Abortion.

[Reck]

Adoption is not an alternative to pregnancy, it's an alternative to parenthood. Our orphanages are already full of unwanted and orphaned children. Like hundreds of millions of children all over the world. Out of those, only hundreds of thousands get adopted annually. Essentially, out of every 1000 orphaned children, only 1 gets adopted. Adoption is only an alternative to parenthood and a faulty one at that.

As for whether my mom aborted me or not, if my mother didn't want me at that time, then it's her own choice what to do with her own body. My mother's course in life is hers to choose on her own, and if I wasn't a part of that plan, then so be it. I'd much rather my mother be happy in life than to force her to have me. It just so happened that my mother wanted me and that was her CHOICE. No being is ever entitled to have control over another person's body. I can't force my family or anyone else to donate organs to save my life. They can't do the same.

Well we wouldn't have problems with this issue if people were able to quell their lustful nature. It's easy to have fun with you're girlfriend/boyfriend without actually committing the act. My girlfriend and I don't want to risk getting her pregnant, but we can still make each other feel good. It's because of people who are ignorant and don't care about the downturn of society that we have problems with abortion and orphans. Also, I would like to follow your logic in your second point by saying that if someone killed you right now it would be justified because you shouldn't interfere with their choice to do so.

@Mr. X That last part about hanging up the organs made me chuckle haha

 

[Mr. X]

And thats where the line gets blury as hell.

The entire question behind abortion is, is a fetus a living being? This is the entire reason behind the abortion debate.

Anyway, as for the organs... Hmm, you could probably decorate your Christmas tree with intestines. But preserved or not, something tells me that they wouldn't last that long.

 

[Reck]

And thats where the line gets blury as hell.

The entire question behind abortion is, is a fetus a living being? This is the entire reason behind the abortion debate.

Anyway, as for the organs... Hmm, you could probably decorate your Christmas tree with intestines. But preserved or not, something tells me that they wouldn't last that long.

It's best to leave the issue to individual discretion most likely.

They might last a few hours... if you can stand the smell haha

 

[jpp8]

Abstinence has been shown only to ironically increase teen pregnancies, as seen in "abstinence only" states like Texas. Comprehensive sex ed has been shown to curb teen pregnancies. Sex is not wrong or immoral. It feels good and can be a safe experience if proper education is applied. So you are right in a way though. Ignorance is the cause of pregnancies, but rather education is what curbs them. Source: https://www.blippitt.com/why-we-need-sex-ed-now-infographic/

Except it wouldn't be justified. The killer is exercising control over my body by ending its life without my consent. A fetus in incapable of consent yet it is still parasitically living off of the body of the pregnant person. It is unable to live on its own until it is born. If a pregnant person can't or doesn't want to take care of it after it is born, then she should have the right to terminate it before it is born. Every child wanted and every parent willing. By choice.

 

[Mr. X]

Abstinence isn't the cause for increasing teen pregenancies. Abstinence, unlike the commonly taught contraceptives, has a 0% failure rate. If you abstain, you won't get pregnant.

I see Abstinence vs contraceptives like Beeno vs gas relievers. If you take beeno, you won't need these. Abstainence is like this. If you abstain, you won't need contraceptives.

Some contraceptives can fail. Given this, I think that sex ed should focus on methods that don't fail, but not exclusively. All methods should be taught, with the most effective methods being first taught or receiving the most focus. I don't like abstinence only sexed, but no one can dispute the facts that abstinence is, if followed, the most successful method.

Anyway, back to abortions. I support abortions, but I do think that for teens, the decision to abort should be up to the teen's parent's instead.

 

[jpp8]

However, promoting abstinence only has been shown to fail and that was the point I was trying to make.

The comparison to beeno and gas relievers is faulty because taking beeno actually requires, you know, actually taking preventative measures but still eating. Abstinence is pretty much "don't engage in the offending activity", so a more sensible comparison for "abstinence vs comp sex ed" would be "don't eat foods that cause gas vs beeno and gas relief".

