Abortion: What's The Big Deal?

[Kenny]

View attachment 23694​

Great picture, but both counters are still correct.

BUT GREAT PICTURE!

 

[Rational Agnostic]

This is a very weak pro-choice argument. A better argument is illustrating that an embryo doesn't have nearly the value as a human being that has been born. Assuming that only one or the other could be saved, would all these pro-lifers actually save a box of a thousand viable frozen embryos from a burning building instead of a real child if they were in the same room as a five year old child that was found crying for help and in need of rescue? I sure hope not, but if they would then they are the real moral monsters. Heck, I'd save a dog over a box of frozen embryos no doubt. It's a real, living breathing being that is capable of feeling real sensations and emotion. The "pro-life" camp isn't really about morality or protecting life, it's about trying to control women's choices by playing holier-than-thou and pretending to have a moral high-ground that they really don't have.

 

[Kenny]

The "pro-life" camp isn't really about morality or protecting life, it's about trying to control women's choices by playing holier-than-thou and pretending to have a moral high-ground that they really don't have.

Good Grief, Charlie Brown.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes there is.


You're talking about legal human beings. Abortions don't deal with them. Abortions deal with fetuses, which legally are not human beings. Now you can label fetuses "human beings" all you want, but they still don't qualify.

U.S. Code › Title 1 › Chapter 1 › § 8
1 U.S. Code § 8 - “Person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual” as including born-alive infant

• US Code

prev | next
(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.​

Hmm... then how about this?

1. 150 fetuses die naturally due to pre-birth complications
2. 150 fetuses are killed by the ingestion of a medication put out by a company who did not warn of adverse effects to pregnant women

 

[Quetzal]

The "pro-life" camp isn't really about morality or protecting life, it's about trying to control women's choices by playing holier-than-thou and pretending to have a moral high-ground that they really don't have.

I disagree. I believe many of them (at least the ones I speak with) are genuinely invested in preserving the life of an an unborn person. I understand their position, could you imagine? From their perspective, we have legalized the killing of people. Now, I do not see it this way but we aren't talking about me, we are talking about this group of folks. Let's put ourselves in that position. If you genuinely held the opinion that abortion was the murder of an unborn child, what would you do to stop that?

When you put yourself there, the actions they take start to make sense, right? "Sure, with PP the women lose some healthcare, but it stops the killing of unborn people." When you phrase it like that, sprinkle in some genuine conviction and empathy... well... you see what we see. To them, it is a big deal and I completely understand their position... even though mine is different.

 

[Skwim]

Hmm... then how about this?

1. 150 fetuses die naturally due to pre-birth complications
2. 150 fetuses are killed by the ingestion of a medication put out by a company who did not warn of adverse effects to pregnant women

OR

"Think on the difference between the following two scenarios:


1. 150 fetuses die naturally due to pre-birth complications
2. 150 fetuses are killed by the ingestion of a medication put out by a company who did not warn of adverse effects to pregnant women

Where can you turn to pin the 150 deaths on in the first scenario? Is there actually anything to hold "accountable?"

Yes, nature (or god if you wish), as opposed to conscious human intervention.
But so what?

I think the ideas of accountability and responsibility (two things that it makes no sense to apply to nature or [in my opinion anyway] God) remove the "oomph" from your argument.

But those are the perspectives that are being compared. Can't have a cat fight without at least two cats, or a french kiss without two people. Each is responsible for the termination of pregnancies, their commonality.

.
.

 

[Father Heathen]

Why would a non-Catholic care about what Catholics believe or recommend?

When Catholics try to impose their beliefs upon others via legislation.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Yes, nature (or god if you wish), as opposed to conscious human intervention.
But so what?

So, it means that nothing is "responsible" for your "abortions" caused by nature, that's what. Nothing is even responsible if you blame "God" in my opinion - there's nothing there to blame. And so, framing the 40-70% of fetal deaths that occur naturally as "abortions" doesn't have legs. If "abortion" was just a thing that happened outside of anyone's control THERE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. And I am pretty sure you know this. It renders the point made in your OP moot.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm afraid your pro-life source, CARE NET, has spun the truth. (Who's surprised!)

