NationStates Jolt Archive

I am undecided on this issue... I would be interested in hearing people share their beliefs to help me choose life or choice.

I am undecided on this issue... I would be interested in hearing people share their beliefs to help me choose life or choice.

Well .... it's not a matter of "should". Abortion *is* legal.

It's a matter of freedom, It should be legal. I have a better explanation posted here on my blog (http://www.xanga.com/jm9584) if you'd like a more in-dept rationale. It's a page or so back.

i agree with abortion to a point i think that it is the womans choice however i think that if the woman choces to have it then it should be her responsibility

(this is assuming the guy and girl are not together early in the pregnancy)

I used to have a serious problem with this issue. Liberals will say a woman must have the right to choose. Conservatives will say it's an innocent human life and mustn't be taken. I have thought long and hard about this and here is what I have decided.

If conservatives are wrong then alot of women and a few men are going to have their lives changed. But what if Liberals (pro-choicers) are wrong? What if life does begin at conception? I have taken quite a few biology courses in my lifetime and it seems to me that it does. If so, then abortion is tantamount to murder.

I am not willing to take the risk.

I am undecided on this issue... I would be interested in hearing people share their beliefs to help me choose life or choice.

Here's a simple truth:

Women can either get legal abortions in medical clinics by trained doctors paid for by insurance...

...or...

they can get illegal ones on a table in a basement by a 'doctor' they saw advertised on the side of a condom dispenser in a public bathroom.

Those are the choices.

The fetus should have status as a human. It is human. Abortion is practicly murder, and therefore I would rather seee in used only in an emergency situations. However, I realise the difficulty some women face when pregnant, and for the sake of freedom I allow it in my state.

Not unless the mother has a greater than 50% chance of dying during pregnancy. 9 months is a small price to pay for a life no matter the circumstances. Post a poll. let us vote.

Here's a simple truth:

Women can either get legal abortions in medical clinics by trained doctors paid for by insurance...

...or...

they can get illegal ones on a table in a basement by a 'doctor' they saw advertised on the side of a condom dispenser in a public bathroom.

Those are the choices.

You are leaving out an important part of the equation.
What about the infant that is being aborted?

It's like saying "we can either murder someone who inconveniences us legaly or we can do it illegally."

Not unless the mother has a greater than 50% chance of dying during pregnancy. 9 months is a small price to pay for a life no matter the circumstances. Post a poll. let us vote.

I don't want a vote, I want to hear a discussion... more people does not mean that its correct.

You are leaving out an important part of the equation.
What about the infant that is being aborted?

It's like saying "we can either murder someone who inconveniences us legaly or we can do it illegally."

But if you're going to do it anyway what difference does it make? Note, Lunatic provided reasons why it was different.

When sex is a choice, abortion is not.

I used to have a serious problem with this issue. Liberals will say a woman must have the right to choose. Conservatives will say it's an innocent human life and mustn't be taken. I have thought long and hard about this and here is what I have decided.

If conservatives are wrong then alot of women and a few men are going to have their lives changed. But what if Liberals (pro-choicers) are wrong? What if life does begin at conception? I have taken quite a few biology courses in my lifetime and it seems to me that it does. If so, then abortion is tantamount to murder.

I am not willing to take the risk.

Ah, but this doesn't really address the question. All you are saying is that Abortion is wrong. As a pro-choice advocate, I don't agree with the practice of abortion. I just would prefer it to be done by a doctor than the alternatives.

It is women who have the final choice as to whether an abortion will be performed or not. A woman who waits three or four months after realizing she was pregnant before deciding to abort the child should maybe recieve some type of assessment to find out the reason why, after so long, she would want to abort. Often times it is psychological, some imbalance, that is causing her to not want the child, she had to have thought about the child for the time that she was carrying it and knowledgeable about it. Maybe her partner threatened to leave her if she doesn't give up the baby, and she is afraid to be alone, or maybe its something as simple as the condom breaking, what if you "might" have missed a pill and "oops" I'm pregnant. Each abortion should be individualized and answers should be sought before the procedure. Look at the situation morally to know this is the answer to the abortion debate. Keep it on an individual basis, and find out why the woman wants an abortion.

:)>- Peace

You are leaving out an important part of the equation.
What about the infant that is being aborted?

It's like saying "we can either murder someone who inconveniences us legaly or we can do it illegally."

That's a moral question. You can't legislate morality. If someone doesn't share your opinion on what is moral, there is nothing you can do about it.

Some people will always...ALWAYS put their own life first and rationalize what they do. WOmen are going to get abortions whether it's legal or not. They were getting them before Roe v. Wade. Nothing has changed since then.

It's the same moral question raised by this: SHould we make donating blood mandatory? We're taling about saving lives. Donating blood saves lives. So we have a moral obligation to do so. If we don't we are murderinf innocent people.

