Ok, I never really gave a main post. I was typing some ideas up on my first response post but I accidentally clicked "Post Quick Reply" so you were pretty much debating my rough draft. However, in the process of doing this I got some valuable information out of you to use in my real argument.
Abortion, the Real Deal
Intro: From the Man Himself
I. Why Abortion is Wrong
--------a. Killing of an Unborn baby
--------b. Fetal Pain
---------------i. Development of Fetus
II. Alternatives to Abortion
--------a. Contraceptives
---------------i. Condoms
---------------ii. Birth Control Pills
---------------iii. Abstinence
--------b. Adoption
III. The Tree Analogy
IV. Direct Responses to Your Quotes
V. The Real Choice
VI. Sources
Bernard Nathanson was pro-choice doctor. He claimed to perform 75,000 abortions, he the founding member of several pro-choice organizations and he is seen as one of the founding fathers of abortion.
However, after the development of the ultrasound he changed his opinion and became a strong believer in pro-life. He also claims that the organizations, to which he was the founder of, lied about the correlation between the number of maternal deaths and illegal abortions, with his consent. Dr. Nathanson has written several books on his new opinion of abortion including some insights on the relationship between a mother and her fetus. The following are excerpts from a book that he wrote:
Immunological studies have demonstrated beyond cavil that when a pregnancy implants itself into the wall of the uterus at the eighth day following conception the defense mechanisms of the body, principally the white blood cells, sense that this creature now settling down . . . is an intruder, an alien, and must be expelled. Therefore an intense immunological attack is mounted on the pregnancy . . . and through an ingenious and extraordinarily efficient defense system the unborn ch ild succeeds in repelling the attack . . . Even in the most minute microscopic scale the body has trained itself, or somehow in some inchoate way, knows how to recognize self from non-self.
--Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell, 1983), p.150.
I confess that I knew the figures were totally false, . . . but in the 'morality' of the revolution, it was a useful figure. . ..
-- Bernard Nathanson, Aborting America (New York: Doubleday, 1979), p. 3.
There are documents that prove the number of maternal deaths did not go down after Wade vs. Roe.
I. Why Abortion is Wrong.
As you have clearly stated in your first post you do not think that abortion is murder. The only thing you really say on it is, essentially, murder isn't murder if it isn't against the law. Of course abortion isn't currently designated as murder, that is why we are debating this topic. I solemnly declare that abortion is the killing of an unborn baby and it should be thought as murder. I say this on the basis that the fetus has its own genes, by saying the baby is a part of the woman you are saying the woman has 4 arms and legs. In reference to the first Dr. Nathanson quote, the pregnant woman is actually trying fighting the fetus because it does not recognize it as its own. I, also, have
yet to see an instance where abortion is necessary. Not to say this is a reason in itself to make it illegal but added on to everything else, we really do not need abortion. You even imply it yourself by merely stating that it should only be legal because it does no harm, and it provides benefits to society. Hmm, "does not cause harm," what a wonderful segway into my next bit.
a. Killing of Unborn Fetus
I marvel in the fact that you absolutely do not want to debate the legitimacy of late-term abortions. I'm still not clear why, although I can only assume it is because it is such a weak point in your argument.
I'll have you know that late-term abortions are legal in all but 16 states. You are officially now forced to debate the late-term abortion argument. Face it, abortion is abortion, it needs to be removed as a whole. The line needs to be fine or else you will have women shooting their baby hours before birth like the articles I casually gave you a few posts earlier.
