Abortions And Miscarriages

[roknrolr]

Legion, I don't think you shouldn't have an opinion just because you are a man. After all, men contribute to the process too. I think that abortion is a decision that should be made as a couple. If the man doesn't care, or is not around, then obviously the woman must make the decision on her own, but if he has a strong opinion either way, I think he should definitely get a vote. If the couple feels the same way, then obvious decision; however, if there are differing opinions, then a compromise needs to be made. For example, Mama wants to abort, but Papa want to keep the child, maybe Mama agrees to carry the baby to term, but then it is the fathers responsibilty to raise it. If Mama wants to keep the child, but Papa wants to abort, maybe Papa gives the money that would have been used for the abortion to Mama, and Mama forgoes child support.

[sithprincess]

I'm only just beginning to doubt my faith. That's another story.

 

I am pro-life. I just haven't quite figured out when life begins. I have a hard time seeing a zygote as being alive. It's just a fertilized egg. But there are definite stages of pregnancy when I believe it's a baby. Just because it hasn't been born yet, to me, that doesn't make it any less a baby, you know? And I do have a problem with people who use abortion as their main means of birth control. To me that just seems senseless when you can do plenty to preven pregnancy in the first place.

 

What it boils down to, for me, is this: I am pro-life (lol I won't even kill a bug..seriously). But, unless I can help each child that will be aborted, I don't really have any right to say anything. It's up to each individual. I couldn't do it myself, but there are people out there who find themselves in horrible situations, and I understand. And there are some cases I've seen where I've thought that it would have indeed been better for the neglected children if they hadn't been born in the first place...

[Kurari]

I'll go out on a limb here and say that I'm another woman who's had an abortion.

 

I don't feel guilt, and I was NOT being selfish in the slightest. No, neither I or the fetus had medical problems. It was entirely because of the fact I loathed being pregnant, I am NOT parent material, and there was no way I could support a child even if I was. A lot of people will curl their lips and say "Oh, then it was for convenience then." Ironically, a lot of those people are parents themselves, and the fact they can claim motherhood is sacred then completely debase it all in the same breath with that convenience argument only proves they are crazy and know precisely dip about anything beyond their own emotions. It would be laughable if it wasn't so sick.

 

I didn't have any bad clinic experiances. I didn't see any blood or screaming murdered babies. I was scared, but I was informed, and everybody made sure I was informed. My doctor was a grandmother and an OB/GYN. It was over in about fifteen minutes with just a bit of cramping, I got my birth control adjusted, and when I went home I felt nothing but relief. No problems afterwards. Several years later, I got a tubal ligation (talk about hard to get if you've never had children) and I'm still aware I could get pregnant again. NO method is 100%

 

Before I went into the clinic they had to take an ultrasound and they politely asked if I would like to see it. I said yes, so they turned the monitor. I know what I saw, and it wasn't a baby. It was a fuzzy blob that was a seven week old fetus. More than a zygote, less than a "baby." It was nothing more and nothing less than what it was at that moment in time.

 

Sometimes life doesn't give you any good choices, it just gives you choices. I suddenly found myself in charge of three futures. Me, my boyfriends, and a developing child's. That's something you really can't put into words, but it was a really horrifying idea. My one and only thought was doing damage control, because nobody was getting out it without their lives altered. Thankfully, I had legal room to maneuver in order to do this. I shudder to think of what would have happened if I did not.

 

I don't regret a moment of my decision, but it sure isn't something I would want to go through again. I'm tired of abortion debates and people trying to lump everything into one generalization or another. So far I'm a murderer, a brave soul, a victim, a demon, an angel, a statistic...My boyfriend was viewed as a deadbeat, a player, a wimp, a statistic...even the fetus gets viewed as a victim, a baby, a lump of cells, a parasite, a sacred gift...a statistic.

 

But very rarely am I, my ex-boyfriend, and even the possible child I might have had, ever viewed as people. Maybe because it's easier to think of me as something other than human so people don't have to believe it can happen to them.

 

And as for God: I think this is a prime example of never assuming you know what He thinks because there is no belief you can hold that Real Life (or "god") cannot break. And even if you don't believe in God...well, same rules apply.

[NobleSavage]

Asimov, I pro-choice all the way. I think I'm pro abortion as well. My logic for why abortion is acceptable differs from NobleSavage so I was just discussing that issue with him. Sorry for the confusion.

