PKMN.NET Forums
Misc => Debate => Topic started by: Sebastian Moran on October 13, 2011, 20:05
-
Oh, one of those subjects.
Titling the topic this to try to avoid bias: for example "pro-life" and "anti-choice" being different words for the same side
Basically continuing this without it clogging up the RR topic.
I mean I was comparing the ridiculousness of one thing with the ridiculousness [as I see it] of Mississippi's Amendment 26, but hey, I'm in that sort of mood.
Ho hum.
Even if it's a reply for the sake of argument/hey look at these other viewpoints, I'm posting it here so that I can get hysterical in a more appropriate forum.
I'm only teasing of course, but the debate between 'What constitutes a human?' in terms of abortion has been going on for a rather long time, and both sides have legitimate claims. While an unfertilized egg still needs a male set of chromosomes to begin the process of becoming a baby, The fertilized egg already possess everything it needs to begin transforming itself from a single cell into a full human child...So, do you support the woman's right to abort and 'kill' the cell as it's just beginning it's transformation into humanity, or do you support the cells right, and allow it to live and fully mature into a newborn, even though the mother doesn't want it?
Basically, I just wanted to say, that it all depends on your point of view, and which you consider more important, the woman, or the child, in terms of abortion. Your claim that you wouldn't be surprised that we'd ban a genre of music because some Americans favor protecting the unborn, still developing child over the rights of the mother to terminate her pregnancy seems a bit too...How do you say...Controversial to be compared.
I'm just saying that a fertilised egg has no mind. If it were aborted it wouldn't know. If I had been aborted I wouldn't know. If my mother had aborted me she could have gone to university and become a lawyer like she wanted to, instead of giving up her life taking care of me.
Now, I'm not saying "god, I wish she had!": I'm glad to be here, and I think that she's glad to have me here now that I am.
I'm just saying that everyone should have the choice.
Saying "no, you absolutely cannot abort that egg!" [also potentially making things like the morning-after pill illegal because they prevent a fertilised egg from implanting in the womb tissue and growing into a baby, if the anti-choice sites are to be believed]..
...saying that, if a woman chooses to have sex and for whatever reason gets pregnant, or if the sex is of dubious or no consent... if regardless of her circumstances, age, financial income, plans for life or phobias she has to go through with a pregnancy and birth, that is treating those women as nothing more than incubators, and to be honest that horrifies me.
I know that it depends on the point of view, but once you get the law to back up your beliefs, that is forcing other people to live by your own beliefs, whether or not you hold them. The law does have to draw a line, true, but it shouldn't be based more on the emotion of one side than anything else.
A woman who can't afford to have a baby, or who is terrified of pregnancy, or who is just about to go to university... if they abort, it won't effect the lives of people who are perfectly happy with their lives, and would be happy to support any accidental children.
If abortion is legal it doesn't force everyone to have an abortion, so it makes no sense to force everyone not to.
-
Damn Mark, you're too easy to agree with...
Did have an interesting discussion about this the other day, the main question being "when does a foetus obtain rights of it's own?". Although that's more of a 'how late should it legally be allowed to be performed' debate.
I'd still stick with the stance that abortion is a very personal choice. Of course, abortion isn't particularly a good thing, but a woman has every right to choose whether to do so in my opinion.
-
yeah mark sums it up quite well
abortion is ok
-
Abortions for some, and miniature American flags for others!
Mark pretty much summed up how I feel; I don't see myself as being pro-abortion; I am (vehemently) pro-choice. Thankfully it's something I've never had to deal with and I don't think it's a decision that anyone would ever take lightly but I am grateful that it's there should I decide that it's something that I would need in the future.
and that's all I'll say on the matter because there are few topics more likely to get me permab& than abotion
-
I'm just saying that everyone should have the choice.
