Should Abortion Be Made Illegal Based On The State You Live In?

[Subduction Zone]

Where's your study for the children who do not get adopted?

There is a problem with abortion used as after-the-fact birth control, and that is it is being used as birth control. For whatever reason, having legalized abortion causes people to not use birth control. See my study below on abortion and increased crime rate.

The woman or girl has to have the baby because the baby is a living human. This is the law now. From there she can decide to keep the baby or put it up for adoption. Even the fetus should be given the same right to life. It means young people who practice in unwed sex will have to better protect themselves from an unwanted fetus. With abortion, we see that this doesn't happen.

We still have the following going on from Planned Parenthood. These were former eugenicists who claimed abortions would reduce crime.

These pro-abortionists were wrong and lied about how abortion would reduce crime. To the contrary, it increased crime in poor neighborhoods.

"Throughout the twentieth century, eugenicists promoted abortion and birth control, claiming that if the “lower classes” would only have fewer children, crime would also decline. This was one of the primary themes of Margaret Sanger’s Birth Control Review, in which Montgomery Mulford wrote, “I am of the belief that the acceptance of birth control by society, and its frank teaching, can help diminish criminal activity!”1

This theme still resonates strongly with many people today. The best-known study of the abortion-crime connection was performed by John J. Donohue III and Steven D. Levitt in 2001. In Harvard University’s Quarterly Journal of Economics, they concluded:"

...

"While Donohue and Levitt were doing their research, however, other scientists were arriving at opposite results, refuting the theory that abortion and crime rate directly affect one another.

Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to 7%. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single‑parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11% to 32%, and the percentage of out‑of‑wedlock births has nearly quadrupled, from 11% to 43% of all children.7 Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime."

Abortion and Crime Rate: What's True and What Isn't

Thus, we've been lied to about how abortion would protect young people who practice unwed sex and get them to use birth control, and the benefits of abortion such as reducing crime rate. Having abortion as a fail safe measure of birth control has made it worse. It seems when the impetus is put upon the young couple and not the state, then it makes them more careful and responsible.

You need to stop using wacko sites if you want anyone to take you seriously. Even if it was true it is almost certainly a case of correlation is not causation.

 

[columbus]

Yes, but as long as it is not 100% effective, things will happen.

It's 100% effective.
Tom

 

[james bond]

The definition of beginning of human life wasn't addressed.
That would be essential to any argument about it.

Atheists have no motive to destroy life.

Scripture is relevant to believers, but not to people with no religion
or a different one. It would be better if you presented your argument
(with premises, evidence, & reasoning) rather than linking sites
which don't do the job.

It seems that you are willing to accept killing of a human in order to get parents off the hooks for an unwanted pregnancy. These couples should have the known about birth control and contraceptives. Why didn't they take responsibility for their actions beforehand? If abortion wasn't legal, then they would not be able to use it as an after-the-fact method of birth control. When life begins at conception is fact as science has shown this, then we know the living fetus has a right to life. Thus, without abortion, the woman will have to give birth to the baby if there is no danger to her health. Afterwards, she can decide whether to keep the baby (she could change her mind), or give it up for adoption. It would also teach the parents to be more careful the next time. They would not want to go through it again and be faced with the costs and responsibility. Just fark Canada and having legal abortion and the government picks up the tab.

Atheists may not have motive to destroy life, but it seems they aren't careful enough and this is how it ends up. We have to protect the rights of the fetus and make the parents more responsible. Then I would agree that atheists have no motive to destroy life. Right now, this is what they are doing and not accepting responsibility for the life of the fetus. Thus, your moral rationale has some kind of screw loose as science has shown life begins at conception.

Again, I used scripture to show how science backs it up. It's up to you whether to believe it or not. If you don't and still want evidence or proof of God, we know that you and all of the non-believers past, present, and future will get it during the second coming of Jesus. What if he doesn't come? Then nothing happens. What if he does come? Then you get hell as part of what you deserve. You paid no attention to the sin of Adam and Eve, nor believe that it caused death to come. Thus, if there is more to this than life begins at conception and the fetus deserves the right to life, then you'll just to accept the Lake of Fire as penalty for your disbelief. That seems fair to me. The fact that we die once and live twice because of Jesus paying our ransom wasn't accepted, so one has to pay the consequences like Adam and Eve and their offspring did. They all got death like the aborted fetus. It's why that is called the spiritual death for the non-believers.

 

[McBell]

It's 100% effective.
Tom

What is?
Can't claim abstinence is 100% effective.
Unless you are going to argue against Mary...

 

[Altfish]

To demand giving birth unwillingly is the fundamental problem.
Paying for the baby's & mother's care doesn't make that legit.
Don't buy into the bogus liberal argument that abortion is OK
because conservatives oppose social welfare programs.

Abortion isn't ok; it is the solution of last resort.
But if a woman says, "I want an abortion" she needs help. If she is then persuaded to give birth the state should be there as a safety net for the child's sake.
Unplanned pregnancies would reduce if there was better sex education and better access to contraceptives.

 

[shmogie]

The murder argument, especially as a planned (pre-meditated?) one is a difficult one. Previously, all we had was the Bible to go by, but now we have science defining life begins at conception. We had abortion which would fit the technical murder argument, but it was made legal for the reasons given. We have legal murder in society today as death penalty, or in times of war, or if the baby presents a danger to the mother. Or does an overpopulated nation need another baby? Yes, if the majority is old, or no if it isn't? We make laws for our society and so far I think much of the world has legalized abortion. We had ancient times where deformed babies or children were killed and tossed in a pit. We even had infantcide in ancient times or people who ate their babies or children in times of famine. Thus, there is a society rule that comes into play. At one time, this societal rule became so egregious that God destroyed everyone.

Today, times are different. I don't the answer to whether abortion is murder. How does a society punish itself? Or to just blame and punish the parents of an unwanted child isn't fair either.

We do have countries where abortion is illegal in terms of that is restricted -- https://www.usnews.com/news/best-co...-abortion-is-illegal-under-most-circumstances. Some of these countries like Africa could become famine struck and we see children just die of starvation.

I think all we can do is continue to discuss and debate these matters. In the past, we didn't know from science whether life begins at conception, but I think now we are beginning to realize this as science backs up the Bible. There isn't an easy answer on this. What may be right for one situation may not be right for another.

Some things are always wrong, regardless of any rationalization used attempting to make it right.

The pre meditated killing of a total innocent is one of those things.

There are many simple inexpensive methods of birth control, when two people wind up creating a child neither want, they are guilty of creating the problems you address.

There are ways of solving these problems without killing.

 

[shmogie]

No...and fetus before the 16th week of pregnancy cannot feel pain and fetus before the 26th week of gestation don't have emotions (at least not in the human sense of the term). So truly your question doesn't make sense.

How about after the first trimester, or the second, or in the third ? Babies are killed at all stages of pregnancy, thus my question is perfectly applicable.

 

[Revoltingest]

It seems that you are willing to accept killing of a human....

We have a definition problem going on here.
"Killing" doesn't apply to surgically removing part of one's body.
"Human" doesn't apply to the part removed.
The fetus is still just a part of her body, albeit one capable of
becoming a human if she carries it to term. A clump of a few
cells cannot think, & can hardly be described as a "person".

.....in order to get parents off the hooks for an unwanted pregnancy.

"Off the hooks" is a mischievously judgemental view of the parents'
motives, which can vary greatly. The worst case is if the woman
would die because of the pregnancy. "Getting off the hook" of
death.....seems reductio ad absurdumish.

These couples should have the known about birth control and contraceptives.

One of those truths is that they're not 100% effective.

If abortion wasn't legal, then they would not be able to use it as an after-the-fact method of birth control.

When it wasn't legal, women still sought them out.
But because they were illegal, they were dangerous procedures.

When life begins at conception is fact as science has shown this....

This hinges upon a self-serving definition of "life".

......then we know the living fetus has a right to life.

This brings up the issue of life at what cost to the mother?
Our society balances the right to life of even adults against
each other. It is not some immutable sacred absolute.
Examples....
- We may kill intruders in our home.
- We may kill innocent people if they're near targets of war.
- And even many fervent pro-lifers allow "killing" the fetus to
save the mother's life, or if conception resulted from rape.

Atheists may not have motive to destroy life....

Atheists can be anti-abortion. I've run into them.
It's an issue filled with subjectivity & emotion, which
is why religion (or the lack) isn't deterministic.

Thus, your moral rationale has some kind of screw loose as science has shown life begins at conception.

A "screw loose"?
Hey, I'm not the one basing my views on certainty that a couple thousand year
old book about sky fairies written by ignorant goatherds is modern science.
They couldn't even speak English, let alone do trigonometry or calculus.

It's why that is called the spiritual death for the non-believers.

I find believers to be no more "spiritual" than anyone else.
The only fundamental difference is their belief that they, & they alone,
have The Truth, which is proven by their feeling so strongly about it.
Feelings are a poor guide to understanding biology.

 

[shmogie]

Abortion isn't ok; it is the solution of last resort.
But if a woman says, "I want an abortion" she needs help. If she is then persuaded to give birth the state should be there as a safety net for the child's sake.
Unplanned pregnancies would reduce if there was better sex education and better access to contraceptives.

How much education do you need to know that sexual intercourse is how babies are made?

Better access to contraceptives? All you have to do is walk into a store to get what is needed.

 

[Revoltingest]

Abortion isn't ok; it is the solution of last resort.

Careful there....
It's pretty aggressive to speak for everyone's motives & values.

But if a woman says, "I want an abortion" she needs help. If she is then persuaded to give birth the state should be there as a safety net for the child's sake.
Unplanned pregnancies would reduce if there was better sex education and better access to contraceptives.

I don't disagree.
But I've seen that presented as an argument for legal abortion.
It's not.

 

[Altfish]

How much education do you need to know that sexual intercourse is how babies are made?

Better access to contraceptives? All you have to do is walk into a store to get what is needed.

You've led a sheltered life.
With a body full of hormones, it doesn't matter if you know about the birds and the bees. Sex education is not just about the mechanics - it is about relationships, consent and much more.
Can you imagine in a religious little town as a 16-year old girl walking into your local store, where everyone knows you, and asking for a packet of condoms?
I know as a teenager, I used to go to the large town or, if I could get in, to pubs to buy condoms.

 

[Altfish]

Careful there....
It's pretty aggressive to speak for everyone's motives & values.

That was meant to be my opinion, not everyone's

I don't disagree.
But I've seen that presented as an argument for legal abortion.
It's not.

It's not an argument for abortion; it is an add on to an abortion ban

 

[metis]

@columbus

Here: Pope Francis Declares Death Penalty Unacceptable in All Cases

Catholic Church and capital punishment - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Modification to the Catholic catechism]

Have a good weekend.

 

[shmogie]

We have a definition problem going on here.
"Killing" doesn't apply to surgically removing part of one's body.
"Human" doesn't apply to the part removed.
The fetus is still just a part of her body, albeit one capable of
becoming a human if she carries it to term. A clump of a few
cells cannot think, & can hardly be described as a "person".

"Off the hooks" is a mischievously judgemental view of the parents'
motives, which can vary greatly. The worst case is if the woman
would die because of the pregnancy. "Getting off the hook" of
death.....seems reductio ad absurdumish.

One of those truths is that they're not 100% effective.

When it wasn't legal, women still sought them out.
But because they were illegal, they were dangerous procedures.

This hinges upon a self-serving definition of "life".

This brings up the issue of life at what cost to the mother?
Our society balances the right to life of even adults against
each other. It is not some immutable sacred absolute.
Examples....
- We may kill intruders in our home.
- We may kill innocent people if they're near targets of war.
- And even many fervent pro-lifers allow "killing" the fetus to
save the mother's life, or if conception resulted from rape.

Atheists can be anti-abortion. I've run into them.
It's an issue filled with subjectivity & emotion, which
is why religion (or the lack) isn't deterministic.

A "screw loose"?
Hey, I'm not the one basing my views on certainty that a couple thousand year
old book about sky fairies written by ignorant goatherds is modern science.
They couldn't even speak English, let alone do trigonometry or calculus.

I find believers to be no more "spiritual" than anyone else.
The only fundamental difference is their belief that they, & they alone,
have The Truth, which is proven by their feeling so strongly about it.
Feelings are a poor guide to understanding biology.

How can an unborn baby be part of the mothers body ? It has a totally different genetic profile from the mothers body, it can have a different blood type. So, it certainly is not part of her body.

If the mother will die by carrying a baby to full term, then regardless, a death will occur. At that point the moral question is "who should die"? I believe it should be the unborn because the mother has established relationships, a life.

An unborn baby after the first trimester IS a human.

It looks like a human, has a beating heart like a human, moves like a human, feels pain like a human, it is a person.

Now one may try and hide behind the word games that are played, whereby one will say,but it isn't a human because X says it isn't. So one can take oneself off the spot for making reasonable and rational decisions, and allow someone else to do it for you. Then you can support killing, without guilt. No doubt many people did the same with the declarations in the South before the Civil War, that blacks weren't fully human. Billy Joe Bob, the governor of state X says blacks aren't human, so I don't have to treat them like people.

 

[columbus]

@columbus

Here: Pope Francis Declares Death Penalty Unacceptable in All Cases

Catholic Church and capital punishment - Wikipedia [scroll down to "Modification to the Catholic catechism]

Have a good weekend.

I was happy about that.
I have a slightly more nuanced view. There are small number of people who continue to cause violent mayhem from a prison cell. Leaders of drug gangs or terrorist groups, for example.
Yeah, off them.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

How can an unborn baby be part of the mothers body ?

- It's inside her.
- She supplies nutrients & removes waste by her circulatory system.
this sounds a lot like other organs, eh.

It has a totally different genetic profile from the mothers body....

Au contraire, they share much genetic info.
DNA testing can show this mother-fetus relationship.

.....it can have a different blood type. So, it certainly is not part of her body.

And yet....it's part of her body, different blood type notwithstanding.

If the mother will die by carrying a baby to full term, then regardless, a death will occur. At that point the moral question is "who should die"? I believe it should be the unborn because the mother has established relationships, a life.

This is important because it shows relative value of life for even anti-abortion types.

An unborn baby after the first trimester IS a human.

That is a matter of definition.
Moreover, "human" is different from being a "person".

It looks like a human, has a beating heart like a human, moves like a human, feels pain like a human, it is a person.

If "human" & "person" were the same, we wouldn't have 2 words.

Now one may try and hide behind the word games that are played, whereby one will say,but it isn't a human because X says it isn't. So one can take oneself off the spot for making reasonable and rational decisions, and allow someone else to do it for you. Then you can support killing, without guilt. No doubt many people did the same with the declarations in the South before the Civil War, that blacks weren't fully human. Billy Joe Bob, the governor of state X says blacks aren't human, so I don't have to treat them like people.

Word games.....
I'm not the one using "killing" so broadly, or conflating "fetus" with "baby" & "person".
Nor am I the one treating a personal definition as "scientific", or citing scripture.
None here are more objective than I.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The problem I'm seeing is that the people sufficiently competent and wealthy to be good parents use it. Less responsible and poor people don't. So, more and more children are born to poor and irresponsible people. I don't see that as a good thing, myself.

Agreed.

And recriminalizing abortion will only make that even more so the case, as women of means will always be able to get an abortion, but the poor who have no access to local, legal abortion will simply be spouting out not just babies born into poverty, but unwanted baby's born into poverty. How much better if that person could terminate the unwanted pregnancy, stay in school, and have a baby in five or ten years when she was better able to provide for herself and the baby.

You have to explain how human life is treated the same as stepping on a cornstalk or an ant.

Why? I never made that claim. You said, "One of the arguments against it is the right of the unborn fetus and when life begins," and I replied, "Irrelevant. Life doesn't enter into the moral calculus. We kill whenever we fell a cornstalk or step on an ant. The moral argument does not depend on semantics or definitions. It doesn't matter what you call a fetus - person, life, human being, citizen - the moral status of ending that life don't change for me."

I repeat: Words don't enter into the moral argument for me - just the guidance of my conscience. Calling a fetus life doesn't make terminating the pregnancy immoral to me just as calling a cornstalk life is irrelevant to the matter of whether it is immoral to kill it.

Furthermore, adding the qualifier human is also irrelevant, since I have no moral value that says it is immoral to kill a human being. Kill one in self-defense if you must. You'll have my approval.

Nor does calling a fetus a baby change anything.

Legal arguments also don't enter into the moral calculus. Calling abortion murder is irrelevant to the moral issue. Making it murder by recriminalizing it also doesn't enter into the moral argument. Nor do any rights or Constitutional amendments.

It's really only about what my conscience tells me, which is that there is no moral barrier to early term abortion, but that using the state to enforce the will of the church against the will of the pregnant woman is immoral whether done legally as it was before 1973, or not. And removing the availability of safe, legal abortion is immoral, since we know that it will lead to unsafe abortions.

I watched the Netflix documentary on Gloria Allred, a prominent American feminist activist and attorney, and learned that she had been raped at gunpoint at age 25 while vacationing in the Caribbean, before abortion was legal. She was asked if that was the worst thing that had ever happened to her. She answered no, it was the back alley abortion she needed because of the rape. She began hemorrhaging and developed a fever of 106 degrees due to infection, almost dying in the process, and nearly died.

The church would have this back. If your religion or conscience forbids you to get an abortion, don't get one. That's your freedom. But if you would impose those views on others, then you are attempting to use the state to make many women unwilling incubators on behalf of a church.

Those are my values, and they don't change with with semantic arguments.

How do you know that it's not conscious?

Conscious and capable of suffering. If I thought the fetus was both of those, I would consider aborting it immoral. Once again, I have no argument for this. It's how I feel. It's what my conscience tells me, and that is what I go by.

How do I know early term fetuses don't suffer? For the same reason that when you crack open an egg and discover that it was fertilized, the chick fetus doesn't start screaming. It doesn't have the necessary nervous system.

I quoted the Bible which goes against it. Isn't that the ultimate moral argument?

Not to me. I don't get my moral values from any external source.

I also don't find biblical advice to be particularly moral apart from the Golden Rule, which is a value of mine, but also didn't come from a book. It's the natural result of the ability to feel empathy, another message from the conscience.

If it's the choice of the woman, then what if she chooses to have the baby? What do we do about the father? Should he be held responsible for raising the child until adult? We have a very good child support system in place. What about his parents if he is under age? Shouldn't they be held responsible if the father is a minor?

Requiring a father to help support his child hild support is moral and sensible. I'm a humanist, and we believe in facilitating individual development and personal excellence. A baby needs a certain amount of economic support to be warm, safe and healthy.

Since life begins at conception, what changes should be made to protect the living human fetus?

I've already explained that saying that life begins at conception means nothing to me. I don't care when life begins. When does the capacity to suffer begin?

These couples should have the known about birth control and contraceptives. Why didn't they take responsibility for their actions beforehand?

Irrelevant to a discussion of whether abortion should be legal and available. What might have happened doesn't matter. What did happen does.

Looks like murder to me. We can play the semantics game all day, it doesn't change the facts.

My point exactly. You calling it murder is just semantics, and it doesn't change the fact that I prefer to keep abortion safe, legal, and available.

Some things are always wrong, regardless of any rationalization used attempting to make it right. The premeditated killing of a total innocent is one of those things.

Wrong to you, not me. I recommend that if you find abortion wrong, don't have one. Follow your conscience and allow other to follow theirs.

Or try to impose yours on others if you think that's appropriate. I don't. I consider doing that immoral.

 

[shmogie]

You've led a sheltered life.
With a body full of hormones, it doesn't matter if you know about the birds and the bees. Sex education is not just about the mechanics - it is about relationships, consent and much more.
Can you imagine in a religious little town as a 16-year old girl walking into your local store, where everyone knows you, and asking for a packet of condoms?
I know as a teenager, I used to go to the large town or, if I could get in, to pubs to buy condoms.

No sheltered life. I was a high school and college student during the far out groovy 60's.I wasn't a Christian, and adopted totally the "if it feels good do it" philosophy of the time. We always had at least one condom in our wallet, and would pitch in so one could get them and distribute them.

We didn't need a class to tell us that when a girl said no, she meant no. We didn't need a class to tell us that date rape was wrong, and would result in very harsh penalties.

We actually had high regard for individual dignity, and treated the girls with respect in this regard.

I think that isn't the case today.

We also knew that pregnancy was a huge deal, to be avoided at all costs. Meaning, if you weren't prepared then you didn't have sex, period.

I would suggest that the numbers of girls getting pregnant in high school were much less than today,irrespective of the "education" todays young people get.

The ease of abortion has created a generation that isn't responsible when it comes to pregnancy, just kill the baby if pregnancy occurs,

 

[metis]

I was happy about that.
I have a slightly more nuanced view. There are small number of people who continue to cause violent mayhem from a prison cell. Leaders of drug gangs or terrorist groups, for example.
Yeah, off them.
Tom

"Nuanced" or "blood thirsty"? Personally, even though there are some deaths that I really don't grieve over, I've been against it for decades now.

BTW, I don't know if I mentioned it but I am back teaching the RCIA program per Father's request (he wanted me in it last year but I declined because I just wanted to take it one step at a time, if you know what I mean). Before my 20 year affiliation with Judaism that eventually had me co-teaching the Lunch & Learn program with my rabbi , I taught the RCIA for 14 years, so it feels good to be back.

IOW, no one has been able to find a way to shut me up.

 

[Revoltingest]

And recriminalizing abortion will only make that even more so the case, as women of means will always be able to get an abortion, but the poor who have no access to local, legal abortion....

This shows the problem of letting one's rigid morals dictate policy,
& not considering the morality of the inevitable consequences.
To achieve the greater good, one must avoid causing a greater evil.