Abortion.

[Nihilego]

Is abortion acceptable? What circumstances would make it acceptable or unacceptable? Does an originally unwilling parent or pair of parents always imply poor ones for the child? Discuss this topic, giving reasons for your opinions.

 

[Livewire]

It is a legal, protected, constitutional right in the US. And In cases of rape, incest, etc it's plenty justified. We live in a free society. A woman's reproductive choices are hers and no others. Religious reasoning has nothing to do with it.

 

[Zet]

Of course it is acceptable. The only acceptable way is to allow the woman to make the choice and we shouldn't judge her for it.

 

[Juicy]

What I don't like about abortion is that a man legally has no say in it. A woman can go get an abortion if she doesn't want a baby even if the father really wants to raise it and would be a great dad. A woman can choose not to get an abortion even if the father feels that he isn't ready or in a stable financial situation and yet he is forced to pay the mother to help her raise it. The woman gets ALL the rights and yet the man still gets a huge amount of responsibility. This is completely unfair and if you say otherwise then I'm probably going to think you're a fool but please back it up and I'll read it ;)

Sperm is needed if you want to make a baby! Where does sperm come from? It comes from men. That baby may be growing in your womb but it's just as much the father's as it is yours.

Some fathers are horrible but some mothers are as well. Before you mention specific examples of certain fathers being irresponsible please note that that really doesn't mean anything except that that guy you mentioned is a jerk.

 

[Margot]

What I don't like about abortion is that a man legally has no say in it. A woman can go get an abortion if she doesn't want a baby even if the father really wants to raise it and would be a great dad. A woman can choose not to get an abortion even if the father feels that he isn't ready or in a stable financial situation and yet he is forced to pay the mother to help her raise it. The woman gets ALL the rights and yet the man still gets a huge amount of responsibility. This is completely unfair and if you say otherwise then I'm probably going to think you're a fool but please back it up and I'll read it ;)

Sperm is needed if you want to make a baby! Where does sperm come from? It comes from men. That baby may be growing in your womb but it's just as much the father's as it is yours.

Some fathers are horrible but some mothers are as well. Before you mention specific examples of certain fathers being irresponsible please note that that really doesn't mean anything except that that guy you mentioned is a jerk.

While I completely agree that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, I do always find myself thinking about this situation. The situation where the woman doesn't want the baby, but the guy does. Yes, it is her body, but I think this is where it gets a little complex and needs to be discussed between the couple to decide what's best for them.

 

[Juicy]

While I completely agree that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, I do always find myself thinking about this situation. The situation where the woman doesn't want the baby, but the guy does. Yes, it is her body, but I think this is where it gets a little complex and needs to be discussed between the couple to decide what's best for them.

Ideally yeah, it should be discussed but the fact remains that it doesn't have to be. The law completely sides with whatever the woman wants.

Also, you left out one important part of what I said, say she doesn't want the abortion and he does? He can't choose and is instead forced to live with what the woman chooses AND pay for the baby.

Basically the man has to pay for the woman's choice with either his money or what he might view as his child.

 

[-ty-]

Well, a lot of the time people say that opponents of abortion, are so because of religious indoctrination. However, there are many aspects to this issue that extend beyond religion.

Like Live_Wire stated, rape and incest victims have every right to choice, since the conception the fetus was not of their choice. But once a woman has chosen to engage in sex, and not use adequate contraception, then the woman should either get into the store and obtain the Plan-B pill, or the woman must bear the consequences of her decisions and have the child.

The idea that life begins after leaving the womb is preposterous. In fact, many cultures to this day define age by adding both time spent in the womb and outside the womb. The fetus is a breathing, conscience, and living organism. That organism was placed inside of the woman's body of her choosing if she had consensual sex.

