Abortion

[SuperThread]

I'd like to know the positions of forum-goers on the issue of abortion and their reasoning behind said positions. At the moment, I'm relatively neutral on the topic, and I'd like to hear some arguments for either side. Here's a preemptive 'thanks' to anyone that posts on this thread.

[john5746]

My position on Abortion is that it is the woman's choice. Abortion should be avoided as much as possible, but in the end it isn't my body.

 

I do think life begins at conception and does have some 'worth' from that point. So, it shouldn't be taken lightly, I certainly don't. That doesn't mean the fertilized egg has equal rights to the woman from that point, in my opinion.

[SuperThread]

In the interest of refuting as many arguments as possible, I'll be playing the Devil's Advocate.

 

My position on Abortion is that it is the woman's choice.

 

I was her right to choose when she had sex. In doing so, she accepted the consequences of her actions and lost any further choice.

[AL]

I would like for people to be responsible enough to use birth-control to avoid pregnancies, and should it fail where a pregnancy is not desired, seek an abortion as early as possible and only as an absolute last resort. Asking people to be responsible however is probably asking too much.

 

I am most definitely opposed to partial-birth abortions -- there are few reasons to wait that long. I think part of the problem of partial-birth abortions though is that young girls who get pregnant are under a lot of social pressure to conceal it, so they wait until the last minute and do crazy things out of desperation. Society frowns on fornication and unwed mothers, and abstinence is still seen as the be-all end-all panacaea. If society were more open about sex, and was honest enough with itself to realize that teenagers and unready young people have always had and will always have sex, we can more appropriately tackle these issues.

 

Several years ago in Southern California, there was a young girl who, unknown to her family and friends, gave birth to a baby in a public toilet and let it drown. When police found her and arrested her, she said she did it because she feared she would be beaten by her father for being an unwed mother. Now of course, I don't believe for a second that a threat of beating justifies drowning a baby, but you can't pretend none of the blame falls on the father either for putting this young and confused girl in this kind of desperate situation.

 

Make condoms and birth control more readily available and don't label young unwed mothers as fornicating "whores" or otherwise put unnecessary pressure on them during what is arguably one of the most difficult times in their life. Social conservatives argue that these things will only encourage more young people to have sex, but I believe it will only cause these young people to be more open about what they're already doing -- having sex.

[Ophiolite]

In the interest of refuting as many arguments as possible' date=' I'll be playing the Devil's Advocate.

[/quote']Nice approach. Some who initiate threads seem to lose interest in them almost immediately.

 

I am opposed based upon upon upbringing, cultural loading, unjustifiable respect for all life, and several other non-logical world views. Therefore my position is very much my own, wholly indefensible and I would not seek to impose it on any other.

 

I would ask this, though, if it is acceptable to abort a fetus at six months, why is it unacceptable to eliminate a three month old baby? I find it difficult to see the distinction.

[cubexican]

I would like for people to be responsible enough to use birth-control to avoid pregnancies, and should it fail where a pregnancy is not desired, seek an abortion as early as possible and only as an absolute last resort. Asking people to be responsible however is probably asking too much.

 

 

Even in the case of failed birth control I still believe that the impregnated woman should not have an abortion. She made the choice to have sex, protected or unprotected. On all forms of birth control they clearly state that it is not 100% effective.

[john5746]

I would ask this' date=' though, if it is acceptable to abort a fetus at six months, why is it unacceptable to eliminate a three month old baby? I find it difficult to see the distinction.[/quote']

 

How about the difference between an egg fertilized yesterday. If you were to drop a dish with 100 fertilized eggs, I doubt you would feel as bad as if you accidentally killed 100 kids.

 

One important distinction is the six month fetus requires the mother, or other medical equipment to continue living.

 

Most of the arguments have been along the lines of the girl had sex willingly. What if she didn't? Is the argument that the girl should be punished? I don't understand the thinking that it is ok for rape, incest but not other reasons.

