Abortion

[Spelunker]

^agreed.

 

Pro-choice doesn't mean "Ooh, yeah, let's have everyone get abortions!" It means "This is my opinion, take it or leave it, but I won't force you to go by the same rules."

 

 

And Bosco,

It's really nobody else's business what a woman does with her body. The *only* other person I think should have some say would be the potential father, if he's in the picture, because, well, it's partially his child, too... The woman should always have the final say, though, in my opinion.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Spelunker

[brairtrainer]

I'm likely to get shot for this point of view but hey...it's a point of view. I'm 37 now....when I was 32 I had my son Kian who is now almost 5 years old. I had probably about the worst pregnancy imaginable. In fact Kian was born 10 weeks early not breathing and I died twice on the table during the emergency c-section. I however was ready to do it all again but I'm very glad I didn't because I likely wouldn't have lived. With that being said.....there are only TWO make that THREE instances I think abortion should be an option....

 

1- The life of the mother and child are seriously at risk and it's a no win situation.

 

2- Cases of rape. I'm sorry but I would not want to be a victim of rape and have to find out I was pregnant and know that I was going to HAVE to give birth to my rapists child.

 

3- Cases of sexual molestation/incest. Why would you even want to make someone a victim of this have to even go there????

I agree with you in spirit/moral however I also feel that there are if there is no other viable alternative to struggling to raise a child in poverty or not good living conditions and there is no viable alternative (with the state of adoption right now I don't count it as a viable alternative) we need to keep it as an open and avalible procedure.

 

Another thing I want to add to this as had been said previously in this thread, if the child is not viable the couple (I'm using couple here since typically stories I've come across with this show people as a couple though feel free to insert mother instead) should be allowed to make a choice to termenate the pregnancy so they can try again sooner or so that they can deal with the grief on their own terms (depending on the situation of course.)

 

I also agree that if the child has a medical issue that can be corrected by surgery but 1) parents don't have the money/insurence to cover said surgery or 2) has a very low success rate the parents (or parent) should have the choice to abort so as not to put the child into a horrific situation and drown the family in debt.

 

Edit: These are the majority reason's I'm pro-choice and therefore I placed the reasons under which I would get an abortion (except the top, but who knows what I would do in that situation), even if adoption was more viable I'd rather women have the choice so everything overall funtions more smoothly

Edited February 21, 2013 by brairtrainer

[boscodelta]

Pro-choice doesn't mean "Ooh, yeah, let's have everyone get abortions!" It means "This is my opinion, take it or leave it, but I won't force you to go by the same rules."

 

Pretty much this.

[TikindiDragon]

1- The life of the mother and child are seriously at risk and it's a no win situation.

Only the life of both? Not if the life of mother or child is at risk?

 

What about cases where the mother is undergoing treatment (either in the short term, or on long-term medication) that would be severly harmful to a fetus? If the treatment is stopped, the pregnancy could be carried to term with no ill effects on the fetus, but potentially dire consequences for the health of the mother (eg, people undergoing treatment for cancer, or folks on anti-pshychotic meds). Technically the lives of both are not at risk in this situation - only the life of one (the fetus if the mother continues treatment, the mother if she does not).

 

Also what about cases where pregnancy is causing the woman to be suicidal? Is it really fair to put her through 9 months of having to be kept on a suicide watch? Would such a person be in a healthy mental state to then rear the child anyway once it was born?

 

What about mothers suffering from severe addictions? The pregnancy may not harm her, but continuing with it while she is using is certainly not good for the developing fetus. Bear in mind here that going cold-turkey with a severe addiction to certain substances (including alcohol and heroin) can actually be life threatening in and of itself, and certainly creates an strain on the heart and circulatory system above that placed on them by the pregnancy.

 

There are quite a lot of reasons people get abortions. Any attempt to limit them in law is going to let a lot of people that actually *need* them for whatever reason fall through the net. I guess I can understand that (in theory) what you object to is people aborting simply because they don't want a baby. And, yes, there are those people out there. But I will give you a thought on that: shouldn't every child be wanted? You clearly wanted your son. I know that my mother had me against the advice of doctors because she desperately wanted a child. But all babies aren't going to become wanted simply because their mothers are unable to abort them, and some kids go through hell growing up because their parents remind them every day that they weren't wanted.

 

Which is why I do not think acess to abortion should be limited in law. Which is what the 'pro-choice' stance means. Nothing more.

[High Lord November]

I disagree. It's human offspring in the developmental process. It can't be anything but human. It's not going to become a cat. It has been argued on this thread that the developmental process can "malfunction" and it can become a tumor or miscarry, but that doesn't change the fact that it WAS a developing human.