The problem basically becomes, that you're making the choice to end a life, and on what authority do you have to make such a huge decision? As mentioned, the fertilized egg, while having no mind of it's own, is considered by some to be human, because if left inside the womb, it will eventually transform into a human baby. An unfertilized cell, if left in the womb, will not transform into a human baby, and therefore, isn't considered human. And since a fertilized cell is considered a human, it deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least in the United States of America.
So, what gives the mother the right to take away another human's basic rights? Simply because she is the mother, and the organism hasn't gotten developed enough to make it's own choices? It becomes a question of 'Does the mother have the right to end a child's life, just because that child can't confirm or object?'
---
You could also pose the question 'Does the mother have the right to end a child's life, just because that child and isn't a recognizable human yet?'
Now, if you don't consider the fertilized egg a human, then there's room for debate. But then you have to ask 'When does the egg become a human?' When it looks like a human baby? When it's born?
---
So, yeah. Personally, I don't know my opinion on the subject. I want to respect the woman's rights to choice and live her own life the way she wants, but at the same time, I don't want to snuff out a new life that has just barely managed to begun. I do accept the fact that once an egg has been fertilized, it should be considered a human. As a result, Planned or not, that new organism has begun life the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, and if born in the US, that guarantees it the right to Life. It's basically a Catch 22 of whose rights overrule the other's, the Woman or the Child? No matter what choice you make, someone is gonna lose, so you really can't win.
So, yeah! I'm just sort of playing the devil's advocate really... Although my main point in the original post was that abortion is a much more complex topic than you initially demonstrated, and I didn't feel it was a good comparison to something as silly as discriminating against a particular genre of music due to one teen's death at a rave. Didn't mean to inspire a whole topic on it, sorry ^^;
-
The problem basically becomes, that you're making the choice to end a life, and on what authority do you have to make such a huge decision?
A choice that everyone views on a subjective ground. That is the reason why it should be legalized; those who are opposed to abortions should not get them and those that are contemplating getting one shouldn't abstain from doing so if they believe that a living organism, while it has the ability to blossom into a full grown human being, is also a parasite in its current state.
Besides, in getting the abortion they could prevent the child from growing up in a bad environment. That way the couple can settle down later and have other children in their lives- canceling out the loss of a life, essentially, because I doubt they'd have the means to have more than a child or even a couple children (if they're lucky) after the first one.
-
Was studying this in school, what I found disturbing about abortion is the surgical techniques used, there is a video 'the silent scream' and it is a surgical abortion through an ultrasound scan.
This swayed me against abortion due to the fact that the baby or 'foetus' seemed to be screaming and in pain. It was horrific to watch.
On the other hand, medical abortions are not as stressful on the mother and it is likely to be less stressful to the unborn child.
I do not think this makes abortion 'right' as such. I truly think it is an issue that some women don't think through.
I also feel it should be determined by circumstances, such as rape.
I do not think age is a contributing factor as if you get pregnant at 15 16 17 or whatever and you didn't want a child (well I don't need to move into the biology of it all)
My biggest thought on abortion is one that alot of woman disagree with, I feel that both the mother and father should have a say in wether the abortion should take place.
Yes the mother should get the final say in the matter as it is her body but by law the father has no say in the future of his unborn child.
Is it not his baby to?
Should he not have the right in the important decision of what is to happen his child?
-
I agree with abortion but i think the limit of when abortions are allowed to take to place should be lowered.
The current limit in the uk is 24 weeks and in some rare cases babies have been born as early as 21 weeks and have survived. If i was born a week earlier than what i was, i would've been classed as an abortion.
Some women may not get the more detailed scan at around 18 - 22 weeks until 22 weeks, which leaves only two weeks to decide - if the baby will be born with a genetic or an illness that reduces quality of life - if they should keep it or not.
The limit of viability in the uk - when babies are considered to have a chance at survival (however slim) - is 23 weeks. If babies can survive then, then why are they being aborted at such a late stage?
Just my thoughts~
-
Should he not have the right in the important decision of what is to happen his child?
