links  |  contact us

Reader Comments on Abortion Issue

Joan:

First, your list assumes that being pregnant is a neutral condition.  To balance 
point number 10 under Yes, you need a point on the No side that states something 
along the lines of:

"While pregnancy is a natural condition, it is never safer for even a healthy 
women to be pregnant than to not be pregnant.  Pregnancy can be 
particularly dangerous for women who have pre-existing health problems.  The 
entirety of pregnancy, labor and delivery expose  women to 12 times as much risk 
of death as abortion.  A number of serious health risks and complications can 
arise, including, but not limited to, infection, sterility, and in rare cases, 
death. Some complications can create long-term disability and there is a 
correlation between pregnancy and developing auto-immune disorders."

A comprehensive list of complications is available at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy#Complications


Your No list does not acknowledge that there is more than one type of abortion, 
that outlawing 'abortion' would include every single RU-486 abortion and D&C 
abortion and D&X abortion procedure no matter what the reason was that it was 
being done.  At least one point on the No side should be that therapeutic 
or medically necessary abortions are needed at times when a complication are 
life threatening.

Statistics on ectopic pregnancy are available at this link:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/main/statistics.html

Ectopic pregnancy results in natural spontaneous abortion in half the 64,000 
cases annually in the USA.  Without abortion available to end the other 
pregnancies, 32,000 women would die every year.  I have discussed this with a 
number of people and the answer is usually some variation on "I don't think of 
THAT as an abortion".  Neverthelesws that's exaclty what it is, and unless a ban 
specifically exempted those cases, abortion would not be available.

Another point that could appear on the No side is that pregnancy is a biological 
process that doesn't always work.  There are rare cases where the fetus is too 
malformed to survive birth (nonviable) and there is no good reason I can think 
of to require a woman whose pregnancy has gone tragically wrong to 
continue carrying the metabolic load of pregnancy when it is known that the 
fetus has, for instance, no heart, no kidneys, no brain, etc.  While certainly 
some women might choose to continue until birth, it would be inhumane to prevent 
women who are distressed from ending the pregnancy immediately and beginning 
their grieving process.

Abortion is also necessary  when the fetus dies in utero.  I doubt anyone would 
be cruel enough to ban abortions to remove a dead fetus.  And, yes, even though 
people "don't think of that as an abortion" that's exactly what it is medically 
speaking.  Again, that reality would have to be specifically exempted in laws.

I don't know how to put this but some people almost make a fetish out of 
'natural pregnancy', as though pregnancy is uniquely the one physical condition 
where medical intervention should never happen.  Yes, reproduction is a 'natural 
process'.  Reproduction is a 'natural process' that fails more often than it 
succeeds.  You might find the wealth of information in this article of interest:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/may/cover


Hope this is helpful to you.  If it is not, feel free to discard it, and of 
course I certainly would expect that if you do decide to use any of it, you 
would reword and edit and  change things around, because your list is your list, 
but I just wanted to share with you some gaps that I had noticed as a free and 
no-strings gift.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew:

I humbly submit that this should be #1 on the list, as it is a fundamental issue:  

~ez_ldquo~Abortion is the taking of an innocent human life.  From the moment of conception, the live embryo is unquestionably human and 
unquestionably alive.  These are biological certainties, not religious or political perspectives.  The question then becomes: 
~ez_ldquo~When is it acceptable to take a human life?"  Furthermore, who should face the death penalty in cases of unintended pregnancy?  
There are at least three humans directly involved with every abortion, and few people would argue for the death penalty for 
anything but the most severe cases of rape; but if anyone should pay with their life, it certainly shouldn~ez_rsquo~t be the undeniably 
innocent party."

Corollaries (not necessary for the list, but relevant):

- The only legitimate exception should be an extreme medical situation where either the mother or fetus will unavoidably die.  
In that case, either a parent or the attending doctor may be forced to choose who will live.