I did ask that people check my logic and it was a sincere invitation. I may not be looking at this issue quite the right way or may be missing some important piece of data. I just mentioned the points I did because I believe this truly is the heart of the issue, one that both pro-lifers and pro-choicers dance around:

 

At what point do we "assume the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle" us? When are we living beings with a right to life?

 

Biologically, a tree is alive but we don't worry about cutting them down do we? Why not? Because the tree isn't a self-aware being the same way we are. So where is that line drawn?

 

I'm proposing that this kind of consciousness is a higher brain function. If the brain hasn't formed yet, which seems to be the case for the unborn during the first two trimesters, than it's not alive yet. That it may one day be alive is irrelevant. Not yet alive = not alive.

 

Same thing is true on the other end. When the brain is gone, the person is gone. I'm speaking as someone who lost one grandparent to alzheimers and a mother to brain cancer. The body may still be alive but the lights are out and nobody's home. I can testify that there's nothing more monsterous than a living death. That's why I'm having a living will filled out. Pull the plug, take any organs that may be useful and call it a day. Cremate me, get over it and move on with your own life.

 

Irrelevant issues that distract any discussion of abortion include "sexual morality", whether the speaker is a man or woman and whether the fetus will one day be anything. The issue is whether or not it's a living being right now with the rights to life and choice that we enjoy.

[SilentLoner]

No minor should be making their own decision about drugs as powerful as RU486. I don't even think that they ought to have a say in drugs like Accutane. They simply do not have the ability (neurologically) or the experience to make an informed choice considering the long-term consequences.

 

And yet minors have the neurological ability and experience to be parents?

 

Ive heard so many "prolifers" rant about how minors don't understand the risks of abortion (I used to be anti-abortion back in my catholic days, so I know). If minors choose to give birth there are no warnings about the risks involved, no parental consent for birth is required and no law makes them have to tell their parents.

 

Ive seen 14 year old boys in the news being tried as adults for crimes because it was determined they understood what they had done, but a 17 year old girl lacks the ability to undesrtand this kind of choice?

 

I have seen the effects of illiegal abortion firsthand, including seeing a woman die from a back-alley abortion (i used to live in a country where abortion was illiegal).

[Asimov]

The issue is whether or not it's a living being right now with the rights to life and choice that we enjoy.

 

Why is the issue whether or not it's a living being? How is that relevant?

 

The issue is whether or not the mother has a moral obligation to keep a baby to term.

[Legion]

Legion, I don't think you shouldn't have an opinion just because you are a man. After all, men contribute to the process too. I think that abortion is a decision that should be made as a couple. If the man doesn't care, or is not around, then obviously the woman must make the decision on her own, but if he has a strong opinion either way, I think he should definitely get a vote.

 

I appreciate what you are saying Roknrolr. I was speaking about the law though. I feel like women should hammer out the law among themselves. I hear women say things like, "It's my body, my decision." I say then, let the women come to an agreement between themselves. Given a personal situation though, then yeah I would hope that my opinion on the matter would have some bearing with my significant other. Thankfully I've never been in a situation where my girlfriend would have to make a decision about whether or not to have an abortion. I think it's difficult to anticipate what I might do in such a situation. To put it bluntly, if I were to say to a girlfriend of mine "get an abortion" and she did, then I feel that it would haunt me.

[Guest AynRand]

What year, I could probably compare that to certain other proceedures of the time to get a better idea of what the actual cashflow is.

 

A GP and a surgeon are two different beasts, believe me on that one.

 

I will agree with the overhead for OB/GYN is huge in general, largely due to malpractice insurance rates (damn lawyers). All procedures are at a high risk for lawsuit, though.

 

Also, I believe you were the one to bring up the point that men lack the ability to legally "opt out" of a baby's life should the woman decide to keep it, and yet, legally, has no say in the decision. That would probably be best handled in a different thread, though.

 

 

Does it matter what year? Why not make a couple of calls and find out what the fee is today?

 

Common sense dictates that as an OB/GYN you are trained to do some surgical procedures. Surgical procedures will ALWAYS generate more revenue per hour than office visits. All good business owners manage their time so as to maximize the number of hours that they can spend working on higher billing rate activities. If I am a gastroenterologist I schedule all of my endoscopies and colonoscopies on the same day one right after the other. Opthamologists line up laser surgery. OB/GYNs line up abortions.

 

As for the other matter, I promise not to side track the thread.

 

 

 

 

And yet minors have the neurological ability and experience to be parents?