Until men can go though pregnancy/labour, be expected to give up work/uni/college/school, or be expected to be the child's primary carer 24/7, then I don't really see why other than as a matter of courtesy. What's to stop the father begging and pleading with the mother to change her mind, only to decide that they don't want a baby after all and take off, leaving the mother with a child they never wanted in the first place? Sorry gents, but it is how it is. I think it'd be a pretty dick move NOT to tell the guy involved, but I don't think there's an obligation to do so.
What would be implications if abortion were to be outlawed again? Would anyone really want to see the return of DIY abortions? Think of all the girls/women that would end put putting themselves in hospital or killing themselves trying to make themselves miscarry, as happened in the past. Perhaps this sounds rather clinical, and maybe it is, but I don't ever think the foetus (I refuse to use emotive words like "baby" or "child"; let's call it what it is people) should take priority over the life of the mother.
oh man I was staying away from this topic wasn't I
-
a woman has the right to do with her body in the base line. this is both aborting and keeping a baby, remember its possible to pressure a woman to have abortion he doesn't want.
so yeh i'm classic pro-choice
although depending on the cirumtances i do think the partner in the relationship does deserve at least knowledge and a chance to talk this over and perhaps come to another soulation that they are both happy with. i don't think anything like it should be legistaized because I have said its all about circumstance, i do however believe the father should have some input, it is a mother's baby and all, but at the same time it's still the fathers, but ultimately and rightly the mother should have the final say - in both keeping and aborting.
i think however this issue is far more important than we can consider it for, it goes beyond the realms of a traffic cone.
just a important question to anti-abortion - would your position change if there was a catapult involved in anyway?
-
I believe there are other choices but hey, who am I to tell people what to do. It isn't my place to do so.
-
The problem basically becomes, that you're making the choice to end a life, and on what authority do you have to make such a huge decision?
I don't have any authority to make such a decision. I am not pregnant, and I never will be pregnant.
It's the woman's choice, not mine. It's a huge decision for her: pregnancy is not just something that you can trundle through and then at the end of it give the baby away. It's body-altering, life-altering, painful and distressing, all the more so if you cannot keep the baby at the end of it.
Also I find it amusing that Mississippi is one of the states which allows capital punishment, iirc.
As mentioned, the fertilized egg, while having no mind of it's own, is considered by some to be human, because if left inside the womb, it will eventually transform into a human baby. An unfertilized cell, if left in the womb, will not transform into a human baby, and therefore, isn't considered human. And since a fertilized cell is considered a human, it deserves the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, at least in the United States of America.
The key tense here is the future tense: a fertilised egg, embryo or foetus cannot survive outside of the womb until... I think that the line hovers around 20 weeks, but even then the chances are survival are low and specialist hospital equipment is required.
It has the potential to grow into a human being, yes. I'm not denying that. But as I stated above, pregnancy is not a walk in the park. Raising a child is not something that someone should do just because "whoops the condom broke and I suppose this is my fault for having sex!"
I don't for a minute think that abortion is the easy thing for someone to do, either. There are many reasons to abort: as a young or perhaps underage woman who may encounter problems and discrimination if pregnant [not to mention being unable to support a baby], or a woman in an abusive relationship who doesn't want to bring a child into it, or a woman with a family history of genetic disease, or a woman who has a terrible phobia of pregnancy, a transman for whom being pregnant would go against everything that he identifies as, a woman who can't afford children, a woman who wants to do more things with her life, a woman who was drunk or raped or the contraceptives didn't work and normally she is so careful, or a woman who just does not want children at all, ever.
Obviously there will be other reasons, and there may even be people who get abortions for giggles: you know, don't bother with contraception, get pregnant, maybe wait several months, waltz in for an abortion and then go through the whole thing again because hey, why not?
But I don't think for a minute that that is the majority. I think that if you have an abortion, there is a damn good reason behind it. You don't just go "whoops, what am I like? Off to the clinic!" It would be something to think about and weigh up. There may be guilt. There will certainly be anti-abortion protesters and media [perhaps even outside clinics, as though it wasn't traumatic enough for those who have to make a choice like this].