- Attempting to define ~ez_ldquo~personhood" or legal status is extraneous to this very fundamental point of human life.  Historically, 
societies have stripped different people of personhood or legal status with catastrophic results.

- This agreement does not have implications for or against birth control (in which conception never takes place).

- Attempts to justify taking innocent human life because of physical condition (maturity, dependency, ability), physical location 
(relative to the birth canal), desirability or convenience are problematic and imply the legitimacy of making similar judgments with 
respect to: infants (immature, dependent), the handicapped (dependent, disabled), the poor or disadvantaged (undesirable, unsightly), 
genocide (distant, inconvenient), those of a particular race or ethnicity (undesirable, inconvenient).  

- Attempts to justify a ~ez_ldquo~neutral" stance by saying ~ez_ldquo~I~ez_rsquo~m personally opposed to abortion, but I won~ez_rsquo~t impose my morals on someone who 
is pro-choice" would be analogous to arguing ~ez_ldquo~I~ez_rsquo~m personally opposed to slavery, but I won~ez_rsquo~t restrict someone else~ez_rsquo~s right to own 
and abuse slaves"

- Government control over the woman~ez_rsquo~s body is limited to its proper role of preserving life, and would not extend to forcing the 
creation of life (forced motherhood) or precluding the creation of life (forced sterilization).  There is no relation between these, 
lust like granting the governments the authority to proscribing murder does not imply granting a government the authority to 
requiring that citizens perform murder.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ann:

From my experience, many people I know or have met say they're
 pro-choice. I couldn't understand it for a long time why they thought this
 because abortion is killing babies. And I respected them.  But eventually,
 it occured to me that they seemed to be equating "choice" with free
 will, 
 
which God has given to us already. The problem for these people maybe
 is that with the end of legal abortion, which many are against anyway,
comes the end of free will.  "How can I follow my own concscience about
 life at conception, when God also wants us to respect other's free
 will"?
 
So abortion stays legal, out of fear.
 I think part of the problem in ending abortion is to change the
 mindsets of people in this kind of rut.   Life and free will(choice) can and
 do coexist,  but not everything was meant to be moral or legal, as they
 know.
 
I'm addressing this aspect because of those who say, "I would never
 have an abortion, but it must be legal for others". Let's make it easier
 for pro-choice people to follow their core beliefs about life at
 conception.
 
Let's end abortion! 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Cornell:

There is a false dilemma at the heart of abortion talk. It goes like this: Oppose 
abortion and you side with politics; support abortion and you side with the health 
and safety of women. Is it possible that the exact opposite of this is true? 
Perhaps those who oppose abortion side with the health and safety of women. 
What do the facts substantiate?  

The medical effects of abortion and post-abortion stress disorder clearly indicate 
that abortion is rarely a good health decision for a woman. In a congressional hearing 
on the impact of abortion, psychologist Wanda Franz stated, ~ez_ldquo~Women who report negative 
after-effects from abortion know exactly what their problem is. They report horrible 
nightmares of children calling them from trash cans, of body parts, and blood. When 
they are reminded of the abortion, the women re-experienced it with terrible 
psychological pain ~ez_hellip~ They feel worthless and victimized because they failed at 
the most natural of human activities ~ez_mdash~ the role of being a mother."  

Many women battle long term emotional and psychological damage because of profound 
regret about their abortion. Abortion proponents, who attribute these effects to 
induced guilt from religion and pro-life activists, trivialize the actual trauma 
these women endure. As a result, it is not surprising that the greatest measures 
of support for women facing post-abortion stress disorder comes from pro-life 
ministries. These ministries treat seriously the feelings of women rather than 
trivializing them.  

How long will we be duped by politically motivated deceptions? Defending abortion 
is not about protecting a women~ez_rsquo~s health. Should it bother us when an organization 
like Planned Parenthood (while prospering on the abortion industry) intentionally 
deceives people about the traumatic effects of abortion? The irrefutable fact is 
that abortion, as a procedure, and in its after effects, is not about the health 
and safety of women. It~ez_rsquo~s more about a culture of convenience, self-absorption 
and money.  

