Abortion

[twocows]

One thing I should mention is that, while I am pro-choice, I also believe men should have some choice in this matter. Women can choose not to have a child or adopt out if they want, I think it's only fair that men should be able to choose to dissociate in the same kind of way. To that end, I think men should be able to opt-out of child support, provided they make a firm decision not to involve themselves in the child's life and are willing to abide by that decision.

 

[Ivysaur]

Sex is meant to be a special bond between husband and wife.

Says you. The meaning of sex is something that should be left to every person to decide.

Now people have sex, kill a baby, and repeat. It's sickening.

Yeah, I agree it would be sickening if people had to kill babies every time they had sex. Luckily there is a thing called "anticonceptives" that prevent the sperm and the egg from ever meeting so there is no baby to kill.

Would you pro-choice people want to be dead right now or alive? If you desire death, then I can see why you support abortion. If you want to live, then is killing the baby not wrong?

Well, the idea is that people who support abortion believe the foetus is on a different level than a fully born human being, so it's not the same to kill something that was never born in the first place.

That baby could find the cure for cancer, save someone's life, etc.

And could be a maniac murderer and kill millions of people. So? Making a policy on the grounds of "might've, could've, if, maybe, perhaps" misplaces the focus from the mother that right here and now does not want to have a baby. And you want to force her to suffer now so an hypotetical bunch of cells maybe in the future will develop and be born and do who knows what, maybe.

 

[an illegible mess.]

oh my LORD what has this become

Put the baby up for adoption, at least. Did you read the quote? It is an extremely rare case and even then we have the technology to save them. Google abortion images. You'll see how abortion is killing the baby. DONT if you are grossed out by blood and guts and stuff.

oh, because yes, putting the baby up for adoption will OBVIOUSLY save it. it's not like there aren't enough kids in our orphanages anyway. many of these children live horrible, lonely lives. some of them don't even get adopted until they are teenagers. it's sad and horrible what they must go through. also, most of the images you find are very biased pictures. these are generally done by unprofessionals; a real abortion is NOTHING like that.

98% of abortions are for convenience! That's ridiculous. Just don't you know what! Many people who have had abortions regret it and suffer from emotional problems.

where are you getting this information? i've known people who've had abortions and they said they weren't in grief from it or anything. yeah, maybe you will feel some regret, but it's natural to do so. they did what they thought was best for them and the child at the time.

The mothers health? They are taking the life of a baby, the mothers health is fine, no offense.

this is the most sickening and ignorant thing i've ever read. of COURSE the mother's health matters. she's the one that's conceiving the damn child. the mother should be allowed to do whatever she wishes; as it is her choice. her "baby" cannot talk, cannot breathe on its own, etc. by the way, when the heart is beating, a person is not necessarily alive. the baby's brain hasn't yet developed by then; and the brain is the function for life.

If the family doesn't believe in God, then the baby grows up atheist or something.

you will not believe how hard im laughing at this. i grew up in a strictly christian family and a conservative christian town. im a laveyan satanist. this really doesn't connect to the main topic anyway, so i dont know why you'd include that honestly.

Did the baby sign a permission slip to be dismantled and brutely killed into a pile of body parts? I didn't think so.

because the baby cannot talk and it cannot function if it was out of its mother's womb; it is the MOTHER'S choice.

anyway, now that that's over, i'll talk about my own opinions

i'm strongly for pro-choice! it is the mother's choice to do what she wants with her child, as it is hers and no one else's. she has the mindset to do what is right in her mind. honestly, it pisses me off how people get angry at women for having abortions when it is THEIR choice and it is THEIR child. NOT YOURS. that's all i'm really going to say on the matter.

 

[BadPokemon]

oh my LORD what has this become



oh, because yes, putting the baby up for adoption will OBVIOUSLY save it. it's not like there aren't enough kids in our orphanages anyway. many of these children live horrible, lonely lives. some of them don't even get adopted until they are teenagers. it's sad and horrible what they must go through. also, most of the images you find are very biased pictures. these are generally done by unprofessionals; a real abortion is NOTHING like that.



where are you getting this information? i've known people who've had abortions and they said they weren't in grief from it or anything. yeah, maybe you will feel some regret, but it's natural to do so. they did what they thought was best for them and the child at the time.


this is the most sickening and ignorant thing i've ever read. of COURSE the mother's health matters. she's the one that's conceiving the damn child. the mother should be allowed to do whatever she wishes; as it is her choice. her "baby" cannot talk, cannot breathe on its own, etc. by the way, when the heart is beating, a person is not necessarily alive. the baby's brain hasn't yet developed by then; and the brain is the function for life.



you will not believe how hard im laughing at this. i grew up in a strictly christian family and a conservative christian town. im a laveyan satanist. this really doesn't connect to the main topic anyway, so i dont know why you'd include that honestly.



because the baby cannot talk and it cannot function if it was out of its mother's womb; it is the MOTHER'S choice.

anyway, now that that's over, i'll talk about my own opinions

i'm strongly for pro-choice! it is the mother's choice to do what she wants with her child, as it is hers and no one else's. she has the mindset to do what is right in her mind. honestly, it pisses me off how people get angry at women for having abortions when it is THEIR choice and it is THEIR child. NOT YOURS. that's all i'm really going to say on the matter.

