Abortion

[majahops]

I think it's the other way around... if you don't think fetuses are humans, then the rest is a forgone conclusion. If you do think fetuses are humans, then you are left with an ethical dilemma.

The thing is, I don't think the question comes down to that. Even if I believed that fetuses were individual living organisms, I'm not sure that would mean to me that abortion should be outlawed. It is by all means, from my perspective, much more about the woman's choice and autonomy than it is about any consequences for the fetus.

The mindset permeates my reasoning because that is the basis for my opinion. It's not wrong just because it's not the common way people approach the issue.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Wylde]

You are terminating something that will inevitably (excluding a freak act of nature) become a living, breathing, thinking, dreaming HUMAN BEING.

Period.

PS: I don't know how this is still legal or even debatable in civilized cultures. Are people seriously selfish enough that they are willing to kill their own flesh-and-blood simply because it is an inopportune time for them?

PPS: This is excluding rape. If someone is raped (and becomes pregnant) I think abortion is justified.

 

[Excelsius]

You are terminating something that will inevitably (excluding a freak act of nature) become a living, breathing, thinking, dreaming HUMAN BEING.

Period.

PS: I don't know how this is still legal or even debatable in civilized cultures. Are people seriously selfish enough that they are willing to kill their own flesh-and-blood simply because it is an inopportune time for them?

PPS: This is excluding rape. If someone is raped (and becomes pregnant) I think abortion is justified.

This is a recurring theme here: "Abortion is not ok unless it is this, that, or that, in which case it is ok." Nice! So you guys think that a fetus is a human being, or is going to be one, and yet say that under some circumstances it is ok to kill this human being? "Sorry, we don't like your father, you have to DIE." Or "Sorry, your mother is sick, it's better to kill you."

All of that is absurd is is very two-faced. You have a sperm and an egg. These are just two cells, even after they meet. How can you say that it is life? If you are going to talk about future life, then I can argue that any form of birth control is homicide as well since it basically interrupts the creation process of something that will one day "breathe and think."

It shouldn't even be debatable that a bundle of 16 or 32 cells do not represent life. As time goes by and important structures like the brain and other organs are formed, then you may have somewhat of a case for life, but even then, it is egoistical to mandate what a woman must do with her body. It is up to the father and the mother to decide whether to go ahead with the abortion or not. The child is part of the mothers body and she has every right to reject it. I'd say that if the technology allows a child to be supported by machines at 6 months into the pregnancy, then the state can have some say in the process since it can offer to remove the child from the womb and support it independently, but as long as the child cannot survive without the help of the mother, then that child is ultimately part of the mother who can decide whether she wants to abort or not. As a doctor, or even as a human being, it is none of your business to stick your long nose into the womb and tell another human being what she has to do. That is very egocentric. If you are a doctor who will specialize in abortions, you better be impartial or not go into that field at all. How would you like if a judge was opinionated and ruled in favor of whatever fits his values? This is very wrong.

By the way, if the pregnant woman is underage, I would still say that it is her right to have an abortion, but in this case legal guardians come into play and I am not sure if you may be sued if the parents are very religious and find out what you have done. For the sake of the mental health of the teenager, she must get an abortion if she so desires. You can still get her some counseling to make sure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

So let's please stop being egomaniacs and mandate what other people must do with their own bodies. The government has too much say in abortion these days and I hope that this ultra-conservative and religious government of this country will soon be terminated so that we can have some common sense.

 

[capn jazz]

PPS: This is excluding rape. If someone is raped (and becomes pregnant) I think abortion is justified.

This doesn't make any sense. How is it okay to kill someone who had nothing to do with someone else's evil act?

 

[capn jazz]

It is up to the father and the mother to decide whether to go ahead with the abortion or not.

But, of course, it is ultimately up to the mother.

The child is part of the mothers body and she has every right to reject it. I'd say that if the technology allows a child to be supported by machines at 6 months into the pregnancy, then the state can have some say in the process since it can offer to remove the child from the womb and support it independently, but as long as the child cannot survive without the help of the mother, then that child is ultimately part of the mother who can decide whether she wants to abort or not. As a doctor, or even as a human being, it is none of your business to stick your long nose into the womb and tell another human being what she has to do. That is very egocentric. If you are a doctor who will specialize in abortions, you better be impartial or not go into that field at all. How would you like if a judge was opinionated and ruled in favor of whatever fits his values? This is very wrong.

I agree with this a million percent.

 

[dienekes88]

I skimmed the topic.

My view is as follows:
There is a definition for death: once the heart stops beating, the individual is dead. Apply the contrapositive. If my heart is beating, I'm technically alive. That's true. Nobody will argue with it. Even if a person is involved in a horrific accident, put on a ventilator for a short time, getting IV nutrition, and incapable of doing much for himself, he's still alive.