See HERE what Dr. Brenda Major, really has to say about abortions and there mental after-effects.

Nor is it particularly surprising the the WP would put out an opposing article.
Doesn't really address the concern brought up anyways.

 

[Nakosis]

Not to mention those who later cannot have babies and other effects.

Worst Long Term Effect Of Abortion

Substance abuse is one of the leading worst long term side effect of abortion. In order to feel better after abortion, the drugs are taken even without prescription. A woman's dependence on the substances may lead to drug abuse or addiction.
Physical dangers are also associated with women who had an abortion since they are 2.3 times more at risk of having cervical cancer compared to those who don't have a history. This can lead to hormonal change and unnatural disruption accompanied through pregnancy that also affects the immune system.

Another effect is uterine perforation wherein two to three per cent of women who had an abortion was diagnosed with the case. The damage uterus will require a hysterectomy (uterus removal) which could result in a more severe complications and injuries on their health.

I just know several women who have expressed regrets. It's not questioning their mental health, which is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, they deal with it. Just, they regret having had an abortion. The recklessness of youth. I can understand the overwhelming idea of taking responsibility for a baby. Then later realizing they lost something.

 

[Kenny]

I just know several women who have expressed regrets. It's not questioning their mental health, which is a red herring as far as I'm concerned, they deal with it. Just, they regret having had an abortion. The recklessness of youth. I can understand the overwhelming idea of taking responsibility for a baby. Then later realizing they lost something.

All I did was quote a scientific comment.

Certainly it is a lot more complex than what we are glossing over thus my statement that if someone has gone through it, we must help with love, care, respect etc.

 

[siti]

So, it means that nothing is "responsible" for your "abortions" caused by nature, that's what. Nothing is even responsible if you blame "God" in my opinion - there's nothing there to blame. And so, framing the 40-70% of fetal deaths that occur naturally as "abortions" doesn't have legs. If "abortion" was just a thing that happened outside of anyone's control THERE WOULDN'T EVEN BE A DEBATE ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. And I am pretty sure you know this. It renders the point made in your OP moot.

But not moot - presumably - from a Roman Catholic point of view since God is certainly not "nothing" to them. I think the mistake in the OP's argument was to invoke "nature" rather than sticking explicitly to "God"-based arguments. The only way for a Christian to get out of the paradox of a "God"-based pro-life argument is to claim that "God knows best" and therefore when "He" ("He" mind you) chooses to abort a human life that "He" put there in the first place, "He" must have a good reason that is known only to "Him". Its really not that convincing when you put it in a "God" context. Even less so when its handed down by some old geezer in a frock who was forbidden to have kids anyway!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Why would a non-Catholic care about what Catholics believe or recommend?

Because all-too-often the Church has a nasty habit of forcing its doctrines & beliefs on non-Catholics.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Some of what I've posted below I posted in another thread; however, because I don't believe it will get the readership I think it deserves I'm re-posting it here.

So often we hear strident denunciations of abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaking to the fifth commandment, "You shall not kill," says,

"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion."
source
​

And even outside religion we hear denunciations that abortion is "the unnecessary taking of a human life" and so forth. And this is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; however, lets put abortion, legal abortion, in perspective.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "in 2003 it reported that 26% of reported legal induced abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 18% at 9 through 10 weeks, 9.7% at 11 through 12 weeks, 6.2% at 13 through 15 weeks,. Put into a more easily read format we see that:

......period........% in that period....cumulative %

within 6 weeks..........26%...............26% (26% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 6 weeks)
..."......7....."................18%...............44% (44% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 7 weeks)
..."......8....."................15%...............59% (and so on)
..."....10....."................18%...............77%
..."....12....."................9.7%...........86.7%
..."....15....."................6.2%...........92.9%
source​

So, the vast majority, 93%, of all legal abortions are performed within the first 15 weeks. Sound pretty bad? Well take a look at what nature does.

"Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks. [note that 87% of legal abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks]

This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
source​

So if one is looking at conception, as the Catholic Church does, as the division between human life and not human life

‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’;
source​

nature is "aborting" 40% (10% + 30%) to 70% (20% + 50%) of all human lives. Whereas, legal abortions only account for 19%.