 

[Ho-Oh]

I don't agree with it, because I don't feel that any "chance" at life should be ended, and even if it was from bad circumstances, the fact is that the potential child gets their life cut short (well becomes non-existent) due to the choices of the parent/parents. I'm sure there are many situations where someone did want to abort their child, but chose not to in the end, and that the child grew up and made a difference to society. I just wouldn't want to take that chance, regardless of the situations. Everything happens for a reason (or at least that's what I believe), and the fact that if a child is the result of a rape, or something (also note that if the resulting child was a result of it, wouldn't it be more traumatic to a woman to abort then later on be unable to have a child through her own means with her partner?), while it may remind you of it, after the nine months, you could put it up for adoption and at least give it a chance at life, rather than ruining its chances at life completely. You don't have to turn out like your parents. I know I'm certainly never going to be like mine, and really, in that case if the "father" was abusive/did rape, doesn't necessarily mean the resulting child would, if it were brought up in the correct circumstances, aka adoption.

 

[Livewire]

But once a woman has chosen to engage in sex, and not use adequate contraception, then the woman should either get into the store and obtain the Plan-B pill, or the woman must bear the consequences of her decisions and have the child.

The idea that life begins after leaving the womb is preposterous. In fact, many cultures to this day define age by adding both time spent in the womb and outside the womb. The fetus is a breathing, conscience, and living organism. That organism was placed inside of the woman's body of her choosing if she had consensual sex.

Roe V. Wade and it's provisions say hello and beg to differ with the first part.

And as for the second part, by the time the fetus is a living, breathing, conscious organism, it is far too developed to abort anyways. Only genetic material was placed in her, not the entire zygote. So there's no issue there, really.

 

[Timbjerr]

Like Live_Wire stated, rape and incest victims have every right to choice, since the conception the fetus was not of their choice. But once a woman has chosen to engage in sex, and not use adequate contraception, then the woman should either get into the store and obtain the Plan-B pill, or the woman must bear the consequences of her decisions and have the child.

The idea that life begins after leaving the womb is preposterous. In fact, many cultures to this day define age by adding both time spent in the womb and outside the womb. The fetus is a breathing, conscience, and living organism. That organism was placed inside of the woman's body of her choosing if she had consensual sex.

Pretty much this. No one accidentally has sex, and there's no reason (for either party) to pass on the contraception when you decide to engage in it, and if you did, you'd better have access to morning-after pills.

Abortion is never a favorable option because it's essentially a slightly morally gray murder, but in the case of rape or endangerment to the mother, it is the only alternate option you have. However, as a method of birth control, there are several other options available (and most of them cheaper) to try before abortion.

...but what do I know? I have a penis, so my opinion on this issue doesn't matter. XD

 

[Kylie-chan]

Abortion is one of my pet topics, so here we go! Where it isn't specified, my post is addressed towards arguments I commonly see from anti-abortion posters, or the ideas that are typically behind some of the arguments I have seen in here.

However, as a method of birth control, there are several other options available (and most of them cheaper) to try before abortion.

There are few women who would want to go through an abortion rather than use other types of birth control. Firstly, because an abortion is not the most pleasant thing in the world -- it's stigmatised, it involves going to an abortion clinic, it's a medical procedure, and it's a massive decision to take. Secondly, because abortions are an expense, and harder to access than condoms, contraceptive pills (which should never be near mandatory for anyone ever, by the way, because of their side effects, and many people often dismiss the effects the Pill can have on those taking them when suggesting idly that they be ingested), and other contraceptive issues.

My counter-argument to the responsibility argument, aside from the obvious ones like 'it's not your place to judge that', 'stuff happens', and 'how do you know it was due to a lack of responsibility?'*, is always that if someone is so grossly irresponsible -- in your eyes -- that they can't take care of themselves, why would you want them to take care of a child or its foetus for nine months, let alone two decades? Children aren't punishments given to those who have committed the grave sin of being human.

*If you don't know the circumstances, then can you really say it was due to irresponsibility?

