Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Glenn]

To me it seems unfair to exclude men from that discussion.

Re "part of their body": That's part of the question, isn't it? How long (if ever) can the foetus/embryo be considered part of the female body? I don't think it's very ethical to say "As long as it's inside me, I can do whatever I want!"

I agree with bossel here. Also, this issue doesn't just affect women, so it shouldn't be left exclusively to women. I do, however, understand how it could be awkward for you to hear only men discussing the issue. But then again, where are all of the women? And are the men's opinions any less important just because we don't carry the baby/fetus/embryo/whatever you want to call it?

For what I know it has been shown that a foetus can feel pain beyond a certain stage of development. From then on it should at least have the same right as any pet: not to be treated in an unnecessary cruel way.

Now the question is, what to consider unnecessary. IMO this means that after this point only for reasons which threaten the health or life of the mother abortion should be an option.

I agree with these points also (which I probably didn't need to say).

Yep, accidents & mistakes do happen (always afraid of something like that myself), but if they do you should take your responsibility!

I feel the same way. There are measures that can be taken to avoid pregnancy. If you become complacent and get pregnant because you didn't take those measures, you should have to face the consequences of your actions. I'm speaking about men and women here. The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner (and I don't mean to say that she shouldn't be excluded from financial responsibility, but it usually is on the man).

Of course, if having the child means the mother will die or be otherwise seriously injured, then abortion should be an option. If having the child means you can't have that new TV, then abortion should not be an option past the second trimester, and maybe even earlier. I'm trying to think of a hellacious situation that could result from having a child, and I'm doing a poor job of it. Here's about the worst scenario that I can imagine:

A single woman who doesn't have a job or living parents or relatives gets pregnant. The father skips out on her, or she just doesn't know who he is. She would be constantly ridiculed for being pregnant and not having a serious life partner. She doesn't have any money.

That's the worst that I can think of, but I doubt that it is very likely (well, then again, in today's world...). In such a scenario, I'm sure most women would have an abortion, and I would say that it is understandable. But I'm not so sure that I would agree with that decision.

Well, that is taking repsonsibility, isn't it? It's a choice one can make, and one shouldn't be judged by it either. Sometimes, it is the only option one has.

I have also thought this. It is taking responsibility. The question, though, is whether it is like taking responsibility for having been seen counterfeiting money by killing someone, and thereby solving the situation by silencing them, or whether it is like taking responsibility by throwing out the rest of your beer before you get in a car. Finding which situation is closer to abortion is what this discussion is all about, as far as I can see.

[mdchachi]

> I don't mind whether someone is pro-life or pro-choice, as long as they have valid reasons for it that stand up to logic and reason.

Glenn, you're asking a lot here. Humans rarely make decisions based on logic or reason even when they think that that is what they're doing. ;)

[kirei_na_me]

Have you been there? Probably not. Have I? Yes.

I guess I should stop reading this thread because of that. It hits extremely close to home and I take it very personal.

I wouldn't have the family I have today if I hadn't made that decision. I would be stuck with an SOB who was mean to me and threatened me into having it done in the first place. I was 18 and scared to death. I would've had a miserable life. I could never explain it so that you could understand. It is something you would've had to witness, and even then, you probably still wouldn't be able to know to the extent one would have to know in order to really understand.

So, go ahead and judge me now.

[bossel]

Kirei, you should remember that we're talking theoretical here. I certainly cannot judge you or any other individual case, for this has to be considered individually (not that I want to judge you, anyway). I don't want to give you a hard time, but I also won't stop saying my opinion. Maybe in the US you have too many of those pro-life activists which makes you a bit overly suspicious of others' intentions.

When I give my opinion it is usually not to judge people but to show my point of view, & in this particular case to make people think about the fact that they might destroy a valuable life (a feeling human being) if they have an abortion. To me, it is essential whether this life is able to feel pain, or not. As long as it's just a bunch of cells without nervous system, I don't have any problem with abortion. If there is a nervous system, see above...

By coincidence, just today there is an interesting article on BBC regarding foetal development:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3846525.stm
It's about a new scanning technology to see the foetus inside the womb.