You also enjoyed bringing up, from
my article nonetheless *note hyperbole*, that we need to provide abortions to prevent back alley abortions. You are so caught up in the "choice" of the woman that you are forgetting the choice of the fetus. Of course, pro-choice supporters take that quote too far, "the fetus has a choice." I do not mean, when I say that, that the fetus should have superior rights over the woman, heck I do not even think it deserves equal rights, that would be absurd. But I
do believe the fetus has a right to live.
b. Fetal Pain
I would also like to call you out on another bold, and un-cited, claim. This claim is that the fetus cannot feel until such and such amount of weeks. Well, I did my research and I have found that babies can, in fact, feel pain. Although I say, even if this topic is not 100%, which it isn't, I say don't guess at all. Do not take any action and let the baby be born, you do
not know if this baby can feel it so do not use that as an excuse for killing it. I quote directly from wikipedia.org
Multiple nerve systems are involved in the sensation of pain. When the brain and nervous system are fully developed, the sensation is triggered by nociceptors reacting to some stimulus. The resulting signal travels via the peripheral nervous system to nociceptors associated with the spinal column. It then travels up the spinal column to the thalamus, and onward to the cerebral cortex, where it is finally interpreted as a painful sensation. Early in development, f rom about 12-18 weeks gestation, there is a complete link from the periphery to the thalamus in the brain and the fetus shows clear evidence of defensive reactions against tissue damage including hormonal and hemodynamic responses
Read that? The fetus has a direct link from the periphery to the thalamus and shows reactions to tissue damage. This is well before your magical "20th week" mark. Of course you might say, "Doctors can give the baby morphine to eeze the pain, it is proven through the activity of the fetus that it reacts less to abortions after morphine." To which I would reply, "Nonsense, that means you are implying that the murder of adults who are on morphine is acceptable."
Either way, by 8 weeks the fetus has all of the necessary organs to live, undeveloped albeit, but still there nonetheless. Included in this group of necessary organs is the brain which even if it cannot form physical receptors it would seem that they would be emotionally hurt from being ripped from their life support.
i. Development of a Fetus
Since you seem to be in confusion about the development of the fetus I have decided to dedicate a whole section to it. I will be referring to this website because of its complete, detailed and unbiased descriptions of the fetus' development.
http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.htm
I'd like to point out weeks 6-8:
Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.
Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.
Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.
This backs up what I said, brain waves are detectable from only
6 weeks. What do you think this baby is thinking? "Oh gee, that was a pretty big blob of placenta that floated by."
No! It is thinking about the development of its carrier, of course it will be distraught if you cut it up and suck it out.
We continue,
Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can “breathe” amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.
In accordance to the last quote it, in essence, has all the things that would pronounce an adult as being alive. Of course, it can't survive outside of the womb but it has
1. Heart beat.
2. Brain activity.
3. Breathing.
Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.
Obviously one small piece of information you must have missed, "all of the parts necessary to experience pain" Look at the title of this web page, does it have "Pro-life"? "Fetuses can feel, stop killing them"? "Anti-Abortion"?
No.
It is an detailed and unbiased web page with several recent sources that are cited.
And since we are on the subject of fetal development and you seem to be so sure about all the definitions and requirements for certain types of abortions, answer me this. Is it a late-term abortion one day before the 20 week mark? Do they expect partners to record the days they had sex? What if the doctors accidentally perform an abortion a couple days after the 20 week mark, that can't be good for your argument can it?
II. Alternatives to Abortion
I'd actually be agreeing with you right now if there were no alternatives to abortion. I think it would be a terrible think if abortion, in the right context, did not exist. I think it should only be used, however, in cases of ****, incest and in cases where the mother or baby in harm. Which, by the way, makes up a
very small percent of the total amount of abortions done. Heck, I'll give you the actual numbers from wikipedia.org:
1% of women in the 2004 survey-based U.S. study became pregnant as a result of **** and 0.5% as a result of incest...In Finland and the United States, concern for the health risks posed by pregnancy in individual cases was not a factor commonly given"
Only 1.5% were because of incest or ****, and a abortions because of health problems is so low it isn't even given a percent. What is the reason for the other 98.5%? Unplanned pregnancies, mostly. Anyways, I go into further detail later.
