Why abortion is legal - why it is not wrong, murder or genocide.

I seem to have found a very very interesting article here:

Jane Roe is now Anti-abortion

Once an abortion-rights supporter, the 50-year-old McCorvey (Jane Roe) has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist. She has started a ministry called Roe No More to fight against abortion rights with the aim of creating a mobile counseling center for pregnant women in Dallas.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed down its controversial ruling on January 22, 1973. The decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states and sparked a political debate that remains charged to this day.

However, McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption.

Source -CNN
It goes on to say: McCorvey went public with her identity in the 1980s and wrote a book about her life titled "I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice."

In the book, McCorvey, a ninth-grade dropout, describes a tough life, explaining that she suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child, spent some time in reform school in Gainesville, Texas, and was raped as a teenager. A husband whom she married at age 16 later beat her. She also tells of her alcohol and drug abuse, and experiences with lovers of both sexes.

Her first child, Melissa, was raised by her mother; her second child was raised by the father, and the couple agreed that McCorvey would never contact her.

She seems to have had a very "responsible" lifestyle.

reply to post by Maslo


One would argue it's better not to refine oil at deep sea levels at all then do so, fail and clean up. The end is the same and everyone's fine at the end. but why do all the work?

I honestly don't care about these terms you're talking about. potentiality still remains the key only thing that matters when talking about these cells.

reply to post by Maslo


What a great attitude to show to our first contact with space mushrooms.

What you speak of is from a human biased standpoint.

reply to post by randomname

Originally posted by randomname
we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.

and you can't deny it's life, because if it was dead it wouldn't grow.

scientists are scanning mars and moons looking for signs of microbial lifeforms such as bacteria.

if science considers a single cell bacteria life, that can be killed with penicillin, how can you not consider a fertilized egg or a human embyro life.

murder is legally defined as the unlawful taking and deprivation of a human life. it doesn't specify your age, time or whether you are a cell or a 90 year old man.

what if human females laid eggs like chickens. and i went around home to home squashing those eggs. i would be charged with murder.

the parents would say i killed their kids.

all humans start out as fertilized eggs. from that first millisecond we start out life and we grow until we are old and die.

you can't cut in and say all that before doesn't count. because it isn't true.

edit on 25-2-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)

we all start out life when the egg is fertilized. before that you wouldn't exist. preventing someone from existing is murder. it's that simple.

and you can't deny it's life, because if it was dead it wouldn't grow.

You have a point...it is life, in a sense. However, is this life that you are defending self sufficient life? No...it is not. An embryo or fetus cannot survive without the mother providing the necessary biological necessities pertaining to biological growth. Yes, some late term fetus can survive out of the womb but almost in every case it is due to modern technology. I do not understand how you can classify an organism that is not biologically self sufficient as life.

scientists are scanning mars and moons looking for signs of microbial lifeforms such as bacteria.

if science considers a single cell bacteria life, that can be killed with penicillin, how can you not consider a fertilized egg or a human embryo life.

How can you consider a single celled biologically self sufficient organism to a multi-cellular organism that is not biologically self sufficient? That argument makes no sense and is worthless.

murder is legally defined as the unlawful taking and deprivation of a human life. it doesn't specify your age, time or whether you are a cell or a 90 year old man.

what if human females laid eggs like chickens. and i went around home to home squashing those eggs. i would be charged with murder.

the parents would say i killed their kids.

all humans start out as fertilized eggs. from that first millisecond we start out life and we grow until we are old and die.

you can't cut in and say all that before doesn't count. because it isn't true.

1) 1st sentence: Life is not life if the organism cannot biologically self-sustain itself. Such as a human embryo or fetus, for example.

2) Human women do not lay eggs like chickens. Your "hypotheses" is meaningless. Female chickens and humans do not share the exact same reproductive traits.