 

 

Absolutely NOT! Never said that. It is ALWAYS my hope that the child is adopted out.

 

The problem is this. My daughter could become pregnant and choose to terminate that pregnancy while living under my roof and do so totally without my knowledge. I would hope that we have a better relationship than that, but then she IS a teenager. Should there be an adverse reaction to a drug or a complication from an abortion - how long would a teen who wasn't forthcoming to begin with wait before informing a parent or other responsible adult about the problem?

 

Girls who choose NOT to terminate their pregnancies are most likely going to have to tell their parents. I realize that some do successfully hide the pregnancy and birth of the child, but that is a pretty difficult task. In those cases the family has to have some conversation about the plan for the child.

[NobleSavage]

Why is the issue whether or not it's a living being? How is that relevant?

I already explained that. It's not only relevant, it's the core issue.

 

The issue is whether or not the mother has a moral obligation to keep a baby to term.

Which is determined by whether or not the unborn is a living, thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being. If the unborn is a thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being then its right to life trumps the mother's right to choice. If its just a collection of cells, no more alive than a bacteria colony or a tree, than it has no right to life and the issue is settled.

[Kurari]

The issue is whether or not the mother has a moral obligation to keep a baby to term.

 

Which is determined by whether or not the unborn is a living, thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being. If the unborn is a thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being then its right to life trumps the mother's right to choice. If its just a collection of cells, no more alive than a bacteria colony or a tree, than it has no right to life and the issue is settled.

 

The problem with this is, it's a fetus. It IS alive. It's job is to change from a clump of cells to a living, thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being. And it changes really quickly too. A seven week old fetus is signifigantly different from an eight week old fetus. It's sort of WYSIWYG at any point in time, but wait a few weeks and it'll be something else entirely.

 

Taking the Morning After pill and discharging a clump of cells is going to be different from going in at seven weeks and destroying something that is starting to look human but is not sentient. Which is going to be different from going in at 30 weeks and having serious surgery to snuff the life of a life-threateningly deformed baby that probably won't live outside of a few hours in possible agony.

 

The problem with this issue is that people keep trying to blanket it and cut it in some way that can be applied to everybody and that's simply not possible. People are all different, lives are all different, so it's not such a leap to know that all pregnancies are different. No two are the same. Same with beliefs. Just look at the range of opinions just in this thread alone.

 

To tell the truth, with crisis pregnancies it's a lot easier to speculate about what your morals are when you aren't sitting there with the clock ticking down wondering what you are going to do. Then it's not really about morality, it's about reality. It's about damage control. Are you physically able to bear to term? Can you provide a stable home and make sure it's fed, clothed, and nurtured? Can you deal with having some 18 year old on your doorstep one day asking why you saw fit to bear them life but not be part of their lives? Are you capable of raising an adult?

 

Are you doing what's best thing whether you like it or not?

 

Morality is a fluid thing.

[LadyFeline]

Absolutely NOT! Never said that. It is ALWAYS my hope that the child is adopted out.

That was, unintentionally, the funniest fucking thing I've heard all week.

 

You know JACK about the adoption system, I see...

 

The problem is this. My daughter could become pregnant and choose to terminate that pregnancy while living under my roof and do so totally without my knowledge. I would hope that we have a better relationship than that, but then she IS a teenager.

Oh, so being a teenager automatically makes her irresponsible, untrustworthy, and secretive?

 

Yeah, if you were my mom, I wouldn't want to be open with you, either, if that was your attitude towards me.

 

See, the thing about teenagers is that they used to be kids. When they're kids, you need to teach them, and remind them constantly, that they can always come to you if they have a problem, without fear of repercussions. And. most importantly, you need to follow through on that. You can't just say "You can talk to me about anything, sweetie. If you have a problem, you can bring it to me." and then turn around and scream at your kid when she comes to you with a problem.

 

Actually, you know what? That might solve quite a bit about the "abortion problem" - and most problems with kids and young adults. If parents would stop treating their children as problems, and start helping the kids with their problems.

 

But that would require talking to your kids, and talking to them about *gasp* that dirty, dirty sex which they shouldn't hear about 'til they're married, and it would require actually parenting your child and being there for your child. And *GASP* taking some responsibility with your child... And God forbid anyone have to do that...

[Guest AynRand]

Absolutely NOT! Never said that. It is ALWAYS my hope that the child is adopted out.

That was, unintentionally, the funniest fucking thing I've heard all week.

