Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

[Golgo_13]

Abortion is legal in most Western nations as well as Japan. In Japan, most people aren't even concerned about it. It is currently legal in the U.S. but it has been a burning issue for many years now. What's your opinion?

Personally, I believe in the woman's right to choose, even though my views are conservative on many issues.

[kirei_na_me]

Pro-choice, definitely. No one should have the right to tell an able-minded/bodied woman(or anyone else) what to do with their own body. It's just ridiculous. Plain and simple.

However, I do believe people need to try harder to practice safer sex, because abortions are not good for you physically and they are usually not good for you emotionally either.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I think in Japan, you must have the 'father's' signature in order to have an abortion? I've also heard from friends that some Japanese girls/women will use abortion as a kind of birth control. Having pregnancies terminated repeatedly, which will definitely harm your reproductive organs(namely uterus).

[Frank D. White]

is Bush is against it, I'm for it!

Frank

[Golgo_13]

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I think in Japan, you must have the 'father's' signature in order to have an abortion?

Only if you are a minor.

is Bush is against it, I'm for it!

Frank

What if he changes his mind?

[Glenn]

Well, the problem lies in when you believe that life starts. I think that by the third trimester you are definitely dealing with a person, because it's so developed. To me, aborting a fetus at that stage is the same thing as murder.

I don't believe that it is all about a woman being able to choose what to do with her body, because quite frankly it doesn't involve only her. If it did, then no one should have the right to tell her what to do, but what she does affects another life, so, to me, that throws that argument out of the window. Aside from that, the man helped to create the child, so he should be consulted. It's his child too. Now, in the first two trimesters it becomes more acceptable to me for a woman to have an abortion (maybe not so much the second, but it's better than the third), because the fetus is not fully developed yet (as far as I can remember right now).

So, I would have to say that I'm pro-life.

[kirei_na_me]

The way I see it is that an embryo(first/second trimesters) can't feel pain(all kinds) the same as a grown person living on the 'outside' can feel. It hasn't experienced life and emotional turmoil the same as a frightened young woman has. So, to me, it's definitely not the same.

By the way, the due date is calculated by going 40 weeks from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. The baby is considered 'full-term' at 36 weeks, though. That is the point when the lungs have more than likely matured and the baby is capable of breathing on its own. Up until that point, the lungs haven't fully matured, and intubation would probably be necessary.

[Frank D. White]

anyone post those gross pictures that protesters carry around!! Thanks!

Frank

[Glenn]

By the way, the due date is calculated by going 40 weeks from the first day of a woman's last menstrual period. The baby is considered 'full-term' at 36 weeks, though. That is the point when the lungs have more than likely matured and the baby is capable of breathing on its own. Up until that point, the lungs haven't fully matured, and intubation would probably be necessary.

So here's my question to you now: do you think that having an abortion after the lungs have developed and the baby can breathe on its own is the same as having one before such a late stage of development?

[kirei_na_me]

Only if you are a minor.

Oh, it was my understanding that even grown women had to have the father's(husband/boyfriend/whatever) 'permission'(signature) to get an abortion. I was told that a woman couldn't have an abortion without a signature? I was also told that in a lot of cases, the signatures would be forged, because the father couldn't be contacted, the girl didn't want him to know, etc. Maybe I was told wrong?

So here's my question to you now: do you think that having an abortion after the lungs have developed and the baby can breathe on its own is the same as having one before such a late stage of development?

Well, having been pregnant myself and after having my sons, it's hard for me to say that having an abortion in the third trimester is okay. So no, I don't think it's the same. If the baby is already at the stage that it can live on its own, it should.

[Glenn]

Well, having been pregnant myself and after having my sons, it's hard for me to say that having an abortion in the third trimester is okay. So no, I don't think it's the same. If the baby is already at the stage that it can live on its own, it should.

This is one of the reasons that the abortion debate can be difficult, because it can be fuzzy at times as to exactly what people are arguing about. At a certain point, it usually seems to turn into a "murderers" versus "oppressors" type of argument, which I just don't believe it is.

[Mandylion]

If we were all a society unto ourselves, I would agree that we all have a right to our bodies and could do whatever we wanted to them. In such a world, anything we did would not impact on anyone else � we could all smoke, drink until our livers were preserved, do drugs, drive, eat, and live like there was no tomorrow because the costs of such behavior (impacts on the healthcare system, the quality of our communities, our environment) would not be spread beyond the individual.

However, I feel that abortion, like so much else, carries a distinct and lasting social implications that cannot be ignored or selfishly abused. This is not to say that a woman does not have a right to her body, or that society should be approving abortions on an individual level, but society must empower women and their partners to make qualified, informed, and responsible decisions about human reproduction (at all stages). Society can�t stop you from making a decision, but if you are going to do something that impacts us all, you at least owe it to the rest of us to really think about it beforehand.

