The Morality of Abortion!

[Ragoczy]

I am not sure of this thread has become somewhat blurred whilst the two aspects are of course connected the morality of abortion is different from the legality.

Now as damyanti points out here in Europe when life begins is clearly defined and there have been several test cases and more recently in the UK a parliamentary debate on this subject. We know legally when life begins and therefore when it is legal for a woman to have a termination.


This is not up for debate, or in any way questionable.

Now the morality issue, hmmmm tricky one, and of course dependant upon ones own judgement, this is quite simply the only answer here.

No one else can possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on the woman considering a termination, it is down to the individual concerned, end of.

Ones own moral code may well be representative of or reflective of the society in which one is immersed or educated, however it is just that at the end of the day, ones own moral code.

I have never been involved in such a decision, but have no doubt what so ever that the decision to terminate has never been reached without much soul searching or lightly.


Only the woman concerned should be able to make such a choice free from peer and social pressures.

I see, so 12-weeks is the law of the land an no one should impose their own feelings or beliefs on others, regardless of whether they feel and believe that the law is immoral and harmful to others.

By this logic, apartheid should still be legal in South Africa. It was the law of the land and morality is a personal thing and no one should possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on others.

[craven]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

[Ragoczy]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

My point was that just because something's legal doesn't make it moral or right.

I do find it interesting that it's okay for unaffected parties (in the form of the international community) to seek to impose their own morals on South Africa through legal, legislative change, but not okay for someone who believes abortion is immoral to seek the same thing in their own country -- that gets criticized.

In addition, I'd point out that I haven't stated my own, personal position on this issue yet. Simply asked some questions and pointed out some asinine positions and hypocrisy, on both sides of the debate.

[AdrianaAurora]

The rhetoric on abortion continues to embattle and confuse "pro-choice" and "pro-life", "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. Many "liberals" complain that it is irrational and brutal to expect a woman to die so that her unborn child may live. Abortion should be permitted basically on demand, certainly in cases where the health and life of the woman are at risk, and even in cases of incest or rape Besides, they remind us, it is legal. In contrast, many "conservatives" argue that abortion can never be rationalized or permitted, as it is fundamentally immoral to kill an unborn child who is an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances or the law - regardless of the woman's health, life, incest or rape. At times it seems that the advocates of either position are "talking past" each other, oblivious to the possibility of any moral legitimacy in each's position. Further, there seems as yet to be no structured or principled means by which to circumvent this highly politicized stand-off or to address these tragic moral dilemmas which after serious consideration are commonly acceptable to both "camps".

My point is that just because something is immoral we dont have a right to make it illegal.

The common moral principle often used in these difficult situations is that found in the time-honored theory of natural person - known as the principle of double effect. Properly understood, the principle of double effect evolved in order to address just these types of difficult moral dilemmas - in this case where both of the lives of those affected are innocent, and yet something must be done or will happen which inevitably will endanger one of these two innocent lives. The obvious application for our purposes here is when a woman, who is herself an innocent human being, whose human life is precious and must be respected, is pregnant with an unborn child, who is likewise an innocent human being (from fertilization onwards), and whose life is also precious and must be respected. Since, as natural law theory holds, one may never directly intend to kill an innocent human being, under what circumstances and conditions is it morally permissible: (1) for a woman to undergo an abortion procedure; or, (2) for a physician to help one of these innocents to live, by means of other and different morally legitimate medical actions, and yet permit or allow the other, unfortunately, to die?

My point is no human can prove he alone has the absolute unequivocal answer to that dilemma.

Is abortion moral? An equaly valid question could be wheter it is morally defensible to bring an innocent child into this horrible, pain-filled world. Some people are simply not fit to be parents.

I dont believe that abortion is wrong as such. It could even be argued that abortion is perfectly natural - all creatures that raise their young will abondon them if they cannot raise them properly. Indeed, all females will have have miscarriage if the fetus is unable to live, or reabsorb it if they cannot spare the nutrients.