 

You know JACK about the adoption system, I see...

 

The problem is this. My daughter could become pregnant and choose to terminate that pregnancy while living under my roof and do so totally without my knowledge. I would hope that we have a better relationship than that, but then she IS a teenager.

Oh, so being a teenager automatically makes her irresponsible, untrustworthy, and secretive?

 

Yeah, if you were my mom, I wouldn't want to be open with you, either, if that was your attitude towards me.

 

See, the thing about teenagers is that they used to be kids. When they're kids, you need to teach them, and remind them constantly, that they can always come to you if they have a problem, without fear of repercussions. And. most importantly, you need to follow through on that. You can't just say "You can talk to me about anything, sweetie. If you have a problem, you can bring it to me." and then turn around and scream at your kid when she comes to you with a problem.

 

Actually, you know what? That might solve quite a bit about the "abortion problem" - and most problems with kids and young adults. If parents would stop treating their children as problems, and start helping the kids with their problems.

 

But that would require talking to your kids, and talking to them about *gasp* that dirty, dirty sex which they shouldn't hear about 'til they're married, and it would require actually parenting your child and being there for your child. And *GASP* taking some responsibility with your child... And God forbid anyone have to do that...

 

Am I supposed to be intimidated?

 

FWIW - you don't know jack about me, about my relationship with my daughter or what I know about the adoption system. You think I am stupid. I got that.

 

My daughter and I do talk and I am very clear about the realities of life and that her father and I share the responsiblity for helping her through the vagaries that we find in it. At the same time I recognize that she is a normal teenager. The reality of human development is that the frontal lobe which is the station for long term thinking isn't fully formed in teens. No matter how smart, no matter how mature, no matter how well we have done as parents there is the possibility that she will make a stupid decision and then make several more trying to deal with it on her own. To think otherwise is to fail to understand adolescence AND to fail to recognize that WE ALL did stupid stuff in high school.

 

I know a number of families who have been through the adoption process. I know 2 couples who are working through it now. I realize that the system is imperfect, so? Abortion is also imperfect. Birth control is imperfect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry hit the button too fast.

 

I just wanted to say that I didn't want to say any more about these issues here in this thread as I don't want to sidetrack it from what the OP intended to discuss.

 

LF if you want to start a new thread about adoption I will join you there.

[BlueGiant]

I would like to point out that that time of her life is probably when it would be best for her to make a stupid decision. Failure is a part of being human, and sometimes, you just have to let someone fail, and hopefully learn to fail with dignity. I've seen too many "adults" who have never failed, never gotten screwed by a bad decision, and had to face up to it. While watching that is amusing like watching a train wreck (I believe the term is schadenfreude), it isn't a good situation when someone is on their own, etc.

 

Shielding someone completely from themselves is a favor for no one.

 

No, I am not a parent, but I am an experienced fuck-up.

 

It does not seem like you shield your kid to that extent. You should not see the fact of stupid decisions, though as a posibility and more of an eventuality.

 

Back in line with the OP, really, does intent matter that much? Abortion and miscarage have the same ends. Both occur as a mechanism of the mother protecting herself. Isn't the only difference between the two is that one is entirely autonomic and the other isn't.

[LadyFeline]

Abortion is also imperfect. Birth control is imperfect.

Abortion and birth control may be imperfect, but they also don't inflict 21 years of what amounts to state-sponsored psychological torture on a growing child, if you want to look at it that way. Just because you know a handful of kids who were/are going to be adopted, doesn't make adoption "better", and it's hardly a comfort to the thousands of children still stuck in the vicious, neverending cycle of foster homes, waiting to be adopted, and never having a place or a family to call their own for various, ultimately stupid reasons ("too old", "too sick", "wrong gender", etc)

 

I'd have sooner been aborted, than be made to suffer the fate of being a foster child like some of my friends. Call it cold, but it's better to never suffer that kind of pain. Nor could I ever live with myself if I had a child, and turned it over to the state to be "cared for", because I know where far too many such children end up - and it's not in a "happy, loving home with a stay-at-home mom and gainfully employed dad and a fluffy puppy to play with in the spacious backyard".

[Guest AynRand]

Abortion is also imperfect. Birth control is imperfect.