The point being that the law doesn't have to make these decisions: anyone undergoing abortion will already be making them.
And of course there's the fact that making abortion illegal won't stop it from happening if somebody is desperate: it'll just get rid of the safe, hygienic abortions done in clinics.
Finally, giving children up for adoption: there's no shortage of unwanted children in the care system, without families. So the baby is born. Congratulations! Off it goes for adoption, and possibly from foster family to home to foster family until it's 18. There's no funding for unwanted children from the anti-choice protesters that I'm aware of: certainly not enough to support all of them. Once the baby is born, that's their job done. Who cares what happens to it now?
I also feel it should be determined by circumstances, such as rape.
This is something that I can't understand or agree with.
Firstly: if you hold the iron-cast view that a foetus is a foetus is a foetus, then surely it doesn't matter whether it was conceived in rape or consensual sex. It still has the potential to grow and become a human child. If you're going to say "all foetuses are innocent and deserve to live", it seems a little unfair to allow the pregnancies which are due to rape to be terminated. I mean, the foetus itself didn't have any input into the rape, right?
Secondly: This, again, supports the women-as-incubators idea. If a woman wants to have sex and gets pregnant through that, well, clearly that's her fault, regardless of whether she used contraception. However, if she was raped, then she is an innocent bystander and so it's not fair on her. To me, it smacks of the idea that if a woman wants to have or even enjoys sex, then she deserves to live with any consequences.
Finally: how do you prove rape? Many go unreported because the victim is afraid: afraid of their attacker, of being judged, of being told that they're crying rape simply because they changed their mind. [Besides, if that's one of the only ways to get an abortion, and a woman wants abortion, what's to stop them from claiming it was due to rape?].
Where are the lines for rape drawn? Does it have to be a modestly-dressed, sober woman with a chastity ring walking unattended down an alleyway at night who is jumped by a man who then proceeds to rape her?
There's still the notion hanging around that if a woman is dressed in a short skirt, or is drunk, or goes back to a man's flat at 3am... if she's raped then, then it's her fault and she should have been more careful.
Which is sort of interesting when you consider that the rapist was the one who actually broke the law.
But rape culture is a whole other subject.
Was studying this in school, what I found disturbing about abortion is the surgical techniques used, there is a video 'the silent scream' and it is a surgical abortion through an ultrasound scan.
This swayed me against abortion due to the fact that the baby or 'foetus' seemed to be screaming and in pain. It was horrific to watch.
On the other hand, medical abortions are not as stressful on the mother and it is likely to be less stressful to the unborn child.
I'm somewhat certain that doctors do not compete to find the most horrific abortion techniques available: if they do something, there is a reason behind it.
Early pregnancies can be terminated by inducing a miscarriage, as far as I'm aware. Later pregnancies involve other procedures.
If an abortion is being left until quite late, there is probably a reason for it other than sudden cold feet, such as a defect discovered in the foetus, that would do the mother harm to have it left in.
Intact dilation and evacuation [aka partial-birth abortion] is an abortion procedure in which late-term foetuses were able to be born whole: the mother could see her children, name them, hold them, before they were buried. It involved a vacuum removing the brain of the foetus so that the head can be compressed and the body delivered.
It's now illegal in the US due to anti-abortion protesting. I think that the only option available for that late in the pregnancy are a type of caesarian. I don't know how they kill the foetus in that method.
However, other procedures such as dilation and curettage [essentially scraping out the contents of the womb], are still legal, although this is in decline and tends to be used for earlier stages of pregnancy.
