• Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.

    However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.

    We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure.
  • 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?

Garbodor.

Well-Known Member
JDavidC's:

I like your comment, unfortunately I wont be able to give long replies since I don't have that much time.

In my opinion, as soon as the female's egg becomes fertilized then you have a basic human.

I made my view perfectly clear in this thread. There is not much more to say really.
 
Last edited:

Yveltal96

A little more human
I wish there was a easy way. But I suggested going in stages at least.
Sex ed cannot work on it's own.
Parents really need to discipline their children. Lack of control will lead to your kids going around and probably ending up getting someone pregnant or getting pregnant. Education at home is at most important than that of school. control the level of sex your kids see in TV or listen to. All this stuff can really work.

But I will never be pro-abortion. It's just not something I can ever imagine doing.

To each their own opinion.

Getting judgmental on others will NOT help here. This issue is COMPLICATED, there are a lot of factors in play here. There are MANY reasons people go for abortion, not all of them selfish either (and this is coming from someone who is very pro-life). Can people please read the rules I made in my opening post? If you go for a specific position, back your claims up with evidence (logical reasoning, or links to external sources, preferably scholarly sources that are unlikely to be biased). At the very least, if you post an opinion with no evidence, be prepared to provide evidence upon request, or when your opinion is denied as having no substance. Simply stating your opinion as a fact means nothing in a debate, absolutely nothing.

There is one thing that has surprised me so far in this debate, and that is very few people, if any, are attempting to answer the following question. What is a 'person' as opposed to a member of the species 'homo sapiens'. One of the biggest pro-choice arguments is this: You are dealing with a POTENTIAL person, and hence, there is nothing wrong with terminating a life-form that is not actually a person, therefore denying abortion in such a case is sheer insanity. If the premise is true (dealing with a POTENTIAL person), then we have a major problem when denying abortions before personhood is obtained. My opinion is that personhood begins at conception (if you want me to link to my arguments in the previous debate thread, ask me and I'll go search for them, it might take a lot of time to find them yourself!). A key question to answer is, WHEN does a human become a person. Can the answer given be proven? If not, what is the earliest possible time for this to happen, and why?

I'm going to go for the reasoning behind my position. Along with having to get tough on the causes of unwanted pregnancies, and choices other than abortion, there is the nasty issue of my position. Make no mistake, there is no such thing as a 'nice' position when it comes to abortion, as I have said previously. I've chosen an extremely nasty position, because I can see no superior alternative.

The whole rationale behind my position is damage limitation, the lessest of all evils. It is still utterly horrible and will lead to pain, death and suffering. I won't deny that for a split-second. The position is, the mother may only choose abortion if she is in danger of dying. This is a very extreme pro-life position indeed. It begs the question, why?

- In the most severe cases, rape (including statutory rape with consent, or even worse, without), both choices are horrifying. Either you end a life (one that, at the very least, may be an actual person), or you force a barbaric punishment on the mother who has already been raped. Both options are awful. I pick the one that is the least awful. Taking away a life is even worse than the insane punishment on the mother, as the latter does not necessarily lead to death. That is not enough of course, remember what I said about alternatives to abortion? Heavy-duty free counselling on possible solutions, with people available to provide access to people looking to adopt are absolutely required. It is not nearly enough to simply say no abortion when rape is involved, and leave it at that. Women deserve MUCH better than that. People deserve much better than that. One thing I have to say, regarding the question of potential persons, I can link to a massive risk analysis post I made in a previous debate if you want me to tackle the issue of when to treat a human as a person.
- In other cases, you also get horrifying choices, but not as severe as the one above! Needless to say, with these choices, I also believe the best way of limiting the damage done is to prevent abortion except when the mother is at risk of dying, for the same reason as I gave above.
- When it comes to Quality of Life decisions, I find this horribly flawed. Chaos Theory (check the wikipedia article I linked to previously, merely understanding the Butterfly Effect is enough to get the gist of what I'm driving at) shows that the future is HIGHLY unpredictable. Even people that are born may end up in bad situations, are we to kill them too because they are in a bad situation? No, of course not. In Holland however, they do seem to take this practice to an extreme (I will provide links if requested). What about all the suffering in the world, should we just nuke the entire planet and use death to end all pain and suffering? No, of course not! This might sound like hyperbole, but it follows the same sort of logic as that of euthanasia without consent via abortions, in order to show how flawed I believe the logic is.
- Dealing with the other issues that go with abortion very aggressively, not just imposing laws restricting it, are requirements to really tackle the problem, and to lessen the damage of unwanted pregnancies when abortion is not allowed. I'm looking into possible ways of doing this myself for if and when I get to talk to my MP about it. I can't look at abortion in isolation to its primary cause and the alternative choices.
- Liberalising abortion laws allows dangerous devaluation of human life, and introduces inequalities where they should not exist, reinforcing negative stereotypes and making the lives of the disadvantaged (e.g. disabled) even worse than they already are. Believe me, it's bad enough being disabled (multiple mental disabilities here), without attracting hate and scorn for being seen as a leech that drains the system or whatever. Again, I will link to that Parliamentary debate in the UK on how the law allowing for abortion of disabled children up to birth is being exploited if people ask for it.
- Liberalising abortion laws also increases anti-choice abortions. What do I mean by this? It's what I said previously. People can coerce women into having abortions more easily if they are legal, and then anti-life/anti-choice abortions will rise, and people may not always be able to prove whether or not the woman is being intimidated and having her choice stolen away from her. Needless to say, both pro-life and pro-choice people should be concerned at this.
- Restricting abortion laws will help preserve the value of life, and lower the amount of abortions. It will not eliminate abortion, in the same way that outlawing homicide will not eliminate murder, but it's a start to a long process of taking on abortion and its surrounding issues.

If you feel anything I say is a false opinion with no substance, challenge said opinion by asking for evidence please (you don't even need to respond with your own evidence if you're challenging an opinion).

tl;dr Jk, I actually read it, and you did make a lot of great points. I have always found the Butterfly Effect a very fascinating theory, and it does make you wonder what could have been. And the whole Quality of Life has always irked me, because life is always going to be hard, so why polish a turd when you can give life to a new being?

I do also feel that life begins at conceiving. No one can exactly prove that that is true, but I do feel strongly this way.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Ok, I am pro-life, but that will simply not work. Better sexual education is honestly the best option, and making abortions illegal, will only increase the sale in wire coat hangers.

Can you prove such abortions occurred?

http://www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn62.htm


Even as late as October, 2001, Planned Parenthood former executive director Diane Booth, claimed that, "Before the legalization of abortion under Roe v. Wade, one-third of gynecological ward hospital beds in the United States were filled with women who were there because of botched, illegal, back-alley abortions." Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder in the 1960s of the National Abortion Rights Action League (but now a pro-life convert), knowingly fabricated the falsehood that "tens of thousands" of women died each year from abortion. At that time, Nathanson admitted that he and his NARAL colleagues pulled that number "out of thin air. We knew it was a powerful and compelling lie and we used it shamelessly" (Aborting America, 1979).

Abortion proponents insist that strict abortion laws drive women to risk their lives and health in an effort to end unwanted pregnancies. "Keep Abortion Safe, Keep It Legal. Tens of thousands of women died each year when abortion was illegal. Making abortion legal makes it safe." That`s the cry now being voiced in more and more press coverage of abortion. This is pure rubbish! The actual number of deaths of women from illegal abortions was never in the tens of thousands. Abortion was legalized in Canada in January 1970, and, it the United States, in January 1973. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, the numbers of deaths of women from illegal abortions in the U.S. during the decades prior to legalization, was as follows:

1940 1,682 deaths

1950 316 deaths

1960 205 deaths

http://prolifeaction.org/hotline/2011/coathanger/

That Roe made abortion safe is a myth, but that’s not the only myth being spread by the pro-abortion camp. There is also the issue of the “coat hanger” abortion.


The pro-choice movement has rallied around this symbol. But is there any truth to the coat hanger abortion story?

Was There Ever a Coat Hanger Abortion?

While preparing the League’s handbook, Sharing the Pro-Life Message, my staff and I searched high and low for evidence of an abortion ever having been performed with a coat hanger. We found none.

That isn’t to say it never happened. We know that women did attempt to do abortions on themselves, using all manner of objects. But I never found any specific evidence of a coat hanger abortion—until now.

Who Gave Her the Idea of Aborting Herself with an Coat Hanger?

What’s unusual about this case of a confirmed coat hanger abortion is that it isn’t one from the archives. It happened in 2009.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
I was being sarcastic obviously. Man you guys take things too seriously sometimes.

It's a serious subject that deserves honesty and respect.
 

JDavidC

Well-Known Member
Sarcasm detectors have reduced effectiveness on the Internet. I didn't sense any until you mentioned it. Please bear that in mind, and please remember that this is a deadly serious topic.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
And I have been, one sarcastic statement and I am a terrible person.

Ah, more sarcasm. I never said you were a terrible person.


Wasn't there a MSNBC host that stated that it was up to the parents to determine when a child was a person? Aren't there groups that argue that children under a certain age should not be considered real people?

I wouldn't even say it was sarcasm, I was simply stating that it would only result in illegal abortions.

Make up your mind. Either it was sarcasm or it wasn't. As to the number of illegal abortions: see prior link.
 

Yveltal96

A little more human
Wasn't there a MSNBC host that stated that it was up to the parents to determine when a child was a person? Aren't there groups that argue that children under a certain age should not be considered real people?

That's just awful. Why would two (or one) person be able to decide whether the child is a person or not? I seriously feel that they are alive when they are conceived. You can't just have a 16 year old and say they aren't a person.
 
-Sentience.
-Person.
-Personhood.
-Human being.
-Unborn human.
-Baby.
-Child.
-Life.
I'm going to start by attempting a definition of some of these terms. I'm not attempting to give a definition for all of them, I'm not taking them in order, and I'm not pretending that a perfect definition is possible in each case.

For example, "life." Life is the property that separates humans, cats, geckos, poison ivy, jellyfish, mushrooms, and bacteria (to name a few) ... from rocks. For the purposes of this debate, I'm not sure it needs to get more complicated than that. Everyone has some concept of this. It isn't hard.

However, I also want to point out that "sentience" is frequently confused with "personhood." A friend of mine once complained about some environmentalists using a stacked test to show that dolphins were a better candidate for sentience than, like, a 1-year-old human (or something like that). I then complained that either the environmentalists or whoever reported the story to him had used the wrong word. Dolphins are sentient. So are dogs, and even slugs. We didn't need a test to determine it, and it doesn't prove that they need rights (or some similar nonsense). According to this definition here, responsiveness or consciousness of sense input is sentience. But being responsive to stimuli is frequently given as part of the definition of "life," which makes sense of why that page listed "alive" as a synonym. They don't mean exactly the same thing, and in fact, sentience seems to presuppose life (maybe it's possible to find an


I also wish to define "human," "child," and "unborn child" for the purposes of this debate. A human is a member of the species homo sapiens. A child is any member of this species that has not reached the age of majority under the laws of the country/state/province (around 18 in some places), though it could also be defined as "offspring [of the mother]." The only difference in defining "unborn child" is that it has not yet been born. I do not consider the terms "baby" and "human being" necessary for this debate.

Further, I point out that "person" is often used in laws to mean "human." This should prompt people not to read into debaters' words a meaning that makes them look like they are claiming too much, makes them look dumb, etc. They may not be making a philosophical claim.


- Ultimately, my view is this. Abortions should not be allowed EXCEPT if the mother is at risk of dying.
I find myself in basic agreement with this. I only want to point out three things:

(1) To some degree this challenges your argument about Chaos Theory, which was very good for countering some of the more flimsy "quality of life" arguments. Some predictions are virtually certain. (Yes, I gotta be a stickler like that.)

(2) Some pro-life groups believe in doing something like that to save the mother's life, but they just don't call it abortion. It also reminds me of the time I read a pro-life writer say that pro-life people (at least those who are thinking clearly, I guess) would have no problem with an abortion method that saves the life of the child so it could be put up for adoption. This seems to indicate some debate about whether "abort" means "end the life of the unborn" or simply "end the pregnancy [which in most cases ends the life of the unborn]."

(3) In cases where the unborn child has no or virtually no chance at surviving to be born you might want to make allowance for preserving the mother from, not just death, but also massive bodily harm.



First of all, there is no such thing as "personhood". The GOP can debate that all they want, but they'll never make it true.
You really haven't looked at some of the old debates, have you? I have seen quite a few pro-choice debaters argue that personhood is something that born humans (as well as some late-term unborn ones) have, with the lack of this quality meaning abortion is fine.

Not to mention, your flat denial that personhood exists is not evidence.