Another point of thought is - a baby cannot think, even to the level of knowing that it exists, or demonstrate even an instinctual layer of selfpreservation. Ethically, murder is wrong because it robs a person of their right to exspress their preference to continue to live. A neonate has no such preference, being intellectually incapable, and thus no right to life.

Pro life central point is that abortion is wrong not only because its murderous, but because adoption is a viable alternative. This is not entirely the case! While many families are waiting for children, this is because of two factors. First, most of those families are not yet officially waiting, as they have to be approved by the stringent safeguards against adoption by those deemed unsuitable.

Secondly, these families insist on adopting only the youngest babies, which leaves a lot of children as wards of the state. It is untrue to imply, as they often do, that children put up for adoption all find happy homes. Is it not kinder to abort fetus, without fear or understanding of death, than to risk (and the odds are high) that child being abandoned to live alone, unloved and in poverty.

[craven]

Each case is different and unique, to impose carte blanche rules or moral codes is unjust and quite simply wrong.

It should always be down to the individuals concerned to decide rationally free from moral stigmas and pressures.

[Ragoczy]

So I do have a choice?

Why should I have any more choice about that than abortion?

Because thats what its all about choice. Its an extremely private and personal issue - and no one but myself, least of all government has the right to make that decision.

One of the government's role (at least in the US) is to protect the individual from others. That's why we have laws ...

Murder harms another, so there's a law.
Rape harms another, so there's a law.
Theft harms another, so there's a law.

If life begins before birth, shouldn't that citizen be protected from harm by others? If it doesn't, shouldn't abortion on-demand in the ninth month be perfectly okay?

[Muskan]

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.


War for self-defense is not immoral. It was moraly correct to fight against Hitler.

Hunger and poverty can not be said immoral, because if it is, then 2/3rd of the world is immoral. Hunger and poverty can be the result of immorality though, but in this world, you will find many riches who are rich just because they are corrupt and immoral, our politicians comes in same group.

[craven]

i think you may have taken me a little to literally to be honest, i feel that to wage war is immoral so yes i agree to defend against it is not, as in the second world war i do though feel that hitlers aggression was immoral.

I also feel that the existence of poverty and hunger is immoral and not those afflicted by these circumstances, so i feel the conditions to be immoral and not as you say the two thirds of the world that are poor and hungry.

[shayna{L_D}]

i cannot believe this is a thread


i wont comment for fear of getting banned


*smh*

[mkemse]

i cannot believe this is a thread


i wont comment for fear of getting banned


*smh*

Why not, Freedom Of Speach and Fredom Of Expression, one may not like some of the views expressed here, but if you are an American, Americans have the Public right to express their feelings and opinoins

[Torq]

OK,, Here we go again,,

What started off a good thread asking good questions and starting a good debate has once again gone "south" quickly!!!

ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Unlike other threads when I have given warning after warning this will NOT be one of them!!!!!!

Let me be PERFECTLY clear here,,, The next member who posts ANY comment even close to a flame, close to a "finger-pointing" remark towards another members OPINION,, will be BANNED from the entire site for LIFE!!

ARE WE CLEAR ENOUGH HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a VERY volatile subject,,STAY ON TOPIC and it can be a VERY good thread.

Choose not to heed my First and FINAL WARNING and you will be BANNED FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Well

T

[Ragoczy]

.

[hopperboo]

...I'm going to have my comments looked over before posting.

[damyanti]

Thank you lucy and lookingforsomething for your posts, sadly I have friends who have went through and still going through the same situations. And no, its never an easy decision, but the choice should exist and be legal.

For myself whenever someone brings the issue of abortion the central point is...and its what always gives me a knee jerk reaction...who gets to decide and make that choice. And I think the best answer is the mother of the fetus.

[hopperboo]

I 100% agree on the rape victim stance. I think a person who was raped should have the ability to choose for themselves if they are going to keep the child or not, and that goes along with incest. (Though I think both cases it should never come to the actual "abortion," we have the morning after pill now).

And...as for having a woman have the ability to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter what...I don't agree with that. If it's negligence on the woman's part, and she wasn't using safe sex then I think the woman needs to buck up and take some responsibility in her life. The baby didn't sign up to be aborted because someone didn't use birth control and it's not just the woman's body anymore. That woman has another body inside her and she must not take that lightly. (And I think it's taken very lightly these days).

I think being extremely right or left in this matter is an unhealthy view.

Abortion will always be needed in some cases, though I also think it should be regulated.

One should not say; abort whenever the passing feeling comes by.
One should not say; the child must live no matter the circumstances.

It's a dangerous way to live in my opinion.

[shayna{L_D}]

And...as for having a woman have the ability to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter what...I don't agree with that. If it's negligence on the woman's part, and she wasn't using safe sex then I think the woman needs to buck up and take some responsibility in her life. The baby didn't sign up to be aborted because someone didn't use birth control and it's not just the woman's body anymore. That woman has another body inside her and she must not take that lightly. (And I think it's taken very lightly these days).

what if the woman was on B.C., and the guy was using condoms at the time she got pregnant? Does this mean that she isnt taking responsiblity?

Does this mean that women should only have sex when they are ready to have a child? Or that if a couple already had child (all the ones they wanted anyway) then they should stop having sex, because a child might be brought into this world becuase of it?

just trying to get a better hold on how you think, and where you are coming from.


I am lucky that i am celibate in this case, but i am still on B.C. and if i was to ever engage in intercourse i would damn sure be prepared to have a child as the after effects.

[hopperboo]

what if the woman was on B.C., and the guy was using condoms at the time she got pregnant? Does this mean that she isnt taking responsiblity?

Does this mean that women should only have sex when they are ready to have a child? Or that if a couple already had child (all the ones they wanted anyway) then they should stop having sex, because a child might be brought into this world becuase of it?.

If the couple already has a child/children and they do not want anymore the woman can have her tubes tied. If they don't take precautions as such and end up with a "mistake" they better be ready to deal with it, and NOT by 'getting rid' of it.

If someone 'accidentally' gets pregnant while on birth control AND using condoms (which I highly doubt this happens much, and if it does it's a VERY low percentage rate) then they still need to own up to their responsibility.



I think denuser answered this perfectly:

Basically it works like this: you want to have sex than be prepared for the consequences. Know that whatever precautions you take you may get preggers and decide accordingly weather or not your little bit of pleasure is worth it.

This lack of responsibility and blatant headonisim pervaded by certian dogmatic agendas with little care for anyone outside the "self" is one of the reasons our western civilization is teetering on the verge of decline.

[Skyybird]

Whilst it's difficult to accept that life is viable in different circumstances, the fact remains that all women are entitled to choose. I have been lucky never to have known a doctor who will abort a healthy fetus after 12 weeks unless there are circumstances to indicate it is medically for the best.

In my experience every effort is made to counsel the mother and consider alternatives.

Morality is a difficult standpoint here because whilst I agree we must be responsible as humans and healthcare practitioners, the rights of the mother are paramount. Her body, her choice.

I would honestly prefer to prevent an unwanted neglected unloved child enter the world. Clinically, termination of pregnancy is effective and swift. To go ahead with a pregnancy and spend the next 18 years abusing and destroying that childs life is far more immorral and has far reaching consequences.

Society must take responsibility for educating it's population in their attitudes and responsibilities to sex before we can sit in judgement of those who find themselves having to deal with the consequences.

[Thorne]

Society must take responsibility for educating it's population in their attitudes and responsibilities to sex before we can sit in judgement of those who find themselves having to deal with the consequences.

It's always bothered me that the same people who are against any kind of abortion tend to be the same people who are against any kind of sex education for our kids. It's as though they feel that not teaching kids about sex will keep them from actually having sex! And if they don't know about sex, then how can there be any unwanted pregnancies?

[Skyybird]

It's always bothered me that the same people who are against any kind of abortion tend to be the same people who are against any kind of sex education for our kids. It's as though they feel that not teaching kids about sex will keep them from actually having sex! And if they don't know about sex, then how can there be any unwanted pregnancies?

Being parents blinkers our conscience. We dont want to corrupt the innocent minds of our offspring or think of them engaging in such activities. It's the biggest flaw in our make up as humans.

I cant understand how a grown up and responsible programme of education, written with facts and humour and a good dose of relationship discussion, can be seen as corruption. I have educated my kids to have an understanding of the world as a whole, we've discussed religion, culture, sex, alcohol. This is really where we should be making a moral stand point.

I really do want my childrern to grow up with a healthy enthusiasm for life and it's charms, sex included. If they get to enjoy the fruits of the flesh half as much as I have then they will be lucky people indeed. As their parent it is my job to ensure they engage safely with the world and consider the consequences of their actions legal and moral.

[Laila]

Well said, Skyybird.

I think a society must be ready to help young mothers in need (monetarily, with childcare available when she wants/has to work, with acceptance, a good educational and healthcare system) before it has the right to shout murderer and condemn abortion.

I'm not saying that its the right thing to do - but I do understand the woman's motivation and if pro-lifers are serious they would spend less time judging and condemning and more time helping.

(Saying that - the idea of aborting a foetus in the third trimester is horrendous to me and I would never associate that with the word abortion, which for me is only valid in the first trimester. There is still adoption after all... unless of course it really is life threatening to the mother. But still, that poor poor woman having to make that choice.)

[denuseri]

It is my opinion that the proponents of "pro-life" everyone seems to like stereotyping are greatly misunderstood, most of the ones I know are all for sex education just opposed to the state sponsored variety with its influence of condoneing sexual intercourse, which we pretty much covered to death and back in another thread.

It is unfortunate that a moral delima does exsist on this issue for "some" people. It is unfortunate that they will dress the issue in any light that doest paint "them" as wrong for thier choice to commit murder.


Fortunately in the United States far wiser people have defined what the legal limits are for us in today's society.

Every cluture is different in that regard.

I personally believe that it is murder at a certian point to provide an abortion.

Where exactly that point "is" will of course vary from individual to individual.

The day after pill is not in my opinion murder. I believe the first tri-mester provides a woman with plenty of time to figure out if she wants to carry her pregnancey to term and still feel "good" about her self if she decides to kill her unborn child with an abortion.

The old fashioned way of doing medicine may have been best (which was mostly abbandoned with the industrial revolution in the later 1800's) the women generally took care of midwifery with little interaction from the men in most cultures. If an abortion was needed it was done and no one need be the wiser.

I am not saying lets remove the technological know-how and revert to the old ways, so much as I am saying if they had never abandonded seperate care practices by gender roles, that it may not be the same "issue" it is today.

Of course back in the day (according to an old Doctor friend of mine) if a woman really needed an abortion the Doctor would preform it, but he was the ultimate authority on weather or not she needed one, the ethical delima was his to debate with himself.

When I posted the Oath of Hippocrates I meant it in the sence it was written, which is that physicians be not involved in the issue lest they break that sacred oath. The Greeks obviously valued the potential life of the unborn much more highly than todays society. Which is why most woman seeking abortions in those days went to other scources like the old crone, or witch, to widwife them.

See to most people back then having a child was a blessing, a gift from thier god or gods. Something to be valued for the miracle it was.

Not generally avoided becuase it inconvienenced you.

Just becuase I say it is murder doesnt mean I don't say that it isnt nessesary at certian times. Like saving the mothers life, or to keep a survivor of rape from having to carry such a child to term.

Murder is after all justified by some societies in certian circumstances, we just like to window dress it to feel better about it later. (as in war or executions or aborations).

Basically it works like this: you want to have sex than be prepared for the consequences. Know that whatever precautions you take you may get preggers and decide accordingly weather or not your little bit of pleasure is worth it.

This lack of responsibility and blatant headonisim pervaded by certian dogmatic agendas with little care for anyone outside the "self" is one of the reasons our western civilization is teetering on the verge of decline.




Here is the link to the sex sducation debate thread I mentions for those that are interested:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/sh...ight=education

[damyanti]

Here are the historical facts:

The average family in Ancient Greece had 5 children. Healthy babies could be sold into slavery. Unhealthy ones or otherwise defective ones would be exposed. This meant they were left out in the elements to die. Some babies were exposed simply because a soothsayer forcast an evil from the baby. Some exposed babies were taken in by other people.