What I'm saying is: what are the chances of the mother actually dying? Very slim. It's the mothers decision, I agree with that. I don't agree with the decision, and am against it.

 

[Ivysaur]

What I'm saying is: what are the chances of the mother actually dying? Very slim. It's the mothers decision, I agree with that. I don't agree with the decision, and am against it.

In the US, 24 mothers died because of birth-related causes per every 100,000 patients in 2008 (1). The rate has almost tripled since 1986.

 

[Star-Lord]

What I'm saying is: what are the chances of the mother actually dying? Very slim. It's the mothers decision, I agree with that. I don't agree with the decision, and am against it.

Why the hell should that even matter though.

"Nah I don't want something living inside me for about 9 months but since it won't KILL me I guess I'll put up with it".

 

[BadPokemon]

In the US, 24 mothers died because of birth-related causes per every 100,000 patients in 2008 (1). The rate has almost tripled since 1986.

Ok, my bad. :)

In that case, I'll look into it.

 

[Oryx]

BadPokemon, are you arguing that legally it's fine but morally it's wrong? Or are you arguing that it shouldn't be fine legally because it's morally wrong in your eyes? It's very interesting to split the issue of abortion into legality and ethics - not everything wrong is illegal and not everything illegal is wrong, which raises the question of how we decide legality if not through personal ethics.

 

[Keiran]

Sex is meant to be a special bond between husband and wife.

Heteronormative.

That baby could find the cure for cancer, save someone's life, etc.

That poor person could have found the cure for cancer, but education cost too much.

That women could have found the cure to cancer, but due to sexism she was never taken seriously and was ignored.

That queer person could have found the cure for cancer, but they were murdered on the streets for being different.

That black person could have found the cure for cancer, but a racist for-profit prison institution was able to justify their imprisonment for negligable crimes if any at all.

That Mexican-American person could have found the cure for cancer, but racism prevailed over their hopes for a better future.

That mother could have found the cure for cancer, but all of her resources went into a child she did not want and was forced not to abort.

I could go on, as there are countless instances of people who could accomplish great things but aren't afforded the chance. All pro-lifers want to do is tell women what they can and cannot do. Abortions will happen whether you like it or not - but if its legal we can ensure that the process is safe for the mother. Moral-based opinions are hardly relevant to the real-world on this issue.

 

[Dakotah]

Actually there is a law that states if someone punches a pregnant women and KILLS her BABY, it is murder. The baby has its own body. Did the baby sign a permission slip to be dismantled and brutely killed into a pile of body parts? I didn't think so.

Let's be clear, in some places, some governments have enacted a law in which terminating a pregnancy by an assault is a criminal offense. This is not, however, a universal law. The law you cite may be applicable where you live, but do not assume that the same is true everywhere else.

I agree 100% percent. Sex is meant to be a special bond between husband and wife.

Okay, let's be clear about this as well. You are stating opinion, not fact. Sex cannot be restricted to any one individual's personal world view and beliefs. For you sex is between a man and a woman and only when married. And that's fine. However, it's not a view that is shared by all.

 

[JaredJEstes]

Heteronormative.



That poor person could have found the cure for cancer, but education cost too much.

That women could have found the cure to cancer, but due to sexism she was never taken seriously and was ignored.

That queer person could have found the cure for cancer, but they were murdered on the streets for being different.

That black person could have found the cure for cancer, but a racist for-profit prison institution was able to justify their imprisonment for negligable crimes if any at all.

That Mexican-American person could have found the cure for cancer, but racism prevailed over their hopes for a better future.

That mother could have found the cure for cancer, but all of her resources went into a child she did not want and was forced not to abort.

I could go on, as there are countless instances of people who could accomplish great things but aren't afforded the chance. All pro-lifers want to do is tell women what they can and cannot do. Abortions will happen whether you like it or not - but if its legal we can ensure that the process is safe for the mother. Moral-based opinions are hardly relevant to the real-world on this issue.

Wow. Great way to get to the point. 100% backed.