As for males, you can complain until you're blue in the face about it being unequal, but that's men don't carry children to term. All you can do is try to prevent it -- have those discussions before having sex, use birth control, etc. -- without unfairly burdening the female. It sucks, I'd never deny that, but so does having to carry a child to term that you don't want. In fact, I'd argue the latter is worse, as by saying men should have any legal power to coerce women into undergoing or not undergoing medical procedures, staying in an unpleasant and potentially life-threatening situation, or otherwise sacrificing their own bodily autonomy is denying them fundamental rights to control their own body. As for the idea of men having the rights to somehow make a woman have an abortion, surely I do not need to explain why that is a problem. I do not believe in forced child support at all, but it is certainly the case that it is insanely easy to knock someone up then sever responsibility, and women (who would be the ones usually left with the child) don't need to be any more vulnerable as it is, so I don't know how I'd go about solving that. Ultimately I care more about whoever's raising the kid and the kid itself than the person being made to pay child support.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to support or endorse abortion, or that you would choose to yourself. If I were fertile and to become pregnant, I would. Definitely now, most likely in the future. Not everyone feels like me. No, what it means you accept that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, there are more important liberties at stake.

That organism was placed inside of the woman's body of her choosing if she had consensual sex.

No. Having consensual PIV is not consenting to becoming pregnant. Most people accept the risk of it by having sex, but it does not mean you chose to become fertilised. Those who seek abortion of their own volition seek it because they don't choose to have that organism in their body.

Pudz: You already have that opportunity, though. Women who abort are not denying you the chance to adopt and mother a child. If you want to adopt, there are many, many children out there as I speak. Infants, toddlers, young children, and adolescents. If you can't adopt, it's not because of a shortage in adoptees. In fact, too bad there aren't less children to adopt. You could also look into surrogacy, though I have no idea about the logistics of it. Good luck!

 

[Shining Raichu]

Just to put forth my stance, I'm 100% pro-choice in all circumstances. If you do not want a baby you should not be forced to have one.

What I don't like about abortion is that a man legally has no say in it. A woman can go get an abortion if she doesn't want a baby even if the father really wants to raise it and would be a great dad. A woman can choose not to get an abortion even if the father feels that he isn't ready or in a stable financial situation and yet he is forced to pay the mother to help her raise it. The woman gets ALL the rights and yet the man still gets a huge amount of responsibility. This is completely unfair and if you say otherwise then I'm probably going to think you're a fool but please back it up and I'll read it ;)

Sperm is needed if you want to make a baby! Where does sperm come from? It comes from men. That baby may be growing in your womb but it's just as much the father's as it is yours.

I see what you're saying here and it is absolutely unfair for the men. At the same time though, I'm really really uncomfortable with the idea of introducing the alternate reality in this situation, which would be giving the father an official say. If a man wants the baby and has the legal right to stop a woman from having an abortion because of this, that to me is more of an infringement on rights than it is with the way things are now.

Also, consider this unlikely but plausible scenario: a woman has sex with a man and accidentally falls pregnant. The woman plans to abort the child, but the father is a vehement pro-lifer and says that he is willing to raise the child in order to prevent her from having said abortion. Then once the window for an abortion at the beginning of the pregnancy has closed, the father feels that he has done his duty to his beliefs and takes off, leaving the woman to put her body through a pregnancy she did not ask for and afterwards raise a child she never wanted.

My point is that, as unfair as it is to the men, giving them a say in this would make things incredibly complex and open more cans of worms than are absolutely necessary. Also, while men don't have an official say, I'd hope that the mother of the potential child would at the very least consider the feelings of the father before making her decision.

 

[Lozz]

I don't understand how anyone can be completely pro-life. You say that a foetus is a human, that it should be afforded the same rights of all other 'humans'. But you neglect to acknowledge that often, in your defence of the foetus - a thing that legally is not a human being, that in it's state does not contain the cognitive abilities or even the characteristics of a human- you afford it a higher value then the woman who carries it.

I don't know about your average pro-abortionist. But I know that if the unthinkable should happen, and I fall pregnant, I wouldn't be mentally, socially or emotionally equipped to handle the situation.
"But what about adoption".
Yeah, some people do this. But is an unknown, genderless, limbless blob of chromosomes and separating cells seriously worth more in your mind then the stigma and social isolation a young woman might go through throughout 9 months of pregnancy? I honestly find it a gross violation of gender equality to condemn a woman to suffer through this, to forbid her from removing what is essentially an abnormal growth from her body.