3) Yes, all humans start out as fertilized eggs. However, they are not fully developed until they are forced from their mother's womb. The "child" is not biologically self sufficient and could not have survived in the womb without the mother's body & biological processes(or outside the womb, prematurely, without modern technology). Biological self sufficiency is what makes organic life possible. This is not debatable.

99% of all babies born before the mid 20th century will die if they are exceptionally premature. In fact, abortion techniques have been used in history since at least the late Roman Republic, using harvested hair of animals, to absorb the blood in the procedures to reduce the chance of death of the female.

Abortion would be a non-issue if people would mind their own personal business. What a couple or single expectant mother does in regards to her pregnancy is of no concern of anyone whatsoever. It galls me that there are people in this world that are so ardently self-righteous that they will involve themselves in the personal affairs of others without invitation nor consent, whether they are wanted or not. Frankly, anti-abortionists disgust me.

Anyone who has read Bob Monroe or Thomas Campbell books will realize this is all just a simulation for experience and our containers house a 'soul' or consciousness that is not naturally part of this physical universe(simulation). The body probably doesn't even receive the soul until birth or even sometime after. Even if the soul entered and you were aborted, you'll simply get another chance. All the chances you want until you are sick and tired of being human.
Abortion would be a non issue if only everyone realized these things. We're all just in a dream, playing a game, but a game with purpose, learning and experiences to grow from. Once your body is gone you'll wake up and this physical life will begin to fade from your memory like dreams do in this life. On to the next experience...

reply to post by Serizawa

Originally posted by Serizawa
I seem to have found a very very interesting article here:

Jane Roe is now Anti-abortion

Once an abortion-rights supporter, the 50-year-old McCorvey (Jane Roe) has switched sides: She's now a vocal anti-abortion activist. She has started a ministry called Roe No More to fight against abortion rights with the aim of creating a mobile counseling center for pregnant women in Dallas.

The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which handed down its controversial ruling on January 22, 1973. The decision legalized the right to an abortion in all 50 states and sparked a political debate that remains charged to this day.

However, McCorvey, who was 21 when the case was filed and was on her third pregnancy, never had an abortion and gave birth to a girl, who was given up for adoption.

Source -CNN
It goes on to say: McCorvey went public with her identity in the 1980s and wrote a book about her life titled "I Am Roe: My Life, Roe v. Wade, and Freedom of Choice."

In the book, McCorvey, a ninth-grade dropout, describes a tough life, explaining that she suffered physical and emotional abuse as a child, spent some time in reform school in Gainesville, Texas, and was raped as a teenager. A husband whom she married at age 16 later beat her. She also tells of her alcohol and drug abuse, and experiences with lovers of both sexes.

Her first child, Melissa, was raised by her mother; her second child was raised by the father, and the couple agreed that McCorvey would never contact her.

She seems to have had a very "responsible" lifestyle.

I truly do not see how this one example exemplifies any abortionist stance. Roe had a moral change of heart. I applaud her for her tenacity. However, this fact does not change the views of millions of women throughout the USA that are willing to abort their unborn child. This one is merely publicized and has no bearing on the decisions of any other woman in this country(unless, of course, they believe as Wade currently believes).

It all depends on one's point of view.

Without getting all philosophical about the God, the soul, does a fetus have a soul, etc etc...

Sometimes it's in the best interest of the woman (or both parents) to get an abortion. For example, in countries where they do not have easy access to birth control (something we take for granted here in the US) I would have to say having the choice of abortion can mean the difference between a baby growing up and having a good life, to growing up in utter poverty and having to eventually live a life of crime.

Read: Freakonomics.

Easy to just say "well then you shouldn't be having sex." Yea, easier said than done. Oh yea, also condoms do break. Accidents do happen, and unplanned pregnancies can be devastating to a young woman or couple in financial stress.

If I got a woman pregnant, I would be at a total loss as to HOW I'm going to care for that baby. I can barely support myself while I'm going to school right now. Quit school and "get a job" obviously is the answer, but really, that's also easier said than done especially in today's economy.

