Question to Pro-Forced-Childbirth lobby

[The Terrible Sweal]

I have a question for those of you advocating legal prohibitions on abortion. When you envision enacting whatever laws you imagine, how do you see it playing out at the end of the line, where there is a woman, defiant, determined not to have a child. Will she be strapped to a bed, fed intravenously, attended by State doctors as her body is forced into the service of someone elses needs?

Are these the 'consequences' you are so keen to have 'irresponsible' women 'face'?

If not, what the heck do you think you're talking about?

[belfred]

TheTerrible Sweal :-

Obviously you were fortunate enough to make it 'into the world' . The choice made, favoured your entrance, and mine for that matter. Myself, and those who would agree, would like to see more of the of "let live choices" . Does that prospect offend you or your lifestyle?

Your opinions are important to me and I suspect others with interest in this very often vilified subject.

[Black Dog]

Obviously you were fortunate enough to make it 'into the world' . The choice made, favoured your entrance, and mine for that matter. Myself, and those who would agree, would like to see more of the of "let live choices" . Does that prospect offend you or your lifestyle?

Only if you're trying to turn your preferred choice into the only choice available.

[belfred]

black dog;

I don't believe my message was unclear. I am asking women of choice , especially those with child, to make a decision permitting the delivery of this bundle of love.

You know as well as I , my asking is the only course available to me, in my attempts to persuade pregnant women to deliver their unwanted babies into the arms of loving but unproductive parents.

Would you have readers believe this adoption option is, in some way 'evil' or injurious to the delivery mother? Please share more of your thoughts in this regard.

[August1991]

Obviously you were fortunate enough to make it 'into the world' . The choice made, favoured your entrance, and mine for that matter.

This argument legitimizes rape. "He was walking down the street and decided that if he didn't have sex with the woman, a child would not be born." By avoiding rape, did he commit murder?

The question of when life is created involves the question of free will, a bugbear, for some reason, of "religious" people.

[belfred]

august1991:

Your best opinion hardly confers advantage or preference. Your quote fails to address my point , if in fact that was ever your intention. Your effort to turn aside my care for this delicate subject, speaks clearly to your own distress or unhappiness.

It's certainly was not my intention to inflict more grief through my remarks.

[KrustyKidd]

Your opinions are important to me and I suspect others with interest in this very often vilified subject.

Actually, he was asking for your opinion and you answered by dancing around the question and pretending that he is out of whack in some way shape or form. The question was pretty simple, a legal one. What, if sucessful will Pro Life people do to women who absolutely refuse to care or provide in any way for the baby they would then be legaly bound to provide and care for? What extent are Pro Life people willing to go?

If you are Pro Life and feel that this question addresses an issue you have then you should respond to it and bring forth more discussion. Instead, you dance around it.

The choice made, favoured your entrance, and mine for that matter. Myself, and those who would agree, would like to see more of the of "let live choices" . Does that prospect offend you or your lifestyle?

Nope. Would like to know if you are of the opinion that abortion should be illegal, how, if sucessful, you plan to implement it during pregancy in order to stop a woman determined to end the pregnacy in whatever way she can. That's the question, not how many Jeffery Dahlmers, Platos or Hitlers you can save.

It's an interesting question. It revolves around the crux of the main argument. Individual freedom, and of course, when does life begin and an idividual becomes two people.

[belfred]

Krustykidd :-

I'm not a memeber of the legal profession , not one iota

of legal training, advancing you an opinion based on law is not available. I really can't even argue against your assertion the question you pose is developed from law. Now, having given you this assurance please try to understand my save the children appeal.

Women, in pregnancy following sex without consent , learning a horrible distortion rests within their body , or, some other condition they feel the need to terminate , must be given the opportunity to express their innate love of the child. I believe your own evident maturity will authenticate my genuine belief, most women with child would prefer carrying it to term even if they themselves will not raise it.

My earlier post cited examples some women will use to justify arresting the development. You may wish to examine them.

But what if I could convince those who seek to prevent a live birth , something I really believe is inherently repulsive to women in pregnancy, to seriously think about

alternatives.

A cesarean section, is relatively discomfort free, and delivers the joy and love a child naturally brings to all. One visit to a hospital maternity delivery room will affirm this! I'm content in the knowledge that women using this method of delivery are pleased how quickly they return to former physical "attractiveness".

