[Discussion] Thoughts on Abortion

BlahISuck said:

Also, everybody has the right to sex. Nobody's right to sex is taken away until the police knock at your door and get you for sodomy

Click to expand...

This here is actually wrong. You do NOT have the right to sex. In fact, it is actually a privilege. If you had the right to sex then rape would be legal. Your right to sex only goes as far as with your self or in the sense of masturbation. The privilege of sex comes when the other partner agree to undergo with sexual actions so it is not solely up to your nor is sex given to you because you want it. The other party needs to agree otherwise it becomes rape which is illegal.

AlexOzzyCake said:

I meant if they're drunk at a party and end up in a consenting one night stand because of it haha.

Click to expand...

Except a drunk person can't give consent.

And, yes, I know the argument can keep going back step after step. "But you chose to drink, therefore you have to accept the responsibility." I would just say then, where does that stop? At what point do we say "You made choices, but you don't have to live with all the consequences because we have the means of ameliorating them and we don't think you should have to suffer needlessly."

Let's go with the driving scenario. Driving can be dangerous. We know this, we do what we can to make sure people are safe when driving (forcing people to have licenses, making driving while intoxicated illegal, etc.) but we don't force people to suffer the consequences of everything that happens when they drive. If I'm making the conscious decision to drive, knowing full well that there is potential for harm, and some other driver crashes into me, we don't say "Well, you chose to drive so you have to live with the consequences."

I'm all for people being responsible. I just don't think it's right to blame someone for all the outcomes of their actions, particularly if they show they're being responsible for their actions early on after something happens. Going back to my driving scenario, if I drive at night and I hit a car, a car that wouldn't have been hit had I not driven, even though there was a pothole I couldn't see and the car came around a blind curve and I immediately called 911, should I really be responsible for all that happens?

BlahISuck said:

That's just another way of saying the same thing, right? These women aren't making use of their newfound freedom for the sake of benefiting the collective, are they?

Click to expand...

Maybe they are. Maybe they work in some non-profit or they babysit their neighbor's children, or they're the only person in their office who can speak Chinese and without them the office would fold up and a bunch of breadwinners would be out of bread. I mean, there are a lot of ways women can benefit the collective without having children.

BlahISuck said:

I suppose what I said wasn't the most politically correct sounding statement because we'd all envision ourselves to be selfless altruists but the fact of the matter is that there is more focus on the woman as an individual, and so whatever sentiments there were for the fetus as a life has been pushed away for a woman's options. Women were once, in a sense, expected to make that kind of self-sacrifice and now that expectation is being overturned, so it's definitely a cultural shift, too.

Click to expand...

And... you think that's bad or what?

BlahISuck said:

In principle and in the perfect world I'd imagine the decision to have an abortion to be between both parties, but those that go through with it are hardly a family anyways so there's no reason to expect that kind of decision-making to happen. The rights of a woman's body probably win over in this kind of conundrum, when it comes down to the yes or no.

I don't think there's a right to sex. You have the right to liberty, but to call it a "right to have sex" is really trivializing human rights talk.

Click to expand...

Don't forget that some abortions are going to take place for a woman who is married, and for some who are married with children. In those cases you can assume that there is a family and more communication about the decision.

voltianqueen said:

I think the point Psycho Yuffie was trying to make is that why should we have to abstain from sex just because we MIGHT get pregnant? Of course, if someone is struggling financially they should not put themselves in a position to get pregnant, but, in general, why do people insist that we shouldn't have sex because of the consequences? I don't want children at the moment, and maybe not ever, but that's not really going to stop me from having sex. Obviously practicing safer sex will reduce the chance of getting pregnant, but even then...I believe that people have the right to have sex and the right to deal with those consequences as they see fit for their situation, no matter how the pregnancy happened to come about. Sex isn't just for reproduction in this day and age.

Click to expand...

Ok, so... the consequences should defer someone from having sex if they do not want to get pregnant. Essentially it is like gambling, You must accept the consequences for every action that you take. for example, you mentioned financially struggling, that person could then go, gamble what money they have left and they MIGHT get lucky and not lose or even gain, but there is also the risk of losing more and coming out even worse. Now for the pregnancy, Yes... I'll say it, Sex is fun, that's why people do it. But so is a lot of other things, but if you don't have the resources to cope with the consequences that follow with your choice, then you shouldn't be doing it. If you like video games but cannot afford it, then you don't buy it, If you like to travel but cannot afford it, then you don't go, Simply because you cannot afford the risk of what might happen if you go.... So why should sex be any different? If you cannot afford to take responsibility for your actions, then you shouldn't be doing it. if you are really that addicted to sex, then find alternatives where the person won't get pregnant such as oral, anal or what ever kind of method you see fit that won't result in pregnancy. If you want to have vaginal sex, I notice you said you may never want them, then here is an easy fix, simply have the tubes tide or whatever so the risk of pregnancy is essentially 0 and then you can save yourself the cost of raising a child/if you choose abortion, the cost of that and then do whatever you want with out the risk of consequences which may screw you over.

Scarf said:

Maybe they are. Maybe they work in some non-profit or they babysit their neighbor's children, or they're the only person in their office who can speak Chinese and without them the office would fold up and a bunch of breadwinners would be out of bread. I mean, there are a lot of ways women can benefit the collective without having children.

And... you think that's bad or what?

Click to expand...

My point is that there is a focus on the individual and /her/ goals. I don't think anybody's brought up the point in such a way yet. It's not about benefiting the collective/benefiting the individual as if these goals are mutually exclusive, cuz that's how you're bringing it up right now and I believe that neither of us actually believes that is true. It's about the cultural shift and the perspective, a way of thinking, if you will. What you're saying is true, but I wasn't really getting at.

And I can see why you'd be concerned. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt in order for you to give me the benefit of the doubt, how's that ;)

It's been awhile since I've commented on Abortion. I've looked into the other side of the issue from mine. It certainly gives one a whole different look at the whole thing than one had before. Right now though I'm still firmly pro-life. And to those comparing Roe V. Wade with Brown V. Board, I see it more like Pleassy V. Fergurson, it needs to be look at again.
Sometimes though I wonder if pro-choice people try to ever look at our side though...I'm certain there's some but often times I get the sense it's only us Pro-life folks who are made to look at the other side.

Also something which I'm bothered by is the stereotype that only men are pro-choice. There's women out there against abortion too you know.

Anyways in my look at the pro-choice side and reading some arguements I've figured that abortion will continue even if made illegal...so I think that abortions should be limited to the two week time line and none after unless for health issues (which I am open to seeing as both mother and child may die.)

Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:

It's been awhile since I've commented on Abortion. I've looked into the other side of the issue from mine. It certainly gives one a whole different look at the whole thing than one had before. Right now though I'm still firmly pro-life. And to those comparing Roe V. Wade with Brown V. Board, I see it more like Pleassy V. Fergurson, it needs to be look at again.
Sometimes though I wonder if pro-choice people try to ever look at our side though...I'm certain there's some but often times I get the sense it's only us Pro-life folks who are made to look at the other side.

Also something which I'm bothered by is the stereotype that only men are pro-choice. There's women out there against abortion too you know.

Anyways in my look at the pro-choice side and reading some arguements I've figured that abortion will continue even if made illegal...so I think that abortions should be limited to the two week time line and none after unless for health issues (which I am open to seeing as both mother and child may die.)

Click to expand...

I especially like this point you brought up: Also something which I'm bothered by is the stereotype that only men are pro-choice. There's women out there against abortion too you know.

Keep the perspective moving, folks. Let's bring everything to the table and shine light upon as many assumptions as possible. This thread looks decently non-partisan so far.

Ultimately it is the woman's choice, but it needs to be an educated decision. I also think the father should have some say, because it is partly his. (provided the father is still around)

(skimmed over the thread and saw some good points but didn't read all of it)

Most people I see who are against abortion and have an issue with the fetus being a human life. However, according to the government, you are not a living being until you take your first breath outside of the womb. Also, at the point where most people decide to have an abortion, it is still at a point where it doesn't have nerve cells. Therefore it doesn't feel the pain of being aborted and having its life taken. There's a great quore by George Carlin that I find suits this argument well...

Geroge Carlin said:

Why, why, why, why is it that most of the people who are against abortion are people you wouldn't want to **** in the first place, huh? Boy, these conservatives are really something, aren't they? They're all in favor of the unborn. They will do anything for the unborn. But once you're born, you're on your own. Pro-life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to nine months. After that, they don't want to know about you. They don't want to hear from you. No nothing. No neonatal care, no day care, no head start, no school lunch, no food stamps, no welfare, no nothing. If you're preborn, you're fine; if you're preschool, you're ****ed.

Click to expand...

...and that quote basically sums up my thoughts on the matter.

I used to be very uncomfortable with abortion to a point where I was pro-life when I was much, much younger, however I'm pro-choice now. That doesn't mean I like abortion (who does?) but I've become more accepting with it. I don't think abortion should be allowed after a certain point unless there's a very good reason behind it, which most late term abortions have (fetus would die shortly after birth, mother would die, fetus would have extreme disability that would have a negative impact on his or her quality of life, etc).

I do believe more people should be more responsible with birth control, but banning abortion altogether isn't the answer. Especially since no method of birth control is foolproof. Condoms break, the pill can fail. You can say that people shouldn't have sex unless they're prepared for that possibility, but it won't happen no matter how much you wish it would.

People who say "there's always adoption!" probably don't know much about the adoption system. It's not a foolproof system where every child gets a loving home, everyone.

And the people who say that it should only be allowed in cases of rape also strike me as being misinformed. How would that even work? Would they have to have proof that they were raped (that isn't always easy to get). And there's always the slight possibility that a woman would claim she was raped if she was so desperate to get an abortion, and that would end horribly.

I've been meaning to post this for a WHILE now, especially that I'm planning to debate this subject in a few weeks in my debate class.

All of my family are hardcore pro-lifers. I was raised a pro-lifer. My mom always told me (even as a teenage girl) that once you get pregnant, you must keep it no matter the circumstances, and to be honest I find it BS. They actually care more about the fetus inside the womb rather than the woman carrying the baby herself, and that's just rather saddening. Pregnancy is supposed to be the caring of the mother and the baby. I understand the fact that there are some other options for contraception, and my family tends to stay out of any contraception out there. Two of my cousins were shunned out of the family because they both aborted as were found out. It's been years since I've seen both.

I'm probably more pro-life than pro-choice but I have my reasons. I don't think abortion should happen in the middle or towards the end because I think it's actually unfair for the child. Had it developed a heart and lungs towards the middle and developed eyes towards the end of the pregnancy, adoption should be a better choice. If a woman wants to abort a pregnancy just because the doctors detected a disease or syndrome such as Down Syndrome or a deformity, that's where I draw the line. It's absolutely stupid for her to carry a child all that time and then make a last minute decision to no longer want the kid because of it. Abortion is an option in case the "day-after" pill fails, or if the woman *apparently* forgot to take the pill after sex. These cases *can* happen. Abortion should be a choice if the woman was raped, as OzCake stated. If I was in that scenario, I wouldn't really want to carry a child who's father is a rapist. I'd be extremely terrified, scared for my life. What would I say to my child about his father? And my family would be willing to care for it not matter what.

In short, woman should have the choice to abort, but it must be as early as possible...that is, if the woman knows for the fact that she might not have the support from her family, has financial issues, and cannot afford to receive medical care to keep the baby afloat. If the baby is developed enough to have a heartbeat, then abortion should not happen.

The Cutest Sylveon in the World said:

People who say "there's always adoption!" probably don't know much about the adoption system. It's not a foolproof system where every child gets a loving home, everyone.

Click to expand...

This. It's also expensive to adopt a child as well, which is why it's scarce these days. $500 + income requirements and other large expenses such as CPR classes and paying a lawyer/social worker. Think about that.

AlexOzzyCake said:

The way I see it, if you're pregnant and it's because of your own doings, be it a mistake or otherwise, you owe it to the child to give birth to them or you're wasting a whole human life - that child could never have hopes, dreams, love, or any form of life, just because one or two people made a mistake. I'm aware the experience is traumatic for the woman and it will encompass the pains of giving birth, and perhaps I'm being naive here, but I don't believe that any amount of temporary pain or discomfort over the 9 months is a justified reason to terminate a potential life. I'm not saying they should have to look after the child though, especially if they never wanted it in the first place or it'll never be a loving bond between them, but 9 months is ample time to find an adoptive carer.

The only time I would disregard this situation is in the case of rape. [...] (being drunk does not count) [...]

Click to expand...

I might not be adding to the discussion because I haven't read all of it but. I'm not completely comfortable with the idea of abortion because the lines of "being" are still so vague and unclear, however to me, the life of the mother is worth more than an unborn potential life. People who are 100% against abortion are basically granting the foetus more rights than its mother. Yes it has the right to live but above all the mother has the right to choose.

They don't "owe" this "child" anything either, for every reason I said above.

I also think that you just can't allow some people to have an abortion and not others, that's just not going to work. Having an unwanted child can ruin your life whether it was through rape or just unplanned. You can use anti-conception and still become pregnant, etc etc etc, you just can't draw the line somewhere between those things. And I also think saying that being drunk does not count is extremely ignorant and it makes me pretty angry that people can think that, I really hope you understand why that's just wrong.

when I said "being drunk doesn't count as a reason" I meant if they're drunk at a party and end up in a consenting one night stand because of it haha.

Click to expand...

Do you really think a drunk person is in the right state to be able to give consent? Just like a 12 year old you mean?

Yoshikkko said:

And I also think saying that being drunk does not count is extremely ignorant and it makes me pretty angry that people can think that, I really hope you understand why that's just wrong. Do you really think a drunk person is in the right state to be able to give consent? Just like a 12 year old you mean?

Click to expand...

That kind of perspective would ruin the intrigue of drunk sex, now wouldn't it? You can be drunk and still give consent - if you're drunk to the point of passing out, that's another story. Also, one can give consent -albeit qualified, regardless of age. The law doesn't accept that though. Consent is not a black and white concept.

I'm pro-choice and will forever be.
-If the child really isn't wanted, what kind of life would it have?
-A woman shouldn't be forced to go through a pregnancy just because of an accident, some people really do try to prevent and fail.
-There are already tons of children in the system, waiting to be adopted, why add another child to that.
-A child is a big commitment, it is life changing. I know, I have one. Not everyone can handle/afford a child.

As long as it's before the age of viability (23 weeks along into the pregnancy) then I am for it. The sooner it is done, the better in my opinion.

Gonna get bashed for this, but i think its rediculous how teenagers run around all willy nilly, doing whatever they want, and if they have a baby in the process, they just kill it.

Sure, you can do it protected, or you can plan the cycle, which is how my parents did it for a year unprotected without having kids.

I truly believe that it is a life. Its not the womans body, its the babys too.

TheTorraRegion said:

Gonna get bashed for this, but i think its rediculous how teenagers run around all willy nilly, doing whatever they want, and if they have a baby in the process, they just kill it.

Sure, you can do it protected, or you can plan the cycle, which is how my parents did it for a year unprotected without having kids.

I truly believe that it is a life. Its not the womans body, its the babys too.

Click to expand...

You're looking at a small group of individuals and applying that stereotype to the majority, which is not a true statement in any sense of the word. Yes, some teenage girls get pregnant from promiscuity, but most do not; protection is so readily available nowadays that the rate of teenage pregnancy has gone down in the past few years. Even those we would consider poor have access to condoms, which help prevent pregnancy with 97% or so accuracy.

Most women who have abortions have spent hours and hours thinking over the procedure and it is an exceptionally difficult choice to make. It's such a hard decision; do not think that women who have abortions do it on the fly. In my state, you have a 72-hour waiting period before the procedure can even begin, and doctors must inform you that you are "taking a life", which, in my opinion, is psychological torture. The procedure can last 4-7 hours so you must plan your day around being in the doctor's office. Don't forget the cost; it can range from $300 to several thousand dollars. It's an uncomfortable, sometimes painful, and psychologically and emotionally traumatizing experience. A woman must think very hard on her decision, go through all of her potential options, and make a choice based on her situation. No one would ever claim that abortion is easy; those who do not know how the procedure works or what is necessary to complete it are simply ignorant and need to read up about abortion before demonizing it as murder.

Women must do what is best for them. To bring a child into the world that will not receive proper care and love should not be brought into it at all. There are thousands of children in adoption centers that will never find their true family; why add to that broken and dilapidated system? Going through with the pregnancy can affect your job, your health, and your stability. Giving birth can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and the experience can be particularly painful or traumatizing for some women, especially those who need C-sections due to complications. Sometimes adoption is not an option, and many women cannot afford to take time off for pregnancies.

We will never be able to stop human beings from having sex. Why? Because it is as natural to us as breathing, eating, and sleeping. We are programmed to do so. But we should have a choice as to whether or not we want to have children, and when we want to have children; if abortion is the only option, then we must allow it to be an option. These rich white men in Congress have no idea what it is like to be a woman struggling with these issues; I find it offensive that they continue to act as though they know the real situation when they will never be in the same pickle as them. We need to realize just how important it is to offer these sorts of options regardless of our personal belief systems.

To me, abortion is not murder. Others may disagree. We know that human beings will never come to a consensus on this issue. But we do need to realize that this sort of procedure must be available to women to prevent unwanted pregnancies when there is no other way to rectify the situation. Women are normally particularly careful about preventing pregnancy; when pregnancy happens unexpectedly, it's ridiculous to blame them and demonize them as being unsafe. Most women are mature enough to realize the costs and the consequences of sexual activity; let them make the mature decision with how to deal with those consequences.

Just some anatomy stuff: an unborn, developing baby feeds off of the mother's system by leeching nutrients that she takes in through food and water. Without the mother's body (her organs, her blood, her oxygen, and her nutrients) the baby would not be able to develop and as a result would die. Thus, it is the mother's body that is in question here, not the baby's. The mother provides all of the necessary components for pregnancy and fetal development; it should be her choice whether or not she expends those natural resources.

Silais said:

Most women who have abortions have spent hours and hours thinking over the procedure and it is an exceptionally difficult choice to make. It's such a hard decision; do not think that women who have abortions do it on the fly. In my state, you have a 72-hour waiting period before the procedure can even begin, and doctors must inform you that you are "taking a life", which, in my opinion, is psychological torture. The procedure can last 4-7 hours so you must plan your day around being in the doctor's office. Don't forget the cost; it can range from $300 to several thousand dollars. It's an uncomfortable, sometimes painful, and psychologically and emotionally traumatizing experience. A woman must think very hard on her decision, go through all of her potential options, and make a choice based on her situation. No one would ever claim that abortion is easy; those who do not know how the procedure works or what is necessary to complete it are simply ignorant and need to read up about abortion before demonizing it as murder.

Click to expand...

Hard decisions are not psychological torture. If a person feels bad because they are unable to grapple with worldview that believes abortion is "taking a life", that is not psychological torture. And just because it's hard doesn't mean it's not murder. There are more intricate ways of "taking a life" than abortion. I don't see how this passage refutes TheTorraRegion's claims.

Silais said:

We will never be able to stop human beings from having sex. Why? Because it is as natural to us as breathing, eating, and sleeping. We are programmed to do so. But we should have a choice as to whether or not we want to have children, and when we want to have children; if abortion is the only option, then we must allow it to be an option. These rich white men in Congress have no idea what it is like to be a woman struggling with these issues; I find it offensive that they continue to act as though they know the real situation when they will never be in the same pickle as them. We need to realize just how important it is to offer these sorts of options regardless of our personal belief systems.