 

[Corvus of the Black Night]

You know I'm just going to throw this out there, but the sex argument is bugging the ♥♥♥♥ out of me. People say it's natural for life to only want to have sex when it's breeding season, but it does not accommodate for the fact that many animals do sexual acts all the time. It's actually more natural to have sex because it feels awesome than to restrict oneself, which often leads to it channeling itself out in other ways, such as dreams. (In fact, dreaming about sex is often caused by your subconscious desiring it).

Actually, based on cheating behaviour and marriage practices in other cultures, I believe that it is society that dictates that we are monogamous, and we are actually both polygamous and polyandrous as a species. This sort of behaviour is noted in our closest evolutionary relatives (and if you're going to deny that, well, you probably stopped reading at the first paragraph anyways). I'm not saying that long lifelong relationships are impossible, far from it, but humans are naturally have a natural born many-to-many relationship, which can range from 0 to however the hell big it can be.

Perhaps sex feels good because it made more biological sense to have the mind encourage reproduction than for it to not. Most animals are not thinking, "wow! I want a baby!". Their testosterone/estrogen/whatever levels start to rise and this causes them to, well, get very sexual. In birds for example, this change promotes males to become more active in their territories and, in polygamous species, to try to attract as many females as possible. It also promotes promiscuity in the female as well. These changes are seasonal but that's because their bodies were programmed over time to accommodate the best breeding season - this does not mean that they do not become "sexually driven", it just means that their hormones change to promote reproduction. In fact, these hormones likely drive their behaviour.

Not to mention that rearing a child is extremely expensive in terms of energy, time, and can even cost a parent its life due to complications or being more restricted to one spot. The reason why animals stop screwing after they have an egg or a child is because it is extremely taxing in terms of energy. If anything, sex feeling awesome is to help encourage the species to do it, so that they can reproduce and continue along the line of making more of their own species for the future.

But the fact that animals (and humans) naturally self stimulate themselves just kinda shows that many creatures do it for enjoyment, too. Even birds do it. Self stimulation proves to us that there is a "positive" feeling from it, and that it is completely natural to succumb to it.

The historical reason why sexuality was suppressed was probably due to the idea of trying to restrict the transmission of STDs. This is the same reason why males were circumcised (although that is a technically outdated practice, and I believe in its abolition myself). In addition, some people do become addicted to sexuality, although this was rarer back then than it can be today.

So... yeah, biologically, anyone who says "naturally sex is only for reproduction" is so woefully wrong that it's more just blind ignorance than any sort of weighted statement.

 

[T The Manager]

I'm not against abortion and I completely agree it should be up to the woman that's pregnant to decide whether or not she wants to commit to abortion or not. Tho I personally prefer other options for abortion depending on the situation. Accidental pregnancy while having unprotected sex (it happens) there's always adoption but for some people that's not a choice because it usually costs a fortune and not everyone has the funds for that.. But if they do have the funds, why not file for adoption? If the woman was raped that's not necessarily "accidental", instead lack of a better word "forced" into pregnancy (if she becomes pregnant) because the woman had no say in the sexual intercourse. That's when I'm all for the woman's right to abortion.

Reason I'd prefer other options over abortion is because at some time during the pregnancy the baby is alive. If a baby's kicking inside the belly then it's alive and it didn't have a say in whether it wants to live or not therefore it's taking a life. Now I'm not saying it's exactly "murder" but to an extent it is.

How many people in here are adopted or have friends that have been adopted? I'm sure there's a handful on this forum that's adopted and I bet everyone knows someone who's been adopted. Now how many of those adoptions were to prevent abortion? I'm sure it's not a majority but how do the people on this forum that has been adopted not know that they were adopted so they can live their life on this planet? If you look at it in that perspective then it's a little different. Ask anybody that's been adopted that you know was adopted to prevent abortion and ask them how they feel about it (if any know they were adopted to prevent abortion). They will most likely give the same result and some may be heart torn being asked about that. Me myself, I'm not adopted but that's just how I feel about abortion in this perspective. I'm sure lots haven't ever thought or considered it.

Some may look at abortion differently but a majority will ignore this perspective. I'm in no way trying to change someone's opinions I'm just giving my two cents on the discussion to give them a better understanding about my opinions on abortion.

 

[Dakotah]

People always like to think there are alternatives to abortion like adoption. But the problem that exists right now is that there are so many children growing up who are waiting for someone to adopt them right now. There simply isn't enough people available to adopt children to give every child a loving home. And in some places, adoption isn't even a possibility for some because the governments in that place put up very high barriers for anyone considering adoption, such as: making it mandatory that only married couples can adopt, making a co-habiting couple ineligible to adopt unless they are married, disqualifying any prospective parent from adopting if he or she is gay, etc.

If we truly want to make adoption a viable option to abortion, what's necessary is to remove these arbitrary barriers so that everyone who desires to and is capable of raising a child in a loving home has the opportunity to do so.

