Should abortion be legal?

Should abortion be legal?

  • No - it is against God's will

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • No - it is murder

    Votes: 6 9.2%
  • No - it is against the unborn child's rights

    Votes: 7 10.8%
  • Yes - but only if the mother's life is in danger

    Votes: 10 15.4%
  • Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger

    Votes: 9 13.8%
  • Yes - in cases of rape

    Votes: 15 23.1%
  • Yes - if the mother is underage

    Votes: 11 16.9%
  • Yes - as long as it's early

    Votes: 22 33.8%
  • Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world

    Votes: 21 32.3%
  • Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice

    Votes: 25 38.5%
  • Yes - it's just another form of contraception

    Votes: 4 6.2%

  • Total voters
    65
Yes.

Period.

I understand everyone has different beliefs and opinions and stuff, but what is essential about our way of life is not only should everyone be free to make their own choices, should be free to have an abortion if she so wishes, but what makes it beautiful is that you are just as free to disagree and not support abortion.


So if you dont agree with it then thats cool, i respect that you have such a high respect for life, but, respect others, respect democracy and western values, and respect a person right and freedom to make their own choices.
 
Mycernius said:
I do believe abortion should be legal, it avoids bringing unwanted children into the world and avoids backstreet abortions where the woman could easily suffer and die. The term unwanted children might seem harsh to some people, but in some cases these children would be punished, beaten and even killed by the parents if they were allowed to come to full term. There are parents in this world who have wanted children and still treated them as punch bags, how do you think an unwanted child will be treated?
That is something to consider, but that also doesn't say that a child with a hard start in life won't find happiness. How many of those unwanted children are beaten? How many of those who were beaten never found happiness later in life? These would be questions I ask before drawing your conclusions.
Mycernius said:
I do believe in that it should be the womans choice. As John mentioned, a womans bond to a baby is often much stronger than a mans. It is easier for a man to say get rid of the child, it is not part of us in the way that it is part of a woman. We cannot feel its first kick or the happiness that some pregnant women give off, knowing that they are carrying a new life.
Not to be offensive, but I have seen some of the most glib answers off of some women, and especially young women. Answers that are offensive to even some pro-choicers.
nurizeko said:
Yes.

Period.
That's a bit authoritative, don't you think?
nurizeko said:
So if you dont agree with it then thats cool, i respect that you have such a high respect for life, but, respect others, respect democracy and western values, and respect a person right and freedom to make their own choices.
But respect for one's right and freedom to make their own choices must be balanced against someone's right to life.
 
I can understand both sides on the issue of abortion, and yes this is a very controversial topic to be dealing with. I chose to do a Dialectical paper on this subject matter in the US for my Ethics Class, and here are some of the arguments I came up with......

One major reason why abortion should remain legal is because of its historical precedence, and how the constitution views this act. Historically, in the state of Texas, it was illegal to have an abortion except in the case of saving the mother?fs life. However, in 1973 a monumental case took place in the Supreme Court, and this trial was known as Roe vs. Wade. Norma Corvey, also known as Jane Roe, was arguing against Dallas?fs District attorney, Henry Wade, that it was against her rights of privacy as a woman not to be able to terminate her pregnancy. This was probably one of the most controversial as well as significant court cases in the 20th century, and the final decision was that the Supreme Court voted in a 7-2 decision which signified to deny a woman the right to abortion was unconstitutional. Justice Harry A. Blackmun was appointed the majority opinion?fs Spokesperson, and he ultimately made his decision on this issue of abortion based on the 14th Amendment?fs due process clause which was said to guarantee this right to privacy (abortion) and it should be upheld. Therefore, advocating for abortion to be illegal would be going against the constitution that our nation was founded on, so with this in mind abortion should still remain legal.
(Goldman, Jeffrey. A case of Privacy: How the U.S. Supreme Court reached the decision that sparked a quarter-century of controversy, CNN.com, Retrieved October 12, 2005, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe.wade/stories/privacy/)

There is a huge debate on how one can consider abortion as an act of murder when there really isn?ft a clear and concise explanation that determines whether a fetus is a human being. Many Pro-lifers believe that the when an egg becomes a zygote, it is considered to be a living being, but other pro-choice advocates argue that this fetus is just a part of the woman?fs body until it is born. Historically, speaking the Anglo-Saxon law has never officially recognized as a fetus being a human being, so this makes a strong argument for people not being able to consider abortion an act of murder. It is very difficult for even someone to draw the line on the number of months maximum that should be allowed for an abortion, because the actual day of conception cannot always be measured accurately. Therefore, if a maximum time period was proposed then how could someone really prove that it is in fact 24 months, and what kind of proof would that have to present in order to go through with the abortion. I?fve heard arguments before that classifying a fetus as a human is rather ridiculous when if in fact it was taken out from the mother it wouldn?ft be able to breathe on its own.
(Morgentaler, Henry, "Abortion Is a Moral Choice" . The Abortion Controversy. Lynette Knapp, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2001. Excerpted from Henry Morgentaler, "The Moral Case for Abortion," Free Inquiry, Summer 1996. Reprinted with permission from Free Inquiry.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 12 October 2005)

