Pro- Choice or Pro-Life?

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Have you read about the new abortion law in Nicaragua? All abortions are now banned, including when the mother's life is in danger and in cases of rape and incest:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6089718.stmToo bad. It appears that the oncoming elections were (ab)used to push though this law; in a catholic country like Nicaragua politicians are not likely to vote against such a strict law, because they don't want to lose votes.

WOW - that is so sad! The only ones who will suffer are the women! All for the sake of votes! They're going backwards instead of forward!    

This law has nothing to do with population control. Abortion was already illegal in Nicaragua, except in cases of rape or when the mother's life was in danger. In cases like this, abortion has nothing to do with birth control.

Originally posted by Mixcoatl Besides, in daily life virtually everybody, including anti-abortionists, seem to agree that birth, and not the concepcion is the beginning of someone's life. After all, nobody celebrates his 'conception day' instead of his birthday.

Well into the Middle Ages, most people did not even know their birthdays. Which explains why saints' feast days are celebrated on their death days. Anyone care to press this one to its logical conclusion?  

I was 100% pro-life before going to the UK, now I'm not thaaaat sure anymore. The cost to pay is very high, and I mean very.
1) abortion is used as a contraceptive, which is not a good idea of course as it is after all rarely innocent to be aborted, let alone several times. Psychologically and even physically it can be dangerous.
2) there is a kind of de-responsibilization of the sexual act mostly from the guy's side. The mentality become "lets shag anyway if something does happen she can abort". As a result England has both the highest rate of abortion and the highest rate of sexual transmission of AIDS for less than 20yo.
3) It is not free, it takes time and means that are badly needed elsewhere. I can't remember the figures but the NHS pays billions in GBPs yearly.

So banning abortion? No surely not, sh*t happens. But lets considers  all the means to prevent it are at your disposal use it, if you fail  you pay� Of course  some cases (not necessarily as extreme as rape or danger for the mother's life) are  to be considered, but the vicious circle may be broken.

Actually there are other very interesting questions more or less related included this famous and unfortunate case of a driver who rolled over a pregnant lady and "killed" the f�tus. Question: is it murder? is it to be considered as a wouned or as a broken object?
The French High Court (Court de Cassassation) has ruled in favour of the last one: an object� Not very satisfying.

Other example, a physician makes a mistake and fails to recommend an abortion so whether the mother dies or the baby is heavily handicaped. Can the parent sue the medic for letting them give birth to their child? Even more problematic can the child sue the physician because he allowed him to live?

All these examples come from some of the most famous jurisprudence in French law but they do ask, in my point of view, essential questions and reveal that every decision however rightous (allowing women to master their own bodies) always comes with a costs that ought to be balanced with its advantages and with the cost/advantages of doing nothing.

What would you say? Full property of the f�tus by its mother? Can it be a crime to let people live? What if an aborted f�tus did survive, could it sue the mother for murder???

In the 1960's there were just over a 100,000 illegal abortions performed in the U.S. However, today, the number has risen to over 1.5 million/year...and 90% of the women are not victims of incest or rape.

Some abortionists claim that their clients become regular customers, and they continually perform this on a year to year basis.

What do you think about that?


Edited by northpakistani - 08-Apr-2007 at 17:22

This is Dr. Bernard Nathanson's classic video "Silent Scream"...he shows a live ultra sound, and recorded an actual foetus a few weeks old actually screaming (without sound) while being ripped to pieces with forceps. The foetus is alive, in just a few weeks! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJzSiAPXTiQ

There is no need to force an individual's stance upon others.  I understand that without abortion, infanticide would increase, but abortion it self is infanticide, wouldn't you think?

However, it is recommended for certain circumstances.
The only concern is that many abuse this privelege.

Regarding your question, the time at which the abortion takes place is under some debate and varies a lot from place to place. Personally I would say it's best to do it as soon as possible, of course, to minimize stress for both the woman and the fetus. I won't try to set any final limit though.

You can call abortion murder if you will, the words used to describe the process in these debates are always chosen to fit the speaker's agenda, mere reflections of their stance. Pro-choice people call it abortion, pro-life people call it baby murder. I find this rather ridiculous though, since abortion is taking of life, so of course it can be termed murder, but "murder" is a word most commonly used to describe the taking of life that we don't acknowledge as right - which hits the nail in your case, but not in mine.

Again, categorically opposing murder, that is, any taking of life, is the cream of naivety. Throughout history murder has been among the most necessary acts of man, and it still is today, something an American should know.

Edited by Reginmund - 12-Apr-2007 at 14:55

Originally posted by Akolouthos Why should we minimize stress for the fetus at all if we view it as disposable? Either it is a life or it is not.

I never said it wasn't life, all organisms are life, as already pointed out.

Originally posted by Akolouthos If you willingly acknowledge that abortion, "the taking of a life," which "of course...can be termed murder," is murder, but still support the right of women to have abortions, I would like to know whether or not other murders in the name of convenince are justified. Can I waste someone who cuts me off in traffic? How about people in a really, really long line at the grocery store?

Call me crazy, but I'm one of those people who think there is a slight difference between abortion and the examples you mentioned.

Originally posted by Akolouthos I fail to see how you can admit that abortion is murder and feel, or at least appear to feel, no moral outrage about it whatesoever.

I do feel sad for the loss of a potential human being, but my emotions give me no right to invade the privacy of another human's body.

Originally posted by Akolouthos Ignoring your cheap, irrelevant (and, I grant, not entirely unjustified) shot at Americans, I will acknowledge your point regarding the historical definition of murder. What I will not acknowledge is the broad definition of when abortion is deemed "necessary" held in the present. Indeed you, yourself, argue for more than the right to murder when it is necessary; you argue for the right to murder when it appears convenient.

It wasn't an attempt at being cheap, I was just kind of hoping you'd realise basic realities such as for example how America would still be an English colony without political rights if all Americans had had your attitude to murder back then. Murder can be necessary to reach certain goals that are all-important to our welfare. So yes, murder can be a necessity.

Originally posted by Reginmund ... You can call abortion murder if you will, ....

Edited by pinguin - 30-Apr-2007 at 00:30