Abortion: Pro-life or Pro-choice?

Should Abortion be allowed?

  • Should not be allowed at all

    Votes: 9 14.3%
  • Should be allowed only when medically necessary

    Votes: 11 17.5%
  • Women should choose for themselves

    Votes: 42 66.7%
  • No opinion

    Votes: 1 1.6%

  • Total voters
    63

Golgo_13

Banned
Messages
156
Reaction score
6
Points
0
Location
KIX -> JFK -> LAX
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.
 
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).
 
I Guess...

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

Frank

:blush:
 
kirei_na_me said:
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.

Frank D. White said:
is Bush is against it, I'm for it!

Frank

:blush:

What if he changes his mind? :D
 
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.
 
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.
 
Please Please Don't.....

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

Frank

:souka:
 
kirei_na_me said:
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?
 
Golgo_13 said:
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?

Glenn said:
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.
 
Last edited:
kirei_na_me said:
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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
:) I'm glad everything turned out alright, kirei. :)

By the way, I'm pro-choice.
 
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.
 
Golgo_13 said:
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. :)
 
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 :D
 
Lina Inverse said:
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 :D

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

This thread has been viewed 132507 times.

Back
Top