Click to expand...

That's quite the diluted interpretation of "natural" and "programmed". I don't think I'd feel good about myself if I reasoned the reason I'd have sex is because "it's natural" and "I'm programmed to do so". We do it because it feels good. We do it /recreationally/. It's for fun. And since we're raised in a society in which we do things for fun, we tend to forget and push aside the natural consequence of pregnancy. We try to separate the two, pregnancy and sex are two different things - the former is a decision while the latter is natural - I'm sure that many people can tell you it's the former that's natural and it's the latter that's a choice.

Also, abortion is not the only option. Adoption is an option. Caring for the child is an option. Now, if we are mindful of the assumption that a pregnancy should not affect my quality of life and others, then yes abortion is the only option. But we have to be mindful when we say we /must/ or /mustn't/ do something.

Silais said:

Just some anatomy stuff: an unborn, developing baby feeds off of the mother's system by leeching nutrients that she takes in through food and water. Without the mother's body (her organs, her blood, her oxygen, and her nutrients) the baby would not be able to develop and as a result would die. Thus, it is the mother's body that is in question here, not the baby's. The mother provides all of the necessary components for pregnancy and fetal development; it should be her choice whether or not she expends those natural resources.

Click to expand...

That logic only applies if the mother's body is in danger. And if the only thing that matters is that the mother's expense of resources, wouldn't that justify the termination of the pregnancy whenever she likes, because it should be /her/ choice over /her/ resources? Parents do not have that level of control over their children, even though they supply all the resources involved in raising a child - we have laws that project a responsibility to protect onto parents. Clearly, that tells me that the mother's "ownership" of resources cannot be a deciding factor in when or if an abortion should occur. There has to be another way to justify when a woman can choose to cancel her continuing a pregnancy/

TheTorraRegion said:

Gonna get bashed for this, but i think its rediculous how teenagers run around all willy nilly, doing whatever they want, and if they have a baby in the process, they just kill it.

Sure, you can do it protected, or you can plan the cycle, which is how my parents did it for a year unprotected without having kids.

I truly believe that it is a life. Its not the womans body, its the babys too.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's the way it does, but you have to remember the fact that teenagers do it because of lack of sex ed from school and for the most part, their parents altogether.

I agree and disagree about having sex unprotected and not have kids. Your parents were lucky, but not every couple out there has the same results after sex. For some, females try hard to get pregnant, and they don't achieve conception at all. Which is frightening and sad because there's other women out there who are having sex and getting pregnant and eventually aborting, and it just seems extremely unfair to those who can't get pregnant.

I'm a bit neutral on your last statement. There's very little programs out there that care for both the mother and the baby and not just for the mother itself. Of course on the first few months of pregnancy you have prenatal care, but that's all there is to it. By the last few months, where the mother could be at risk of losing the baby, either because of an illness or on purpose.

Sorry Surge, but I have to disagree with you there. Nowadays, kids in Kindergarten are getting "Sex Ed" - details about an act that they normally would not find out about until their pre-teens - and thus they get naturally "curious", younger, which means faster and higher chances of pregnancy due to sexual culture that starts before Grade 1.

Rezilia said:

Sorry Surge, but I have to disagree with you there. Nowadays, kids in Kindergarten are getting "Sex Ed" - details about an act that they normally would not find out about until their pre-teens - and thus they get naturally "curious", younger, which means faster and higher chances of pregnancy due to sexual culture that starts before Grade 1.

Click to expand...

I think that's waaaaaaaaay too young. Yes I know it's the best way to prevent conception and promote contraception but giving 5 year olds sex ed is just too young. At this stage, their minds are still fresh and their personalities are still being developed until the first or second grade. It's a vast opportunity, yeah, but it's gonna be a little too hard to understand for them.

Teaching contraception should happen after 4th-6th grade, where the child is about to go through Puberty. They'll be mindful about what goes on their body and how to live with these ongoing changes in their body. Right there, is the perfect timing, and they'll be able to carry on this knowledge once they reach their teenage years.