Whether a natural birth or one by cesarean section let the biological mothers rest comfortabley knowing, there are many potential couples waiting to hear the words, a child is born waiting to receive the warmth and love of your care.

This is the single message I wish to convey to all women of choice. Let him or her live so others may enjoy the fruits of your labour. Parents in waiting do not discriminate. The plus or minus features of the child they are about to receive is all predicated on love.

Whether my post satisfys your search for the answers you seek is not the issue here. Imploring women of choice to bring the unwanted into the world is. I sure wish I could count on your help and the help of many others to attain higher success numbers.

It's all about love !

[Hugo]

A cesarean section, is relatively discomfort free

Major invasive surgery is never "discomfort free." A c-section takes a much longer period of recovery than a natural birth and leaves a large scar.

Now, addressing Sweal's original question:

About 1% of abortions are carried out because of rape or incest. It is a fact that an abortion rarely, if ever, excises or relieves the pain and stress of these situations and usually compounds it. However, if a victim has been fully advised of these facts and still fervently desires an abortion it is hard to refuse one.

That leaves women who voluntarily got themselves pregnant. What this means is that a woman who made herself pregnant but does not want to be pregnant simply does not want to face the inevitable consequences of her actions. If you play Russian Roulette, you may blow your head off. If you steal car stereos, you may go to jail. You can't reasonably complain about those consequences either.

If a court found that a woman was guilty of conspiracy to abort, it could take action beforehand. This is much like being charged with conspiracy to commit murder, the crime has not yet been done but sufficient planning of it has been demonstrated to warrant punishment. In this case, a judge could rule that the woman should be imprisoned until she delivers.

And let's not cry a river over these women, either. What we are dealing with is a woman so uncaring and so selfish that she would rather kill an innocent and defenseless human being than be inconvenienced for 9 months because of something she was directly responsible for. This is on the same level as people who murder their spouses for life insurance. It's hard to have much sympathy.

[Cartman]

I would like to know the main reasons why abortion is sought in the first place. I would also like to know if it varies by group membeship b/c I suspect that it is linked to "social capital". I would guess that it is less often a consideration for women residing in wealthy and supportive homes.

The underlying belief often seems to be that uncaring people find this a "quick fix". Though a possibility, I think it is highly unlikely.

I wonder why the debate is always based upon whether or not it should be legal or not. Why is a preventative option so rarely considered?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Now, addressing Sweal's original question:

...women who voluntarily got themselves pregnant ... If a court found that a woman was guilty of conspiracy to abort, it could take action beforehand. ...a judge could rule that the woman should be imprisoned until she delivers. ...

Well there's a clear answer, and I think an almost honest one.

My term, 'pro-forced-childbirth movement' is obviously correct about what 'pro-lifer's' are really about.

I will, however just point out one slight obfuscation. When you say:

-"women who voluntarily got themselves pregnant"

by that you mean:

-'any woman who consented to sex and is pregnant',

Right?

[Hugo]

Correct.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Excellent.

You have no doubt heard the various arguments against your position: birth control failure, changes in circumstances after pregancy begins, health or developmental problems with the fetus or the mother during pregancy, the concept that the concept of liberty requires that women be free to choose even after sex whether they wish to bear a child, the concept that equality requires that one sex no be put in intimate service in a way the other will not be, the point that a fetus is not a fully formed fellow citizen and cannot be counted as a citizen while a woman is, etc. A couple of questions... First, are there any of those you accept or concede? Next, may I ask, do you draw upon religious beliefs or authority as a central element in support of your position?

[Hugo]

Of the arguments you have listed, the only ones I recognise as valid are that where a pregnancy genuinely threatens the life of the mother, or where it is medically incontrovertible that the fetus has no chance of survival anyway, abortion should be an option if the mother chooses, after being informed of the full facts of the procedure. I don't think that any pro-lifers have ever argued any differently.

While my religious beliefs forbid the taking of any life (murder, abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, war) I never have and never will argue against abortion from a religious perspective. It's my belief that the pro-choice standpoint is so fallacious it can be defeated with logic, science and reason.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Alright, I'll take you up on it. I'll pick an argument ... the fetus is not a human, not a citizen, and therefore does not qualify for any particular 'rights', ergo the state has no legitimate basis to over-ride a woman's choice on behalf of such a mere proto-being. What's your answer to that one?

[Hugo]

It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.

Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology.

The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being.

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.

Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.

E.L. Potter, J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant

I have many, many more citations for you, including the expert testimony of American medical leaders in the field of pediatrics and embryology before a US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee in 1981 held to answer the question of when life begins.