Aaand I do completely agree with it being the mother's choice. If the pair are in a relationship, then surely they can discuss it together and respect the other's wishes, but ultimately it is the woman's body. And if they are not in a relationship and the father is protesting, then there is no obligation for him to hang around and have to raise a child and he should have put something on the end of it
I think this is long enough for me to post now
oh no wait
So, yeah! I'm just sort of playing the devil's advocate really... Although my main point in the original post was that abortion is a much more complex topic than you initially demonstrated, and I didn't feel it was a good comparison to something as silly as discriminating against a particular genre of music due to one teen's death at a rave. Didn't mean to inspire a whole topic on it, sorry ^^;
well, that's the point of debate, surely? :v
I wasn't meaning that it was on the same level of seriousness as such, just that it smacked of the "this could in some situations be bad, ban it, ban it all!" mindset that I was getting from Amendment 26: without looking at all examples of the situation they want to ban, as it were.
-
The foetus may have the potential to grow - but is it actually alive? Can one consider it a human being in development, or a cluster of cells just waiting to be formed into something? I'm pro ably wrong here, but I think of it like this:
When you plant a seed, is it considered a plant? While it's still growing underground, is it considered a plant? When it first appears above ground, is it considered a plant?
I apply the philosophy to this topic. At what point is it considered "human," and deserving of rights? At what point does it become "killing," rather than "stopping?" I don't have all the facts, and I'm too tired at this point in time to look them up. But in the end, it's the mother's choice, unless there is a compelling reason to disregard her decision. If, for whatever reason, she doesn't want or can't handle a child, she needs to be able to make the decision on what she wants to do - not what the crowd wants her to do.
-
Also, some arguments saying "Shouldn't have had sex" or "should have used contraception" blow because it essentially seems to act as more of a punishment towards woman for having sex more than protecting a fetus.
-
Personally I don't see much wrong with it. I often hear an argument that that so many brilliant, clever people could be born if there were no abortions, we could be killing a scientist or an actor. Mmm... but we could also be killing a murderer. Sex is a very natural thing that had a ton of benefits; Weight loss, easing stress and depression, pain relief and other things, so saying "Just don't have sex!" isn't exactly being helpful, it may be the most sure way of not getting pregnant but it's in peoples nature to do it. You can't stop people having sex.If a woman becomes pregnant then it should be her choice whether she wants to keep it or not, If she doesn't want a child there is a stronger possibility that it isn't going to be looked after right, it could be living and suffering with a horrible life of a crowded home, poverty and even abuse if born to someone who doesn't care about it.
People who try and stop women from getting abortions, who try and close down clinics, stand in the doors and berate the people getting them, will they try and support the baby they have saved? Would they be willing to take on this new baby that the mother clearly didn't want/isn't ready for? I bet most of them wouldn't. I don't blame anyone for getting an abortion, it's not an easy decision for anyone to make.
-
im for it, with the exception of late-term. like, sorry, but if it took you that long to have an abortion, and since you're gonna end up needing to do a partial birth abortion, why dont you just have the baby? nowadays, a mother's life is hardly ever threatened, thanks to procedures such as c-sections and other fun things doctors know how to do.
honestly i always say this story on ron paul's website even though i support pretty much the polar opposite of what he does... he used to be a doctor and deliver babies, and he gets called into one room to assist with a late term abortion. they give birth to an actual human baby, kill it, and then tuck it away like it was nothing. then he gets called to help deliver a baby that was being born early, and this baby was about the same size and stuff as the recently aborted baby, and it was the same sort of situation, except for the doctors all paid so much attention to this child and made sure it lived.
and thats the thing. if you can almost give birth to it, and if its living and breathing, you have no right to kill it. that IS murder. women are not incubators, but at that point you are carrying a human being, and you're most likely more than half way through, so just keep it, and if you cant handle it, someone else would love to have it. if it took too long for your family to decide, keep it anyways. its just so wrong. those should be illegal.
but earlier abortions, i cant find myself against. like soldiertoise said, its just like a seed. will it become a plant? yes. is it a plant? no. if i take the seed out of the ground will i have missed out on a plant? yes. but does that seed know that its gonna be a plant thats going to grow and collect energy from the sun? no way. could that seed have been a rose? yes. could that seed have been an invasive plant? yes.
and honestly i hate to say it, but the crime rate drops like its hot when abortions are legal. its because most people who have a baby can care for it, and it'll grow to be a good functioning member of society. either we can kill a fetus when its living is debatable, or we can have it grow into a man who kills a father and throws his entire family into jeopardy. if that makes any sense
-
and honestly i hate to say it, but the crime rate drops like its hot when abortions are legal. its because most people who have a baby can care for it, and it'll grow to be a good functioning member of society. either we can kill a fetus when its living is debatable, or we can have it grow into a man who kills a father and throws his entire family into jeopardy. if that makes any sense
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a bit like eugenics.