If anyone ever tried to dictate the terms and conditions by which I was or wasn't allowed to control the functions of my own body, I would be completely disgusted by the legal system I existed within. Equality doesn't always mean that everyone is happy and content with the way things are. But it does mean that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. This means absolute control over their own bodies, psychological issues notwithstanding. Let children be bought into this world when the ones who will raise them are good and ready for it. Psychologist, David Kirchner writes that 16% of serial killers come from foster homes - a ridiculously high statistic when you consider the small population of families formed by adoption. How many of these children were a product of an unwanted pregnancy where the girl was coerced by public opinion, religion or stigma, to keep the child?

While your opinions are never wrong, I would ask that you put yourself in the mind of a girl who doesn't want a child. And before you choose the foetus over her, consider how being forced to keep a child might affect her life. It is not your place to judge, and make a ruling on the circumstances of another.

 

[EarthWolfblade]

Abortion is murdering babies...if someone has sex and gets pregnant then they should've thought of that before. So no,I Don't think it's acceptable to murder babies.
EDIT:
In rape cases,I still don't think they should. Just give it up for adoption rather than killing it <_<

 

[Shiny Celebi]

Im pro-choice. Its a woman's choice and no one should be forced to have a baby. Thats all I have to say about this really.

 

[Juicy]

Just to put forth my stance, I'm 100% pro-choice in all circumstances. If you do not want a baby you should not be forced to have one.



I see what you're saying here and it is absolutely unfair for the men. At the same time though, I'm really really uncomfortable with the idea of introducing the alternate reality in this situation, which would be giving the father an official say. If a man wants the baby and has the legal right to stop a woman from having an abortion because of this, that to me is more of an infringement on rights than it is with the way things are now.

Also, consider this unlikely but plausible scenario: a woman has sex with a man and accidentally falls pregnant. The woman plans to abort the child, but the father is a vehement pro-lifer and says that he is willing to raise the child in order to prevent her from having said abortion. Then once the window for an abortion at the beginning of the pregnancy has closed, the father feels that he has done his duty to his beliefs and takes off, leaving the woman to put her body through a pregnancy she did not ask for and afterwards raise a child she never wanted.

My point is that, as unfair as it is to the men, giving them a say in this would make things incredibly complex and open more cans of worms than are absolutely necessary. Also, while men don't have an official say, I'd hope that the mother of the potential child would at the very least consider the feelings of the father before making her decision.

Annnd this is why I find abortion such a complicated issue.

What if, in that situation with the pro-life father, he is forced to take care of the child? Also, you bring up a situation where a father is a jerk and then finish off your post saying that you'd hope mothers aren't jerks. The same can be said for them though, both men and women can be jerks so whoever you side with there's going to be jerks (I keep saying jerks cuz I don't want to swear) and ahhh, things are confusing.

Then again, I don't like the idea of forcing a woman to have a baby just as much as I don't like the idea of forcing a man not to. Can't we live in a perfect world of love and harmony where everyone is treated fairly except I'm treated more fairly than others?

 

[Kylie-chan]

>>>>>>>>>>>

I agree with this. I find it inherently misogynist to say a woman's wellbeing is worth less than that of her foetus. That statement will make a lot of people defensive, I know -- but if you think a grown woman's rights are less (you can't say they're equal lol that logically does not work) than that of a foetus or a man, then isn't that misogyny?

Equality doesn't always mean that everyone is happy and content with the way things are. But it does mean that everyone has the same rights as everyone else.

Quoting this again for emphasis. Abortion is unpleasant, especially if the parents disagree on what should be done. But everyone should have the same fundamental rights over their OWN body. See, Juicy, you know your stance doesn't work. Someone has to be made unhappy. Pregnancy isn't something you can compromise on so easily, you can't split the foetus in half and both carry it etc. You don't have to agree with every abortion, or find the situation 100% fair. But as a pro-choice woman I universally support legal access to abortion because my personal feelings on each individual case don't matter. The overarching right for women to choose is more important than a few iffy cases. My moral judgments come a very, very distant second to liberty. I feel that in this case bodily autonomy and individual liberty are far more important. Ultimately, I will always support a woman who chooses by herself to abort. The feelings of the one who does not have to carry the child to term matter less than the feelings of the one who does. But I also believe that it is important for couples to discuss it between them, in the cases where the relationship is supportive and non-abusive.

if someone has sex and gets pregnant then they should've thought of that before.