Suffice it to say that the scientific community is unanimous that the product of conception, the zygote, is alive and a unique individual.

Now, is it human? What is required to be "human" is genetic membership in the species homo sapiens, and all unborn, from conception onwards, have that membership. To say that the unborn is not human means it is something else, because living organisms have to be members of some species. So if the unborn is not human, you are arguing it is something else: a fish, a chimpanzee perhaps, which it plainly is not.

So, scientifically, it is an established fact that the unborn are living, individual human beings.

[Black Dog]

I don't believe my message was unclear. I am asking women of choice , especially those with child, to make a decision permitting the delivery of this bundle of love.

You know as well as I , my asking is the only course available to me, in my attempts to persuade pregnant women to deliver their unwanted babies into the arms of loving but unproductive parents.

Would you have readers believe this adoption option is, in some way 'evil' or injurious to the delivery mother? Please share more of your thoughts in this regard.

Adoption may an option for some. Not others. Carrying a child for nine months is no mere "inconvienience", despite what those who are unequipped to do so might say. In many cases, enduring pregnancy and giving up a child for adoption can be just as traumatic as an abortion.

[The Terrible Sweal]

It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitutes the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual.

Bradley M. Patten, Human Embryology.

The cell results from fertilization of an oocyte by a sperm and is the beginning of a human being.

Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology.

Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition.

E.L. Potter, J. M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant

...

Suffice it to say that the scientific community is unanimous that the product of conception, the zygote, is alive and a unique individual.

Now, is it human? What is required to be "human" is genetic membership in the species homo sapiens, and all unborn, from conception onwards, have that membership. To say that the unborn is not human means it is something else, because living organisms have to be members of some species. So if the unborn is not human, you are arguing it is something else: a fish, a chimpanzee perhaps, which it plainly is not.

So, scientifically, it is an established fact that the unborn are living, individual human beings.

The opinions of Mssrs. Patten, Moore, Craig and Potter:

-appear to speak chiefly to biological rather than political viewpoints, and so don't seem to respond very directly to the point in issue; and

-are merely the opinions of four people who happen to support your preferences. The don't provide logical support to your argument, the merely provide popular support to your cause.

The remainder of your argument suffers from the former deficiency as well. To say a fetus is a 'human being' because it isn't some other species commits a fallacy of misplaced relevance. Definitions adopted by biological science are not the determinants of political choices.

You say science says that fetus's are of the human species. I say, so what? How does that affect the argument that a woman is a fully formed citizen and a human fetus is not?

[Hugo]

appear to speak chiefly to biological rather than political viewpoints

That's a cop-out if ever I saw one.

are merely the opinions of four people who happen to support your preferences

No, they are the opinions of four internationally recognised experts in the field of embryology. And I have many more including the Senate testimonies I mentioned earlier. If you don't believe me, I'll post them, but you should know by now that if I tell you I can provide proof, I can.

Definitions adopted by biological science are not the determinants of political choices.

Absolutely correct. Science held and holds that Jews, women and blacks were equal human beings. "Political choices", for a long time in a number of states, denied that fact.

How does that affect the argument that a woman is a fully formed citizen and a human fetus is not?

If your argument is that fetuses are not fully formed and so cannot be citizens with the accorded rights, then you have just stripped those born missing limbs or organs of their citizenship and their right to live. Congratulations.

[I miss Reagan]

What I find interesting, and quite hypocritical, is that California is charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn child. This from a liberal pro-abortion state.

[The Terrible Sweal]

appear to speak chiefly to biological rather than political viewpoints

That's a cop-out if ever I saw one.

are merely the opinions of four people who happen to support your preferences

No, they are the opinions of four internationally recognised experts in the field of embryology. And I have many more including the Senate testimonies I mentioned earlier. If you don't believe me, I'll post them, but you should know by now that if I tell you I can provide proof, I can.

Definitions adopted by biological science are not the determinants of political choices.

Absolutely correct. Science held and holds that Jews, women and blacks were equal human beings. "Political choices", for a long time in a number of states, denied that fact.

How does that affect the argument that a woman is a fully formed citizen and a human fetus is not?

If your argument is that fetuses are not fully formed and so cannot be citizens with the accorded rights, then you have just stripped those born missing limbs or organs of their citizenship and their right to live. Congratulations.

