Abortion, birth control, Planned Parenthood, oh my!

[Corvus of the Black Night]

May I ask pro-choice folks a series of questions?
First is: When in your opinion does life begin?

Technically, the life of half of a child begins when the mother's egg cells are formed.

I think a more meaningful question is, "when does the fetus become a human". This is something that is not measurable, is not quantifiable and, well, depends on who you ask.

First off, a fetus younger than 5 weeks old does not even have a brain yet. Whatever's in there bears little resemblance to an actually breathing at-birth child.

Perhaps the latest an abortion should take place, at least, when the chance of birth survival at that date is below 25%. This is at 23 weeks.

For me, personally, I think the cutoff point should be around 12-16 weeks TOPS. This is because before this point, the child would not survive anyways, and likely does not have conscious sense.

I know it sounds cruel, but if something dies a death without even knowing pain or even awareness, it suffers much less than a person brought up in poverty or under the wrath of an emotionally broken parent.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

I fear some of the comments about poverty here sound an awful a lot like comments made by the founder of Planned Parenthood to argue her views on eugenics being moral...
I don't think because someone is poor they should get rid of their child in such a way. I think we should focus our energy on fixing the adoption system and making it work for the children.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

I don't think you understand. It gives people who can't afford to take care of the child an opportunity to at least not have the kid suffer. Nobody is required to do it. It's just an option. How is it eugenics if the decision lies directly in the hands of the person involved?

By the way, abortions are fairly expensive and thus many poor people couldn't get one. So if it is rooted in destroying the lower class, it's doing a very bad job at it.

 

[Silais]

Why does it matter when life begins? Human beings are perfectly fine with killing one another, adults and children both; why is it so unreasonably "awful" to abort an unborn fetus? Again, hypocrisy; it's inexcusable and murder to abort a fetus, but killing civilians in foreign countries? Allowing poor children in America starve to death because their families can't pay to put food on the table? Completely reasonable and expected.

 

[OmegaRuby and AlphaSapphire]

Why does it matter when life begins? Human beings are perfectly fine with killing one another, adults and children both; why is it so unreasonably "awful" to abort an unborn fetus? Again, hypocrisy; it's inexcusable and murder to abort a fetus, but killing civilians in foreign countries? Allowing poor children in America starve to death because their families can't pay to put food on the table? Completely reasonable and expected.

All those things are awful too. I think children in such conditions should be helped too, and not just in America either, but the whole world.

 

[Neil Peart]

Because a large quantity of people believe that human life begins before conception and thus consider abortion to be a form of murder, which is within the right of the government to legislate. I disagree with that stance, but you're completely misrepresenting the opposing side of the argument, and that's not conducive to a good discussion.

The point I'm making is it SHOULDN'T be within the right of government to legislate. A large quantity of people also believe that angels are real, should we treat that as a fact and adapt laws to accommodate angels?

You sure about that intellectual part dude?

 

[Corrin]

Every child wanted, every woman willing tbh.
Pro lifers will do all they can to get a baby born, even at the cost of the mother's life or well being, but do they care what happens to the baby? Do they care that it'll likely grow up having no permanent home? Let alone secure and loving relationships from a young age that babies need?
If you did you wouldn't be against abortion.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

All those things are awful too. I think children in such conditions should be helped too, and not just in America either, but the whole world.

Sadly, in the world's current state, it does not work this way.

There will always be hardships and horrible things that happen to both children and adults. Holding the view that abortions should be illegal because they are immoral unfortunately roots itself in a naive perspective of the world. If abortions are illegal, they won't stop. They will just become more dangerous. People will still have them, they will just have them through dangerous and unregulated ways. The reason why it's there is because it's an option. It's a last resort, but it's an option that is available for people who do not want to bring up a child knowing they couldn't have one for one reason or another.

 

[Neil Peart]

Sadly, in the world's current state, it does not work this way.

There will always be hardships and horrible things that happen to both children and adults. Holding the view that abortions should be illegal because they are immoral unfortunately roots itself in a naive perspective of the world. If abortions are illegal, they won't stop. They will just become more dangerous. People will still have them, they will just have them through dangerous and unregulated ways. The reason why it's there is because it's an option. It's a last resort, but it's an option that is available for people who do not want to bring up a child knowing they couldn't have one for one reason or another.

