Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

This argument has been going on for centuries. In early times, women used various herbs, pressure on the stomach, endured abuse to the stomach, sharpened sticks, etc. to abort a pregnancy. Early Catholic stance: first trimester abortion was a lesser "sin". Once the fetus moved (quickening) it was considered murder by the church.

Abortion was also NOT discussed as it is now, so it's really hard to say if the line was as black and white as it appears to be now (pro-choice vs. pro-life: abortion on demand vs. abortion never! p.s. I am exaggerating a bit here, some people take generalities too personally). I'm pretty sure it was in some societies.


http://www.answers.com/topic/history-of-abortion

My parents did a wonderful job explaining things to me.... sort of

I abstained from sex as a teenager - not for fear of getting pregnant but for fear of what my parents would do to me if i did get pregnant. There was also that whole "responsibility" factor too

The whole point of the human body is reproduction. Every aspect of our lives is geared around the reproductive urge. The womb, fallopian tubes, and ovaries are designed to create that "parasite". Technically, it's not a parasite at all but a bodily secretion. A woman's ovaries "secrete" eggs, which are either germinated and implanted or are destroyed and discarded.

But it is most definitely NOT a parasite: A parasite is an external organism that finds its way in to your body. A zygote is created by your body. Your body is MADE to nurture and care for that potential person. That's the whole point of the reproductive system in the first place.

Parasites are what they become after they're born and they ask for your car keys every weekend.

So if I come home late at night and catch my partner cheating on me... I can shoot the both of them? After all, my religion says that adulterers should be stoned at the gates of the city, and since the state can't intervene in religion, I should get my right to avenge my partner's adultery by killing them both.

I so agree with you, Cristiano. The instant we enter the realm of moral relativity, anything is possible.

Aren't morals relative? Isn't that why there are "extenuating circumstances" and "shooting in defense" situations? If morals weren't relative, then we wouldn't need to have the justice system and could do things the way the Chinese government does.

Abortion Statistics - Decisions to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.
12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy.)
10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career.
7.9% of women want no (more) children.
3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health.
2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health.

http://womensissues.about.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm

got those checkbooks ready? 21.3% can be stopped right away and up to another 10.8% could probably be bought off too.

Remember, these are clearly excuses as to why the parent can't be responsible. Money is never a reason to kill a child imho.

Adoption would remove the money issue.

The same could be said about a child, or anyone, that is on a respirator and can't breathe on its own.

and easily remedied



The adoption option already exists and wasn't enough of an incentive for the % above.

That's pretty fucking sad commentary on our society as is.

But expediency arguments are kind of "talking past" the pro-life argument. If they see it as murder, telling them it's expedient is kind of absurd and grotesque sounding.

Personally, I don't think abortion should be illegal at all, under any circumstances. My reasoning is not going to please anyone really, but I stand by it:
The only reason to have a law against murder is so that the community can act as an agent of self-defense in the stead of the person being murdered, or as an agent of restitution if the murder is successful. In the case of a fetus, there is not much to defend or repay if it is lost.
The fetus has no will to self-defense and no one can be repaid for its loss. Does that also allow for infanticide, legally? Unfortunately, yes. (though in that case, someone might be able to "stand in" so to speak, and take on responsibility for the child that the parent by its action has abdicated. This perhaps could be done scientifically one day with fetus transplantation, in which case abortion should then probably be illegal... as long as some one claims that fetus.)

I know people can try to extend this and make it absurd, but the fact remains that the law doesn't exist to enforce morality but to act as a defense agent (ideally, that is).
If you look at the early beginnings of how governments formed, it becomes pretty clear.

Vengeance only belongs to the Lord, and only she may judge adequately.

No, it is not my duty to do so. For just about every society rightly places the responsibility upon the teenager's parents.

Try abandoning your unwanted teenage children and see what the law in your country has to say about it. Likely you will be brought to court on charges of child endangerment.



Nonsense. I have made no statement proclaiming that I want every unwanted child born into the world. Perhaps you presume that I hold a pre-packaged 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life' opinion as served by the media. My opinions are from my own life experiences.

What offends me is the fact that many men simply roll over in fear of offending womenkind in general, are afraid to face the issues and simply would rather look away. That is a 'no responsibility' option.

A a long time parent, I feel that my views on such matters are far more informed than a scared 19 year old wanting an abortion so she can go back to pot smoking, unprotected sex and more abortions. Cowardice is looking away, simply because the out-of-control woman-child is female, and we do not hold her man-child boyfriend responsible either.

Lastly, here is the hole in your argument: You are viewing life as property, to do with as you please.

If your offspring are property, what claim then does society have, if you beat your daughter? What claim does society have, if you rape your son? And why must society agree with your particular view of when the offspring cease to be property?

So no, I'm not going to adopt anyone's child at any age simply because they are unwanted, and yes, I am going to hold parents responsible, by rule of law.

Well Agatha's Post was pretty accurate summary.

Its not the job of the law to make us better people, its the job of the courts to punish those who have transgressed the law, and protect society from them. Somehow the pro-life argument always gets caught up in the wek moreal fibre of the pregnant person, and how silly it is that she wants an abortion of convenience.