Second, abortion should be allowed as defined by Roe v Wade.
Your post completely fails to address the question of whether Roe v. Wade is correct, as many of us here know you dispute other Supreme Court rulings. Or what would happen if it were overturned, for that matter.



I'm pro-choice. I may not always agree with it, but it's not my job to tell a woman what to do with her body.

...

Hey, JDavidC, how about including a requirement that people define "her [the mother's] body"?

The baby is used as a punishment for percieved(or maybe even actual) irresponsibility.(Which is especially horrible considering that if the baby's life is so sacred, then why is it being used as a punishment.)
The baby is not a punishment. But producing a baby is one possible, perfectly natural consequence of sex. That goes for the responsible and irresponsible alike. However, forgetting this is a mark of irresponsibility.

4)These same people who so adamantly want you to not abort the baby don't want to adopt children themselves
I would appreciate you not stereotyping and making assumptions. I have heard of plenty of pro-life people being willing to adopt.

5) These same people who are so pro-life, don't really want to help the mother access health-care and hate government welfare programs such as WIC (considering that economic status might be part of the reason these women are getting abortions.)
My mom is pro-life. She has no problem with WIC, and, in fact, got some amount of help from WIC years ago. I am pro-life and I have no problem with WIC. Your argument employs a caricature of conservatives as bigoted against lower classes, ignoring the fact that plenty of conservatives come from lower classes.


I think we can all agree on this:

Abortion for No Reason; Bad

Abortion for Good Reason; Okay

Can't we just leave it here? -_-


Unfortunately, no, people don't all agree on this. Some people think no reason is necessary, since women always need the right to "control what's going in in their body." This presupposes that the unborn has no rights, but many pro-choice debaters don't see that.





I'm pretty sure there was more I wanted to respond to, but I forgot what it was.
 

Kreis

Still Dirrty
Sarcasm detectors have reduced effectiveness on the Internet. I didn't sense any until you mentioned it. Please bear that in mind, and please remember that this is a deadly serious topic.

This.


If you're not going to debate properly, then don't post here at all. You're in debates, where people expect to debate issues seriously. I know many of you are likE BUT POKEMAN FORMIUM!!!, but that doesn't mean we can't discuss things like intelligent individuals.

Make sure to read the debate guidelines, or you can expect an infraction when you check your inbox. Also, if you're going to be spouting out percentages and statistics, make sure to use scholarly sources. Otherwise, your opponents will take you as seriously as the FB messages saying "98% of people can not understand this message, can you?"

Furthemore, if you're going to ignore someone's points, then please just leave. Address those points, don't try to skirt around them. If you can't do that, than this isn't the place for you, try a simpler section, like General Pokemon Discussion.
 

Nightmareisalive

Well-Known Member
Wasn't there a MSNBC host that stated that it was up to the parents to determine when a child was a person? Aren't there groups that argue that children under a certain age should not be considered real people?

MSNBC?

That is disgusting so it is. I mean that means a person can have a child realize they don't want one or don't like them and decide to throw them away or kill them since they don't consider them children.

Also can you give some links to topics were people believe a child isn't a real person or do you know the age in which they consider a child a human.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
MSNBC?

That is disgusting so it is. I mean that means a person can have a child realize they don't want one or don't like them and decide to throw them away or kill them since they don't consider them children.

Also can you give some links to topics were people believe a child isn't a real person or do you know the age in which they consider a child a human.

http://www.naturalnews.com/041398_post-birth_abortion_infanticide_Melissa_Harris-Perry.html

NaturalNews) Today Natural News denounces Melissa Harris-Perry, the latest talking head "death worshipper" to publicly imply that she supports the murder of living, breathing newborn children. According to Harris-Perry, life begins when the parents feel like life begins. And together with some twisted new "ethics" arguments from the radical left, this can include months or years after a child is born.

That's why I need to premise this article with a disclaimer: This article is not about abortion. It's about the murder of children after they are born. Because once a child is born alive, terminating that life is no longer a "choice" … it's murder by every legal and moral standard. Because while abortion friends and foes can argue about when life begins in the womb, no one disagrees that a child born alive is, well, ALIVE… do they?

Indeed, they do. MSNBC talking head Melissa Harris-Perry insists that life only begins when the parents have a "feeling" that it begins. "When does life begin? I submit the answer depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents. A powerful feeling -- but not science," Harris-Perry said to nationwide astonishment on her July 21 MSNBC show.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pro-aborts-turn-on-their-speaker-at-halifax-debate

While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.


