Regarding abortions...

[MortalPhoenix]

Tubal ligation is expensive. It would be a challenge for the average 18 year old to pay for the procedure without financial help from their parents/guardians who are probably in charge of the insurance covering them too. The procedure isn't 100% effective at preventing a pregnancy from occurring and it could jeopardize any attempts at having a child after being reversed by making the patient infertile or causing birth related complications. There's also a risk of other problems occurring during or after the surgery which could potentially add another hefty fee.

When a person turns 18 they are legally an adult, and as an adult, they should be allowed to make decisions about their own body. :) Second, all procedures carry risk and they are not always effective. That doesn't mean we don't perform them. They are performed because the benefits outway the risk. :)

Can I just say, the constant refrain of "well it's the woman's body" kind of annoys me. It takes two people to create a baby and in the case that the man is still involved with the woman, it's kind of bullmuk to say his opinion amounts to jack muk. Obviously the final call has to rest with the woman since she's the one carrying the baby, but can we stop talking about abortion as purely a women's issue? If I help make the baby, I should damn well a least have a say in its future or lack thereof.

Secondly, it's not the woman's body. Or rather, yes it occurs within the body of the woman, but that fetus has its own body. You're not removing an unwanted growth, you are taking the life of a separate living thing thing.

First off, you may have a conservation with her about it, but she shouldn't need your approval to get it done. There are States that do it, and that's a step too far.

Second, you are allowed to believe that, but that does not mean your views should become law to prevent women from having an abortion. Most women think deeply about whether to have an abortion and all the alternatives before she gets one. Furthermore, most abortions tend to take place in the first or second trimesters anyway. During the first or second trimester is when the baby cannot live outside of mother's womb, so performing an abortion then is fine. It is during the third trimester is when it gets more tricky and when it gets risky. Which is more or less the ruling on Roe vs Wade.

 

[gimmepie]

First off, you may have a conservation with her about it, but she shouldn't need your approval to get it done. There are States that do it, and that's a step too far.

I agree. My complaint is more that the wishes of the father never get factored into this debate.

Second, you are allowed to believe that, but that does not mean your views should become law to prevent women from having an abortion. Most women think deeply about whether to have an abortion and all the alternatives before she gets one. Furthermore, most abortions tend to take place in the first or second trimesters anyway. During the first or second trimester is when the baby cannot live outside of mother's womb, so performing an abortion then is fine. It is during the third trimester is when it gets more tricky and when it gets risky. Which is more or less the ruling on Roe vs Wade.

It is literally a living organism with its own body by the scientific definition. Belief has nothing to do with it. Nor does the fact the baby cannot survive outside the womb, that doesn't some how make it better.

 

[Ninetales]

As a young woman who has had a pregnancy scare before, I can wholeheartedly say that I believe abortion is Immoral. As a Christian, I believe that a new life is created at the moment of conception, and therefore view abortion as the termination of life, plain and simple. However, I understand the fact that each individual perceives things differently and that a large number of people have views contrasting to my own. Which is why I believe that abortion should indeed refrain from being criminalized. If another woman feels comfortable with getting an abortion, she has that right and should be able to do so. I am in no position to dictate the lives of others.

 

[Yue Han]

I agree. My complaint is more that the wishes of the father never get factored into this debate.



It is literally a living organism with its own body by the scientific definition. Belief has nothing to do with it. Nor does the fact the baby cannot survive outside the womb, that doesn't some how make it better.

The father is not carrying it inside his body. Yes he took part in making it, and yes his opinion should be factored in depending on how involved he is in the woman's life. But the decision should always be with the woman. Pregnancy is a physical and emotional tole on the body and I think it's emotional blackmail and highly irresponsible to tell a woman she has to go through with the physical and emotional tole she doesn't want and then at the end be presented with something else that was unwanted and has a high chance of being unloved.

Have you never swatted a fly? That was a living organism. Do you eat meat? That was a living organism (more than likely brought into the world specifically to be slaughtered for consumption). The parallels are everywhere!

This usually comes down to "is a fetus a person?". And I would say no, no it isn't. What is more cruel? Aborting some cell matter that never experienced anything anyway or supporting the industry of raising/torturing highly intelligent animals like pigs in horrendous conditions?

 

[gimmepie]

The father is not carrying it inside his body. Yes he took part in making it, and yes his opinion should be factored in depending on how involved he is in the woman's life. But the decision should always be with the woman. Pregnancy is a physical and emotional tole on the body and I think it's emotional blackmail and highly irresponsible to tell a woman she has to go through with the physical and emotional tole she doesn't want and then at the end be presented with something else that was unwanted and has a high chance of being unloved.

The final decision should be the woman's, I literally said that. But the father of the child has every right to be a part of the process of making that decision. It's still his child and it's not fair to dismiss their input by labelling abortion as purely a women's issue. I don't think we're really disagreeing here?

Have you never swatted a fly? That was a living organism. Do you eat meat? That was a living organism (more than likely brought into the world specifically to be slaughtered for consumption). The parallels are everywhere!

I'm glad you asked since this is always a favourite counterpoint of the pro-choice party. I have absolutely not, in my entire life, intentionally killed another living creature simply because it was an inconvenience.

Yes, I eat meat. I also eat plants. Plants are also living organisms. This isn't a parallel because it is impossible for any living creature to survive without eating something else that is or was alive. There is an enormous difference between ending a life to preserve your own, or to prevent suffering, than ending a life because you dun goofed and did something without being prepared to deal with the potential aftermath.

This usually comes down to "is a fetus a person?". And I would say no, no it isn't. What is more cruel? Aborting some cell matter that never experienced anything anyway or supporting the industry of raising/torturing highly intelligent animals like pigs in horrendous conditions?

It doesn't come down to that at all. It comes down to the transaction. When you kill something for food, you're trading one life for another. When you treat abortion as contraception, your trading one life for convenience because you made a mistake you don't want to deal with (obviously this isn't true of every case of abortion, I've been through that already).

I'm against treating livestock inhumanely. It's not difficult to believe in the humane treatment of animals and that there should be restrictions on the availability of abortion. Many places don't treat livestock well enough and that is definitely not okay. They should do better, just like people who misuse the availability of abortion.

Edit: I feel the need to clarify this. I am not pro-life. I'm just not exactly pro-choice either. I think either extreme of this particular spectrum is wrong for various reasons and a more moderate approach is more appropriate.

 

[Yue Han]

The final decision should be the woman's, I literally said that. But the father of the child has every right to be a part of the process of making that decision. It's still his child and it's not fair to dismiss their input by labelling abortion as purely a women's issue. I don't think we're really disagreeing here?

We are and we aren't. The value of the father's opinion varies from every situation. But you said that you do not agree with abortion at all outside of extreme circumstances and no you're saying that the woman should have the final decision. So is that the woman should have the final decision in every situation or she should only be allowed to have that decision in the first place if she wasn't irresponsible like said in early points?

I'm glad you asked since this is always a favourite counterpoint of the pro-choice party. I have absolutely not, in my entire life, intentionally killed another living creature simply because it was an inconvenience.

Good for you. But you must concede it is an extremely fair point to make.

Yes, I eat meat. I also eat plants. Plants are also living organisms. This isn't a parallel because it is impossible for any living creature to survive without eating something else that is or was alive. There is an enormous difference between ending a life to preserve your own, or to prevent suffering, than ending a life because you dun goofed and did something without being prepared to deal with the potential aftermath.

It doesn't come down to that at all. It comes down to the transaction. When you kill something for food, you're trading one life for another. When you treat abortion as contraception, your trading one life for convenience because you made a mistake you don't want to deal with (obviously this isn't true of every case of abortion, I've been through that already).

Plants cannot contemplate the situation they are in unlike animals...and are not kept in inhumane cages detrimental to life. But if you know the meat industry does directly causes unnecessary suffering and you then support it by buying meat when there are many other options readily available then aren't you helping to cause that unnecessary suffering? And it's more than just killing an animal for food. It's about creating this sentient life for the later purpose of killing it that is the point I'm making.

Again, by saying people should be made to deal with the consequences of their sexual mistakes then should we not treat STDs?