-
Maybe it's just me, but that sounds a bit like eugenics.
Almost, I'd consider it a bit of a ridiculous point though. Crime rates won't drop just because some people don't exist (Rates are relative). I would say it's more likely that any drop in crime rates would be down to unwilling parents no longer having to support a family that they neither want nor have the ability to care for. It's the sort of situation which drives people to theft and similar. Of course, growing up in such an environment can have a serious effect on the child's moral compass, but there's no way to judge how a person will turn out. Abortion isn't a solution to that problem, it just masks some of the problems in society.
-
(In responce to mr. Dalliard. I can't quote so yeah)
I feel that abortion is justifiable in the case of rape because there will be that fear of the child growing into what it's father had been.
A woman who has to face this decision has a lot to think about and who the father of the child is can take up some of this decision.
If a woman who was raped carries out the pregnancy, it will be a reminder of what happened and how she had been violated and given a baby that she did not want.
I agree that it is not the unborn foetus' fault, this is also a reason I feel abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, if the child is born the mother may take out what happened to her on the child, this could mean unintentional or intentional neglet or abuse.
On your point of a woman claiming to have been raped just to have an abortion, I do not feel that any woman could claim such a thing when it's not true, it is every girl/teenager/womans pride and freedom that is robbed of her when she (or indeed he but thats for a different issue) is raped, no woman would condemn herself to that for the sake of an abortion.
-
I feel that abortion is justifiable in the case of rape because there will be that fear of the child growing into what it's father had been.
Or the child could grow up unloved and unwanted in the case of someone who has consensual sex.
His entire point dealt with the hypocrisy of "if abortion is taking a human life, then isn't abortion in the case of rape also taking away a human life?" Considering how either way you are taking a human life. Rape can't always be proven either considering most rape cases you hear about are shrugged off by whatever judicial system in whatever country you are in.
-
I feel that abortion is justifiable in the case of rape because there will be that fear of the child growing into what it's father had been.
I'm not entirely sure that there are "rapist genes", to be honest: if a child is raised and loved and given good parenting then the environment will speak volumes more than from where half of their DNA came. In fact, if Rapist Dad isn't around, that would likely be better for the child's upbringing than if he were.
If a woman who was raped carries out the pregnancy, it will be a reminder of what happened and how she had been violated and given a baby that she did not want.
I agree that it is not the unborn foetus' fault, this is also a reason I feel abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, if the child is born the mother may take out what happened to her on the child, this could mean unintentional or intentional neglet or abuse.
As opposed to a woman who had sex consensually, but she was made to have the baby because she'd agreed to the sex? Even if she has not seen the father since? Even if she didn't know the father and what he was like? Even if he'd buggered off and she was left to raise a child that she was made to keep?
On your point of a woman claiming to have been raped just to have an abortion, I do not feel that any woman could claim such a thing when it's not true, it is every girl/teenager/womans pride and freedom that is robbed of her when she (or indeed he but thats for a different issue) is raped, no woman would condemn herself to that for the sake of an abortion.
I'm absolutely not saying that crying rape is the common or typical thing to do, or saying that rape victims are liars or whatever you gather from that. In fact, a lot of my post was about how rape is not just the picture we see painted of innocent victims walking down the street and being assaulted.
There is a serious problem in our culture where we tell women to watch how much they drink, stick with a friend, dress modestly, don't walk down that alleyway, don't be alone with men you don't know... and focus on that far more than telling people not to rape.