What about organ donation? Hell, mandatory organ donation makes more sense than illegal abortions! The donor isn't even alive anymore! It's not like a pregnant woman who is donating her live body to a life she doesn't want. The dead don't even lose nine months. Is it morally wrong to refuse to donate organs?

These are moral questions that not everybody will share the answer to. They will have their own opinions no matter what we do.

The question is not about whether abortion is right or wrong.

The question is whether it should be done in a hospital or not.

But if you're going to do it anyway what difference does it make? Note, Lunatic provided reasons why it was different.

Please read your quote. You are saying "If people are going to break the law, then why have the law?"

If people are going to commit murder anyway, what difference does it make? Why don't we facilitate murder? Do you see the slippery slope you are on?

I don't want a vote, I want to hear a discussion... more people does not mean that its correct.
You are right. I just like to vote to express my opionion.

I dated a girl who had had an abortion in a previous rellationship, she could not even talk of marrige or children because of what she had done. She felt like a murderer afterwards, and had nightmares most nights. I was sad for her for a long time. She took her life just before the fourth of july last year. That is why i am 100% against abortion. It ruins more than it saves. Have the Baby and let it be adopted if you do not want it. It will save your life to.

Outlawing abortions would lead to a break down in family values.
Men would get mistresses pregnant, marriages would collapse when the wives would find out, the number of children living in broken homes would sky rocket.

For the preservation of family values we must not outlaw abortion!

Outlawing abortions would lead to a break down in family values.
Men would get mistresses pregnant, marriages would collapse when the wives would find out, the number of children living in broken homes would sky rocket.

For the preservation of family values we must not outlaw abortion!
How bout you just stick to your wife. I do not usually insult people, but you are an Idiot!

The fetus should have status as a human. It is human. Abortion is practicly murder, and therefore I would rather seee in used only in an emergency situations. However, I realise the difficulty some women face when pregnant, and for the sake of freedom I allow it in my state.

ditto

And so the carousel keeps turning.

The difference, Charpoly, is that people have different views on what abortion is, whereas murder of a born human is clearly defined.

A born human at all points is living, hence to end this life is murder. Murder is also illegal for social and economic reasons, which is to say, if murder became widespread society would begin to break down, and the economy suffer. This is the social contract (as I understand it).

Furthermore, the desire to reproduce is hardwired into us, for the most part, so we do not run the risk of humanity snuffing out with abortion around. Those who murder, however (murder by my definition) tend to have some of the wires 'up there' crossed, and are a tiny minority (or at least I bloody hope so :P). Not the norm, harms society, ergo is illegal (ERGO! VIS A VIS!)

Abortion and contraception have existed for quite some time, and despite some people's views on them, the above breakdown has not happened yet.

So it becomes a question purely of morality, religion and choice.

I favour choice myself.

Ok, here goes...

Pieces, you are treating pregnancy like a disease which it is not. Sex has consequences and if you are not mature enough to accept them then you either shouldn't have sex or you should be more carefull.

Lunatic and Green, yall are trying hard to avoid mentioning the child that is being aborted. Does it have no rights simply because it hasn't entered the world? Where is it's choice?

I pride myself on being a person of logic and reason rather than emotion. Please think hard on this. Follow the line of reasoning. I have been where you are. I was once pro-choice. There are three people involved here. The mother, the father and the child. Do not forget the child.

Here's a simple truth:

Women can either get legal abortions in medical clinics by trained doctors paid for by insurance...

...or...

they can get illegal ones on a table in a basement by a 'doctor' they saw advertised on the side of a condom dispenser in a public bathroom.

Those are the choices.

And why not have the abortions happen in the back alley with the rest of the murders?

Yes, it should be legal.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they know they do not want a child they need to take precautions. Majority of unwanted pregnancies could have and can be prevented. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

On the other hand.. if they don't give a rats ass and want to use Abortion as a regular means of birth control, thats on them. Illegal or Legal if a woman wants to abort , she will one way or the other.

And so the carousel keeps turning.

The difference, Charpoly, is that people have different views on what abortion is, whereas murder of a born human is clearly defined.

A born human at all points is living, hence to end this life is murder. Murder is also illegal for social and economic reasons, which is to say, if murder became widespread society would begin to break down, and the economy suffer. This is the social contract (as I understand it).

Furthermore, the desire to reproduce is hardwired into us, for the most part, so we do not run the risk of humanity snuffing out with abortion around. Those who murder, however (murder by my definition) tend to have some of the wires 'up there' crossed, and are a tiny minority (or at least I bloody hope so :P). Not the norm, harms society, ergo is illegal (ERGO! VIS A VIS!)

