Your views on abortion

[Vaporeon4evr]

Well to put it simple: The Law doesn't, up till 24 weeks pregnancy that it.

Though, abortions past 12 weeks pregnancy rarely takes place, only in extreme conditions such as when the pregnancy might endanger the health of the mother.

I don't like abortions at all, but if I had to put a cutoff, it would be viability. Which is typically around 19-21 weeks, IIRC.

 

[Grei]

Exactly. The term actually refers to the offspring of two conscious human beings. Any human below the age of 18 can be seen as a child.

Actually, according to this definition, ANYBODY is a child. So, wrong.

Actually, it is called Infanticide, the action of killing infants in a big number, which is what abortion allows.

Uhm, I think you're adding the meaning of Genocide with Infanticide. Infanticide is not the massacre of children. It is the killing of a child.

Dictionaries are fun.

Nope. I'm not sick enough to make something that horrible up. Go read up on it.

If you aren't ready to handle all that stress, don't have sex. We're not animals that can't control our urges. You bringing up the stress of school work is laughable.

The Chinese thing is a slightly different situation. I'm Chinese myself so I know the culture. Chinese people value boys more than girls. Since the law in China limits the number of kids you can have, people dump off their baby girls so they can try for a boy. Adoption centers are a good thing. I'm not quite sure what point you're trying to make by bringing it up. There are irresponsible people out there and there are also responsible people. That's why adoption centers are there.

Why are you so spiteful? All I'm really seeing from you do is ***** about how "if you're stupid enough to have sex before you're ready enough to have sex you deserve the baby and that's that." You call others ignorant for not sharing your views, but really now.

Does it truly make sense to make the mother and child (and father, possibly) go through a life of poverty and sadness and all that stuff that happens with teenage pregnancy just for the sake of keeping a child? If a child was an accident, they weren't planned for a reason. Keeping them out of the world is a better option than trying to raise a child while you're still in school.

And no, adoption sucks. Maybe in your culture it's better, but in America, you always hear about how children put up for adoption feel like nobody can love them because their own parents didn't love them enough to keep them. It's traumatizing, and if everybody just dumps their unwanted kids at adoption centers, what does that seriously do but just build up the number of depressed individuals? You're being cruel.

 

[denizenofevil]

Why are you so spiteful? All I'm really seeing from you do is ***** about how "if you're stupid enough to have sex before you're ready enough to have sex you deserve the baby and that's that." You call others ignorant for not sharing your views, but really now.

Does it truly make sense to make the mother and child (and father, possibly) go through a life of poverty and sadness and all that stuff that happens with teenage pregnancy just for the sake of keeping a child? If a child was an accident, they weren't planned for a reason. Keeping them out of the world is a better option than trying to raise a child while you're still in school.

And no, adoption sucks. Maybe in your culture it's better, but in America, you always hear about how children put up for adoption feel like nobody can love them because their own parents didn't love them enough to keep them. It's traumatizing, and if everybody just dumps their unwanted kids at adoption centers, what does that seriously do but just build up the number of depressed individuals? You're being cruel.

I guess you have selective memory because those "spiteful" responses were towards people who responded in the same manner. The person I called ignorant isn't ignorant for not believing with me but for not getting the point I was trying to make. Now if you actually took the time to read through the thread, you would see that I responded to those who were civil in kind. I never said they "deserved the baby". I said they should take responsibility. I said it before and I'm going to say it again: When you decide to have sex, you assume the responsibilities that come with it knowing that birth control isn't always effective. Why do you have such an issue with taking responsibility for your actions? All I see you doing is making excuses for people to destroy another being and not practicing exercising common sense to realize that sex can lead to pregnancies. I think adoptions are a heck of a lot better than killing someone! In case you haven't noticed, you're alive! Your mother didn't abort you did she? I've noticed that all of you people who support abortion have already been born! Would it be okay for me to say that those who support abortion should have been aborted? Is it less cruel to murder someone because you were being irresponsible? So you say it's better for them to be dead than to grow up depressed? You don't think they deserve a chance? Go tell all those with depression to commit suicide then! I would say I've been pretty civil except to those who personally attacked me. Now before you say that I go around insulting those who dont' agree with me, look in the mirror first. Your comments to people have been spiteful as well.