There was a recent report in the New Scientist, about the US and New Zealand conducted a study on when a fetus starts to feel pain. Before the study was conducted, the US Government made claims that a fetus could feel pain after 20 weeks. However, the study concluded that the fetus is in a sleep-like state, and that they really can feel any pain until they reach 29 weeks. There is another argument that the fetus does have a heart beat before it is born, so clearly it is very hard to clarify when or if in fact a fetus should be considered a living being. Therefore, this point signifies that abortion really can?ft be seen as committing an act of murder when no one is really able to define when a fetus is actually considered a living being.
(Coghlan, Andy & Young, Emma. Why fetuses don't feel pain. (This week: International news and exclusives) New Scientist, Sept 3, 2005 v187 i2515 p8(2) Retrieved from EBSCOhost on 10/12/05)

In this section I will state arguments on why abortion should become illegal, and I will back up these statements with my researched material. A person not wanting an added responsibility or a person that feels that they aren?ft mature enough really isn?ft that good of reasons to have an abortion. There was a study done in 1987 which surveyed 1,900 patients at 30 abortion clinics on why young women as well as older ones wanted to get an abortion. The results showed that young women under the age of 18 didn?ft want to have a baby due to the fact it would take away their personal freedom, and it would also interfere with school as well as personal goals. The older women wanted abortion due to the fact that they didn?ft want to support another kid, and also they already had way too many responsibilities in their life. I suppose that there would be a little more understanding on what the younger girls are going through, but this lack of responsibility show not justify terminating a potential life. There are many consequences that happen in life for making poor choices, and taking the easy way out is not always justifiable. Starting in Elementary school Sex Education starts to be adding into the curriculum, so these young people know that having unprotected sex can lead to pregnancies. Therefore, if these girls and guys still decide that they will do whatever they please, then really they should have to face the consequences of having to raise a kid. The potential life should not have their chance at life due to the fact their parents are irresponsible. This topic deals with the theory of egoism, where these parents are thinking for the greater good for themselves rather than what is said to be a potential life.
(Lunneborg, Patricia "An Unwanted Pregnancy Justifies an Abortion.?h Abortion. Tamara L. Roleff, Ed. Opposing Viewpoints® Series. Greenhaven Press, 1997. Excerpted from Abortion: A Positive Decision by Patricia Lunneborg (Bergin & Garvey, an imprint of the Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc., Westport, Conn., 1992). Copyright ©1992 by Patricia Lunneborg. Reprinted with permission.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 17 October 2005)

Right now, there is a great concern in the US that social security will soon dry up due to the fact that the birth rate is decreasing, so that means we have a lot more older folks to support through fewer younger workers. In fact the birth rate in the 1960?fs was at about 24% compared to the current birth rate which is approximately 14%, so you can see there is a huge gap between past and current generations.
(U.S.Source:World Almanac & Book of Facts, Births and Deaths; 2005, p73-73, 1/6p, http://26827.mctlibproxy.pals.msus.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&an=16981937 Database: Academic Search Premier)

It is said that many people really don?ft even know that there really is an option for adoption, because a survey conducted at the abortion clinics showed that out of all the people who became pregnant only 2-3 % decided to give their kid up for adoption. That seems like a very low number, and this could reinforce that the option for adoption is not very emphasized in our society. Instead of aborting the fetus many people could help the birth rates from declining as well as making the couples who want to adopt happy. Therefore, with this in mind abortion should be made illegal, because there are better options such as adoption out there. This point sort of deals with Kant?fs Kingdom of End?fs in the way that not giving these fetuses a chance at life with some other loving parents treats the fetuses as a means to an end, because they really don?ft have a say in any of this matter.
(Muller , Jerry Z. "Restricting Abortion Would Be Destructive to Families.?h The Abortion Controversy. Lynette Knapp, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2001. Excerpted from Jerry Z. Muller, "The Conservative Case for Abortion: Family Values vs. Family Planning," The New Republic, August 21, 1995. Copyright © 1995 by The New Republic, Inc. Reprinted with permission from The New Republic.
Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 13 October 2005)