The fetus has an independent heart beat at about 3 weeks. It's a living human being. Even if it gets "IV nutrition" and extracorporeal oxygenation.

The issue is that defining a person's life-status using a date, i.e. birthdate, is bull. It's helpful, because it makes things easier. Legislating that people are legally dead once they reach the age of 70 would be helpful too, because it would do a great deal to help the healthcare/medicare/social security crises.

There's no physiological difference between the child immediately before and immediately after being born. The only difference is location. Prior to the cutting of the umbilical cord and the first breath, the child is the exact same minus being within the uterus of the mother. Does that mean the child could be aborted? I think you'll find very few people willing to perform that act. I don't see how a mere change in location should be able to determine someone's life-status.

To respond to Excelsius, yes, sometimes it is ok to kill a human being, and the conditions required to make it justifiable differ for everyone:
When you're protecting yourself from an attacker
When your country is being invaded
When a criminal has admitted to being a serial killer and has no remorse and is found guilty in a court of law

In saying that they accept abortion for victims of rape or incest, these individuals are applying the idea of personal responsibility to those who were not the victims of rape or incest. It's akin to this analogy: one guy goes out and gambles away his savings account; another guy's bank is robbed. One is covered by insurance, the other is not. I don't agree with it, but I can see where they're coming from.

I myself am not in favor of abortion for victims of rape or incest. It's a horrible circumstance to be forced into pregnancy, but it's also horrible to be hit by a car and suffer from spondylolisthesis and cognitive impairment. Do I want someone to pay for the fact that more than a year of my life has been muddled and my neck will always ache? Yes. Is it a sh*tty part of my life that I have to deal with? Yes. Could I die if I fall and hit my head? Yes. Everyone has a cross to bear. Pregnancy may be hard, but a lot of people are surviving with life-threatening conditions: cancer, HIV+, etc. There should be a better system of foster and adoptive care to meet the needs of this small population.

I'm waiting for the "you're not a woman, so you wouldn't understand" argument.

 

[iheartsnow]

This whole idea that abortion should be allowed based on whether you are responsible for your actions baffles me. It's as if people are being punished for having sex. Not to mention the fact that, legally, it's impossible to enforce because rape cases are incredibly difficult to try and take years. Plus you would have women claiming rape when they weren't and no one wants that. I also want to point out that most women don't get pregnant because they are reckless. I used to work at an abortion clinic and this is what I noticed:

There were three groups of women coming into the clinic. Girls under the age of 16 who were too scared to ask their parents for birth control or thought they were invincible. Are they responsible for their actions? They're only kids. There were women who could no longer afford birth control because of insurance problems. There are a LOT of women who fall into this category. Yes, abortion should be rare because of access to contraception. But access isn't as simple as people make it out to be. The third group were women who were on contraception and it failed. I met many women who had the experience where the condom broke, they took the morning after pill and still got pregnant. Yes, contraception is something like 99% effective, but that 1% adds up. Obviously, there are the rare cases where a woman just doesn't care. Seriously, though, it's rare. So being "responsible" is a relative term.

One more note: 1 in 3 women will have an abortion before the age of 45. That's your sister, your girlfriend, or your mom. You all know women who have gotten abortions, whether you are aware of it or not.

 

[dienekes88]

This whole idea that abortion should be allowed based on whether you are responsible for your actions baffles me. It's as if people are being punished for having sex. Not to mention the fact that, legally, it's impossible to enforce because rape cases are incredibly difficult to try and take years. Plus you would have women claiming rape when they weren't and no one wants that. I also want to point out that most women don't get pregnant because they are reckless. I used to work at an abortion clinic and this is what I noticed:

There were three groups of women coming into the clinic. Girls under the age of 16 who were too scared to ask their parents for birth control or thought they were invincible. Are they responsible for their actions? They're only kids. There were women who could no longer afford birth control because of insurance problems. There are a LOT of women who fall into this category. Yes, abortion should be rare because of access to contraception. But access isn't as simple as people make it out to be. The third group were women who were on contraception and it failed. I met many women who had the experience where the condom broke, they took the morning after pill and still got pregnant. Yes, contraception is something like 99% effective, but that 1% adds up. Obviously, there are the rare cases where a woman just doesn't care. Seriously, though, it's rare. So being "responsible" is a relative term.

One more note: 1 in 3 women will have an abortion before the age of 45. That's your sister, your girlfriend, or your mom. You all know women who have gotten abortions, whether you are aware of it or not.

It's not a punishment for having sex. It's a risk that comes with the territory. You can't play the game and complain about the rules. Similarly, you can't go to Vegas, cry about losing your money at the tables, and ask someone else to cover your mortgage. It's risky behavior.

Why are these people having sex? Being young isn't a license to be stupid. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. Abstinence, Birth control, Condoms.