 

[Auraninja]

I guess I'll just say my piece and hit the ground running.

Abortion is a touchy topic because no matter what, you will screw with someone's rights, either the women's or the child's.

They ask when an unborn child is considered living. I believe that in zygote form, the "being" represents a potential baby. My reasoning is clear, the probability of a certain sperm joining a certain egg is next to nothing. When a certain sperm joins a certain egg, the represents a potential being. This is the reason why I am not against masturbation.

So where do I stand on abortion? I am generally against abortion, but I do believe in exceptions. Generally, I believe that if the mother got something she didn't "bargain" for, then she should have a right to having an abortion. Examples include rape, or to save a women's life, for those are things she didn't expect.

That is my current stance.

 

[Dragoon952]

I am an expert in sociology and a practicing surgeon. I say abortions are always wrong, but it's okay if the babies are black. We don't need more of them.

Margaret Sanger approves!

 

[IMPERIAL DRAGON]

Fair enough but if you intend to debate with me, don't resort to personal insults because my view is different from yours. The point I was trying to make with the skydiving thing is that we can make choices but we have to accept the consequences of our actions. You have the gift of choice and accountability. You can choose to do whatever you want but you may not choose your consequences. Sometimes, you can find a way out but I don't believe that destroying something/someone else is one of those ways. I'm glad that we at least agree that the methods of abortion are barbaric.

If I were to resort to personal insults it would be far more apparent, I’m not even attacking you for having differing views, but although you do make a decent effort, I’ve just found you to be somewhat of an awkward person to debate with. I respect that you stand by your views and I do not expect those to change, nor do I hope to influence them, but its quite frustrating that you have not addressed several valid points, and continue to repeat ‘if you’re prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences’. The continuous repeat of that sentence is becoming slightly tawdry and tiresome, I’m sorry to say. But as others have pointed out, the specific conditions of abortion you mentioned may not be fully accurate, but I still concede any method isn’t ideal, though it remains a necessary evil.
At the heart of the things, I’d just rather defend the right to avoid certain consequences and situations if the cost is tolerable.


Otherwise, to other points, I’ve always considered true life to begin at birth when the fetus becomes an actual human being, when able to live outside the mother, that ability to survive outside is a huge transition. Life doesn’t begin at conception in my opinion, that’s more so the potential for life, starting the journey towards being alive. Until it’s capable of consciousness, thought and feeling, it’s just not on the same level as us and is accordingly deemed as a lesser form of life not to be valued above the parents facing difficult decisions.

I support screening for defects during pregnancy. It’s no coincidence that Down syndrome babies are often given away, so forewarning is a great benefit to the parents as it informs them of situations to address.

Brilliant piece of dark humour a few pages back by the way, classic and edgy.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

Otherwise, to other points, I’ve always considered true life to begin at birth when the fetus becomes an actual human being, when able to live outside the mother, that ability to survive outside is a huge transition. Life doesn’t begin at conception in my opinion, that’s more so the potential for life, starting the journey towards being alive. Until it’s capable of consciousness, thought and feeling, it’s just not on the same level as us and is accordingly deemed as a lesser form of life not to be valued above the parents facing difficult decisions.

Personally, I'd draw the line at viability. At this point, the fetus is capable of aforementioned thought, feeling, and consciousness, and is actually capable of living outside the mother's womb. Beyond this period, I do indeed think that abortion is murder. There mere act of emerging from the womb changes nothing about the fetus's capability to survive, nor does it mark the threshold of its humanity.

Brilliant piece of dark humour a few pages back by the way, classic and edgy.

Abortion (and the Internets) is serious business.

 

[Venomfrog]

Personally, I'd draw the line at viability. At this point, the fetus is capable of aforementioned thought, feeling, and consciousness, and is actually capable of living outside the mother's womb. Beyond this period, I do indeed think that abortion is murder. There mere act of emerging from the womb changes nothing about the fetus's capability to survive, nor does it mark the threshold of its humanity.

What about those mothers who face the risk of death after viability? I believe they still deserve to have abortion open as an option if a potential miscarriage (not guaranteed to be a miscarriage) could prove fatal, because complications can occur past the stage you determine to be a cutoff.