 

Tell me then, at what point does a fetus become human? Because your line of reasoning sounds an awful lot like Singer's. And he argues that I should be permitted to kill my offspring until it can declare its will to live. Is it wrong for me to kill a just-born infant? If yes, why was it not wrong for me to kill it 5 minutes before birth? If it was wrong to kill it five minutes before birth, why was it not wrong to kill it a week prior? If it was wrong to kill it a week prior... etc. When is life worth being protected? I believe any line someone can supply about "life is worth protecting now" is completely arbitrary.

 

Because the idea that a fetus is alive is equally supportable by religion and science, and the killing of infants in the womb is morally abhorrent just like any other form of murder. We don't want new laws, we want the laws that are already in place to apply to all kinds of murder.

 

I never said it wasn't human. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said the opposite. But the thing is, I don't care about the material (as I said before). A zygote/fetus, or what have you, is human. It is composed of human cells. But it's just a clump of cells.

 

A fetus is human! It's not a person though! Again, I don't care about human in this situation in terms of how I defined it in my previous post.

 

So I should hold off aborting a fetus because it will become a person? Or, rather, because it has potential to become a person? That person could be horrible or nice, a murderer or the next president, so potential holds no water with me. Also with a species population of over 7 billion (an already incomprehensible number) I don't think one more nice person will do anything (assuming that I had the willingness, the money, and the proper environment and state of mind to bring it up 'nice', which in that situation I don't think I would).

 

Not to mention, if I were to abort I certainly wouldn't wait until the last couple of months unless it was for health complications (and then I would actually want the child, something I certainly do not want any time soon nor do I see myself wanting ever). Following your train of thought, I can't abort anything because it will eventually turn into a "human" (or person, in my terms), even if I don't believe in potentiality as an argument? Tell me why, then.

 

I am going to be completely honest here - if I were in a situation that I would bring a ridiculous amount of hardships on my mother (or she couldn't support me, money, health problems, did not want a child, etc.), I would totally volunteer to be aborted to give both my future sibling and my parents a better chance at life. Not doing so is selfish, IMO. After all, you would never know that you existed in the first place.

 

 

I keep on hearing about drawing this legendary line, but really there isn't a line. It's a spectrum, and the spectrum varies per person and on how comfortable they are going into their own personal grey area. How could you possibly draw the line at something that varies so much per person? Now it's getting into forcing one's own comforts/lines on other people, which isn't fair at all.

 

 

 

Because the idea that a fetus is alive is equally supportable by religion and science, and the killing of infants in the womb is morally abhorrent just like any other form of murder. We don't want new laws, we want the laws that are already in place to apply to all kinds of murder.

 

That's not necessarily true. It's a completely debatable subject, and most importantly varies per person, so it can't be treated as a fact.

 

Also I don't think anyone is debating whether it's alive or not? If it's growing, it's alive. That's not what we really have a problem with. That is a fact, just like a seed is alive or a pig fetus is alive. However, whether it should be considered a person or not is a different matter.

Edited February 21, 2013 by High Lord November

[KageSora]

Who said it was worth more? Who said it was more important? I just want the child's life to be of EQUIVALENT importance to its mother's. If I kill the mother, I get put in jail. If I kill the child, I get put in jail. Equivalent value, because they're both humans.

That's not possible. If I value as much as the child, then my well-being should count for something. If I am not allowed to remove that child for any reason other than imminent death, then you are saying my mental and emotional health are worth less than a clump of cells, and in effect are saying that I am worth less than that child.

 

It is absolutely impossible to have equal value placed on two things, one of which is leeching off the other. One will always have to take precedence.

 

There is absolutely no way to possibly care for the mother's needs in every case without sacrificing the child, but it's also not possible to care for the child in every single case without sacrificing the needs of the mother.

 

Outside of those cases where the mother wants the child and is able to handle the pregnancy, one will HAVE to be sacrificed for the other. That's just how it works.

 

Until, that is, you find a way to extract the clump of cells and grow it in a tank where the mother has absolutely not connection to it and isn't expected to provide, care for, or raise it once it's grown enough to live on it's own. Also, in a way that's free for the mother because of those who can't afford it.

[Zaxian]

To echo the sentiment of many here - I'm fervently pro-CHOICE, because it's *my* decision to do with *my* body what I will.

 

Until, that is, you find a way to extract the clump of cells and grow it in a tank where the mother has absolutely not connection to it and isn't expected to provide, care for, or raise it once it's grown enough to live on it's own.  Also, in a way that's free for the mother because of those who can't afford it.

