Abortion - Under what circumstances should it be allowed?

[LDSman]

Not to troll or anything but, why is this topic so important to you guys?

Guys as in male posters or guys as in generic you people?

Because abortion is serious issue?

 

[Yveltal96]

Not to troll or anything but, why is this topic so important to you guys?

Oh boy, this is going to get ugly fast...

As a little warm up for some of the hate you may receive from some people, many people have had personal experiences (whether it be with themselves, family, friends, etc) in this issue, or are very into these sorts of things, ie debates, or just generally have strong feelings about it themselves. So, I recommend, that if you do not feel strongly on this topic, whether it be pro life or pro choice, that you do not post in this thread.

 

[Dr. Classy]

Guys as in male posters or guys as in generic you people?

Because abortion is serious issue?

guys as in generic you people. No doubt it is.

Oh boy, this is going to get ugly fast...

As a little warm up for some of the hate you may receive from some people, many people have had personal experiences (whether it be with themselves, family, friends, etc) in this issue, or are very into these sorts of things, ie debates, or just generally have strong feelings about it themselves. So, I recommend, that if you do not feel strongly on this topic, whether it be pro life or pro choice, that you do not post in this thread.

Ik what im gonna get, and I have my own personal experiences, I'm sorry if I stepped on anybodies toes. But personally, my view is that it should be left up to the potential parents, thats there decision and not really anybody else's. Again, ik im gonna get heat on this, so i appoligize before hand if this or any other post i make (or made) offends anybody, that is not my intent.

 

[LDSman]

guys as in generic you people. No doubt it is.
Ik what im gonna get, and I have my own personal experiences, I'm sorry if I stepped on anybodies toes. But personally, my view is that it should be left up to the potential parents, thats there decision and not really anybody else's. Again, ik im gonna get heat on this, so i appoligize before hand if this or any other post i make (or made) offends anybody, that is not my intent.

I don't see why you would get heat for your opinion. You haven't been rude or offensive yet. I just wanted clarification as to who you meant when you said "you guys." Some people believe that men should not be allowed any opinion on the subject and I disagree with that. You weren't going that route so it doesn't matter.

Abortion impacts society. For good or bad, it has an impact.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

I've read over this thread since last year's pretty bad abortion debate, and I enjoy the debates that are going on. Last year, when the thread was up, it became an angry mess of people (including myself) who didn't want to be wrong and people who had legitimate concerns but were attacked because of their beliefs. At least this thread hasn't gone haywire (as long as it stays that way, it'll be an enjoyable and educational discussion).

That being said, last year I was pro-Choice and vehemently stood by their side. Now, I'm not so sure seeing how both sides of the argument are extremely logical and understandable. I waver onto Pro-Choice because of difficult moral questions such as "what happens in the event that a woman gets raped?" and difficult positions to take into account such as the rights of a fetus and the rights of a woman and her body. Even if statistics show that rape pregnancy is small (as Yveltal96 pointed out), it's still a question to consider, mainly because if such an event takes place, we want to make sure that the right exists for the victim. If she wants to conceive the child that's fine...but if the option exists to preserve the life of a fetus, then I think it only makes sense that the option to terminate the fetus exists. Not because of the faulty logic that "rapists conceive more rapists" (since babies are caught in a genetic lottery), but because she should have an option to choose either side. It is her body after all. Where I start to disagree with pro-Choice is when events such as teenage pregnancy are discussed. It comes down to a question of sexual ethics between the two people. With the access to advanced technology and birth control methods, it should be no excuse to prevent pregnancy, while still allowing human nature to take course and engage in sexual activity...yet it's still an issue.

 

[Geekachu]

Ik what im gonna get, and I have my own personal experiences, I'm sorry if I stepped on anybodies toes. But personally, my view is that it should be left up to the potential parents, thats there decision and not really anybody else's. Again, ik im gonna get heat on this, so i appoligize before hand if this or any other post i make (or made) offends anybody, that is not my intent.

Does this mean we should also remain apathetic and abhor discussions about war and third world poverty because they don't directly affect us? Of course the ultimate decision lies with the parents but it doesn't mean we can't discuss the general morals.

 

[JDavidC]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121031/halltext/121031h0001.htm

Here is the link to the parliamentary debate, where abortion cropped up. I'd like to highlight the point that made my blood boil in rage.

In 2011, only 0.02% of abortions carried out in England and Wales were because of a risk to the mother’s life. Meanwhile, abortions carried out on the grounds of foetal handicap constituted a mere 1.2% of the total number of abortions. Even so, abortions on those grounds are often undertaken even when the handicap in question is undoubtedly curable. Many will recall the noble work of the Church of England vicar, Joanna Jepson, who highlighted that abortions were being carried out on babies with cleft palates on the grounds of foetal handicap.

I normally don't get emotional, but this makes me so very angry it isn't funny. People are effectively exploiting a part of the law that allows disabled people to be aborted at any time to get rid of them. Even if I wasn't disabled, I'd find this shocking. When I read this, it literally turned my stomach. Personally, I've had enough of this evil in the UK. The law is being exploited to push disabled people under the bus and destroy them as if they were nothing more than an inconvenience unworthy of existence, and being used to obtain abortion on demand. It's SICK. What makes things worse is, given that the National Health Service is funded by the taxpayers (which I have no problem with, in itself), it effectively makes all taxpayers accessories to abortion, and in many people's eyes, including mine, it would make people accessories to what they would see as murder. Words cannot described how incensed I am at this, and I hope other people in the UK feel the same way and would be prepared to lobby their MP to change the law.

 

[Nightmareisalive]

Here's an interesting article that I found on the Daily Mail website
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Steel-father-1967-act-legalised-practice.html

Latest figures show that in 2011, there were 189,931 abortions, of which no fewer than 68,105 were on women who had already had a foetus terminated - a proportion of 36 per cent.
This compares to 64,303 repeat terminations the year before - a proportion of 34 per cent. Repeat abortions cost the cash-strapped NHS almost £1million every single week

The 2011 figures on repeat abortions show that many women are going back time and time again for terminations - a sign, according to Lord Steel, that they are being used as a form of contraception.
Some 17,241 women were on at least their third abortion; 434 were on at least their sixth and - astoundingly - 76 were on at least their eighth.

The man who legalized abortion in the UK had no idea that when he passed the law didn't think it would be used as a form of contraceptive were in 2011 36% of abortions where used by woman who previously had abortions as such. It does highlight the problems with abortion laws were they can be abused in ways they weren't meant to be.

 

[JDavidC]

This is a bit of a tangent, but I found this on the Internet as a massive list of INVALID proof techniques. It might be worth reading: http://school.maths.uwa.edu.au/~berwin/humour/invalid.proofs.html

I also find it odd how people who set the ball rolling on abortion laws seem to regret it.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roes-regrets/77677/
It's interesting how 'Jane Roe', aka Norma McCorvey (her real name) regrets being the plaintiff in Roe vs. Wade 1973 now.

(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.

1. Chaos Theory does make the future unpredictable. To be precise, it makes anything other than short-term predictions inaccurate/impossible, and even short-term predictions may fail. For example, I would want 100% perfect proof of an unborn human being incapable of surviving a pregnancy if abortion was to be put on the table.

2. Abortion method that saves the life of a child? Well, if it ended the pregnancy without harming the child, then I'd be all for it. If transplanting zefs (see my first post for what that term means) from one woman to another became science fact instead of science fiction, it would help a lot.

3. It if can be proven, with 100% certainty, that the unborn child will die before birth, then you may well have another case for allowing abortion. Of course, if the mother's life is put at more risk by continuing the pregnancy than by aborting it, and the risk is significant (sadly I don't know where to put the boundary on the word 'significant'), then that is where I am pro-choice.

 

[Dr. Classy]

Does this mean we should also remain apathetic and abhor discussions about war and third world poverty because they don't directly affect us? Of course the ultimate decision lies with the parents but it doesn't mean we can't discuss the general morals.

Didn't say you couldn't. Besides the thread has nothing to do with war and third world poverty. But technically if your not potentially having the child, then its not your business on what the affected party does or doesn't do. Thats just my take, i'm sorry if you don't like it, but again if ur not potentially having a kid, your not the person who has to deal with the responsibility of that choice everyday of your life. You get what i'm saying.

 

[Blazekickblaziken]

Here's an interesting article that I found on the Daily Mail website
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Steel-father-1967-act-legalised-practice.html





The man who legalized abortion in the UK had no idea that when he passed the law didn't think it would be used as a form of contraceptive were in 2011 36% of abortions where used by woman who previously had abortions as such. It does highlight the problems with abortion laws were they can be abused in ways they weren't meant to be.

