• We're currently experiencing a minor issue with our email system preventing emails for new registrations and verifications going out. We're currently working to fix this
  • Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

Navin

MALDREAD
I'll admit, I would choose to save the infant. But here is the reason why. In this scenario you have a guaranteed death of one of 2 "things". I have said before that if the mother's life in danger, then by all means, abort the fetus. But in the scenario of an abortion, both the mother and the infant have the potential to keep living.

Now in the example, there is a fetus and an infant, if I had to make that horrible decision, I would allow the infant to live, because the baby could feel pain, and even pro-choicers will call it sentient. If the fetus could feel pain, then that would make the decision much harder. But just because something cannot feel pain, does not mean it isn't alive.
Yes, let's force a woman to go through months of pregnancy and risk her life giving childbirth to a baby she doesn't want to have.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
A fetus is not human. Not as far as the law is concerned.
*facepalm*
What is this, I don't even. How many times do I have to say that I don't give a care what the law says, I am not here to debate what the laws are, I am here to debate the morality of the subject, nothing more.

And I had meant to add this to my last post but I'll put it here. This help illustrate the point that of that example. Say I hold a knife to 2 people, and say I will slash the eyes of one of them, you choose which one. But here's the thing, one of these people is already blind. You have to choose, now, slashing eyes would be bad, whether the person is blind or not, but would you blind the other person as well?

That's basically what that scenario illustrates. You are put in a bad situation, but it could be argued that one of the options would have been slightly less evil.
 

Maedar

Banned
Yes, let's force a woman to go through months of pregnancy and risk her life giving childbirth to a baby she doesn't want to have.
It's crazy, Maldread. Conservatives claim they support morality by wanting abortion outlawed. I call it supporting misogyny.

Sometimes the pro-lifers slip, and show their true intentions with comments like this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/24/steve-martin-virginia_n_4847959.html

I think someone in The Handmaid's Tale said this, actually. Makes you wonder just what this guy thought of his mother.

*facepalm*
What is this, I don't even. How many times do I have to say that I don't give a care what the law says, I am not here to debate what the laws are, I am here to debate the morality of the subject, nothing more.
Yeah, well, your efforts to "debate the morality" are sounding like the words of a chauvinist and someone who doesn't care one bit about women's rights, Spock.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Yeah, well, your efforts to "debate the morality" are sounding like the words of a chauvinist and someone who doesn't care one bit about women's rights, Spock.
I have no problem with anyone having rights, but not when they infringe on the rights of others. (Funny, a lot of users use that same argument against me on here a lot, yet when I use use it, its a problem, odd.) Like I said, what a woman goes through isn't good, but taking a life would be worse imo.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
Here’s a test:

I’m holding a baby in one hand and a petri dish holding a fetus in the other.

I’m going to drop one. You chose which.

If you really truly believe a fetus is the same thing as a baby, it should be impossible for you to decide. You should have to flip a coin, that’s how impossible the decision should be.

Shot in the dark, you saved the baby.

Because you’re aware there’s a difference.

Now admit it
Can I just say that, as a pro-choice supporter, this is kinda misrepresenting pro-lifers.

For the most part, pro-lifers think that in circumstances where it's the life of a mother or a fetus, abortions are ok. Sure, there are some extremists that think that all life is equal in all ways no exceptions, but for the most part they acknowledge that if someone HAS to die (by which I mean the dangers of child birth are too high[Also the language in this explanation is kind of biased towards pro-life people]), then abortions are ok.

That they ignore context for abortions and that they ignore the consequences of bringing an unwanted child into the world, that in case of unwated pregnancies they say "Well you shouldn't have had sex" or "You should have used protection." as if hindsight was some sort of contraceptive... well those are different analogies entirely. Really, let's not strawman the opposition.
 

Skiyomi

Only Mostly Dead
I have no problem with anyone having rights, but not when they infringe on the rights of others.
Call me crazy, but I'd say being subjected to nine months of an unwanted creature growing in my womb, changing my biology, risking my life and causing large amounts of emotional trauma and expense an infringement on my rights. Rights cannot be just pulled out of the ether. You have to take them away from me in order to give them to a fetus. Frankly, all things considered, I'd rather be required to quarter British soldiers. At least then the infringement would be taking place outside of my uterus.

But here's the thing if we're arguing on a moralistic level and not a legal one: you can disapprove of abortion while still being pro-choice. It just means acknowledging that the rest of society should not have to be beholden to your specific set of ideals. Even as someone who does not see abortion, pre-viability, as any kind of moral transgression, that's at least a position I can somewhat respect and even be sympathetic to. I can't really find much sympathy for anything beyond that.
 

Maedar

Banned
Spock, are you a vegetarian?

If not, explain your "theory" to the turkey you had on Thanksgiving, okay?

And don't give me "a fetus is sentient", because it's no smarter than the turkey.
 

Navin

MALDREAD
Spock, are you a vegetarian?