I will now state my position on this very controversial topic, which really involves understanding and respecting both arguments on the legality of abortion. I really feel strongly that the constitution should not be altered since it represents what guidelines are forefathers set for us, and challenging this in ruling in my opinion is wrong. I am not a woman, but with regards to abortion I could never choose to abort the Zygote (Fetus) which I fertilized. However, I feel that some people have legitimate reasons to justify an abortion, and so I cannot justify making abortion illegal. I am a member of a Catholic Parish, and I understand how they see things, but I also am a very logical thinker. The debate over when a human is considered a living being in my mind really can?ft be established. I do have a friend who was a product of a rape, and he turned out to be a really fine guy. He graduated from college, never experimented with drugs, and is a pretty happy person. I guess my life would be different if his Mom decided to abort him, because we would have never had the chance to have met and become really good friends. It is true that our life is full of difficult decisions as well as responsibilities, and so we have to be the ones that examine the ethical and logical issues of an argument before making a decision. There are too many people who make impulsive decisions without thinking things through, and this later can come back to haunt them. Ethics is a very important subject to study, because it addresses all sides of the issue, and not just the single view that one has always had. Therefore, I understand why there are many people who see abortion as absolutely wrong, but I believe in our constitution as well as laws, so I feel that abortion should remain a legal act.
 
It is interesting that, to date, no one has selected any form of "No". Personally, I feel it should be legal and that it is a woman's right whether she wants to bring a child into this world or not regardless if she is pregnant.

I know some will beg to differ with me on this, but in my own opinion, and based on alot of reading from different sources "outside the box" so to speak, I believe that the "soul" does not enter the body until the time of birth. Up until then I believe it is not a full fleged human being regardless of what it looks like in the womb or what the church might tell us to believe.

I know for a fact that if abortion were legal back when I was born that I would not be alive today as my mother was only 17 at the time. Still, if she chose to abort me, then I feel that that was her right.
 
I don't believe that historical precedent should have a bearing on people's opinions on this issue. Important decisions should be based on reasoning and ethics, independent from from such things. Actions that might have been wrong under some circumstances could be OK under others, and vice versa. Things change.

Oh, and by the way, Norma Corvey (Roe) actually changed her view and she became pro-life later on in her life, and said that she regretted very much what she had done regarding that court case and the resulting ruling.

I have said before, that medical text books define life as beginning at conception. Making this into a grey area could have serious consequences for the lives and treatment of premature babies.

Mycernius, I appreciate what you are saying about disability. But I feel that reflecting this attitude in abortion laws/debates sends out a message about what we, as a society, think about disability and people with disabilities. Of course, no-one can deny that disability is a "bad thing" in that we wouldn't wish it on people and would much rather it not happen to them... but it gives the message that people with disabilities are somehow inferior, not as good as "normal", healthy people. How would you feel if you have a disability and you know that people are getting rid of their babies because they maybe have that condition? I personally feel that people with disabilities are just as valuable and have as much to contribute to society as people who are lucky enough to be in good health. By getting rid of them you are not just denying them their existence, but you are denying a whole network of people the chance to interact with them and be involved in their life, in ways which can change many people, even if the person themself doesn't have the capacity to be aware of that.
 
When does life begin?
Do you have references for those medical texts?
What are the different views?
 
But respect for one's right and freedom to make their own choices must be balanced against someone's right to life.

But its the prospective mother's choice, welcome to the democratic west, despite mild incompetence of some politicians, we live in a free society, where we have so much freedom to decide and choose our own path.

If a mother isnt ready for such a responsibility, and she chooses not to carry on with hte pregnancy, then that is her choice, you can disagree, but you will never have the right to dictate how she lives or what she does with her body.


I think pachipro's got a very enlightened look on it, he's alive now so theres no risk to his life, so he can quite comfortably admit if his mother had aborted him, that was her choice, how can one have a right to life before their even born?, before their even a viable reasonably se;f-sustaining organism?.

I know some folk dont like this being looked at from a biological point of view but it has to be.
I believe if in the human spirit, i believe its earned as little bit as a time, and i think the current abortion laws reflect that well, i do believe by the time a child is born its on the earth for the long haul, and its life should be defended at the sacrifice of your own if you must, but inside the legal abortion time?...i think its purely the prospective mother's choice.
 