Anyway, so there are many other options to abortion. Some of the options can be taken before the pregnancy or after. You have to remember, by taking away abortion you are not taking away the woman's right to choose. Her choose is made when she has sex.
a. Contraceptives
Simple enough, if you don't want to have a baby then prepare. A terrible reason to not use contraceptives is because of cost, you can get contraceptives for free from organizations.
i. Condom
The condom is a very effective way to prevent a pregnancy. Condoms have a 98.8% rate of preventing a pregnancy. The main reason for failure is misuse which is at no fault to the producer because they provide instructions to check for cracks, breaks and to not use certain lubricants that may erode the condom. It is still the consumers fault if the woman becomes pregnant.
ii. Birth Control Pill
If taken correctly, the birth control pill will prevent a pregnancy 99.7% of the time. The real science behind the birth control pill is it releases hormones in the female to induce ovulation, which is not the same as having an abortion much to your dismay.
iii. Abstinence
Truly the best way to prevent unplanned pregnancies is abstinence. If you can put the choice of someone else's life in the woman's hands surely they can handle the choice of when to have sex. When I say abstinence I don't mean, "Don't have sex forever, therefore you won't have to get an abortion." I mean, do not have sex until you are emotionally, physically, financially and in all other ways prepared to have a baby.
b. Adoption
I was not lying when I said there are more families that want to adopt then there are babies up for adoption. There are loving, kind families that are willing to pay the expenses to raise your child. I'm sure you know all about this if you have ever debated this topic before. If you love the baby you will give it a happy life and a loving family, if you cannot provide then let someone else do it, no problem. You rarely hear the regretful and sorrowful stories of adoption that you do with abortion.
III. The Tree Analogy
Man oh man, the tree analogy. I love that you took the time to relate a fetus life and future to a plant. And I excitedly quote from you:
I will give you a simple example to help you better understand my point. Lets say that I have a garden that is awaiting the addition of a tree. Lets say there is a germinating tree seed in its soil. Just because there is a DNA code and an active chemical process working as I speak to generate a tree in my garden does not mean my garden has a tree in it. At the very least, a tree does not exist until there is a visible sprout, and if I were to be especially particular, until there is bark. Things don't exist until they exist--even when they are in the process of being built. I do not believe that the fetus is human until it has developed the complex cerebral cortex that is unique to humans (5th month) .
There are several things wrong with this analogy. And even if it were a perfect analogy it still does not prove that the fetus is an existence.
First of all, you say, "something does not exist until it exists." Well, this doesn't really work here because the seed does exist and so does a fetus. Just because it isn't a tree doesn't mean it isn't of importance. Do you mind telling me the trimester of a seed? How much of a sprout until it starts to "exist"? I also find the following question to be puzzling, assuming this is a farmer growing these trees with care and love. If the farmer decided to cut up the seed and then suck it out of the ground, what would that do for the farmer? Assuming it is a fruit growing tree, the farmer would lose money. If he did this to all of his seeds he would gain no money because he would have no fruits to sell.
Same with abortion, if everyone got an abortion there would be no one left. The human species would cease to exist in one generations. Pah, this is too far-fetched, you might say. But really, what is stopping 50million pregnant women from getting an abortion this year in the U.S.? Nothing. Absolutely nothing. I don't see how suddenly when you lower the number a few million abortions it is magically harmless. It is still a bad thing, just in a less amount.
Furthermore, you can hardly compare a seed to a fetus. You can clearly see the seed is not alive, not by human standards. There is no question that the seed cannot feel pain, go on, chop it up. Your analogy is more appropriate for the actually fertilization process. The seed does not "exist" just like the ovum does not "exist". The seed is not a tree and the ovum is not a fetus. The seed requires water and sunlight just as an ovum requires sperm at which point it is OK to deprive the ovum her sperm just as it is OK to deprive the seed of its water, just to clarify your analogy.
