Jim Stillman
Randy InmanNo rational person is “pro-abortion”; the phrase is offensive and not helpful.
July 5th 2008 18:41
I read the posts of WWW, Lester Caudill, and many others who consider any discussion of abortion rights in this pluralistic society an abomination, in the words of the Old Testament. The basis for their basic belief is that a human’s life and very existence begins at the moment of conception. First, one cannot logically cite the Judaic laws espoused in the Bible as relevant; abortion is not mentioned in the Old Testament because an unborn child, a fetus, was a pre-human. Life, according to Jewish law, traditionally started when the child took his or her first breath.
Be that as it may, one may believe that life begins at conception; one may believe anything at all! But just because I feel that a woman has the right to control her body and that no one else, government or donor of sperm, can direct or mandate her decision, it does not follow that she should not take into account the wishes of her religious or spiritual consultants and the opinions of relatives. I am decidedly not pro-abortion; the use of abortion as a birth control measure offends me, the possibility of abortion as an excuse for purely casual sex also offends me.
But I respectfully ask that those with absolute opinions forbidding abortion because life begins at conception and that, therefore, killing a fetus is the equivalent of murder examine the consequences of that belief.
In law school, students are usually taught by the Socratic Method: the instructor rarely answers questions. A question and answer is followed by further questions, each more probing. I propose just such an exercise and encourage participation.
If life begins at the moment of conception, then it follows that the pregnant woman has a duty to safeguard and protect the fetus. We know that if a woman takes narcotic drugs during pregnancy and the child is injured by that use, a number of states will charge the new mother with a crime.
Using the Socratic method of instruction and analysis, consider the following questions:
If a pregnant woman is obligated, legally, to protect the fetus, then what penalty would be appropriate in the following circumstances any of which could cause injury?
1. Pregnant woman has alcoholic binges
2. Pregnant woman has an occasional beer with dinner or at a sporting event? How about a glass of wine?
3. Pregnant woman continues to smoke during her pregnancy?
4. Her physician prescribes medicine for a chronic disease that is likely to harm the unborn child, but she is negligent and forgets to take the medicine.
5. Same circumstances but the pregnant woman intentional refuses to take the medicine.
6. Her physicians direct her to take a prenatal vitamin; she forgets or refuses.
Each of these actions is likely to injure the unborn child. What should we do with the woman who places her child in risk?
My point is that there are no simplistic answers. One may, of course, be opposed to all abortions, but at least consider some of the problems created by absolutes.
Be that as it may, one may believe that life begins at conception; one may believe anything at all! But just because I feel that a woman has the right to control her body and that no one else, government or donor of sperm, can direct or mandate her decision, it does not follow that she should not take into account the wishes of her religious or spiritual consultants and the opinions of relatives. I am decidedly not pro-abortion; the use of abortion as a birth control measure offends me, the possibility of abortion as an excuse for purely casual sex also offends me.
But I respectfully ask that those with absolute opinions forbidding abortion because life begins at conception and that, therefore, killing a fetus is the equivalent of murder examine the consequences of that belief.
In law school, students are usually taught by the Socratic Method: the instructor rarely answers questions. A question and answer is followed by further questions, each more probing. I propose just such an exercise and encourage participation.
If life begins at the moment of conception, then it follows that the pregnant woman has a duty to safeguard and protect the fetus. We know that if a woman takes narcotic drugs during pregnancy and the child is injured by that use, a number of states will charge the new mother with a crime.
Using the Socratic method of instruction and analysis, consider the following questions:
If a pregnant woman is obligated, legally, to protect the fetus, then what penalty would be appropriate in the following circumstances any of which could cause injury?
1. Pregnant woman has alcoholic binges
2. Pregnant woman has an occasional beer with dinner or at a sporting event? How about a glass of wine?
3. Pregnant woman continues to smoke during her pregnancy?
4. Her physician prescribes medicine for a chronic disease that is likely to harm the unborn child, but she is negligent and forgets to take the medicine.
5. Same circumstances but the pregnant woman intentional refuses to take the medicine.
6. Her physicians direct her to take a prenatal vitamin; she forgets or refuses.
Each of these actions is likely to injure the unborn child. What should we do with the woman who places her child in risk?
My point is that there are no simplistic answers. One may, of course, be opposed to all abortions, but at least consider some of the problems created by absolutes.
| 84 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Men and Women should be held accountable for their actions. Let me ask this question here since I didn't get a answer when I ask cheryl when she comment on my post.