Sometimes responsibility comes AFTER the fact. Accidentally got a girl prego? Can't care for her and the baby? Maybe the both of you should sit down and consider abortion as the RESPONSIBLE thing to do, instead of bringing another child into a life of poverty, barely able to give them the necessities of everyday life, leeching off the government programs like WIC, Welfare, etc.

"Murderer!" Better than watching my kid grow up in the poorest neighborhood in East LA, where he is bound to become a gang member because I'm too broke to move out of the ghetto and give him a better life, since I had to drop out of school and get a POS dead end construction job, working almost part time because our economy sucks. Where she is bound to end up pregnant at the age of 15 by some 23 year old Cholo/felon who just got out of prison, now perpetuating this cycle of irresponsible child raising.

Some of us should not be breeding. And well, accidents happen. Don't let our society eventually pay for those mistakes. Nip it in the bud, before it's too late. Or at least have the freedom of CHOOSING.

That's what America's all about, right? Freedom.

I look back at my own mother and think...damn, life must have been really hard being 21 with 2 kids, living in hotels, not being able to feed herself because she had to feed me and my sister, doing anything she could to keep us alive. Am I grateful? I don't know. I had no choice really. I didn't choose to be born. It just happened, and I've suffered greatly in my life because of financial instability, to say the least.

If she had aborted us, her life might be different and better. Or not. I'm not God so I can't tell you that. I can only speculate. We should not play God and take away the choice of abortion.

reply to post by My_Reality


I posted this for the purpose of the argument with the OP as this is one of the most famous abortion cases and has been refereed to several times in the thread. It just proves that even the woman responsible for the legalization of abortion now regrets her previous lifestyle and admits she was not responsible at all and rather selfish.

reply to post by My_Reality

Abortion would be a non-issue if people would mind their own personal business. What a couple or single expectant mother does in regards to her pregnancy is of no concern of anyone whatsoever. It galls me that there are people in this world that are so ardently self-righteous that they will involve themselves in the personal affairs of others without invitation nor consent, whether they are wanted or not. Frankly, anti-abortionists disgust me.

Why is it personal? It is not womans PERSONAL business when another person is killed or negatively affected, namely her child. It is interpersonal, "public" issue (for the lack of a beter word..). I do not think woman (or anyone) should have a right to do everything with her body, not when it harms others without it being self-defense. And I am not an anti-abortionist, I just disagree with this justification. Frankly, people who condone harming or killing a developed sentient fetus because of some "rights" of a mother disgust me, so the feeling is mutual.

reply to post by Gorman91

What a great attitude to show to our first contact with space mushrooms. What you speak of is from a human biased standpoint.

Why should we not eat unsentient space mushrooms, if they are as tasty as those on Earth? If they are sentient aliens based on mushroom biology, we should not eat them of course.

I am speaking from a sentient life biased standpoint. Anti-abortionists speak from a human biased stadpoint.

reply to post by Maslo


Sorry, I speak from a scientific species based standpoint. It's illogical to kill yourself.

reply to post by Maslo

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by My_Reality

 

Abortion would be a non-issue if people would mind their own personal business. What a couple or single expectant mother does in regards to her pregnancy is of no concern of anyone whatsoever. It galls me that there are people in this world that are so ardently self-righteous that they will involve themselves in the personal affairs of others without invitation nor consent, whether they are wanted or not. Frankly, anti-abortionists disgust me.