IV. Direct Response to Your Quotes
It is so nice of you to clarify who you think shouldn't be able to have abortions, the "immature" women who don't want to deal with a baby. I love how you take something so complicated and make it retardedly simple. These cases are not just immature women not ready for pregnancies, and your statement shows how little you know and understand about the complexity of the problems that many people face. (Some of your age, or lack thereof, and innexperience with real life problems may be showing through.) Nothing is as simple as it seems.
I'm sorry, but it is you that is taking something so complex and making it out to be as simple as a pile of comatose tissue. Again, if you are at such a coming of age
please give me a example of necessary abortion that cannot be dealt with otherwise. I like that quote, "Nothing is as simple as it seems." Kind of like how life if is a complex thing. I do like how you regarding these woman that are getting these abortions in such high esteem yet you refer to them as helpless teenagers that will dump their children off to grandparents.
You just said that there is no reason to make it illegal.
I never said there is no reason to make it illegal. In fact, within this very post I have given many reasons as to why it should be illegal all the while shooting down most if not all of the reasons to make it legal. This includes your labyrinthine definition of illegal.
Abortion is legal in the United States. I have given many reasons as to why abortion is needed. You on the other hand have not. You have not given me a reason as to why abortion is immoral, or should be made illegal. I on the otherhand, have stated above, why I think abortion should be legal. I however for convenience will quote myself.
Again, much to your repudiation your given definition of legal does not fulfill the question, "Why is it necessary." I cannot refute your explanation of the necessity of abortion because you have not given me any.
But from the above analysis, there appears no way in which outlawing abortion would even indirectly preserve or protect the liberty of any individual, or provide any general benefit to the citizen body without uneccessarily depriving individuals of their liberty.
It protects the fetus, if you kill it you are taking a life. A living, breathing, blood bumping life. And like I said before, the government is not taking the woman's right to choose, she deprived herself of her own liberty when she decided to have sex. She has a choice to have sex or not.
Meh, you really didn't even say that much. I thought I'd actually have a use for this section but you've mostly been a source of definition and repetition. It is a shame though, you will probably read "Response to Your Quotes" in the index and you will most likely jump right down here. In these responses I give short answers, I answered all of these quotes in the body of the post. In fact, I'm not even sure what this section is for. I thought you would have thought of something new.
V. The Real Choice
In conclusion, it is my august testimony that abortion is in no way needed and it does harm to the fetus and to those that abuse it. With consternation I wonder what some of the mother's are thinking that truly care for their unborn children and are pressured by the family/father to get an abortion. I concernedly think about the mother's that dream about their now dead child, what would he/she look like, what potential did he/she have?
In the depths of my heart I know there might be inconsolable women that are in rare and desperate times that may benefit from an abortion, truly. It saddens me that there are so many that are abusing abortion to where I firmly believe it needs to be illegal. I strongly believe that the amount of lives we have lost in fetuses are no match for the pain that a few women will have to bear for having to go through with the pregnancy that don't want to have to go through. I can't even think of a real circumstance. The biggest one that comes to mind is cost but if they are too poor to even put a child up for adoption then they will surely not be able to pay for an expensive surgery, otherwise they could just put them up for adoption. But if abortion does become illegal and there is, somehow, a mother that absolutely needs one then she has my sympathy. Sympathy, again, for the women that abused abortion.
Sincerely,
Duke
(I apologize for any typos)
VI. Sources
In alphabetical order:
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Nathanson
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain
-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion
-http://www.answers.org/ethics/abortion.html
-http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004397.html
-http://www.mrdata.net/books/9reasons.htm
-http://www.ncrtl.org/LifeLine.htm
-http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/5770.php
-Planned Parenthood "Revised version March 1989."
-Bernard Nathanson, The Abortion Papers: Inside the Abortion Mentality (New York: Frederick Fell, 1983), p.150.
-Forrest, J.D. & Torres, A. "Why Do Women Have Abortions?" Family Planning Perspectives
ries:
