Abortion

[Scott]

After a rather long conversation in a thread whose topic had nothing to do with abortion, I've decided the subject deserved a thread of its own. A lot of the discussion in the other thread involves trying to come to an agreement as to how to define abortion. I made a separate thread on why women have abortions here:

Thread 'Why women have abortions'

Sep 11, 2025

After discussing why women have abortions in another thread whose topic definitely isn't abortions, I decided it would be better to make a thread for the subject instead. Below is an excerpt from an article that lists the different reasons women have abortions:
**
Generally, people use the term “abortion” to refer to the intentional termination of a pregnancy.
The vast majority of abortions take place early in pregnancy. In 2020, 93.1% of abortions in the United States occurred at 13 weeks’ gestation or sooner.
The Turnaway study followed 954 people from across the United...

• Scott
• abortions hannah nichols medicalnewstoday.com reasons women choose to have an abortion stacy henigsman
• Replies: 146
• Forum: General Politics Forum

• 

With that said, the definitions of abortion I use personally are the first 2 that can be found in the American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition:
**

• noun Induced termination of a pregnancy with destruction of the embryo or fetus.
• noun Any of various procedures that result in the termination of a pregnancy.

**

Source:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

Anyone who agrees or disagrees with the above definitions of abortion is welcome to post constructive comments in this thread on their views.

 

[Scott]

I admit that I find some of your points above to be interesting. I think it could be said that the U.S. already engages in somewhat legalized contract killing, in cases such as the death penalty and ofcourse in its many wars, both covert and overt, that the U.S. has engaged in over the years.

Please notice the mental gymnastics you performed in order to exclude abortion, which is an unspoken Special Pleading fallacy.

I've already told you why- I don't see the removal of a pregnant woman's fetus at her request to be a killing, but rather a termination. As I've explained elsewhere, society uses different words for procedures that end the life of various life forms. We tend to reserve terms such as killing and especially murder for the wrongful and deliberate removal of human lives. For cases where the life isn't human, we tend to use terms such as slaughter. For cases where the ending of a human life that has some type of mitigating circumstance, we use the term manslaughter. Here's The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition's definition of the term:
**
The killing of a person without malice aforethought but with either the intention to commit an unlawful act that leads to an unintended death, or with an otherwise murderous intent that is extenuated by some partial defense, such as acting under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance occasioned by a substantial provocation on the part of the victim.
**
Source:

manslaughter — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

And finally, for cases such as a mother's decision to remove a fetus from her body, we tend to use the term termination. This is certainly the case with The American Heritage Dictionary, 5th Edition, as mentioned and referenced in the opening post of this thread.

 

[Scott]

I admit that I find some of your points above to be interesting. I think it could be said that the U.S. already engages in somewhat legalized contract killing, in cases such as the death penalty and ofcourse in its many wars, both covert and overt, that the U.S. has engaged in over the years. Getting back to abortions,

We weren't talking about the subset of contract killings; we are talking about the entire set of contract killings. Stay focused.

You know full well that I don't agree with your notion that abortion is a subset of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

Getting back to abortions, I think the key thing to consider when it comes to what is sometimes called voluntary abortions is who is authorizing the abortion

Our working definition of contract killing indicates that the killing is ordered by the customer who hires the professional killer.

Sure, but since I view abortions as terminations of pregnancies rather than killings, it simply doesn't fit into the definition of contract killings.

 

[Scott]

I'm having a conversation with you and I'm telling you that the issue of intelligence is key to understanding why many people believe that women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies.

You are saying that "intelligence" is somehow the key to understanding why "many" people believe that women should have killing supremacy [snip]

No I'm saying that "the issue of intelligence is key to understanding why many people believe that women should be allowed to terminate their pregnancies." I know you want to replace the word abortion with various other words, whether it be a subset of contract killings or in this case, killing supremacy, but I'm not having it. We are talking about the word abortion, a term that is defined in dictionaries I've referenced as the termination of a pregnancy or the rather long but still accurate "the removal of a fetus from the womb prior to normal delivery in a manner such as to cause the death of the fetus; also called voluntary abortion, or when performed by a physician, therapeutic abortion."

Source:

abortion — definition, examples, related words and more at Wordnik

All the words

www.wordnik.com

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I see the biggest problem with it is how it stands in terms of contract law.

Right now, pregnancy to birth is solely the legal responsibility of the woman involved. The man legally has little or no say. Once the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term and has the child suddenly the responsibility for all costs of raising that child fall equally on the man and woman involved.

There are a number of problems in terms of standard contract law with this. These include:

The woman is under no obligation to inform the man involved she is pregnant at any point. This means she can wait until the child is born, demand a paternity test, and then further demand child support and other support from the man involved without his having any say whatsoever in the pregnancy process prior to that point.

The woman can have an abortion without informing the man involved and giving him any say in the matter.

This is completely unfair and unequal.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sure, but since I view abortions as terminations of pregnancies rather than killings, it simply doesn't fit into the definition of contract killings.

For you to claim that abortion is not a killing of a living human, you have to show that no living human is killed in an abortion.

Every abortion thus far has involved the killing of a living human. Your statement is false and is refuted.

 

[Scott]

If you and I define a word, we must both use that same definition or we are in breach and errors result, software doesn't work, bridges collapse, space shuttles explode, one of us is in breach of contract, etc.

Only if we're dealing with things like programming, engineering and the law. Regular conversations don't have such strict rules.

The less bearing it has on society, the fewer the rules.

Sure. I think it also bears mentioning that in our discussions regarding abortion, agreeing on the meanings/definitions/descriptions/usages of certain words becomes absolutely crucial.

 

[Scott]

I see the biggest problem with it is how it stands in terms of contract law.

Right now, pregnancy to birth is solely the legal responsibility of the woman involved. The man legally has little or no say. Once the woman decides to carry the pregnancy to term and has the child suddenly the responsibility for all costs of raising that child fall equally on the man and woman involved.

There are a number of problems in terms of standard contract law with this. These include:

The woman is under no obligation to inform the man involved she is pregnant at any point. This means she can wait until the child is born, demand a paternity test, and then further demand child support and other support from the man involved without his having any say whatsoever in the pregnancy process prior to that point.

The woman can have an abortion without informing the man involved and giving him any say in the matter.

This is completely unfair and unequal.

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex. Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly. Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great. This is not the case for a woman who -doesn't- want to have a child.

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not. If he gives her his sperm, that's what I'd call the handoff of responsibility, in the sense that it's now up to the woman what she intends to do with it if she becomes pregnant. At least, that's how I think it should be. U.S. states currently have different views on this, and people can (and do) frequently vote with their feet as to which laws regarding abortion they want to live under.

 

[Scott]

Sure, but since I view abortions as terminations of pregnancies rather than killings, it simply doesn't fit into the definition of contract killings.

For you to claim that abortion is not a killing of a living human, you have to show that no living human is killed in an abortion.

As I've mentioned to you in the past, in law, there are different words and terms for different causes of death, not to mention what living being is being killed. I get into this to some extent in post #2 in this thread, which was in response to one of your posts in another thread.

 

[gfm7175]

I've already told you why- I don't see the removal of a pregnant woman's fetus at her request to be a killing, but rather a termination.

Terminology is very important. Let's get some terminology down first. You say "pregnant woman's fetus". Let's be very clear about what this actually is.

First, let's clearly and unambiguously define the specific species being referenced here. Would you agree that the specific species being discussed here is 'homo sapien' (aka human)? In other words, is the "pregnant woman's fetus" HUMAN?

Second, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'living' (since you make a distinction between the words 'killing' and 'termination'). What does 'living' mean? Would you agree with the common medical axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life"? In other words, is the presence of a heartbeat a widely-used and accepted indicator of life? Has any fauna with a heartbeat ever been considered "dead"?

Thirdly, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'fetus' (since you make reference to that term). What does 'fetus' mean? Would you agree that 'fetus' is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans)?

And finally, for cases such as a mother's decision to remove a fetus from her body, we tend to use the term termination.

Hold up. "Remove a fetus". Fetus isn't a species; it is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans). It was not a "fetus" that was removed; it was a "living human" that was removed from her body (after it had been killed via contract).

 

[Scott]

I've already told you why- I don't see the removal of a pregnant woman's fetus at her request to be a killing, but rather a termination.

Terminology is very important.

I believe we all agree on that.

Let's get some terminology down first.

That would be good.

You say "pregnant woman's fetus". Let's be very clear about what this actually is.

First, let's clearly and unambiguously define the specific species being referenced here. Would you agree that the specific species being discussed here is 'homo sapien' (aka human)? In other words, is the "pregnant woman's fetus" HUMAN?

In our current discussion, yes.

Second, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'living' (since you make a distinction between the words 'killing' and 'termination'). What does 'living' mean? Would you agree with the common medical axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life"? In other words, is the presence of a heartbeat a widely-used and accepted indicator of life? Has any fauna with a heartbeat ever been considered "dead"?

Honestly, I'm not sure. I have heard of brain death, which apparently quickly leads to actual death:

Brain death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you consider someone who is brain dead to be dead, or is said person only dead when their heart stops?

Thirdly, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'fetus' (since you make reference to that term). What does 'fetus' mean? Would you agree that 'fetus' is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans)?

Yes.

And finally, for cases such as a mother's decision to remove a fetus from her body, we tend to use the term termination.

Hold up. "Remove a fetus". Fetus isn't a species; it is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans). It was not a "fetus" that was removed; it was a "living human" that was removed from her body (after it had been killed via contract).

In the case of the removal of human fetuses, the fetus was both a fetus -and- a living human. A question that should be asked at this point, is why the focus on the word fetus? I strongly suspect that a large part of the reason is due to the relative intelligence of said fetus vs. the pregnant woman who is hosting it and weighing this when considering the wishes of said woman.

 

[gfm7175]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal-

One could say that life in general is also completely unfair and unequal.

all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex.

A "pump and dump" man sounds like a very shitty man to me.

Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly.

See above. If the man is nowhere to be found during this period of time, then he is a very shitty man. A decent man would stick around to support the woman (both physically and emotionally) during that period of time.

And yes, the aforementioned works out SOOOO MUCH better whenever the man and the woman are already married ("joined together as one body") and are already desiring children (which stems from the in-principle ability to procreate and is not only a visible display of marriage's fruitfulness but is also a visible signification of how the "two bodies" have "joined together as one").

Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great.

No, it's not great for the man to "pump and dump". He should be there to support his wife (via providing for her physical and emotional needs during that time). Again, this is much easier to do whenever the man and the woman are already married and are already desiring to have a child.

This is not the case for a woman who -doesn't- want to have a child.

A woman who doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be having any sex in the first place. This is a deviation from God's design for both sex and marriage, and such careless/sinful behavior only brings about destruction (STDs, abortions, etc).

The proper "order of operations" is: dating > desire to join together as "one" > marriage > desire to have children > sex > procreation (ideal result) --- This (instead of destruction) brings about fruit (e.g. children).

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not.

And likewise, a woman has the option of receiving his sperm or not.

If he gives her his sperm, that's what I'd call the handoff of responsibility, in the sense that it's now up to the woman what she intends to do with it if she becomes pregnant.

This is such a disgusting way to look at it. There shouldn't be any "handoff of responsibility". Any man who "pumps and dumps" is a complete and utter piece of shit (and any woman who contracts the killing of her child for convenience purposes is likewise a complete and utter piece of shit). This is also why marriage BEFORE sex is an absolutely vital part of God's design for both marriage and sex.

Under God's design, a man and a woman are "joined together as ONE body" (marriage). They are both UNIFIED in spirit/will (just as Jesus is married to his Church). Thus, there is NO "handoff of responsibility". While the woman has the specific responsibility of caring for the child who is inside of her womb, the man has the specific responsibility of caring (both physically and emotionally) for the woman who is carrying his child inside of her. They are both UNIFIED, going through the childbirth process TOGETHER as ONE (each with different responsibilities/roles).

 

[T. A. Gardner]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex. Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly. Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great. This is not the case for a woman who -doesn't- want to have a child.

That's a matter of biology not legality.

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not. If he gives her his sperm, that's what I'd call the handoff of responsibility, in the sense that it's now up to the woman what she intends to do with it if she becomes pregnant. At least, that's how I think it should be. U.S. states currently have different views on this, and people can (and do) frequently vote with their feet as to which laws regarding abortion they want to live under.

It's not. The two are co-equal partners in a contract.

 

[gfm7175]

In our current discussion, yes.

Great. We agree that the species is human.

Honestly, I'm not sure. I have heard of brain death, which apparently quickly leads to actual death:

Brain death - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Would you consider someone who is brain dead to be dead, or is said person only dead when their heart stops?

Okay, so while we've clearly established the species as being 'homo sapien' (human), there's still some discussion to be had about the term 'living' and what would be considered 'living'.

You ask a good question here. My answer would be NO. The continued presence of a heartbeat still signifies the presence of life, even if the brain isn't functioning properly (or at all). The human isn't dead until the heart stops beating (meaning the cessation of any "keeping alive" efforts or a continued flatline after several failed revival attempts).

What are your thoughts on this?

Yes.

Great. We agree that 'fetus' is not any new species or a manner in which to dehumanize a human, but is rather a specific growth/developmental stage of a human.

In the case of the removal of human fetuses, the fetus was both a fetus -and- a living human.

"the fetus was...a living human". [your own words]

IOW, the living human was killed (and is now a dead human)?
You don't find the killing of such humans to be repulsive?

A question that should be asked at this point, is why the focus on the word fetus?

People like to use the word 'fetus' as a way to dehumanize the living human child. They treat 'fetus' as some mysterious species instead of as a specific stage of human growth/development.

 

[IBDaMann]

Terminology is very important. Let's get some terminology down first. You say "pregnant woman's fetus". Let's be very clear about what this actually is.

First, let's clearly and unambiguously define the specific species being referenced here. Would you agree that the specific species being discussed here is 'homo sapien' (aka human)? In other words, is the "pregnant woman's fetus" HUMAN?

Second, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'living' (since you make a distinction between the words 'killing' and 'termination'). What does 'living' mean? Would you agree with the common medical axiom "if there is a heartbeat, then there is life"? In other words, is the presence of a heartbeat a widely-used and accepted indicator of life? Has any fauna with a heartbeat ever been considered "dead"?

Thirdly, let's clearly and unambiguously define the term 'fetus' (since you make reference to that term). What does 'fetus' mean? Would you agree that 'fetus' is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans)?

Hold up. "Remove a fetus". Fetus isn't a species; it is a specific stage of the growth/development of certain species (such as humans). It was not a "fetus" that was removed; it was a "living human" that was removed from her body (after it had been killed via contract).

Allow me to bask in the radiant glow of this master class of biological wisdom! Your words make me want to shout "contract killings are WRONG, so very, very WRONG". Lead the way.

 

[Scott]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal

One could say that life in general is also completely unfair and unequal.

If we're talking about the lottery of what parents we get and where we're born, sure.

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex.

A "pump and dump" man sounds like a very shitty man to me.

You misunderstand me, not that there aren't some men that ghost women when they hear that they're pregnant. I was referring to the fact that, biologically speaking, men don't do a lot when it comes to creating new life.

Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly.

See above. If the man is nowhere to be found during this period of time, then he is a very shitty man. A decent man would stick around to support the woman (both physically and emotionally) during that period of time.

I certainly agree that there are some men who are, shall we say, not exactly good parental figures. That being said, it's not always so clear cut. There are many reasons why a man might not be able to be there much if at all for a woman -without- it being a simple case of just being a bad parental figure. From incarceration, to needing to work long hours to needing to work in another location (if one is in the army, for instance). There are also more exotic cases such as a man who was having marital problems and then has an affair that leads to a pregnancy out of wedlock. I mention that last one because I personally know someone in that boat. The woman chose not to terminate the pregnancy and said man is doing his best to raise 2 children- one with his wife (who he actually had a bit later) and the one with the woman he had an affair with. I think he's a good man who went through a bad spot and is doing the best he can with the result. He loves both his children very much.

And yes, the aforementioned works out SOOOO MUCH better whenever the man and the woman are already married ("joined together as one body") and are already desiring children (which stems from the in-principle ability to procreate and is not only a visible display of marriage's fruitfulness but is also a visible signification of how the "two bodies" have "joined together as one").

I certainly agree that life is generally easier when a man and a woman have entered some form of contract, such as a marriage, and actually want a child instead of it being the result of an unplanned pregnancy. That being said, even in such cases, things don't always work out. I'm sure you're aware that the divorce rate in the U.S. is pretty high. From an article on the subject:
**

How Many Marriages End in Divorce?​

So, what about the famous statistic that half of all marriages end in divorce? That’s a bit of an exaggeration when it comes to first marriages, only 43% of which are dissolved.2 Second and third marriages actually fail at a far higher rate, though, with 60% of second marriages and 73% of third marriages ending in divorce.3
**
Source:

Revealing Divorce Statistics In 2025

The decision to end a marriage is deeply personal, but there are some widespread factors that weigh into the decision. For example, you’re more likely to divorce if you have divorced friends. And you’re less likely to divorce in Louisiana than in Nevada. We’ve combed through research from the U.S. C

www.forbes.com

I think one knows one is in trouble when a journalist can say that "only" 43% of first marriages are dissolved, and the divorce rate for second and third marriages speak for themselves.

Here, again, I can speak from close second hand experience- my eldest sister (I'm the eldest of my siblings, but I have a younger sister too) got married and got divorced shortly after having her second child. Fortunately for her, my mother had the financial resources to help her out, because her ex husband used a fair amount of his for a child custody battle and only seemed to pay child support when it was his only option to continue his fight for child custody (clever lawyer trick there to force the issue). I think it's a good thing that he lost the child custody battle- in my mind, my sister was much better suited to caring for them than he was.

 

[Scott]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex. Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly. Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great.

No, it's not great for the man to "pump and dump".

Agreed, but again, I wasn't referring to what the man does. With or without the man's support, being pregnant generally isn't easy from what I've heard. Ofcourse, it can be much harder if, for whatever reason, the man either can't or doesn't support the woman much if at all.

He should be there to support his wife (via providing for her physical and emotional needs during that time). Again, this is much easier to do whenever the man and the woman are already married and are already desiring to have a child.

If wishes were horses, beggars would ride, as the old saying goes. You are at first assuming that they are married, before later acknowledging that this may not be the case. Then there is the fact that even if they -are- married initially, that doesn't mean they will stay that way once the woman is pregnant or shortly thereafter. And we're not even getting into cases where the woman would be better off with a divorce.

 

[Scott]

One could say that pregnancy is also completely unfair and unequal- all a man does is create sperm and then inject a bit into a woman during sex. Once pregnancy begins, it's the woman who bears the burden of pregnancy single handedly. Now, for a woman who wants to have a child, that can be great- difficult sometimes, but still great. This is not the case for a woman who -doesn't- want to have a child.

A woman who doesn't want to have a child shouldn't be having any sex in the first place. This is a deviation from God's design for both sex and marriage, and such careless/sinful behavior only brings about destruction (STDs, abortions, etc).

Now you're getting into your religious beliefs, which not everyone shares. I can certainly understand the desire to have sex but not have children. It may not even be that the woman doesn't want children, but rather that, for various reasons, she doesn't believe she is currently ready to have one, or more than one if she already has one or more. I think there's nothing wrong with that desire. This desire can happen in marriage and outside of it. The problem is when having sex leads to unwanted pregnancies. There's also the issue that even a woman who -wanted- to get pregnant may have second thoughts afterwards due to changing circumstances after the fact. As to STDs, I have rather strong views on some of those, particularly AIDS, which I don't believe is caused by a virus- I don't believe biological viruses exist at all. I have 2 threads on that if you're interested.

The proper "order of operations" is: dating > desire to join together as "one" > marriage > desire to have children > sex > procreation (ideal result) --- This (instead of destruction) brings about fruit (e.g. children).

Surely you recognize that not everyone follows your proper order of operations, for whatever reason. I suspect one of my elder nieces didn't, though I know so little of her life that I'm not actually sure. I just know that she now has a 1 year old daughter and I haven't heard much of the father. As with my sister/her mother, it looks like my mother has been helping her out, and she's had some help from elsewhere as well. Many women aren't nearly so fortunate.

 

[Scott]

Anyway, a man has the option of giving a woman his sperm or not.

And likewise, a woman has the option of receiving his sperm or not.

In most cases, yes. Do you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion after being raped?