Abortion and contraception have existed for quite some time, and despite some people's views on them, the above breakdown has not happened yet.

So it becomes a question purely of morality, religion and choice.

I favour choice myself.

Listen to yourself. by your reasoning rape should be legal simply because it's a question of morality, religion, and choice.

How bout you just stick to your wife. I do not usually insult people, but you are an Idiot!

Just sleeping with your wife? Hmm... Sounds like that old idea which was referred to as "monogamy" that was popularized in the Victorian era. I hear some people still practice it but it is more and more of a dying cult. A shame really, some people will cling to anything. Ah well.

Outlawing abortions would lead to a break down in family values.
Men would get mistresses pregnant, marriages would collapse when the wives would find out, the number of children living in broken homes would sky rocket.

For the preservation of family values we must not outlaw abortion!


How about legalizing mandatory sterilization of the swinging dicks.

Ok, here goes...

Pieces, you are treating pregnancy like a disease which it is not. Sex has consequences and if you are not mature enough to accept them then you either shouldn't have sex or you should be more carefull.

Lunatic and Green, yall are trying hard to avoid mentioning the child that is being aborted. Does it have no rights simply because it hasn't entered the world? Where is it's choice?

I pride myself on being a person of logic and reason rather than emotion. Please think hard on this. Follow the line of reasoning. I have been where you are. I was once pro-choice. There are three people involved here. The mother, the father and the child. Do not forget the child.

If you were logical and not emotional, you wouldn't use the term 'child'. No 'child' is involved in an abortion, unless the mother for some reason brings along one of her other *born* children to watch. The correct (read: logical) term is either zygote, foetus, baby, or infant.

I'll address other points in relation to other quotes, but I just wanted to point out your use of a highly emotive word in the same post where you claim to reason using logic and not emotion. Imagine how you'd laugh if I tried to claim I wasn't being emotive, while referring to an infant in utero as a 'parasite'.

If you must use emotive words, at least confess that you're using emotion and not logic to reach your conclusions.

Good topic. I find this one of the more interesting social issues, and I have to say that my opinion has changed on it in recent years.

Sure, I used to think, why not just let women terminate their pregnancies? It's not actually a baby until it's born. Right?

Well then I met my wife who is anti-abortion. The reason she is anti-abortion has nothihg to do with the Catholic upbringing she had (and rebeled against) but to do with the fact that her mother was encouraged by the NHS to terminate her youngest brother as there may be "problems" with him both physically and mentally. She resisted their medical urgings and gave birth to him in 1979, a happy, healthy boy. His only physical or mental ailment is shortsightedness. Not exactly a reason to abort him is it?

Now that in itself didn't change my opinion. What did change my opinion is the fact that in most places you can have a foetus aborted after it is viable. i.e: I could be born and survive in an incubator. In other words, the law allows you to kill a viable baby, as opposed to just a bunch of cells that might one day form the basis of your offspring...

I know some of you will say "Whats the difference between terminating at 28 weeks and terminating at 13 weeks eh?" but I'm sorry: if it's not viable, it's not yet a baby. And for that, I still believe abortion should be allowed. Having said that, I don't think many women wanting abortions are given the right emotional counselling under the circumstances. With the vast number of couples who would dearly love to adopt children, there are places in this world for all the children that are aborted, surely?

Even the Bible says that a human isn't a human until it is born (Yes, I know, I'll find the actual passages for you ... sheesh) but it also makes mention of some very specific people who were human at conception - however, all of those people are Prophets and not mere men.

So ... take yer pick. God swings both ways.

Once again, though, the argument is stupid because abortion is legal. I highly doubt that will change any time soon.

If you want to know whether or not it should be legal, the question is pretty simple, it is right now, because they want to give some liberty to ppl.
however this debate will probably be over the moral question of abortion.
Well, some see it as a murder, others think it isn't, as far as i'm concerned, you should be able to file for abortion until you are 3 months pregnant, and because we don't want any suicides after that we will give psychological guidance after that.
the argument: " I know this friend who had an abortion, and killed herself" is just not valid, we are talking about abortion, this isn't a case of I know 1 person and she did...

another pro-abortion argument is off course: it's in the human nature to help yourself, when you are having an unwanted pregnancy, you might (ex.:being like 16 and stuff) ruin your life AND your childs life. So isn't it like the moral thing to do to save your child from having an entire live in pain and trouble?

I know alot off ppl say "well just sign up for adaption"
i want to ask those ppl 2 things
1)are they female (btw i'm not but i'm having 3 sisters)
2)have you ever been pregnant

If you asked no on any question you probably have no clue what your talking about cause
1) its the women that decides, not the man
2) ever had to give the most precious thing away? killing something in yourself wich isn't aware, is a great burden to care, but so is the knowledge that someone else is raising your child for you.

