Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

[ellie]

people still have children because they want them despite the consequences. that doesn't mean everyone should be forced to have one when they don't want it, especially considering the consequences.

and yes SOME articles are biased, but actual scientific research isn't

 

[Steampunk]

and yes SOME articles are biased, but actual scientific research isn't

And which one would that be?
I'd guess that both of you would say "The one I posted."

And if people are willing to have children "despite the consequences" then "The consequences" can't be as bad as you are making them sound.

 

[PinkiePieFox]

I would like to bring some things to the table that don't seem to have been mentioned, but Ellie and Maedar have said some. I'm not saying anyone is wrong, because in this debate no one can easily say what the right answer is, this isn't simple maths. This is a huge wall of text, an essay but I am known for that. Please read it all if you're going to read a little <3 then there will be no misunderstandings.

Spoiler: Very Long. Some sensitive topics are here so be warned if you are young.

I understand why people oppose abortion, a unborn person with potential and some class it as murder. But has anyone thought if the person really wants to be born? What life would be like under a mother who never wanted you in the first place? Everyone is forced into being and if abortion was illegal everywhere under all circumstances there would be a lot more child abuse, crime and suicides from broken families, despite the health support and other such support. I understand the argument for if a fetus can feel pain, but in Britain (not sure if this is different in other countries) we have a very strict time slot of when an abortion can be taken place, this is before a fetus has brain activity (can't remember how many weeks, 20 something I believe) so the body physically can't feel pain if it has no brain activity. I do draw the line at abortion after brain activity occurs because you've had plenty of time to do it humanely.

In Britain to have an abortion is also difficult to get done as you have to provide a good excuse why you have to have an abortion e.g. mentally insane, medically unstable and such and so forth. Not sure if in other countries you can have an abortion for the hell of it, if so that's disturbing...

But it is easy to say to give the child away, but what would this mean? The mother would have constant guilt and worry about the child, not to mention the horrific ordeal of child birth and post nasal depression mothers go through. So they would have gone through all that for what, give the child away? If it was a child of a rape victim and finds out their father was a rapist have you thought about how horrific and heart breaking that is for the child? Adopted children go through HELL, they get bullied and never get the real love of their blood relatives, no matter how loving their foster family may be they never seem to have that void filled.

Another thing is something I don't know if anyone has mentioned. But what if the woman is terrified of child birth? I never want children, if I do they'll be adopted for this precise reason. Pregnancy and child birth to after that is horrific, some women can go mad because of it (has resulted in some pretty gruesome murders from a woman going mad). You have this person inside of you, moving, kicking, winding you, making you vomit all the time and all that embarrassment. You have to have check ups all the time and needles... ugh I hate needles... and they're huge! No joke, looking at the size makes me wanna leg it... Your skin stretches, cravings and you have to buy new clothes and watch your step all the time. Feet get bigger and have to buy new shoes... and then the child birth itself can kill the woman (I nearly killed my mum along with my death as well, I was a c-section and there were many complications) and the post nasal depression is apparently the worst you can get, everything seems empty and your life used up apparently.

Most people who oppose abortion in any circumstance seem to be either men (no offense, but it's understandable as they never have a fear of this fate) or people who think the world is rosey. I don't oppose abortion nor support it, because I personally don't know how I'd advise someone in the situation or what I'd do in the situation, I couldn't cope with the label of being a murderer and killing my own flesh and blood nor could I stand the whole ordeal of having the child... so I chose not to think about it.

A final argument is something I see as quite depressing. In some countries abortion is totally illegal, and when a woman gets pregnant and seriously can't handle it, they commit suicide. Losing two lives when at least one life could have been saved, this is also the case in countries with abortion being allowed but pressure of outsiders labeling the person as a murderer. If I had a friend who was raped and ended up pregnant as a result and her family denied and pressured her into keeping the child and she ended up committing suicide, how would we all feel? Horrible, the people around the woman are most effected if she commits suicide compared to if she just had an abortion.
And a personal thing, if I was a fetus of a mother who had been raped I would have preferred her to have aborted me to spare her committing suicide and wasting bother of our lives, but that's just me... I would give up my life to save someone, even if they were a total stranger. (as long as they were a nice person, otherwise I'd just try to save them but not give up my life)

I apologize if what I have described has caused anyone stress, but my opinion will be different and I had to describe it in a way that people will understand why I don't oppose abortion. As some people don't seem to understand what women go through to be able to easily say 'get on with it'.

