NationStates Jolt Archive

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies? I feel that even if a woman's baby will be born with a severe handicap, she will still discouraged to have an abortion because abortion is currently painted as a sort of thoughtless, means to an end type of action, despite it being tolerated. I mean, how often do abortions happen in soaps, even though the issue is brought up often? Rarely.

If people today accept that abortion is not the same as murdering babies, then surely, if the baby is almost certainly going to cause considerable unhappiness in the future, it is better to go through that procedure in the long run. I think society will actually benefit from more abortions, for instance, hopefully there will be less young teenagers with children resulting in less government spending in benefits and increasing the number of potential employable people (since there will be less children to prevent teenagers from focusing fully on their work career wise).

I accept that abortion is not a particularly pleasant procedure, and there is perhaps a special connection between the mother and the foetus in her womb, and am not suggesting that abortion should be encouraged if the baby will not cause any or little damage. However, does this justify others (not the mother) telling or at least implying to her that going through an abortion is selfish, they aren't the ones who are pregnant, she is the one who has the most to loose here.

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies?

It isn't.

It isn't.

Well maybe not in Sweden, but Sweden isn't the only moderately liberal society.

Well maybe not in Sweden, but Sweden isn't the only moderately liberal society.

Sadly for the rest of the world, as that speaks for their retardation, we're not "moderately liberal".

Sadly for the rest of the world, as that speaks for their retardation, we're not "moderately liberal".

How liberal do you think Sweden is? And, how liberal do you think Britain is (i'm not talking about the government here but the culture, you don't have to live under a liberal government to live in a fairly liberal culture)?

Another question I have about the whole abortion issue.

With the advent of the "Morning after" pill shouldn't abortion be reduced overall in nations with such a pill? If one doesn't want to take precautions with other types of birth control one should have a morning after pill for those "emergencies". So it stands to reason that abortions should be significantly reduced.

I agree, but apparently some women can suffer from bad side affects from that pill if used regularly, though I'm no expert.

snip...

Another question I have about the whole abortion issue.

With the advent of the "Morning after" pill shouldn't abortion be reduced overall in nations with such a pill? If one doesn't want to take precautions with other types of birth control one should have a morning after pill for those "emergencies". So it stands to reason that abortions should be significantly reduced.

How liberal do you think Sweden is?

By my standards, not all that much, but when compared with elsewhere, my frame of reference is adjusted.

And, how liberal do you think Britain is (i'm not talking about the government here but the culture, you don't have to live under a liberal government to live in a fairly liberal culture)?

Britain? Britain doesn't occupy my sphere of consciousness, so I haven't thought about it.

By my standards, not all that much, but when compared with elsewhere, my frame of reference is adjusted.

I think we're quibbling over nothing here, Fass. The question, whatever your personal opinions about it, is relevant.

Maybe this topic is too boring.

I think we're quibbling over nothing here, Fass.

"We're" "quibbling"?

Maybe this topic is too boring.

Certainly not.

Your question is most valid. I agree with you in principle, and I personally do not see it that way. As for why it is seen that way, I have one word: religion and the emphasis it places on all humans having souls, including unborn foetuses. As a result people have this cultural association that is extremely difficult to dismiss. Will it be dismissed eventually? More than likely. But it will take time, and it will have to be done with cooperation and understanding, not bitterness and hatred.

Fass: We'll, not you and me necessarily. I was using "we" in the sense of "everyone." Basically you were arguing over whether the use of the words moderately liberal was appropriate or not, and I'm saying that it's unnecessary quibbling.

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies?Because relatively liberal and non-religious societies aren't at all liberal or non-religious. They only appear that way when compared to the rest of the assbackwards bronze age cultures this planet's infested with.

Or perhaps it's just that people do whatever they can to put each other down, and abortion typically being somewhat unpleasant, makes for good ammunition.

Hell is other people & all that.

Basically you were arguing over whether the use of the words moderately liberal was appropriate or not, and I'm saying that it's unnecessary quibbling.

Basically, you can't read.

Basically, you can't read.

I can read. Reading comprehension does sometimes fail me, however.

I can read. Reading comprehension does sometimes fail me, however.

The first step towards solving a problem is admitting that one has one. Felicitations.

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies? I feel that even if a woman's baby will be born with a severe handicap, she will still discouraged to have an abortion because abortion is currently painted as a sort of thoughtless, means to an end type of action, despite it being tolerated. I mean, how often do abortions happen in soaps, even though the issue is brought up often? Rarely.
I think that encouraging someone to have a abortion just because her baby will be born with a severe handicap is just as wrong as discouraging it for the reasons you list. I think the options need to be clarified for the woman in question, but that it be her decision with no societal pressure either way.