I'm against treating livestock inhumanely. It's not difficult to believe in the humane treatment of animals and that there should be restrictions on the availability of abortion. Many places don't treat livestock well enough and that is definitely not okay. They should do better, just like people who misuse the availability of abortion.

You missed my point about livestock. I said that their lives were brought into the world for the sole purpose of slaughter. The parallel is that why is it not ok in the eyes of some to end a life of a fetus because it is technically alive yet it is ok to create living things that are definitely very much alive to live in terrible conditions then kill them after they have had a chance to conceptualise the world?

 

[BronzeHeart92]

I honestly think abortion should be allowed and remain legal. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, or isn't ready to have a mother, she should be allowed to abort the baby. Not everyone who is pregnant is capable of handling the pregnancy.

My thoughts exactly. Again, you don't have to go through an abortion if you don't want. But it should be made available to those who are in need of it regardless.

 

[Kai]

As a young woman who has had a pregnancy scare before, I can wholeheartedly say that I believe abortion is Immoral. As a Christian, I believe that a new life is created at the moment of conception, and therefore view abortion as the termination of life, plain and simple.

This is one of the reasons why I'm generally against abortion with the exception of certain medical dilemmas.

 

[Hands]

I think abortion should be available regardless of circumstances. If she's not ready to be a mother, or go through the struggle of being pregnant, then that's that. I mean, one can argue that the baby can be put up for adoption, but for some pregnancy can be extremely strenuous. Why should the woman have to go through that?

I also don't understand the shaming argument associated with "Well, if she didn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have had sex/used contraceptives/etc.! She's an adult, and she should have to deal with her consequences!!"

• Birth control doesn't always work.
• Some people just aren't fit to be parents/ready to go through pregnancy. Why should they be forced to "deal with consequences"?

People aren't having sex and having abortions just willy nilly.

Me and my ex were relatively careful. We just got unlucky. Our relationship was pretty much in pieces by the time she fell pregnant and neither one of us had the financial stability nor the mental state of health to raise a child

I question our decision every day of my life. But it's better that I question it than abandoning the child to the completely overcrowded foster care system.

Ultimately, I can't speak for her, but I'd make the same choice if I could go back.

 

[Hands]

For me, this question is significant, as however people answer this question, there can be reasonable guesses as to how they will respond to other important issues. To answer that question, I have a simple answer that I'm sure many people in the world will not like. The only time imo that an abortion would be ok is if the mother's life is in jeopardy at or around the time of child birth, and I have heard those kinds of scenarios are very rare now. So what about the other cases? Almost all of them could be avoided if you just do not have sex outside of marriage. Birth control won't help you if you run the risk of an accidental creation of a fetus, but you will not have any surprises if you engage in something else fun that isn't having sex.

For me, the subject of abortion is the single most important political topic. If I hear of people that are pro-abortion, there will be many other things that I will disagree with, and they will not get my vote. This is another reason that I view the Republican party as the one I can agree with more. I have no opinion of Roe Vs. Wade, as I simply just disagree with the idea of abortions, but I wouldn't prevent anyone from getting an abortion (though it would be a very awkward subject for me to hear about).

My question for those of us here that are pro-abortion, though...so it wouldn't have mattered to you if your parents decided to abort you instead of letting you be born?

Well I wouldn't be here to give a shit about it if they had aborted me. Though I also feel that 9 week old cluster of cells me wouldn't have cared either.

People who are anti choice but also vote republican are an oxymoron. You say you're pro-life but you support the party that ensures children grow up without and that struggling parents who cannot afford to raise a child are left by the roadside. Conservatives are morally bankrupt. That's what separates your camp from gimmiepie's.

 

[gimmepie]

We are and we aren't. The value of the father's opinion varies from every situation. But you said that you do not agree with abortion at all outside of extreme circumstances and no you're saying that the woman should have the final decision. So is that the woman should have the final decision in every situation or she should only be allowed to have that decision in the first place if she wasn't irresponsible like said in early points?