If you wish to condemn her poor moral charact, fine, but don't make lawys telling people we have to share your values. If you want to keep kids from having sex, teach them morality at home. The law resolves problems, it does not prevent them.

We're already there. Christian Scientists (the most ironically named religion in history) who let their children die from easily treatable illnesses because they believe in leaving their health in "god's hands" are not prosecuted for child abuse, even though it is clearly neglect and abuse. Strange how you never hear moral outrage about it, eh? If that's not moral relativity I don't know what is.

Ah, so if I'm not willing to adopt someone else's child, it's ok to put them to death, Chip? That seems to be the statement you continue to put forth. My adopting them or not adopting them has no bearing on the fact that they are a human life that is being put to death. You keep advocating a position of "not my responsibility!", but by the same token neither is ethnic cleansing going on in Darfur. It doesn't make it any less horrific or wrong.

No, I do not view children as property. I view them as a responsibility. Someone has to feed them, care for them, provide for their education, and so on. In my opinion your statements only prove my point. You'll take no responsibility for unwanted children but expect them not to be aborted and to be kept and cared for by parents who don't want them, are unable to care for them, or are too young to be responsible parents. They end up as wards of the state... someone else's responsibility of which you want no part, but end up paying for anyway. In other words, your argument is simply emotional moralizing without any practical or rational justification as long as the responsibility for that child remains an abstraction. This also applies to Cristiano's last response.

I think your repayment argument is spot on (and the same as the one I made earlier in my invisible post), but I think the "defense agent" point is questionable-- or I could be reading that part too literally. Ultimately law is about ownership. Vengeance belongs to the Lord because she owns her people and can seek repayment if something is taken from her.

Additionally, I think morality is also about ownership. When someone gives you something (even if it is only kindness), you enter into an unspoken social contract where you feel emotionally endebted to them and both need and want to repay them. Maybe that's why capitalism is like heroin.

Yeah, my inner child is as old as Anubis.

There is a long line of people seeking to adopt a baby. The argument no one wants these babies is false. Even little crack babies are wanted. Find me a baby to adopt today and I will adopt the baby right away.

I could care less if you don't believe me. What I posted was the truth and my own personal experience. I used to be pro-choice. Now I am not. People are going to do what they want with their bodies, and I am not going to tell them not to. If someone came to me for advice, then I would tell them what I went through and let them decide where to go from there. I would not harrass them into keeping a child they didn't want. I would not harrass them into having an abortion. If they got themselves in that situation, then they are big enough to make their own choices. All I can do is present my own experience to them, nothing more.

I don't agree with abortion for convenience. It's a cop-out. I admit to using it for that reason myself. I should have stepped up and accepted responsibility instead of taking the easy way out. My family would have supported me and helped me with any decision I made. I didn't know it at that time, but I wasn't on the best terms with them then either.

When I became pregnant with my daughter, I went to Planned Parenthood for a pregnancy test. At that time, my husband and I were considering abortion. (We were not married yet)
I went in, they automatically scheduled an abortion appointment for me when I said I was unsure of what I wanted to do. They told me it was better to have the appointment so I wouldnt wait until it was too late. I went home and talked to my husband and we ended up deciding to keep the child and go on from there. When I called to cancel that appointment, the lady on the phone was rude and told me, "I hope you aren't making a mistake." I was floored! I can't imagine that most of the people working there would have said something like that, but she did.

It's interesting how you get treated when you go one way or the other. You can call me Pro-Life, Anti-ABortion, whatever you need to and it won't bother me. I made a mistake by having that first abortion and have made my peace with it. If you get angry about it, then so be it. It's not your life to worry about, is it?



You can think what you want. It IS a child. You won't ever change my mind on that.

Maybe this is to the heart of the issue. I will pose the question. Is a fetus/unborn baby part of a woman's body or not?

That I can respect. The first part of your argument, that surely someone else will take care of it, I cannot, which is the position held by most pro-lifers. Personally, I don't think any child should be born into this world that can't or won't be provided with proper care, nurture, nutrition, health care, and education. That must be because I hold so little value in human life.

I agree, Cristiano - the difference is that they are not physically part of another being.

Yes, it is.

Actually, we all take responsibility for unwanted children. Or do you not pay taxes in your country?

And if the child is your responsibility, not your property, then destroying that child is an odd way of being responsible indeed.

Sure, let the child become the ward of the state. Then garnish the wages of the two parents, and only those two, for 19 years plus administration fees for its raising. If their income falls short, let them pay less, but longer.



Emotionally moralising? Why yes, I am.

All of society emotionally moralises when it creates a law that says you cannot rape your children. Or that you cannot enslave people of a certain background. Why, just think of the practical benefits if only we didn't have restrictions on human medical testing - what stops us, other than emotional morality?

There are plenty of 'practical and rational justifications' out there.

Would the world as a whole be better off without this group, or that? Just think of the peace the world would have without conflict in the Middle East, for instance.

We are now at 'ends justifies the means', by your argument.

And emotional morality is known by another name: humanity.