 

[ellie]

And which one would that be?
I'd guess that both of you would say "The one I posted."

almost none of ldsman's sources actually say what he claims they say. most of them are correlations without any actual evidence that abortion is the causative agent. for example, the one about abortions being correlated with premature births in later pregnancies, many women have abortions because of health reasons. it would make sense that women that had to stop a pregnancy for health reasons would probably have trouble later on with other pregnancies, but that absolutely does not mean the abortion caused those problems. same thing with the suicides, one of the other common reasons women have an abortion is because they have too much going on in their life to be able to take care of a baby properly, so it would also make sense that those women would be at an increased risk of suicide without the abortion being the causative agent.

i am a statistics minor and i have taken a lot of classes about surveying, experimental design, and how to properly infer causations. bad statistics don't prove pro-lifers' points.

And if people are willing to have children "despite the consequences" then "The consequences" can't be as bad as you are making them sound.

this is also one of the dumbest things i have seen posted here, and that's saying a lot. people still have children because they want them despite the consequences. that does not mean the consequences are not that bad for someone who does not want children. if i dont want kids there is no way im putting my body through 9 months of hell, heavily altering my mental state, giving up a lot of things that are bad for the fetus, causing irreversible changes to my body, and possibly even killing myself. a woman who really wants a child might see those as a necessary sacrifice to get what she wants, and if she does, more power to her. but she should have the choice whether to do that or not. people make sacrifices in order to get something they want all the time when they wouldnt do it if it wasnt going to get them something they wanted.

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

this is also one of the dumbest things i have seen posted here, and that's saying a lot. people still have children because they want them despite the consequences. that does not mean the consequences are not that bad for someone who does not want children. if i dont want kids there is no way im putting my body through 9 months of hell, heavily altering my mental state, giving up a lot of things that are bad for the fetus, causing irreversible changes to my body, and possibly even killing myself. a woman who really wants a child might see those as a necessary sacrifice to get what she wants, and if she does, more power to her. but she should have the choice whether to do that or not. people make sacrifices in order to get something they want all the time when they wouldnt do it if it wasnt going to get them something they wanted.

You just said pregnancy was 9 months of hell.

Look, I have no problem saying that pregnancy is not easy. It's a huge sacrifice.

But don't make it out like pregnancy is worse than it is. In fact, I'm going to call you out for even cheapening the exaggerated claim "war is hell." I don't know the statistics, but I know that death due to pregnancy is nowhere near as common as it was centuries ago. In war, death is common. Complications exist in pregnancy, no doubt, and these are not to be minimized. But these complications pale in comparison to things like the horrible injuries inflicted in war, yes, even torture that sometimes happens.



You want to prove your point that women should have a choice in carrying a fetus to term? I think you should do so without that kind of blatant exaggeration. It is highly irresponsible.





I also want to point our your overly-dismissive and careless reading of LDSman's source. It mentioned the study done in California specifically attempting to control for already existing mental illness and still finding significant results. (After one other thing that made your reference to possibly wanting to kill yourself if you were pregnant look highly embarrassing.)


On your other point, I'd also like to see some statistics showing just how "many" women--percentage-wise--have abortions for health reasons.



And to be honest, it would be really great for your source to be more neutral than something with "prochoice" in the link.

 

[Baba Yaga]

Would TheFightingPikachu like to address previous posts/concerns about his arguments just one page back? Or no? I'm sure you must be a busy, busy man, but we're dying for your input.

Look, I have no problem saying that pregnancy is not easy. It's a huge sacrifice.

But don't make it out like pregnancy is worse than it is. In fact, I'm going to call you out for even cheapening the exaggerated claim "war is hell." I don't know the statistics, but I know that death due to pregnancy is nowhere near as common as it was centuries ago. In war, death is common. Complications exist in pregnancy, no doubt, and these are not to be minimized. But these complications pale in comparison to things like the horrible injuries inflicted in war, yes, even torture that sometimes happens.