The fact that it happens - and might strike close to home - doesn't make it right. In any event, there's only a 71% chance that a group of 3 randomly selected people in your life will contain at least one person who had an abortion assuming no confounding factors (a ridiculous assumption). This is one of the most oft-quoted arguments in favor of abortion, and it's bull. It's an appeal to emotion.

 

[nogolfinsnow]

It's not a punishment for having sex. It's a risk that comes with the territory. You can't play the game and complain about the rules. Similarly, you can't go to Vegas, cry about losing your money at the tables, and ask someone else to cover your mortgage. It's risky behavior.

Why are these people having sex? Being young isn't a license to be stupid. If you don't have sex, you can't get pregnant. Abstinence, Birth control, Condoms.

The fact that it happens - and might strike close to home - doesn't make it right. In any event, there's only a 71% chance that a group of 3 randomly selected people in your life will contain at least one person who had an abortion assuming no confounding factors (a ridiculous assumption). This is one of the most oft-quoted arguments in favor of abortion, and it's bull. It's an appeal to emotion.

We act like it is though. That's why there are juvenile detention centers, sealed records for crimes committed by juveniles, the papers won't print a suspect's name if they're under 18, etc. We as a society have already said that if a kid does something it's not the same as an adult doing it. I don't thing abortion should be used as birth control, but young people often do things without attempting to appreciate the consequences. More education is needed both of teens and their PARENTS that sex is serious and the very real consequences of an unintended pregnancy.

 

[Haemulon]

I skimmed the topic.

My view is as follows:
There is a definition for death: once the heart stops beating, the individual is dead. Apply the contrapositive. If my heart is beating, I'm technically alive. That's true. Nobody will argue with it. Even if a person is involved in a horrific accident, put on a ventilator for a short time, getting IV nutrition, and incapable of doing much for himself, he's still alive.

The fetus has an independent heart beat at about 3 weeks. It's a living human being. Even if it gets "IV nutrition" and extracorporeal oxygenation.

The issue is that defining a person's life-status using a date, i.e. birthdate, is bull. It's helpful, because it makes things easier. Legislating that people are legally dead once they reach the age of 70 would be helpful too, because it would do a great deal to help the healthcare/medicare/social security crises.

There's no physiological difference between the child immediately before and immediately after being born. The only difference is location.

(... rest of post snipped for brevity)

Once the heart stops beating, an individual is not necessarily dead. The heart functions to maintain circulation and regulate pressure. There are a variety of circumstances in which a heart can be stopped and the person be maintained in the living state for an extended period. For instance, heart surgery is performed in this way all the time. Also, if your heart is beating, you can still be considered neurologically dead. A human body with no brain is hardly a human being in the sense we all relate to. So this could be a sloppy criterion if we relied on this soley. I only point this out because you said no one would argue it. Plus, I am not so sure the beating heart criterion, while it does have the potential for emotional impact, would be received well uniformly by all those against abortion, since it leaves the earlier period of gestation in "life-less limbo" in regard to its classification.

As to the second quote, there are many physiological differences between a term fetus prior to birth and the infant afterwards. It is actually quite profound the changes that can be accomplished in such a short period. So location is far from the only difference.

These comments may or may not impact your argument, I don't know. Maybe if you worded it differently? It is just that when such dubious "facts" are used, your audience will inevitably focus on arguing the details and neglect whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[rockydoc]

It is easy to become caught up in arguing back and forth about minute details such as some noted above, however, the real issues are much more fundamental and have already been brought up much earlier in this thread........for instance, I personally think arguing back and forth about embryological details of the fertilization process, implantation, etc are uneccessary b/c its still not going to change someone's view of personhood.....also, arguing about the physiological differences between unborn and born is not going to alter someone's view on personhood....so why argue them?

One will choose their side on the abortion debate based on views about personhood and/or conflict of rights (rights of mother vs rights of fetus).....really, these points have already been argued to death on this thread and just keep coming up in cycles.....however, this actually has been a fairly informative and cordial thread on both sides

 

[Excelsius]

...
There's no physiological difference between the child immediately before and immediately after being born. The only difference is location. Prior to the cutting of the umbilical cord and the first breath, the child is the exact same minus being within the uterus of the mother. Does that mean the child could be aborted? I think you'll find very few people willing to perform that act. I don't see how a mere change in location should be able to determine someone's life-status.

To respond to Excelsius, yes, sometimes it is ok to kill a human being, and the conditions required to make it justifiable differ for everyone:
When you're protecting yourself from an attacker
When your country is being invaded
When a criminal has admitted to being a serial killer and has no remorse and is found guilty in a court of law


I'm waiting for the "you're not a woman, so you wouldn't understand" argument.

There are physiological differences and they are greater the younger the fetus.