Contraceptives may fail, yes. That's why abortion should be kept as a viable option in that case. There's no denying abstinence has 0% failure rate in preventing pregnancies. Not doing a lot of things have 0% failure rates. Like never getting a job will result in 0% firing rate, never playing games will guarantee a 0% losing rate, and never posting will result in a 0% disagreement rate. Yes, there is a risk to having sex, but we shouldn't be promoting that the only way to avoid the consequence is to avoid sex entirely, especially since we have so many preventative measures and abortions as an option. Promote comprehensive sex ed and keep abortions safe, legal, and a viable option; I'm pretty sure abortions have a pretty reliable rate of stopping (read: not the same as preventing) pregnancies.

I feel that the parents should not have any legal say in whether or not a teen gets an abortion or not. Pregnancy can cause high school students to miss out on their education due to having to carry the baby around. Getting behind at such a young age will only make it that much harder to catch up. If the parents don't want her to abort, but she does want the abortion, then that decision should be in the hand of the pregnant person, not their parents. Same in the other case. If her parents want her to abort, but the pregnant person feels really wants to carry the baby and feels responsible enough to do so, then more power to her. Their body, their choice.

 

[Mr. X]

If your going to rely on abortions as the ultimate solution to pregnancy, then why teach about contraceptives?

If your underage, then it falls to your parents to make decisions about your life. It's nothing new. And legally, they can pretty much dictate whatever you do until you either move out, or reach 18. Might as well claraify on the earlier statement though. I wasn't saying that the parents would be able to force a abortion onto their child. I'm saying that if the teen wants a abortion then, as she is underage, the parents would have to give their consent for the procedure.

And my point is this. Despite what is TAUGHT the decision is ultimately up to the participants. You can teach a contraceptives only course, and it still wouldn't make a bit of diffrence if they decide to ignore what was taught.

Anyway, another part to debate about. What about the father's wishes? The child is technically his as well, so shouldn't he get some say about the abortion?

 

[TRIFORCE89]

If her parents want her to abort, but the pregnant person feels really wants to carry the baby and feels responsible enough to do so, then more power to her. Their body, their choice.

I would think that most babies born to teenagers end up being the responsibility of the (now) grandparents rather than the teen parent.

Not saying the parents then have absolute rule and should force an abortion. Not at all.

My point is that these decisions deal with several individuals. Not just the pregnant mother and her body. There is the father, there is the parents, there is the unborn. Multiple players are affected by the decision.

If they reach the same conclusion in the end, fine. All I'm saying is that while the final decision is their own, they should at least consult others like you would in any other situation. Feedback.

And, I think you could teach both abstinence and protection. Teaching self-worth; not necessarily waiting until marriage, but just waiting until you feel ready and comfortable. Having control and not giving into pressure. And then on top of that, whenever you do do it - use protection.

 

[jpp8]

Because contraceptives are much more convenient than abortions, even in an ideal situation where abortions are easily accessible and not in any way restricted by law. Why brush your teeth when you can just go to the dentist? Why wear a helmet when you can just get surgery? Preventative measures so you don't have to use the ultimate solution constantly. But we shouldn't be treating abortions as some last resort that people should be shamed for. Just look at all the ridiculous restrictions being placed on pregnant people seeking abortions: 24-48 hour waiting periods, forced ultrasounds, and attacks on planned parenthood none of which do anything medically and only serve to try to shame and obstruct the pregnant person.

Point taken about consent. Still, I don't like that the parents can refuse an abortion if they don't agree just because she's underage.

Regardless of those students who disregard everything, states that teach comprehensive sex ed are more effective than abstinence only education states in curbing teen-pregnancies. And this is the point I'm trying to make: We shouldn't try to deny our libido like Reck suggested, Because 1) It has been shown not to work 2) It's completely natural and we should acknowledge it, not deny it. We have the tools to make sex a safe experience, so that's what we should be promoting.

I already gave my input on the father's say in abortion: If the father could convince her to have the child and make it her will to do so, then yeah, the father can have a say in that way. However, telling her to have an abortion or to give birth against her will? No way. Her body, her choice. Even if he is a nice and well meaning guy. It may have come from his body, but it's not living off of his body. He can have a say in his own abortion as soon as he gets his own uterus and a fertilized egg inhabits it.


Also, TRIFORCE89's post +1. Especially the bit in the last paragraph. Also, final decision is theirs, but yeah, everyone else has the power to convince them as long as they don't force them. Slipped my mind to mention these, but yeah.

 

[Livewire]

Nebraska Anti-Abortion law forces couple to 'watch' baby die.