Ah off course i'm talking about unwanted pregnancy, when you didn't have safe sex its just plain murder in the first degree.

so the conclusion of my statement is
Women should be able to file for abortion, a man can't judge her in that decision.
sorry for my many many grammar and voc mistakes

You are right. I just like to vote to express my opionion.

I dated a girl who had had an abortion in a previous rellationship, she could not even talk of marrige or children because of what she had done. She felt like a murderer afterwards, and had nightmares most nights. I was sad for her for a long time. She took her life just before the fourth of july last year. That is why i am 100% against abortion. It ruins more than it saves. Have the Baby and let it be adopted if you do not want it. It will save your life to.

I've known three or four women who *didn't* get abortions when they had the chance, and ended up with serious post-natal depression. Two of them committed suicide, one is still in therapy, and the fourth is still in (fairly convincing) denial that she's depressed at all.

Does this mean we should make abortions MANDATORY, to prevent the problems that can be caused by giving birth?

There are also quite a few documented cases of women, suffering from post-natal depression, murdering their children before taking their own lives. Would you prefer they murder a child with a brain, or one with no nervous system? Personally, if abortion occurs before the infant has a functioning nervous system (which is between 22 and 24 weeks, no matter what pro-life sites may say), there's absolutely no issue.

If you were logical and not emotional, you wouldn't use the term 'child'. No 'child' is involved in an abortion, unless the mother for some reason brings along one of her other *born* children to watch. The correct (read: logical) term is either zygote, foetus, baby, or infant.

I'll address other points in relation to other quotes, but I just wanted to point out your use of a highly emotive word in the same post where you claim to reason using logic and not emotion. Imagine how you'd laugh if I tried to claim I wasn't being emotive, while referring to an infant in utero as a 'parasite'.

If you must use emotive words, at least confess that you're using emotion and not logic to reach your conclusions.

Actually, an infant in utero is very similar to a parasite and I have said so many times outside of this conversation.

You are right though. I shouldn't use the word child. It is not a child until it is born IMO. However. a zygote has it's own set of DNA. It consumes outside nutrients. It reacts to outside stimulus. Therefore, it qualifies as being alive. It is a human.

If men were the ones to bear children, abortion would be a sacrament.

It is the woman's choice, since it's her body. And all you screaming "murder" - it's not murder. You may wish it so, but it isn't.

Ok, here goes...

Pieces, you are treating pregnancy like a disease which it is not. Sex has consequences and if you are not mature enough to accept them then you either shouldn't have sex or you should be more carefull.

Lunatic and Green, yall are trying hard to avoid mentioning the child that is being aborted. Does it have no rights simply because it hasn't entered the world? Where is it's choice?

I pride myself on being a person of logic and reason rather than emotion. Please think hard on this. Follow the line of reasoning. I have been where you are. I was once pro-choice. There are three people involved here. The mother, the father and the child. Do not forget the child.

Do not forget the child...dying from a failing heart because the donor's list is a thousand names long.

But organ donation is not really about saving lives. It's about whther we have the right to choose what happens to our bodies after death.

Abortion is not about saving lives either. It's about whether a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body.

They're the same issue. What's more important? Freedom or life?

Maybe someday people who care will actually volunteer to have the fetuses transplanted into them instead. That might be something Christ would do.

Good topic. I find this one of the more interesting social issues, and I have to say that my opinion has changed on it in recent years.

Sure, I used to think, why not just let women terminate their pregnancies? It's not actually a baby until it's born. Right?

Well then I met my wife who is anti-abortion. The reason she is anti-abortion has nothihg to do with the Catholic upbringing she had (and rebeled against) but to do with the fact that her mother was encouraged by the NHS to terminate her youngest brother as there may be "problems" with him both physically and mentally. She resisted their medical urgings and gave birth to him in 1979, a happy, healthy boy. His only physical or mental ailment is shortsightedness. Not exactly a reason to abort him is it?

Now that in itself didn't change my opinion. What did change my opinion is the fact that in most places you can have a foetus aborted after it is viable. i.e: I could be born and survive in an incubator. In other words, the law allows you to kill a viable baby, as opposed to just a bunch of cells that might one day form the basis of your offspring...

I know some of you will say "Whats the difference between terminating at 28 weeks and terminating at 13 weeks eh?" but I'm sorry: if it's not viable, it's not yet a baby. And for that, I still believe abortion should be allowed. Having said that, I don't think many women wanting abortions are given the right emotional counselling under the circumstances. With the vast number of couples who would dearly love to adopt children, there are places in this world for all the children that are aborted, surely?

Ummm... I hate to (no doubt) contradict your anti-abortion wife... but... abortions performed after the child is viable are only performed when there's some health risk involved for the mother or child (or both, of course).