 

[Monophobia]

It's very interesting that this topic is present, because I just so happen to be doing a debate in my Modern History class. I am against abortion. So, here we go:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).

Abortions are almost always preformed with the intent of the mother's life being more convenient. And under no circumstance is that baby responsible for your actions. I'm sorry, but it's just simply true. Most of the women who get an abortion are simply throwing away someone's life because they think it will disrupt theirs. If you feel you cannot deal with a baby - put it up for adoption. Better yet, make sure you can't have a baby. Use birth control, condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion should not be a replacement for birth control. A lot of my friends are adopted, and they have fantastic lives. I'm not saying all foster homes are nice, nor am I saying that the child will get adopted before they age out - I'm just saying that it's better to give someone a chance than not giving them one at all.

Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).

12% may be a large number, but no where in this statistic does it say that women listed that the childbirth will lead to the their death. That specific reason is probably in such small percentiles. I'm not saying the reason to get an abortion should be looked over, though.

One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).

Aborting a child because it is the result of rape is not justifiable. That baby has nothing to do with it's circumstances for it's life. It's awful that people even use this as a reason for pro-choice. You're bringing a life or death decision to a child when it is so innocent and ignorant to the problems of the world? That makes me sick.

Lastly, I'm going to say that all life is important, no matter how minuscule. That child, whether you believe so or not, can make a huge contribution to society. If it's raised right, of course. Why not give them a chance - a chance to make a change. Perhaps they will save a life. Perhaps they will become the next leader of a country. Maybe they will revolutionize the world.

/End Argument

 

[Dakotah]

Abortions are almost always preformed with the intent of the mother's life being more convenient.

Your choice of word here is wrong. It's not convenient, it's paramount. The mother's life is paramount over all other considerations, including that of an unborn child.

And under no circumstance is that baby responsible for your actions.

No person can be held responsible for the actions of another. But that's neither here nor there. The statement above assumes that a woman who is pregnant, who didn't want to have a child, failed to use contraception. The only contraception that is 100% effective is abstinence. But since it is irrational to suggest that human beings should refrain from having sex unless and until they intend to have a baby. Most sex between two individuals is recreational in nature, not procreative. To put it in more simple terms: people have sex because it feels good.

Most of the women who get an abortion are simply throwing away someone's life because they think it will disrupt theirs.

This statement assumes a lot, and includes a lot of generalizations that are really not appropriate. First of all, while a fertilized egg has the potential to grow into a person, it is not considered one by law. The law can only deal with absolutes, and considering about 70% of all fertilized eggs do not result in a full term baby, it cannot be said absolutely that a fertilized egg will grow into a human being. It has the potential to become one, but until it can live independent outside of a woman's womb, it cannot be considered one yet.

If you feel you cannot deal with a baby - put it up for adoption.

This statement ignores the fact that there simply aren't enough people interested in adopting a child. As a result a good number of children being taken care of by the state, either through the foster program or in orphanages, end up growing out of the system. And that is really our fault because we place such a huge importance on making sure it is our natural offspring that carries on our name. People, whether a couple or single, who do choose to adopt should be commended, but sadly if given the opportunity to adopt the majority of people will decline. Either because they do not wish to become parents, are not ready to become parents, or because they only wish to have children of their own.

So when people suggest that they can just give up their child for adoption, they either are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the fact that a lot of the children given up don't end up finding a family to take them in and wind up aging out of the system without any family at all.

Use birth control, condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion should not be a replacement for birth control.

As previously stated, birth control, including surgical methods, are not 100% effective. The methods used are only as effective as the one using them. If the IUD is not implanted properly, or if the entirety of a person's tubes are tied properly, or if the condom breaks, or if the birth control pill fails (happens a lot more often than one might think), and the result is a pregnancy, blame cannot be placed on the people who conceived. It is also quite offensive to suggest that woman who go to have an abortion do so as a form of birth control. I'm sure there are some who do, but it's a very wrong generalization to suggest that this is what woman in general think. Deciding to have an abortion is a very emotionally painful decision to make. Anyone who suggests otherwise knows nothing of what they speak.

A lot of my friends are adopted, and they have fantastic lives. I'm not saying all foster homes are nice, nor am I saying that the child will get adopted before they age out - I'm just saying that it's better to give someone a chance than not giving them one at all.

There are some people who, upon reading about the hundreds (and possibly thousands) of children abused at the hands of foster families and even adopted ones, and even the horror stories that have been told by survivors of abuse at the hands of state employees in orphanages, refuse to subject their child to such a possible future. They would rather end their pregnancy at a time when the child is not self-aware to spare it the pain and suffering it might experience at the hands of another so-called parent.