I already addressed the responsibility argument already, but I'll reiterate: parenthood is not a punishment for irresponsible people. Nor should it be.

 

[doesn't matter]

I don't know how anyone with a basic understanding of human biology or an appreciation for the life of their fellow human beings can be pro-abortion (so it might be safe to say that most do not possess either or both of these things).

It is a biological fact that:

A fetus is genetically unique
A fetus is living tissue
A fetus has human DNA

Thus it can only be concluded that a fetus is a living human.
QED

Now, unless we disagree that the taking of another human life (i.e. murder) is wrong, it is safe to say that abortion is murder and thus is wrong, hence my 100% pro-life position. If you support abortion you are literally supporting the killing of another human being, or murder.

It has been argued that "it's the woman's body, so it's her choice!" However, as I stated above (and this is a fact), it is not the woman's body at all, but the body of another human being.

In support of Juicy's position however, it can be summed up very simply.

When a woman does not want to be a mother, she is pro-choice. However, when a man doesn't want to be a father, he is a dead beat dad. Juicy has been pointing out just some of the hypocrisy in society in relation to how men are treated. I honestly find this a problem too, since even if we do not want the child, men are forced by the government to pay.

Also Americans, be proud. Over 50% of you are now pro-life, which is a fantastic accomplishment.

It is a legal, protected, constitutional right in the US. And In cases of rape, incest, etc it's plenty justified. We live in a free society. A woman's reproductive choices are hers and no others. Religious reasoning has nothing to do with it.

It's not a constitutional right. Tell me where in the constitution it has the right to kill your own child?

Please then, justify it for us if you will, because I disagree entirely.

No one has even mentioned religion and yet here you go, right off the bat.

Of course it is acceptable. The only acceptable way is to allow the woman to make the choice and we shouldn't judge her for it.

What do you mean "of course"?

While I completely agree that it's a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, I do always find myself thinking about this situation. The situation where the woman doesn't want the baby, but the guy does. Yes, it is her body, but I think this is where it gets a little complex and needs to be discussed between the couple to decide what's best for them.

But it is not her body. It is the body of another human being.

Well, a lot of the time people say that opponents of abortion, are so because of religious indoctrination. However, there are many aspects to this issue that extend beyond religion.

Like Live_Wire stated, rape and incest victims have every right to choice, since the conception the fetus was not of their choice.

Your assumption about pro-life folk is completely unjustified. I have convinced numerous people, some here, who previously held pro-abortion positions, to change their mind, at least to some degree. I myself used to be pro-choice (when I was a child). Plus once again in this thread we have people jumping at religion despite no one ever making such an argument.

I don't think choosing to conceive or not changes the acceptability of abortion. Please explain this further.

Roe V. Wade and it's provisions say hello and beg to differ with the first part.

And as for the second part, by the time the fetus is a living, breathing, conscious organism, it is far too developed to abort anyways. Only genetic material was placed in her, not the entire zygote. So there's no issue there, really.

Roe v. Wade is a load of crap. Not to mention that the debate isn't limited to the USA.

Consciousness does not define humanity. The child inside however, has always been alive and breathing, since the moment of fertilisation. It is you who arbitrarily decides when it is too late to abort. I say it is too late to abort right from the very start, otherwise you are committing an act of murder.

Abortion is never a favorable option because it's essentially a slightly morally gray murder, but in the case of rape or endangerment to the mother, it is the only alternate option you have. However, as a method of birth control, there are several other options available (and most of them cheaper) to try before abortion.

...but what do I know? I have a penis, so my opinion on this issue doesn't matter. XD

I don't think it's "morally grey" at all. Murder is murder.

If you were to only allow it in the case of rape, women would lie in order to get an abortion. False rape accusations are common enough now, but it was not I that made that assertion, but the radical feminist guru Gloria Steinem, in a 1985 interview with USA Today said that "to make abortion legal only in cases of rape and incest would force women to lie."

