• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

Debate: How do you feel about abortions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of the few things about which I'm with the conservatives.
Well, if an abortion is desired in a pregnancy caused by rape, I think it's somewhat justified but then again still murder in some way.
Apart from that: Don't be surprised when a reproductive mechanism functions as a reproductive mechanism. The fact that said mechanism induces pleasure is just a hormonal way to ensure reproduction, not a justification for misusing it. So, my opinion: A predictable consequence is a predictable consequence and a murderer is a murderer. If you kill your child before its birth, it's accepted, if you kill it after its birth, you go to prison for at least a decade. There's something wrong about that. Therefore, I'm pro-life, despite all of the world's overpopulation.
 
Abortion is fine so long as it takes place before the end of the first trimester.

Why? Because, from an objective viewpoint, thats where life begins. Really, thats the big issue. People are all for choice, but for some others the matter of whether taking another life or as some may say, "murder', seem to be a bigger issue in the abortion debate.

When life begins cannot be just one person's opinion. That one does not represent so many people in the country. It also can't be delved from religious background because that breaks freedom of religion. The most objective viewpoint you can get is scientific,. While there is no definitive scientific definition, most all definitions include the ability to grow, feed, and react to stimuli. Beyond this, in order to differ from things with those traits like wildfires, it becomes more specific in that it also would be self sustaining in the sense that it has the developed abilities to bring in needed resources and process them.

The developing fetus does not match that last part. Until the end of the first trimester, it is still physically attached to the mother, and has yet to develop the ability to collect all needed resources. So, from the most objective viewpoint I could find, abortion is okay before the end of the first trimester.
 
I think we should generally do our best to protect our living citizens, not a 2-cell organism that may or may not come to be a healthy human being. Ergo, I'm pro-choice to umpteenth degree. First trimester beyond the shadow of a doubt, and the first half of the second trimester is okay too. Beyond that, abortions should be avoided unless carrying the child full-term would hurt the mother.
 
Abortion is murder in my opinion. There is some debate on whether life begins at conception or not, but after the first trimester, it is obvious that the fetus is a human being. Thus, I oppose all abortions, but I will not compromise on banning late-term abortion. That being said, I oppose any form of government funding for abortion services and I support parental notification laws and waiting periods for underage girls attempting to get an abortion. A minor can't even go in for a routine check-up or buy prescription grade cough syrup from the pharmacy without parental permission, but a minor can have an abortion.

I also support laws that require physicians to educate a woman about the possible complications that could arise from having an abortion. Doctors should also be required to inform women that they can surrender their child at no penalty to social services instead of having an abortion if she so chooses.
 
I think it's condescending to assume you need a law to inform women of what an abortion is and what it does to them. Or that most doctor's don't already have the conscience to ask if they have any questions or warn them of all possible dangers
 
The Trotsky said:
I think it's condescending to assume you need a law to inform women of what an abortion is and what it does to them. Or that most doctor's don't already have the conscience to ask if they have any questions or warn them of all possible dangers
Click to expand...


I agree, but if there's a law requiring that, then there should be government funded abortions. Or they have to do the exact same with pregnancy. There's a ton of things that can go wrong there too.
 
I believe you can't murder a person that is not legally alive so I'm fine with abortions as long as they can be done without putting the life of the mother at risk. If it's too late (5+ months, maybe?), then giving the baby in adoption is a better idea- she has had enough time to decide, anyway.

Of course, this should be the last option- there are dozens of contraceptives out there. You'd rather be using those.
 
Went said:
I believe you can't murder a person that is not legally alive so I'm fine with abortions as long as they can be done without putting the life of the mother at risk. If it's too late (5+ months, maybe?), then giving the baby in adoption is a better idea- she has had enough time to decide, anyway.

Of course, this should be the last option- there are dozens of contraceptives out there. You'd rather be using those.
Click to expand...

This, sort of.

After a certain point, it certainly does become untenable to abort a foetus (for me, it's when the foetus is capable of living outside the womb), but before that point I'm fine with it. I hope I don't have to go through this with someone, but if an unexpected pregnancy did occur, provided it wasn't too far along, I'd have no problem with the mother wanting to abort it.
 
lx_theo said:
I agree, but if there's a law requiring that, then there should be government funded abortions. Or they have to do the exact same with pregnancy. There's a ton of things that can go wrong there too.
Click to expand...

How does informing a woman of the possible health risks of abortion tie into government funding of abortions?

Went said:
I believe you can't murder a person that is not legally alive so I'm fine with abortions as long as they can be done without putting the life of the mother at risk. If it's too late (5+ months, maybe?), then giving the baby in adoption is a better idea- she has had enough time to decide, anyway.

Of course, this should be the last option- there are dozens of contraceptives out there. You'd rather be using those.
Click to expand...

The law in many states already recognize a fetus as being alive. Take California, for instance. In 2005, Scott Peterson was convicted of two murders. One count for murdering his wife, and one count for murdering his unborn child. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought". Either California has a serious legal contradiction in its Penal Code, or we do recognize the humanity of the unborn.
 