 

[denizenofevil]

If I were to resort to personal insults it would be far more apparent, I’m not even attacking you for having differing views, but although you do make a decent effort, I’ve just found you to be somewhat of an awkward person to debate with. I respect that you stand by your views and I do not expect those to change, nor do I hope to influence them, but its quite frustrating that you have not addressed several valid points, and continue to repeat ‘if you’re prepared to have sex, you should be prepared to deal with the consequences’. The continuous repeat of that sentence is becoming slightly tawdry and tiresome, I’m sorry to say. But as others have pointed out, the specific conditions of abortion you mentioned may not be fully accurate, but I still concede any method isn’t ideal, though it remains a necessary evil.
At the heart of the things, I’d just rather defend the right to avoid certain consequences and situations if the cost is tolerable.


Otherwise, to other points, I’ve always considered true life to begin at birth when the fetus becomes an actual human being, when able to live outside the mother, that ability to survive outside is a huge transition. Life doesn’t begin at conception in my opinion, that’s more so the potential for life, starting the journey towards being alive. Until it’s capable of consciousness, thought and feeling, it’s just not on the same level as us and is accordingly deemed as a lesser form of life not to be valued above the parents facing difficult decisions.

I support screening for defects during pregnancy. It’s no coincidence that Down syndrome babies are often given away, so forewarning is a great benefit to the parents as it informs them of situations to address.

Brilliant piece of dark humour a few pages back by the way, classic and edgy.

As you have said, clearly, neither of us are going to change our views. There's really no point in continuing so as of now, I'm done with this thread. The reason why I tout the values of personal responsibility is because I think it is paramount. It is a huge part of why I think abortion is wrong. Clearly, we all think differently as most people who think abortion is okay value choice over all. I also feel that if I were to continue, I would earn myself an infraction for losing it eventually. I tend to get really emotional about controversial topics like this which is why I don't usually frequent debates.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

What about those mothers who face the risk of death after viability? I believe they still deserve to have abortion open as an option if a potential miscarriage (not guaranteed to be a miscarriage) could prove fatal, because complications can occur past the stage you determine to be a cutoff.

Obviously if both the woman's and child's life are both threatened, it is only logical that the mother be allowed an abortion. One life is better than none. But this is an extenuating circumstance. Allow me to clarify: by post pertains to abortions in general, that beyond viability and in the absence of extenuating circumstance, abortion should not be permitted.

 

[IMPERIAL DRAGON]

Personally, I'd draw the line at viability. At this point, the fetus is capable of aforementioned thought, feeling, and consciousness, and is actually capable of living outside the mother's womb. Beyond this period, I do indeed think that abortion is murder. There mere act of emerging from the womb changes nothing about the fetus's capability to survive, nor does it mark the threshold of its humanity.

Obviously if both the woman's and child's life are both threatened, it is only logical that the mother be allowed an abortion. One life is better than none. But this is an extenuating circumstance. Allow me to clarify: by post pertains to abortions in general, that beyond viability and in the absence of extenuating circumstance, abortion should not be permitted.

I’m more inclined to deem abortion as a form of murder if the abortion is performed later in the pregnancy when the fetus can actually survive outside its mother, but does your opinion differ at all when an abortion is performed early in pregnancy, when the fetus appears as bodily matter that cannot live when removed? Emerging from the womb far too early does hinder the child’s chances, does it not? This capacity to survive results in certain death if a fetus is removed ahead of time, before full or near maturity, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Is a threat to a mother’s life the only extenuating circumstance you condone? Just curious, assuming I’m perceiving your words as you intended, it sounds as though you’re suggesting abortion should not be permitted at all, unless both the woman's and child's life are both threatened, as you said. Do you not think whether or not abortion should be permitted is a responsibility that falls to the parents if they wish to abort during the legal timeframe within pregnancy?

 

[Ethan]

Imperial Dragon.