Abortion and birth control may be imperfect, but they also don't inflict 21 years of what amounts to state-sponsored psychological torture on a growing child, if you want to look at it that way. Just because you know a handful of kids who were/are going to be adopted, doesn't make adoption "better", and it's hardly a comfort to the thousands of children still stuck in the vicious, neverending cycle of foster homes, waiting to be adopted, and never having a place or a family to call their own for various, ultimately stupid reasons ("too old", "too sick", "wrong gender", etc)

 

I'd have sooner been aborted, than be made to suffer the fate of being a foster child like some of my friends. Call it cold, but it's better to never suffer that kind of pain. Nor could I ever live with myself if I had a child, and turned it over to the state to be "cared for", because I know where far too many such children end up - and it's not in a "happy, loving home with a stay-at-home mom and gainfully employed dad and a fluffy puppy to play with in the spacious backyard".

 

 

um er.... Maybe no one has told you this before but life isn't perfect and many times it isn't even fair....just so you know.

 

As I said before I would be happy to join you in a conversation about the adoption issue, but I won't address your post here and further side track this thread.

[woodsmoke]

And I do have a problem with people who use abortion as their main means of birth control. To me that just seems senseless when you can do plenty to preven pregnancy in the first place.

 

I'm sorry, I have to comment on this.

 

"Abortion as birth control" is a myth perpetuated by "pro-life" conservatives everywhere.

 

I've never known a single person who actually behaves that way, and I've never known anyone else who has either. It's a strawman argument--one expertly-crafted for emotional manipulation--but it's not real.

[Dianka]

 

"Abortion as birth control" is a myth perpetuated by "pro-life" conservatives everywhere.

 

I've never known a single person who actually behaves that way, and I've never known anyone else who has either. It's a strawman argument--one expertly-crafted for emotional manipulation--but it's not real.

 

Mmm, I know a couple who do this. But either way, who gives a shit? I can assure you there people are not fit to be parents, so popping RU's like they're antacids doesn't bother me in their case. It doesn't bother me in any case I suppose.

 

 

Ayn, an abortion in my area is about $350.

 

Also, if office hours are more expensive to the healthcare provider than hours in surgery, why is it that women who want abrotions have to come back for another visit? It would make sense that if money was what the practitioners are after, the patients wouldn't be given the chance to think it over. The patients wouldn't be consuled. The laws imposed on abortion clinics make running a practice very expensive, especially if the clinic is to be set up in a conservative area of the country. I can assure you that every doctor looking to open an abortion clinic knows very well how expensive it is. If they were doctors for the money, they would not be opening an abortion clinic.

 

Anyway, I'm wasting my time because you are obviously full of shit. You didn't have an abortion. It's sad that you have to make up a bullshit abortion story to make your point. If you have no way of backing up your claim that abortion doctors are in it for the money, fuck off.

[Asimov]

Why is the issue whether or not it's a living being? How is that relevant?

I already explained that. It's not only relevant, it's the core issue.

 

Yes, you asserted that...so what?

 

Which is determined by whether or not the unborn is a living, thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being. If the unborn is a thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being then its right to life trumps the mother's right to choice. If its just a collection of cells, no more alive than a bacteria colony or a tree, than it has no right to life and the issue is settled.

 

How is that the core issue? Could you explain to me as if I'm completely retarded (I know, not hard to do) and have no idea what you're talking about.

 

Essentially, explain how it being a thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being has any bearing on the mother having to keep it alive whether she wants to or not.

[NobleSavage]

Essentially, explain how it being a thinking, feeling, sentient, self-aware being has any bearing on the mother having to keep it alive whether she wants to or not.

The "right to life" is only for beings that are self-aware, thinking, feeling beings. This is reflected in the fact that we chop down trees and kill microorganisms with little regard. If the fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells, which pretty much it is until the 3rd trimester, then we aren't dealing with a being that has a right to life because it doesn't meet the criteria.

 

If, on the other hand, the fetus is a self-aware, thinking, feeling being, abortion then has an identifiable victim. Society has the right to curtail choices where these actions infringe upon the rights of others or their safety and well-being. Additionally, society currently excercises laws that enforce what we consider parental responsibilities. For example, if parents allow a baby to starve to death, they could be legally held responsible for the child's death.

[woodsmoke]

To take it a step further, the "right to life" is only for self-aware, thinking, feeling HUMAN beings. There are those who believe non-human creatures should be extended the same protections, but by and large you're not going to get anywhere near as much of a controversial backlash if you kill a "lesser animal" (especially one that's not cute) than if you kill a human.

 

Really, though, the "right to life" is bullshit. It's just like the concept that life is sacred. Neither is verifiably true, but we as humans do our damndest to make them true because we have a vested interest in their being such.