[cubexican]

When one has sex willingly they are accepting the possibility that she can become impregnated. In the case of rape that person has been traumatized and was violated. That person shouldn't have to go through carrying a child in her body for 9 months and then going through the pain of birth to a child. A child that is the everlasting memory of the night she was violated. In the case of rape and incest I'm pro-choice, otherwise no.

 

How about the difference between an egg fertilized yesterday. If you were to drop a dish with 100 fertilized eggs, I doubt you would feel as bad as if you accidentally killed 100 kids.

 

In both cases 100 lives were taken, but a person would react more intensely if the egg was more developed and more human-like. That is psychological.

[SuperThread]

I would like for people to be responsible enough to use birth-control to avoid pregnancies, and should it fail where a pregnancy is not desired, seek an abortion as early as possible and only as an absolute last resort.

 

So you'd like to minimize the number of abortions- I can certainly relate to that stance.

 

Asking people to be responsible however is probably asking too much.

 

Well, that's really in the eyes of the beholder. If responsibility translates to saving human life, it is most certainly *not* too much. Which brings us to the question: How valuable (in the sense that a human life is valuable) is a fertilized egg?

 

I am most definitely opposed to partial-birth abortions -- there are few reasons to wait that long.

 

It's arguable that there are few reasons to have sex in the first place, but that certainly doesn't stop it from happening, so we might as well assume that there *will be* at least some instances in which the mother will wait that long. And if she does, I fail to see how partial-birth is any more 'wrong' ethically- more gruesome, yes, but no more wrong.

 

* * *

 

I am opposed based upon upon upbringing, cultural loading, unjustifiable respect for all life, and several other non-logical world views. Therefore my position is very much my own, wholly indefensible and I would not seek to impose it on any other.

 

Fair enough.

 

I would ask this, though, if it is acceptable to abort a fetus at six months, why is it unacceptable to eliminate a three month old baby? I find it difficult to see the distinction.

 

Because it is necessary to set an arbitrary line somewhere, or we get into the whole "is it still legal to kill them?" question, and birth is the easiest place to set such a line. Also because upbringing (and, ostensibly, genetics) causes us (by which I mean people in general) to think of killing a baby as a horrible crime, though it's not, as you say, much worse than aborting a six-month-old fetus. Finally, it's because there's very little reason to kill a baby when you can simply put one up for adoption.

 

* * *

 

Most of the arguments have been along the lines of the girl had sex willingly. What if she didn't? Is the argument that the girl should be punished? I don't understand the thinking that it is ok for rape, incest but not other reasons.

 

Because the mother should have choice at *some* point along in the process. A victim of a rapist did not assume responsibility for her actions, while a fifteen-year-old having casual sex with her boyfriend did.

[Mad Mardigan]

Abortion has a serious affect the woman. My exgf had an abortion befor I started dating her, she also has Bipolar disorder which didnt help but put her into a real bad mental state. She has to take 3 different medications to stabilize her. People say its not living till a certain point, but yes, it is a living being from the time it is created. We came close a couple of times, but was lucky not to have pregnant. If it was to happened, I would have been a man about it and took responcibility. Her x was a looser bastard that didnt care for her, just used her. In the long term, maybe it would of been good for her to have had her baby, but for now, she could not handle it.

[SuperThread]

In both cases 100 lives were taken, but a person would react more intensely if the egg was more developed and more human-like. That is psychological.

 

Not necessarily. If one person kills one hundred pigs and the other kills one hundred humans, both people took one hundred lives. That doesn't mean that both commited equal crimes- indeed, one of them didn't commit a crime at all.

 

A life is not a life is not a life.

[Phi for All]

Personally, I believe the woman carrying the baby has the right to choose what happens to her body. If it were my wife, I would urge her NOT to abort if there were no health complications.

 

I believe we need to set a limit on how long a woman can wait before aborting. If you truly believe life starts at conception, then any abortion is murder. I think life starts when the child could reasonably be separated from the mother. After this time, unless there is a real threat to the mother, abortion should not be a legal option.

 

I think any other distinctions place an unfair burden on people which doesn't take individual context into account.