The Roe v. Wade decision actually had such a case. The story of Jane Roe, of the Roe v. Wade Decision, is well known. Norma McCorvey (her real name) fabricated a story, that she had been gang raped at a circus, in the mistaken impression that this would permit her to obtain a legal abortion in Texas. Not until 1987 did she reveal that the baby was actually conceived "through what I thought was love." (Post, Sept. 9, 1987.)

History also shows us that women would lie. Up until 1988, Pennsylvania's Medicaid program funded abortions, for women who claimed they had been raped, without any requirement for reporting of the purported assault to a law enforcement agency. Under this law, abortion clinic personnel issued thinly veiled public invitations for women to simply state that they'd been raped, and the state ended up funding an average of 36 abortions a month based on such unsubstantiated claims. In 1988 the legislature added a requirement for reporting the rape to a law enforcement agency, and the average dropped to less than three abortions per month.

I hope I haven't come off as too aggressive to your relatively agreeable stance, but I felt all this had to be mentioned somewhere in this thread, so I figured here would be as good a place as any.

And why doesn't your opinion matter? Would you say your opinion on rape doesn't matter because you've never been involved in rape?

Children aren't punishments given to those who have committed the grave sin of being human.

As for males, you can complain until you're blue in the face about it being unequal, but that's men don't carry children to term.

Being pro-choice doesn't mean you have to support or endorse abortion, or that you would choose to yourself. If I were fertile and to become pregnant, I would. Definitely now, most likely in the future. Not everyone feels like me. No, what it means you accept that, regardless of your personal feelings on the matter, there are more important liberties at stake.

No. Having consensual PIV is not consenting to becoming pregnant. Most people accept the risk of it by having sex, but it does not mean you chose to become fertilised. Those who seek abortion of their own volition seek it because they don't choose to have that organism in their body.

I agree that children are not punishments. 100%. I actually believe they are the most wonderful gifts. However, are we not punishing the unborn child, who is the most innocent involved party, by killing it?

Yes but we are forced to, by law, to pay for not only the product of our own loins, but the product of everyone elses as well through the collective wallet of government tax revenue (most of which is collected from men). If we don't pay up, we can have our property seized by force and our freedom denied. Not to mention the social stigma from being viewed as a dead-beat dad. The point of it all is that we should have to pay for children we don't want if women don't even have to keep the children they don't want. The perfect solution to all this would be support of the family throughout all of society, but that's a different issue all together.

But Kylie, it means exactly that. Pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can't be pro-choice and anti-abortion. As if you can reconcile the two views, haha. Out of curiousity, what liberty is more important than the freedom to live? Without that liberty there are no others.

Also, consider this unlikely but plausible scenario: a woman has sex with a man and accidentally falls pregnant. The woman plans to abort the child, but the father is a vehement pro-lifer and says that he is willing to raise the child in order to prevent her from having said abortion. Then once the window for an abortion at the beginning of the pregnancy has closed, the father feels that he has done his duty to his beliefs and takes off, leaving the woman to put her body through a pregnancy she did not ask for and afterwards raise a child she never wanted.

I'm all for some sort of contract system to sort this out. It'd be better than what we have now. Though I doubt that someone who is sincerely pro-life would have a sudden change of heart.

I don't understand how anyone can be completely pro-life. You say that a foetus is a human, that it should be afforded the same rights of all other 'humans'. But you neglect to acknowledge that often, in your defence of the foetus - a thing that legally is not a human being, that in it's state does not contain the cognitive abilities or even the characteristics of a human- you afford it a higher value then the woman who carries it.

Yeah, some people do this. But is an unknown, genderless, limbless blob of chromosomes and separating cells seriously worth more in your mind then the stigma and social isolation a young woman might go through throughout 9 months of pregnancy? I honestly find it a gross violation of gender equality to condemn a woman to suffer through this, to forbid her from removing what is essentially an abnormal growth from her body.