Professor Mark Mercer

The event, which was organized by the new student group Pro-Life at Dal, attracted about 150 students and members of the public.

In her remarks, Gray pointed out that the scientific community is unanimous that life begins at fertilization. At fertilization, she explained, the child “has everything she needs within herself to direct her growth and to move to the next more mature stage of her development.”

Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.

Gray, however, maintained that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights deliberately speaks of ‘human’ and not ‘person’ rights because the powerful have often sought to subjugate or kill the vulnerable by claiming they are not persons. She pointed to examples like the Holocaust and the enslavement of African Americans.

“We have a nasty history as human beings of denying our fellow human beings the right to live because we divorce the concept of human and person as to treat them as two separate things,” she said.

She said the criteria used to define personhood come down to non-essential differences - namely size, level of development, environment, and dependency - and that these criteria are constantly changing for an individual. “Human is an objective term that we can determine scientifically,” she explained. “Person is a philosophical or legal term which has had a changing definition throughout history.”

“Our humanity, our right to life, should be based on that which is unchanging, which is our human nature - rather than that which is changing, which is our functions and abilities,” she added.

Gray argued that all humans carry intrinsic worth because of our common human nature, by which we are “moral, rational agents.” If an individual doesn’t exhibit signs of rationality, such as a developing baby or a disabled person, they nevertheless have the “inherent ability,” even if they don’t have the “current ability.”

“I don’t understand what this thing humanity is or the property of being human,” retorted Mercer, “such that an anancephalic infant is a rational being just as the rest of us. ... Here’s a creature who doesn’t have a capability and yet it’s still in the essence of that creature that it has that capability. That makes no sense to me.”

Gray said, however, “just because some humans are damaged, so to speak, I would say that doesn’t mean that we can end their lives because they’re not as developed or ‘perfect’ as we are.”

According to Mercer, a child likely only gains personhood at around 18 months to two years of age, and he also suggested at one point that adult pigs might be persons. Though he said he couldn’t imagine a reason to justify killing a born child given the availability of adoption, he said upon further questioning that “if the child isn’t a person, it’s not an offense against the child to kill it.”
A principled vegetarian, he agreed that it could be wrong to kill a pig even though he believes it’s acceptable to kill a child in the womb.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ey-be-serious/2012/03/03/gIQADgiOsR_blog.html
“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk,” the article reads. “We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

Though the authors claim it was part of a "debate" rather than an actual call to change any laws.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...-argues-right-post-birth-abortion_712198.html
Oh look. Planned Parenthood.

Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.

"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”

"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.

There are also quotes from feminists claiming that women should be allowed to not care for male children should they choose to not do so. I don't feel like looking for them at this time.

These are sickening things and you can look for more on your own.
 

Blazekickblaziken

Snarktastic Ditz
@ FightinPikachu I guess that you're right, and I misrepresented the oposition. But I think my point was right overall. We have people suggesting adoption as an alternative to abortion but we have kids waiting 3 to 5 years to be adopted on average. http://www.childrensrights.org/issues-resources/adoption/facts-about-adoption/ also while not all pro lifers, or conservatives for that matter, are against welfare programs(after all the link I posted with that comment was a republican calling out other republicans) The biggest opposition to these programs are conservatives who are supposedly pro life.

Edited to fix the mistake LDSman caught. Oops!
 
Last edited:

LDSman

Well-Known Member
You said "adoption as an alternative to adoption"

Conservatives are primarily against the waste and against the people who "game" the system. I blame the wait on the shear amount of paperwork. It's easier and cheaper to go adopt a child overseas than it is to adopt a local child.

Edit: Also, how many of the kids waiting to be adopted have problems that most people can't handle?
 
Last edited:

Nightmareisalive

Well-Known Member
Well that was an interesting article LDSman and thank you for going out of your way to get it. I'll look up the other one about feminists who believe a woman shouldn't care about male children later.

The adoption system at the minute is a shambles. I know in the UK that it is very difficult to work with and puts people of adopting in the first place which really does show how ineffective it is. I'm going by comments one here the USA on isn't any better.

Good point also about the kids with problems up for adoption. I think in some cases some people would be happy to adopt any child no matter what disability they have. Other cases it may be a child's attitude or background that can cause people to think twice about adoption but these can be easily overcome with the right guidance. The main problem will be those who are left behind. A proper system where kids can feel like kids were they get love really needs to be established. The problems of foster homes and the such are well highlighted and it's about time someone fixed it.