If I could make love to this reply, I would. Nothing ever stops because it's been made illegal by some entity, and there are many examples.

Also, it's worth noting that most people who consider themselves "pro-life" are for the death penalty, support war and oppose environmental cleanliness laws. As George Carlin said, when people say they're pro-life, they mean they get to pick and choose who should live or die.

 

[Oryx]

I fear some of the comments about poverty here sound an awful a lot like comments made by the founder of Planned Parenthood to argue her views on eugenics being moral...
I don't think because someone is poor they should get rid of their child in such a way. I think we should focus our energy on fixing the adoption system and making it work for the children.

I don't agree with your stance but I do agree with this post. Making the argument that the children are better off never having lived is a weak argument and quickly goes into dangerous territory. For example, if the children are really better off never having lived, then why don't we make people have abortions at that level, to make the children happier?

Of course, I don't think that's a thing that should be done. But if we subscribe to the belief that we can judge the value of life against the drain of the bad parts of life and decide for someone that they would be better off dead, we start subscribing to beliefs that lead to eugenics.

 

[caller_100]

I don't agree with your stance but I do agree with this post. Making the argument that the children are better off never having lived is a weak argument and quickly goes into dangerous territory. For example, if the children are really better off never having lived, then why don't we make people have abortions at that level, to make the children happier?

I've also never really liked that argument. Like, who are we to decide whose life is worth living and whose isn't? At the same time, I'm 100% pro-choice. (I think I'm agreeing with you here - I'm sorry if I'm missing your point.)

To me, whether or not the life is "worth living" isn't even the issue here. That's like arguing for a pro-life stance by saying, "Well, how would you feel if you hadn't been born?" Irrelevant. I wouldn't have been born, so I wouldn't have cared. Same with the "life worth living" thing. If someone has an abortion, the fetus doesn't end up living anyway, so what does it matter whether or not its life WOULD have been worth living? It's one of those arguments that people make that I always find really hard to refute, not because I think it's valid, but because it's really easy for the explanation to be misinterpreted, I think.

 

[Oryx]

Oh what a load of horse♥♥♥♥. First of all, nice slippery slope fallacy regarding the eugenics comment. Eugenics is the idea of genetics. Abortion is the idea of terminating the life of a bundle of cells or a pile of undeveloped goo. Not even in the same zip code as being related in this case. We're not talking about terminating a life based on some undesirable quality.

Second of all, if a mother determines she's not financially able to care for a child, why should she have to endure the rest of the pregnancy and childbirth just to produce something she doesn't want and can't afford to take care of? Just so she can give it up to an adoption agency? This isn't a supply and demand thing, you know.

Calm down; I'm pro-choice. Your snark is unnecessary because I agree that women should be allowed to abort whenever they would like, which you would have known if you had read my previous posts.

You might be right, eugenics might not be the correct word to use there. What I'm talking about is the fine line between "I support abortion because children are better off dead than in the foster care system" and "You have to get an abortion because your child is better off dead than in the foster care system." I am 100% pro-choice, I just think that argument is terrible because people don't consider the implications. For example, I was poor throughout my childhood, but I don't think I would have been better off dead, yet some people will argue that abortion is okay because people born into situations like mine are better off dead.

I'll repeat again: stay your ire, I agree that women should be allowed to have abortions. Just that argument has nasty implications and it makes me quite uncomfortable to hear people saying "you'd be better off dead" because they don't realize the situations of everyone around them.

 

[Neil Peart]

To hell with "staying my ire." My ire remains for basic ignorance such as what you displayed in regards to eugenics.

We can all say we wouldn't be better off dead because we're alive. Just because you survived your impoverished childhood doesn't mean they all will, and even if they do, later on down the line it could take a mental toll on them. In this country (where pretty much everything else along with the foster care system is crumbling) ten percent of all the people in foster care were aged out of the system in 2012. Forced out. Know where most of them end up? Homeless, in jail or worse. Eighty percent of foster kids have serious emotional issues. The average waiting period for a kid to be adopted is nearly two years. The amount of time kids spend in foster care is increasing. The idea of putting a kid through the foster system from birth is insane.