That thought process is going on in their minds. It may or may not be rational, but it is a very real thing that they consider when deciding to have an abortion. And considering the stories I read about on almost a daily basis, about children who wound up abused or killed after being adopted or put into foster care, I can't really fault them for their hesitation.

Aborting a child because it is the result of rape is not justifiable. That baby has nothing to do with it's circumstances for it's life. It's awful that people even use this as a reason for pro-choice. You're bringing a life or death decision to a child when it is so innocent and ignorant to the problems of the world? That makes me sick.

It makes you sick that a person would want to abort a pregnancy that was the result of a rape, but you have no consideration for the mother who for 9 months will have growing within her a constant reminder of the trauma she suffered? Those 9 months would be psychological hell for the woman. And just how would you force a woman to carry that reminder to term? Would you be willing to institutionalize her, have her strapped to a bed for the duration of her pregnancy for fear that she would find a way to abort the pregnancy? You would re-victimize a rape survivor by telling her she cannot get an abortion. That, I think, is more sickening than allowing the woman to abort a pregnancy that was the result of a rape.

To think that people actually believe we should have that kind of control over another person.

Lastly, I'm going to say that all life is important, no matter how minuscule. That child, whether you believe so or not, can make a huge contribution to society. If it's raised right, of course. Why not give them a chance - a chance to make a change. Perhaps they will save a life. Perhaps they will become the next leader of a country. Maybe they will revolutionize the world.

That supposed new life could also potentially become the next mass murderer; the next terrorist; the next serial rapist. The fact is we just don't know what kind of life any person will live until they've actually lived it. It is a very poor excuse to make any sort of decision.

It's also very interesting because right up to the moment of birth, I hear so much clamoring from the side that would deny a woman the choice to have an abortion (not that they could stop her if she really wanted one), but then those voices are silent when it is decided to mutilate the genitals of male babies. In fact, those voices are the same ones, once a child is born, who are staunch defenders of a parent's to raise their child in any way they see fit. It's this level of hypocrisy that is truly astounding.

 

[Monophobia]

Your choice of word here is wrong. It's not convenient, it's paramount. The mother's life is paramount over all other considerations, including that of an unborn child.

That's incredibly inhumane, considering that the unborn child is still a child nonetheless. It has its own self inside of the mother. It's not her body. And if it could cry out against its mother killing it, I'm sure it would.

No person can be held responsible for the actions of another. But that's neither here nor there. The statement above assumes that a woman who is pregnant, who didn't want to have a child, failed to use contraception. The only contraception that is 100% effective is abstinence. But since it is irrational to suggest that human beings should refrain from having sex unless and until they intend to have a baby. Most sex between two individuals is recreational in nature, not procreative. To put it in more simple terms: people have sex because it feels good.

The chance that a condom will break is between some 0.4% and 2.3%. The failure rate of tubal ligation is 2-10/per 1,000 women. Birth control pills have a failure rate of 9%. However, if those that are usable in unison are, well...used, there's such a very slim chance of unintended pregnancy. However, a lot of women refuse them because they are "uncomfortable" or "tedious". Their refusal of such methods is not the child's fault, it's theirs. So, it's almost always certain that a woman who did not want a child that was then impregnated did not use sufficient precautions.

This statement assumes a lot, and includes a lot of generalizations that are really not appropriate. First of all, while a fertilized egg has the potential to grow into a person, it is not considered one by law. The law can only deal with absolutes, and considering about 70% of all fertilized eggs do not result in a full term baby, it cannot be said absolutely that a fertilized egg will grow into a human being. It has the potential to become one, but until it can live independent outside of a woman's womb, it cannot be considered one yet.

The statement assumes nothing, I backed it up with statistics that prove my point. Also, you continue to say that it is not a person (or otherwise not considered as one by law), but if it feeds and grows, it is a living thing and should be treated as one. Especially one that carries your DNA inside of it. What law says is not something you should base your morals off of.

As for live birth rate, in 2009 it was only 13.8%. I agree that it is not certain that a pregnancy will result in live birth, however I already tossed that away with the fact that regardless, the impregnated woman has a living thing inside her, and it should be treated as such from the moment she finds out she's pregnant. You don't know if the child will be for certain, but it has a chance, and denying that chance is wrong.

This statement ignores the fact that there simply aren't enough people interested in adopting a child. As a result a good number of children being taken care of by the state, either through the foster program or in orphanages, end up growing out of the system. And that is really our fault because we place such a huge importance on making sure it is our natural offspring that carries on our name. People, whether a couple or single, who do choose to adopt should be commended, but sadly if given the opportunity to adopt the majority of people will decline. Either because they do not wish to become parents, are not ready to become parents, or because they only wish to have children of their own.

So when people suggest that they can just give up their child for adoption, they either are ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the fact that a lot of the children given up don't end up finding a family to take them in and wind up aging out of the system without any family at all.