If anyone ever tried to dictate the terms and conditions by which I was or wasn't allowed to control the functions of my own body, I would be completely disgusted by the legal system I existed within. Equality doesn't always mean that everyone is happy and content with the way things are. But it does mean that everyone has the same rights as everyone else. This means absolute control over their own bodies, psychological issues notwithstanding. Let children be bought into this world when the ones who will raise them are good and ready for it. Psychologist, David Kirchner writes that 16% of serial killers come from foster homes - a ridiculously high statistic when you consider the small population of families formed by adoption. How many of these children were a product of an unwanted pregnancy where the girl was coerced by public opinion, religion or stigma, to keep the child?

While your opinions are never wrong, I would ask that you put yourself in the mind of a girl who doesn't want a child. And before you choose the foetus over her, consider how being forced to keep a child might affect her life. It is not your place to judge, and make a ruling on the circumstances of another.

It is a human, 100%. Just because the law doesn't define it as such doesn't make it a biological fact. Cognitive ability does not define a human being either - a brain dead person is still a human being. That said, a child just recently born does not have the cognitive ability you expect either - does that mean you support the murder of infants? There was recently a paper published in an ethics journal that argued just that, because that is the logical conclusion of the pro-abortion argument.

After-birth abortion: why should the baby live? (2012)

Who was affording the unborn child a higher value? I don't want either the mother nor the child to die. I think I'm not really preferring anyone here, nor would I have the right to decide who lives and who dies.

Yes, it is worth more. Murder is much worse than all that. Not that condone any such stigma or social isolation. Rather, I celebrate that women choose to keep their unborn child. I'm not responsible for the transformation of motherhood into a negative thing.

That'd be a fine argument... if it was your body. The child inside is only related to you - it isn't your clone or another organ. It is a unique and living human being.

Such statistics are unfortunate. However, is killing children really the solution? (some would say yes, lol.)

Why thank you, I do feel that my opinions are indeed never wrong. That said, if someone does the wrong thing or condones morally wrong actions (like murder, rape, etc.), I do feel obliged to let them know that it is wrong. I am not judging them, but their actions.

I agree with this. I find it inherently misogynist to say a woman's wellbeing is worth less than that of her foetus. That statement will make a lot of people defensive, I know -- but if you think a grown woman's rights are less (you can't say they're equal lol that logically does not work) than that of a foetus or a man, then isn't that misogyny?

Quoting this again for emphasis. Abortion is unpleasant, especially if the parents disagree on what should be done. But everyone should have the same fundamental rights over their OWN body. See, Juicy, you know your stance doesn't work. Someone has to be made unhappy. Pregnancy isn't something you can compromise on so easily, you can't split the foetus in half and both carry it etc. You don't have to agree with every abortion, or find the situation 100% fair. But as a pro-choice woman I universally support legal access to abortion because my personal feelings on each individual case don't matter. The overarching right for women to choose is more important than a few iffy cases. My moral judgments come a very, very distant second to liberty. I feel that in this case bodily autonomy and individual liberty are far more important.

Good thing no one said that aye? Why are they not equal? The child is alive and human, just like the mother? Do you not believe in equality???

So what about the rights of the unborn child over their own body? How come they don't have that right?

As a pro-life person I oppose abortion because my personal feelings on each individual case don't matter. The overarching right to life is more important than a few iffy cases. Morality and liberty are closely intertwined, not separate as you claim.


In support of Juicy's position however, it can be summed up very simply.

When a woman does not want to be a mother, she is pro-choice. However, when a man doesn't want to be a father, he is a dead beat dad. Juicy has been pointing out just some of the hypocrisy in society in relation to how men are treated. I honestly find this a problem too, since even if we do not want the child, men are forced by the government to pay. Why can't men choose to be fathers? Carrying the child to term doesn't come into it, because if you're pro-choice, shouldn't you support the right of everyone to choose?

Also Americans, be proud. Over 50% of you are now pro-life, which is a fantastic accomplishment.

 

[Dawn]

Eh.. Abortion is morally wrong. That was never the controversy people make it out to be. You see contrary to internet pseudo logic the morality of abortion played no role in it's legalization. That is to say, we knew it was wrong and we went ahead and legalized it anyway. Just because it seems like the most important factor to us doesn't mean it's what a decision was made off of it court.

