This is appalling....and nauseating..and back to appalling

I have a 20 year old nephew who could have easily never seen a minute of life on this earth. His 17 year old mother was raped. She could have easily gotten an abortion and no one would have faulted her because of the rape. But she bravely carried the baby to full term and then instructed the doctor to hand the just-born infant to my sister. My sister was blessed by this girl with a son. There are so many people who desperately want a child. So if you don't want your baby, please don't murder him or her. Let someone who will love to become a mom or dad have the baby. I know my family will always remember this girl and be thankful for her generosity and bravery for choosing life.

Mind Runner wrote:

There are so many people who desperately want a child. So if you don't want your baby, please don't murder him or her. Let someone who will love to become a mom or dad have the baby. I know my family will always remember this girl and be thankful for her generosity and bravery for choosing life.

this is apparently much more true that I would have thought. it seems adopting a baby is incredibly difficult for most couples, and there is plenty of demand.

another average american wrote:

I'm not sure why (if you're referring to my post where I took the "abortion is murder" logic to its logical conclusion). The absolute only reason abortion would be outlawed is if it is considered murdering a baby. If aborting a fetus from careless sex = murdering a baby from careless sex, aborting a fetus resulting from rape = murdering a baby resulting from rape, which we would never condone. I'm not sure where my logic is faulty here.

So I'm actually not quite sure what you're arguing. Are you saying that abortion is not murder in general? Or that it is murder when performed on a fetus resulting from careless sex but it is not murder when performed on a fetus resulting from rape? It's an honest question...I just don't understand.

Killing is not the same thing as murder. Murder is unacceptable killing; certain kinds of killing have been deemed acceptable for various reasons. It is an illogical jump to assume that if any abortions are murder all abortions must be murder. That is not necessarily the case. It is not necessarily inconsistent to deem it inappropriate to abort a fetus in some situations but not others.

Shooting a random person on the street for no reason and shooting a person as part of a state-sanctioned firing squad the same action, but only one is considered murder.

The fact that an abortion after rape and an abortion after casual sex have the same result (killing the fetus) does not mean they must be treated the same way. That being said, there are a lot of issues with treating a post-rape abortion differently, both practical and ideological; it really isn't a realistic option.

The last part was a joke in response to your "And I am a woman" comment.

Yes, it sure does take two. And when the woman is pregnant it only takes one. One person gets to decide what the course of the pregnancy will be: carry to term or abort. And that one person is never the man.

pettygrove AC wrote:

Yes, it sure does take two. And when the woman is pregnant it only takes one. One person gets to decide what the course of the pregnancy will be: carry to term or abort. And that one person is never the man.

You better be careful sweet heart, a little bit more talk like that and some man is going to have to put you in your place. And by the way, that place is in the kitchen in front of the stove, cooking, with your mouth shut and your man making all your decisions for you, because clearly, though you think you are smart enough, you are not smart enough to make critical decisions. So pipe down Alice and get back to cooking and making babies like a good girl.

I'd like to know why this story hasn't been screaming across the headlines of mainstream news...

How adorable and quaint. Made me laugh.

craclking wrote:

another average american wrote:

I do not believe that a fetus is necessarily alive.

we should let people with your obvious level of scientific prowess make our policy decisions.

!!!

Okay, come up with a more accurate statement that can be used to make policy decisions.

My point is that we can't pinpoint where life begins: I think abortion the day before the due date is horribly wrong, and outlawing abortion of a blastula is horribly wrong.

This simply can't be solved in a scientific realm, or in a moral realm (I consider myself a very moral person and would never think of killing a live baby), so any policy decisions are going to botched attempts to handle the reality of this impossibility.

eeaaww wrote:

Shooting a random person on the street for no reason and shooting a person as part of a state-sanctioned firing squad the same action, but only one is considered murder.

The fact that an abortion after rape and an abortion after casual sex have the same result (killing the fetus) does not mean they must be treated the same way. That being said, there are a lot of issues with treating a post-rape abortion differently, both practical and ideological; it really isn't a realistic option.

The last part was a joke in response to your "And I am a woman" comment.

Your idea that not all killings are murders is correct, but I think it's important to look at what differentiates murders from non-murders.

The difference between the two situations in your example is the conduct of the person who is to be killed. For a lethal injection not to be considered murder, the convict to be killed must have done something so terribly wrong that the state would sanction such a drastic punishment.

The reason it is considered murder if you shoot a random person on the street for no reason is because that person is innocent; that person didn't do anything wrong.

So in our society, it is considered murder if you kill an innocent person. The previous actions and intent of the person killed is the defining characteristic of murder.

The argument against abortion is that the fetus is an innocent person. The fetus is an innocent person regardless of how it was conceived. Hence, any killing of the fetus, regardless of how it was conceived, is murder.

If this is incorrect, if you believe abortions are only to be allowed in cases of rape, you must consider non-rape abortions something other than the murder of an innocent child.