Society owes it to its members to provide a safe and fertile environment for personal, economic, and social growth. It can�t stop you from making a decision, but decisions should not be made in complete isolation. The societies of man are not perfect and most of us don�t get to choose which one we are a part of. When you make a decision of this magnitude it is not fair to write all the rest of us completely out of the process, nor should society dictate on such a sensitive and personal issue. We all are impacted by the birth or abortion of a child � it creates new challenges and benefits of one form or another onto all the institutions our societies are built on: economical, political, educational, societal, etc. By no means should a woman be forced to have a child that will carry her family deeper into grinding poverty, but neither should the rich woman be free to abort because prenatal tests have shown the child will have a slight physical deformity but be otherwise healthy (if you have been reading the New York Times as of late you probably caught the article).

(Ps � Frank, not to worry, the Merry Band of Moderators will keep things kosher)

[bossel]

I'm on the same line as Glenn on this one. I haven't voted, since my idea is not in the list. I'm pro-choice as long as the foetus has not developed a nervous system, but as soon as the embryo can feel pain, it should be treated as an individual being. Abortion then should only be legal under special circumstances.
The right to your own body ends where the other's body begins.

[Golgo_13]

I'm going to pose another difficult question.

What if you found out early in the pregnancy that your baby is suffering from an illness which will require lifetime of medical care at enormous costs, not to mention cause him/her great pain?

If I were the mother, I would seriously consider terminating the pregnancy.

What would you do?

[Glenn]

It's hard to say, because you never know what could happen. The very existence of such a person could serve to inspire others to greater things; there have been cases like this before. Also, how would the child's mental state be? He could still be potentially the smartest person to have ever lived, and could shed light on a lot of areas about which we either know nothing, or, at best, not much. I am tempted to bring up the question of life expectancy, but that is never accurate anyway, so forget that I brought it up. In the end, I guess I would give the child a chance, but then again, I can never really know until I am in said situation.

[kirei_na_me]

It is hard to say. When I was 16 weeks pregnant with my second son, the ultrasound technician spotted something abnormal on the ultrasound. It was extra fluid on the back of his neck, which was supposed to be a symptom of Down's Syndrome. I then had to take a blood test which would reveal if the baby was Down's or not. In the few days that I had to wait on those results to come back, I had to try to think about what to do if it came back positive for Down's.

Although I was getting pressure from my side of the family(mom/grandma saying things like 'they didn't have ultrasounds back then....if they did, something could be done about it'), I still didn't come to a firm conclusion in those few days. I just kept trying to keep a positive attitude about it. I kept telling myself that I was very young, his kidneys and other organs were fine, etc. etc. Luckily, he was born healthy. I will always be extremely thankful for that.

[michi]

:) I'm glad everything turned out alright, kirei. :)

By the way, I'm pro-choice.

[Foxtrot Uniform]

When I discussed this issue with my friends, one of them came up with an interesting point. He is am industrial strength Christian so he was against abortion, so I asked him why abortion are wrong. He replied that getting an abortion is always murder because even if the fetus has not yet developed a nervous system or has even grown lungs and you terminate it, it is still murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being that could have had a life. As soon as the sperm fertilizes tha egg and the process of the creation of life begins, terminating it would be murder because it has the potential to live. He went onto to talk about how murdering is wrong because we are God's children that is not important.

Although I am an atheist and I am very pro-choice, this made me think.

[silver angel]

I'm going to pose another difficult question.

What if you found out early in the pregnancy that your baby is suffering from an illness which will require lifetime of medical care at enormous costs, not to mention cause him/her great pain?

If I were the mother, I would seriously consider terminating the pregnancy.

What would you do?

I'm not commenting on the abortion part, because I am personally torn between two views (personally and religiously)
But to answer this question,
I'm certain that I would let my child be born. Even if it will cost me my career, savings and such. As long as I can be with that child for the time God gave it. Pain is just another way of growing, and a part of life. I know because I've been through it with my family in the hospital. I'd give up all the money that I can to give that child a chance to live.
Also, miracles can happen in that time.

[Lina Inverse]

Pro-Choice - Abortion should generally be allowed! Let the women make a choice, without being influenced by any braindead christian organizations who just want to talk her into getting the child even if it would often be much better not to because the mother can't make an outcome and/or is too young for it. Abortion is never murder, that's utter nonsense! The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way) of something that isn't even born yet, so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!
I even think that minors should generally be disallowed to get children because they're way too young for it!

@Foxtrot Uniform
The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else

[silver angel]

Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else

Because it's so easy to shoot a sperm....

[Lina Inverse]

Because it's so easy to shoot a sperm....