Kinsao, I see your arguement. I was not passing any judgement on those that choose this path. There are those that have lived with various disabilities and know that there is a high risk that it could be passed onto their children. Some will have children, regardless of the risk. They say that they have had a good life, despite being disabled. Other decide that they do not want to put any child through what they have been through. The Radio programme had a woman who is a carrier of a genetic disorder that causes severe learning difficulties. Her first son has this, so she decided to test any unborn children for the problem. She has aborted twice because both children would suffer the same as her son. She still regards herself as a mother of three and was very heartbroken at aborting them, but she felt it was better than having to let them live. What we have to watch out for is when the state starts to have a say in this. Just imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had the technology to determine whether the unborn was fit to be born.
 
I think it should be entirelly a woman's choice up to 4.5 months. Afterward I think it is immoral because it is closer to birth than not being born (as 4.5 months is the midway point between birth and conception).

When I was younger I used to see no problem with partial-birth abortion but after watching how abortions are at such a late period (the case I saw was 8 months) it seemed very barbaric. If you look at the pictures at some of these partial birth abortions you would see this.
 
nurizeko said:
But its the prospective mother's choice
It is now (at least within Canada and Japan). However, the ethics of it simply being the mother's choice is questionable.
nurizeko said:
welcome to the democratic west, despite mild incompetence of some politicians, we live in a free society, where we have so much freedom to decide and choose our own path.
Democracy is great. However we still have laws that should be based on ethics, and it is the ethics of this that is being discussed.
nurizeko said:
If a mother isnt ready for such a responsibility, and she chooses not to carry on with hte pregnancy, then that is her choice, you can disagree, but you will never have the right to dictate how she lives or what she does with her body.
I have no right to prevent her from getting an abortion, if that is her wish, but it isn't just her body. If it were just her body, it would also have the exact same DNA as her. A fetus' DNA and mother's DNA aren't the same, and so it can't be termed as just a part of her body.
nurizeko said:
I think pachipro's got a very enlightened look on it, he's alive now so theres no risk to his life, so he can quite comfortably admit if his mother had aborted him, that was her choice, how can one have a right to life before their even born?, before their even a viable reasonably se;f-sustaining organism?.
A fetus isn't viable, but we don't decide whether someone's life is worth keeping based on viability. There are people who couldn't live without our continued support. They need our money, our time, our energy, and special apparatuses to keep them alive. A fetus isn't viable apart from the mother, but then neither is a newborn viable apart from our continued assistance either.
 
Last edited:
Kinsao said:
Mycernius, I appreciate what you are saying about disability. But I feel that reflecting this attitude in abortion laws/debates sends out a message about what we, as a society, think about disability and people with disabilities.
Aborting because of disability makes me uneasy too, particularly since I work with disabled people. I know someone who aborted a foetus because it had spina bifida. That made me really sad, as I have a student with spina bifida, and he is a wonderful, happy person. But at the same time, I support her decision as she would not have coped with a child with such severe disabilities. I think she did the right thing, but I still feel upset about it.
Mycernius said:
What we have to watch out for is when the state starts to have a say in this. Just imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had the technology to determine whether the unborn was fit to be born.
I think this argument is important, and it goes the other way. The state has no right to decide that a foetus should be aborted, and equally should have no right to decide that a woman cannot choose to abort. The idea that a state can say a woman must have a child when she doesn't feel able seems very wrong to me.
Silverbackman said:
I think it should be entirelly a woman's choice up to 4.5 months. Afterward I think it is immoral because it is closer to birth than not being born (as 4.5 months is the midway point between birth and conception).
I think that's a pretty good idea. It's unlikely that a baby is ever going to be born that early, and although it is arbitrary it makes a kind of sense. It also addresses Ragedaddy's point about determining the time of conception. Even if the woman is more pregnant than she thinks, there is going to be little danger of aborting a viable foetus if the limit is 4.5 months.
 
Tsuyoiko said:
The state has no right to decide that a foetus should be aborted, and equally should have no right to decide that a woman cannot choose to abort. The idea that a state can say a woman must have a child when she doesn't feel able seems very wrong to me.
Just to argue this, what is your reasoning that the state cannot say a mother must deliver the child rather than abort it? The state can say it is wrong to murder a newborn, but based on what? We must have an ethical model to work with.
Tsuyoiko said:
I think that's a pretty good idea. It's unlikely that a baby is ever going to be born that early, and although it is arbitrary it makes a kind of sense. It also addresses Ragedaddy's point about determining the time of conception. Even if the woman is more pregnant than she thinks, there is going to be little danger of aborting a viable foetus if the limit is 4.5 months.
Why that time? What makes it immoral after, and not before, both do exactly the same thing?
 