"19 percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in 2014 ended in abortion."
source
​

That's a huge difference. Nature is "aborting" 40%-70% of all possible human births, whereas legal abortions only account for 19%. And if one only looks at miscarriages (not those instances where the fertilized egg fails to implant) which is 10-20%, legal abortions (19% of pregnancies) and miscarriages are both in the same ball park. So, the "killing of humans" is pretty much the same whether it's done by elective abortions or nature, OR vastly greater in nature's case if one use the Catholic definition of the beginning of life.

Then there's the matter of the human psychological factor. Whereas miscarriages often instill significant grief in parent(s), elected abortions are welcomed events, or at least greeted with relief. The regret that accompanies a miscarriage is seldom seen with abortions.


So this is my case for putting elected abortions into perspective. If one feels that any abortion, whether it's natural or elected is bad, then I would expect the same kind of condemnation of nature (god) for allowing it to happen as one would for elected abortions.


.

Pre-borns are people made in the image of God That's a big deal

Pre-borns have memories, they play, they respond to music.... they don't vote so are politically expendable in some views? that's sad

 

[siti]

Pre-borns are people made in the image of God That's a big deal

OK - so why does God terminate between 40% and 70% of them before birth? And then - without modern medical intervention - a fairly significant proportion of the ones that do make it to the emergency exit shortly thereafter?

 

[Ellen Brown]

Some of what I've posted below I posted in another thread; however, because I don't believe it will get the readership I think it deserves I'm re-posting it here.

So often we hear strident denunciations of abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaking to the fifth commandment, "You shall not kill," says,

"2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion."
source
​

And even outside religion we hear denunciations that abortion is "the unnecessary taking of a human life" and so forth. And this is fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion; however, lets put abortion, legal abortion, in perspective.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) "in 2003 it reported that 26% of reported legal induced abortions in the United States were known to have been obtained at less than 6 weeks' gestation, 18% at 7 weeks, 15% at 8 weeks, 18% at 9 through 10 weeks, 9.7% at 11 through 12 weeks, 6.2% at 13 through 15 weeks,. Put into a more easily read format we see that:

......period........% in that period....cumulative %

within 6 weeks..........26%...............26% (26% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 6 weeks)
..."......7....."................18%...............44% (44% of all legal abortions are performed within the first 7 weeks)
..."......8....."................15%...............59% (and so on)
..."....10....."................18%...............77%
..."....12....."................9.7%...........86.7%
..."....15....."................6.2%...........92.9%
source​

So, the vast majority, 93%, of all legal abortions are performed within the first 15 weeks. Sound pretty bad? Well take a look at what nature does.

"Miscarriage is the loss of a pregnancy in the first 20 weeks. (In medical articles, you may see the term "spontaneous abortion" used in place of miscarriage.) About 10 to 20 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and more than 80 percent of these losses happen before 12 weeks. [note that 87% of legal abortions are performed in the first 12 weeks]

This doesn't include situations in which you lose a fertilized egg before a pregnancy becomes established. Studies have found that 30 to 50 percent of fertilized eggs are lost before or during the process of implantation – often so early that a woman goes on to get her period at about the expected time.
source​

So if one is looking at conception, as the Catholic Church does, as the division between human life and not human life

‘‘Human development begins at fertilization when a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoon) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to produce a single cell, a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual’’;
source​

nature is "aborting" 40% (10% + 30%) to 70% (20% + 50%) of all human lives. Whereas, legal abortions only account for 19%.

"19 percent of pregnancies (excluding miscarriages) in 2014 ended in abortion."
source
​

That's a huge difference. Nature is "aborting" 40%-70% of all possible human births, whereas legal abortions only account for 19%. And if one only looks at miscarriages (not those instances where the fertilized egg fails to implant) which is 10-20%, legal abortions (19% of pregnancies) and miscarriages are both in the same ball park. So, the "killing of humans" is pretty much the same whether it's done by elective abortions or nature, OR vastly greater in nature's case if one use the Catholic definition of the beginning of life.