[john5746]

When one has sex willingly they are accepting the possibility that she can become impregnated. In the case of rape that person has been traumatized and was violated. That person shouldn't have to go through carrying a child in her body for 9 months and then going through the pain of birth to a child. A child that is the everlasting memory of the night she was violated. In the case of rape and incest I'm pro-choice, otherwise no.

 

So your concern is not the life of the unborn, but the way in which it came about? I understand that it might be more justifiable, but the result is the same.

[budullewraagh]

i had to mention this

 

have you heard of george carlin's act about abortion? it says that conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, but once you're born, you're on your own and they dont want to know about you. that is, until you are of military age, when you are just what they have been looking for. yes, conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers

 

it's somewhat disturbing actually. in a broad view, some of it makes sense sadly. pretty much carlin attempts to put the issues into perspective.

[cubexican]

So your concern is not the life of the unborn, but the way in which it came about? I understand that it might be more justifiable, but the result is the same.

 

I am still disturbed by the fact that the child would indeed be dying, but in the case of rape abortion is for the sake of the mother.

[Pangloss]

have you heard of george carlin's act about abortion? it says that conservatives are obsessed with the fetus, but once you're born, you're on your own and they dont want to know about you. that is, until you are of military age, when you are just what they have been looking for. yes, conservatives want live babies so they can grow up to be dead soldiers

 

Which of course just goes to show you that Carlin is just a liberal ideologue (not that that's any great shock, eh?). It was a Republican (Nixon) who actually ended the Vietnam draft, which began under a Democrat (although to be perfectly fair the previous administrations didn't hold any lotteries; Nixon's Pentagon was the first to do so since 1942). I guess the only Republican to actually instutute a draft was probably Lincoln, since I assume it was FDR in 1940 and Harding in 1917 (both Democrats).

 

Somehow I don't think Carlin was talking about Lincoln. (chuckle)

[budullewraagh]

ideologue

oh come on, nobody wants to hear that foul bill o'rielly language. keep it clean man. actually, carlin hated clinton, so go figure

 

i dont believe he was referring to drafting, actually. you know, the second world war was kinda necessary to fight. fdr was the best president we have ever had and perhaps we ever will have so long as the neo-cons exist and push the left to the right.

 

admit it buddy, the right is the side that has been pushing the neo-con movement that has pretty much stated "let's bomb all these little countries that have marginally effective air forces!"

[Pangloss]

admit it buddy, the right is the side that has been pushing the neo-con movement that has pretty much stated "let's bomb all these little countries that have marginally effective air forces!"

 

Of course. But by asking me to "admit it" you imply that I was defending the right. I wasn't doing that at all -- I was criticizing Carlin. That's the problem with being an extremist, bud -- you see everyone who doesn't agree with you as the enemy, and begin to make assumptions about their beliefs. Bad, bad idea.

 

I will *never* try to tell people that one side of the political spectrum is *always* wrong.

 

You *always* do.

 

So the more you object to the word "ideologue", the more clearly it labels you.

 

If you don't like that, as I hope you don't, then *change* it. Get off the gravy train and use that noggin of yours. Ideology is worthless -- it's independent thinking that runs this world. If you're an ideologue, your vote doesn't even count. It's undecided folks that matter -- all you're doing is offsetting a far-right ideologue somewhere.

 

You are smarter than that.

[SuperThread]

Please try to keep it on topic.

 

So, any other arguments for/against abortion?

[tecoyah]

The general reasoning behind an opposition to abortion is the Murder verdict, "you are anding a life". If indeed this were the case we would avoind burgers and chisken like the plague, but we do not. Thus we must consider that the problems arise from the ending of a HUMAN life.

What makes a human, most scientific definitions point to the ability to "think" as a human . The brain waves of a fetus do not produce such patterns until the third tri-mester at earliest and would thus point to human cognitance at this point. To play the safe side we could push R vs. W back a couple months and lower the threshold of error, but the religious factions would still find reason to take away even that from the "personal rights" of the owner of the body carrying the cells.