Why is it personal? It is not womans PERSONAL business when another person is killed or negatively affected, namely her child. It is interpersonal, "public" issue (for the lack of a beter word..). I do not think woman (or anyone) should have a right to do everything with her body, not when it harms others without it being self-defense. And I am not an anti-abortionist, I just disagree with this justification. Frankly, people who condone harming or killing a developed sentient fetus because of some "rights" of a mother disgust me, so the feeling is mutual.

edit on 26/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

edit on 26/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

Obviously, you have not read my previous posts regarding this subject(I can only assume). I have stated that I do not believe that an embryo or fetus is "alive" and I have mentioned many times my reasons for believing so. Biological self-sufficiency. I will not rehash my older posts here. Well, I guess I will, briefly. You say that harming a developed or sentient fetus is wrong(disgusts you to be exact). In retort, I say, as I have said in every response in this thread, that an embryo/fetus is not biologically self sufficient. The mother has every right to decide the fate of a being that solely relies on the mother's existence for it's own. This is not a moral or ethical issue. This is solely in the realm of personal choice. While father's do not have the level of choice in this matter that I believe they should, it is a matter of personal choice for the woman regardless of any outside parties moral beliefs or interference. Look towards my earlier posts and you will(I hope) understand why I do not consider embryo or fetus living organisms(OK, I will spare you the trouble--they are not biologically self sufficient and thus cannot sustain their own life).

For the sake of the Cosmos, let the expectant mother and father decide the fate of their creation.

reply to post by byteshertz


Yeah, I agree absolutely. Well done thread as far as I am concerned. My stance is the couple has to decide it together, but ultimately it's the mother's sole decision to make, because it is her body and she will have to live with the decision and possible problems arising from that.

reply to post by Gorman91


You probably not meant killing yourself, but others from your own kind..

Its not illogical, there are many situations where sacrificing some of your own kind happens in nature for the betterment of the whole population, because sometimes its evolutionary advantageous to do so (otherwise behaviour like this will not develop in nature), for example when resources are constrained (which is like abortion from economic reasons, only after birth).

There is no doubt that from logical, or evolutionary standpoint availability of abortion is overall beneficial for the human race, it prevents local overpopulation (family having more kids than it can sustain with good quality of life because of inability of abortion is in essence local micro-overpopulation, which is harmful to the species), not even talking about huge benefit embryonic stem cell therapy could pose for the human race.

You can only argue that its immoral. But then you must justify why your version of morality that says its never acceptable is better than my version of morality, which says that its acceptable, till they are not sentient.

reply to post by My_Reality

Look towards my earlier posts and you will(I hope) understand why I do not consider embryo or fetus living organisms(OK, I will spare you the trouble--they are not biologically self sufficient and thus cannot sustain their own life).

Fetuses are not biologically self-sufficient, but they are living organisms. Living organisms do not need to be self-sufficient, symbiotic and parasitic organisms are alive, too. I also fail to see why biologicaly non-self-sufficient sentient organisms should not be protected from being killed by their host, except in cases when the host is endangered.

For the sake of the Cosmos, let the expectant mother and father decide the fate of their creation.

No. For the sake of the Cosmos, do not let the expectant mother and father kill or damage their offspring.

I spent a year studtying this in some depth as part of law studies..... without getting into too much detail, my basic conclusion that I found for my own thoughts were based around the concept of the foetus/child being "viable" or not. Most law is framed around whether the child is capable of surviving on its own or whether it is biologically dependent on the mother.

My conclusion from that is that is a wrongheaded way of looking at the issue: It is philosophical sophistry, because a child born and living outside the mother is not capable of living independently either. It is dependent upon the mother (or some other person, but that is irrelevant) for life. A child will not live if it is abandoned. It cannot feed itself, nor protect itself, nor move, etc. Yet a newborn canot be killed, and pro-choice advocates (normally) agree with this.

The distinction sounds all good and is used as a legal fiction to discuss the issue. But to me, it looks like nothing more than a useful legal fiction.

Cheers.

Rob.

reply to post by Serizawa

Originally posted by Serizawa
reply to post by My_Reality

 

I posted this for the purpose of the argument with the OP as this is one of the most famous abortion cases and has been refereed to several times in the thread. It just proves that even the woman responsible for the legalization of abortion now regrets her previous lifestyle and admits she was not responsible at all and rather selfish.