What if there were a compromise and abortion was limited to only say 7.5% of the hard cases. Would that be acceptable to the pro-choice crowd, or is it to much to ask them to be responsible for their actions? I am not saying I agree with that, it is just a hypothetical question.
These are the hard cases.
4% Mother's health
3% Baby may have health problems.
0.5% Rape or incest
7.5% Total
Comment by Jim Stillman
Opinions of a curmudgeon
Political Certainty
Of course, we all should be responsible for our moral and sexual actions. If one is consistent in their belief that a fetus is a living human and afforded all of the rights of a fully developed child who has been born, then causing any harm to that child would be punishable as a homicide, including instances of rape, incest or endangering the health of the mother.
And if one takes that view of life as opposed to potential life, then my posed questions become very significant indeed.
I ask you to consider what consequences you would impose on the pregnant woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy.
Comment by Ramdy Inman
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
I will write to you on this subject in a different manner than I would most of the other radicals around this place, mostly because I think that you are attempting to be genuine.
It is no secret that Lester and I do not agree on very much and the case is similar for SLB (WW3 etc). However I look at issues rather than personalities be I write.
The whole subject relies upon the question of what is a human, what rights they should or should not have and who decides?
Obviously there is going to be a gap between people who take different views on where human life begins. However in that gap is a loophole where anything is permissible even killing. Look at the history of slavery and you will see the same problem.
Now here is the dilemma: something is either human or not human. There is no gray area where approximate or sub-humans humans exist. (Unless of course you are Prof Peter Singer and promote infanticide)
The is no rational basis for separating Pro-Choice from Pro-Abortion because the results are the same. Someone is killed.
To separate the issues is to take the anarchist argument that if you don't like something don't do it.
If you do not like stealing don't steal.
If you do not like lying then do not lie.
If you do not like killing then do not kill.
However if you have no qualms then it is only a matter of choice. What kind of logic says that I am pro-choice on stealing but that does not mean I approve of theft?
In the USA over 3 billion abortions have happened since Rode vs Wade.Correction:Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Planned Parenthood’s special research affiliate monitoring trends in the abortion industry. since 1973 equals 48,589,993.
In Australian it exceeded 3 million some years ago with 80000 being performed each year. Average rate of live birth to abortion was estimated at 1 abortion to every 3 to 4 live births. This does not translate to 1 in 4 people having abortions but it does show the magnitude of the issue. You can also sense the the level of outrage that the Pro Life movements would have.
adendum:Using the HIC Medicare Figures for Item 35643 the total number of abortions in Australia over the last p.a. 10 years from around 77,000 to around 73,000 This excludes no medicare figure.
Live birth in Australia verses Adortions:
Live birth = 265,922 / 77000 = 3.45
So the average is still one in 3.45 end in abortion.
I also understand that much of the noise supporting the Pro-Choice argument comes from an industry that has an enormous financial investment in keeping the business going.
Addendum
My comments are directed at Jim on a personal level and no one else.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
I find it interesting that the first three responses to your questions were written by men, who not only will never find themselves in a position where they may require an abortion, they also did not answer your questions.
Also, I was under the understanding that in the time of Old Testament, babies were not considered viable until they reached 30 days? So to suggest that the OT in any way forbids abortion is ludicrous.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
i think any rational person who wanted to reduce the need for abortion would promote contraception and sex education
to answer your question Jim i often think along the same lines, if you say abortion is murder then isnt a miscarriage accidental manslaughter or negligence? is a woman who stays with an abusive partner endangering their unborn child? do we arrest her?
the smoking example is another widely debated subject and it comes down to this: is a pregnant woman public property?
should all pregnant women be locked away for 9 months so they are kept warm and safe and fed nutritious foods, away from power lines and dioxins and horse-riding and heavy lifting and stress?
because that sounds like the totalitarian societies described in the science fiction of Brave New World or 1984
no informed woman would choose to have a series of expensive and potentially dangerous abortions rather than use contraceptives, that accusation is insulting to women
Comment by Anonymous
I don't mean to be facetious but wouldn't that make the US so grossly overpopulated that it would be close to a third world nation? I would say at least 1 billion of them would have been born into poverty, mistreatment, hunger, abuse. The US can't even take care of the neglected and mistreated children it has now. Let's throw another 3 billion in to the mix and see who suffers. I can tell you now. The children.
Much better to be born into a life of misery than not be born at all.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
From Better Health (Victorian Government)
*There are approx. EIGHTY THOUSAND abortions in Australia each year (not eight hundred thousand).