Quote:
"The images have shown:

* From 12 weeks, unborn babies can stretch, kick and leap around the womb - well before the mother can feel movement

* From 18 weeks, they can open their eyes although most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks

* From 26 weeks, they appear to exhibit a whole range of typical baby behaviour and moods, including scratching, smiling, crying, hiccoughing, and sucking.

Until recently it was thought that smiling did not start until six weeks after birth."

[mdchachi]

> The father should be financially responsible and also should help to raise the child in an environment conducive to healthy
> growth in all areas, and the mother should be responsible for raising the child in the same manner

It's easy to say this but the question is what do you do when you live in an imperfect world when people often don't do what they "should" do.

In my opinion, "pro-lifers" should spend their time taking care of the lives that are already born (especially the ones which are born due to their opposition to abortion). Making sure that they are not abused or malnourished and that they are loved and taken care of -- making sure that all the "shoulds" that should happen do happen. Once these lives are safe, then they can worry about the unborn.

[Areku]

Not remotely? It isn't anything else, and it certainly will develop into a full grown human adult, if given the chance. I see your point, but I think that saying that it isn't remotely human may be going a bit far.

Maybe, but to me it's still not human. It's no more 'alive' than a sperm or an egg on their own, other than the fact it grows.

I don't think that she is the only one who suffers here. Think about the mother and father's parents. Do you think that they don't care about having a grandchild? Do you think that they aren't affected in the least by what the mother does with her child?

Put it this way, if grandparents are involved, then will they care more for? Their real, adult children and their lives, or their unborn grandchildren?

Like I said before, just because someone wants to have an abortion doesn't mean that they are in dire straits. There are people who just view it as a convenience issue. Also, how hard is it to not get pregnant or get someone pregnant? If you can't afford to get pregnant, there are measures that you can take to prevent it. If you play with fire, there is the possibility that you will get hurt.

Morally, you're correct, and preventing conception is better than 'curing' it. But people aren't perfect, in fact most are far from it, and in this day and age they have the right to utilise medical technology to whatever extent they want within the law...don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's OK for people to take risks, just because they can fall back on an abortion, it's hardly a nice prospect for them anyway, but what I'm saying is it shouldn't matter how much it would actually affect them. In my opinion they should have the right to do as they wish with their own bodies.

Like I said above, people also care about children.

Yes but in the case of an abortion, who will? we have to assume the parents haven't gone ranting and raving about the child to everyone they know. And even so, deciding to keep a child just because relatives/friends would be upset if you didn't is no reason to do it.

Have I argued that the baby has a soul? Have I used any religious rhetoric in my arguments?

Nope, but they're typically used in a lot of pro-life argment, that's all.

If you think that it's OK to kill an infant because it can't fend for itself, then I suppose that you feel that it's OK to kill retarded people, who don't have the mental capacity to keep up with everyone else even at adult age.

That's a totally different kettle of fish, but I would rather be killed if I was in such a state, myself. I also didn't say it was OK to kill something just because it can't survive on it's own, but that it was ok for the parents to, specifically (no-one else). They have given birth to it, it is utterly reliant on them, it's life is literally in their hands. Why shouldn't they be in control still?

Also, what about elderly people who aren't totally in control of their body, and who can't feed themselves?

They've generally worked all their lives and paid taxes and thus earned the right to a retirement and national health service.

I'm not sure that it would be rational to kill a child for any reason. Would it be rational to kill 1/3 of the people on the planet to avoid overpopulation, even if we were all (what's left of us) better off for it and the 1/3 had no idea that it was coming?

Rational yes, socially acceptable no, practical no. Besides, who is gonna take a decision like that? There's plenty of things that would be better for the planet as a whole that could have been done but won't ever be done because of the immorality or whatnot.

I suppose that you think that an amoeba is also more alive than a human baby, or an ape baby, etc.

Well, yeah. It moves and eats for itself which is more than what babies do.
Of course, it doesn't have a fraction of the potential for intelligence or physical development. But does this mean it should have less rights?

And why do the millions of animals slaughtered have less rights than humans, even while millions of tonnes of surplus grain is wasted each year?

