Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

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.

 

*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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

Agreed.

 

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.

 

If she was raped, she would need that regardless of whether or not she aborted the unlikely pregnancy that resulted.

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.

Once again, that damage will remain abortion or not.

 

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.

 

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!

 

So does abortion

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

And there appears to be an increased risk of suicide.

 

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.

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.