I think there shouldn't be a choice, period, in the case of irresponsibility. In cases where it is a justifiable option, the final choice is obviously the woman's. The part I'm saying we agree on is that the woman shouldn't need the man's permission, but that she should be required to listen to his opinion. Abortion is not purely a women's issue.

Good for you. But you must concede it is an extremely fair point to make.

Not really it doesn't apply to me. If you'd made the point when arguing with your typical pro-life conservative you'd have more of a case here.

Plants cannot contemplate the situation they are in unlike animals...and are not kept in inhumane cages detrimental to life. But if you know the meat industry does directly causes unnecessary suffering and you then support it by buying meat when there are many other options readily available then aren't you helping to cause that unnecessary suffering? And it's more than just killing an animal for food. It's about creating this sentient life for the later purpose of killing it that is the point I'm making.

There are legal standards for how we treat animals here so it's not quite as bad as you make it seem but quite frankly even if I was extremely selective about meat it wouldn't make a difference and I'd rather not let a lost life go to waste by abstaining for no result.

The majority of animals aren't sentient and I think if they are treated as humanely as possible it's fine. That's a lot better than ending a human life as a matter of convenience.

Again, by saying people should be made to deal with the consequences of their sexual mistakes then should we not treat STDs?

If you treat an STD you're not killing something for convenience your treating an illness to preserve your own health.

You missed my point about livestock. I said that their lives were brought into the world for the sole purpose of slaughter. The parallel is that why is it not ok in the eyes of some to end a life of a fetus because it is technically alive yet it is ok to create living things that are definitely very much alive to live in terrible conditions then kill them after they have had a chance to conceptualise the world?

I think I've been pretty clear here about why it's not as strong a comparison as you think. Animals being kept in poor conditions is inhumane and we need to fix that where it's happening but it still comes down to you drawing parallels that aren't there between raising animals to be killed for food and killing a human child because it's easier.

I'm noticing a slight trend in our discussions when you seem to be lumping me in with the conservative pro-life camp in how you choose your arguments but those usual counter arguments simply do not apply to my perspective I don't think. I said this before I don't belong to either extreme school of thought and sit somewhere in the middle.

From where I'm sitting, the correct course of action is to properly invest in improving the foster system - which the majority of first world (and probably many developing) nations absolutely have the resources to do if they start using their resources better. There's always going to be circumstances where an abortion is justified but that doesn't mean we should essentially be making it available as contraception by making it an option open to anyone for any reason. Especially when there's better ways to do things.

 

[Hands]

I think there shouldn't be a choice, period, in the case of irresponsibility. In cases where it is a justifiable option, the final choice is obviously the woman's. The part I'm saying we agree on is that the woman shouldn't need the man's permission, but that she should be required to listen to his opinion. Abortion is not purely a women's issue.




Not really it doesn't apply to me. If you'd made the point when arguing with your typical pro-life conservative you'd have more of a case here.




There are legal standards for how we treat animals here so it's not quite as bad as you make it seem but quite frankly even if I was extremely selective about meat it wouldn't make a difference and I'd rather not let a lost life go to waste by abstaining for no result.

The majority of animals aren't sentient and I think if they are treated as humanely as possible it's fine. That's a lot better than ending a human life as a matter of convenience.



If you treat an STD you're not killing something for convenience your treating an illness to preserve your own health.



I think I've been pretty clear here about why it's not as strong a comparison as you think. Animals being kept in poor conditions is inhumane and we need to fix that where it's happening but it still comes down to you drawing parallels that aren't there between raising animals to be killed for food and killing a human child because it's easier.

I'm noticing a slight trend in our discussions when you seem to be lumping me in with the conservative pro-life camp in how you choose your arguments but those usual counter arguments simply do not apply to my perspective I don't think. I said this before I don't belong to either extreme school of thought and sit somewhere in the middle.

From where I'm sitting, the correct course of action is to properly invest in improving the foster system - which the majority of first world (and probably many developing) nations absolutely have the resources to do if they start using their resources better. There's always going to be circumstances where an abortion is justified but that doesn't mean we should essentially be making it available as contraception by making it an option open to anyone for any reason. Especially when there's better ways to do things.