If not, explain your "theory" to the turkey you had on Thanksgiving, okay?

And don't give me "a fetus is sentient", because it's no smarter than the turkey.
Pro-forced birthers will just say that human life is inherently superior to those of an another animal, even a sack of developing tissues versus that of a fully-grown turkey. Does it make sense? Hell no.
 

Maedar

Banned
Pro-forced birthers will just say that human life is inherently superior to those of an another animal, even a sack of developing tissues versus that of a fully-grown turkey. Does it make sense? Hell no.
Course it doesn't. They want to put a fetus' rights before an actual human's because of a belief that might be true and cannot be proven conclusively despite decades of trying to.

Which is insane.
 

Post Moderation

Invisible Presence
I believe that all human life is sacred and that it should be protected at all stages, even in the womb. I understand that childbirth is a painful and difficult process, but stool it brings new life into the world, even if that new life is placed for adoption later. The abortion process may be a quick fix for the present, but I have heard plenty of data regarding the emotional and physical complications of the process.

And for the people who say that the fetus is just a sack of tissue, I have a close friend who survived an abortion process in South Korea at 7 months gestation. If one of the nurses had not seen her as a human being instead of just the product of an abortion, I would be without one of my best friends today.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
Call me crazy, but I'd say being subjected to nine months of an unwanted creature growing in my womb, changing my biology, risking my life and causing large amounts of emotional trauma and expense an infringement on my rights. Rights cannot be just pulled out of the ether. You have to take them away from me in order to give them to a fetus. Frankly, all things considered, I'd rather be required to quarter British soldiers. At least then the infringement would be taking place outside of my uterus.

But here's the thing if we're arguing on a moralistic level and not a legal one: you can disapprove of abortion while still being pro-choice. It just means acknowledging that the rest of society should not have to be beholden to your specific set of ideals. Even as someone who does not see abortion, pre-viability, as any kind of moral transgression, that's at least a position I can somewhat respect and even be sympathetic to. I can't really find much sympathy for anything beyond that.
Okay, I have to agree, that would be an infringement on your rights, but so would would an abortion. So now we are at an impasse. 2 options, both that infringe on the right of the other. And you must determine which takes precedent. Now, I would say the fetus would, because, yes although childbirth is not pretty, when you abort a fetus, it is an effect that can never be undone, and has ultimate, permanent effects. Whereas a woman giving birth will recover after 9 months. The fetus could never recover from being aborted.

So, when talking about which rights will be infringed, we have 2 options rights taken away temporarily, and rights taken away forever.

And if you look closely through my previous posts, you will never see me say that I forbid people from having an abortion, merely that I extremely disapprove of it.
I believe that all human life is sacred and that it should be protected at all stages, even in the womb. I understand that childbirth is a painful and difficult process, but stool it brings new life into the world, even if that new life is placed for adoption later. The abortion process may be a quick fix for the present, but I have heard plenty of data regarding the emotional and physical complications of the process.

And for the people who say that the fetus is just a sack of tissue, I have a close friend who survived an abortion process in South Korea at 7 months gestation. If one of the nurses had not seen her as a human being instead of just the product of an abortion, I would be without one of my best friends today.
Agreed.
 

Maedar

Banned
The woman would recover after nine months?

Wrong. Especially in the case of rape.

Maybe after years of expensive therapy, she would recover.

Financially, she might never recover unless she had help from charity and donations.

You say all life is precious, but you ignore the fact that you're condemning the woman to torture and putting her through hell, risker her mental health.

Again, I ask, is logical to give the fetus rights over the woman due to your assumption that it is sentient? Due to a theory that might be true which can never truly be proven?

You assume the fetus has a soul, but no own can even prove that anyone has one, and not for lack of trying. Over centuries.
 

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
The woman would recover after nine months?

Wrong. Especially in the case of rape.

Maybe after years of expensive therapy, she would recover.
If she was raped, she would need that regardless of whether or not she aborted the unlikely pregnancy that resulted.

Financially, she might never recover unless she had help from charity and donations.
1) As I have said over and over, she does not need to keep the child
2) I have also said this before, but it hasn't come up as much. Yes, I do think that the mother should not be charged to the hospital fees from having a child that came from rape.

You say all life is precious, but you ignore the fact that you're condemning the woman to torture and putting her through hell, risker her mental health.
Once again, that damage will remain abortion or not.
 

LDSman

Banned
http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp

Some of the abortion facts listed are rather disturbing. It's also interesting seeing how the abortion groups have lied to people.

Scroll down to the Women's Health section and check the suicide rates.
 

Maedar

Banned
Stop right there. Part of your link interests me. The part under Politics and Taxpayer Funding:

The Republican Party platform states that abortion should be generally illegal and supports a Constitutional Amendment that would assure preborn humans the right to life. It opposes "using public revenues to promote or perform abortion" and states:

We all have a moral obligation to assist, not to penalize, women struggling with the challenges of an unplanned pregnancy. … Every effort should be made to work with women considering abortion to enable and empower them to choose life.
Texas does no such thing. Perry opposes any form of sex education other than abstinence, and rejects any special plans to aid or fund unmarried or teenage mothers.