Bring on the birth tanks!

[Spelunker]

Bring on the birth tanks!

 

ROFL! I totally agree! If science ever advances to the point where we can HAVE birth tanks, I'm all for it. But until then, those potential products of birth tanks are not going to be more than a clump of cells, and will be aborted if they can't be handled.

[sparkle10184]

"Often"? That's not the case. Medically "necessary" abortions account for a very small percentage of abortions performed. And the "necessary" part is debatable in many cases.

To me, necessary is if having the baby will harm the mother. Not just if the mother will die instantly after giving birth. And with that point of view, yes, that is OFTEN the reason.

 

Also, if the mother was raped I think she should have the right to abort.

[hazeh]

An established person is never allowed to use another person's body against their will even if it would save their life. If you want to apply personhood to a fetus, then they should follow the same rules and not be allowed to use a mother's body against her will to save their own life.

I really enjoy how this is said. This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the matter.

[BlackMagicRose]

Oops....Mother OR Child....sorry.....I meant to put mother OR child in my post. That's what I get for typing 100+ WPM. Anyway, yeah....because I did die having Kian...couple times actually. And flatlining and coming back once the statistics are astronomically not good but twice there is a less than 2% chance of coming back a second time. So my son and I were very lucky. The doctors have all said we shouldn't even be here.

 

Would I, myself change anything....NO. But am I going to take away someone else right to decide if they can handle the medical repercussions that I now deal with and that having a premature baby born 10 weeks early that is considered special needs because of developmental delays and such....NO. I mean my situation now is on the low end of the scale.....I hate to think what it would have been had it turned out differently because his "father" walked out on us as is so I am solely responsible for Kian. And believe me....trying to foot the bill of a "normal" child is one thing but one with special needs adds an entirely new layer.

 

Financially there are things people need to look at if the child inside is going to have severe health problems that cannot be fixed. And one thing to remember is that it is no one's fault if something is wrong with you or the pregnancy (well unless you've got a drug addicted crack ho on your hands) because having a child with all the chemicals and such is a crap shoot. You can be the healthiest person on the planet and still have everything possible go wrong.

[KageSora]

Bring on the birth tanks!

Or, how about finding a way for MEN to safely carry a pregnancy to term? I'd be all for that--then all these men who want to make laws about what I can do with my uterus can birth the little screaming poop-sacks! They get the babies they want to save, and I don't have to deal with it! Everybody wins! /partially sarcastic

 

But birth tanks would be great, IMO. I can't really imagine it being more damaging than a child growing up being told they were a mistake that should have never happened or something.

[Obscure_Trash]

Even with birth tanks, if I got pregnant, I'd abort. I don't want to be pregnant, I don't want to bring life into the world. Period. >.>

[kitsune93]

Or, how about finding a way for MEN to safely carry a pregnancy to term? I'd be all for that--then all these men who want to make laws about what I can do with my uterus can birth the little screaming poop-sacks! They get the babies they want to save, and I don't have to deal with it! Everybody wins! /partially sarcastic

Having men carry babies to term sounds like a fantastic idea whether they're unwanted or not.

If it were possible, I'd have my future husband carry our second kid just because.

[Vhale]

I sure many people here remember the Transvaginal Ultrasound debacle in Virginia.

 

It's happening again in Indiana. Except not once, but you get to have this done twice.

 

Article

 

The Indiana state Senate on Wednesday advanced a bill that would require women to undergo an ultrasound procedure both before and after having a medication-induced abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy.

[kitsune93]

I sure many people here remember the Transvaginal Ultrasound debacle in Virginia.

 

It's happening again in Indiana. Except not once, but you get to have this done twice.

 

Article

 

I'm not opposed to the idea that a woman needs to get an ultrasound before going through with an abortion in cases were the reason isn't medical. Just to make sure she knows she's doing what she thinks is right.

But, that's ONLY, and I can't stress the only enough, if she doesn't have to pay for the procedure and it's provided by the state.

Also, like I said before, it wouldn't be required if the was being aborted for a medical reason.

[Obscure_Trash]

Just to make sure she knows she's doing what she thinks is right.

How does even a noninvasive ultrasound help this?

 

The proposed law being, btw, is about a very, very invasive and possibly triggering unnecessary procedure.

[Infinis]

I'm not opposed to the idea that a woman needs to get an ultrasound before going through with an abortion in cases were the reason isn't medical. Just to make sure she knows she's doing what she thinks is right.