It's precisely the term "unwanted" that I'm extremely uncomftorble with. What determines whether or not someone is unwanted? Mothers love is great, and if she doesn't want or love her child enough to foster it then that should be to her loss, not the childs. Even the citizens on the lowest step of the ladder in society profoundly effect the people around them knowingly, or unknowingly. Every human being is drawn into an intricate social circle by their own will or not. Those children that were birthed by overly promiscous mothers (In reference to your remark about British culture.) that "probably should have aborted." could effect the lives of many people around them, as well as outside of their social class. To simply say that any person on the earth is simply unwanted doesn't seem fair to me, because its making a presupposition based on what the community as whole views them as. The existence of doesn't necessarily have to be tell tale sign that there are so many unwanted children, but rather if no body wanted children at all, their would be no orphanages.

In accordance with orphanages, very rarely do adopted children go to an orphanage anyway. In the United States at least, orphanages are mostly full of children, not infants. Mainly young children that were abandoned by their parents, or children forcibly removed by the government due to negligent or abusive parents. Infants in the U.S., as I said before, aren't readily available and you face a huge waiting list. Hence why most couples now adopt from other countries such as China, India, and Russia being the large three. I'm not sure if the same applies in England. Unless you're speaking of basket babies or something similar. Adoption rarely ever fails as an alternative due to the vast amount of waiting couples that would slaughter someone to raise and foster a child. Strictly speaking when weighing the two options, I fail to see why one wouldn't want to adopt, unless they were somehow afraid of childbirth. In that case I really do view that as cowardice.

human potential is so vital it deserves whatever it takes to see it realised. Obviously new parents will be unsure and learning as they go, but people should not be forced to commit to a child if they made a mistake and are not yet ready to deal with the consequences, and to give a child away is symbolic of the emotions involved, that of passing on that responsibility. But that act must not be underestimated since giving up a child for adoption must be an incredibly stressful and weigh heavily on the conscience, although to me adoption seems far crueller than abortion, not all children live happily ever, they spend years rotting away in a home specifically for unwanted children. Every orphan must one day face that reality, and tread through life with that cross to bear, knowing that their very own flesh and blood would rather toss them aside than love and raise them, that is an horrendous epiphany I’d wish on no one. That is a harsh truth they may learn to work through, but it lingers with them forever, so it would be fair enough if every unwanted child was adopted at birth, but since they’re not, abortion seems some how the rational option.

There is more than one way at looking at a decision, and you're applying your view to the life of every adopted child and assuming the intentions of every mother that chooses to give her child away. Things can be viewed in a different light. A child can view his unknown mother as the tramp that didn't want him, or the person that cared enough about him to go through child birth just that he could live. The decision has both an equal opportunity to be viewed in either a positve or negative manner. In the end, we don't know the details of the life of any one individual person and his or her sufferings. Instead we should realize that those unwanted children, are in themselves invidual human beings with different ways of thinking, loving, creating, and learning.

I have extreme personal convictions about a woman being entitled to an abortion for whichever reason she so desires. Abortion is obviously a liberty, and whether we choose to realize it or not all liberties that are granted to us come with restrictions. Even those free re-fills you get at restaurants, if you start emptying the machine every time you come, you more than likely will be thrown out. I respect the notion of being non judgemental, and being unintrusive when it comes to the decisions other people make. However, we aren't speaking about whether someone should have quit their job or not, or about how Shirley got drunk at a party last night. We're debating the future of a human being, or "soon to be human being." if that's such a big discrepency. When it comes to something (which I believe) is so incredibly precious, personal motives are definitely worth looking into. The abortion clinic shouldn't be like an episode of Cheers, where everyone knows your name.

If we agree that what's growing inside mother is a child, than the childs rights supercede those of the mother. Which comes to what I believe is the most crucial, yet at the same time, most meaningless part of the debate. I believe the exact opposite, this debate has everything to do with whether a child should be terminated or not, because within the realm of ethics its only things we can at least attempt to debate. I don't think its fair for science or any other field study to determine when or when not something is human. Quite simply, it is unknown and doctors only guess that consciousness may begin when electrical impulses begin. A pregnant woman in any term of her pregnancy that's murdered, the perpetrator will most definitley be charged with double murder. Because society views that baby as a child. It is only when the aspect of not wanting is involved, does the debate over when life begins, begin. Babies that are delivered outside of the womb can't live on their own. They are just as helpless as the embryo is, left on their own with no outside source of care, they will die.