There's something I find amusing about a man telling a woman about how bad pregnancy is or isn't, but amusement aside, so what? Comparing pregnancy to war does seem pretty superfluous, but that still doesn't make pregnancy any less risky or less pleasant of an experience. The death caused by pregnancy isn't near what it was centuries ago, but it's still there. Hearing about a woman dying in pregnancy is becoming more and more rare, but it's not a particularly shocking occurrence. Especially since science is showing us that over the years, female hip bones are becoming more and more narrow. You can bet your bottom dollar that complications with pregnancy are going to become more and more frequent as the years roll on. Even if pregnancy never resulted in death, why should a woman be forced to give birth to a baby that may or may not live, and if it doesn't kill her, stands a good chance of physically marring her body permanently?

You want to prove your point that women should have a choice in carrying a fetus to term? I think you should do so without that kind of blatant exaggeration. It is highly irresponsible.

Glass houses, friend. Before you go nitpicking the arguments of others, you still have some concerns just one page back and we would all be tickled to hear what you have to say.

 

[BJPalmer85]

So does abortion

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



And there appears to be an increased risk of suicide.

But the research does not prove cause and effect. It may be, that women who have abortions are more emotionally unstable in the first place

This right here means the article is worthless. They are trying to link two things that may not be linked. Its like the "Ice cream and murders" argument.

B

 

[LDSman]

This right here means the article is worthless. They are trying to link two things that may not be linked. Its like the "Ice cream and murders" argument.

B

And the response just below that addressed that claim.

* 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:

 

[BJPalmer85]

And the response just below that addressed that claim.

OK, still doesnt provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. There is no link shown and 8 years is a long time, anything could happen in 8 years. Provide some sort of scientific facts that state it alters brain chemistry causing these women to take their lives and I be more apt to believe it.

B

 

[ellie]

You just said pregnancy was 9 months of hell.

Look, I have no problem saying that pregnancy is not easy. It's a huge sacrifice.

But don't make it out like pregnancy is worse than it is. In fact, I'm going to call you out for even cheapening the exaggerated claim "war is hell." I don't know the statistics, but I know that death due to pregnancy is nowhere near as common as it was centuries ago. In war, death is common. Complications exist in pregnancy, no doubt, and these are not to be minimized. But these complications pale in comparison to things like the horrible injuries inflicted in war, yes, even torture that sometimes happens.



You want to prove your point that women should have a choice in carrying a fetus to term? I think you should do so without that kind of blatant exaggeration. It is highly irresponsible.

i literally have no idea what you are saying right now. where did i talk about war? death due to pregnancy may not be as common as it was centuries ago but it still happens, both directly from pregnancy and indirectly as a result of complications. if i do not want a kid i am not taking that risk. i'm also not exaggerating. can you get pregnant? have you been with people who have been pregnant and seen how it affects them? no? then i don't think you can actually talk about how it affects people when clearly you have no idea.

I also want to point our your overly-dismissive and careless reading of LDSman's source. It mentioned the study done in California specifically attempting to control for already existing mental illness and still finding significant results. (After one other thing that made your reference to possibly wanting to kill yourself if you were pregnant look highly embarrassing.)


On your other point, I'd also like to see some statistics showing just how "many" women--percentage-wise--have abortions for health reasons.



And to be honest, it would be really great for your source to be more neutral than something with "prochoice" in the link.

what did i say about wanting to kill myself if i was pregnant? i really think you need to read my posts more because you are saying things that make zero sense. i didn't say i would want to kill myself, i said being pregnant can kill you, which is true. and as pointed out they didnt actually control for it, statistics and finding correlations are a lot more complicated than most people think.


as for health related abortions, tbh i dont care about the actual percentage. the fact is pregnancy changes your health dramatically, and no one should be forced to have those changes if they don't want to deal with it, end of story.


and just because it's pro choice doesn't mean it's wrong. you didn't say anything about ldsman's source being "pro life" as dumb as that term is.

 

[Maedar]

See this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy. This is not gonna help their case.

 

[BJPalmer85]

See this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/01/hobby-lobby-invests-in-em_n_5070279.html

Hobby Lobby's hypocrisy. This is not gonna help their case.