Their comparison to farm animals does make some amount of sense. Either all life is sacred or no life is sacred. Embryos before 20 weeks are not sentient creatures either. They only develop the lowest level of sentience between 18 and 25 weeks. To defend livestock practices because "90% of animals are not sentient" (false by the way) you must also be willing to explain why other non sentient life forms are worth more.

https://www.ciwf.org.uk/farm-animals/animal-sentience/


Abortion isn't a convenience. I pray you never find yourself in a situation like I did. It's easily the most harrowing call you will ever have to make. Do you condemn a child to a life of adverse poverty or to a system that neglects children and often puts them into the hands of paedophiles, or do you end a potential life? We were 8 weeks (roughly, give or take a few days) when we had the procedure. That's the usual timeframe people have one within. You have to make that call quick, every week the embryo becomes closer to an actual sentient creature. Every week the embryo becomes closer to a stage where it can experience pain. You have to make a hard call in a very short amount of time.

 

[Nah]

One other thing I'll throw into this is that abortion is just a choice, and one that does not negatively effect anyone not making the choice.

first person to go "what if you aborted the baby that was gonna grow up to cure cancer though!" gets shot

There is an enormous difference between ending a life to preserve your own, or to prevent suffering, than ending a life because you dun goofed and did something without being prepared to deal with the potential aftermath.

I would think that aborting a fetus so that the parents who aren't ready to raise the baby would qualify under "to prevent suffering". As far as I know, Hand's story is a common story for people who get abortions, that most people who get an abortion don't do so as a form of contraception (using abortion as contraception is a terrible idea anyway when condoms and birth control pills exist) or because the fetus is "inconvenient", but rather to not cause suffering to themselves and the unborn baby.

Foster care and adoption are not and will never be perfect solutions, and not a reason to force someone to deal with 9 months of pregnancy anyway.

Edit: I feel the need to clarify this. I am not pro-life. I'm just not exactly pro-choice either. I think either extreme of this particular spectrum is wrong for various reasons and a more moderate approach is more appropriate.

It's sort of hard to not see your position as "not pro-life", as in my experience, your views are pretty standard for the pro-life crowd.

 

[Hands]

As far as I know, Hand's story is a common story for people who get abortions, that most people who get an abortion don't do so as a form of contraception (using abortion as contraception is a terrible idea anyway when condoms and birth control pills exist) or because the fetus is "inconvenient", but rather to not cause suffering to themselves and the unborn baby.

To clarify, my partner was on the pill, we had been together on and off for two years at the time and had obviously slept together probably over a thousand times in that timeframe. The pill is supposed to be 99.9% effective. That's still a 0.01% margin of failure. When you have a million people as a sample size, that leaves about 10,000 people roughly who will experience a failure. So I think you're absolutely correct to say my story is fairly common in the grand scheme of things. I'd hazard a guess that it makes up for a good chunk of abortions. People just get unlucky.

Maybe my ex missed a pill down the line and didn't realise, maybe we were just part of the 0.01%. It doesn't matter, what matters is we were responsible, we did use protection and we still ended up having bad luck.

 

[professor plum]

When you treat abortion as contraception, your trading one life for convenience because you made a mistake you don't want to deal with (obviously this isn't true of every case of abortion, I've been through that already).

Who is using abortion as their primary contraceptive, though? Here's an article with some pretty interesting, cited, stats re: that exact subject.

 

[pastelspectre]

I think abortion should be available regardless of circumstances. If she's not ready to be a mother, or go through the struggle of being pregnant, then that's that. I mean, one can argue that the baby can be put up for adoption, but for some pregnancy can be extremely strenuous. Why should the woman have to go through that?

I also don't understand the shaming argument associated with "Well, if she didn't want to have a baby, she shouldn't have had sex/used contraceptives/etc.! She's an adult, and she should have to deal with her consequences!!"

• Birth control doesn't always work.
• Some people just aren't fit to be parents/ready to go through pregnancy. Why should they be forced to "deal with consequences"?

People aren't having sex and having abortions just willy nilly.

Ursula summed up my opinion on it pretty well.