If people today accept that abortion is not the same as murdering babies,
Many people don't and won't accept that. This is part of the answer to your prior question regarding the immorality of abortion.

then surely, if the baby is almost certainly going to cause considerable unhappiness in the future, it is better to go through that procedure in the long run. I think society will actually benefit from more abortions, for instance, hopefully there will be less young teenagers with children resulting in less government spending in benefits and increasing the number of potential employable people (since there will be less children to prevent teenagers from focusing fully on their work career wise).


As to society benefitting, I think this is another bad justification for abortions. The only benefit/harm that should be weighed in this debate is that of the individual woman. Otherwise we end up with the same problem, abortions being encouraged for the wrong reasons, which is as bad a them being discouraged for the wrong ones.

Also, your example is a bit faulty. If we are concerned about having more available workers then it makes sense that women should be cranking out more babies to keep the supply going. Also, encouraging abortion so that the woman can keep working, thereby benefiting the government, is another wrong reason.

I accept that abortion is not a particularly pleasant procedure, and there is perhaps a special connection between the mother and the foetus in her womb, and am not suggesting that abortion should be encouraged if the baby will not cause any or little damage. However, does this justify others (not the mother) telling or at least implying to her that going through an abortion is selfish, they aren't the ones who are pregnant, she is the one who has the most to loose here.

Whatever the reasons for having an abortion, they are the mother's. No one should be encouraging her to have an abortion (unless her life is in immediate danger) for any outside reason nor discouraging her if she is seeking an abortion (except for the same reason, medical harm to herself). She should certainly be presented with all the info and options and facts, there should certainly be no stigma attached to whatever choice she makes, but it should be for her own reasons, not to benefit society, the government or anyone but herself. That may be a reason why it seems selfish, but it is, necessarily, that way, and it should be. Non-selfish reasons ("because it would be better for US dear, not you") should be suspect, in my opinion.

Immoral? Well, define what is moral and you answer that part of the question.

I think that encouraging someone to have a abortion just because her baby will be born with a severe handicap is just as wrong as discouraging it for the reasons you list. I think the options need to be clarified for the woman in question, but that it be her decision with no societal pressure either way.


The main issue is discouraging people away from abortion, encouraging people to abort is a separate issue.


Many people don't and won't accept that. This is part of the answer to your prior question regarding the immorality of abortion.


I don't think that many people in Europe don't accept that.


As to society benefitting, I think this is another bad justification for abortions. The only benefit/harm that should be weighed in this debate is that of the individual woman.

That's exactly what I am weighing up, I don't want millions of unhappy unemployed teenage mothers.


Also, your example is a bit faulty. If we are concerned about having more available workers then it makes sense that women should be cranking out more babies to keep the supply going.

I think being raised in council housing hinders children's chance of success.


Also, encouraging abortion so that the woman can keep working, thereby benefiting the government, is another wrong reason.


Again, I'm focused on trying to stop people discouraging women.


Whatever the reasons for having an abortion, they are the mother's. No one should be encouraging her to have an abortion (unless her life is in immediate danger) for any outside reason nor discouraging her if she is seeking an abortion (except for the same reason, medical harm to herself).

My point is, people seem to be encouraging women to sacrifice their own life in order to not be "selfish", if her own life will be ruined that is not an outside reason to have an abortion.


She should certainly be presented with all the info and options and facts, there should certainly be no stigma attached to whatever choice she makes, but it should be for her own reasons, not to benefit society, the government or anyone but herself.

And as I have said many times, many of the reasons a women should have an abortion sometimes is to benefit herself.


That may be a reason why it seems selfish, but it is, necessarily, that way, and it should be. Non-selfish reasons ("because it would be better for US dear, not you") should be suspect, in my opinion.


Again, you are arguing against a strawman. I never said that women should be encouragedto have an abortion to benefit the government, let alone the US government which (the US being a country which I am not talking about anyway).

Another question I have about the whole abortion issue.

With the advent of the "Morning after" pill shouldn't abortion be reduced overall in nations with such a pill? If one doesn't want to take precautions with other types of birth control one should have a morning after pill for those "emergencies". So it stands to reason that abortions should be significantly reduced.
One would like think so but...

