If abortion were illegal

[jamaesi]

All I know is that if it becomes legal, like jamaesi I'll be educating everyone I know on herbal abortions. I know that if I were in the position, I'd rather be dead than forced into pregnancy and 18 years of a child I didn't want. Chances are high that I'll never be in that position, but that's the truth.

Total agreement.


It´s not that I hate children and enjoy killing babies- if I got pregnant the kindest thing to do would be to have an abortion, because of my health problems which would most likely be passed on to my children and it would probably be very hard on my spine to carry a pregnancy to term. That is really hard on me as I do want kids someday. But I am planning on adopting a little girl from China. <3 I´d rather take care of a life already here then burden the world with another- and having that new life be burdened with health problems itself.

 

[AtheistAJ]

Total agreement.


It´s not that I hate children and enjoy killing babies- if I got pregnant the kindest thing to do would be to have an abortion, because of my health problems which would most likely be passed on to my children and it would probably be very hard on my spine to carry a pregnancy to term. That is really hard on me as I do want kids someday. But I am planning on adopting a little girl from China. <3 I´d rather take care of a life already here then burden the world with another- and having that new life be burdened with health problems itself.

Now THAT's freethinking! Help humanity and not individuality.

To elaborate, not focusing on self-sattisfaction, but rather on others and future generations.

 

[Fascist Christ]

I know they don't. I do. My religious beliefs are that its spirit was alive even before conception. That's why I have such a hard time with abortion.

A question regarding your beliefs...

If the spirit is alive before conception, I am supposing that it does not require the body to be alive. If this is the case, isn't the spirit alive after abortion? How does abortion effect the spirit?

Since I do not believe in spirits, it is difficult for me to understand this, but with all due respect, I am trying.

 

[Quiddity]

If the spirit is alive before conception, I am supposing that it does not require the body to be alive. If this is the case, isn't the spirit alive after abortion? How does abortion effect the spirit?

I'm not answering for him but I can say that in RC theology one does not know when the spirit comes to be or when it's applied to matter. Because of that reason alone, we do not tamper with the process. We are bound to screw it up anyways if we did know. Cause you know how people are with their rights...

~Victor

 

[jonny]

A question regarding your beliefs...

If the spirit is alive before conception, I am supposing that it does not require the body to be alive. If this is the case, isn't the spirit alive after abortion? How does abortion effect the spirit?

Since I do not believe in spirits, it is difficult for me to understand this, but with all due respect, I am trying.

I don't know how abortion effects a spirit. I don't think that abortion was ever part of God's plan for our lives. I suppose he would treat it the same as anyone else who was murdered. Since I believe that any child that dies is automatically saved they probably got into the Celestial Kingdom without having to go through this life. You could argue that this is good for them, but I don't think it's our right to play God with life.

No, a spirit does not need a body to live. I can't say that I know exactly when a spirit enters a body. I assume that it happens at conception, but that may not be the case. Perhaps the spirit is given another opportunity at life.

I know that some members of the LDS church believe that they will be given the opportunity to raise children who were miscarried or died as babies in another life. I can't see God giving every mother who aborted their children this opportunity (I would guess that each case would be different), but this is another possibility.

I guess my answer is that I don't know and any answer that I give is purely speculative.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Rob,

What do you think about this speculation:

I think that it is highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal. However, as technology advances, I do think that abortion will become unpopular. We are now able to see color images of the fetus in early development. Many young girls will have these images as part of their education - whether in the classroom or online - they are able to read and see clearly how much potential that their fetus has. In other words, the profound loss of human life in abortion I think will become more a part of American life and education as technology improves.

Part of this improvement will be in better methods for early abortions, like the "morning after" pill. Such medical "abortions" I suspect will become more popular than surgical abortions.

 

[robtex]

Rob,

What do you think about this speculation:

I think that it is highly unlikely that abortion will ever be illegal, and it shouldn't be illegal. However, as technology advances, I do think that abortion will become unpopular. We are now able to see color images of the fetus in early development. Many young girls will have these images as part of their education - whether in the classroom or online - they are able to read and see clearly how much potential that their fetus has. In other words, the profound loss of human life in abortion I think will become more a part of American life and education as technology improves.

Part of this improvement will be in better methods for early abortions, like the "morning after" pill. Such medical "abortions" I suspect will become more popular than surgical abortions.

Certainly a reasonable senerio. The motive for the thread was the notion that roe-v-wade might be reversed and if so a "what now" senerio would be played out. I just think that if any individual who is against abortion, that to be academically honest with not only themselves, but with the society they live in, should look at the consquences of the alternatives. In our little forum community, by this thread I have noticed that the anti-aboriton group has not really looked at what would happened if abortion was banned. Most of them seem to say "there will be no problem period" or '"prove there is a problem" after I listed stats that say currently 1.25 million abortions a year will become babies which is 8-10 times the current adoption rate.

The morning after pill has meet friction too from the christian camp. It is being decided at the state level and I haven't followed it state by state but there is debate for both sides in each state. The contigency is that is it still murder of a fetus that is speculated to have a soul.

Understand that if your senerio played out the woman would still be given a choice to abort or not abort. If she watched videos or internet or even decided God told her abortion was a sin and kept the baby she had the liberty in a free country to exercise that choice. An abortion ban offers no choice to the mother on the matter of having the child or aborting it.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

This thread has devolved into the same thing I have seen each and every time this subject is debated. Christian Right type folks want to get as many babies born as possible, tho they don't give a rat's patoot what happens to them once they get here, while social liberals are much more concerned about overpopulation, and the life that will be forced on the unwanted child once the kid gets here.

The funny thing is, that I have never met a Pro-Choice person who thought that having an abortion was a really great thing. But I meet many many Pro-Lifers who think that poor uneducated girls and women should have kids they neither want, nor can afford.

Demanding all pregnancy's be brought to term without having some system in place for taking care of the million plus extra kids per year is not only intellectually dishonest, it is cruel. Maybe you should start caring about all people, including those who are in existence already. Take an underpriveleged kid into your home, feed and clothe him before you start trying to produce more of them maybe.

Christians tend to beleive that the fetus has a soul, right? And if that fetus never becomes a child, then it never gets a chance to sin, right? And if it never sins, and dies in a state of innocence, the "child" goes to Heaven, right? And as a Christian it is your goal to get into Heaven and bring as many others with you as possible, right?

So. . . . if you have 1.25 million souls per year going directly to Heaven, then that is a wonderful thing, isn't it? If those babies are born, then likely some of them, perhaps even most of them will grow up, and commit sins, and not be "saved" by going to the correct religious institution. If you Religious Right folks are correct in all you other assumptions, then those kids who you forced to be born, are now going to die and go to Hell.

You really want all those souls damned for eternity on your heart?

B.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Certainly a reasonable senerio. The motive for the thread was the notion that roe-v-wade might be reversed and if so a "what now" senerio would be played out. I just think that if any individual who is against abortion, that to be academically honest with not only themselves, but with the society they live in, should look at the consquences of the alternatives. In our little forum community, by this thread I have noticed that the anti-aboriton group has not really looked at what would happened if abortion was banned. Most of them seem to say "there will be no problem period" or '"prove there is a problem" after I listed stats that say currently 1.25 million abortions a year will become babies which is 8-10 times the current adoption rate.

The morning after pill has meet friction too from the christian camp. It is being decided at the state level and I haven't followed it state by state but there is debate for both sides in each state. The contigency is that is it still murder of a fetus that is speculated to have a soul.

Understand that if your senerio played out the woman would still be given a choice to abort or not abort. If she watched videos or internet or even decided God told her abortion was a sin and kept the baby she had the liberty in a free country to exercise that choice. An abortion ban offers no choice to the mother on the matter of having the child or aborting it.

In my mind, a ban on abortion will always be unhealthy, even if it becomes unpopular. It seems like it is a part of our culture now. When a woman gets pregnant - depending on her place in society - her friends and maybe even her family will talk to her about abortion. I think that technology will change that.

I don't think that the world should care about the Christian response to anything. There are enough level-headed voters in America to outvote them on any day of the week. If *surgical* abortion is ever illegal, it will be because of a massive social change due to a variety of factors (I think unpopularity of surgical abortion, perhaps a positive social attitude towards motherhood like support in the professional world). It will NOT come from Christians, who can only use fear tactics (eg, muder language) to get their way because it takes a very, very devout person to make social choices based on what the church says, unless of course they are afraid. American society at large is no longer intimitated by the church.

I understand completely that my scenerio does not call for the end of abortion - I think that abortion is socially constructive. It preserves the consitution and therefore the existence of our democracy by preserving a basic human right. I simply think that surgical abortions will become socially unpopular, which may lead to legal restrictions imposed for non-religious reasons.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

This thread has devolved into the same thing I have seen each and every time this subject is debated. Christian Right type folks want to get as many babies born as possible, tho they don't give a rat's patoot what happens to them once they get here, while social liberals are much more concerned about overpopulation, and the life that will be forced on the unwanted child once the kid gets here.

The funny thing is, that I have never met a Pro-Choice person who thought that having an abortion was a really great thing. But I meet many many Pro-Lifers who think that poor uneducated girls and women should have kids they neither want, nor can afford.

Demanding all pregnancy's be brought to term without having some system in place for taking care of the million plus extra kids per year is not only intellectually dishonest, it is cruel. Maybe you should start caring about all people, including those who are in existence already. Take an underpriveleged kid into your home, feed and clothe him before you start trying to produce more of them maybe.

Christians tend to beleive that the fetus has a soul, right? And if that fetus never becomes a child, then it never gets a chance to sin, right? And if it never sins, and dies in a state of innocence, the "child" goes to Heaven, right? And as a Christian it is your goal to get into Heaven and bring as many others with you as possible, right?

So. . . . if you have 1.25 million souls per year going directly to Heaven, then that is a wonderful thing, isn't it? If those babies are born, then likely some of them, perhaps even most of them will grow up, and commit sins, and not be "saved" by going to the correct religious institution. If you Religious Right folks are correct in all you other assumptions, then those kids who you forced to be born, are now going to die and go to Hell.

You really want all those souls damned for eternity on your heart?

B.

You are very right about the cruelty of pro-lifers. Their callous cruelty is unspeakable, and makes them murderers by denying women health care.

The logic in allowing abortions to populate heaven is pretty sick. Many Christians believe that children who die before they are aware of sin go to heaven, but we are not anxious to kill children to populate heaven.

A better criticism would be to point out the simple dark hypocricy that you have already mentioned. The pro-lifer's zeal to preserve unborn life causes them to ignore EVERY other issue related to abortion, most notably the health and well-being of the mother.

 

[Ceridwen018]

Murder is Murder, it is not a solution. It should not be a womans right to murder an innocent baby.
Even if we banned abortion without any idea at all about what to do next it would still be better then murdering 125,000 humans a year.
Foster care and adoption could be encoraged and supported nationally with all the money thats currently spent on abortion procedures etc.

Let me slap some facts on ya, Steve. I am assuming that you believe "life " begins at or before conception, is that correct? If so, your personal view would be contrary to what the Bible teaches. Leviticus 17:11 says, "For the life of a creature is in the blood." Lets take a moment and apply that to biology, shall we? An embryo does not begin to create its own blood until up to 15 days after implanatation, and therefore about 16-17 days after conception.

Secondly, you fail to realize that the number of legal abortions performed in one year worldwide is only slightly greater than the number of illegal abortions performed each year worldwide. To clarify, 26 million legal abortions are performed every year, compared to 20 million illegal ones. Keep in mind that the number of illegal abortion performed each year does not account for the possible millions of illegal abortions that go unreported, (they are illegal, after all, and therefore underhanded). Banning abortion would not even make a dent in the number of abortions performed on a yearly basis, worldwide.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

This was one of the things used the the case of Roe v. Wade. The crucial difference between legal and illegal abortions, is that legal abortions are performed in clean, liscensed clinics, whereas illegal ones are performed by back-alley quacks trying to cheat poor women out of their money, usually at the expense of her life.

Its all fine and well to wonder about what our government would have to do in order to account for all of these babies that will suddenly be being born, as was suggested in the OP. However, I feel that a more important question to ask, and one that deals more with women's rights in general, would concern the new rights that fetuses would recieve. You see, if abortion is made illegal, it will most likely be grounded on the idea that the fetus is "alive." If you take that idea and apply it to real life, a ton of new problems arise. If a fetus is considered living at the moment of conception, can a mother be prosecuted for having a miscarriage? If the mother willfully partook in activities such as drinking, smoking, strenuous exercise, or any other activity that could cause a miscarriage, even if she was not aware of her pregnancy, could she be charged with manslaughter? Will women be forced to complete state issued pregnancy tests every five days so that law enforcement will be able to protect every embryo? Will the birth control pill be outlawed, (given that women on birth control are said to "concieve" at least once a year, although the zygote never implants to cause pregnancy)?

What do you say to all of this, Steve?

 

[mr.guy]

I have to ask, shouldn't some forms of reproductive sciences be lumped in with abortion as well? I'm not at all familliar with In vitro fertalization, but i thought several fetuses where fertalized and picked through for the strongest embryo; the remainder destroyed. From an anti-abortionist standpoint, isn't this making a bigger bodycount per client then abortion?

 

[Quiddity]

I have to ask, shouldn't some forms of reproductive sciences be lumped in with abortion as well? I'm not at all familliar with In vitro fertalization, but i thought several fetuses where fertalized and picked through for the strongest embryo; the remainder destroyed. From an anti-abortionist standpoint, isn't this making a bigger bodycount per client then abortion?

Whatever is out there that is stopping the process of life we consider evil.
Hope that helps.

~Victor

 

[Sunstone]

Its all fine and well to wonder about what our government would have to do in order to account for all of these babies that will suddenly be being born, as was suggested in the OP. However, I feel that a more important question to ask, and one that deals more with women's rights in general, would concern the new rights that fetuses would recieve. You see, if abortion is made illegal, it will most likely be grounded on the idea that the fetus is "alive." If you take that idea and apply it to real life, a ton of new problems arise. If a fetus is considered living at the moment of conception, can a mother be prosecuted for having a miscarriage? If the mother willfully partook in activities such as drinking, smoking, strenuous exercise, or any other activity that could cause a miscarriage, even if she was not aware of her pregnancy, could she be charged with manslaughter? Will women be forced to complete state issued pregnancy tests every five days so that law enforcement will be able to protect every embryo? Will the birth control pill be outlawed, (given that women on birth control are said to "concieve" at least once a year, although the zygote never implants to cause pregnancy)?

Kudos to you, Ceridwen, for raising those issues.

 

[jamaesi]

But seriously folks, those starving children in Africa? Those little girls being forced into the sex industry in Asia? The kids in Brasilian favelas who are dying of diseases you'd never have in America? Heck, even those kids in America who are on the streets or being abused?

Overrated, aren't they? Who cares!



I have never seen anyone get up into a froathing rabid mess about those kids- not like I've seen people get into rabid froathing messes over a fetus. And really, if people got into rabid froathing messes about the real injustices done to living children who are scared and hungry and hurt and abused- there would be far, far less children like that. But instead the focus is on bringing in more life to this already overburdened world.

 

[mr.guy]

As Stephen Lewis (UN envoy to Africa concerning AIDS) said : "there's something about Africa that makes it permissable to just not care."

 

[michel]

Let me slap some facts on ya, Steve. I am assuming that you believe "life " begins at or before conception, is that correct? If so, your personal view would be contrary to what the Bible teaches. Leviticus 17:11 says, "For the life of a creature is in the blood." Lets take a moment and apply that to biology, shall we? An embryo does not begin to create its own blood until up to 15 days after implanatation, and therefore about 16-17 days after conception.

Secondly, you fail to realize that the number of legal abortions performed in one year worldwide is only slightly greater than the number of illegal abortions performed each year worldwide. To clarify, 26 million legal abortions are performed every year, compared to 20 million illegal ones. Keep in mind that the number of illegal abortion performed each year does not account for the possible millions of illegal abortions that go unreported, (they are illegal, after all, and therefore underhanded). Banning abortion would not even make a dent in the number of abortions performed on a yearly basis, worldwide.

http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html

This was one of the things used the the case of Roe v. Wade. The crucial difference between legal and illegal abortions, is that legal abortions are performed in clean, liscensed clinics, whereas illegal ones are performed by back-alley quacks trying to cheat poor women out of their money, usually at the expense of her life.

Its all fine and well to wonder about what our government would have to do in order to account for all of these babies that will suddenly be being born, as was suggested in the OP. However, I feel that a more important question to ask, and one that deals more with women's rights in general, would concern the new rights that fetuses would recieve. You see, if abortion is made illegal, it will most likely be grounded on the idea that the fetus is "alive." If you take that idea and apply it to real life, a ton of new problems arise. If a fetus is considered living at the moment of conception, can a mother be prosecuted for having a miscarriage? If the mother willfully partook in activities such as drinking, smoking, strenuous exercise, or any other activity that could cause a miscarriage, even if she was not aware of her pregnancy, could she be charged with manslaughter? Will women be forced to complete state issued pregnancy tests every five days so that law enforcement will be able to protect every embryo? Will the birth control pill be outlawed, (given that women on birth control are said to "concieve" at least once a year, although the zygote never implants to cause pregnancy)?

What do you say to all of this, Steve?

You make some good points Ceridwen; I think you went a bit far with your :-

If you take that idea and apply it to real life, a ton of new problems arise. If a fetus is considered living at the moment of conception, can a mother be prosecuted for having a miscarriage?

(I hope no one would be that stupid or insensitive)

Will women be forced to complete state issued pregnancy tests every five days so that law enforcement will be able to protect every embryo? Will the birth control pill be outlawed, (given that women on birth control are said to "concieve" at least once a year, although the zygote never implants to cause pregnancy)?

That would, possibly, be a logical result of the change in the laws; but think of the cost ? I could not see any Goverment being prepared to fund the administration to police that.........Goodness, I read '1984', but that was far removed from such stupidities.....................

Good points though, as Sustone said.

 

[jamaesi]

(I hope no one would be that stupid or insensitive)

I love to disappoint.

 

[AtheistAJ]

I have never seen anyone get up into a froathing rabid mess about those kids- not like I've seen people get into rabid froathing messes over a fetus. And really, if people got into rabid froathing messes about the real injustices done to living children who are scared and hungry and hurt and abused- there would be far, far less children like that. But instead the focus is on bringing in more life to this already overburdened world.

Excellent point, as proven in the Schiavo case, fundamentalists only care about living (being alive)- not the quality of life. Most of them don't give a rat's *** about raped poor mothers having illegal abortions or having their children grow up in the streets, whenever I give them examples like that they say things like "That's all a bunch of liberal hippie bull...!", while they drive gas-guzzling SUVs and watch Pat Robertson, listen to Rush Limbaugh, and pray to Jesus that everything will be ok. That is fundamentalists I know, mostly down of St. Louis.

 

[Quiddity]

Excellent point, as proven in the Schiavo case, fundamentalists only care about living (being alive)- not the quality of life.

What a stupid comment to make.
Your ignorance radiates thru my screen.
There are literally thousands of organizations world wide trying to feed and shelter kids.

~Victor