I addressed that fact and realize what you're saying, but as I've said a number of times, the opportunity is there, and should definitely be taken. Wouldn't you rather have an opportunity than just outright death? You were not aborted, you were given a chance, and I don't see how you can continue to say that women should be able to get an abortion when you should be thanking your lucky stars that your mother did not abort you because you could have been a miscarriage, or you could have been unplanned, or maybe you would have inconvenienced her life. I hate to take it to a personal level, and am sorry if I offended you in any way, but this has a deeper meaning that should hit everyone hard in their hearts.

As previously stated, birth control, including surgical methods, are not 100% effective. The methods used are only as effective as the one using them. If the IUD is not implanted properly, or if the entirety of a person's tubes are tied properly, or if the condom breaks, or if the birth control pill fails (happens a lot more often than one might think), and the result is a pregnancy, blame cannot be placed on the people who conceived. It is also quite offensive to suggest that woman who go to have an abortion do so as a form of birth control. I'm sure there are some who do, but it's a very wrong generalization to suggest that this is what woman in general think. Deciding to have an abortion is a very emotionally painful decision to make. Anyone who suggests otherwise knows nothing of what they speak.

If you're not willing to accept the chance that you may be impregnated during sex no matter what form of protection you are using, than you should not be having sex at all.

There are some people who, upon reading about the hundreds (and possibly thousands) of children abused at the hands of foster families and even adopted ones, and even the horror stories that have been told by survivors of abuse at the hands of state employees in orphanages, refuse to subject their child to such a possible future. They would rather end their pregnancy at a time when the child is not self-aware to spare it the pain and suffering it might experience at the hands of another so-called parent.

I can only state that I agree with this to a level. However, abortion is not the answer. Just because you think your child may go through some bad ♥♥♥♥ doesn't mean that you kill it. If that were the case, mothers would go around aborting children because it might fail a math test in the fifth grade. Sure, it's on a different degree, but it's the same concept and - generally - a bad one.

It makes you sick that a person would want to abort a pregnancy that was the result of a rape, but you have no consideration for the mother who for 9 months will have growing within her a constant reminder of the trauma she suffered? Those 9 months would be psychological hell for the woman. And just how would you force a woman to carry that reminder to term? Would you be willing to institutionalize her, have her strapped to a bed for the duration of her pregnancy for fear that she would find a way to abort the pregnancy? You would re-victimize a rape survivor by telling her she cannot get an abortion. That, I think, is more sickening than allowing the woman to abort a pregnancy that was the result of a rape.

To think that people actually believe we should have that kind of control over another person.

That mother should have the sense to understand that it is not the child's fault. It had nothing to do with the rape. It is innocent. The fact of the matter is - you can't just say "oh, well, I'm going to kill my son because his father raped me, and I don't want this child to keep reminding me of it, his entire existence will be too painful or me, and I won't even consider how amazing he may one day become, even if he is not in my hands".

That supposed new life could also potentially become the next mass murderer; the next terrorist; the next serial rapist. The fact is we just don't know what kind of life any person will live until they've actually lived it. It is a very poor excuse to make any sort of decision.

That's such a pessimistic point of view that it's almost absurd. I refuse to believe that if a child is raised will good morals and discipline, that there is a chance that it will grow to become something so terrible. You might as well kill everyone everywhere, if that is the case. Anyone could become a murderer, or rapist, or terrorist.

 

[Livewire]

It's very interesting that this topic is present, because I just so happen to be doing a debate in my Modern History class. I am against abortion. So, here we go:

Abortions are almost always preformed with the intent of the mother's life being more convenient. And under no circumstance is that baby responsible for your actions. I'm sorry, but it's just simply true. Most of the women who get an abortion are simply throwing away someone's life because they think it will disrupt theirs. If you feel you cannot deal with a baby - put it up for adoption. Better yet, make sure you can't have a baby. Use birth control, condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion should not be a replacement for birth control. A lot of my friends are adopted, and they have fantastic lives. I'm not saying all foster homes are nice, nor am I saying that the child will get adopted before they age out - I'm just saying that it's better to give someone a chance than not giving them one at all.

Aborting a child because it is the result of rape is not justifiable. That baby has nothing to do with it's circumstances for it's life. It's awful that people even use this as a reason for pro-choice. You're bringing a life or death decision to a child when it is so innocent and ignorant to the problems of the world? That makes me sick.

Lastly, I'm going to say that all life is important, no matter how minuscule. That child, whether you believe so or not, can make a huge contribution to society. If it's raised right, of course. Why not give them a chance - a chance to make a change. Perhaps they will save a life. Perhaps they will become the next leader of a country. Maybe they will revolutionize the world.