Here

Examples like this show the flaws with Abortion limiting legislature. The law forced this couple to go through their terminal pregnancy, and, it actually killed the baby, who was forced to be born and later died due to the complications. (The babies lungs didn't develop after the water broke at 20 weeks) The parents of this child were forced to watch their actually living baby die in their arms because of this law.

Thoughts?

 

[Nick]

"No matter what our politics are, it's irrelevant. We wanted nothing more than to have our baby and to take her home and to take care of her and raise her, and that wasn't an option for us." was the best quote that really summed this up what was going through in my head. Being forced to go through something like that is terrible. People say all the time that newborns deserve a chance to live, and while I do agree that everyone deserves a chance at life, if their chance to live is already against all odds beyond a shadow of a doubt, then the grieving of that becomes much more tremendous and unbearable. Most people just see it as black and white, like the woman said. Now the parents have to live the rest of their life with this on their shoulders, probably thinking the same thing I am: if they were in another part of the country, this could have been different, but because they were there, they didn't.

 

[Oryx]

I'm kind of confused though, if I'm right then the title is a little misleading.

If I understood it, the woman wanted an abortion because the child wasn't going to survive and instead of getting the abortion she wanted, she ended up having to wait until the child was born and let her die on her own? I don't understand how the bill actually killed the child, since an abortion was the initial option that she couldn't take.

Not that it's not heart-wrenching to have to go through that, I'm just confused.

 

[Livewire]

I'm kind of confused though, if I'm right then the title is a little misleading.

If I understood it, the woman wanted an abortion because the child wasn't going to survive and instead of getting the abortion she wanted, she ended up having to wait until the child was born and let her die on her own? I don't understand how the bill actually killed the child, since an abortion was the initial option that she couldn't take.

Not that it's not heart-wrenching to have to go through that, I'm just confused.

The law prevented the abortion that would have prevented this situation, and basically forced this couple to carry a life threatening and terminal pregnancy to term. (Which is a horrendous abuse of the constitution, just wait until the lawsuit gets filed.)

They were forced to let the child be born normally. Her contractions started about a week after the water broke. (roughly 21 weeks in) then, about 8 days later (22ish weeks) the child was born. They literally waited around for awhile until the baby died, nothing they could do. Incredibly cruel.


tl;dr

The law forced this family to suffer immensely and made the child die a horrible death. The abortion of the 20 week old fetus would have prevented the death of the 23 week old born child. End result is the same though, whether it be a dead fetus or an actual dead human baby.

 

[Oryx]

Oh I wasn't misreading. I'm not arguing that it's a good thing by any means, just that it seems misleading to claim that the death was at the hands of the bill. The death was at the hands of the medical condition that caused the inability of the fetus to survive.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

However, in October, Nebraska recently enacted a new, stricter law that prevents abortions after the 20th week of gestation except in very specific situations where the mother's life is immediately in danger.

And therein lies the problem(s).

1) I don't think the exception should only be in life-threatening situations, but rather in any situation that a medical professional determines to be necessary.

2) I'd bump the cut-off date (if you're going to have one) to anywhere between 25 weeks and 30 weeks. Or, even if they wanted to stick to 20 weeks... bow to the doctor's discretion.

Also, this wasn't an "abortion" in the sense of what the legislation was aiming to deter. Wouldn't induced labour or a c-section have been possible and not considered an abortion in this situation? I think the line is drawn based on the intent. In this case, it was the doctor's recommendation. While the baby would be aborted, I don't see that as an abortion per say. Just a routine medical procedure. An abortion, in the sense that this legislation was to be applied to, is something more elective.

 

[twocows]

This is just more of the religious right forcing their warped worldview on everyone else. There's no sane reason why abortion should be illegal in any circumstance. Every argument revolves around semantics. When does life start? Who the heck cares? Nearly everybody acknowledges that, once birthed, a child is human and has the same rights and protections that any other human does. Before that, it is a mostly non-functioning parasite that "lives" as part of its mother. The mother should have the right to choose what happens while it's still in her for any reason she sees fit.