The ancient Greeks regarded children as little people. They did not regard them as different from big people. By the time a person was about 13 years old, he or she was considered an adult in every respect. Boys were educated separately for their duties as citizens of the state. Girls were educated by their mothers in the home.

Formal education was woefully inadequate in classical Greece. The lax attitude towards formal education reflects two principles; that children were not regarded in their own right, but were, seen as adults-in-waiting; and that an Athenian had supreme confidence in the ability of their children to become like their peers and to understand and to live by their standards and ideals of what it meant to be a good man and a good citizen in a good society. Some of these ideals and standards were very different depending on what part of Greece you were from. This was especially true in the differences in educating the youth in Athens and in Sparta.

Children of both sexes were kept naked while they were very young and boys spent a lot of time naked in athletic training. Greek boys had to contend with an open attitude toward homosexuality.

If you were a wife of a citizen you spent your time secluded at home having babies, cleaning, cooking, spinning and weaving. Since your needs were taken care of you led a pretty easy life. The husband had to work outside the home, shop, attend political meetings and go to war. Women slaves did more menial work including carrying water and wastes, grinding grain, serving, and in some cases providing sex for their masters.

Women were supposed to be confined to the home but there are reports that they are found outside the home. One possible solution to this contradiction is that the women are veiled when they want to be outside the home when it is not appropriate. There is some suggestion that the men felt the women were invisible in this situation.

The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

The birth process in women was seen as related to the production of natural goods on which the community depended. The fertility of women was seen as related to the fertility of plants and animals and even of the soil.

If the experience of Agnodice is any indication the women were attended by male doctors at birth, if at all. Men tried to keep Agnodice from becoming a doctor, but the women protested. Women became doctors until the 12th century. Midwifes probably became popular when woman were no longer able to become doctors.

As to the risk of childbirth Medea says "I'd three time rather stand And face a line of shields than once give birth."

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.

The ancient Greeks tolerated abortions though they were not all that common. During their time it was much safer to carry a baby to full term than have an abortion. Perhaps only one in ten mothers survived an abortion. The ancient Greeks tolerated infanticide. If the newborn baby was malformed then it would be exposed to the elements to die. If the baby was unwanted it could be sold into slavery. There were safer options in those days than abortion.

The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. Aristotle, Politics 7.16

Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, described how a dancer came to him with a need for an abortion. Hippocrates caused her to make certain violent jumping dance movements and her baby aborted. He then went on to make important observations about the aborted fetus. Abortion was not common in ancient Greece simply because they practiced infanticide.

During the Roman period the demand for babies dropped and some of the women opted for self-induced abortions which they performed on themselves with a knife. A desperate woman would plunge a dagger into her vagina, killing the baby. This would usually result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. This is a very un-safe practice and many of these women died. It was much safer for the mother to carry the baby to full-term and then expose it or sell it than to try to abort it before birth.

A parent who abandoned a new-born baby to die was not punished in any way. If a person found such a baby they could take it as their own.


The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.

The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.

The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

Even antiabortionists admit that, their reasoning is stretching Bible verses to claim that fetus is a child too:

Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3-5 -- Children are a blessing, a source of happiness and joy to their parents.
Titus 2:4 -- Young women should be taught to love their children.
Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4 -- God has made us stewards of our children.

(antiabortionist view) "But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. Abortion does fit the Bible definition of murder. But even if it did not, it would still be sinful because it is unloving, a lack of appreciation for God's blessings, and a gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs."

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

English Common Law agreed that abortion was a crime after 'quickening' - but the seriousness of that crime was different at different times in history.

In 1803 English Statute Law made abortion after quickening a crime that earned the death penalty, but a less serious crime before that.

In 1837 English law abolished the significance of quickening, and also abandoned the death penalty for abortion.

In the 1920s English law added a get-out clause that stopped abortion being a crime if it was "done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."