It~ez_rsquo~s frightening that a person~ez_rsquo~s ~ez_ldquo~being wanted or planned" is the criterion of 
her right to life. Yet here is another source of blatant deception. Is the life 
of the fetus no more than a product of conception? When a woman chooses to 
terminate her pregnancy is she actually terminating the life of her baby? Why 
do we have laws related to fetal homicide? Why do Doctor~ez_rsquo~s perform fetal surgery 
on a baby in the womb? Consider the following facts: 

~ez_ldquo~Scientifically we are human beings by virtue of our genetic makeup. The human 
code in the chromosomes is there from the start. We are utterly different from 
monkeys or rats or elephants as soon as the chromosomes of egg and sperm meet."

~ez_ldquo~At eight weeks, all the organs are present - brain functioning, heart pumping, 
liver making blood cells, kidney cleaning the fluids, fingerprints formed, etc. 
Yet almost all abortions happen later than this date."

~ez_ldquo~Ultrasound has given a stunning window on the womb that shows the unborn at 
eight weeks sucking a thumb, recoiling from pricking, responding to sound. 
We can see the amazing pictures in Life Magazine or various books or Web pages."

~ez_ldquo~There is a principle of justice that, when two legitimate rights conflict - 
say the woman~ez_rsquo~s right not to be pregnant, and the baby~ez_rsquo~s right not to be 
killed - the right that should be limited is the one that would do the 
most harm." (Above facts from John Piper)

We must enact laws that would compassionately protect both the women 
facing unplanned pregnancies and their babies. But, until we accept the 
truth that induced abortion is both detrimental to the physical, emotional 
and psychological health of women and the deliberate destruction of an 
unborn child, such laws will be considered extremist.  
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elysia A:

I have a few problems with your reasons on the "No" list.
 
Number one states that making abortion illegal gives the government control and takes 
away a woman's personal freedom. I understand that many feel this way, however, 
it should not surprise a woman who makes bad choices when she eventually gets 
pregnant out of wedlock.
 
Another problem I have with this argument is that the last few questions are overly 
exaggerated and irrelevant. The government is not saying by this that every woman 
should have a child, but that every woman who engages in sex should live with the 
consequences. Also, birth control has nothing to do with the topic. Birth control 
is a responsible way to prevent a future pregnancy, not a way to terminate one 
already existing.
 
In number six, you also bring up birth control. Birth control is not the same as 
abortion, because it is a preventive measure. Wearing condoms or a birth control 
patch is very responsible, and it is not destroying anything. It is preventing 
conception from occurring so that two people can have sex without worrying 
about pregnancy.
 
The other four points, I respect as good points, however, I do not agree with 
them. I am strongly pro-life, and I believe that from conception on, every 
human being is loved unconditionally by our heavenly father, and that 
aborting a pregnancy is in fact murder.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous:

Killing a child and having the government control a 
woman's body is wrong.....the government isn't controlling the woman's body, the 
woman is by having sex knowing what could happen, therefore the government 
controls the mistakes a woman is about to make because they are controlling the 
fetus' life...not the woman's
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan A:

I have some arguments with your reasons on your "Yes" list, and some additions to the "No" list.
 
I would argue with #1 on your "Yes" list, simply because you refer to abortion as "murder", 
and "demeaning the value of human life".  You also use the kicking of the baby as an indicator of life.
 