Very well. I can understand your reasons for posting and I hope I can understand Roe's feelings in this abortion matter. However, her point of view does not coincide with every female in the USA. I am merely trying to have people experience for a moment the situation from the point of view of the woman(and the expectant father if that is applicable). While Roe regrets her past actions it is not the master adjudicator on all things regarding abortion. It is very likely that if Roe's case did not exist another woman might have pursued a judicial ruling. For arguments sake, let's say that the Roe case did not exist. I am sure that there would be many women(and men) who would support abortion.

I don't think abortion is right nor wrong. I think it is a personal choice involving the individuals - man or woman(hopefully both expectant parents) - that decide what they will do about a pregnancy. I much prefer adoption or personally raising the child. I will not, however, interfere with the choices of a woman who decides to abort her pregnancy. Ultimately, it is not my affair and what the woman decides to do is completely in her power.

reply to post by Maslo

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by My_Reality

 

Look towards my earlier posts and you will(I hope) understand why I do not consider embryo or fetus living organisms(OK, I will spare you the trouble--they are not biologically self sufficient and thus cannot sustain their own life).

Fetuses are not biologically self-sufficient, but they are living organisms. Living organisms do not need to be self-sufficient, symbiotic and parasitic organisms are alive, too. I also fail to see why biologicaly non-self-sufficient sentient organisms should not be protected from being killed by their host, except in cases when the host is endangered.

For the sake of the Cosmos, let the expectant mother and father decide the fate of their creation.

No. For the sake of the Cosmos, do not let the expectant mother and father kill or damage their offspring.

edit on 26/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I'm sorry but I do not understand your logic in this regard. How can an organism that is not biologically self sufficient survive? Symbiotic and Parasitic organisms achieve self sufficiency by invading, attaching, merging, or another similar term science could describe. Parasitic organisms sustain their life through the biological processes of their host. I see no conflict here. They have evolved to do this. Symbiotic organisms are similar to the parasites but, are generally more benign. I have had a symbiotic fungus growth under one of my armpits for years. I do not feel any ill effects and the fungus lives as happily as ever. In both cases, biological self sufficiency is met. These types of organisms meet these requirements in forms that human beings consider alien but they are self sufficient nonetheless.

Also I am not directly saying that biologically non self sufficient embryo or fetus should be terminated regardless of circumstance. I am simply defending a woman's right to perform that procedure if that woman feels it is necessary. The ultimate choice will always reside with the woman that has to make this horrible personal decision. Who are we to judge these women when we are not in their personal spheres of influence? There could be(and probably are) a multitude of things that these women have to consider and live with before and after the fact when the decision to abort is made. NO ONE can put themselves in their proverbial shoes, including me.

Leave these women in peace.

reply to post by Maslo


Yea. We're not those species. We're human. I don't believe in morals, so I won't say it's immoral. It's simply retarded.

The fundamental rights to man mean you have no right to say the life of another is to end or not. It's basic freedoms. Failure to understand that is just plain, no offense, retarded on your behalf.

You want to go commit suicide that's your choice. Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own.. Species are defined by their genes. Ergo, tough luck.

reply to post by Gorman91

Yea. We're not those species. We're human. I don't believe in morals, so I won't say it's immoral. It's simply retarded.

The only significant way we differ from them is that we have better brainz, leading to better technology and complicated societal interactions which gave rise to such things as morality and laws based on it.

Retarded in what sense? Illogical from human species evolutionary standpoint? If genociding half of human race in gas chambers would somehow give us for example the ability of practical space interstellar travel, or clean free energy, it would be perfectly logical to do it and very beneficial for the human race in the long run, thus, not retarded.

It would just not be moral.

The fundamental rights to man mean you have no right to say the life of another is to end or not. It's basic freedoms. Your choices end where another human being is, so long their existence does not endanger your own..

This is a statement about morality.