Rarely is there a quick justification for killing someone. If a person is trying to slap you, that is basically an attack. Doesn't mean you can kill him. One person is also not going to invade your country. You are talking about war now, which is still mostly bound by Geneva Convention. And there are many criminals who are insane and have a physiological disturbance of the brain. Are you going to kill a mentally ill patient? Not to mention that there are some number of people who serve life sentences for something they have not done. If you condemn them to death, then they will never have the benefit of the pardon once they are exculpated.

As for sex, many young people are under tremendous peer pressure. Not all have sex, but many do. You can't say that just because they chose to do it, they somehow must be penalized by not being treated the same way as adults. The age cap on sex is in the mind of the beholder. Different people mature at different ages. In some countries, the legal age for sex is pretty low. Many states allow consensual sex between 16 year olds. South Carolina allows the female to be as young as 14. Did you know that? Does that change your mind about what is "stupid" or not? If the pregnancy goes through for an underage child, her life will mostly be ruined, at least from the point of view of the society who thinks that underage pregnancy is hideous. I find underage pregnancy very damaging and irresponsible, but underage consensual sex only damaging to third party conservatives, many of whom may have done it in their young age as well.

 

[Haemulon]

It is easy to become caught up in arguing back and forth about minute details such as some noted above, however, the real issues are much more fundamental and have already been brought up much earlier in this thread........for instance, I personally think arguing back and forth about embryological details of the fertilization process, implantation, etc are uneccessary b/c its still not going to change someone's view of personhood.....also, arguing about the physiological differences between unborn and born is not going to alter someone's view on personhood....so why argue them?

One will choose their side on the abortion debate based on views about personhood and/or conflict of rights (rights of mother vs rights of fetus).....really, these points have already been argued to death on this thread and just keep coming up in cycles.....however, this actually has been a fairly informative and cordial thread on both sides

Your definitely right in the sense that most people make their decisions on this issue based on a general gut feeling/reaction, or religious/cultural background. There are activitists on both sides pushing their own agendas too of course. And once people choose sides based on general beliefs and gut feelings, they then start offering up more detailed arguments to defend their decisions. Trouble is, the devil is in the details. So once one starts hanging their argument on specifics, one risks those specifics crumbling out from underthem.

For me, the better way to go about making decisions about issues like these is to start with the specifics and build up. See where it leads me, and make an open-minded decision from there. If someone says to me that abortion should be banned because "life begins at conception". I am open to the idea, but then I want to know why life necessarily begins at conception? What mechanism confers life and why do we view it as so? Why is the attribute of life assigned to this particular time and not another? Why is simply being alive the criterion for conferrence of legal protection? And so forth.

See what I mean. When an issue impacts so many people, on such a large scale, it is understandable how the arguments evolve into such elaborate constructs.

 

[katarzyna]

I wonder what Panda Bear thinks about this

 

[rockydoc]

Your definitely right in the sense that most people make their decisions on this issue based on a general gut feeling/reaction, or religious/cultural background. There are activitists on both sides pushing their own agendas too of course. And once people choose sides based on general beliefs and gut feelings, they then start offering up more detailed arguments to defend their decisions. Trouble is, the devil is in the details. So once one starts hanging their argument on specifics, one risks those specifics crumbling out from underthem.

For me, the better way to go about making decisions about issues like these is to start with the specifics and build up. See where it leads me, and make an open-minded decision from there. If someone says to me that abortion should be banned because "life begins at conception". I am open to the idea, but then I want to know why life necessarily begins at conception? What mechanism confers life and why do we view it as so? Why is the attribute of life assigned to this particular time and not another? Why is simply being alive the criterion for conferrence of legal protection? And so forth.

See what I mean. When an issue impacts so many people, on such a large scale, it is understandable how the arguments evolve into such elaborate constructs.

I agree. Details are necessary for such a complex issue to be discussed in some areas. However, I do believe that after the details are argued, then we inevitably come right back to the fundamentals....and it is those fundamentals which divide us into two camps....not the details. I mean, I've seen people start on tangents ranging from animal rights to woman's role is society, and although these may play a part in the debate, they really detract from the real discussion at hand. In my opinion, they can be discussed at another time.

As for details, you example about "when life begins" :

"life" and what that means to the individual are actually fundamental beliefs about personhood. Two people may never agree about when life actually begins, because it cannot be proven. The details arent going to change someone's mind about what "life" is. So for one person, life may begin when a being is sentient....and another, it may begin when a bundle of cells reproduce. Either way, you both end up back at the fundamental question of who defines personhood in which way and consequently, who has more rights (mother or fetus).

I think questions such as "why is it wrong to kill another human being", "do potential beings have rights like actual beings", "are fetuses persons or non-persons", "is denying access to life-support congruent to killing", etc. are more fundamental discussions. By dicussing these topics, then you can understand where someone is coming from and why they believe what they do about abortion.