Then there's the matter of the human psychological factor. Whereas miscarriages often instill significant grief in parent(s), elected abortions are welcomed events, or at least greeted with relief. The regret that accompanies a miscarriage is seldom seen with abortions.


So this is my case for putting elected abortions into perspective. If one feels that any abortion, whether it's natural or elected is bad, then I would expect the same kind of condemnation of nature (god) for allowing it to happen as one would for elected abortions.


.

I like the research you have done on this subject.

I'm still conflicted on the subject, oh just because. I would most certainly say that it should be done before 20 weeks. I've been closely associated with someone who did a couple "late term", and declined to be involved after that. The nurse said that breaking the fetus up and vacuuming it out was so horrific. The clincher for her was when the "Doc" pulled a little arm, hand and fingers out.

Then there is what the Bible says: Jer 1:5 "Before ye were yet in the womb, I knew you." So there is that argument. I think that only those who will face that situation should have a say in it.

 

[Dell]

Most all abortions are simply undesired pregnancies by people who lack the moral concept of being responsible for their sexual behavior. There are few exceptions. Justifying it by comparing it to nature and tragedy is irrelevant. Its is killing a human no matter how its spun. Thinking "prolife" is a religious right attitude would be wrong, there are many of us Atheist like Christopher Hitchens that believe abortion is a wrong choice.

 

[Sanzbir]

And I never said either was good. I'm simply putting abortion in perspective. It and nature do the same thing, so if you're going to condemn those having elected abortions then I would expect a person to condemn nature (god).

Oh, then I'm just putting drownings into perspective. If people condemn me for my drowning murders, then they better be equally mad at rivers for flooding!!

Because most people realize that nature isn't an anthroporphized thing, and realize there's no point in getting angry at natural disaster deaths, but will still get mad at a person doing the same thing that nature does in many other contexts.

What?? You saw how bad the California wildfires were this year, why are you so mad at me for burning down your house?? Why aren't you equally mad at droughts?!

It's just observably absurd for any issue other than abortion, so I doubt you'll make any headway trying to sway people with a logical fallacy. Your whole argument is an appeal to nature fallacy. There's much better ways out there to argue a pro-choice position.

 

[ecco]

So often we hear strident denunciations of abortion. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaking to the fifth commandment, "You shall not kill," says,
So this is my case for putting elected abortions into perspective. If one feels that any abortion, whether it's natural or elected is bad, then I would expect the same kind of condemnation of nature (god) for allowing it to happen as one would for elected abortions.
.

Excellent post.

I'd like to add a few points.

Every nation, large and small, since the beginning of civilization has laws. The laws are a reflection of the makeup of the society or, at least, the ruling entities.

In many Countries laws are based on religious beliefs. Even where they are not officially religious based laws, religious views are often taken into account.

We (USA) do not live in a theocracy. We are, officially, a secular society. In 1973 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a ruling on the matter of abortion.

Those who have taken the time to actually read the ruling know that the Court took into consideration many different views. They evaluated secular history, they evaluated religious history.

From the actual ruling

FindLaw's United States Supreme Court case and opinions.

...medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man's attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.

It should be sufficient to note briefly the wide divergence of thinking on this most sensitive and difficult question. There has always been strong support for the view that life does not begin until live birth. This was the belief of the Stoics. 56 It appears to be the predominant, though not the unanimous, attitude of the Jewish faith. 57 It may be taken to represent also the position of a large segment of the Protestant community,
...
common law found greater significance in quickening. ...The Aristotelian theory of "mediate animation," that held sway throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe, continued to be official Roman Catholic dogma until the 19th century
​

We live, at least for now, in a secular society, not a theocracy. To those in the anti-abortion camp, I would just say that your views were taken into consideration.

 

[ecco]

Pre-borns are people made in the image of God That's a big deal

Pre-borns have memories, they play, they respond to music....

When you use the term "pre-born" are you referring to zygotes, embryos or fetuses? If you say all of them, I would point out that your comments do not apply.

Furthermore, I doubt that there is any validity to your comment that zygotes (a diploid cell resulting from the fusion of two haploid gametes) are in the image of God.