There is no easy answer to this situation when emotions become involved....logic and Data are not the primary motivators in this battle.

[drz]

Ya, if life starts at conception, well, there is really no reason to say each little egg or sperm isn't a living creature. I mean, sperm's move on their own, with purpose. If life begins at conception, the elements that joined together must have also been alive. If you want to say "Uhhu" then tell me, just what about the clump of cells that makes up an embryo makes it alive, that the 2 components that form the embryo lack?

 

If this is the case teenage boys are the largest mass murderers of unborn children in the world.

 

Women kill unborn children each month.

 

Often times women are pregnant, don't even know it, and miscarry before ever knowing something was going on. We burn surplus food and watch it rot on store shelves while we let the millions of others starve, but you want to force someone into life, who may not even be cared for?

 

I mean, people talk about the potential for life, possesed by each fertilized egg. What about the potential of life the mother has? How about a girl who gets impregnated, is told by the impregnator he will be around to raise and support the child, who then drops off the face of the earth? Is she to doom herself to minimum wage jobs, possibly drop out of high school or not go to college because her minimum wage job doesn't pay enough for child care?

 

Such a women, while very strong willed, and someone whom should be admired but is not, is quite rare. You talk about an embryo's potential for life, but what about the mother's? She could go on to be the first female president, or some doctor or scientist, but if she has to drop out of school and work at waffle house for the next 20 years to feed her child, who might actually have a better chance, big might, which potential is lost?

 

The kid might have a chance of making something of him/herself, but the mother, in many cases, is right on the verge of making something of herself. Should she have to sacrifice her life because of a mistake, or sometimes failure, or, in some cases, even a plan gone bad?

 

I support abortion, although I believe there should be a time limit on it. I know when my friends wife was pregnant, the kid would actually respond to various types of music, or being in an accelerating car. To me, at 4-6 months the kid really starts to become its own being, it does respond to the world, from inside the womb, and should have a chance at life.

 

But if before 4 or so months, if one feels having a child is just not a good idea either for the parents or the child itself, or whatever reason (unless there is multiple trips to the abortion clinic, which also needs a time limit) its really none of our damned business.

 

And frankly, thats what it comes down to. Mind your own damned business and quit worrying about the way everyone else is living their life, so long as it does not harm you or limit your freedoms.

 

(my use of the word "You" is not directed at any one person, just rhetorical, probably a bad habbit)

[bloodhound]

i really dont get a furore over this issue.. millions of lifes are bein involuntarily taken around the world. eg. capital punishements, AIDS, famine etc. Altough a fertilised egg is a form of life, it is not unfair to compare it to a plant. But i oppose really late abortions.

[drz]

Abortion to me isn't really an issue. I'm pro-choice, because, we all have the right to make choices that effect our life, and no one entity nor person should have dominion over our right to choose.

 

What I take issue with is holding back science. Stem cell research, for instance, has been lumped into the same category as abortion, because it destroys an embryo. Nevermind the fact that millions are dieing from things stem cell research could possibly cure, we don't want to ruin the potential for life.

 

All throughout time the religous of the world have sought to hold back of outright deny science, and, time after time science has been proven correct. We need to take a lesson from the past, and quit letting our guesses, those things we call beliefs, about reality, hinder our advancement.

[Phi for All]

I think it is extremely necessary to determine for legal purposes when the life of a human being starts, and it simply can not be at conception. As mentioned already in this thread, there are too many ways to miscarry between when the ovum is fertilized and when it attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins to grow. Even after that there are many risks and the mother can't be held responsible for them all.

 

I think the beginning of the second trimester is the best time limit. After four months, the option of abortion should not be allowed unless it puts the mother at great health risk.

[john5746]

I don't think the question of when life begins needs to be tied into the legality of an abortion.

 

If a man punches a woman in the stomach in her first trimester, knowing she is pregnant and she miscarries, would he not be as guilty as if he did the same thing later?

 

The key is the woman's right to supersede the rights of the unborn. What time period that happens is the question, in my opinion.