*50-75% of Australian women who have abortions were using contraception at the time.
*Many others (statistics not available), were manipulated, coerced, raped or taken advantage of when drunk.
*Most Australians favour safe and legal abortions.
betterhealth.vic.gov.au
From National Right To Life:
*48.5 million abortions since Roe v Wade.
nrlc.org
Sorry to rain on your women-hating parade but it does help to tell the truth once in a while.
Where on earth would anyone get the idea that there have been 3 billion abortions in America in 30 years?
Do you men honestly think that there are women out there getting pregnant on purpose just so they could go through the fun of having an abortion?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
In case any new readers think I am having a conversation with myself I am actually correcting Damo on his outrageously incorrect figures regarding the number of abortions in Australia and America. Of course, it's too much to expect that he actually acknowledges this. That would be the decent thing to do.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
What a delightful person you are?
I was writing to Jim because we have had a long history on Orble and help each other out a lot. Jim knows what I mean He tends to allow me to make corrections without the nastiness that you are so endowed with. Perhaps you could get some therapy or anger management for that.
However since you like to poke your finger into other peoples business (must be you are absolutely obsessed with me) perhaps you could answer some questions.
What is a human being?
What rights should they have?
And why should you decide?
Now whilst you go off and come back with some more post modernist moral nihilism (which I will absolutely ignore) I will try focus my responses to Jim who unlike you is rational.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
You are unbelievable. Once again I have caught you telling an out and out lie and you refuse to admit your mistake. You go and change your comment to make it appear that I am not making any sense. Hypocrite.
Get some integrity.
For everyone else's benefit and to give my comments the context they had before Damo took it away, Damo did originally state that the number of abortions in Australia every year numbered 800,000 as well stating that there have been over 3 billion abortions in America since Roe v Wade.
Wow, not one to practice what you preach are you Damo?
Oh, and if you don't want people to respond to your lies, don't print them on a public forum.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Here's the deal hypocrite, by over-blowing the figures the way you did you have made it appear that women are indeed using abortion as a method of birth control and that we are all unfeeling, uncaring monsters who would as soon kill our own offspring as we would drop our pants.
By painting us as being this irresponsible you are attempting to give credence to the "argument" that women cannot be trusted and need men like you to make our decisions for us.
The reality is nothing like that. But you know this I suspect, it just does not suit your purpose to publicly acknowledge it, since your purpose seems to be to paint all women as baby-killing whores.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
The information was corrected one was meant to be 80000 and the other 30 000 000. So I made a couple of typo's. Get over yourself.
Those figures are pretty close to what it was corrected to after I double checked them. The second figure actually increased by 10 000 000. Of course if this is a debate about typo's and corrections who are you to talk?
Remember this: "FRAUD FRAUD FRAUD" and other disappearing comments.
Now if don't mind I would rather discuss this subject with someone above adolescent maturity.
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Yes, Damo, we have already discussed the "fraud" incident and that's what makes you a hypocrite.
Also, I don't think that anyone who refers to aborted fetuses as "dead babies" has the right to declare the maturity level of anyone else as adolescent.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
3000000: Say that in words. Now say this in words 30000000. Now sat this in words. Now try this 3 by 10 to the power of 11 or is it twelve. A lot of stats use shorthand to save space. If it seem unreasonable to you then I don't much care. I can live with being human and making a few typos on a blog site.
Dead Babies? Or you favorite term 'glob of cells?'
That is the point of difference isn't it?
You have already decided who is not human.
You have also decided who should be given human rights and who should be denied them.
Believe it or not I know that neither of us will shift on that point. So why are still bothering to argue with a lost cause like me?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
And yes, we disagree and that is why I have not commented on why I am pro-choice because I know we will never agree.
However, it really annoys me when I see all the lies and misinformation the anti-choice lobby throws around, as though they don't need to bother with truth.
Sure argue your case, but why spread lies? Why distort the truth? If you are in the right, then surely the truth is actually on your side?
And your first paragraph made no sense at all. How could you possibly make a typographical error when translating 48.5 million in 3 billion? We are not even talking the same ball park.
But fine whatever, at least you are acknowledging your errors.
My point is no-one wants to see a large amount of abortions being performed. Obviously we need to work toward the goal of preventing unwanted pregnancies, but that goal is just being left by the wayside in all this furore over saving the babies and vilifying the women who do have abortions. So many of those abortions in America are performed on teenagers who were not properly educated on birth control.
But at the same time, I do not want to see a return to unsafe, illegal abortions that put the fertility and/or life of the woman at risk.