This change officially recognised a little-stressed feature of anti-abortion laws; they were often intended to protect women from a dangerous medical procedure, and not to protect the life of the foetus.

In 1938 the important case of R v Bourne decided in favour of an abortion performed on a 14 year old girl who had been raped - the court felt that the girl's mental health would have suffered had she given birth - and this established that the mother's mental suffering could be sufficient reason for an abortion.

The judge (Mr. Justice Macnaghten) put it like this:

...if the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor ... is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother.



Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Laws specifically against abortion became widespread in America in the second half of the 1800s, and by 1900 abortion was illegal everywhere in the USA, except in order to save the life of the mother.

Some writers have suggested that the pressure to ban abortion was not entirely ethical or religious, but was partially motivated by the medical profession as a way of attacking the non-medical practitioners who carried out most abortions.

Abortions were made legal in the United States in a landmark 1973 Supreme Court judgement, often referred to as the Roe v Wade case.

In 2003 the plaintiff in Roe v Wade asked for the decision to be reversed and put forward questionable evidence that abortion is harmful to women.

Abortion rights faced restriction in 2003 after the US House of Representatives and the US Senate voted to ban late-term 'partial birth' abortions.

[Thorne]

Well done, damyanti! Nice piece of work!

[mkemse]

Here are the historical facts:

The average family in Ancient Greece had 5 children. Healthy babies could be sold into slavery. Unhealthy ones or otherwise defective ones would be exposed. This meant they were left out in the elements to die. Some babies were exposed simply because a soothsayer forcast an evil from the baby. Some exposed babies were taken in by other people.

The ancient Greeks regarded children as little people. They did not regard them as different from big people. By the time a person was about 13 years old, he or she was considered an adult in every respect. Boys were educated separately for their duties as citizens of the state. Girls were educated by their mothers in the home.

Formal education was woefully inadequate in classical Greece. The lax attitude towards formal education reflects two principles; that children were not regarded in their own right, but were, seen as adults-in-waiting; and that an Athenian had supreme confidence in the ability of their children to become like their peers and to understand and to live by their standards and ideals of what it meant to be a good man and a good citizen in a good society. Some of these ideals and standards were very different depending on what part of Greece you were from. This was especially true in the differences in educating the youth in Athens and in Sparta.

Children of both sexes were kept naked while they were very young and boys spent a lot of time naked in athletic training. Greek boys had to contend with an open attitude toward homosexuality.

If you were a wife of a citizen you spent your time secluded at home having babies, cleaning, cooking, spinning and weaving. Since your needs were taken care of you led a pretty easy life. The husband had to work outside the home, shop, attend political meetings and go to war. Women slaves did more menial work including carrying water and wastes, grinding grain, serving, and in some cases providing sex for their masters.

Women were supposed to be confined to the home but there are reports that they are found outside the home. One possible solution to this contradiction is that the women are veiled when they want to be outside the home when it is not appropriate. There is some suggestion that the men felt the women were invisible in this situation.

The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

The birth process in women was seen as related to the production of natural goods on which the community depended. The fertility of women was seen as related to the fertility of plants and animals and even of the soil.

If the experience of Agnodice is any indication the women were attended by male doctors at birth, if at all. Men tried to keep Agnodice from becoming a doctor, but the women protested. Women became doctors until the 12th century. Midwifes probably became popular when woman were no longer able to become doctors.

As to the risk of childbirth Medea says "I'd three time rather stand And face a line of shields than once give birth."

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.

The ancient Greeks tolerated abortions though they were not all that common. During their time it was much safer to carry a baby to full term than have an abortion. Perhaps only one in ten mothers survived an abortion. The ancient Greeks tolerated infanticide. If the newborn baby was malformed then it would be exposed to the elements to die. If the baby was unwanted it could be sold into slavery. There were safer options in those days than abortion.

The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. Aristotle, Politics 7.16

Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, described how a dancer came to him with a need for an abortion. Hippocrates caused her to make certain violent jumping dance movements and her baby aborted. He then went on to make important observations about the aborted fetus. Abortion was not common in ancient Greece simply because they practiced infanticide.