I dont know, to me it just seems to simplify and shorten the debate when the basic worldviews/philosophies/beliefs are argued. That may just be my personality though, and yours is different. Who knows.

 

[dienekes88]

Once the heart stops beating, an individual is not necessarily dead. The heart functions to maintain circulation and regulate pressure. There are a variety of circumstances in which a heart can be stopped and the person be maintained in the living state for an extended period. For instance, heart surgery is performed in this way all the time. Also, if your heart is beating, you can still be considered neurologically dead. A human body with no brain is hardly a human being in the sense we all relate to. So this could be a sloppy criterion if we relied on this soley. I only point this out because you said no one would argue it. Plus, I am not so sure the beating heart criterion, while it does have the potential for emotional impact, would be received well uniformly by all those against abortion, since it leaves the earlier period of gestation in "life-less limbo" in regard to its classification.

As to the second quote, there are many physiological differences between a term fetus prior to birth and the infant afterwards. It is actually quite profound the changes that can be accomplished in such a short period. So location is far from the only difference.

These comments may or may not impact your argument, I don't know. Maybe if you worded it differently? It is just that when such dubious "facts" are used, your audience will inevitably focus on arguing the details and neglect whatever point you are trying to make.

I was under the impression that when your heart is stopped during on-pump surgery, you are in fact "dead."

Edit: Legally, "Or. Rev. Stat. §146.087 treats a person as alive only if 'spontaneous respiration and circulatory function' can be restored." This is not a certainty and seems to be a retroactive labeling of life during a transition period. Furthermore, "the first paragraph of Kan. Stat. Ann. § 777-02 states that a person is dead when 'Attempts at resuscitation [of respiratory and cardiac function] are considered hopeless.'" This seems to be the definition of "heart-death"

"1. [Determination of Death.] An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with
accepted medical standards."

"The proposed statute articulates alternative standards, since in the vast majority of cases irreversible circulatory and respiratory cessation will be the obvious and sufficient basis fo~ [sic]diagnosing death."

President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Defining Death: Medical, Legal, and Ethical Issues in the Determination of Death. Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office, 1981. 72-74.


If you want to talk about brain-death, well neurulation happens in the second week of fetal development.

I'm not catering to the pro-life community. It is how I define it for myself.

Inside and outside the birth canal? I was unaware. Please enlighten me. I was under the impression that until the baby took its first breath... not much had changed. The oxygenation of the blood, expansion of the lungs, surfactants in the alveoli, closing of the foramen ovale, closing of the ductus arteriousus, etc. I thought all this happened after the first breath.

 

[bcat85]

So if it was up to you, what would the legislation say?

If it were up to me personally, I would legislate that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother. From a utilitarian point of view, the mother is only asked to loan her body for ~9 months and from that a child is given an entire lifetime.

 

[dienekes88]

There are physiological differences and they are greater the younger the fetus.

You misinterpreted me. I meant immediately prior to birth and immediately after.

Rarely is there a quick justification for killing someone. If a person is trying to slap you, that is basically an attack. Doesn't mean you can kill him. One person is also not going to invade your country. You are talking about war now, which is still mostly bound by Geneva Convention. And there are many criminals who are insane and have a physiological disturbance of the brain. Are you going to kill a mentally ill patient? Not to mention that there are some number of people who serve life sentences for something they have not done. If you condemn them to death, then they will never have the benefit of the pardon once they are exculpated.

Agreed. I'm not saying these people should die. I'm just saying that different people have different standards (some more lax than others) for who should die. A lot of people think trespassing is an offense worthy of retaliation by firearms.

As for sex, many young people are under tremendous peer pressure. Not all have sex, but many do. You can't say that just because they chose to do it, they somehow must be penalized by not being treated the same way as adults. The age cap on sex is in the mind of the beholder. Different people mature at different ages. In some countries, the legal age for sex is pretty low. Many states allow consensual sex between 16 year olds. South Carolina allows the female to be as young as 14. Did you know that? Does that change your mind about what is "stupid" or not? If the pregnancy goes through for an underage child, her life will mostly be ruined, at least from the point of view of the society who thinks that underage pregnancy is hideous. I find underage pregnancy very damaging and irresponsible, but underage consensual sex only damaging to third party conservatives, many of whom may have done it in their young age as well.

We expect our children and younger siblings to stand up against peer pressure to drink, smoke, and do illegal drugs... why can't we ask them to avoid sex?

Yes. I did know that. It's still stupid. Legality has nothing to do with it.

You have to know what you're getting into before you do it. Why do you think there are so many residents and med students in pre-allo saying, "think a little more about this mother****er before you get into medicine."

 

[LADoc00]

Awesome poll, belief in Abortion, so if you voted no does that imply you feel Ab is a mythical construct or what?

at least clarify TAB or nonTAB.

 

[Wylde]

This is a recurring theme here: "Abortion is not ok unless it is this, that, or that, in which case it is ok." Nice! So you guys think that a fetus is a human being, or is going to be one, and yet say that under some circumstances it is ok to kill this human being? "Sorry, we don't like your father, you have to DIE." Or "Sorry, your mother is sick, it's better to kill you."

All of that is absurd is is very two-faced. You have a sperm and an egg. These are just two cells, even after they meet. How can you say that it is life? If you are going to talk about future life, then I can argue that any form of birth control is homicide as well since it basically interrupts the creation process of something that will one day "breathe and think."

It shouldn't even be debatable that a bundle of 16 or 32 cells do not represent life. As time goes by and important structures like the brain and other organs are formed, then you may have somewhat of a case for life, but even then, it is egoistical to mandate what a woman must do with her body. It is up to the father and the mother to decide whether to go ahead with the abortion or not. The child is part of the mothers body and she has every right to reject it. I'd say that if the technology allows a child to be supported by machines at 6 months into the pregnancy, then the state can have some say in the process since it can offer to remove the child from the womb and support it independently, but as long as the child cannot survive without the help of the mother, then that child is ultimately part of the mother who can decide whether she wants to abort or not. As a doctor, or even as a human being, it is none of your business to stick your long nose into the womb and tell another human being what she has to do. That is very egocentric. If you are a doctor who will specialize in abortions, you better be impartial or not go into that field at all. How would you like if a judge was opinionated and ruled in favor of whatever fits his values? This is very wrong.

By the way, if the pregnant woman is underage, I would still say that it is her right to have an abortion, but in this case legal guardians come into play and I am not sure if you may be sued if the parents are very religious and find out what you have done. For the sake of the mental health of the teenager, she must get an abortion if she so desires. You can still get her some counseling to make sure that it doesn't happen again in the future.

So let's please stop being egomaniacs and mandate what other people must do with their own bodies. The government has too much say in abortion these days and I hope that this ultra-conservative and religious government of this country will soon be terminated so that we can have some common sense.

Why I believe that abortion is justified in cases of rape is because the mother had zero control over the outcome and the pregnancy is a result of an illegal act. In any other situation, the mother/father concented to sex and the sex was not illegal.

You think it is egotistical to tell other people what to do with their bodies, but you don't think it is egotistical for a women to remove a child from this world because she does not want him or her?

 

[Junebug20]

I personally think abortion is wrong because it is the destruction of, if not a life, at least the possibility or idea of life. However, I also believe that I wasn't put here to decide what other people should or shouldn't do when it comes to things like this. All I can do is stick to my beliefs and principles and let others do as they wish when it comes to things like abortion.

 

[foster033]

Why I believe that abortion is justified in cases of rape is because the mother had zero control over the outcome and the pregnancy is a result of an illegal act. In any other situation, the mother/father concented to sex and the sex was not illegal.

You think it is egotistical to tell other people what to do with their bodies, but you don't think it is egotistical for a women to remove a child from this world because she does not want him or her?

If you really believe abortion is murder it shouldn't matter if the mother consented to the sex or not, it would still be wrong to take the life...I mean you're basically arguing that two wrongs make a right.

Okay...say the women doesn't have an abortion...are you going to take care of the baby? how about the millions of children who are already out there that are unwanted?
sure there are people who will adopt newborns but no one wants a 4 year old that came from a troubled home and now has behavioral problems....

 

[dienekes88]

If you really believe abortion is murder it shouldn't matter if the mother consented to the sex or not, it would still be wrong to take the life...I mean you're basically arguing that two wrongs make a right.

Okay...say the women doesn't have an abortion...are you going to take care of the baby? how about the millions of children who are already out there that are unwanted?
sure there are people who will adopt newborns but no one wants a 4 year old that came from a troubled home and now has behavioral problems....

... and that's your justification for murder? It almost sounds like an issue of economics/convenience. I see it as a reason to improve and reform foster parenting/adoptive situations.

Let gay and lesbian couples get married and give them the right to adopt. There will automatically be a much larger group of people looking to adopt... and some (many?) of these kids will be the lucky ones.

 

[foster033]

... and that's your justification for murder? It almost sounds like an issue of economics/convenience. I see it as a reason to improve and reform foster parenting/adoptive situations.

Let gay and lesbian couples get married and give them the right to adopt. There will automatically be a much larger group of people looking to adopt... and some (many?) of these kids will be the lucky ones.

that's hardly my reasoning...just pointing out that most people only care about these kids being born and then really don't care what happens to them after that. I mean it really makes no sense to keep bringing children into a world when there is no place for them. If pro-lifers are so adamant about the children being born well then they should really take some responsibility as to what happens to those children when the mother can't take care of them.
You're obviously a lot more liberal that most pro-lifers b/c the mention of same sex couples being aloud to get married let alone have children would never be considered by most of pro-lifers...