/End Argument

You're operating under the assumption that it is, in fact, a baby being aborted. You're being misleading by calling a clump of cells with proto-human features an actual "baby". Appeal to emotion and notions of cute cuddly babies all you want, it doesn't change the science. Blastocysts as big as the dot on my keyboard are not human, not yet, and not for weeks upon weeks still. Abortion is illegal at the gestational point upon which the fetus is viable, when it's a fully formed (somewhat) baby human being. So there's no issue really.

Saying this:

Most of the women who get an abortion are simply throwing away someone's life because they think it will disrupt theirs.

Seems like a generalization and a hollow talking point to me. And your citation(s) come from a rather poorly organized anti-abortion source that's obviously going to feed your conclusion. How about the percentage of women who chose an abortion due to unexpected health complications, genetic or other congenital defects, etc.? I'm sure that those criteria are true to some extent, but their supposed frequency and the fact that they just magically fit here is a bit sensationalized and is blown out of proportion.

If you feel you cannot deal with a baby - put it up for adoption. Better yet, make sure you can't have a baby. Use birth control, condoms, get your tubes tied. Abortion should not be a replacement for birth control.

This is easier said than done - adoption is usually made out to be the perfect alternative to abortion, although the alternative is usually growing up in less than ideal conditions, economically.

I agree with you, though, abortion shouldn't be a substitute for birth control. But, let's remember now that the people who vehemently oppose abortion also tend to oppose and vote for people who restrict access to birth control, which would prevent the need for abortions in the first place. You can't have it both ways.

Aborting a child because it is the result of rape is not justifiable. That baby has nothing to do with it's circumstances for it's life. It's awful that people even use this as a reason for pro-choice. You're bringing a life or death decision to a child when it is so innocent and ignorant to the problems of the world? That makes me sick.

This is abhorrent. Nobody should be forced to have a baby that is a by product, not of love, or even casual sex, but by sexual battery and assault - one of the lowest and most heinous things someone can do to another human being. The mother has nothing to with her being raped either, but you'd advocate burdening her for something outside her control? And again, it's a blastocyst/embryo/fetus, and again, appeals to emotion don't hold up well, logically.

Lastly, I'm going to say that all life is important, no matter how minuscule. That child, whether you believe so or not, can make a huge contribution to society. If it's raised right, of course. Why not give them a chance - a chance to make a change. Perhaps they will save a life. Perhaps they will become the next leader of a country. Maybe they will revolutionize the world.

Life is important - that's why we need to preserve and fight for the 316 million lives in the USA currently, and the other 7 Billion around the world. Common sense reproductive freedoms are a hallmark of a modern democratic society, and not only saves lives in some instances, but increases the standards of life for women around the world who would be negatively burdened, personally, financially, etc., by an unwanted pregnancy. Re-enforcing your argument with hypotheticals isn't very logical. By that line of thinking, a child could also grow up to become the next great European dictator, Putin and engulf the world in an apocalyptic third world war, leading to untold death and suffering for millions. Neither of those statements are quite logical, or probable, so basing an argument, once again, on an emotionally-tinged "what-if?" will not hold up to scrutiny.

 

[Dakotah]

That's incredibly inhumane, considering that the unborn child is still a child nonetheless. It has its own self inside of the mother. It's not her body. And if it could cry out against its mother killing it, I'm sure it would.

No it is incredibly realistic, if inconvenient from your point of view. A fully realized human recognized as a person by law by default should and does have ultimate say in what they wish to do with their body. Although the fetus growing inside a woman has the potential to become a person, it isn't considered one yet. That is pretty much a fact. Some people want to change that, but they're not being very successful because everyone else is able to see the consequences of that position.

The chance that a condom will break is between some 0.4% and 2.3%. The failure rate of tubal ligation is 2-10/per 1,000 women. Birth control pills have a failure rate of 9%. However, if those that are usable in unison are, well...used, there's such a very slim chance of unintended pregnancy.

Glad to see your acknowledgment that birth control is not entirely effective. The only form of birth control is 100% effective is abstinence, but as I noted earlier that is not a realistic solution.

However, a lot of women refuse them because they are "uncomfortable" or "tedious". Their refusal of such methods is not the child's fault, it's theirs. So, it's almost always certain that a woman who did not want a child that was then impregnated did not use sufficient precautions.

You're making assumptions again without any basis in fact. And I am curious to see that you are leaving out the other half of the equation. Does not the male not factor in here? Why should it be incumbent on just the female to use protection? Last time I checked, it takes two to tango.

The statement assumes nothing, I backed it up with statistics that prove my point.

Correction, you backed your argument up with biased sources that are immediately suspect. Even if the data is entirely accurate, the conclusions reached from the available data cannot be relied upon because it is not an objective source. You will have to provide a peer reviewed study not submitted by any group or organization with an agenda.

Also, you continue to say that it is not a person (or otherwise not considered as one by law), but if it feeds and grows, it is a living thing and should be treated as one. Especially one that carries your DNA inside of it. What law says is not something you should base your morals off of.

A living thing does not mean it is a person. It is alive, of course, but the fact it is a live does not mean a human fetus can be considered a person. It only becomes a person, legally, once it exits the womb. And while all life should be respected, including those living creatures that are not human, the law places a higher degree of protection to living human beings who have been born.

As for live birth rate, in 2009 it was only 13.8%. I agree that it is not certain that a pregnancy will result in live birth, however I already tossed that away with the fact that regardless, the impregnated woman has a living thing inside her, and it should be treated as such from the moment she finds out she's pregnant. You don't know if the child will be for certain, but it has a chance, and denying that chance is wrong.

I addressed that fact and realize what you're saying, but as I've said a number of times, the opportunity is there, and should definitely be taken. Wouldn't you rather have an opportunity than just outright death? You were not aborted.

If I was aborted I wouldn't have cared one way or another, because I wouldn't have been born. And for the record I am adopted.

I don't see how you can continue to say that women should be able to get an abortion when you should be thanking your lucky stars that your mother did not abort you because you could have been a miscarriage, or you could have been unplanned, or maybe you would have inconvenienced her life. I hate to take it to a personal level, and am sorry if I offended you in any way, but this has a deeper meaning that should hit everyone hard in their hearts.

Like I said, had I been aborted I wouldn't have cared one way or another, because I wouldn't have been born in the first place.

If you're not willing to accept the chance that you may be impregnated during sex no matter what form of protection you are using, than you should not be having sex at all.

Human beings are sexual creatures by nature. Telling a human being not to have sex and expecting them not to would be like telling the rain to stop falling and expecting it to stop.

I can only state that I agree with this to a level. However, abortion is not the answer. Just because you think your child may go through some bad ♥♥♥♥ doesn't mean that you kill it. If that were the case, mothers would go around aborting children because it might fail a math test in the fifth grade. Sure, it's on a different degree, but it's the same concept and - generally - a bad one.

Parents make decisions for their children all the time that they hope will protect them from possible harm. This really isn't any different than that.

That mother should have the sense to understand that it is not the child's fault. It had nothing to do with the rape. It is innocent. The fact of the matter is - you can't just say "oh, well, I'm going to kill my son because his father raped me, and I don't want this child to keep reminding me of it, his entire existence will be too painful or me, and I won't even consider how amazing he may one day become, even if he is not in my hands".

Again, the woman's wellbeing is paramount here, both psychological and physical. By forcing a woman to carry a fetus to term that was a product of rape is to re-victimize that woman if she cannot bear the constant reminder of that rape that is growing within her. I'm sorry, but although you'd like for it to be as simple as you'd like it to be, in reality, dealing with rape survivors who wound up pregnant as a result is a whole lot more complicated than you believe.

That's such a pessimistic point of view that it's almost absurd. I refuse to believe that if a child is raised will good morals and discipline, that there is a chance that it will grow to become something so terrible. You might as well kill everyone everywhere, if that is the case. Anyone could become a murderer, or rapist, or terrorist.

What you believe is irrelevant. What anyone believes is irrelevant. People who have been raised by loving, caring parents who made genuine attempts to teach them right from wrong, have been known to commit atrocious crimes resulting in the death of others. Also, morals are subjective. They are not the same for anyone. You cannot judge anyone by your moral beliefs.

 

[Ultraviolence]

Aborting a child because it is the result of rape is not justifiable. That baby has nothing to do with it's circumstances for it's life. It's awful that people even use this as a reason for pro-choice. You're bringing a life or death decision to a child when it is so innocent and ignorant to the problems of the world? That makes me sick.

Out of your entire argument I find this one to be the most incorrect and abhorrent thing I've heard anyone say on the rape/abortion subject. It makes me sick that you would happily make women who are pregnant by rape carry a constant reminder of their trauma. You make it out like it's an easy situation. It's clearly not. The psychological pain it would cause the woman is not even worth thinking about. But let's not lose sight, and realise that yes, some women go on to having a child through rape, but then the child could find out the fact she/he was a product of rape. How would you feel? Yes, you've been given a chance to live because it wasn't your fault your mother got raped, but that can't be a good feeling to know your father is a rapist?

Anywho, I'm pro-choice if I haven't made that obvious. Things just aren't as simple as you make out. In a perfect world yes, they would be. But in this day and age some of the things you are saying just are not viable.

And to those essiantially saying that sex is only for procreation and not also recreation... Get yourselves out of the dark ages.