To keep it simple, abortion was legalized over a privacy issue. I mean honestly it amazes me that anyone thought we decided a fetus wasn't a person. The fact of the matter is there's no solid evidence supporting that and it sure as heck wouldn't have held up in court.

That being said, you can't "justify" abortion. That's not possible. That wasn't the question either.

The real question is, can you "accept" it. Is it acceptable? The difference between acceptable and justified is that justifying something makes it a straight good thing and acceptable just makes it 'good enough'. If you've ever been in a situation where you had to choose the lesser of two evils, that's acceptable, not justified.

So we've massively lowered the bar right off the back.

I guess the implied question is "Do you think that the human rights issue presented by the mother-to-be outweigh that of the child's human right issue?"

Me, at the end of the day I can only see this being acceptable if the mother's death is guaranteed without the procedure. Otherwise the mother's human right's issue becomes "I am entitled to life's comforts!" and that seems like a pretty socialist mindset. =/

I'm all for people being able to make terrible choices. I am not however in favor of people trying to evade the consequences of their actions. If people want to keep getting abortions, fine. It's not like we can cure amoral behavior anyway.

/However/, if people continue to insist on trying to make abortion morally acceptable I will continue to fight that. People can have the right to make terrible decisions, but they have no right to demand that I or anyone else accept their bad choices as acceptable. They have no right to demand /we/ take responsibility for /their/ actions.

Pro-choice. Not pro-socialism. =/

 

[Yoshikko]

It is a legal, protected, constitutional right in the US. And In cases of rape, incest, etc it's plenty justified. We live in a free society. A woman's reproductive choices are hers and no others. Religious reasoning has nothing to do with it.

Can't agree more with Live's post here.

What I don't like about abortion is that a man legally has no say in it. A woman can go get an abortion if she doesn't want a baby even if the father really wants to raise it and would be a great dad. A woman can choose not to get an abortion even if the father feels that he isn't ready or in a stable financial situation and yet he is forced to pay the mother to help her raise it. The woman gets ALL the rights and yet the man still gets a huge amount of responsibility. This is completely unfair and if you say otherwise then I'm probably going to think you're a fool but please back it up and I'll read it ;)

Sperm is needed if you want to make a baby! Where does sperm come from? It comes from men. That baby may be growing in your womb but it's just as much the father's as it is yours.

Some fathers are horrible but some mothers are as well. Before you mention specific examples of certain fathers being irresponsible please note that that really doesn't mean anything except that that guy you mentioned is a jerk.

Okay I do agree with you on this, but really, the woman is made to carry the baby, it grows inside her, SHE is the one that has to bear it for 9 months and then give birth to it, she is also the one who has to change her lifestyle completely and have prenatal care, no smoking no drinking no eating certain things and no doing certain things either (even as simple as walking too much stairs), ultimately it is her body and only her decision. I am not a feminist, at all, but I have a hard time with giving the father a say in this - other than morally, because obviously he has a say but ultimately, it's her decision only - when it all comes down on the girl in the end.

I do believe that in the end we are all alone in this world and we can only make decisions for ourselves, and like I said, while I think the father has a say moral wise, technically he really doesn't and he shouldn't either, because that means that he could decide for her to keep it or not, even if that was against her own will. That sounds a little strange doesn't it, when /she/ is the one that has to give birth to it in the end? I'm sure that if we were able to transfer pregnancies (between male and female too lol), and the father would want to keep it and the mother wouldn't, she wouldn't hesitate to give it to him and he can proceed to decide over it because he's the one caring for it and bearing it, if the guy wants to give birth to it then hey be our guest lol, but alas we can't do that.

I honestly find this a problem too, since even if we do not want the child, men are forced by the government to pay.

Ya because you were the ones that knocked her up in the first place lol.

I'm all for some sort of contract system to sort this out. It'd be better than what we have now. Though I doubt that someone who is sincerely pro-life would have a sudden change of heart.

And the problem here is that the father would be able to do that. The mother can't do that, because it's in her body, and if the father left during her bearing it, she is the only one left that can take care of it so obviously she can't leave it. Everyone can have a change of heart but the mother is not able to do that when the father does.