I would like to point out that without a larger context, that number is a bit misleading. I believe earlier we talked about how Sweeden had the world's lowest abortion rate, with 1% of women recieving abortions. The world avereage is 3%. This means that if 36% of the 3% of women who get abortions are getting repeat abortions, then total, only roughly 1% of all women are getting multiple abortions, which is a much less impressive number.

 

[Maedar]

In response to Pikachu.

I have consulted the Oxford-English Dictionary, the Merriam Webster Dictionary, and my old college English professor. They are all certain that "personhood" is not a word. It is a made-up word, end of story.

Second, until Roe v Wade is successfully challenged and repealed - if it ever is - states like Texas have no right to defy its guidelines and are breaking the law by passing these laws. End of story.

I'm sick of "exact words" arguments.

Roe v Wade is federal law. But it seems Republicans think that laws don't apply to them.

 

[LDSman]

Does it even matter to you that Roe vs Wade was passed using lies?

 

[Maedar]

The recent gun control bill in the Senate was also defeated using lies. Blatant lies.

"National gun registry" my foot. There was actually a part of the bill that would have prevented such a thing.

Oh, and by the way. It was NOT.

I will argue for the NEXT forty years if I have to. Fools like Rick Perry are living in denial if they think their laws - and the fortune they'll spend to defend them in court - will ultimately end up anywhere but the trash can.

 

[Nightmareisalive]

I would like to point out that without a larger context, that number is a bit misleading. I believe earlier we talked about how Sweeden had the world's lowest abortion rate, with 1% of women recieving abortions. The world avereage is 3%. This means that if 36% of the 3% of women who get abortions are getting repeat abortions, then total, only roughly 1% of all women are getting multiple abortions, which is a much less impressive number.

Yes that is true but that was in the context of the UK where it only talked about UK abortions. Though if we were to put it in world context it would say that over a third of abortions are of woman who already had an abortion before and use it as a form of birth control. Now even if the number is 1% of all woman the number of woman involved is still much to high. Really there is no excuse for that number if it is only counting woman who use abortion as a form of birth control rather than actually using proper protection which is highly available. Also it is cheaper to use protection than have an abortion. I would say the reason that number is so as it is for the UK is because the NHS do abortions for free.

 

[BurningWhiteKyurem]

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmhansrd/cm121031/halltext/121031h0001.htm

Here is the link to the parliamentary debate, where abortion cropped up. I'd like to highlight the point that made my blood boil in rage.

I normally don't get emotional, but this makes me so very angry it isn't funny. People are effectively exploiting a part of the law that allows disabled people to be aborted at any time to get rid of them. Even if I wasn't disabled, I'd find this shocking. When I read this, it literally turned my stomach. Personally, I've had enough of this evil in the UK. The law is being exploited to push disabled people under the bus and destroy them as if they were nothing more than an inconvenience unworthy of existence, and being used to obtain abortion on demand. It's SICK. What makes things worse is, given that the National Health Service is funded by the taxpayers (which I have no problem with, in itself), it effectively makes all taxpayers accessories to abortion, and in many people's eyes, including mine, it would make people accessories to what they would see as murder. Words cannot described how incensed I am at this, and I hope other people in the UK feel the same way and would be prepared to lobby their MP to change the law.

That is disgusting, though I wonder if it's part of the slippery slope of legalizing abortion. I wonder if it becomes even more of a slippery slope that unwanted human beings having birth defects and disabilities become targets. If mankind ever reaches that point in the future, we will have lost our humanity. As NightmareIsAlive pointed out, repeat abortion numbers are suggesting that it's being viewed as a form of contraceptive, which is not how abortion should be looked at, if legalized. That being said, putting restrictions in place is also quite a controversial matter. For instance, an internet editorial looked at the varying ways that abortion has become restricted.

By the end of 2012, ultrasounds prior to an abortion were mandatory in eight states, even when the ultrasound is medically unnecessary. States have been working to mandate ultrasounds prior to abortions since the mid-90s. Ultrasounds are used as tools to personify the fetus, by providing a stimulating visual for the purpose of dissuading patients from abortion.

But it doesn’t stop at visuals — laws passed in Louisiana and Oklahoma now require the fetal heartbeat to be audible to the patient, further personifying the fetus. In Virginia providers are required to suggest the option of listening to the fetal heartbeat before the abortion. Prior to their abortion, patients in Virginia that live within 100 miles from their clinic must now undergo an ultrasound 24 hours before their abortion (although they are already required a 24-hour waiting period) — compelling them to make two trips to the clinic before the procedure.