ELECTIVE abortions occur before the infant has a functioning nervous system.

And the 'vast number of couples who would dearly love to adopt children' must not meet the criterea for adoption. Since there are hundreds of thousands of unadopted kids, and all.

Or maybe they're just one of the huge number of prospective parents who refuse to adopt a child unless it's 'perfect' - fits their race, has physical features they like, has no known health/mental problems and is the age they're after.

Personally, I think putting a child up for adoption is a hundred times less responsible than getting an elective abortion. It's risking another person's suffering to spare your own conscious, which isn't something I can approve of.

Please read your quote. You are saying "If people are going to break the law, then why have the law?"

If people are going to commit murder anyway, what difference does it make? Why don't we facilitate murder? Do you see the slippery slope you are on?

This is a good point if you believe that abortion is murder. However, that is a question of morality, which lunatic addressed so I won't repeat.

I would also note the legalization means regulation. These drastically need to be strengthened, but can actually be powerful deterrents. For instance, in Canada, women who wish to have abortions need to go through some counseling before they can get the abortion. This allows for the women to examine alternatives before acting, which seems much better than a rash decision made because she feels trapped by her pregnancy.

Also, I am NOT forgetting the fetus involved. However, if you look at states where abortion is illegal, if you look at the pasts of states where it is legal now, you will see that they occur regardless of the law. And, since I do not consider the desperate, scared, and often trapped pregnant women murderers, I would prefer to protect their lives.

I would argue that if you wish to deter abortions you need to better the choices of women. Ask WHY women have abortions, try to educate children on birth control, and for goodness sakes teach our sons to take responsibility. Too often women, more directly female teens, are left out in the cold when they get pregnant, and then we judge them NOT the boyfriends who left them in a horrible situation. It is ridiculous.

Keruvalia made an interesting statement (the one that opened this thread). It seemed to indicate that since abortion is legal, there is no need to concern one's self with the moral question.

I need only invoke Socrates' ancient question to demonstrate my point.

What cold-blooded monster would actually approve of such a barbaric practice, be it legal or illegal?

Actually, an infant in utero is very similar to a parasite and I have said so many times outside of this conversation.

You are right though. I shouldn't use the word child. It is not a child until it is born IMO. However. a zygote has it's own set of DNA. It consumes outside nutrients. It reacts to outside stimulus. Therefore, it qualifies as being alive. It is a human.

Actually, it *doesn't* fit all the biological requirements... but I don't know that particular point well enough to present it, so I'll leave it for the smarter people.

However, you mentioned it absorbing nutrients... those are from the mothers bloodstream. Which is the problem.

If I have the right to deny ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING access to my bloodstream, no matter what the circumstances are... why does my foetus get automatic access? Should I not have the right to remove consent (like I would in ANY OTHER CASE) and have the access cut off?

What anti-abortion people seem to want is to give unborn infants rights that no other human being will ever have. And that makes no sense to me.

Ok, I'm tired. I give up. Obviously I'm not going to change any minds tonight. All I ask is that you think beyond the mothers choice for a bit. Think of the choice of this person who has not been born.

Is a fetus a human?

Because that's what 90% of all abortion conversatinos really are.

Actually, it *doesn't* fit all the biological requirements... but I don't know that particular point well enough to present it, so I'll leave it for the smarter people.

Whoa!!!! Actually, it does! I wasn't making this stuff up. This is straight from biology 101. look it up and then post again.

What cold-blooded monster would actually approve of such a barbaric practice, be it legal or illegal?

Yes, well, I think men cutting their hair is barbaric ... that's the trouble with "barbaric" ... it's completely subjective.

Ok, I'm tired. I give up. Obviously I'm not going to change any minds tonight. All I ask is that you think beyond the mothers choice for a bit. Think of the choice of this person who has not been born.

Tsk, no need to give up. If I seem like I'm not going to change my mind it's because... well, I've had this debate like 6 or 7 times now on this forum, and all it's done is strengthen my pro-choice stance (pushed me closer to pro-abortion, in fact).

And... before it has a brain, it has no opinion, and thus no choice. That's why I specifically support elective abortions.

But, if it helps, I think we need *major* changes in sex-education in schools. If people knew more about sex, we'd see a huge decrease in the needs for abortion anyway.

Whoa!!!! Actually, it does! I wasn't making this stuff up. This is straight from biology 101. look it up and then post again.

... I've been in this debate before, and it's been posted by people I really, *really* trust that it doesn't.

However, as I said, I haven't got the proper list of requirements and which ones zygotes and early-term foetus' don't meet. So until someone more knowledgable comes in, your point stands.