Also this is a question I want to ask to those that it goes against a woman's rights for them to be forced to carry a child. Could the same not be said to the men who don't want to be fathers? They don't want the child they don't want to spend 18 years paying for the mother to look after it, they didn't plan for it at all and wouldn't it go against their rights to be forced to pay for the child when they clearly don't want to the same way a woman has to carry a child and probably look after them even though they don't want to. I ask because I know some people say that it is a woman' body and say it is her choice while also saying a man must pay to look after his child even if he never planned having one. is that not a contradiction of a person's rights?
 
Last edited:

Draknir

Fear the Deer
Although it will not matter in the long run because I am male and can never have an abortion, I do have an opinion about abortion that differs greatly from many of the people in the state I live in (Which has one of the more restrictive abortion laws in the US).

My personal belief is that it is up to the mother of the unborn child prior to when it reaches viability (For those who don't know, that is when a child is able to live after birth, natural or induced. This typically begins around 24 weeks, when the child has a 50% chance and the chances of survival increasing for each week after). By the time that happens, the mother has had ample time to decide whether or not they are ready to have a child.

Now, I have to ask. If abortions were made illegal, where do we draw the line? Should miscarriages need be included, and the woman face legal punishment? Should stillbirths, in which the child dies before leaving the womb, be included?

Yes, I am well aware that the same initial question can be and has been asked of allowing abortions in any case, but I do want to know what answers are offered when asked in the case of banning abortions.
 

LDSman

Well-Known Member
Well that was an interesting article LDSman and thank you for going out of your way to get it. I'll look up the other one about feminists who believe a woman shouldn't care about male children later.

The adoption system at the minute is a shambles. I know in the UK that it is very difficult to work with and puts people of adopting in the first place which really does show how ineffective it is. I'm going by comments one here the USA on isn't any better.

Good point also about the kids with problems up for adoption. I think in some cases some people would be happy to adopt any child no matter what disability they have. Other cases it may be a child's attitude or background that can cause people to think twice about adoption but these can be easily overcome with the right guidance. The main problem will be those who are left behind. A proper system where kids can feel like kids were they get love really needs to be established. The problems of foster homes and the such are well highlighted and it's about time someone fixed it.

Also this is a question I want to ask to those that it goes against a woman's rights for them to be forced to carry a child. Could the same not be said to the men who don't want to be fathers? They don't want the child they don't want to spend 18 years paying for the mother to look after it, they didn't plan for it at all and wouldn't it go against their rights to be forced to pay for the child when they clearly don't want to the same way a woman has to carry a child and probably look after them even though they don't want to. I ask because I know some people say that it is a woman' body and say it is her choice while also saying a man must pay to look after his child even if he never planned having one. is that not a contradiction of a person's rights?


You are welcome.

It's not necessarily disabilities, but emotional or mental needs. An angry child may need help and understanding that some parents can't give.

I have noticed that bit of hypocrisy when it comes to men's rights.
Although it will not matter in the long run because I am male and can never have an abortion, I do have an opinion about abortion that differs greatly from many of the people in the state I live in (Which has one of the more restrictive abortion laws in the US).

My personal belief is that it is up to the mother of the unborn child prior to when it reaches viability (For those who don't know, that is when a child is able to live after birth, natural or induced. This typically begins around 24 weeks, when the child has a 50% chance and the chances of survival increasing for each week after). By the time that happens, the mother has had ample time to decide whether or not they are ready to have a child.

Now, I have to ask. If abortions were made illegal, where do we draw the line? Should miscarriages need be included, and the woman face legal punishment? Should stillbirths, in which the child dies before leaving the womb, be included?

Yes, I am well aware that the same initial question can be and has been asked of allowing abortions in any case, but I do want to know what answers are offered when asked in the case of banning abortions.

Miscarriages, if natural, would not be included. As to what happens afterward, if it's not a natural miscarriage? That's a bit complicated. How do we know it wasn't natural? Are we demanding doctors check for that? Do doctors already try to determine what happened to cause a miscarriage? Same with stillborn. I have no interest in punishing someone for something that happened naturally. However, we do investigate sudden infant death cases, so wouldn't we investigate similar cases?
 
Top