Comment by Randy Inman
I think abortion is ok in cases of rape, if the mother's life is in danger or if bad birth defects are detected. Other than that, it is a rather nasty form of birth control.
Comment by Anonymous
My heroin addicted mother gave birth to me and several other offspring so that she could collect welfare payments to feed her habit. We we neglected, often went days without food until maybe a teacher or neighbor helped us out. We were dirty, we were beaten by her and her drugged out johns who used to use my sister as a personal sex toy. Eventually after many attempts and the 'child is better off with the parent' idiocy we were put into foster systems where a number of us suffered further abuse and no follow up so I ran away. My life was hell. My life is hell. I have tried a number of times to kill myself but never got the dose right. Next time maybe i'll just jump like my sister did. If you think pro-choice leaves out the fetus's 'choice' you're right. I wish I had been aborted it would have saved a lifetime of hell and me ending up dead like my sister anyway. You need a licence to own a dog but not a child. Fix the system so that crack whores and addicts are neutered so that we the children don't become paychecks and punching bags. No, save an unwanted unfeeling clump of cells and leave us here to rot in the hells that were forced up on us. I did not ask to be born, I wish I had never been born. do something to save the real live kids. Teach birth control and make it impossible for an addict to have any more and then you might have a proper argument. Some of us former fetuses would have been happy to never to have been born. I wish the hellhound that gave birth to me didn't just see pregnancy as a meal ticket or i would have been aborted for the inconvenience to her life that I was. Ask some of victims how we feel about abortion.
Comment by Randy Inman
Comment by Josie
Waxing Political
Unique Parent
I always say "I'm not pro-abortion" because I think it accurately describes me. Neither "pro-life" nor "pro-choice" describes me. As someone who has been pregnant 5 times and lost 2 of them, I honestly believe that in my body there was a baby there from the start. The thought of abortion makes me very sad. HOWEVER, I can't say what is in other people's bodies. Perhaps it felt like a baby to me because I wanted to have one. I really don't believe in pushing my morals on others when they are very subjective. I also think the pro-choice movement asks some very interesting questions about what implications outlawing abortion would have for other areas of law.
So, I choose to say "I'm not pro-abortion" because it is easier to define what I am not, than what I am. (and I say it with a hint of irony). I don't think there is an accurate way to describe what I am without a long explanation like above.
Comment by Jim Stillman
Opinions of a curmudgeon
Political Certainty
While I find abortion as a substitute for contraception abhorrent, I also feel that, since I am unlikely to become pregnant, my feelings are somewhat irrelevant.
But that’s not the purpose of this post. I was attempting to make two points.
First, I object to the term: “pro-abortion”. This characterization implies that the person is in favor of abortion, finds it “good”. No one considers abortion to be a good thing; rather it is a heart-wrenching choice to be made by a pregnant woman. I wish there were none, but reality indicates that voluntary terminations of pregnancy will occur and they should be performed in safe, sanitary and legal conditions, not in a back alley somewhere.
Second, I wished to point out the consequences of the belief that life begins at conception and the fetus entitles to all of the legal protections of a child outside of the mother’s body. I suggested that, if taken to its logical conclusion, the pregnant mother would be an insurer of the child’s wellbeing. If the pregnant woman doesn’t act in the best manner, what should be the consequences?
I still would like that latter matter discussed.
Comment by Randy Inman
Comment by Lester Caudill
Since abortion is murder of an unborn child, the mother of the aborted child, and the doctor should face murder charges as would any other murderer would.
But if pro-abortion offends, would changing its name make it less of a tragedy or less of a crime against humanity.
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
To compare a few typos with the amount of direct lies and fantasies that you tell in all areas is hardly honest. Margeret Sanger would be proud of your total commitment to the product that she sold you.
The reason why you don't like the accurate term Pro-Abortion is because it is true. So you actually want a sanitized term to make it sound less like killing.
Every abortion kills a human. Yet in your universe they have no human rights at all. They do not even have the right to be called human.
Whether you like the term or not the fact that you keep arguing for abortions and against any rights for the unborn child makes you pro-abortion.
Jim's insurers of the baby falls apart when you consider that parent that let 5 year old starve to death or charged. Either by neglect or willful action the person is still dead. Stalin neglected millions and let them all starve but I guess he was just being free of them.
Now lets get back to what you cannot seem to grasp:
Why is someone a not a person before they are born?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Typo. Yeah nice try.
Why is someone not a person before they are born?
