental to a woman's overall physcial health (though emotionally it can certainly be a boon), though much less so than a full-term pregnancy. I justify this by saying that the abortion was chosen while the full-term pregnancy is unwanted.

reply from: Sigma

Evidence please? My experience has been that the majority of the medical community accepts this as fact. The side-effects of abortion are much fewer than the general effects of pregnancy. What evidence can you present, from an unbiased source, that abortion is not less risky than full-term pregnancy?

reply from: Sigma

Wow! Can you answer what I said? Do you deny that you agree with:
The reproductive system and breasts were made for the benefit of the child and the child has authority over them, not the mother
when you want to force women to allow the fetus to use her uterus against her will, or be forced to allow a baby to use her breasts against her will?

reply from: Sigma

...
You just cannot have a rational discussion, can you. Your tactic is to sidestep issues.
I said: If I say the fetus uses her body, it means the same thing as using her organs.
Do you disagree?

reply from: Sigma

No. Do you deny, then, that the stress of an unwanted pregnancy can negatively and greatly affect the woman's physical health?

reply from: Sigma

Why would you consider the pregnancy consultation website biased? I have seen no unbiased site say that early abortion was a risky endevour.
The http://www.kcrh.com/law.html classifies medical abortions as "safe and effective"

reply from: laurissamarcotte

An abortion clinic's site is on of the best unbiased sources of all time.

reply from: Sigma

That's an abortion clinic? I apologize.
How about http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4717786.stm?
Medical abortion is a highly safe and effective procedure, and completing the second stage at home can provide greater comfort and privacy
Here's a http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/183_07_031005/dec10429fm.html:
Pregnancy is never without risk for any woman, but both surgical and medical abortion carry less than 10% of the risk of mortality when compared with continuing the pregnancy

reply from: bradensmommy

Does anyone else feel the need to ingest a couple of 500 mg of Motrin?

reply from: galen

beware the online journal....
Sorry Siggy, and CI all the complications of pregnancy can likewise become complications before and after termination. its all in the hormones.. BTW did either of you stop to think that High risk pregnancy is a rare thing. We in the US actually have a higher risk of complications because of IVF and other fertility factors and a mix of our inaccesable healthcare system. Neither of wich is a good reason to end someones life.
mary

reply from: Shiprahagain

Galen, that's really intresting. If you have a statistic for this I'd love to have it on hand.

reply from: NathanG

No, there isn't.
Yes there is. (see next)
Yes, but until responsibility of care has been passed on to a legitimate recipient, the responsibility remains with the parents. Although the law may act to protect mothers who abandon children in less than responsible ways, it does not mean that such mothers did not have the moral obligation and responsibility, irrespective of what the law does or does not stipulate, to deliver their child to another whom they had good reason to believe was trustworthy and capable of caring for their child, and to deliver that child in as healthy and safe a condition as is possible.
Yes, I agree there is a moral impetus to sacrifice of yourself.
That is nice to know. Would you care to give us examples of how you imagine that this moral impetus you acknowledge should be lived out in people's lives, such as yours or mine? I am interested to know how you envision this moral impetus.
Why do we then legislate that murder (according pro-choicers' definition, which excludes unborn children), theft, and robbery are wrong? Is that not legislating a moral cause? Apparently, you are making a distinction between legislating what someone cannot do, and what someone must do. I agree that not all noble actions should be legally required by human laws. But some need to be. The responsibility of parents to take care of their children, as long as said children are in their care (including in the womb), is a moral action that should be legally enforced, and is rightfully so in our land, except for when children are in the womb. A law preventing parents from killing their children, or having them killed, born or unborn, is a just and necessary law.
How did I insult you? By questioning whether you knew much about love and compassion? I believe it is a legitimate question, given your stance on the value of unborn children's lives and the responsibilities of parents for their children. It was not an insult, it was a sincere evaluation.
Do you perceive that I have intentionally insulted you in any other way?
If so, please tell me, I want to address it.
My purpose is not to insult you, but to combat the falsehoods that you espouse. They are deadly, venemous, corrosive falsehoods, and they warrent firm, sincere, unequivocal rebuke. I am not attacking you, I am attacking the lies that you espouse, and I am questioning your character, based on the positions that you take.
I do want to show you love and compassion, and the greatest example of love and compassion is Christ Jesus, Whose Spirit dwells in me and changes me to be more like Him.
May God bless you in Him, the Lord Jesus Christ,
that you may know Him, and in knowing Him, find forgiveness of your sins and eternal life,
Sincerely,
Nathan Galeotti

reply from: Sigma

That's fine, but not the question I asked.
Do you deny that pregnancy is a physical detriment to the woman during pregnancy, especially an unwanted one?
Identify the flaws.

reply from: Sigma

We're discussing normal pregnancies.