 

[ndralcasid]

I'm gonna keep my answer short:

Against abortion, yet pro-choice.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

I’m more inclined to deem abortion as a form of murder if the abortion is performed later in the pregnancy when the fetus can actually survive outside its mother, but does your opinion differ at all when an abortion is performed early in pregnancy, when the fetus appears as bodily matter that cannot live when removed? Emerging from the womb far too early does hinder the child’s chances, does it not? This capacity to survive results in certain death if a fetus is removed ahead of time, before full or near maturity, feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

That's precisely what "viability" entails: the point at which the fetus would be capable of living on its own if removed from the uterus. When I say "capacity to survive", I mean it in the sense that it's capable of surviving on its own. A fetus does not always have to go to full term in order to be capable of living outside the mother. It varies between individuals, but I do believe that viability is a fair cutoff. If the fetus is indeed able to live outside the mother's body, then it is essentially alive. Therefore, abortion after this point is murder, and is not permitted.

Is a threat to a mother’s life the only extenuating circumstance you condone? Just curious, assuming I’m perceiving your words as you intended, it sounds as though you’re suggesting abortion should not be permitted at all, unless both the woman's and child's life are both threatened, as you said. Do you not think whether or not abortion should be permitted is a responsibility that falls to the parents if they wish to abort during the legal timeframe within pregnancy?

No, not necessarily. My conditions are that an abortion should be executed prior to viability, and only after if there is a serious condition that endangers the health of the mother. As to that question you ask, I'm afraid it's a little hazy for me to understand. Simply put, I just don't think abortions should be absolutely legal. In that case, it would allow for "convenience abortions", something I am fervently opposed to.

If we agree that what's growing inside mother is a child, than the childs rights supercede those of the mother. Which comes to what I believe is the most crucial, yet at the same time, most meaningless part of the debate. I believe the exact opposite, this debate has everything to do with whether a child should be terminated or not, because within the realm of ethics its only things we can at least attempt to debate. I don't think its fair for science or any other field study to determine when or when not something is human. Quite simply, it is unknown and doctors only guess that consciousness may begin when electrical impulses begin. A pregnant woman in any term of her pregnancy that's murdered, the perpetrator will most definitley be charged with double murder. Because society views that baby as a child. It is only when the aspect of not wanting is involved, does the debate over when life begins, begin. Babies that are delivered outside of the womb can't live on their own. They are just as helpless as the embryo is, left on their own with no outside source of care, they will die.

That's an extremely good point. In the case of killing a pregnant woman, the law does indeed acknowledge it as double murder, or double homicide depending on the nature of the crime. Either way, the death of a pregnant woman means more to us than the death of a non-pregnant woman, simply because we sympathize for the child inside her. However, when it comes to abortion, that "child" is no longer that; it is merely a mass of cells which only contains the "potential" for life, and it is therefore justified to remove from your body if unwanted. It's an unfair double standard, to say the least.

 

[IMPERIAL DRAGON]

To Ethan,

Truth be told, the term ‘unwanted’ doesn’t sit too comfortably with me either, but that’s why I reckon abortion is often the kinder option sometimes, I feel far greater empathy for the living who suffer than the dead who can’t benefit from it, since living with the knowledge that no one wanted them must weigh heavily on an orphan’s emotions. I’d honestly not considered that a mother’s love could be demonstrated in the act of giving her child away, loving so much she chose to give birth; until now it hadn’t crossed my mind but I suppose it depends entirely on the circumstances. If a woman got pregnant and decided she either couldn’t raise it or decided against it for personal reasons, and then carried the child, found appropriate adoptive parents, then adoption would be a viable option since the child would be guaranteed a warm loving life, but it’s that lack of promise that disturbs me. If every expectant mother intent on giving up the child took the responsibility of finding a home for it, then that would be wonderful, everybody wins, but giving it away is totally symbolic of her feelings, that of shifting dependency onto someone else. Face facts, if the child was truly wanted, it would be born and then raised by it’s family, so simply giving it up for adoption reflects the lack of concern felt for it, which is the context I use the word unwanted, purely for when it is unwanted by the blood relatives. It’s always the child who loses out for it needs love and nurturing, to be without deprives the child; the mother may conceal psychological scars from adoption but it’s the baby who receives the roughest deal, and that’s just not fair. Bringing a child into this world is such a monumental responsibility and I think it shouldn’t be approached unless people mean to do it properly, they owe that much to the child, for it to be born into love, not shoved into a world of apathy.

