Questioning Abortion as an advance towards freedom

[ZVBXRPL]

The old classic Abortion debate eh?

 

I have a question

 

If some people believe a mother has the right to murder her child whilst in is still the womb, does the child also have the same right to murder its mother?

 

Since when did MURDER become a question of rights?

 

If some trailer trash slut does not want her baby, or some career driven spawn of satan does not have time for a baby, why do they have the right to murder all of a sudden

 

Could a mother murder the baby after it is born? Maybe if it was born with three legs or two heads, they could murder it and say "oh it was the humane thing to do?"

 

 

I always thought that society had a kind of unwritten rule of CHILD > WOMAN > MAN, so surely the right of the child comes before the right of the mother?

 

The only time a baby shoulld be aborted is if the life of the mother is at risk AND there is no way to save the baby, but by killing the unborn baby you can save the mother

 

Women who think they have the RIGHT to MURDER are sick

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

ZVBXRPL,

 

Tone down the offensive language and appeal to emotion. If you can't make your point without resorting to such tactics, then perhaps you should look at whether you had a point to begin with.

[overtone]

If some people believe a mother has the right to murder her child whilst in is still the womb, does the child also have the same right to murder its mother?

That's intended to be a rhetorical question, but it has some partial and relevant answers:

 

According to the official pro-life position of the Republican Party in the US, even a month old embryo in the womb (let alone an actual child) has the right to kill the woman carrying it.

 

Whether that also applies to an embryo implanted three inches away, in the fallopian tube, is one of those questions about the technical details of legislation we are not supposed to ask, but the principle that the woman has no right of self defense whatsoever is clear.

 

Which means that, like the poster quoted, the people who wrote Republican Party policy are not actually imagining that month old embryo as a person, a child. Anyone can defend their own body from another person, even a child - they can shoot people who are invading their garages, let alone their internal organs - but in the world of the poster here and his kind in general that aspect of the situation does not exist.

[Arete]

I have a question

 

If some people believe a mother has the right to murder her child whilst in is still the womb, does the child also have the same right to murder its mother?

 

So your question makes the assumption that aborting a foetus is murder - therefore making the assumption that life begins at conception. Prehaps you can answer the qestions I posed Anders on page 1, which he is yet to answer himself:

 

a) So do you consider life and therefore human rights to begin at conception? If so, how do you feel about the fact that only ~30-40% of fertilized embryos implant in the uterine wall, while the rest spontaneously abort? This would, if these embryos are to be considered human beings be the leading cause of human mortality - in fact more than all other causes of death combined. Wouldn't this make research on heart disease, cancer, stroke, diabetes, etc. grossly disproportionate?

 

b) Outlawing abortion doesn't lower the rate of abortions undertaken. If fact the previous link shows that the abortion rate is increasing in countries where it is outlawed, and decreasing in nations where it is legal. Providing free contraception does lower the abortion rate. Previously cited evidence shows the Republican party actively attempting to restrict and limit access to contraception. If reducing the number of abortions is the goal of the anti-abortion movement, rather than controlling the sexual behavious of others, why are counterproductive policies like de-funding Planned Parenthood so popular amongst pro-lifers?

[Anders Hoveland]

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmytgRQ7hEY&feature=player_embedded

[John Cuthber]

Anders, you seem to have posted those videos in the wrong discussion.

They belong in a thread about publication bias.

They illustrate how some subjects are easily influenced by emotional appeal rather than logic, particularly where "the other side of the coin" doesn't make videos.

Seriously,

If you want to make that look like a balanced debate, you now have to find thousands of videos for women who terminated pregnancies and got on with their lives.

You might also want to address the effect that banning abortion has on crime rates and poverty.

[Phi for All]

Anders, you seem to have posted those videos in the wrong discussion.

 

If he's only posting videos, why are we still calling it a discussion?

[John Cuthber]

If he's only posting videos, why are we still calling it a discussion?

Good point, but the rest of us are discussing the issues so it's a discussion with added... something-or-other.

[swansont]

If he's only posting videos, why are we still calling it a discussion?

 

Indeed. This is still a science site, and the emphasis is on fact rather than anecdote when not stating one's opinion.

[Ringer]

Let's see the different sides of the argument.

 

Emotion:

(videos snipped)

Data:

We have found that there are no mental health consequences of abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. There are other interesting findings: even later abortion is safer than childbirth and women who carried an unwanted pregnancy to term are three times more likely than women who receive an abortion to be below the poverty level two years later.

As the researchers said at the American Public Health Association Meeting, "One week after seeking abortion, 97% of women who obtained an abortion felt that abortion was the right decision; 65% of turnaways still wished they had been able to obtain an abortion." Also one week after being denied an abortion, turnaways told the researchers that they had more feelings of anxiety than the women who had abortions. Women who had abortions overwhelming reported feeling relieved (90%), though many also felt sad and guilty afterwards. All of these feelings faded naturally over time in both groups, however. A year later, there were no differences in anxiety or depression between the two groups.

 

In other words, the Turnaway Study found no indication that there were lasting, harmful negative emotions associated with getting an abortion. The only emotional difference between the two groups at one year was that the turnaways were more stressed. They were more likely to say that they felt like they had more to do than they could get done.

http://io9.com/5958187/what-happens-to-women-denied-abortions-this-is-the-first-scientific-study-to-find-out

http://www.ansirh.org/library/publications.php#turnaway