Or, with the same insane religious fanatic argumentation style, you could also argue that every time you have a menstruation you are committing murder because the egg had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else

[Glenn]

Abortion is never murder, that's utter nonsense! The life of the mother is alway more valuable than the "life" (if you can even call it that way) of something that isn't even born yet...

However, I think that there is some grey area here. If a baby is born prematurely then after it is born it could still be "aborted," because it hasn't finished developing to the point that it should have. Therefore, it is nothing more than a fetus that is in the wrong place. What's the difference between a 32-week fetus and a baby born after 32 weeks? Does where it is affect the situation that much?

Another question: what's the difference between a baby that is just about to exit the womb and one that just has? Is one more alive than the other? Can one feel pain more than the other?

Here is something else about which I have often wondered: do pro-choice women become upset about losing a "child" if they have a miscarriage? If so, then the fetus would seem to be more than a "choice" to them.

...so she must not be forced to ruin her life just to have the child!

Who says that having the child would ruin her life? Do you think that there are not women out there who just view abortion as a convenience issue? I.e. women for whom having a child would just be an inconvenience, while not being really disadvantaged by the child.

Also, it seems to me that abortion is quite a cop-out. If you can't afford to have a child, don't. If you have become pregnant or gotten someone pregnant (whichever the case may be), then you have to live with the consequences of your actions. Abortion seems to me to be yet another symptom of the "it's not my responsibility to reap what I have sown" mentality.

[Foxtrot Uniform]

@Foxtrot Uniform
The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else

Hmm good point! I'll tell him that, but now he'll feel guilty when ever he shoots his sperm onto the ground.

[chiquiliquis]

Well, the problem lies in when you believe that life starts. I think that by the third trimester you are definitely dealing with a person, because it's so developed. To me, aborting a fetus at that stage is the same thing as murder.

Some Orthodox Jews believe beating off is tantamount to murder.

When does life start? Life doesn't start. Life is!

Our valuations of life (when it starts or stops, or what qualifies it as "human") are all functions of life. LIFE gave birth to reason (what some like to call, "humanity"); Not the other way around.

There is no other thing than life in this world, and it is singular. There are no "lives" except those that reason alone has lead us to judge or qualify in one way or another.

I'll say it again, cause it's worth saying: LIFE gave birth to reason; Not the other way around.

I see only one issue at hand... affirming life through choice.

And, yes... I beat off with a very clear conscience.


This is what I get for posting without having read the entire thread... props to Lina for bringing up the sperm issue.

[Glenn]

Some Orthodox Jews believe beating off is tantamount to murder.

Yes, and it's a sin in Catholicism, most likely for that very same reason.

When does life start? Life doesn't start. Life is!

Our valuations of life (when it starts or stops, or what qualifies it as "human") are all functions of life. LIFE gave birth to reason (what some like to call, "humanity"); Not the other way around.

There is no other thing than life in this world, and it is singular. There are no "lives" except those that reason alone has lead us to judge or qualify in one way or another.

I'll say it again, cause it's worth saying: LIFE gave birth to reason; Not the other way around.

I see only one issue at hand... affirming life through choice.

I'm not sure what you're saying here, and I don't know what stance you have taken. Do you mean that everyone on Earth is part of a collective life, so therefore there are no individuals? Or are you perhaps saying that if a being cannot reason, then it is not alive (I hope you aren't saying that)? Or are you saying that life is in everything and should not be terminated? I'm afraid that I can't seem to make any sense of what you have said.

The point of your friend is absolute nonsense. Arguing that way, you could also say that shooting your sperm on the ground (or into a condom, or somewhere else where it can't impregnate a woman) is murder because it had the potential to mature and develop into a human being and yadda yadda whatever else.

I was thinking about this, and there seems to me to be a difference between a fertilized egg and one that isn't or a sperm. The reason is this, a sperm has about a one in one million chance of fertilizing an egg, right? Also, a sperm only carries half of the human chromosones. Same thing for an egg -- I'm not sure what the chances are of an egg becoming fertilized, but when you put that together with the chances of a sperm fertilizing an egg, you have a less than one in a million chance of a certain egg combining with a certain sperm.

Now, if you consider a fertilized egg, you will see that it is already a special entity, because it somehow beat the odds (even though there are millions of sperm in each ejaculation and there are several eggs available -- not every act of sexual intercourse results in pregnancy anyway). Aside from that, a fretilized egg can arguably be considered a human. For example, it already has all of the DNA encoding that it requires and will ever have throughout its lifetime. That means that height, weight, body type, build, intelligence, personality, sex, race, etc. are all there from the moment of conception. It just doesn't look human yet. However, it is certainly not a frog or a moth. On the point of looking human, would you consider someone so disfigured that he didn't look human anymore to not be human?