T Nation

Abortion Debate?


Can someone explain to me the logic in illegalizing abortions? If you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Many people believe that abortion is against the way of G-d. But this is assuming that America is religious and contradicts people who wish to follow their own religion.

Can some of the older, wiser, and perhaps literate please aid me in the counter argument to why abortion should be illegalized?


I don't think you understand the argument at all. The debate about abortion need not ever involve any discussion of religion whatsoever.

The facts are this: upon conception, something is created which is more than egg, and more than sperm. For all intents and purposes, it is a new THING.

The real basis of the Abortion debate is over whether or not that THING should be considered human or not. If it is human, then it should be subject to the laws of humans, which say that we cannot KILL IT. If it is not a human, then the law is irrelevant, and we can do whatever we want with it.

The real debate is over when that THING becomes a PERSON, who deserves to not be chopped up and thrown away. The arguments about Religion and Privacy are unimportant. What needs to be established is the exact moment of PERSONHOOD, at which the THING stops being just a THING.

Since we don't really know when that moment is, some people would rather err on the side of NOT killing a potential human, and others would rather say "It doesn't have a credit history yet, so it must not be a real person, hey let's smash it with a hammer."


Not another one of these stupid threads.

Dude - do a fucking search. Go post in those threads.


......Popcorn anyone??


You hit it mostly on the head with this brief characterization, except that I THINK everyone agrees that it is "a human". It has human DNA, human genes. That's not so much under debate as the "person deserving of legal protection" aspect you mentioned in your last paragraph, which is the correct characterization of the debate.

There are other aspects of the debate:

1) is the fact that something is human sufficient enough to dictate legal preservation?

2) when is it a "person"?

3) is the fact that something is a "person" sufficient enough to dictate legal preservation?
(there are some who argue that there must be another prerequisite in addition to being a "person"--hence some nutjobs like Peter Singer advocate infanticide up to months or years after it is born)


Additionally, the characterization of the debate as a "right to choose" debate, or the "what women do with their own bodies is up to them" debate is a false characterization for the reasons mentioned above.

If that 'thing' is a 'person' or if being 'human' is enough to justify legal protection, that supercedes a 'right to choose', because it is then decided that the thing is not in fact simply part of a woman's body but is rather a separate entity deserving of protection.


And they can abort the husbands baby without his knowledge. Repulsive.


Ever see what the life of an unwanted child is like.

Most abortions are the aftermath of a failed contraception.


I should clarify. I am not entering this debate. I am simply attempting to frame the debate in context. That's all. I am not stating any opinion in my earlier post.

Carry on.


That actually happened to me. I wasn't the husband though, I was the boyfriend. She told me about it 5 years later! I wasn't upset though, a child back then would have been the worst thing to happen to both of us.


I want butter on mine.


This to me is one of the most disgusting things I've heard. It's like saying the father has no rights in this situation.

Absolutely disgraceful.


Just wondering - when in case of an abortion the father should have a right to know and be part of the decision, as is implied here - should he also have a right to decide for an abortion against the mother's will? And what how should those rights be balanced?

Since Rockscar used the word 'husband' - how about non-married couples? Should these fathers have a right to co-decide?

How about cuckolding - how do you make sure a 'husband' is indeed the father, before birth, to make that decision? And when paternity is clarified, who then gets to decide?

How about rape victims - should they have to inform the 'father' and enter a discussion with them if they can terminate?

What about sperm donorship (yes, an abortion is really unlikely here, but still possible)? Who may decide?

Now I'm sure the answer will be - there shouldn't be any abortions at all, but I fear that's quite an unrealistic prospect - whatever legal framework you work out.

So, I fear, if we are to uphold the right of patient confidentiality, a woman's right to choose about what happens to her body and who knows about it, and have no solutions how all the above scenarios are answered - there is no realistic way of making sure that the husband or partner (in German law we use the lovely term Erzeuger 'producer') can know or have an influence.

I may of course just have misunderstood and Rockscar only meant having a right to know about paternity - but it still raises a lot of questions wrt patient confidentiality.



Well if you can't handle the child you are about to have you shouldn't be having sex.

If you are going to sack up and are willing to take care of a baby the right way then fuck all you want.

Contraception or not there is ALWAYS a risk of having a child. Unless its gay of course.


Yeah, but aren't these laws based on religion. The religious who are against abortion use religious laws to say killing is wrong.

If you go by the the law of the country, killing a person is wrong, but abortion is ok.

So, to debate it, you do need to involve religion.


Yes, this is.

I was wondering about the contradiction in the law. Lets say a woman was going to get an abortion. On the way to the clinic she is robbed, shot and killed. The unborn baby dies as well.

How come the robber can get life for TWO murders if by law the fetus was part of a woman's body which she was going to get aborted anyhow?

In one case it is a human being in the other it is not? How can this be so?



Are you trying to say that murder is a religious issue?

I don't think the right to life is a religious issue, especially if the child is born alive.

Is this where the abortion debate is headed?

Are you so fucking scared of religion that you would rather accept murder than accept giving a living child the right to fucking breathe just to prove how anti-religious you are?



Ug. Well again, the problem is that the fetus is a human person and killing it, is killing a person. It has nothing to do with choice or circumstances, there is just one central question, if all parties agree that killing a person is bad and should be illegal; "Is this "thing" in utero a person?" If it is, then killing it is murder, which is a bad thing. If it is not, then there is no problem. All evidences scientific or otherwise, indicate more strongly that that fetus is in fact a autonomous human being. If it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is not, then I'll be all for it. I have never seen any evidence to the contrary of "it" being a human person.

The "pro-choice" arguments alway revolve around how a pregnancy affects life negatively, which is fine and dandy except for the fact that if this "fetus" is in fact a human person, it doesn't much matter what host is going through in life, killing the fetus would still be killing a person. I believe killing a person is wrong.

I did once run across a "pro-choice" person who agreed that fetal human is a person and killing it was killing a person. He just argued that killing is okay in some circumstances. Ok then!


You weren't upset huh? Don't have any children now either I'm guessing. If a child would have been the worst thing to happen to you back then maybe you should have been more responsible.
The fact that abortion is used as a means of contraception is disgusting.

These piece of shit liberals that think there is nothing wrong with aborting an INNOCENT fetus will argue that the life of a CONVICTED killer/child molester is to valuable to take. Where the fuck is the logic in this line of thinking?
As for you skaz, get back to me when you have a child and then think about the one that was aborted and tell me how upset you aren't. If you do have children now and can say you honestly aren't upset then you don't hold much regard for the life of an innocent human being.


I am not saying murder is a religious issue. If anything religion supports giving a living child the right to breath. The other poster said religion does not play a role in the abortion debate. I said that it plays a big role.