Due to the misconception of the "Morning After" pill being painted as an abortion pill, access to it has been restricted because people are of the contention that this pill is for abortive purposes rather than to serve as a final attempt to ensure that result of failed contraceptives doesn't come to light.

There is still something of a stigma attached to it.

If it was shown to be more of a last-minute birth control pill, dispelling the myth that it is an abortion pill, there would be wider accepted usage than than there is now.

There are still restraints on it due to religious "values" and "beliefs". Given that myths say that this pill aborts the fertilised egg, when in fact it simply prevents it from implanting itself in the wall of the uterus.

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies?

If people today accept that abortion is not the same as murdering babies,
You've touched upon one of the reasons there. "When life begins" is a difficult issue, and many people do see abortion as being the same as "killing babies" or a variant thereof. Hence, many people will see it as an immoral option too.

Selfish? No.

Sad. I think it's a testament to a community's flaws that an abortion was necessary. Whether that flaw be poor sex education, lack of available contraceptives, poor social structure making the raising of a child an onerous burden on the poor or an adoption and fostercare system that fails more often than it succeeds, I think of all the screamin morons holding picket signs in front of planned parenthood clinics who could have done something constructive to prevent abortions.

*bleah*

Again, you are arguing against a strawman. I never said that women should be encouragedto have an abortion to benefit the government, let alone the US government which (the US being a country which I am not talking about anyway).

Well, no... I was commenting on what you said, which may well not be what you think you said.

You started off by bemoaning the fact that abortions were being discouraged.

Your reasons for abortions included "...if a woman's baby will be born with a severe handicap...", "...society will actually benefit from more abortions...", "...less government spending in benefits and increasing the number of potential employable people.." and "I...am not suggesting that abortion should be encouraged if the baby will not cause any or little damage" (implying that it should be encouraged if the baby will cause "damage", but perhaps should also be discouraged if it won't).

I said these are not good reasons to encourage abortion.

I also said that if one has an abortion, it should be for selfish reasons. So the US I was referring to there was 'the rest of us' (meaning 'us' who would be forced to support you or the baby financially if you had this unwanted child, which may well be through raised taxes to pay for welfare and such) not the US of America.

Selfish? No.

Sad. I think it's a testament to a community's flaws that an abortion was necessary. Whether that flaw be poor sex education, lack of available contraceptives, poor social structure making the raising of a child an onerous burden on the poor or an adoption and fostercare system that fails more often than it succeeds, I think of all the screamin morons holding picket signs in front of planned parenthood clinics who could have done something constructive to prevent abortions.

*bleah*

Why is it that the insane clown always carry the most sane message?

And on another note, how many little goofballs are there again, and how are they doing? Haven't seen many updates on them lately... Hope all is well?

*snip

Coming from a guy who thinks women have evil nipples, but men don't? I'd say you're not all that for women's rights despite what you think.

evil nipplesIf I'd been drinking anything, you'd owe me a new keyboard. Evil nipples? What the hell?

If I'd been drinking anything, you'd owe me a new keyboard. Evil nipples? What the hell?

He said Hydesland thinks women have evil nipples. I suggest you ask Hydesland.

Coming from a guy who thinks women have evil nipples, but men don't? I'd say you're not all that for women's rights despite what you think.

Lol wtf?

He said Hydesland thinks women have evil nipples. I suggest you ask Hydesland.

I just think that disallowing women to have their faces seen (being forced to wear a veil), is far far worse then disallowing women to walk around topless and bra-less in public areas. Apparently this means that I think women's nipples are evil. :rolleyes:

allowing women to walk around topless and bra-less in public areas.


I want to make it official that I have No problem with this at all. In fact I encourage this in support of women's rights.

As for why it is seen that way, I have one word: religion and the emphasis it places on all humans having souls, including unborn foetuses. As a result people have this cultural association that is extremely difficult to dismiss. Will it be dismissed eventually? More than likely. But it will take time, and it will have to be done with cooperation and understanding, not bitterness and hatred.


What about those of us who are not religious, who believe that the "soul" is silly nonsense?


Sad. I think it's a testament to a community's flaws that an abortion was necessary. Whether that flaw be poor sex education, lack of available contraceptives, poor social structure making the raising of a child an onerous burden on the poor or an adoption and fostercare system that fails more often than it succeeds, I think of all the screamin morons holding picket signs in front of planned parenthood clinics who could have done something constructive to prevent abortions.


QFT

Why is it that the insane clown always carry the most sane message?