Babies don't start kicking, according to http://www.babycentre.co.uk, until anywhere 
between 15-18 weeks.  Most abortions are performed in the first trimester - well before the 
15 wk. mark, and most pro-life advocates argue with abortions as early as 12 to 15 weeks 
according to www.plannedparenthood.org.  15 weeks seems to be the threshold for your 
definition of life - i.e. kicking.  Therefore, it is not murder, nor is it demeaning 
the vaule of human life to abort a fetus prior to 15 weeks, since prior to this point 
the baby is alive neither from a scientific point of view, or from your point of view.  
The baby isn't a human being until at least 15 weeks, depending who you ask.  Until then, 
it's simply in its formative period - it has no individuality, intellect, or potentially 
even soul, as different religions argue for different times at which the soul occupies the 
body, and I've never heard a stipulation from Christianity stating that the soul enters 
The body at conception.  It seems far more reasonable to assume that the soul enters just 
before birth, because there is nothing for the soul to learn or experience while within the 
womb.  Clearly aborting a soulless, brainless mass of tissue is very different from smothering 
a child in its crib.  The fact that you say that pro-choice advocates only claim that it 
isn't a real baby to justify their actions also seems very biased, because it is scientifically 
proven that the baby has no thought processes.  It is simply a parasitic mass of tissue 
feeding off of the woman - similar to a tapeworm actually. Does this mean that we should 
allow tapeworms to reside within our stomachs if we happen to become infected?  Where does it stop?  
I also object to the fact that you refer to women "callously stomp[ing] out a living 
being simply because they're inconvenienced".  For many, abortion is a very difficult decision, 
and usually done in contemplation of what is best for the baby - college and high school students 
have no way of bringing up a child to lead a decent life, because they have little chance of 
getting a decent job without a college degree.  Their child will be brought up in squalor.  
Additionally, if it can be proven that the child will bear some genetic or physical abnormality, 
is it truly fair to bring it into a world in which it will be immediately placed at great disadvantage?  
It's not likely the child will thank his/her parents in the years to come for putting him in such a position.
 
2. Birth control does not always work.  Condoms are not 100% effective, nor is the birth control pill.  
I have friends that were "birth control babies".  It's not that people are being careless - they are 
trying to be safe, but sometimes their safety precautions simply fail.
 
5. This brings me back to my earlier point - if you know that your child will have Down's Syndrome or 
a low IQ, you are doing it a favor by aborting it.  There is no reason to bring a child into a world 
in which it cannot compete - it will not thank you for making it struggle every day just to live.  
It can cause trauma on the parents to have a child so disabled, and often is responsible for domestic 
disputes and divorces.  The child will see this as his/her fault, and suffer psychological trauma.
 
6. I have a severe argument with number six.  People spend years on wait lists trying to adopt babies.  
There are countless older children and teenagers residing in orphanages until age 18, when they can 
enter the workforce.  Abortion limits the number of babies available for adoption, thereby increasing 
the chances that these children will be adopted.  Also, if you outlawed abortion, orphanages would be 
inundated with unwanted babies.  How many of these babies would go unadopted, getting shuffled through 
the system year after year until finally they turned 18 and got a job at McDonald's?  Are the 
statistics for abortions equal to the number of people who want to adopt babies?  I highly doubt it.
 
7. Maturity is not dependent on age in some cases, one, and two, young adults should be able to make 
a decision about abortion for one reason: it's their body.  Young adults are capable of making 
decisions considering what clothes they want to wear, how they want their hair cut, and whether 
or not they want piercings or tattoos.  An abortion is the same exact thing, assuming you agree with 
the scientific fact that the fetus is not technically a living being during the first trimester.  
Plus, in some states minors are required to have parental consent before getting an abortion, which 
means that the decision is being made by adults who, according to you, possess the capacity to 
make good decisions.  Which does not necessarily mean the adults will be pro-life, because in some 
cases that's not a good decision.
 
8. Funnel abortions through doctors in private practice exclusively, with the aid of insurance.  
Tax dollars do not go to doctors in private practice.
 
"No".
You should probably add that making abortion illegal would inundate the adoption system with 
unwanted children, placing the added burden on society of caring for these children with their tax dollars.
 
You can also add the anti-tax plan I stipulated in question 8, if you'd like.  
Really, I suppose you could add any of my arguments from the "Yes" section if you feel they're worth it.


privacy policy