Revenant said:
Just to argue this, what is your reasoning that the state cannot say a mother must deliver the child rather than abort it? The state can say it is wrong to murder a newborn, but based on what? We must have an ethical model to work with.
Consider an analogy. I need a kidney transplant and you are a suitable donor. I will die without the transplant. You have been told that you can survive with only one kidney, but there will be considerable discomfort and disruption to your life. Should the state have the right to force you to give me a kidney?
Revenant said:
Why that time? What makes it immoral after, and not before, both do exactly the same thing?
I don't think I said it would be immoral after that time, but that (although fairly arbitrary) it seems a sensible limit to minimise the possibility of aborting a viable foetus.
 
Options 1, 2, and 3 from the top.

A person is a person. If we ask "Should abortion be legal?" Then we should also ask...

Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to roam the streets with tongs, knives, saline injections, and other implements of their trade targeted at people who are working, shopping, and otherwise going out their daily business?

Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to break into homes with tongs, knives, saline injections, and other implements of their trade targeted at children who are at play or in a crib?

As long as we go this far; Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to go about with guns ready to knock off anyone who any other person doesn't wish live any longer? Such as, "Say I've got this really annoying colleague at work. doc, can you just take care of him / her for me?"

This may all seem really far fetched, but it fits in the same catagory. A life is a life, no matter the age.
 
Indiana Gardener said:
Options 1, 2, and 3 from the top.
[...]
This may all seem really far fetched, but it fits in the same catagory. A life is a life, no matter the age.
Quite far fetched, yes (but not un-expected: when I saw your nickname I just had the feeling something like this was going to come).

Life is life? Hmm, I thought, this thread showed that it's not quite so simple.
 
Very much a complicated question and to it is possible only full knowledge of all circumstances for everyone personally,only it is necessery to remember,that everyone after a life,the meeting God waits and there to answer...
Aborting - it aborting... of life...
 
Necromancy I know, but I have a new argument, and I just wanted to put it forward.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously there is cause and effect, and we cannot look at just one moment, and not take into account the cause and effect of things. That would be like a father spending all the college money on gambling, cause his ten year old son said he didn't need it, nor wanted it. Even though the child doesn't want, or feel he needs the money now, we can infer that he very well may want to use that money later, when he changes his mind, and he actually wants to use that money.

We can infer that an unconcious or comatose woman, upon awakening, would condemn the person who had sexually assaulted her while she was unconcious or comatose. The woman however during the actual time of sexual assault is not protesting, or condemning the man doing this to her. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the here and now.

Let's look at a pregnant mother who drinks. Can we infer that the child, after it is born, will not like the fact that the mother drank, and that he now has physical deformities because of his mother's choice to drink? The child at the time of the mother's drinking was but a fetus (the fetus had no thoughts, no self awareness, and of course felt no pain, it wasn't protesting in the slightest), and the drinks ingested at the wrong time of pregnancy disrupted the development of the fetus (I do speak from personal experience on this one, as my birth mother drank (I am adopted), and I have severe varicose veins as a result, besides some other odd vascular abnormality, to which I do not understand, cause it was diagnosed in Japan, and they do not speak English well enough to explain it exactly to me).

So a fetus does have future views that we can infer, therefore it would be wrong to drink during pregnancy. It all follows along the golden rules of 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. If you wouldn't want to have some sort of physical abnormalities, then one can also infer that a fetus in the future would also not want this as well.

So we can indeed infer future thoughts, views, and abilities.

So then, if one aborts a child, we can indeed infer that the child wouldn't have wanted that to happen, after all, I wouldn't want to be carved up like sushi and scraped out. If one attempts to circumvent this, by simply negating the entity, then one is indeed trespassing on the future views of that entity, since we have already established that future views can be inferred, and that that future view would be that the child would have wanted to keep his/her life.
 
Last edited:
I think it should be legal, on special condititions, that it can only be when the woman is less then 2 months pregnant. we live in a world were people make big mistakes, people think easy about sex, not using condoms.

When a woman is pregnant, and its sure that she can't take care of the baby, she can also let the baby be adopted by somebody. (nowadays people even sell baby's....) so i think when something is completely hopeless, when somebody is being raped, and younger then 2 months...

just a question, from how many weeks does a unborn child starting to shape form, feeling?
 
I thought I should add that I do support abortion in some circumstances, obvious one being if the birth would likely end in the mother's death, or if the fetus was determined to have some genetic defect that would result in it living a life of suffering. Perhaps some other instances, but those two can I think off the top of my head.
 
Nowadays you can test your unborn child on things( Things is the wrong word, but I cant find a better word for it, my excuse for that), and one of them is the down syndrome, when you know this, would you still want a child like this?
 

This thread has been viewed 69630 times.

Back
Top