Forced counseling sessions are other forms of intimidation used to sway patient decisions. From the recent review and study about laws affecting reproductive health and rights conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, women in South Dakota and Arizona "seeking an abortion to obtain counseling that includes inaccurate or irrelevant information. Arizona’s provision requires the state health department to develop counseling materials that include information on coerced abortion and the 'possible detrimental psychological effects of abortion.'"

In addition to the mandatory counseling, Arizona is trying to enact a provision that forbids abortions at 18 weeks postfertilization without exceptions of a woman’s life and heath. Louisiana became the seventh state to enact a provision banning abortions at 18 weeks postfertilization.

Intimidating tactics hasn't helped anyone in the past and in other matters such as crime (and in anything, still speaks to the coercive nature of the humankind where everyone has to make the decision that others want, rather than making decision with context pertaining to the decision-maker). Though I find it rather laughable that Arizona is providing information on issues of coerced abortion (which is partly irrelevant considering that if someone is thinking about abortion, chances are they're not being coerced), not realizing that they're the ones also using coercive tactics.

Perhaps one of the most startling abortion restrictions enacted last year amended a law in South Carolina that once provided women who had been raped free abortions. As the Guttmacher Institute report noted:

“South Carolina amended the long-standing requirement that the state employees’ health plan may cover abortion only when necessary to save the woman’s life or in cases of rape or incest. The new provision permits taxpayer dollars to be used to pay for abortions only in cases of life endangerment; the cost in cases of rape or incest must now be paid entirely from employees’ premiums.”

But South Carolina isn’t the only state restricting abortion coverage. Four states banned abortion coverage in the insurance exchanged introduced by the Affordable Care Act.

 

[LDSman]

The recent gun control bill in the Senate was also defeated using lies. Blatant lies.

"National gun registry" my foot. There was actually a part of the bill that would have prevented such a thing.

Oh, and by the way. It was NOT.

I will argue for the NEXT forty years if I have to. Fools like Rick Perry are living in denial if they think their laws - and the fortune they'll spend to defend them in court - will ultimately end up anywhere but the trash can.

Feel free to debate the "national gun registry" issue in the "Gun Control" thread.

Norma McCorvey (Jane Roe) states differently.

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/28/jane-roe-of-roe-v-wade-never-had-an-abortion-her-daughter-is-43/

Norma McCorvey is “Jane Roe.” She claimed then that her pregnancy was the result of a rape, although for over a decade now she has been outspokenly pro-life and publicly admitted that this, and virtually every fact on which her case was built, was a lie. Both McCorvey and Sandra Cano, the Doe of Doe v. Bolton—Roe’s companion case from Georgia decided the same day—are now outspoken pro-life advocates who have sworn that their cases are built on lies.

 

[Nightmareisalive]

So I was thinking about abortion and the one thing I noticed about the argument is that people never mention the after effects it has on woman. For example
http://www.cirtl.org/syndrome.htm

In a recent study in Buffalo more than 400 women were poled two years after they had an abortion, and it was found that only seven out of ten were glad for their decision, 12% were unsure, and 19% regretted it. (Western Report 1998, 29)

Also there are physical problems that come with abortion.

Unfortunately there are some rather serious physical problems that may result from an abortion. There is a wide range of complications that can result from abortions, such as, future miscarriages, infertility and ectopic pregnancies, and even breast cancer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1288955/Abortion-triple-risk-breast-cancer.html

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say.
A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease.
While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion.

There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.
Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.

So I think it is something that can be debated when talking about abortion. Figures do seem to suggest that women can face many mental and physical problems through abortion many coming from having it not from what other people say or do to them. It would be interesting to see what people who are pro-abortion say on the topic.

 

[LDSman]

People should also be willing to discuss Planned Parenthood's origins and how they benefit financially from abortion.

 

[JDavidC]

I'd advise a bit of caution with technical terms, there is a difference between the following terms:

-Anti-choice
-Pro-life
-Pro-choice
-Pro-abortion

Using anti-choice to characterise pro-life people takes the focus off what pro-life people are arguing for, even though many, including me, hate the very idea of taking control of a woman's body away from the woman, we hate the idea of abortion even more. Using pro-abortion to characterise pro-choice people assumes they WANT abortions to happen with unwanted pregnancies, instead of abortion being an allowable option when facing an unwanted pregnancy. Pro-choice people fall into the latter camp.

People who would ACTUALLY be pro-abortion, as opposed to pro-choice, would likely be those who would profit financially from it, and I wouldn't be surprised to see such people lie to say abortion is better than it really is.