I'm not saying that women shouldn't take precautions, because acting as though there aren't rapists isn't going to make them stop existing, but the fact of the matter is that if a man and a woman meet and are alone together, maybe go back to her house, and the man rapes the woman, then it will be considered by some the woman's fault for inviting a strange man back to her flat.
If somebody is mugged, it is not their fault for walking home by themselves, but there we go.
[and obviously men raping women isn't the only sort of rape at all, but it's the one the most possible to leave the victim pregnant and so the most relevant to this topic]
Anyway, bit of a tangent there. Basically, no, I am not trivialising rape at all. I am just saying that if you agree with abortion only for cases of rape, and we extrapolate that to a law where only those who have been raped can legally have abortions, then some women may well claim that their pregnancy was due to rape instead of having to have a child.
If the choice is between that and a coat hanger, pride may be a small price to pay.
-
Almost, I'd consider it a bit of a ridiculous point though. Crime rates won't drop just because some people don't exist (Rates are relative). I would say it's more likely that any drop in crime rates would be down to unwilling parents no longer having to support a family that they neither want nor have the ability to care for. It's the sort of situation which drives people to theft and similar. Of course, growing up in such an environment can have a serious effect on the child's moral compass, but there's no way to judge how a person will turn out. Abortion isn't a solution to that problem, it just masks some of the problems in society.
it is proven though that the crime rate does drop. here's an entire wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect)
hey studied the children of 188 women who were denied abortions from 1939 to 1941 at the hospital in Gothenburg, Sweden. They compared these unwanted children to another group – the next children born after each of the unwanted children at the hospital. The unwanted children were more likely to grow up in adverse conditions, such as having divorced parents or being raised in foster homes and were more likely to become delinquents and engaged in crime.
as well, i feel like if they were illegal people would try unsuccessfully aborting their own babies which is, first of all, eurgh, and also extremely hazardous.
its not like people just walk up to the clinics and say, "hey, i kind of dont want this baby anymore i think, so uh please get rid of it" anyways. its a hard decision and i would like to think that they had certainly considered all of their options, and felt that this one was the best.
for example, i think that if i was in that situation i would be between aborting the fetus and putting it up for adoption. however, my lifestyle could hardly support me carrying a child. it would take a huge emotional toll on me either way. people are going to judge you for it, and even once you get past that, if you're a student like i am, its tougher to get a decent education, which i'll need if i really want any sort of future. and even then, adoption is not a completely safe option. my friend's mom lived in a family where there were several adopted children. all of the children, but especially the adopted ones, were molested and abused, and one of them were even raped, by the father. so think of how unsettling that must be, knowing that you might now know what's happening to your kid.
its a lot more than whether its moral to destroy the foundations of a life. you have to think if you're destroying any already standing ones.
-
For me, It's not alive until it's out. If you think your religion should prevent you from making the choice, don't make it. It's honestly a convenience for a lot of people.
-
To be honest, I don't understand why this is an issue at all, concerning the law.
There isn't a definite way to prove or pin down the exact point that a foetus starts sensing its surroundings, so all we can do is speculate or rely on what our society and our moral code tells us, which is different for every person.
This is not something you could ever base a law on. A law should have nothing to do with "could be"s or "might be"s. A law should have nothing to do with highly subjective ethics. Unless it is proven that a foetus can feel what's happening to it when it's aborted (which is very unlikely), then there should be no reason to make abortion illegal anywhere, as otherwise it is just based on the moral code of one part of society that somehow seized the right to dictate what other people should think.
This is not democracy. And certainly not the secular society that the 21st century western civilization promises us.
Of course, the ethics are always debatable and can differ from person to person, and I respect everyone's right to be against an abortion in their own case, but, and let me bold that for you, no one but me has the right to decide who feeds off my body and inner organs. Especially not the state.
You can't put the right of an unborn child over the right of a living, breathing woman.