 

[kami333]

If it were up to me personally, I would legislate that the rights of the fetus supercede the rights of the mother. From a utilitarian point of view, the mother is only asked to loan her body for ~9 months and from that a child is given an entire lifetime.

They already do. Living wills are invalid in many (all?) states if you are pregnant, even when written to cover pregnancies.

I know what you are getting at though.

 

[Wylde]

If you really believe abortion is murder it shouldn't matter if the mother consented to the sex or not, it would still be wrong to take the life...I mean you're basically arguing that two wrongs make a right.

Okay...say the women doesn't have an abortion...are you going to take care of the baby? how about the millions of children who are already out there that are unwanted?
sure there are people who will adopt newborns but no one wants a 4 year old that came from a troubled home and now has behavioral problems....

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy. Everyone who consents to sex understands that there is a risk of disease and pregnancy during sex and makes the gamble. People who are raped do not.

On the note of unwanted babies/bad childhoods/etc., would you rather not exist or would you rather have an impoverished/unwanted/unloving upbringing? Personally, I would rather be alive.

 

[rockydoc]

that's hardly my reasoning...just pointing out that most people only care about these kids being born and then really don't care what happens to them after that. I mean it really makes no sense to keep bringing children into a world when there is no place for them. If pro-lifers are so adamant about the children being born well then they should really take some responsibility as to what happens to those children when the mother can't take care of them.
You're obviously a lot more liberal that most pro-lifers b/c the mention of same sex couples being aloud to get married let alone have children would never be considered by most of pro-lifers...

I see your point, and you are right....we SHOULD focus on better systems to take care of neglected children. However, I do not in any way see how this should correlate to abortion. I don't see how just b/c our child care system sucks, we should not be allowing these children to live. I think you have views which strongly favor social eugenics...and I am terrified of social eugenics.

What if you, God forbid, you have a horrible accident which causes you to become a drain on society b/c of severe disability and no one can properly take care of you and you become destined for a life of horrible struggle, poverty, neglect, etc etc........should the government be obligated to kill you?? social eugenics at its best

Or, lets go super extreme......take all of the women below poverty line or with mental disorders, or with substance abuse history, etc etc and systematically sterilize them so we wont even have to perform abortions for them.....b/c God forbid they would bring children into their crappy homes.
I know Im out of control with these examples....its just that's how I view the potential of social eugenics....when does the drive to create a perfect society stop??? when does it become unethical???

 

[foster033]

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy. Everyone who consents to sex understands that there is a risk of disease and pregnancy during sex and makes the gamble. People who are raped do not.

On the note of unwanted babies/bad childhoods/etc., would you rather not exist or would you rather have an impoverished/unwanted/unloving upbringing? Personally, I would rather be alive.

You're arguing from a purely emotional standpoint which doesn't make a very good logical argument...
I feel sorry for all women who are pregnant and don't want to be, so from my emotional standpoint I could justify abortions for any women who wants one using your reasoning...
I'm not saying what you feel is wrong, but you have to realize that not everyone feels that way and the law can't be solely based on emotions...

You would rather be alive because you were actually born, to say that you would be okay with not existing after you already have doesn't make much sense...to me that doesn't seem like an argument against abortion but more of an argument as to why we shouldn't kill children that are already in these situations...

 

[Marcus Brody]

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy. Everyone who consents to sex understands that there is a risk of disease and pregnancy during sex and makes the gamble. People who are raped do not.

So you believe abortion is permissible in cases of rape. But you would make abortion "illegal in all situations (including rape)?"

Completely contradictory...

On the note of unwanted babies/bad childhoods/etc., would you rather not exist or would you rather have an impoverished/unwanted/unloving upbringing? Personally, I would rather be alive.

1. A 4 week old fetus does not know that it will someday exist. It is an unconscious mass of cells.

2. I don't think it is implausible that some people who grew up impoverished and unloved would rather be dead. See suicide or drug addiction.

 

[Tenk]

I'd prefer to live in a world that had no reason for abortions. They are a band-aid solution to a whole cesspool of problems with society.

 

[foster033]

I see your point, and you are right....we SHOULD focus on better systems to take care of neglected children. However, I do not in any way see how this should correlate to abortion. I don't see how just b/c our child care system sucks, we should not be allowing these children to live.

You can't look at this from an isolated prospective though, that's just naive...you have to consider all the implications that arise from allowing abortion vs. not allowing them...and make a decision on how it effects other things. The world is not a bunch of isolated problems...everything has consequences...