The benefits of this are multiple. Fewer unwanted pregnancies means less economic problems for working class families (where many unwanted pregnancies happen). More money to spend on other things. Children aren't raised in a hostile environment. People aren't forced to go into massive debt based on one mistake they made. Why do we still outlaw abortion at all, let alone in the extreme cases? There's one reason and it's because of religious extremists who want to impose their warped vision on the rest of us. Ironic that they call themselves "pro-life" while, by and large, they support the death penalty and overseas incursions. Throw away lives of people we don't like while "thinking of the children." What a load.

 

[Outkin]

As much as people may hate it, we need abortions from time to time. Some people use it as late birth control and I think that's wrong.....but banning it for people like them causes horrible things like this to happen. There's the guilt of killing a living thing (if you want to call it that), but will it be that bad compared to the pain caused by a situation like this?

 

[Atomic Pirate]

Here

Examples like this show the flaws with Abortion limiting legislature. The law forced this couple to go through their terminal pregnancy, and, it actually killed the baby, who was forced to be born and later died due to the complications. (The babies lungs didn't develop after the water broke at 20 weeks) The parents of this child were forced to watch their actually living baby die in their arms because of this law.

Thoughts?

This was just wrong and sick on the state government and the Catholic Church's part. The Catholic Church really needs to look around them and see how many people that they make suffer. It bewilders me how much hate is associated with a religion that supposedly teaches love and understanding. What love and understanding? Well, certainly not towards women, according to the Catholics, they aren't good enough to make their own choices! And homosexuals? Apparently, it is wrong for them to marry simply because Supreme Dictator Pope is afraid of change! The Church needs to realize how much suffering they are causing, but for now, they are just being cruel for religion's sake.

 

[Esper]

I would like to direct everyone's attention to this relevantly titled thread.

I heard about something similar happening in Georgia where a pro-life Republican, whose daughter had to have an abortion because the fetus had no chance to survive, and how he opposed a bill that would have forced someone like his daughter to carry a non-viable fetus to term. When the bill was amended to included medical exceptions he was okay signing it, but because he didn't sign on to the original, no-exceptions version there are tea partiers over there calling for him to be replaced because he's not conservative enough.

I am so thankful I live in California and not in one of the red states.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

This was just wrong and sick on the state government and the Catholic Church's part. The Catholic Church really needs to look around them and see how many people that they make suffer. It bewilders me how much hate is associated with a religion that supposedly teaches love and understanding. What love and understanding? Well, certainly not towards women, according to the Catholics, they aren't good enough to make their own choices! And homosexuals? Apparently, it is wrong for them to marry simply because Supreme Dictator Pope is afraid of change! The Church needs to realize how much suffering they are causing, but for now, they are just being cruel for religion's sake.

The point of getting married in the Catholic faith is to procreate, which homosexuals can't do. The problem isn't so much the Church but the lawmakers who for some reason can't differentiate between legal marriage and religious marriage. I'm Catholic and don't agree with the Church's stance, but since the intent is that you have kids it makes sense that they can't get married within the Church as they wouldn't be able to properly fulfill that sacrament. It isn't because they're gay, it is because they cannot fulfill the sacrament. The same way a Jewish couple can't get married in a Catholic Church. What doesn't make sense is why they can't legally get married outside of the Church. So, politics fault - not the Church.

And with abortion, it's not about thinking that women can't make decisions. The Church sees it as murder, so why would they endorse it?

Neither I see as hateful. Misguided perhaps, but not hateful. I think the Church can keep their teachings, but they shouldn't apply outside of the Church. So, blame the politicians not the Church. The Church doesn't write the laws.

The Church gives to and does so much for charity across the world. I can see how much cruelty, pain, suffering, and hate that must spread.

And when did the Catholicism become the only religion that doesn't endorse abortions and gay marriage? We pesky Catholics are so darn evil.

Which is not to say the Catholic Church doesn't do stupid things. I don't agree with the Church at all on their stance on contraception and the negative effect that lack of contraception has had on the AIDS situation in Africa. But again.... stupidity or ignorance, not hate.

When the bill was amended to included medical exceptions he was okay signing it, but because he didn't sign on to the original, no-exceptions version there are tea partiers over there calling for him to be replaced because he's not conservative enough.

I really don't think a bunch of loons who dress up like Benjamin Franklin are going to hold that much weight in the general election. Their stupidity is just amplified due to the age of the 24-hour news cycle we live it. It's like the sect of the Republican party who pledge to never ever raise circumstances under any circumstances ever... even though Reagan did, many times over. It is just illogical.