The older someone is in an orphanage, the worse, since with age and maturity, they’ll realise what they lack, what they’ve been deprived, as well as the full impact of the situation which will hit harder the more they understand. Adoption doesn’t seem so much of an issue here in Britain, at least not as common as in America, it must happen obviously but here the media tends to report more on couples going through IVF treatment or resorting to surrogates opposed to straight up adoption, so while we hear of children’s homes, the adoption rates don’t seem as high as fostering (temporary stays usually, when couples care for multiple children for a certain amount of time instead of taking them on permanently)

I’d personally never adopt a child or give my own flesh and blood up for adoption. If I had any mishaps and got someone pregnant at an inconvenient time, I’d be inclined to go with abortion unless it was with someone I had a future with. I could never give my own away; no son or daughter of mine would face that fate.

It is a strange double standard that if an expectant mother is some how killed and someone is at fault, they get charged for double murder or double man slaughter, I’ve noticed that over the years. My only explanation for that discrepancy is that if such an event happens past the stage of abortion, then it’s fairly obvious it’s a wanted child. Not that it makes it any less of a crime if a pregnant woman is killed in the early stages when abortion is legal, but it all does come down to the mother’s intention for that child, whether she actually wants it. Although it is an incredibly weird double standard I admit.

Premature babies can be nursed to health though, they may not be able to live without our interference but we do have the know how, science and technology to save them. Which is quite different to a fetus that couldn’t survive outside of the mother no matter what involvement we have; the two are quite different scenarios.



To Vaporeon4evr,

I do actually agree that if the unborn can survive outside the womb with our support, and an abortion takes place, then it changes the situation completely and shifts closer to murder. But up until that point, when the fetus cannot physically survive outside the mother, regardless of our interference, that is the period in which abortion or less morally grey. Generally speaking, abortions take place far before the fetus would be capable of living on its own, am I right? In that case I guess I’m also saying that your conditions that an abortion should be executed prior to viability are ethically sound. From your previous post I misinterpreted you and took the word permitted out of context, but my question was asking that prior to viability, would you agree that the decision to abort should be exclusive to the parents up until the fetus being able live outside the womb; prior to viability, if I understand you?
But still, I support abortion in the early stages regardless of the motives, whether it be convenience, vanity, personal etc

 

[GhostAnime]

It's precisely the term "unwanted" that I'm extremely uncomftorble with. What determines whether or not someone is unwanted? Mothers love is great, and if she doesn't want or love her child enough to foster it then that should be to her loss, not the childs. Even the citizens on the lowest step of the ladder in society profoundly effect the people around them knowingly, or unknowingly. Every human being is drawn into an intricate social circle by their own will or not. Those children that were birthed by overly promiscous mothers (In reference to your remark about British culture.) that "probably should have aborted." could effect the lives of many people around them, as well as outside of their social class. To simply say that any person on the earth is simply unwanted doesn't seem fair to me, because its making a presupposition based on what the community as whole views them as. The existence of doesn't necessarily have to be tell tale sign that there are so many unwanted children, but rather if no body wanted children at all, their would be no orphanages.

I'll say this much: you're right, they do affect it, but it sure as hell ain't a positive effect.

It's a common fact that unwanted children generally do not grow up healthy and turn to drugs, or a life of crime.

I'm not saying abort to lower crime, or that every poor kid with parents who can't raise them right is going to grow up bad, but the affect is HARDLY positive to society.

http://www.fatherhood.gov/father/father_absence.cfm

 

[Grei]

HUGE WALL OF TEXT ABOUT HOW GREI/EVERY OTHER PRO-CHOICER IS INHERENTLY IRRESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THEY SUPPORT FREE WILL/ Your comments to people have been spiteful as well.

My comments were spiteful because of the mindless posts, specifically Dark Titan's. Closest thing to a spiteful comment would be the one where I ask: Why the hell is it OK for a baby conceived via rape to be 'killed' if abortions aren't right? What in the world makes an abortion right in any circumstance, if you take that side?