The hypocrite.

Spock, as I have said over and over, I think your attitude is that of a misogynist. You are proposing that women be forced to act as incubators against their wills.
 

LDSman

Banned
Stop right there. Part of your link interests me. The part under Politics and Taxpayer Funding:



Texas does no such thing. Perry opposes any form of sex education other than abstinence, and rejects any special plans to aid or fund unmarried or teenage mothers.

The hypocrite.

Spock, as I have said over and over, I think your attitude is that of a misogynist. You are proposing that women be forced to act as incubators against their wills.
So you are cherry-picking facts now? Another great debating tactic!
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin
Okay, I have to agree, that would be an infringement on your rights, but so would would an abortion. So now we are at an impasse. 2 options, both that infringe on the right of the other. And you must determine which takes precedent. Now, I would say the fetus would, because, yes although childbirth is not pretty, when you abort a fetus, it is an effect that can never be undone, and has ultimate, permanent effects. Whereas a woman giving birth will recover after 9 months. The fetus could never recover from being aborted.

So, when talking about which rights will be infringed, we have 2 options rights taken away temporarily, and rights taken away forever.
this is completely wrong. being pregnant and giving birth have massive physical consequences for a woman, many of them permanent. you can even die from childbirth. you act like pregnancy is just some easy thing that a woman goes through and it's totally done after 9 months but it's not.


and as for rape victims, they may or may not have needed therapy (i know people have been sexually assaulted and dealt with it without therapy), but being pregnant as a result of it and being forced to give birth to the baby will result in a lot more trauma than just being raped.
 

LDSman

Banned
So does abortion

http://www.justfacts.com/abortion.asp#Health

A 2007 paper in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine cites 59 studies that exhibit a statistically significant association between abortion and the risk of premature births in subsequent pregnancies. In five of the largest and more recent of these studies, all found increases in premature births before 32 weeks gestation in women who had an abortion. All of these studies also found that this risk escalated when more than one abortion was performed.[169] Children born before 32 weeks gestation are at increased risks for early death, cerebral palsy, blindness, deafness and other health complications.[170]
And there appears to be an increased risk of suicide.

The country of Finland has socialized medicine and keeps detailed health records of its citizens.[175] A search of these records over the years 1987-1994 found that 1,347 women of reproductive age (15-49 years old) committed suicide. A 1996 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 5.9 times more likely to commit suicide in the year following this event than women who delivered a child:




Events within the last year
of the woman's life
Annual suicide
rate per 100,000

Delivered a child 5.9
Had an abortion 34.7

[176]




* The State of California pays the costs of childbirths and abortions for low income women. A study of 173,279 California women who had a state funded childbirth or abortion in 1989 found that 53 of them committed suicide within eight years of their childbirth or abortion. A 2002 study of this data found that women who had an abortion were about 2.5 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:




Events in woman's life from 1989-1997 8-year suicide rate per 100,000
Delivered a child 24.9
Had an abortion 62.8

[177]




* In 2008, the Los Angeles Times reported:



Several studies published in peer-reviewed medical journals suggest that women who have had abortions are more prone to depression or drug abuse. But the research does not prove cause and effect, [said Nada Stotland, president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association]. It may be, she said, that women who have abortions are more emotionally unstable in the first place.[178]




* The California study cited above controlled for mental disorders by eliminating those women who had been treated for a psychiatric problem in the year prior to their childbirth or abortion. When this was done, it was found that women who had an abortion were about 3.3 times more likely to commit suicide in the eight years following this event than women who delivered a child:



Events in woman's life from 1989-1997 8-year suicide rate per 100,000
Delivered a child 19.1
Had an abortion 63.0
 

ellie

Δ
Staff member
Admin

Steampunk

One Truth Prevails
this is completely wrong. being pregnant and giving birth have massive physical consequences for a woman, many of them permanent. you can even die from childbirth. you act like pregnancy is just some easy thing that a woman goes through and it's totally done after 9 months but it's not.


and as for rape victims, they may or may not have needed therapy (i know people have been sexually assaulted and dealt with it without therapy), but being pregnant as a result of it and being forced to give birth to the baby will result in a lot more trauma than just being raped.
2 things here.

1) Perhaps I am making it sound like its not as bad as it is, but I'm sure that you are doing the same thing in the other direction. If it was really as bad as you say it is, then no one would be having children willingly.

2) Perhaps they do have more trauma with having the child than not. But, the majority of it still comes from the actual rape.

actually abortion is one of the safest medical procedures out there right now. nothing is completely without risk but having an abortion early on is far less risky health-wise than continuing a pregnancy.
LDS posts one that says it isn't safe, Ellie posts one that says it is safe. This shows that articles like this are extremely biased.
 
Top