Your answer to my second point belied your dismissal of my first point. You can cite me all the embryologists you want, they after we have heard their facts, the politcal/ethical issue still remains to be considered.

Neither does your vile rhetoric advance your arguments. If a fetus is not a person of the same qualtiy as a grown woman, then your position is indefensible. So, we must consider, what makes a person? All people I know have had a birthday. Fetus's haven't. There's one strike against them...

[Hugo]

All people I know have had a birthday. Fetus's haven't. There's one strike against them...

That's cultural. In China, you are considered one year old when born, not zero. What you have argued is an opinion and the Chinese make up a large enough chunk of humanity that you can say it's not even an overwhelmingly popular one.

You can cite me all the embryologists you want, they after we have heard their facts, the politcal/ethical issue still remains to be considered.

Correction: after we have heard their facts, the political/ethical issue of whether or not it is right to kill human beings still remains to be considered. If we accept what they are saying there is no other possible interpretation of abortion.

Neither does your vile rhetoric advance your arguments.

It's not vile rhetoric. It happens to be a fact that "political choices", as you put it, have historically denied personhood to various subgroups of human beings. Abortion is one more such instance.

If a fetus is not a person of the same qualtiy as a grown woman, then your position is indefensible.

Define "quality". Are the mentally handicapped not of the same "quality"? How about the congenitally deformed? Criminals? Gays? Ugly people? Where are you drawing your line that divides humanity?

What I find interesting, and quite hypocritical, is that California is charging Scott Peterson with the murder of his unborn child. This from a liberal pro-abortion state.

There are actually several cases in Canada where an unborn child has been awarded damages and has been granted a right to inherit an estate. I'll dig them up for you if you like. It establishes an odd situation: the unborn has the right to be a plaintiff or property-owner but not the right to live.

[The Terrible Sweal]

All people I know have had a birthday. Fetus's haven't. There's one strike against them...

That's cultural. In China, you are considered one year old when born, not zero. What you have argued is an opinion and the Chinese make up a large enough chunk of humanity that you can say it's not even an overwhelmingly popular one.

Exactly. You say that it's important what biologists define as 'human'. I say it's important what the Chinese define as 'human'. TaDa! We can both play at rhetorical sophistry.

Correction: after we have heard their facts, the political/ethical issue of whether or not it is right to kill human beings still remains to be considered.

That's just begging the question. You haven't yet got over the hurdle of establishing your asserted meaning of 'human being', let alone addressing why such an entity's interests should be allowed to supervene a woman's.

If a fetus is not a person of the same qualtiy as a grown woman, then your position is indefensible.

Define "quality". Are the mentally handicapped not of the same "quality"? How about the congenitally deformed? Criminals? Gays? Ugly people? Where are you drawing your line that divides humanity?

We are examining the logic of your position, remember. Constitutionally, women have a defined quality in terms of their rights; i.e. free, equal individuals. Women are of a known quality in this sense. You, it seems to me, must argue that fetuses are at least of equal quality in this sense. So, go ahead.

[Hugo]

Exactly. You say that it's important what biologists define as 'human'. I say it's important what the Chinese define as 'human'. TaDa! We can both play at rhetorical sophistry.

It strikes me as odd that, when debating the existence of God, you are happy to pull out the testimony of science, but when talking of the humanity of the unborn, scientific testimony is suddenly irrelevant. Can you explain this contradiction?

Expert testimony is admissible in court, but you prefer an ad populum argument. Why?

Constitutionally, women have a defined quality in terms of their rights; i.e. free, equal individuals.

Non sequitur. At one time, constitutions denied rights to blacks, women, Jews etc. Therefore, what is law does not necessarily reflect what is truth, so you are arguing with insufficient evidence.

You haven't yet got over the hurdle of establishing your asserted meaning of 'human being'

I have defined "human being" as a unique individual that belongs to the species homo sapiens. If you do not want to accept that, please tell me why.

[belfred]

Terrible S :-

Both you and Hugo have left the purpose of my post (to save the life of the unborn and the aged) some threads back . Both of you have offered intelligent exchanges. I'm certain at best you'll end up agreeing to disagree.

You must have an element faith in the existence of a Creator, who, is the single source of all life on earth. If not, no amount of scientific data , professional opinions , or the teachings of scholastic theology, will alter your position.

" For those who have faith, no explanation is necessary for those who do not, no explanation is possible."

dialogue from the movie "Song of Bernadette"

I cannot furnish beyond this.