I think you have views which strongly favor social eugenics...and I am terrified of social eugenics. What if you, God forbid, you have a horrible accident which causes you to become a drain on society b/c of severe disability and no one can properly take care of you and you become destined for a life of horrible struggle, poverty, neglect, etc etc........should the government be obligated to kill you?? social eugenics at its best

Or, lets go super extreme......take all of the women below poverty line or with mental disorders, or with substance abuse history, etc etc and systematically sterilize them so we wont even have to perform abortions for them.....b/c God forbid they would bring children into their crappy homes.
I know Im out of control with these examples....its just that's how I view the potential of social eugenics....when does the drive to create a perfect society stop??? when does it become unethical???

Please, please, please don't ever assign social philosophies to anyone you don't know...especially me...b/c you'll usually find out you have no idea what you're talking about...I'm not sure what I've said to make you think I want to create some type of perfect society...This whole time I've been advocating for choice and rights of the mother..If I was arguing that all babies known to have a disease should be aborted, well then I could see where you're coming from...as it stands, I'm not entirely sure you know what eugenics is or at least the distinctions between public and private eugenics... some of my personal views may have some association with modern day eugenics(genetic testing, pre-natal screening, birth control) but I really don't want to decide things for other people/society...I think that decision should be left up to the person...this goes for abortion, alcohol consumption, drugs, pretty much anything that isn't going to effect someone else personally...

In your examples...if I personally was in some horrible accident which caused me to become a drain on society b/c of severe disability and no one to properly take care of me and I was destined for a life of horrible struggle, poverty, neglect, etc etc.. I would want to die, if the government did it for me, that would be okay... however, I wouldn't mandate this decision for another person, it's something they would have to decided themselves....
for your other example...that makes no sense to me, you're not providing people with a choice that should be their choice and you're invading the right to control their own body by perform surgery on them...

 

[JoltOfFuel]

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy. Everyone who consents to sex understands that there is a risk of disease and pregnancy during sex and makes the gamble. People who are raped do not.

On the note of unwanted babies/bad childhoods/etc., would you rather not exist or would you rather have an impoverished/unwanted/unloving upbringing? Personally, I would rather be alive.

Just out of curiosity, with no agenda of any sort, have you ever gone through a period of poverty or been unwanted by your parents?

 

[capn jazz]

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy.

No, you don't support abortion in rape cases if you would rather have it totally illegal than totally legal. It's not support unless it's unconditional. Think about it - "Mrs. Smith, I am signing away your right to have an abortion after your rape because other women have abortions just because they don't want the baby after consensual sex." If a reason is legit, other possible justifications for the same act should not invalidate that legit reason.

 

[Ollie123]

I fall somewhere towards the pro-choice side of this debate, but I do feel I have to qualify that by saying I hate the dichotomizing of the issue (and of politics in general), as I find the extremists on either side to be equally embarassing and can't stand the thought of being affiliated with either of them.

Next, let's drop the whole "No its pro-choice and anti-choice", "No its whether or not you consider a fetus alive". The fact that so many pro-choicers say the former is one of the big reasons I don't like identifying as pro-choice despite my beliefs. Pure political spin, and really, we should be above trying to pull stuff like that. The reality is its a complicated issue with many facets, most of which exist on a continuum, and that needs to be acknowledged. Failing to do so minimizes the importance of the issue. Thinking there is only a single facet that should be involved in the decision is dangerous and, frankly, scares the crap out of me.

Now, in the interest of throwing a wrench into this for the sake of discussion - where exactly do we draw the developmental line for when abortion is no longer okay? Tons of people who identify as pro-choice are far from supportive of late term partial-birth abortions. As medical technology improves, it seems perfectly plausible that fetuses earlier and earlier in their development will be able to survive with help. Where should this line be drawn? Should it be based on economics? What factors should be involved in THAT decision? After a fair bit of waivering over the years, I've come to be reasonably resolved in my beliefs on abortion in general, but on the latter I have absolutely no idea.

 

[bcat85]

If I had to choose whether abortion would be illegal in all situations (including rape) or legal in all situations, I would choose illegal. But I do support abortion in rape cases because of sympathy for the victim and the different situations of the pregnancy. Everyone who consents to sex understands that there is a risk of disease and pregnancy during sex and makes the gamble. People who are raped do not.

On the note of unwanted babies/bad childhoods/etc., would you rather not exist or would you rather have an impoverished/unwanted/unloving upbringing? Personally, I would rather be alive.

You are falling into a fallacy in that you are assuming that the loss of the child will in some way "help" the mother get through the emotional stress of the rape. This is not necessarily true. There are a couple of studies out there (look them up if you want. It's 1:50 in the morning and I'm not gonna do it) that demonstrate that women who have children who are the result of rape oftentimes see it as "conquering" the rape. Additionally, by aborting the fetus of a rape, you are then placing the sins (wrongful actions for you secular folks) of the father on the child. By aborting the product of a rape, you are in essence "blaming" the unborn fetus for its presence in the mother's body, even though it had no say in the matter.