reply from: Sigma

Ok, she has responsibility until she ends that responsibility Moral responsibility is separate.
It would, of course, depend on specific circumstances. Since I have no intention of making a list, what situation were you thinking of?
I'm glad you agree that just because something is a noble goal does not necessitate that it must be legally required. That delutes the very concept of a noble goal.
We legislate against murder and theft because it violates the rights of others. The definition does not belong to pro-choice people, the fetus in the womb does not qualify for the definition already in place. I do make a distinction between what one cannot do and what one must do, since I believe laws requiring something are fundamentally different than laws that prevent something. Laws that restrict people from donating blood is different than a law that requires blood to be donated.
"should" is opinion
How about allowing parents the choice of whether to continue life-saving care for their children?
If I sincerely evalute you to be an idiot, I am not insulting you?

reply from: galen

We're discussing normal pregnancies.
--------------------------
No the list that CI used and I believe you referred to contained things that develope as part of a normal pregnancy and then 2 lists that were for complications..
BTW even on the first list the "problems" were hardly ever a part of every pregnancy all the time.
Mary

reply from: Tam

One-liners do not an argument make.
And your inability to respond to the substance of the sentence does not diminish its factual nature: killing the children of others is indeed what every abortionist does for a living. But then, you know that and you are just fine with that. Perhaps you are yourself an abortionist? You certainly seem to have the sort of character that would permit you to perform such actions.

reply from: Tam

Right, but people are kidnapped all the time and hooked up to violinists to keep them alive. You are simply unable to address the issue, but unwilling to admit it.
LMAO!!!!!!
How true it is!

reply from: Tam

The Violinist Argument is an analogy for a normal pregnancy. What you posted was a hypothetical and extreme situation that was not meant to be analogous to anything of the sort, and instead be an exception to the rule.
Go ahead. Pretend to understand. I know you don't.
What you fail to understand is that the moronic "violinist argument" is in no way comparable to a normal pregnancy.
Let's review, just for the sake of clarity. Your "violinist analogy" (well, it's not "yours" but the one you've been using) would imply that:
I have been kidnapped, restrained, surgically altered without my consent, and literally forced to remain attached to this sick violinist for an indefinite period of time. The violinist would have died a natural death if not for my kidnapping and abuse.
THIS is what you consider analagous to a "normal" pregnancy. Kidnapping, enslavement, surgery, indefinite servitude, and artificial preservation of the life of a stranger.
Apparently, on Sigma's planet, "normal" pregnancy involves these factors! No wonder he supports abortion! If pregnancy meant being kidnapped, enslaved, surgically altered against my will, and forced to endure indefinite servitude while virtually immobilized in order to artificially extend the life of a stranger--nearly everyone would be pro-choice!
However, as even those who pretend not to know are quite aware, normal pregnancy involves NONE of those things. That is quite possibly the worst analogy for pregnancy ever conceived (as it were). I mean, we could make up worse ones--"normal pregnancy is like skydiving with a rubber chicken in your mouth"; "normal pregnancy is like being strapped into a car seat and lowered slowly into a lunar crater by a little green martian"; "normal pregnancy is like being a cat dropped from a building with a piece of toast tied to its back, butter side up"; etc.--but the "kidnapped and surgically attached to the dying violinist" one is right up there with the worst analogies of all time, IMO.
Here's an analogy for ya: debating with Sigma is like being a contestant on Fear Factor--always being asked to swallow the most ridiculous stuff.

reply from: Sigma

Galen,
I don't know what list you are referring to. I am discussing normal pregnancies.

reply from: Sigma

Tam
There was no substance. It was empty rhetoric.
The kidnapping was flavor text. It is not integral to the argument as you would imply. Restrained? No. Altered without your consent? This is analogous to pregnancy. Forced to remain attached? This is analogous to pregnancy were you to have your way.
Your objections do not apply.

reply from: galen

Galen, that's really intresting. If you have a statistic for this I'd love to have it on hand.
--------------------------
there are several from the WHO and CDC... just type into thier search engine.
M

reply from: galen

i was going to epost it... but its really long... i referr you to the bodily autonomy thread, Sigma.
Mary

reply from: Tam

There was no substance. It was empty rhetoric.
ROFL
The kidnapping was flavor text. It is not integral to the argument as you would imply. Restrained? No.
You are claiming that I have somehow VOLUNTEERED to share my kidneys with the violinist? If so, I certainly have no leg to stand on to complain. If not, HOW do you propose it happened WITHOUT my being kidnapped? Really, how do you work that one out?

reply from: Sigma

*sigh*
No, Tam, if you read the post (something most pro-lifers seem unable to do), you will see that it was done without your consent. You being kidnapped is not required for this to occur. It was flavor text. Your objections do not apply; you have not shown the Violinist argument is not analogous.