 

"We believe that life is sacred. Why? Because we're alive!" --George Carlin

 

Mmm, I know a couple who do this. But either way, who gives a shit? I can assure you there people are not fit to be parents, so popping RU's like they're antacids doesn't bother me in their case. It doesn't bother me in any case I suppose.

 

 

I think we're using different definitions of "abortion" here. I'm talking about going into a clinic to undergo a medical procedure; something done after the fetus is too large to "flush out," but still not past the point of viability. IMO, if the it's still small enough to simply "flush out" by taking a pill, it doesn't technically count as an abortion. (it should be noted here that I don't really know how abortions are done, I'm just ASSuming and hoping my ignorance doesn't come back to bite me there)

[Asimov]

This is reflected in the fact that we chop down trees and kill microorganisms with little regard.

 

So? We chop down trees for shelter and materials and food. Microorganisms are killed because they can harm us and pose a threat.

 

If the fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells, which pretty much it is until the 3rd trimester, then we aren't dealing with a being that has a right to life because it doesn't meet the criteria.

 

Yea, but you still haven't really fleshed out what this right to life means. You're just saying it.

 

If, on the other hand, the fetus is a self-aware, thinking, feeling being, abortion then has an identifiable victim. Society has the right to curtail choices where these actions infringe upon the rights of others or their safety and well-being. Additionally, society currently excercises laws that enforce what we consider parental responsibilities. For example, if parents allow a baby to starve to death, they could be legally held responsible for the child's death.

 

You're comparing two different issues. The baby isn't a parasitic organism directly connected to the mother when it's outside of the womb and the parents have made a choice to bring the baby to term.

 

We're talking pre-birth, so stick to prebirth.

 

1. What does right to life mean?

 

 

Really, though, the "right to life" is bullshit. It's just like the concept that life is sacred. Neither is verifiably true, but we as humans do our damndest to make them true because we have a vested interest in their being such.

 

Well, we should have a vested interest in living beings...but I don't think NobleSavage is really thinking this through properly. People keep saying "right to life" all the time and I want to know what is meant when NobleSavage says it.

[woodsmoke]

Agreed. I'm not necessarily criticizing it--after all, I'm alive, and I damn well want to stay that way. Just playing devil's advocate.

[Legion]

Really, though, the "right to life" is bullshit. It's just like the concept that life is sacred. Neither is verifiably true, but we as humans do our damndest to make them true because we have a vested interest in their being such.

Woodsmoke I normally admire your well thought out replies but I have to omit this one from being amoung them. I always feel like I run the risk of being misunderstood here so let me try and make myself clear in this.

 

I think that abortion should remain legal, but I think it should be discouraged. Why? Partly because I believe that the sacred adheres to and emanates from life. In fact, I don't see how anything could be sacred unless it involves the living. What would sacred mean outside the context of life?

 

Let me say it one more time in another way just to make sure that I'm making myself clear. If the word "sacred" has any meaning then that meaning must surely be intimately entwined with life.

[Asimov]

I think that abortion should remain legal, but I think it should be discouraged. Why? Partly because I believe that the sacred adheres to and emanates from life. In fact, I don't see how anything could be sacred unless it involves the living. What would sacred mean outside the context of life?

 

Well what definition of sacred are you using? It's a religious term, mostly.

 

Why should abortion be discouraged?

 

Let me say it one more time in another way just to make sure that I'm making myself clear. If the word "sacred" has any meaning then that meaning must surely be intimately entwined with life.

 

Why?

[Legion]

I think that abortion should remain legal, but I think it should be discouraged. Why? Partly because I believe that the sacred adheres to and emanates from life. In fact, I don't see how anything could be sacred unless it involves the living. What would sacred mean outside the context of life?

 

Well what definition of sacred are you using? It's a religious term, mostly.

 

Why should abortion be discouraged?

 

Let me say it one more time in another way just to make sure that I'm making myself clear. If the word "sacred" has any meaning then that meaning must surely be intimately entwined with life.

 

Why?

I don't think that we should let religion steal or hold a monopoly on the concept and word "sacred". If I were to try and define sacred then I suppose I would say it is that which is revered above all other things.

 

Besides the fact that I feel that life is sacred, I've known a few women who had abortions and the act haunts them to this day.

 

Why must the meaning of sacred be intwined with life? The easiest answer is because the meaning of all words are entwined with life.