During the Roman period the demand for babies dropped and some of the women opted for self-induced abortions which they performed on themselves with a knife. A desperate woman would plunge a dagger into her vagina, killing the baby. This would usually result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. This is a very un-safe practice and many of these women died. It was much safer for the mother to carry the baby to full-term and then expose it or sell it than to try to abort it before birth.

A parent who abandoned a new-born baby to die was not punished in any way. If a person found such a baby they could take it as their own.


The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.

The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.

The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

Even antiabortionists admit that, their reasoning is stretching Bible verses to claim that fetus is a child too:

Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3-5 -- Children are a blessing, a source of happiness and joy to their parents.
Titus 2:4 -- Young women should be taught to love their children.
Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4 -- God has made us stewards of our children.

(antiabortionist view) "But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. Abortion does fit the Bible definition of murder. But even if it did not, it would still be sinful because it is unloving, a lack of appreciation for God's blessings, and a gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs."

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

English Common Law agreed that abortion was a crime after 'quickening' - but the seriousness of that crime was different at different times in history.

In 1803 English Statute Law made abortion after quickening a crime that earned the death penalty, but a less serious crime before that.

In 1837 English law abolished the significance of quickening, and also abandoned the death penalty for abortion.

In the 1920s English law added a get-out clause that stopped abortion being a crime if it was "done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."

This change officially recognised a little-stressed feature of anti-abortion laws; they were often intended to protect women from a dangerous medical procedure, and not to protect the life of the foetus.

In 1938 the important case of R v Bourne decided in favour of an abortion performed on a 14 year old girl who had been raped - the court felt that the girl's mental health would have suffered had she given birth - and this established that the mother's mental suffering could be sufficient reason for an abortion.

The judge (Mr. Justice Macnaghten) put it like this:

...if the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor ... is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother.



Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Laws specifically against abortion became widespread in America in the second half of the 1800s, and by 1900 abortion was illegal everywhere in the USA, except in order to save the life of the mother.

Some writers have suggested that the pressure to ban abortion was not entirely ethical or religious, but was partially motivated by the medical profession as a way of attacking the non-medical practitioners who carried out most abortions.

Abortions were made legal in the United States in a landmark 1973 Supreme Court judgement, often referred to as the Roe v Wade case.

In 2003 the plaintiff in Roe v Wade asked for the decision to be reversed and put forward questionable evidence that abortion is harmful to women.

Abortion rights faced restriction in 2003 after the US House of Representatives and the US Senate voted to ban late-term 'partial birth' abortions.

Nice Factual Post

[jezabel]

This is a VERY emotive issue for myself as a survivor of a rape and consequent abortion. I still feel guilt for what I did, over twenty years later and wish that things could been different.

So anyone who thinks that an abortion is an easy way out for a woman is very, very wrong! the feelings will stay with me for the rest of my life

[mkemse]

This is a VERY emotive issue for myself as a survivor of a rape and consequent abortion. I still feel guilt for what I did, over twenty years later and wish that things could been different.

So anyone who thinks that an abortion is an easy way out for a woman is very, very wrong! the feelings will stay with me for the rest of my life

I have NO doubt about what you say, but I still believe the ultimate decsion is a personal one between spouses and their doctor and NOT the Governement or the Courts

[~faerie~]

This is an extremely hard topic for me to talk about, but i feel the need to insert my opinion. i had two daughters with my ex. about 7 years into out relationship he became a drug addict and an abuser, and i was afraid to leave. i was working full time supporting my ex and two daughters, and at the time we were on welfare because he couldnt get or keep a joband i didnt make enough. i got pregnant 3 times and had three abortions. not because i wanted to but because i felt that at the time i had no other option. my main concern was to be able to support the children i have and i knew in my heart i could not bring another child into what my life was becoming. it took another five years for me to get out. there is not a day that goes by that i dont think about them and feel the pain of loss. But i know that i did the right thing. i knew as i was going into the clinic and had all the protesters shouting at me that i was doing what was best for me and my daughters. They did not have to live my life, i did. and i probably should have left him sooner but i didnt. and i have that to bear on my shoulders for all time. I am sorry i had to do it. a piece of me died each time, a part of my heart shattered and fell away, but i dont regret it.
i was raised catholic and i was raised that is was wrong, but i also remember to not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It is not the right or the place of the government or anyone to tell a women what she can or cant do to her body. are there not enough unwanted and abandoned children on the streets? are all of the people opposed to abortion going to take in and raise all of those children? Why not worry about the children that are already here and have no one than the ones that are not yet born. It is easy to get on your soapbox and shout to the world your views on morality and how all of us are killers and sinners and whores, but what do you personally do to make a difference. actions speak louder than words. what do your actions speak?