I've noticed that all of you people who support abortion have already been born!

Nice observation. I would agree--those who are posting things most certainly are alive.

Now, if we can stop with the snarky comments...

Is it less cruel to murder someone because you were being irresponsible?

Please stop being so narrow-minded for a moment. Not all abortions are the result of irresponsibility. Accidents, rape, etc. happen. It's a given. Then, there are other complications. One poster in this thread said his/her mother would've died had she not gotten an abortion. It doesn't all come down to "he should've worn a condom, sucks for him!"

So you say it's better for them to be dead than to grow up depressed?

If we're gonna be morbid, I might as well say that it's better that you don't subject somebody to torturous depression just because YOU didn't want their mother to abort the child she couldn't care for.

As long as they're alive, it doesn't matter if they hate themselves or their life or want to shoot up some schools. As long as they're alive.

Go tell all those with depression to commit suicide then!

Again, narrow-mindedness. Since when does depression automatically stem from having sucky parents? A lot of depression is hormonal imbalances, which happens to the happiest of us.

I'll say this much: you're right, they do affect it, but it sure as hell ain't a positive effect.

It's a common fact that unwanted children generally do not grow up healthy and turn to drugs, or a life of crime.

I'm not saying abort to lower crime, or that every poor kid with parents who can't raise them right is going to grow up bad, but the affect is HARDLY positive to society.

http://www.fatherhood.gov/father/father_absence.cfm

And this is what a lot of us are talking about. While I agree, abortions shouldn't happen to lower crime, it generally helps nothing when you force parents to raise a baby when they aren't fit to raise children. That child could probably have a terrible life and grow up to be a criminal.

 

[Vaporeon4evr]

To Vaporeon4evr,

I do actually agree that if the unborn can survive outside the womb with our support, and an abortion takes place, then it changes the situation completely and shifts closer to murder. But up until that point, when the fetus cannot physically survive outside the mother, regardless of our interference, that is the period in which abortion or less morally grey. Generally speaking, abortions take place far before the fetus would be capable of living on its own, am I right? In that case I guess I’m also saying that your conditions that an abortion should be executed prior to viability are ethically sound. From your previous post I misinterpreted you and took the word permitted out of context, but my question was asking that prior to viability, would you agree that the decision to abort should be exclusive to the parents up until the fetus being able live outside the womb; prior to viability, if I understand you?

Yes, that is correct. Up to that point, I don't find the fetus to be quite "alive" yet, thus abortion is not necessarily murder.

But still, I support abortion in the early stages regardless of the motives, whether it be convenience, vanity, personal etc

Well, I suppose that's where our stances differ. Personally, I'd rather there be a compelling reason to get an abortion. But as long as it's prior to viability, then I have little moral compunction against it. At that point, it's more or less something I wouldn't do myself, but still allow others to do.

 

[Deku_Link]

Abortion is probably the issue I feel the most strongly about out of everything I enjoy debating, so I could in theory prattle on about this for hours, but I tend to get a bit out of hand and will try to keep it short.

I am completely 100% pro-choice for various reasons.

From a compassionate standpoint: I honestly couldn't give a rat's rear end about how the woman got pregnant. I don't care if she used protection or not. I don't care if she was married. I don't care if it was a one-night's stand. I don't care if she was a hooker. I don't care if she was a loose teenager. I don't care if she was a deadbeat crack addict for goodness' sakes. I don't care if she was raped (except to the extent that I care for her well-being). The day I try to make illogical exceptions to a blanket statement is the day I ignore that every woman's situation is a unique one, and I don't think highly enough of myself to assume that I'm in any place to judge every woman who has ever been pregnant or considered abortion.

Abortion should only be a question of whether or not a fetus intrinsically has a right to live at the expense of its mother, and that question should not consider how the fetus came into existence. One fetus doesn't deserve life more than any other just because of how its mother's sex life is going. I can't stand "only if she was raped!" pro-lifers, sorry if this applies to anybody here.

If a woman wants to get an abortion, carry to term and raise the child, or give their child to somebody else after it's born, I'll completely support her any which way so long as the choice is hers, and not a choice she doesn't want but has been pressured or forced into.