That whole case pissed me off. Obama wants a healthcare reform that provides benefits to everyone, everywhere. Yet certain companies start to complain about it being "against their beliefs" and the administration folds and allows them special exceptions. I'm sorry but that should be illegal. On my insurance I now have to have coverage for eye examinations for kids, I dont have kids but I still have to carry the coverage. On an individual policy for a man, you have to have pregnancy coverage....WTF?!? If Obama wanted this **** done right he should have told Hobby Lobby and their like-minded peers that they can either offer the full coverage or pay the penalty and offer no coverage, no other choice and no exceptions.

B

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

i literally have no idea what you are saying right now. where did i talk about war? death due to pregnancy may not be as common as it was centuries ago but it still happens, both directly from pregnancy and indirectly as a result of complications. if i do not want a kid i am not taking that risk. i'm also not exaggerating. can you get pregnant? have you been with people who have been pregnant and seen how it affects them? no? then i don't think you can actually talk about how it affects people when clearly you have no idea.

Whether I can get pregnant is completely irrelevant to the question of whether calling pregnancy 9 months of hell is an exaggeration of the sort that shows extreme lack of perspective. This was very clearly expressed in my post. If you are even cheapening an exaggeration like "war is hell" you are exaggerating dramatically.

what did i say about wanting to kill myself if i was pregnant? i really think you need to read my posts more because you are saying things that make zero sense. i didn't say i would want to kill myself, i said being pregnant can kill you, which is true. and as pointed out they didnt actually control for it, statistics and finding correlations are a lot more complicated than most people think.

The wording "and possibly even killing myself" is not a unusual way to refer to circumstances acting upon one causing death. (I.e., it would be more common to say that conditions related to pregnancy can do this, that, the other thing, "and possibly even kill me," as opposed to the form "myself.") Though I will say that you did set yourself up for that, especially in a sentence that already talked about having an altered mental state, I see that I mistook your intention. My apologies.

as for health related abortions, tbh i dont care about the actual percentage. the fact is pregnancy changes your health dramatically, and no one should be forced to have those changes if they don't want to deal with it, end of story.

You made the claim that many were. Since you implicitly cared about the truth of your statement, you better care about the percentage.

and just because it's pro choice doesn't mean it's wrong. you didn't say anything about ldsman's source being "pro life" as dumb as that term is.

First, do you have to be so insulting?

Second, I never said it did. Your response here seems to indicate that you implicitly understand my point about the value of sources without stated viewpoints (that might bias the selection/presentation of data), but then only use that as fodder to ridicule someone else's post. Which can hardly be called balanced debating.

 

[Silvijo]

That whole case pissed me off. Obama wants a healthcare reform that provides benefits to everyone, everywhere. Yet certain companies start to complain about it being "against their beliefs" and the administration folds and allows them special exceptions. I'm sorry but that should be illegal. On my insurance I now have to have coverage for eye examinations for kids, I dont have kids but I still have to carry the coverage. On an individual policy for a man, you have to have pregnancy coverage....WTF?!? If Obama wanted this **** done right he should have told Hobby Lobby and their like-minded peers that they can either offer the full coverage or pay the penalty and offer no coverage, no other choice and no exceptions.

B

Though I am wondering why healthcare is against Christianity.Those people are simply empty-brained.

 

[Haruko]

Abortion should be illegal, except under a few clause exceptions.

Clause 1: If the pregnant female is a victim of sexual assault, then it is up to her discretion
Clause 2: If the pregnant female suffers from brother-sister sexual attraction.
Clause 3: If the pregnant female is going to die from giving birth

 

[BigLutz]

That whole case pissed me off. Obama wants a healthcare reform that provides benefits to everyone, everywhere. Yet certain companies start to complain about it being "against their beliefs" and the administration folds and allows them special exceptions. I'm sorry but that should be illegal. On my insurance I now have to have coverage for eye examinations for kids, I dont have kids but I still have to carry the coverage. On an individual policy for a man, you have to have pregnancy coverage....WTF?!? If Obama wanted this **** done right he should have told Hobby Lobby and their like-minded peers that they can either offer the full coverage or pay the penalty and offer no coverage, no other choice and no exceptions.