Offtopic, but it shows hypocrisy to me (not aimed at you personally). Personally I don't see people as any more 'value' as their pets. They're just lucky to have been born human. People make SUCH an uproar over anything that infringes on 'human rights' then go home and tuck into a juicy steak from a cattle that was probably reared in a tight compartment and fed crap to fatten it up to be killed for human pleasure.

Apparently not, if you think that it's OK to kill infants, and even children who can't walk and talk. Using this logic, it's OK to kill anyone up until the age of 18, because only then are they considered adults, and only then are they expected to be autonomous and self-sufficient. If we all thought this way, then our species would not be around right now.

No you're twisting my words there. I said I wouldn't be bothered if two parents killed their very young child. Well, in fact, I would, I'd be shocked at the audacity to break away from social norms in such a way, and I'd say they'd have to be pretty messed up individuals to do it BUT only considering the norms they'd been brought up in themselves. As an act itself, it wouldn't bother me.

I disagree, if we all focused more on logic, than emotions and 'rights' then our species would be more advanced.

[Golgo_13]

Now, Planned Parenthood has come out with an "I had an abortion" T-Shirt.

http://store.yahoo.com/ppfastore/ihadabt.html

I'm pro-choice but this is going a bit too far.

[PaulTB]

1. The question "Pro-life or Pro-choice?" is at least half the problem.
2. The option I'd vote for isn't on the list.

[sgt. Pepper]

Abortion should be the womans own choice. The kid isn't even conscious before about 3months before it comes out.

[Golgo_13]

Yes, but why go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

[blessed]

Yes, but why go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

maybe the people doing it are unconformists? (don't know why anybody would be one though)

anyways, who cares that a woman decides to abort. This is mainly a problem between religion and science and I say this: first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option.

Christians believe that the bible has its own opinioin: it states that children are a "gift from god"... sure, but childbirth isn't, infact its punishment for Eve's sin and any woman who doesn't want to go through this punishment, given to women by the all-loving, all-forgiving god, doesn't have to.
And if you're a christian and you believe that this is wrong, shouldn't you leave this up to the judgement of your perfect god, not your imperfect self?

(my opinioin why some christians can't let god do the judging because they know he will forgive the siners no matter what)

[Golgo_13]

No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

[TimF]

I have no real strong opinion towards this beacuse it is diffrent for every situation and untill you have been in the mothers shoes you have no right to judge them or tell them what they do with their child. But if the child is born I belive the man should step up to the plate and do his best for the child and the woman what ever the circumstances if you concieved that child and you decided to keep that child then you need to do your best for that child gentelmen that is just the way it is. This is how I was raised. (Note: My Father was not always there for my Mother so he taught me how I could be better than him when I got married and had a child.)

[Golgo_13]

No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

Everyone on this thread is skirting this issue . . . .

[TimF]

Everyone on this thread is skirting this issue . . . .

I feel if you go around wearing a t shirt that says you had one that is your choice not anyone elses that would be like you telling me i had to walk around in the suit and tie all day beacuse it is what "society" deemed proper so like i said it is there choice if they want to proclaime it then so be it.

[PaulTB]

No, the issue has now become, should one go around wearing a T-shirt that says you had one.

No. That's just you.

[bossel]

first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option.

In general I agree with what you wrote, but why 24 weeks? Is there any physiological reason for this?

Illegal or not depends on where you are. In Germany abortion is generally illegal, but if women have an abortion after obliged counselling within the first 12 weeks of pregnancy they won't be prosecuted. After 12 weeks it's only possible under special circumstances.

[Lina Inverse]

anyways, who cares that a woman decides to abort. This is mainly a problem between religion and science and I say this: first a fetus is not alive, at most i'd call it a parasite. Until it can survive on its own, its not alive, so why should I intervene in the removal of this extra bit of tissue? And abortions of living children - generally considered over 24 weeks old - is illegal because they have a chance of survival. at this point, giving them to orphanages is the option.