From a religious standpoint: Although embryology is not my strongest science, I know enough about it that if souls do exist, I'm about 99% confident that an embryo does not have one at conception. I'll elaborate on this if anybody cares.

From a general comparative standpoint: I cannot view abortion as tantamount to infanticide for the same reason that I cannot view myself as eligible for senior's discounts on bus tickets. Early childhood stages and fetal stages are separate and very different points of development and need to be viewed objectively, rather than viewed in terms of what they would be under a set of assumed conditions.

I do not buy into the idea that the mother is responsible to carry the fetus to term because it's her "fault" (and I use that word very, very loosely) that it exists in the first place. As it stands, no person has any right to any part of my body that I do not wish for them to be using. On the same coin, I'm not under legal obligation to donate matching organs or blood or bone marrow to a child of mine who might have inherited a disease from any of my recessive genes, despite it being my fault that the child exists and needs such a donation to begin with. I probably would go through with it anyway, but the fact that I'm not obligated is an important implication to every single person's right to domain over their own body -- it's yours, you get to decide who uses it and who doesn't use it, and a fetus does not have special rights, even if it WAS considered a person.
Keep in mind that all of the above applies even if the person in need will die without your contribution. This is incredibly important to abortion because there is literally no way to keep a fetus alive when it is removed from the parent.

I suppose some might like to counter this with "just don't have sex!", but in the real world, people are going to have sex. That's just the way it is. Trying to punish them for it because they don't want an outcome which has always been optional by random chance in the first place (even before birth control, you were never guaranteed to get pregnant by having sex) is stupid, there's no other way to put it. Sex is important to people, especially those in long-term adult relationships. Let's be real here, it's not like women take birth control pills "in case I get raped".

From a legal standpoint: For reasons listed above, making abortions unavailable with circumstantial exceptions just doesn't make a lick of sense. It's not enforceable, and it's not realistic, and it's passing judgment where it doesn't need to be passed. It's an invasion of privacy for a question that can't even be answered with confidence anywhere even close to perfect.

I support late-term abortion, because I know that most women wouldn't get an abortion that late into the pregnancy anyway unless there was a severe problem with the pregnancy itself. Even if some women would, I firmly believe that abortion is an issue where a few that I guess some would call "bad apples", who are unrelated to the rest of the candidates, shouldn't have to ruin it for the whole bunch.

The woman should be made aware of when it is ultimately safer for her to have the baby instead of abort it, which actually is often the case with late-term abortion. I believe that women should decide to carry to term when this is the case, but I'm not going to tell them that they have to if they have decided for themselves with all the knowledge they can get their hands on that they do not want to.

Late-term abortion is legal with no restrictions in Canada, and we don't get women just aborting left-and-right just because they can, like opponents of "partial birth abortion" (what a stupid term) seemed to think they did when the ban was passed in the U.S.. Did you guys know that that form of abortion accounts for less than a percent of all abortions, and is normally performed when there is something irreparably wrong with the fetus, such as it already being dead? It's also the safest way of extracting the fetus in such a situation, as it causes the least scarring and bleeding for a procedure which has to be done anyway.

As a final point, I'm incredibly wary of opinions along the lines of "just have the baby and give it up for adoption!" as if it's as simple as saying the sentence is. While opponents of abortion are willing to make anything up to directly oppose the APA in saying things about how abortion harms women psychologically, is anybody willing to put their foot forward and find out what birthmothers go through? Here's a hint, if you've watched the movie Juno, don't think that every pregnancy in the world ends up like that one. Proponents of "adoption not abortion" typically seem to view pregnancy as a passive act that barely affects the woman, and I could go on into how this viewpoint is completely wrong, but a person who is far more educated than I am has written an extensive and enlightening essay about this very topic here.

As a side-note to the adoption issue, I'm firmly against the idea that women should have to have their children as if they owe something to people who can't have children. Apparently, there are so many loving infertile couples who would love to have your baby, but not any of the hundreds of thousands of kids who are already looking for parents!

I'm sure there's more stuff that I'm forgetting to mention, but if you've read up to this point you're probably tired of reading it anyway.

 

[Relinquish]

Lesson learned: Don't have sex unless you are ready when a baby comes along