feel free to ban me if you must.

[mkemse]

This is an extremely hard topic for me to talk about, but i feel the need to insert my opinion. i had two daughters with my ex. about 7 years into out relationship he became a drug addict and an abuser, and i was afraid to leave. i was working full time supporting my ex and two daughters, and at the time we were on welfare because he couldnt get or keep a joband i didnt make enough. i got pregnant 3 times and had three abortions. not because i wanted to but because i felt that at the time i had no other option. my main concern was to be able to support the children i have and i knew in my heart i could not bring another child into what my life was becoming. it took another five years for me to get out. there is not a day that goes by that i dont think about them and feel the pain of loss. But i know that i did the right thing. i knew as i was going into the clinic and had all the protesters shouting at me that i was doing what was best for me and my daughters. They did not have to live my life, i did. and i probably should have left him sooner but i didnt. and i have that to bear on my shoulders for all time. I am sorry i had to do it. a piece of me died each time, a part of my heart shattered and fell away, but i dont regret it.
i was raised catholic and i was raised that is was wrong, but i also remember to not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It is not the right or the place of the government or anyone to tell a women what she can or cant do to her body. are there not enough unwanted and abandoned children on the streets? are all of the people opposed to abortion going to take in and raise all of those children? Why not worry about the children that are already here and have no one than the ones that are not yet born. It is easy to get on your soapbox and shout to the world your views on morality and how all of us are killers and sinners and whores, but what do you personally do to make a difference. actions speak louder than words. what do your actions speak?


feel free to ban me if you must.

Not going to shout ect but simply say what I did before, th issue of Abortion to me is an issue between the Husband, wife and their doctor
It is NOT a decsion that should be eft up to the Governement or Courts, YOU own your reproductive system, they don't, what do you with it is your choice not their

[awakening2]

May be the reason for calling it immoral by some is that for a long time, making love has remain a noble act allowed or approved by societies for only those who got married to pronounce that they are ready to take responsibilities. Making love was like making a pledge to their own love, add meaning to it, and give new focus to their life and to be part of the nature to continue its journey.

Now life has changed, marriage is a burden for many, making love is little bit of love, more of fun, little bit of lust, and yes, sure a physical requirement (or may be an exercise!) for many! The fun and enjoyment is part of fun lovers (life is today so live it today, who has seen tomorrow!) and not much to do with taking responsibilities – plan, and if required, sacrifice today for a better future. Many factions of societies appreciate fun lovers and to help ease them from troubles, corporate sector such as pharmaceutical and other protective gear manufacturers have step forward. Amazingly still fun lovers are fun lovers, how can you control them, they are not meant to be….

Now come those who are forced into it, well I only hope that the societies get matured to a level where:
a) They collectively take the responsibilities of such born,
b) Inflict a punishment on the wrong doers (the man) to ensure he is unable to repeat the act again, even if the opportunity is generated by him again
c) Treat victim as the noble one, and prize those who strive to win the hearts of them...

Oh…it is turning into a serious lecture...no fun in it...and I am not that serious, but then it is difficult to have fun...for a society is wounded...in most of the cases the soul of the very woman who is the source of nurturing life is shredded, and the death of an unborn one, on who's soul and body (called fetus by some) we are reasoning to triumph. For me it is a lose-lose situation...no gain...no smiles...

Some one whispered - if you feel, it’s a death of a human society, if you don’t it’s just a ‘tumour’ remove it and dump it away!