And on another note, how many little goofballs are there again, and how are they doing? Haven't seen many updates on them lately... Hope all is well?

There are still three of them. The twins, however are pooping for eight. :p

All is well. Little Goofball says 'Hi!' :)

In fact, getting him to STOP saying 'Hi' is the trick. :p

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies?

Im not sure that it is.

Unless the events behind the pregnancy are extenuating, I feel that the individual(s) should face the consequences of her/his actions. I am tired of people shoving their bad choices under the rug instead of facing the consequences and learning from them.

There are still three of them. The twins, however are pooping for eight. :p

All is well. Little Goofball says 'Hi!' :)

In fact, getting him to STOP saying 'Hi' is the trick. :p

I can imagine :D

Good news still ;)

...why is abortion still considered as the more selfish and immoral option, even in relatively liberal non religious societies? I feel that even if a woman's baby will be born with a severe handicap, she will still discouraged to have an abortion because abortion is currently painted as a sort of thoughtless, means to an end type of action, despite it being tolerated. I mean, how often do abortions happen in soaps, even though the issue is brought up often? Rarely.

If people today accept that abortion is not the same as murdering babies, then surely, if the baby is almost certainly going to cause considerable unhappiness in the future, it is better to go through that procedure in the long run. I think society will actually benefit from more abortions, for instance, hopefully there will be less young teenagers with children resulting in less government spending in benefits and increasing the number of potential employable people (since there will be less children to prevent teenagers from focusing fully on their work career wise).

I accept that abortion is not a particularly pleasant procedure, and there is perhaps a special connection between the mother and the foetus in her womb, and am not suggesting that abortion should be encouraged if the baby will not cause any or little damage. However, does this justify others (not the mother) telling or at least implying to her that going through an abortion is selfish, they aren't the ones who are pregnant, she is the one who has the most to loose here.

Well first off I think that pregnant women can dream a lot of implications of statements where they get the implications all wrong. Women can way overanalyze stuff and read meaning into statements when no such meaning was meant. This is espescially true of women on the period because of the horomones and stuff and I betcha that pregnant women have a lot of horomones on the go then as well.

Assuming that someone actually is hinting that it is selfish of someone to get an abortion when the fetus is showing signs of develloping in a deformed manner, well anyone that would say that to a pregnant woman is a stupid jerk. It is cruel to purposefully allow a baby to be born into this world with serious deformities or disabilities.

There are probably some pro-life wackos out there who think that God wants us to have deformed babies because our loving God gets a kick out of suffering or some such garbage, but these folks should be given as little heed as we give to the raving bagladies and gibberring idiots who we pass by on the street.

Abortions are unpleasant and maybe a little morally troubling to some but in the final analysis they are true blessings as are the miscarriages. Fetuses are not miscarried unless there is something wrong with the fetus but less than 100% of unhealthy fetuses are miscarried. That is why it is our duty to have abortions when unhealthy fetuses should have been miscarried but the body failed to do so.

Im not sure that it is.

Unless the events behind the pregnancy are extenuating, I feel that the individual(s) should face the consequences of her/his actions. I am tired of people shoving their bad choices under the rug instead of facing the consequences and learning from them.


Are you serious? Why is pregnancy a consequence to be faced (which sort of implies it is a punishment for some manner of wickedness) and not a choice? Do you think that sex is evil? I will tell you what is evil, having a child that you are not 100% thrilled to have. Sounds a bit like child abuse to me.

I think society will actually benefit from more abortions

I don't. But I do think it would benefit from less unwanted pregnancies and, thus, less abortion.

There's an awful lot of focus on abortion and the rights associated - so much so that many people can't take that step back and address the problems that lead to abortion in the first place.

While I do think that the stigma placed upon women for having abortions is a problem that should be addressed, I think it is more important to address the issues of sex education and access to medical care and contraceptives.

Fetuses are not miscarried unless there is something wrong with the fetus

This isn't true. A large proportion of miscarriages are due to fetal problems - often chromosomal problems, but it is not true in all miscarriages. Sometimes a miscarriage has much more to do with the woman's health than that of the fetus.

...In fact I encourage this in support of women's rights.
Oddly enough, support is exactly the reason I think women (and some men) should be forced to wear bras and shirts. Sag isn't pretty, people.

Anyway, an abortion may not be pleasant (in fact, it isn't) but it is better for everyone involved than a shotgun wedding. Of course, birth control would be even better, but assuming that there is anything one can do to keep people from fucking that up is utter lunacy.