Jesus Christ, have you men ever taken a biology class?
As much as it pisses me off when men think they have the right to force unwilling women to give birth, it is also gratifying to know that much of their aggression stems from the simple fact that in this one area at least, it is the woman who has all the power.
We can choose to give life, or we can choose not to.
How that must burn you.
Comment by Lester Caudill
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
Also Lester, your frontal-lobe challenged president is partly to blame for all the teenagers getting pregnant, what his insistence on providing abstinence-only sex education.
Here's a research project for you: find out which States have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortion. Now read up on what sort of sex education program they teach. Now report back to me on the co-relation between religion and abstinence sex education and teen pregnancy.
Surprise!!!!
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity
Comment by Lester Caudill
What are the primary reasons given for abortions?
25% Feels unready for child and the responsibility.
should not have had unprotected sex willingly.
23% Feels she can't afford baby.
should have used birth-control
19% Has all the children she wants, Other family responsibilities.
should have used birth-control
8% Relationship problem, Single mother.
should have used birth-control.
7% Feels she isn't mature enough.
shouldn't be having sex
4% Interference with education or career plans.
should have used birth-control.
1% Parents or Partner wants abortion.
should have used birth-control.
6% Other Reasons
should have used birth-control
a total of 93%
With just a little effort, and responsible thinking abortion can be wipe out with any laws. So all you women that are unwilling to have children, Why aren't you willing to use birth-control or will that take away from your choice to kill babies.
4% Mother's health
3% Baby may have health problems.
0.5% Rape or incest
7.5% Total
Giving that 93% of abortion are done just to shirk the responsibility of their actions. I know that is just a number to you, but to me 93% means over 930,000 little lives was cut short,before they had any choice.
930,000 deaths a year, almost 50,000,000 since Roe-v-wade. This is fact, not something someone made up. Do you believe like Joseph Stalin, One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic?
Sadly enough that is just what you all think about it, it's just a statistic, you refuse to see the life in it.
One of the greatest experiences I have ever had in this life, well three of the greatest experiences I have had in this life is to hold my children just after they were born. It is the greatest feeling to hold your new born child in your arms, but just think a few minutes before they were in my arms they were what you all call fetuses, having no rights, and subjected to termination without feeling.
Rudysoho all I can say is we live in a time that sex education is blasted all over, there isn't anyone that could use excuse I didn't know better, and why don't you all stop using that kind of pathetic bull. Sex education has been taught in school for years even I had it as freshman in high school.
Aren't some schools handing out condoms, and in fact some more liberal states, and cities are actually causing teen pregnancy, because they encourage teen sex.
Jeff that is bull, the high abortion rates are were the most liberal areas are. Jeff what you should have said is that they experienced on year of very high abortions, and there was no one left to have abortion after that.
But Jim wants to know what do you think should happen after a woman has an abortion? A pat on the back, or jail time for murder.
Comment by Morgan Bell
Deep Pencil
Current Business News
Movie Train
Artist Quirk
Would you also impose jail time for using the morning after pill or other oral contraceptives?
Comment by RubySoho
Music Zone
Thought Zone
86% of the (American)public school districts that have a policy to teach sexuality education require that abstinence be promoted.
35% require abstinence to be taught as the only option for unmarried people and either prohibit the discussion of contraception altogether or limit discussion to its ineffectiveness.
The other 51% have a policy to teach abstinence as the preferred option for teens and permit discussion of contraception as an effective means of preventing pregnancy and STDs.
• Over 1/2 of the districts in the South with a policy to teach sexuality education have an abstinence-only policy, compared with 20% of such districts in the Northeast.
From the Guttmacher Institute:
Teenage pregnancy rates, birthrates and abortion rates at the state level fall into distinct regional patterns. The states with the highest pregnancy rates (100 or more per 1,000) are generally in the South or Southwest...The lowest pregnancy rates (below 80) are concentrated in the North Central and Northeast regions.
So lets co-relate that shall we?
Over 50% of schools in the South teach abstinence only. The South has the highest rate of teen pregnancy.
Less than 20% of schools in the Northeast teach abstinence only. The Northeast has the lowest rate of teen pregnancy.
Why it would seem that there is a negative co-relation between abstinence sex education and teen pregnancy. Hard to believe isn't it? But it really would appear that if you don't teach your kids about contraception, it doesn't stop them from having sex. It just stops them from protecting themselves.
Now can anyone tell me which States are generally more religious- the South or the Northeast?????
Comment by Jeff Musall
Secular Humanity