Keep in mind though, I'm only talking about the foetus before 22-24 weeks, not after that point (since the discussion really only has to do with elective abortions. Or should have, at any rate)

Listen to yourself. by your reasoning rape should be legal simply because it's a question of morality, religion, and choice.

Ah, wrong.

Rape is an arbitrary thing forced upon a victim, a la murder, but to a lesser degree. It detrimentally effects the victim both physically and mentally, and can affect their ability to function in society.

Which ties in nicely to what I said earlier about the social contract.

Abortion is self-inflicted, and through choice. Though I would prefer if people underwent a psychologic exam first to find the reasons why and if they were competent to make the choice.

Think about it. We kill (tries to think of suitable number)... lots and lots of animals each day for food, for clothing, because we think they will affect the enviroment adversely. I do not like this, but I accept it as necessary. I also don't raise humans up as something more or less worthly than life than other animals.

An abortion prevents a possible life from becoming a life. Yet in spite of it, and all the other reasons that prevent a birth, we have net population growth on the planet. Just like we have enough cows to keep people in steak and burgers.

Would I like it if I was aborted (something I've sometimes heard asked)? I wouldn't be self-aware at the time enough to know what was happening, to make a choice, hell to probably even form an opinion on it.

And I certainly wouldn't be able to voice these opinions on whether or not I would have liked to been aborted now. It cannot happen to me anymore, and my parents made the choice to have me. The question is moot.

Something that always makes me chuckle ...

Many pro-lifers are die-hard Christian right (reich?) who will scream up and down, left and right that the unborn must be given the choice while refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, the fetus would choose not to come into this world, but rather give it a miss and skip right on into the next one.

You don't give the child a choice by forcing it to live. That takes away its choice equally as the other.

Fast forward in time to when the kid is 6 or 7 and you've got those same people who screamed that this child must have a choice telling their kid, "You eat what I gave you or you go hungry!" and "You have to worship Jesus or you're grounded!" What happened to choice?

Oh yeah ... it gets buried under the veil of "He that spares the rod, spoils the child".

Oh well ... hypocracy runs amock.

Ok, I'm tired. I give up. Obviously I'm not going to change any minds tonight. All I ask is that you think beyond the mothers choice for a bit. Think of the choice of this person who has not been born.

well I am thinking of the person who has not yet been born(i make some notion about it in my post), but still, looking from the perspectif of a fetus is completly impossible, since it has no nerve system and no mind of its own.

secondly what is you definition of human life? Are being able to feel and move no reqyurements for saying ... that is human life.
so in theorie, even for religious types (like me) it isn't even murder, however it is a hard decision.

pro-vita movements just say(not always but in many occasions), if you are unwanted pregnant, just destroy your own life and you might as well take your child in the downwards spiral.

btw this debate can be easely turned into, should we be able to experiment on humans who are brain death ;) wow that is even harder cause you don't have the argument of the child being unborn lol

last note, anyone who says, carring a baby for 9 months and then give it away, isn't so bad, is just insane, they have no clue what so ever about the pain of pregnancy

again sorry for the many mistakes (gram and voc;))

Just sleeping with your wife? Hmm... Sounds like that old idea which was referred to as "monogamy" that was popularized in the Victorian era. I hear some people still practice it but it is more and more of a dying cult. A shame really, some people will cling to anything. Ah well.
It is my fondest hope that you are one day faced with a serious issue in your life that will wake you up to the horrors of this world. What would you do if say you had a child with a woman who was not your wife? And then another, and another? Then you got aids, or some other such afflection? would you continue as you are now? How would you support these children? How could you live with yourself if you had to pay for an abortion and then live with the emotionally scared woman who had it done? It is about more than some outdated concept Dirk. You are just not mature enough to see it.

You are leaving out an important part of the equation.
What about the infant that is being aborted?

It's like saying "we can either murder someone who inconveniences us legaly or we can do it illegally."

Your terminology is WAY off. Most abortions are performed during the first trimester. There is no "infant" during the first trimester. See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/chooseabort3.html#Can%20embryo

I've known three or four women who *didn't* get abortions when they had the chance, and ended up with serious post-natal depression. Two of them committed suicide, one is still in therapy, and the fourth is still in (fairly convincing) denial that she's depressed at all.

Does this mean we should make abortions MANDATORY, to prevent the problems that can be caused by giving birth?

There are also quite a few documented cases of women, suffering from post-natal depression, murdering their children before taking their own lives. Would you prefer they murder a child with a brain, or one with no nervous system? Personally, if abortion occurs before the infant has a functioning nervous system (which is between 22 and 24 weeks, no matter what pro-life sites may say), there's absolutely no issue.
It is not about how many you know, it is about the impact they had in your life. I can see that these women had no impact in yours.