Well said! Gave you some rep.
Imo the German law (as pointed out by Bossel) is absolutely braindead - all it does is forcing women who need an abortion to go see some quack to have a secret abortion. Not only will that quack demand some exorbitant sum, but also quite likely he'll screw up in one way or another, resulting in lasting damages for the woman, and also some nasty infections from the use of non-sterile instruments.
The counsellign is held by christian institutions which of course do everything possible they can do to force the woman to have the child, regardless if the woman wants it or not, and if she can support it or not.

[Satori]

I voted for "Women Should Choose for Themselves."

[WyteAnjal]

My opinion on this is..

1. If a girl is ready to have a sexual relationship then she should be old enough to understand contreception and birth control.

2. If a girl gets pregnant she should be forced to have the baby unless for specific reasons. Abortion is murder the same.

3. If a girl is raped I believe that she should be able to have an abortion because this was not a decision made by herself and having the baby could cause sever mental effects.

4. If a girl can not physically carry a baby I feel they should be allowed to have an aborition.


Okay now think of this. A woman in Texas shot herself in the stomach trying to kill the baby inside her. She went to jail for murder because the baby died. So why is it legal for doctors to kill a baby with a womans consent and not okay for a woman to kill her own baby. No matter how you look at it a baby inside you is still a life and no one should have the option to just throw a life away without a very good reason.

[bossel]

Imo the German law [...] is forcing women who need an abortion to go see some quack to have a secret abortion. Not only will that quack demand some exorbitant sum, but also quite likely he'll screw up in one way or another, resulting in lasting damages for the woman, and also some nasty infections from the use of non-sterile instruments.
The counsellign is held by christian institutions which of course do everything possible they can do to force the woman to have the child, regardless if the woman wants it or not, and if she can support it or not.

Oh man, you're so waaay off!
No German woman is forced to go to a quack to have an abortion, at least as long as she decides in the 1st 12 weeks (up to 22 weeks if she had counselling) of her pregnancy to have it done. She is forced to have counselling, but contrary to what you said this is not necessarily done by Christian institutions, you can also go to independents. Even if a woman has an illegal abortion the penalty is rather moderate, while the executing doc is punished more severely. You should really look into the facts before producing some crappy horror stories.

BTW, how would the Christian counselling institutions force the woman to carry out the child?

[Brooker]

I've never jived with the arguement of, "It's my body, so it's my choice," because, if you believe the fetus is a person (I haven't really decided) then it's not your body, it's the body of the child.

Both sides of the abortion debate (not talking about the debate we're having here) always seem to misunderstand the concearns of the other side. The main problem is that they can't agree on what a person is. Because saying, "It's my body" doesn't make sense to someone who thinks you're murdering another life, and saying, "It is my business because it's murder" doesn't make sense to someone who sees the fetus as being part of their own body.

I support the right to choose to have an abortion for entirely different reasons. I think people should have the ability to take control of their lives and having a child has a big effect on your life (duh). And telling people, "If you didn't want to have children, you shouldn't have had sex," just isn't realistic. Since I'm not religious, it seems that having an unwanted child as the result of a night of passion is a huge penalty for a relatively minor "crime".

But this is just my view. Since we'll never really know what it means to be a person (who would we ask?) and we'll never really know if it's "right or wrong" (and saying, "The bible says...." doesn't prove much to me) I say people should be able to make that call for themselves.

[blessed]

In general I agree with what you wrote, but why 24 weeks? Is there any physiological reason for this?

It's to do with the fact that the child can at that point survive as he has enough alveoli in his lungs to breathe air.

[Dream Time]

"Should be allowed only when medically necessary or if the girl was raped"

other than that, I am against abortion, it does not only involve the female,
but the man who helped the create the baby,and of course,the baby,
to me,abortion is just the same as murder

if I had sex with someone,and she got pregnant accidentally,
I will talk her into keeping the baby,and I will raise him.

[Brooker]

Dream Time wrote....

if I had sex with someone,and she got pregnant accidentally,I will talk her into keeping the baby,and I will raise him.

That's respectable.

it does not only involve the female,but the man who helped the create the baby

I agree.

to me,abortion is just the same as murder

Do you think abortion is exactly the same as murder, or a little different?