Question For Pro Lifers: Is It Okay To Coerce A Woman Into Keeping Her Baby?

There is a difference between giving birth to a child and keeping a child. I fully support adoption. If living with the mother is not in the best interest of the child, then it is best for her to give that child up for adoption.

But if you mean "keep" as in carry to term (which is what it sounds like you're saying), then this is a ridiculous question. If you consider saving a life to be coercion then you have a serious sociopathic streak in you that I am not even going to waste my time trying to reason with. Because it will be pointless. Since you don't value human life.

 

Clearly and the two have little if anything in common for the purpose of this topic.

Are you saying that you are also a sociopath or you are being hypocritical?

Are you doing everything within your power, ability and capacity to save lives or you just like coercing women in saving fetal life? If so, why is fetal life important to you and why should it be important to everyone?

It is quite obvious that you only pay lip service to human life, thus you do not value human life either.

 

The fact is that the entire issue rests in definitions and people are simply not in agreement regarding them.
Abortion is only homicide if the determination is made that the zygote has become a human being, as homicide is the killing of one human being by another. That is distinct from murder, for homicide can be accidental or any number of circumstances that may not be a crime. Murder is, but is still dependent on the definition of human.
The reality is there is no universally accepted definition of when a zygote becomes a human being. Some say conception, others say delivery, and there are numerous definitions that put it in between. None of them have universal agreement, and for that reason the law emphasizes the right of privacy, leaving the ultimate decision to the woman.
Until a case can be made for a universal definition for the onset of human life, I don't see this decision being reversed.
Nor do I see an end to the endless arguments. Everyone is right in the absence of a scientific imperative.

 

Great post.

 

Criminalizing abortion results in more deaths. Why do you keep ignoring that fact?

 

No it clearly is not! It does not change the being's physical appearance or bodily functions subtantially. Breathing alone does not completely physically transform a being.

 

It is a lie. That much we know for sure.

 

Mak, are you suggesting that abortion should be legal a day before the due date?

It depends on how you define death. If a fetus dying is a death, I would like to see proof or even evidence of this "fact."

 

I believe abortion should be legal with no restrictions - and I have complete faith that no woman is going to have an abortion the day before she is due to give birth.

 

Then why are abortion rates and maternal death rates rampant in Latin American countries with extreme anti-abortion laws?

 

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reade...dows-good-news-reduced-unsafe-abortion-deaths

Criminalizing abortion results in no fewer abortions and more maternal deaths, so what is the purpose of criminalizing it?

 

no the lungs don't 'change'. the method the blood gets oxygen changes, that's all (babies in the womb don't 'breathe' thru the cord, BLOOD goes thru the cord, carrying oxygen)

that's like saying if someone is put on oxygen, they are changed into another species.

 

notice that they never bring up the whole concept of just NOT getting pregnant in the first place...no one 'coerced' them to have unprotected sex...

(now watch, they'll run in with "but what about rape and incest"...because they can't argue the point of responsible sexual practices prevent unwanted pregnancies)

 

LOL!!! this post takes the cake...

making it illegal to kill babies results in more deaths....whereas making it legal to kill babies doesn't??

 

No one wants to make it legal to kill babies, but I see you ignored this:

http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/reader...bortion-deaths

Criminalizing abortion does not reduce the number of them, it only makes them unsafe, resulting in the deaths of more women.

 

Tell that to the dead. LOL!

 

the body is the same, it doesn't change instantly...if I hold my breath, do I turn into some other creature temporarily?

 

Some of that great Texas science teaching. LOL!

 

how do you know where I was educated and what about this post refutes what I said?

do you have evidence that a body changes instantly upon death into something else? what physical change of the structure of a human body changes at death?

the blood stops pumping, the lungs stop expanding and contracting...after a short period decay sets in...but the heart is still a heart, a lung is still a lung, the basic structure does not change.

 

Notice your source doesn't mention numbers. The number of women who died from abortions doesn't even come anywhere near the number of abortions. There are over a million abortions performed each year -- a legal or illegal status is bound to change thousands upon thousands of minds, saving thousands of fetuses. Women who died during the illegal period of abortion...

According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, due to the advances made in medical technology, about 39 women died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before abortion was legalized
http://www.chastity.com/chastity-qa/birth-control/abortion/before-abortion-was-legal

So it really comes down to how you define "death." Is killing a fetus a death?

Why do you have faith that no one woman is going to have an abortion the day before she is due to give birth? Is there some type of moral issue with doing so? If there is a moral issue with it, what is that moral issue?

 

I agree. Dead people should have all the same rights as live ones.

Dead marriage rights! This is the start of a movement!

 

The source doesn't mention numbers, but it does say that around the world, the number of abortions are about the same whether abortion is legal or not. If a fetus aborted legally is a "death," then a fetus aborted illegally is a "death." Statistics about the number of women who died from illegal abortions are unreliable, since deaths from illegal abortions were unlike to be reported as such. We do know that maternal death rates in Latin America and Africa are much higher due to botched illegal abortions, however.

Why would a woman endure pregnancy for 9 months, then decide on the day before her due date that she wanted an abortion? Late term abortions are only done for the life or health of the woman, or because it is known the fetus will not survive.

 

Causes of death are reported and determining the cause of death for abortion is quite easy. However, even if we are to say that 100 or even 1,000 women died a year from illegal abortions, this would still not compensate for the increased number of abortions performed when legalized. Sure, your source says about the same, but when we're talking about up in the millions, thousands as a difference is "about the same."

Right, so where's the inconvenience of the woman to outlaw late-term abortion?

 

Sometimes the accurate cause of death is not known and many times autopsies are not even performed.

What is your evidence that legalizing abortion increases the number of them?

The World Health Organization has compared abortion rates of countries and found “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

One example is "Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html?ref=health

Some pro-life activists argue that abortion isn't justified even in extreme cases, such as anencephaly, in which a baby is born without parts of the skull and brain. That is for the woman and her doctor to decide.

 

Absolutely, but since we're talking about a few hundred women (at the very, very most) who died from abortions and millions of abortions performed each year, we're talking about thousands of more abortions compared to a few hundred maternal deaths.

Well, abortions did spike from 1973-1981, then decreased from there -- but even in 2001 the rate still wasn't as low as it was in 1973.

People aren't doing too well in Uganda with those horribly strict business codes and such. How heavy the legality of abortion is as a factor in comparison to the US is subjective.

So that's talking about when the baby is born and whether killing the baby in that case should be legal -- kind of a different thing that what I'm asking. Should it be legal to abort a healthy, crying and breathing, baby, then throw him/her in a bucket and wait for him/her to die, as if that baby is a freshly caught fish?