reply from: Tam

. . . it was done without your consent. You being kidnapped is not required for this to occur.
If it was done without my consent, how in hell do you think you've accomplished it without kidnapping me???

reply from: yoda

Well, it's sorta kinda like picking your pocket, Tam, only they pick your kidney....

reply from: Tam

ROFL
I really can't wait to hear how they accomplish this without my consent, without committing a felony. Here are some of the possibilities:
the use of force to take and/or detain me would constitute ASSAULT
intentionally detaining me against my will would constitute FALSE IMPRISONMENT
holding or confining me against my will would constitute ABDUCTION
using force, fraud, or threat to take me away and hold me against my will for the purpose of committing a criminal act or causing any injury or suffering to me would constitute KIDNAPPING
Since there is no way to get AT my kidneys without surgery--they are an INTERNAL organ, in case you've forgotten--and would involve deep cuts in my body, the following would also apply:
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT
BATTERY
But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you have some magic method to attach my KIDNEY to someone without committing any of these crimes. Do tell, I'm All Ears.

reply from: Sigma

Concernedparent
I must say that was a pleasure to read
You could learn a great deal from that argument. The author actually honestly represented the opposing side and then set about to refute it. This is something you are singularly unable to do.
It is a valid criticism, but does not refute the Violinist Argument. It correctly points out that [t]hese arguments are very convincing in their redefinition of the right to life, but it fails to follow that therefore modern abortion techniques are justified but does not do much else. This would still allow for the concept, even if the methods employed were unjustified. Other methods could still be used and this counter would not apply.

reply from: Sigma

Tam
I'm puzzled why you think kidnapping is a prerequisite. You even admit later that there are other methods to connect another person to you.
So disconnecting the violinist is justified because you were imprisoned?

reply from: Tam

I'm puzzled why you think kidnapping is a prerequisite. You even admit later that there are other methods to connect another person to you.
Yeah, I'm not surprised you're "puzzled"--deliberately "puzzled" as usual.
Let me help clear it up for you, since you're apparently not capable of comprehending even the simplest of explanations.
That wasn't a multiple choice list, where you could choose to commit either assault or false imprisonment or battery or kidnapping, etc. My point was that you would have to commit most or all of those crimes in order even to set up the situation you consider so analagous to natural pregnancy. Since you clearly already know that (I don't think you're a moron, you just play one on the internet), why don't you tell me just HOW you think you're going to attach my kidney to your ridiculous violinist without committing a felony, AND if that's impossible, try telling me how you'd accomplish it while committing the minimum number of felonies.
Don't try to pretend this is about the specific details of "kidnapping" as opposed to the other crimes listed--you know full well that the point is, and has always been, that even to initiate such a connection would require the commission of a serious crime. If you think you can figure out a way to initiate the connection without committing the specific crime of "kidnapping," do share, but I assure you that there is no way of setting up that violinist connection without committing multiple crimes.
So disconnecting the violinist is justified because you were imprisoned?
We're not talking about disconnecting the violinist, we're talking about connecting him in the first place. Let's see if you can connect him to my kidney without committing a felony. (Jeopardy music plays...)

reply from: Tam

I'm not going *anywhere* until I find out how Sigma intends to connect my kidney to a violinist without committing a crime. I am certain it's impossible, but he seems to think he can accomplish it. And it must presume I'm an adult of average intelligence, not some hopelessly gullible or stupid person, or a child (as in, I would consider it a copout for his to start with "I lure you to . . ." or "I trick you into . . .").
But, obviously, we're going to the born child/cord not cut scenario. It's probably the next stop on the Sigma Local.

reply from: Sigma

I'm sorry. You seemed to focus upon kidnapping so I mentioned kidnapping wasn't a prerequisite. You brought up this list thing later.
I never denied that connecting the violinist to you would be illegal. The severity of the crime should be irrelevant unless it is because of that crime that disconnecting the violinist is justified and disconnecting the fetus is not. Put another way, the difference you perceive would have to be the reason one is justified and the other is not, assuming that you believe disconnecting the violinist is justified. That's how this works.
Tam, why does it matter the crime committed? This is a moral argument, not a legal one. Unless you believe the crime commited is what morally allows you to disconnect, this is irrelevant.

reply from: Tam

Hello?? The point is that the violinist analogy is a terrible, ridiculous analogy. THAT is the point. It is so contrived that you can't even set it up without committing multiple felonies. It is not something that would EVER happen to anyone. It is so far-fetched that it makes no sense even to consider what would be done in such a situation. It is almost certainly something that has never happened to anyone in the history of the world, and will never happen to anyone in the future.
As for why I would have the right to extricate myself from that ridiculous situation--YES, of course it is because I was only IN that situation because I was the victim of multiple CRIMES, and my extricating myself was an act of JUSTICE.
Killing an innocent baby is hardly an act of justice, Sigma.
It doesn't matter how the crime is committed, I just went there because you claimed that it wasn't necessary to kidnap me. My point is, I think it would be, but even if you could somehow manage (and you have yet to offer ANY evidence that you could possibly manage) to set it up without kidnapping me, you would have to commit serious crimes in order to cause the situation. And obviously, having been abducted, assaulted, and forcibly imprisoned, I would have the right to escape from that prison. That's justice.
A pregnant woman is neither abducted nor imprisoned, neither assaulted nor battered, by her unborn child. If there is a medical problem with her or the baby, the medical problem should be treated, but by no stretch of the imagination is she the VICTIM OF A CRIME.
The point is that the violinist analogy is NOT a good analogy for pregnancy! That it bears virtually no resemblance to pregnancy, and that even the superficial similarities are really grasping at straws!
If I had kidnapped the violinist, rather than the other way around, that might be closer. If the violinist were my child, again a bit closer. If the violinist were my unborn child, still closer. Wait! How'd that baby learn to play the violin in there!?

reply from: NerdyGerdy

It is only logical to assume, that the creation of something as complex as a human would require vast amounts of energy, efficiency not being great to an obvious extent.
The fact the child would take more than the mother currently has, but not all she can give, is a given noting that health during pregnancy should be kept optimal. Pregnant women feel tried and worn out, the praise "eating for two" is usually used for this. The woman is question should do all she can to keep production of nutrients high.
If you really think about it we are all "taking more than we give" every single day, in every aspect of our lives.
From a health standpoint, pregnancy takes everything to accomplish.

reply from: yoda

Which is precisely why Sigma uses it. He could never make a case for abortion with anything approaching a realistic analogy, and he/she knows it.
It's simply another indication of the morally bankrupt nature of abortion proponents.

reply from: Sigma

Causing the death of an innocent violinist for the sins of others is justice, Tam?
You would have the moral right to escape by causing the death of an innocent person?

I'm not sure you really understand the argument. If you believe what you seem to be saying, then aborting in the case of rape would be perfectly moral; it would be an act of justice even. Do I understand you correctly?

reply from: Shiprahagain

Sigma, she's not causing the violinist's death. He was already dying. The abortion causes the baby's death. It's not already dying.

reply from: Sigma

Legally, I would agree. Morally, I think not. She would be the one causing his death by removing his life-support, since he would live "if left alone". It would be similar to unplugging someone. Morally she would be responsible in the opinion of most logical people, I would wager.
In the case of the fetus, it would live with her support and die without it. This is a similar (though not perfectly matched, of course) moral situation to the violinist in that both the violinist and fetus are innocent and would die without her support. If innocent life is truly all that is important, morally (which is what many, if not all, pro-life people assert), then she would be morally obligated to continue the support she is currently involved in. Most logical people would agree that one is not morally obligated to the violinist, or at least that is what the argument assumes.

reply from: Shiprahagain

Legally, I would agree. Morally, I think not. She would be the one causing his death by removing his life-support, since he would live "if left alone". It would be similar to unplugging someone. Morally she would be responsible in the opinion of most logical people, I would wager.
In the case of the fetus, it would live with her support and die without it. This is a similar (though not perfectly matched, of course) moral situation to the violinist in that both the violinist and fetus are innocent and would die without her support. If innocent life is truly all that is important, morally (which is what many, if not all, pro-life people assert), then she would be morally obligated to continue the support she is currently involved in. Most logical people would agree that one is not morally obligated to the violinist, or at least that is what the argument assumes.[/q
That's not how it works -- when you have sex you are consenting to be responsible for the lives of possible violinists. When you are impregnated by rape you don't consent, but still, unlike with the violinist, you are causing the death.

reply from: Tam

The difference is, Sigma, that to you, an abortion is just an act of removing a baby from his/her mother, and the associated death of that baby is an unfortunate (perhaps I'm giving you too much credit here) byproduct of the removal.
But that's not what really happens, now, is it? You know better than that. There are procedures that can be performed to remove the child intact even as an embryo. Here is a whole commentary on how abortion is not even needed any longer: http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/mills/060321

What happens in abortion is NOT that the baby is removed. It's that the baby is killed--either during or before removal (except in those rare cases where the kid survives the attempt to kill him/her!).
If it were a question of removing the baby--at any stage--and transferring him/her to a willing mom, that would be a very different story. My problem is not that women want to terminate their pregnancies. What the heck do I care? But I sure do care about killing babies. That's not ok at all. You, on the other hand, do everything you can to avoid the issue of the baby's death. To you, it's all about the removal, not about the killing.

reply from: yoda

There you go again, trying to take all of siggy baby's fun away.... s/he likes to tease you by pretending to not know that abortion is designed to kill babies, and that is what they do..... funny way to get your jollies, isn't it?


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics