<p>Good points, live.</p>
<p>I agree with you that there is no way to predict an unborn child will end up, especially in the US where children will have more support than others. But, by no means was I trying to justify abortion situations in America by using Romania as an example. I'm trying to test how the pro-life principle can work in other situations. Because if there are exceptions, that means there are limits. If there are limits, that means there's a certain moral boundary that is somehow created. Murder, or call it mercy killing if you will, is the subject here; my question is: If there is damning evidence that a child will suffer tremendously upon birth, should abortion be considered?</p>
<p>I chose the case of 1967 Romania because it's unique and also because we know about the horrible outcome. The orphans were created out of impoverished families who could not afford them, not because the mother's life was in jeopardy, nor was she raped, etc. The state prohibited abortion not because of religion nor morality, but to create an underclass of cheap labor to spurn industrialization. Romania in its decrepit state, forcibly created this labor force knowing that they wouldn't be able to take care of the children. It's the children that was supposed to support the country through their cheap labor.</p>
<p>How would you define "tremendous suffering?" If you accept the premise that abortion is murder, then no, I don't think it is ever justified except when the mother will die because of the child (in which case abortion would be considered self-defense). </p>
<p>But suffering tremendously can mean a lot of things. If, as in the example of Romania, you mean suffering tremendously because of poor socioeconomic conditions, then no, I personally don't believe that abortion is ever justified in those situations. If you could somehow prove that the child would be born braindead and die within a few weeks anyway, I still think there is a difference between killing someone and letting them die on their own (or doing everything possible to keep them from dying). Say there is a live adult that is terminally ill and is given a 1% chance of living - certainly damning evidence that he or she will die and not have the best of lives for however long he/she will be sick. Should we just go ahead and kill those people so we can save time and money trying to save someone where there is damning evidence they will die (even if 1/100 of them will live)? I don't think there is ever a way to prove 100% that someone will "suffer tremendously" upon birth. Euthanasia would be a different story because then the person is generally ALREADY suffering tremendously and any guesswork is taken out of the equation. </p>
<p>I am not sure where I stand on situations involving euthanasia yet, but the conclusion that abortion is murder would logically lead to saying that its never right under any circumstances (as murder is never right under any circumstances).</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is where my analysis of that whole Romania situation is left to guessing. All of my research generally says that there are no concrete statistics about crimes against the orphans, disappearances, etc., because it's too difficult to survey; they just know it exists. The trafficking of children[/url</a>] is rampant; children are sold for sex or labor. This explains the influx of [url=<a href="http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/romania.htm%5DRomanian">http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/romania.htm]Romanian</a> child pornography. Anyone could fly to Romania and pick up a kid for $10,000-$50,000. I know there are is an estimated 10,000-17,000 cases of HIV in orphans (out of a total of 100,000-150,000 orphans). There's also numerous undocumented disappearances. All this topped with the fact that they are living in horrible conditions, really makes me question the pro-life route. I consider the reasons above to be "tremendous suffering" by the way.</p>
<p>I feel Romania's government willingly knew that the lives of many innocent children would be claimed, yet it was a worthy sacrifice in order to propel Romania into a developed country. Just to add importance and relevance to this Romania topic, US in the past gave large amounts of aid to impoverished countries, provided they ban abortion and other forms of contraception.</p>
<p>Anti-abortion people should just shut the **** up and mind their own business.</p>
<p>In that case, if you accept the premise that abortion is nothing more than a nicer term for murder (which I do), then you may as well say we should just kill all of the kids already suffering. At least we know they are suffering already, whereas its anyone's guess where a child will end up once it's born. Even if you are a slave involved in the sex trade, are HIV positive, have no one in your life you can trust, who are we to say you'd be better off dead? Why is it that poor people (and people who undergo 'tremendous suffering' still don't kill themselves in very significant amounts? Sure, suicide rates among the suffering are higher than the general population, but its not like the majority of them are constantly chugging pills or jumping off bridges just trying to end it. Life can suck sometimes, and its a terrible situation, but killing unborn children is not tha answer.</p>
<p>I'm sure you are thinking "But wait, even if you are pro-life, its still got to be worse to kill someone who's already born." The same thing slave-owners thought. Same thing Nazi Germany thought. "Wait, even if you are an abolitionist, you've got to realize that killing a free white person is ethically 'worse' than simply killing a slave." "Even if you are against throwing every Jew in the ghetto, you couldn't possibly think its worse to kill a Christian or anyone else than to simply kill some Jew?" I've yet to find a productive use for the concept of personhood. If we are to accept the liberal premise that all human beings are equal (in the eyes of the law, a greater being, whatever), personhood shouldn't exist. If you are alive and have unique human DNA, you are a human being. Simple as that. </p>
<p>Think about what Hitler actually did: Germany had been in economic decline for a while before the Nazi party took power, there wasn't a whole lot of money (well, there was too much, but in terms of actual worth) floating around, "tremendous suffering" was certainly prevalent. Part of his solution? Kill the Jews (and gypsies and anyone else different). That would provide housing and money and jobs for the rest of Germany at the expense of one small group of human beings (but not "people" or "persons"). What you are essentially proposing is that if we just kill unborn children (in a place such as Romania), there will be more money, houses, jobs, etc to go around for the rest of us. Remarkably parallel situations. </p>
<p>Same thing for slavery: at the expense of one group of human beings (black slaves), whites could greatly help themselves economically. More money, more food, better lives for everyone but the slaves (human beings, just not "people"). When slavery was abolished, it was an economic and social disaster, especially in the South (and later the North when they started migrating). In fact, a lot of decidedly liberal social scientists will still point to slavery as the damning institution for black Americans and the cause of many of today's social problems. Does that mean that, because we caused "tremendous suffering" for people other than slaves by abolishing slavery that we should have just kept the status quo in order to avoid those problems altogether? Ending slavery dramatically increased crime, poverty, etc, not only among black Americans but among others previously unaffected by slavery.</p>
<p>Like I said before, the idea of personhood was invented to put certain groups of human beings down. Never once has it been put to a benevolent use.</p>
<p>And thanks, futurenystudent. There's another parallel to slavery, Nazism, etc. "Abolitionists should just shut the **** up and mind their own business." Anyone care to contest the fact that the above line basically summed up the Southern, slave-owning (and states-rights) whites' attitudes toward the North?</p>
<p>EDIT: That remark (by futurenyustudent) also pretty much sums up the problem with American politics. You, futurenyustudent, are blindly pro-choice and have more or less shown that. Your parents are as liberal as they come and strictly follow party lines. You've grown up listening to the admittedly pro-choice media and never once have thought to challenge your own views. In fact, when I challenged them with the same argument that challenged my earlier pro-choice views, you didn't even read a bit of it and instead decided to spew off your idiotic, close-minded ********, completely convinced in your own ways.</p>
<p>You know what that is? That's called fundamentalism. You'll go on thinking and believing you are right without ever considering the other point of view. The entire basis of liberal democracy is an open mind, and its people like you (who believe you are 'liberal') that keep democracy from functioning or debate from being an even remotely useful tool for public discourse and policy-making. How can you possibly make an informed judgement without even considering what the other side has to say? Everyone has an opinion, yet very few people can actually support their opinion or have really challenged themselves and their opinions. The only way you'll be able to defend your own opinion is by understanding what the other side has to say. Truly a pity...</p>
<p>Wow, live. You're very eloquent and well-informed. However, I don't think that your metaphors involving slavery and the Holocaust are appropriate. Oppression and attempted genocide of <em>already-born</em> people is an entirely different matter than deciding the fate of a ball of cells in a womb.</p>
<p>Abortion should be kept legal so that women have the option to end a pregnancy <em>safely</em>. Ultimately, only the mother has the right to decide what goes on in her womb.</p>
<p>I was thinking that too, but then it made sense after referring back to the premise in the first line.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Apple, when does that 'ball of cells' become human? </p>
<p>There is a heartbeat at something like 6 weeks, the fingernails and genitalia are pefectly formed...</p>
<p>There have been cases of aborted babies who survived. I met one - a young woman who, 20 years earlier, had been aborted, but the nurse noticed that the aborted baby was bigger than some of the prematures babies in NICU. So she saved the baby, and the little girl grew up to be a speaker against abortion.</p>
<p>It is true that science is now able to save babies at increasingly earlier times. When my brother's twins were born 6 weeks premature, in the 1970s, it was a big deal to save them. Now, babies are born much earlier than that and are being saved. So, why is a preemie a person but an aborted baby who's actually been in the womb longer not a baby?</p>
<p>Where do you draw the line?</p>
<p>Apple, I invite you to watch The Silent Scream and see if you think it's still just a 'ball of cells.'</p>
<p><a href="http://www.silentscream.org/%5B/url%5D">http://www.silentscream.org/</a></p>
<p>I'm a feminist for life and I do not believe in criminalizing women who have abortions. However, I think women should see this video before they make their choice. Information is a good thing.</p>
<p>apple green, but its more than just a ball of cells. By the end of the first trimester, the baby has developed its entire organ system (as I said before, every organ that you or me has), has measurable brain waves, can feel pain, has a beating heart, and has unique (different from any other human being on this planet) human DNA. If that's not a human being, what is a human being? What characteristics define such an entity? No argument I've read or person I've spoken to really has an answer for this (saying it is a "potential" human being is nothing more than dodging the question). Merrian-Webster Medical Dictionary defines it as "a bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens)," which an unborn baby certainly is. No definition of "human" says that it must be born (and even there, there's no justification for partial-birth abortions).</p>
<p>If it was nothing more than a ball of cells (like, say, a tumor), then there's no problem with it. And honestly, thats what I used to view it as, and that is what people naturally feel comfortable thinking of it as. If you are pro-choice, it naturally doesn't sit well with you to think of the unborn baby as a human being (albeit a very young one). Why? Because killing a human being is viewed as ethically wrong in our society (and the vast majority of every other society in the world, past or present), whether you are religious or not.</p>
<p>Not to nitpick leal, but the heart begins beating between 18-21 days (source: <a href="http://www.ship.edu/%7Ecgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html%5B/url%5D">http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/genpsyfetaldev.html</a>) :)</p>
<p>Exactly--as lealdragon said, where to draw the line? </p>
<p>I'll be mulling over this in the coming weeks (probably much longer than that) as i'm still neither pro-life nor pro-choice. Wouldn't make sense to take a side without being fully informed. For now, i'm really just collecting perspectives and looking for loopholes, exceptions, etc. until I can reach a definitive belief. You guys have provided a great start for me, thanks again to Live and everyone else.</p>
<p>you can be both, dont polarize yourself. i believe that every human being has a right to live but i also believe that every woman has a right to choose if she wants a child or not</p>
<p>But what abot the women who choose to have unprotected sex, they shouldn't have the right to abort (in my opnion of course).</p>
<p>"Not to nitpick leal, but the heart begins beating between 18-21 days"</p>
<p>That's not a nitpick at all. Thanks for the accurate info. I thought it was something like around 6 weeks, but I didn't want to quote an exact time if I wasn't sure. Wow, then it's even earlier than I thought! This means that even very early abortions stop a beating heart.</p>
<p>"you can be both..."</p>
<p>"but what abot the women who choose to have unprotected sex, they shouldn't have the right to abort"</p>
<p>Actually, I agree...sort of. Abortion is one of the most polarizing of all issues - very few people are 'on the fence' - most are strongly one way or the other.</p>
<p>I am one of those on the fence. I strongly believe it IS wrong; HOWEVER, we ALL do 'wrong' things from time to time. I believe spanking my kid is wrong - there are better, less violent ways to discipline - yet I have been guilty of doing this.</p>
<p>I also agree that it is the dehumanizing of the baby that makes people think it's ok, in the same way that blacks and Jews were dehumanized, so people thought it was ok to oppress them.</p>
<p>HOWEVER, it is still a very grey area, because this little human is INSIDE another person's body! So it becomes an issue of the woman's rights vs the baby's rights. The woman is obviously a sentient human but the baby, well, it's not quite so obvious to everyone.</p>
<p>Feminists for Life makes the case that abortion hurts women, too, not just their babies.</p>
<p>Bottom line is, that most women don't exactly WANT to have an abortion! It's not exactly a pleasant experience, and it's often heartwrenching and traumatic. So, I think it is cold and cruel how many pro-lifers ridicule women and call them 'murderers.'</p>
<p>Since I believe in reincarnation, I believe that anything any of us do sets karma (cause and effect) in motion. Life has a way of teaching us lessons. </p>
<p>I don't think making abortion illegal is going to solve the problem; it will just cause more problems, because women will still have abortions, but they will be less safe (a misnomer, really, since they aren't as safe now as people think).</p>
<p>I think the solution is EDUCATION. That's why I support Feminists for Life. They try to get to the ROOT of the problem by EDUCATING women about their options, and helping them find solutions so they don't have to be in the postion of having to choose between a career and their baby, a man and their baby, a scholarship and their baby, financial security...and their baby.</p>
<p>I also think that the 'humanness' of the baby has been glossed over by abortion providers. If they believe in choice, then let them show women info like The Silent Scream so that women can make an informed choice.</p>
<p>I would never judge a woman for having an abortion. I've never been in that situation and I am thankful. But I know how traumatic it is - it's a very hard thing.</p>
<p>I DO think it's the woman's choice, and the woman's karma for making that choice. By being open about just what is being killed - by seeing The Silent Scream, maybe seeing an ultrasound, getting accurate info about what that is growing inside her body, the woman can take responsibility for her 'choice' and not be in denial about it. </p>
<p>Abortion is ugly. We need to be upfront about how ugly it is, not make it easier and easier. And yes, women who are careless and use abortion as a form of birth control are really going way too far. I doubt that there are that many of those, though. Those women are in a totally different category from those who use precaution and still end up in a difficult situation.</p>
<p>There is always the ADOPTION OPTION. For 'inconvenient' pregnancies, I think it is WRONG to have an abortion when so many people want babies to adopt. </p>
<p>But that is still different from a woman who is faced with a baby with a serious defect, or who has been raped. Ah, these are difficult situations indeed. Even many pro-lifers are compassionate towards women in these extreme situations.</p>
<p>I consider myself pro-life (a feminist pro-lifer, not to be confused with the religious ones) yet I think that pro-lifers are often deluding themselves if they think they know for sure what they would do in such an extreme situation. </p>
<p>I think if pro-lifers would have more compassion, instead of just saying 'well that's what she gets for having sex' then we could accomplish more to get to the root of why women are in this situation in the first place. And quit voting for conservatives who cut welfare (which has been proven to coincide with increased abortions.)</p>
<p>Problem is, where do you draw the line?</p>
<p>If so many people are so eager to adopt, then why is our foster system overcrowded? Having a baby that a mother doesn't want ruins both the mother's life and the baby's. If everyone who got pregneant was forced to carry the child to full term, we would have an insane increase in poverty levels. Do you know what kind of life kids who aren't wanted lead?</p>
<p>Why would you wish that on anyone?</p>
<p>And anyway, forcing the child to be born only hurts the mother and the baby. What happens to the father? He runs away. You can say whatever you want, but wiping out abortion does more harm than good. Besides, people will do it anyway, whether it's legal or not. And if it isn't legal, they'll have to do it in riskier enviroments, where the mother could get killed. It's not fair, not right, and anyway, the government has no right to create laws in matters of morality. By that, I mean they can't discriminate or force their opinions on the nation.</p>
<p>if i was pregnant and not interested in keeping this baby... id suck it up and take it like a (wo)man. id demand that the father help me out b/c its his responsibility too but i couldn't bring myself to have an abortion and wonder 'wat if..' for the rest of my life. </p>
<p>so what about abortions for fetuses that are shown to be mentally handicapped and stuff? should parents have the choice to bring those kids into the world knowing the extent of their foreseeable suffering?</p>