Last edited:
It is a sensitive subject, certainly.
How I feel about it, is there is a certain amount of time before the fetus can be legally classed as a human, because it can be aware of its surroundings and starts to become human. Before that, it is nothing more than a growth in a woman's body.

Before a fetus gets to that stage, I think it is fine.​
​
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
How does informing a woman of the possible health risks of abortion tie into government funding of abortions?
Click to expand...

I agree with you that government funding has absolutely nothing to do with what you said, but the second part does apply. If a woman is unsure whether to abort or keep a pregnancy, the doctor should inform them of the health risks of both, not just abortion. Regardless, a doctor should be required to tell any patient considering anything the health risks of both decisions, abortion-related or otherwise.

Myself, I'm on the fence about abortions. I understand that the entire thing comes down to "when does life begin?" Of course, pro-choice people are not pro-murder. They just don't believe that the growing fetus is actually alive until a certain point, which pro-life supporters disagree with. I'm not sure how I feel either way on the issue.
 
The Trotsky said:
If you're going to federally mandate doctors to deal a certain way with abortions you have to federally fund them.
Click to expand...

Toujours said:


Where in the Constitution is this required? Find me the passage and relevant case law and I'll gladly change my position.

I agree with you that government funding has absolutely nothing to do with what you said, but the second part does apply. If a woman is unsure whether to abort or keep a pregnancy, the doctor should inform them of the health risks of both, not just abortion. Regardless, a doctor should be required to tell any patient considering anything the health risks of both decisions, abortion-related or otherwise.

Myself, I'm on the fence about abortions. I understand that the entire thing comes down to "when does life begin?" Of course, pro-choice people are not pro-murder. They just don't believe that the growing fetus is actually alive until a certain point, which pro-life supporters disagree with. I'm not sure how I feel either way on the issue.
Click to expand...

As I stated before, the State of California certainly decided that an unborn child is alive, but we still allow abortion to take place.

I agree that a doctor should inform a patient of the possible complications of any medical decision they make, be that abortion or a flu shot.
 
Right and it's pretty well understood that in order to be a doctor, you have to reach a certain level of competence. Doctors have the discretion necessary to understand that patients need to know what they're undergoing. To pass a law mandating that they act a certain way with patients is to assume Congressmen know more about the way medical practices work than actual practitioners do.
 
The Trotsky said:
Right and it's pretty well understood that in order to be a doctor, you have to reach a certain level of competence. Doctors have the discretion necessary to understand that patients need to know what they're undergoing. To pass a law mandating that they act a certain way with patients is to assume Congressmen know more about the way medical practices work than actual practitioners do.
Click to expand...

Several states already have such laws. Doctors are sued for malpractice all the time. In fact, a topic of much discussion during last year's health care debate in Congress was tort reform with the high level of medical malpractice lawsuits going on. Much of this can be avoided if it could be proven that the physician informed the patient of the possible complications of whatever treatment they underwent beforehand. To say that doctors lose the ability to make human error because of their level of education is ridiculous. Also, a doctor might be well educated in the medical field, but the patient certainly isn't, and the patient is the one who ultimately makes the important decisions. The doctors just gives medical advice that the patient chooses to follow or not.
 
To assume you have a law saying "Um, herp tell these people what abortions mean derp" will prevent an already incompetent doctor from messing up again or someone who is actively fighting the law is simply asinine.
 
The Trotsky said:
To assume you have a law saying "Um, herp tell these people what abortions mean derp" will prevent an already incompetent doctor from messing up again or someone who is actively fighting the law is simply asinine.
Click to expand...

It won't prevent a doctor from messing up, but it will defeat, or at least weaken, a patient's case against the doctor in a court of law. Not every malpractice lawsuit involves an incompetent doctor. Many are brought by litigious patients and their ambulance chasing attorneys against a good doctor on the claim that the patient wasn't informed of the complications of their treatment.
 
I think we need more sexual education, more access to contraceptives, and more access to morning after-type pills. You can't stop accidents and people being dumb, but it's best to reduce the number of women who even need to think about abortions by stopping things from developing to that point.

All the waiting laws and parental consent laws and things like it are trying to make it realistically impossible - even if it's still legally possible - to get an abortion by putting up as many stumbling blocks as possible. Because that's what these girls and women need when they're trying to make difficult decisions: more difficulties.
 
I'm pro-choice. Any woman has the right to decide what to do with her own body. If she doesn't want to have a child and she finds herself in this position, then she should of course consider adoption and the other options there, but if she decides to terminate the pregnancy then nobody has a right to weigh in on that or judge her for it.

I think the governments should stay the hell out of womens' uteruses. There is nothing acceptable about passing laws that strip away or restrict that right in any way. If a girl is under the age of 18 and can't face the shame of telling her parents, she shouldn't have to. She should be able to go in quickly with a friend and have it taken care of.

The other reason that the governments should not be allowed to restrict abortion rights is that when they do, people become desperate and do things illegally and unsafely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top