-
In the words of Tim Minchin
Just 'cos Jesus couldn't read
Doesn't mean that we should need
When manipulating human genes
To alleviate pain and fight disease
When deciding whether it's wrong or right
To help the dyin' let go of life
Or stop a pregnancy when it's
Just a tiny blastocyst
Not bashing on Christian's just saying.
-
Was studying this in school, what I found disturbing about abortion is the surgical techniques used, there is a video 'the silent scream' and it is a surgical abortion through an ultrasound scan.
This swayed me against abortion due to the fact that the baby or 'foetus' seemed to be screaming and in pain. It was horrific to watch.
On the other hand, medical abortions are not as stressful on the mother and it is likely to be less stressful to the unborn child.
I do not think this makes abortion 'right' as such. I truly think it is an issue that some women don't think through.
I also feel it should be determined by circumstances, such as rape.
I do not think age is a contributing factor as if you get pregnant at 15 16 17 or whatever and you didn't want a child (well I don't need to move into the biology of it all)
My biggest thought on abortion is one that alot of woman disagree with, I feel that both the mother and father should have a say in wether the abortion should take place.
Yes the mother should get the final say in the matter as it is her body but by law the father has no say in the future of his unborn child.
Is it not his baby to?
Should he not have the right in the important decision of what is to happen his child?
It's been awhile, but this needs to be modified. Due to some circumstances my veiw on this is 100% different. That is all
-
I'll chuck my cents in whilst it's up and kicking again.
All I think is that women should have the choice between having and not having an abortion, and that it's not really right / wrong for anyone to have one, as long as there is a justifiable circumstance (not just rape, but others include incapability to care / financial difficulties and age). Of course, having an abortion just because wouldn't be great but hey, not my choice.Also, what I mean by age is that I would be okay with an abortion at any age, but I think a teen (15-18) should certainly have the right to an abortion. I think this because 15-18 is the kind of age where they are in education, and having a baby would be a bit of a curveball to getting a good education. Granted, if you were 18 and had a baby, you could go to Uni part-time so you could care for the baby, but that depends on other things too.
Aaaaaaand *flees*
-
I'm pro-life and whilst I personally disagree with abortion (generally speaking); due to extreme circumstances I agree with the process and should therefore be legal. However, I don't think it should be as prevalent as it is, although I do understand why.
-
i'm gonna jump in and say it's not my choice whether other women have abortions or whether they do not, and i believe it is as equally wrong to tell a young woman that she is ruining her life if she doesn't have an abortion as it is to tell her she is going to hell if she does have one.
personally, i think it is important that abortions remain legal because - as has been put forth in several other people's arguments - by banning abortion you're just opening up the danger of people having backstreet abortions which leave them open to infection and injury. the rate of abortion doesn't actually go down when abortion is illegal (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014067360761575X/fulltext) - it just kills more people. my grandmother herself became pregnant with my mother out of wedlock in 1962 (where in the UK abortion was legalised in 1967) and backed out from a backstreet abortion clinic at the last minute. the annual death toll when coathanger abortions were a thing was 5000 deaths a year - imagine if my grandmother had been one of them. now, my mother is one of the lucky unwanted ones; she's fairly well rounded and well adjusted as an adult, but this isn't the case for a fair few children who are born unwanted, especially if it's a child whose care can't be paid for in a country where the mother will not receive adequate aid to help care for them (as a single example). where that is the case, it is certainly the lesser of two evils to have an abortion if neither the mother and child can be cared for properly if the child is born. or why don't we talk about salvita halappanavar (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-woman-dies-after-abortion-refusal)? the mother and the foetus both dead because of laws on abortion - especially in a roman catholic country - seems fairly counterproductive imo.
you'll need a tl;dr after that rambling piece so uh: my own views on the ethics or abortion put aside, illegalising abortion or otherwise preventing women from having them helps nobody and probably kills about 3 times more people than it's meant to be saving. (also 70,000 women die a year from unsafe abortion and if that doesn't ring warning bells i don't know what does)