 

[Corrin]

I'm pro choice, Ursula summed it up nicely but also:
What if she's raped? People don't choose to be raped, and they shouldn't have to live with it.
Some men are just dicks when it comes to using protection and birth control for women can be expensive because most governments are assholes about it.

In a lot of countries women have literally no options and yet are still shamed for making this last choice.

Also what choices someone makes are not the business of strangers. Other people shouldn't get to decide what you do. especially if they don't have to live with the choices? It just seems weird to me.

 

[Yue Han]

I think there shouldn't be a choice, period, in the case of irresponsibility. In cases where it is a justifiable option, the final choice is obviously the woman's. The part I'm saying we agree on is that the woman shouldn't need the man's permission, but that she should be required to listen to his opinion. Abortion is not purely a women's issue.

Well I would say the fathers opinion matters on the basis of how involved he is in the mothers life and wants to be involved in the life of the potential baby...since he's not carrying it. As for the 'case of irresponsibility' there could be so many differing factors for every different case and as Ursula pointed out it's really not the norm. Again as far as 'living with the consequences' this could very likely bring an unwanted and unloved child into the world. The mother has no obligation to love the child after all and could potentially be highly resentful of its existence. That's not fair on anyone.

Not really it doesn't apply to me. If you'd made the point when arguing with your typical pro-life conservative you'd have more of a case here.

Huh? Regardless of whether or not it applies to you personally it is definitely a fair point to make in the moral aspects of abortion. I feel like you're just deflecting because you didn't want to engage this.

There are legal standards for how we treat animals here so it's not quite as bad as you make it seem but quite frankly even if I was extremely selective about meat it wouldn't make a difference and I'd rather not let a lost life go to waste by abstaining for no result.

The majority of animals aren't sentient and I think if they are treated as humanely as possible it's fine. That's a lot better than ending a human life as a matter of convenience.

If you treat an STD you're not killing something for convenience your treating an illness to preserve your own health.

I think you're confusing sentience for sapience here. And 'here' is different for everyone as this is an international forum but the evidence is only a few clicks away to see how bad livestock is often treated. Also: laws=/=morals. But the relevant point I was making is the creating of life to come into the world for the purpose of slaughter, for me that is much worse than ending an unwanted conception. I see that you value human life above other forms of life and I won't judge you for that since it is a norm we have all grown up with. I'm just asking for the same courtesy for women that find themselves in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted pregnancy. You can't have "human life is more valuable than animal life" as an objective truth as much as I also can't have "fetal matter isn't a person" as an objective truth.

I think I've been pretty clear here about why it's not as strong a comparison as you think. Animals being kept in poor conditions is inhumane and we need to fix that where it's happening but it still comes down to you drawing parallels that aren't there between raising animals to be killed for food and killing a human child because it's easier.

I feel like you're just deflecting from this because you don't want to engage the comparison. Again, you can't have "human life is more valuable than animal life" as an objective truth as much as I also can't have "fetal matter isn't a person" as an objective truth.

I'm noticing a slight trend in our discussions when you seem to be lumping me in with the conservative pro-life camp in how you choose your arguments but those usual counter arguments simply do not apply to my perspective I don't think. I said this before I don't belong to either extreme school of thought and sit somewhere in the middle.

But you're giving me many reasons to feel that way as a lot of your beliefs do fall into that camp as others have pointed out too. None of us are perfect and there is no moral rule book to look at. I think women should be given the courtesy of being able to choose with what happens to their bodies and not be judged for it. You believe that right is conditional. You can't get out of debating a point by saying 'that doesn't apply to me' because it's not just about you. If you have an opinion on something you should be prepared to argue from all angles.

 

[Corrin]

Also if abortion is totally legalized people aren't gonna use it as their primary contraceptive. Those who get abortions don't just decide all willy nilly and I have no idea where that thought came from? When you say things like that it's coming off as if you think women are irresponsible and uncaring, which they aren't?
Most people who get abortions do so because it's their last choice.

Also, I'm sorry if this is rude, but it's ultimately the woman's decision since the man doesn't have to go through pregnancy.

 

[gimmepie]

Too tired to do proper replies just posting to say I've seen stuff and will get back to you.