B

It's just not that simple see there is a law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 which is partially the reason why religious exemptions were added for religious organizations to Obamacare. But because those exemptions were added it shows that birth control access is not a overwhelming need that the government must address as they are already giving out exemptions. So at that point companies like Hobby Lobby can go "hey we don't believe in giving out X pill or pills we want to be exempted as it violates our religion" at which point the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 comes back in and they are allowed out of it. It really is a mess and I am not sure if I explained it well enough except Hobby Lobby and others are saying "they get exempted why shouldn't we".

From the looks of it the Supreme Court agrees with Hobby Lobby and will probably vote 5 - 4 or 6 - 3 for them

 

[John Madden]

From the looks of it the Supreme Court agrees with Hobby Lobby

color me completely unsurprised that 1) you're still deriving anything from oral arguments 2 years after NFIB v. Sebelius and 2) you're ignoring both precedent (Employment Division v. Smith, Boerne v. Flores, and ironically Wisconsin v. Yoder) and stated concerns from those very oral arguments (Kennedy RE: employees of corporations granted exemptions) from at least 2 male justices

if this case is winding up 5-4 or 6-3 it's going to be against Hobby Lobby, largely for reasons articulated in this issue brief by the CAC (but also because even if the SCOTUS's conservatives want to piss all over precedent, they're not gonna like the implications of a ruling in favor, for one five-word reason)

Spoiler: that reason

muslim employers and sharia law.

 

[LDSman]

People either don't know or don't care that Hobby Lobby covers 16 other types of birth control. They refuse to cover the 4 that are said to cause abortions.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/a...e-in-the-hobby-lobby-case-lawyer-says-116790/

 

[John Madden]

don't use weasel words

who, exactly, says those forms of birth control cause abortions?

because at the very least, from what i understand of levonorgestrel (what everyone likes to call the morning-after pill), there's no objection to its use that isn't also a generalized objection to birth control given that it literally cannot prevent implantation of fertilized eggs, and if these schleps are as garishly wrong about the others as they are about that, then none of these are actually abortifacients

which i'm assuming everyone on the side of Hobby "mysteriously has zero amicus briefs in its favor by any other corporation" Lobby is referring to as "abortion" in spite of the fact that both spontaneous and induced abortions have completely different mechanisms.

e: and, strangely enough, A Christian Organization's blog post from over two goddamn years ago appears to agree on the point that literally none of those four types of birth control actually cause abortions, namely this line

There is only one drug approved to induce abortion. It is called RU-486 (mifepristone) and is not on the FDA's list of approved contraception. It is available only by prescription and no employer is forced to pay for it as part of an employee health plan.

 

[MachoCheeze]

Abortion should remain legal under all circumstances. Why? Because even thought I myself do not like the idea of abortion, it is not my body therefore I should have no say in a woman's choice and the fact that means legal abortions are safe abortions. Literally the only thing that would come from abortion being illegal would be unsafe, non-professional abortions that would more likely kill the baby AND the mother.

One thing that does often irk me about pro-lifers is that they are all all for "fetuses are humans," but once the baby has been born they could really care less. A baby born to a family without heathcare and gets a sickness? Too bad, to them they should only think people who can afford healthcare should obtain it. A baby born into a family who is scraping by on food stamps? Too bad, the conservatives just cut the accessibility to food stamps and living in poor conditions becomes even worse for families. Also the fact that many pro-lifers have been known to commit violent crimes and even murder (I tried to post the wikipedia link for "Anti-abortion violence" but I don't have a high enough post count.) in the name of being, ironically, PRO LIFE. It disgusts me that people really wish to control women's bodies without every actually thinking of the consequences. Women who do have to resort to abortions don't just go and get them willy-nilly. No woman who has to have an abortion wants it. It's hell for them. They have to put up with their own stressful situation while at the same time will be called evil and discriminated against. Its sickening how conservatives and pro-lifers treat these women.

There's also the fact that there are REAL LIVING BABIES right now out there without homes, without food, without family who NEED to be taken care of. With more babies in the world they'll just continue to get thrown around in the system or growing up only to become sick or dying on their own. It's saddening to me how these people will care about some fertilized eggs but a living breathing human goes by another day uncared for.