Your terminology is WAY off. Most abortions are performed during the first trimester. There is no "infant" during the first trimester. See http://www.plannedparenthood.org/ABORTION/chooseabort3.html#Can%20embryo

I usually use 'infant' as a catch-all phrase to describe both the zygote stage and the fetal stage... otherwise you get people using 'child', which is even more annoying.

Good reference by the way - might be prone to accusations of being biased though (but then, people tend to cry bias no matter what the source is, if it disagrees with their preconcieved notions :rolleyes: )

If a woman gets pregnant after a rape, YES.

It is not about how many you know, it is about the impact they had in your life. I can see that these women had no impact in yours.

o.O?

I see. Way to make not much sense. And the whole 'judging people over the internet makes you look daft' thing is going well too, I see.

Ah, wrong.

Rape is an arbitrary thing forced upon a victim, a la murder, but to a lesser degree. It detrimentally effects the victim both physically and mentally, and can affect their ability to function in society.

Which ties in nicely to what I said earlier about the social contract.

Abortion is self-inflicted, and through choice. Though I would prefer if people underwent a psychologic exam first to find the reasons why and if they were competent to make the choice.

Think about it. We kill (tries to think of suitable number)... lots and lots of animals each day for food, for clothing, because we think they will affect the enviroment adversely. I do not like this, but I accept it as necessary. I also don't raise humans up as something more or less worthly than life than other animals.

An abortion prevents a possible life from becoming a life. Yet in spite of it, and all the other reasons that prevent a birth, we have net population growth on the planet. Just like we have enough cows to keep people in steak and burgers.

Would I like it if I was aborted (something I've sometimes heard asked)? I wouldn't be self-aware at the time enough to know what was happening, to make a choice, hell to probably even form an opinion on it.

And I certainly wouldn't be able to voice these opinions on whether or not I would have liked to been aborted now. It cannot happen to me anymore, and my parents made the choice to have me. The question is moot.

Good news -- if she is under 18, a judge can decide whether she is competent and mature enough to make the choice. Otherwise, counseling is offered to those over 18, but it is not required.

o.O?

I see. Way to make not much sense. And the whole 'judging people over the internet makes you look daft' thing is going well too, I see.
I judgedyou based on what and how you said what you said.

I usually use 'infant' as a catch-all phrase to describe both the zygote stage and the fetal stage... otherwise you get people using 'child', which is even more annoying.

Good reference by the way - might be prone to accusations of being biased though (but then, people tend to cry bias no matter what the source is, if it disagrees with their preconcieved notions :rolleyes: )

At least it's a reputable medical resource. If its documentation holds up in medical journals, it's good enough for NationStates.

If a woman gets pregnant after a rape, YES.

How would you establish this? Would an accusation of rape be enough? Would you be prepared to pay more taxes to fund the extra court-related costs that would come from women, desparate for abortions and willing to make false claims to get them? Would you be willing to accept that instead of having elective abortions (done before the infant has a brain), most of the infants would be late term (rape cases can take a *long* time), perhaps even viable? What about the cases that would be projected to take longer than nine months?

I judgedyou based on what and how you said what you said.

How about some extra information for your judgments then:
*I'm 17, and most of my friends face serious depression and deal with self-harm in one way or another
*I've dealt with self-harm personally in the past
*And attempted suicide myself
*Have two parents with clinical depression, and so have had many in depth discussions about clinical depression and suicide
*I most likely am at risk of having clinical depression myself
*Am able to detach personal emotion from points I make

The point I was making is that giving birth can cause similar problems to those caused by abortion, and yet no one is attempting to outlaw giving birth to 'protect the women'.

Do not forget the child...dying from a failing heart because the donor's list is a thousand names long.

But organ donation is not really about saving lives. It's about whther we have the right to choose what happens to our bodies after death.

Abortion is not about saving lives either. It's about whether a woman has the right to choose what happens to her own body.

They're the same issue. What's more important? Freedom or life?

Maybe someday people who care will actually volunteer to have the fetuses transplanted into them instead. That might be something Christ would do.

If stem cell research is allowed, these terminated pregnancies may one day result in a cure for cancer, or AIDS, or diabetes. In that sense, abortion is saving more than one life, isn't it?

At least it's a reputable medical resource. If its documentation holds up in medical journals, it's good enough for NationStates.

Ah, good points. You can probably disregard my concerns then :p

Okay, I am pro-choice, but most of my arguments have already been said, so I must only post this:

The arguments of "pro-lifers" worries me, because "protecting the life of the unborn child" has some worrying logical conclusions. Should we therefore not use contraception, because it prevents a child from being born? What if a couple decide they won't have sex tonight? Are they then being evil for denying a child the opportunity from being born? It sounds like an absurd argument, but no less absurd than the argument that we shouldn't allow abortions to protect the unborn child (NOTE: I am talking only of pre-nervous-system abortions).

By the way,

well I am thinking of the person who has not yet been born(i make some notion about it in my post), but still, looking from the perspectif of a fetus is completly impossible, since it has no nerve system and no mind of its own.

secondly what is you definition of human life? Are being able to feel and move no reqyurements for saying ... that is human life.
so in theorie, even for religious types (like me) it isn't even murder, however it is a hard decision.

pro-vita movements just say(not always but in many occasions), if you are unwanted pregnant, just destroy your own life and you might as well take your child in the downwards spiral.

btw this debate can be easely turned into, should we be able to experiment on humans who are brain death wow that is even harder cause you don't have the argument of the child being unborn lol

last note, anyone who says, carring a baby for 9 months and then give it away, isn't so bad, is just insane, they have no clue what so ever about the pain of pregnancy

again sorry for the many mistakes (gram and voc)Pardon?

.

Lunatic and Green, yall are trying hard to avoid mentioning the child that is being aborted. Does it have no rights simply because it hasn't entered the world? Where is it's choice?



it doesn't get a choice - it can't make one it isn't conscious or sentient til the second trimester and then we don't know to what extent. so no. the 'child' does not get a choice. personally i think that saying abortion is murder is about as stupid as saying meat is murder. neither are true. meat is not murder because it is not a willful taking of sentient life, (i don't believe cows experience emotion) nor is abortion murder. the foetus isn't sentient. its like saying 'hey, you drowned that stone'. no! all i did was throw a stone in some water.

Keruvalia made an interesting statement (the one that opened this thread). It seemed to indicate that since abortion is legal, there is no need to concern one's self with the moral question.

I need only invoke Socrates' ancient question to demonstrate my point.

What cold-blooded monster would actually approve of such a barbaric practice, be it legal or illegal?

barbaric? Abortion is not barbaric. What is barbaric is forcing a woman to waste nine months lugging around something that she does NOT want. It is causing that woman to go through the pain of childbirth and possibly die. It is bringing another unwanted child into this world. Do you not realize how many children are waiting to be adopted already? Adding to the problem is flat-out barbaric.

This has got to be my very favorite merry-go-round ride on all of NationStates.

Ah, good points. You can probably disregard my concerns then :p
Thanks. You know, since someone started this thread, I can ditch Gaia. I was only on there for the multitude of abortion arguments with idiots anyway. Now I actually get to debate with intelligent people. yay!

How about some extra information for your judgments then:
*I'm 17, and most of my friends face serious depression and deal with self-harm in one way or another
*I've dealt with self-harm personally in the past
*And attempted suicide myself
*Have two parents with clinical depression, and so have had many in depth discussions about clinical depression and suicide
*I most likely am at risk of having clinical depression myself
*Am able to detach personal emotion from points I make

The point I was making is that giving birth can cause similar problems to those caused by abortion, and yet no one is attempting to outlaw giving birth to 'protect the women'.
I am Bipolar and not very emotive to begin with, my father, Grandfather, and sister are the same. Rather the risk of depression than the certainty.

I am Bipolar and not very emotive to begin with, my father, Grandfather, and sister are the same. Rather the risk of depression than the certainty.

So... here's the thing... none of this is relevant to the debate at hand. And, to be frank, you can assume whatever you want about me as a person. I just thought I'd point out that you haven't got enough information to back up said assumptions.

By the way,
quote
"here comes my stuff ;)"
/quote
Pardon?

are you having that much problems with my post?
basicly its the same as most ppl (pro-abortion) say:
whether or not a fetus is human
and most of all, a man can't judge abortion.

i also use the fact that adoption can't be compared to abortion

and off course i use the famous discussion:
may we experiment on brain-dead ppl?

do you need more info?

Yes, it should be legal.

People need to take responsibility for their actions. If they know they do not want a child they need to take precautions. Majority of unwanted pregnancies could have and can be prevented. It shouldn't be taken lightly.

On the other hand.. if they don't give a rats ass and want to use Abortion as a regular means of birth control, thats on them. Illegal or Legal if a woman wants to abort , she will one way or the other.

There is still a failture rate with ALL, and I do mean ALL contraceptives. Even the "morning after pill" has a failure rate. If any contraceptives fail, and sex results in an unwanted pregnancy, then abortion is yet another option. Notice I said unwanted pregnancy, not unwanted child. If a woman wishes to continue the pregnancy and give the child up (hopefully to a specific family and not to a foster home/ the state), then she is welcome to do that, provided she can afford it. However, many wish to terminate the pregnancy, and they are given the option of abortion.

So... here's the thing... none of this is relevant to the debate at hand. And, to be frank, you can assume whatever you want about me as a person. I just thought I'd point out that you haven't got enough information to back up said assumptions.
you are right.