The only fway I can see your argument as consistent is if you said that abortions should only be allowed in the event that the fetus is posing a threat to the mother's life or health. That is the only condition I can see that the fetus could possibly not be considered innocent to people who think regular abortion is murder.

I know you were joking with the "obvious you're a woman" comment, but I think being a woman does have an impact on this debate. I'm not one of those people who thinks men shouldn't be involved in making abortion policy, and I'm not one of those "laws off my body" militant feminists. I was having a discussion on abortion with a friend the other day and I like to approach difficult issues, like abortion, as logically as I can. But after the discussion, for the first time ever, I just made myself ignore all the rational policy arguments and imagine myself hypothetically in this country where abortion was outlawed. Imagine myself in a position where I was raped, or had some other pregnancy complication, and I did. not. have. any. choice. but to carry that pregnancy to term. And was very surprised that it actually made me slightly nauseated. In a way that I'm not sure men can ever fully understand or imagine, for obvious reasons. It absolutely doesn't mean men shouldn't be a part of this discussion and policy-making, but it was a huge thing for me. I consider myself very responsible, would never become pregnant unintentionally, would never have a late-term abortion, but imagining myself in a situation, not of my own doing, where I did not have any rights to decide the future of my body or the fetus, was frightening to me. There are plenty of women who are anti-abortion as well, so I don't mean to say that the pro-choice position has the market cornered on women either, but that it means something fundamentally different to men and women, to an extent that I didn't fully realize earlier.

Great post another average american. I personally think that abortion is wrong, but just because it's wrong doesn't mean it should be outlawed. When trying to reach a conclusion on a nebulous moral issue like abortion, you need to look at the consequences involved in both policies. For instance, if Roe v. Wade is overturned and abortion is completely outlawed, you need to look at the amount of human pain and suffering (economically and emotionally) this decision will render. You also have to ask yourself if this outlaw will achieve its purpose (will the abortion rate drop precipitously, or will women simply engage in much more dangerous procedures that will result in even more death than if abortion was allowed in any circumstances at all). So while one policy might be morally wrong, it still could be the most morally right given the alternatives.

I believe most states have decided that abortions are legal (not necessarily morally right) up until around 5 or 6 months of fetal development, and I think that is a threshold that makes sense. I think this is a healthy compromise that maximizes the greater good in a bad situation. Abortion is a very emotional issue, but it's best to analyze it from the standpoint of making a decision that will minimize human suffering.

Mrs. M wrote:

I'd like to know why this story hasn't been screaming across the headlines of mainstream news...

It was on the front page of

yesterday (at the top under "Latest News").

Stories don't stay there long.

Beautifully put. Well done.

The big problem with the abortion debate is that so often is cashed out in terms of appeals to first principles instead of the actual consequences of policy decision.

cold-hearted wrote:

Except it takes a very cold heart to stab something that is human and kill it.

So I guess what you're saying is that it "feels better" to kill the baby while it's still in the stomach so you don't have to look at it's corpse.

someone else wrote:So I guess what you're saying is that it "feels better" to kill the baby while it's still in the stomach so you don't have to look at it's corpse.

I believe that if a baby is in the stomach, it is already dead.

pettygrove AC wrote:

How adorable and quaint. Made me laugh.

Oh yeah? You liked that hu? Well here is a good one for you:

Why do women not need wrist watches?

Because there is a clock on the stove.

Now quit laughing, and waltz your way back to the kitchen, and let the men have a conversation about a serious subject that you really have no say in dear. Maybe if women could think a little better with out being so emotional or were just smarter/stronger period, then maybe you could have a viable opinion. But you are the weaker sex in so many ways, and you will do what you are told...as soon as the men come to a consensus on this issue we will let you know and then you will do it. Until then, stop pretending as if our current indecisiveness is actually giving you the ability to decide and get back in that kitchen and doing some women's work.

Unsure wrote:

This is not abortion. This is sickening.

Actually, it is abortion... and sickening.

It is also murder.

The activity that this doctor was engaged in is clearly against the law and he should be punished accordingly. What most abortion doctors do is within legal limits and considered a medical procedure by the government. Appeals to emotion are not going to work on me, nor should they work on anyone, in the case of legal abortion. Again, if you truly believe that abortion should be outlawed, you need to demonstrate how this policy will lead to less human suffering than the current policy (hint: it will lead to more human suffering).

deleuze wrote:

someone else wrote:So I guess what you're saying is that it "feels better" to kill the baby while it's still in the stomach so you don't have to look at it's corpse.

I believe that if a baby is in the stomach, it is already dead.

No, it's not "already dead". It hasn't had a chance to live yet. There is a very, very big difference. If you can't see that, then you have no right to discuss this.

someone else wrote:

deleuze wrote:

I believe that if a baby is in the stomach, it is already dead.

No, it's not "already dead". It hasn't had a chance to live yet. There is a very, very big difference. If you can't see that, then you have no right to discuss this.

psst: any baby that's in the stomach has been eaten.