As a general rule, when a woman gets an abortion she already thinks/knows she is doing the right thing. A forced ultrasound is sounding just like a way to guilt trip women into having children they do not want. And it is never okay to guilt trip anyone into doing something they don't want to do. :x

[Fuzzbucket]

Or, how about finding a way for MEN to safely carry a pregnancy to term? I'd be all for that--then all these men who want to make laws about what I can do with my uterus can birth the little screaming poop-sacks! They get the babies they want to save, and I don't have to deal with it! Everybody wins! /partially sarcastic

 

But birth tanks would be great, IMO. I can't really imagine it being more damaging than a child growing up being told they were a mistake that should have never happened or something.

YES ! Then the men who want my clump of cells can take it on

[Snowytoshi]

Even with birth tanks, if I got pregnant, I'd abort. I don't want to be pregnant, I don't want to bring life into the world. Period. >.>

Ditto.

 

There are many people already here, we should make them our priority, not the unborn.

[LascielsShadow]

I'm not opposed to the idea that a woman needs to get an ultrasound before going through with an abortion in cases were the reason isn't medical. Just to make sure she knows she's doing what she thinks is right.

But, that's ONLY, and I can't stress the only enough, if she doesn't have to pay for the procedure and it's provided by the state.

Also, like I said before, it wouldn't be required if the was being aborted for a medical reason.

Most women who are having abortions have already decided that it's right/for the best. This law, and others like it, are meant to do nothing except guilt women into continuing pregnancies they don't want. Women who want an abortion KNOW they're pregnant, they KNOW the fetus is alive, and they KNOW they don't want it, for whatever reason. No ultrasound required there. Actually needed abortion-related ultrasounds don't need to be legally mandated; the doctor performing the procedure will do one if they need to.

 

 

[philpot123]

I keep on hearing about drawing this legendary line, but really there isn't a line. It's a spectrum, and the spectrum varies per person and on how comfortable they are going into their own personal grey area. How could you possibly draw the line at something that varies so much per person? Now it's getting into forcing one's own comforts/lines on other people, which isn't fair at all.

 

So let me get this straight. You're saying there is no line that determines when life is worth protecting? It's a morally gray area that varies person to person? So it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her 2 week old child? 2 month old child? Toddler? Or are you saying it's okay to terminate a pregnancy up until the minute of birth? I don't wish to assume anything, so I'll work from both options.

 

If the former, then it's perfectly acceptable to kill any child if it becomes an inconvenience? No matter the age?

 

If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?

[hydrargyrum]

So let me get this straight. You're saying there is no line that determines when life is worth protecting? It's a morally gray area that varies person to person? So it's perfectly acceptable for a mother to kill her 2 week old child? 2 month old child? Toddler? Or are you saying it's okay to terminate a pregnancy up until the minute of birth? I don't wish to assume anything, so I'll work from both options.

 

If the former, then it's perfectly acceptable to kill any child if it becomes an inconvenience? No matter the age?

 

If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?

Can you draw a line separating black from white in this image?

 

 

If there's no line to be drawn, does that mean that you can't tell white apart from black?

 

Just because something's a spectrum, doesn't mean we can't tell the endpoints apart. We can say "this is clearly white" and "this is clearly black" even if there's no specific line dividing the two. By your argument, all age based laws are entirely pointless. Is there a defining moment on someone's 21st birthday where they suddenly gain the ability to handle alcohol better than they could last night? If not, does that mean no one should ever be allowed to drink, because there's no magic moment where a clear line should be drawn? By that logic, a 5 year old and a 50 year old should be treated exactly the same, because the transition is imperceptibly slow, but I certainly wouldn't trust a 5 year old behind the wheel of a car nor do I think they should be able to purchase alcohol.

Edited February 23, 2013 by hydrargyrum

[Syaoransbear]

If the latter, what is so different about the child in the hours before birth and the hours after birth that makes it deserving of human rights? When do I get basic human rights? You would say that I should not harm you, correct? That it would be wrong for me to physically harm you, rape you, or kill you? Because you have basic human rights? When does a child gain those same rights that you claim to have? If there is no "line" to be crossed that gives the child those rights, how can you claim to possess them?

The difference is that a fetus is still infringing on the rights of another while a born child is not, that's assuming the mother doesn't want it.

 

You will never be granted the right to use another person's body against their will to preserve your life, which is why a fetus should not be given that right either. It is not a 'basic human right', no one has this right.

[Starscream]

My body. I decide what happens to it. End of subject. Not even my husband can force me to have a child if I do not wish it, and believe me, he know why there is an absolute no to that.

 

Other people may think I should have a baby but it's none of their cotton picking business. They can have all the babies they want but when it comes to what I decide for myself, that is my decision alone.