So, when it comes down to abortion vs. putting a kid through the foster system from birth, I'll take abortion.

 

[Oryx]

To hell with "staying my ire." My ire remains for basic ignorance such as what you displayed in regards to eugenics.

We can all say we wouldn't be better off dead because we're alive. Just because you survived your impoverished childhood doesn't mean they all will, and even if they do, later on down the line it could take a mental toll on them. In this country (where pretty much everything else along with the foster care system is crumbling) ten percent of all the people in foster care were aged out of the system in 2012. Forced out. Know where most of them end up? Homeless, in jail or worse. Eighty percent of foster kids have serious emotional issues. The average waiting period for a kid to be adopted is nearly two years. The amount of time kids spend in foster care is increasing. The idea of putting a kid through the foster system from birth is insane.

So, when it comes down to abortion vs. putting a kid through the foster system from birth, I'll take abortion.

So if you had the power to change our laws, you would make it illegal to put children in foster care over abortion? If not, why not? The line between justifying an abortion through that argument and forcing abortion through that argument is non-existent.

This ignores the fact that women should not have to justify their abortion in any case.

I don't know what else you want re:eugenics - I explained what I meant and conceded it might not be the right word for what I'm trying to say. What do you gain by being so unforgiving, superiority?

 

[caller_100]

To hell with "staying my ire." My ire remains for basic ignorance such as what you displayed in regards to eugenics.

...

So, when it comes down to abortion vs. putting a kid through the foster system from birth, I'll take abortion.

Chill out. "Ire" is fine, but you're completely missing the point of what's being said. Someone can be 100% pro-choice and still think that some of the arguments people use for being pro-choice are pretty ridiculous.

As for the second point, good for you. If you get pregnant, you get to decide that for yourself (but you're a guy, right?). But you're the only one you can make that decision for.

 

[Shiny Bunnelby]

My opinion on this? I'm pro-choice.
I believe that we need to focus more on helping the children who are already here, rather than forcing women to give birth to more. You don't add fuel while trying to control a raging fire.

One thing that would help, in the US at least, would be for same-gendered couples to be finally granted their rights to marry and adopt. Whether people want to argue this or not, doesn't change the fact that the 14th Amendment protects them. No child would discriminate at the cost of a loving home, and there is quite a bit of proof that same-gendered couples make excellent parents. That would help with the crowded population of youngsters in foster care. For abortions to remain legal and safe, and for birth control to be more accessible, it will cut into the population growth. With less children being passed around in the system, the funding could potentially be distributed more effectively to improve the staff, living conditions, food availability, etc.

It wouldn't be an instant fix, but it's a start. That's my view.

 

[£]

Spoiler:

just sayin'

Abortion - is fine by me, as long as it's safely done, I'm happy to leave it to experts to put out a reasonable timeframe for an abortion.
Birth Control - nobody's even questioning this it's not even worth writing an obvious support of it I have better things to do than regurgitate the usual ♥♥♥♥ and you have better things to do than read it.
Planned Parenthood - Dunno the state of play in the US, but the UK seems okay here. I think you can get abortions on the NHS as long as you've got a fair reason etc not "I got drunk and ended up pregnant guys this is my 12th visit lol" It's good to have generally good services that are able to cater to people's needs and help them.
Adoption - Is not a bad thing. It's not the answer to everything, but if same-sex couples adopting could become more frequent this could be an absolutely lovely thing. Anyone strongly pro-life has some major allies in same-sex couples and yet they're so dismissive towards them. Strange.

 

[£]

Depends really, I mean, if the baby's like 4+ months in, abortion isn't really an option at that point, and adoption is probably the best bet for her if she doesn't want to have the child for whatever reason.

I mean, I wouldn't blame someone for being two weeks in and going "as much as I'd love to be debilitated for 8+ more months I think I'll give it a miss."

 

[Nihilego]

oh dear lord

Well, this is going downhill fast. I'm gonna close it for now and give people time to cool off and stop this ridiculous "who can shout troll the loudest" argument going on. In a couple of days once this has cooled down if anyone really wants it re-opened then drop me a message. Otherwise, yeah. Keep it civil next time please.