Abortion

[Obscure_Trash]

It's not the easiest thing in the world to even admit you're in an abusive relationship, much less leave it.

[brairtrainer]

Well when you add abuse into the mechanizum you've stumped me there

[Shienvien]

It's not the easiest thing in the world to even admit you're in an abusive relationship, much less leave it.

This. There are literally millions of people in the world who stay in abusive relationships simply because they do not see or even have any other viable options. They might continue staying in one because they hope things will change (or they might deny to themselves anything is wrong in the first place), they might continue stating in abusive relationship because they are afraid they will be killed if they tried leaving it, they might think it is still preferable to being completely homeless, etc., etc.

 

Restricting abortion will only result in more dead and broken-to-no-repair people. Press forward on good education and the availability of various birth control methods - those will naturally help bring down abortion rates -, but never advocate restricting abortion itself.

Edited July 22, 2012 by Shienvien

[7Deadly$ins]

Would you really trust someone who can't use birth control and has to continually get abortions with a baby? And really, having an earlier term abortion, using the morning after pill, and using condoms or whatever in the first place all have the same result: no babies.

[brairtrainer]

I was thinking of it more being: your condoms have broke on you not once, twice, but three times this year and your getting your third abortion. I was thinking of using it more as a wake up call. Since most, (if not all) clinics require you to talk to someone before you have the abortion done I was thinking that women in abuse relationships might get information on being able to leave one (safe houses, etc.), or give her a reason to call her doctor and get her bc looked at.

[babybluefire]

I was thinking of it more being: your condoms have broke on you not once, twice, but three times this year and your getting your third abortion. I was thinking of using it more as a wake up call. Since most, (if not all) clinics require you to talk to someone before you have the abortion done I was thinking that women in abuse relationships might get information on being able to leave one (safe houses, etc.), or give her a reason to call her doctor and get her bc looked at.

Leaving an abusive relationship is nearly impossible for some women. They may only have a high school education, or less. They likely will have no money, no place to live and no family to support them. In fact if they even tell their family they plan on leaving its not uncommon for the family to turn right around and tell the spouse. Resulting in far more abuse. There are not clean safe homeless shelters on every block. In fact where I live the closest shelter is 2.5 hours and its a drug infested junk hole. Abusive spouses use pregnancy as a form of control over the women. Even if they are educated enough to know to use birth control it may simply be taken away from them or no money given to them to buy it. If a women is handed 50 bucks for food diapers and formula for the week there may be nothing left for birth control or condoms.

 

 

The sad thing to say after so many abortions it does damage to the uterine wall and a women becomes infertile. Any more then 3 abortions done and for some women it may be impossible to get pregnant again. 5 or 9+ and its unlikely she is going to get pregnant.

[~Kat~]

Abortions do ruin a womans body for getting pregnant.

[NobleOwl]

Abortions do ruin a womans body for getting pregnant.

Abortions may do some damage, but they do not by necessity "ruin" a woman's body for conception. There may be extreme cases where that happens, but it is more likely to become infertile through complications from birth or miscarriage (spontaneous abortion) than through abortion.

[Shienvien]

Abortions do ruin a womans body for getting pregnant.

That's very rare - one is far more likely to become infertile from a random infection or even the complications of a carried-though pregnancy. Modern abortions are generally safe and result in no difficulties in getting pregnant afterwards.

 

 

@brairtrainer: What do you mean under wake-up call? I can agree that a woman who has had several abortions in a very short span of time should be given a bit more elaborate after-consultations, but I strongly disagree with the notion of telling her 'no' after a certain amount of times.

Edited July 23, 2012 by Shienvien

[brairtrainer]

I simply am saying that after a certain amount it should tell her she's not doing enough. And that if she isn't useing bc then she should be.

 

I have that opinion because where I grew up there were several girls who used it as contreception instead of a choice once they got pregnant. I also think that if something like this was there nothing from the other side would show.

 

[Sorrowgrave]

http://stay-back-human.deviantart.com/favourites/#/d5843mc

 

thoughts?

 

 

personally knowing a few victoms of rape or almost just on the forum, and that's those who admited it

 

sexual harrashment is NOT rare like this person says

 

nor is abortion from medical reasons.

 

stupid prolifer is stupid

 

 

[hydrargyrum]

I simply am saying that after a certain amount it should tell her she's not doing enough. And that if she isn't useing bc then she should be.

 

I have that opinion because where I grew up there were several girls who used it as contreception instead of a choice once they got pregnant. I also think that if something like this was there nothing from the other side would show.

I don't think it's fair to have another human being (the child she couldn't abort) used as a wake-up call. Although it shouldn't be the primary birth control, abortion is and always will be a form of birth control by it's very definition. Someone who doesn't have control of the situation (as mentioned the case of the abusive relationship) shouldn't be at fault, and someone who does have control of the situation (and just choose not to use other forms of birth control) ... well, I don't think they'd do so well with children.

 

I see what you're trying to say. That there should be a limit, and people shouldn't be able to abuse the system. But you don't seem to be taking into account the fact that we're talking about a human life here. Just because someone isn't handling the situation the way you'd like doesn't mean that you can force them to give up their lives, nor should an unwanted child be born into that situation.

 

Abortion is about choice. What happens to a woman's body should be under her control and no one else's. To say "well, you just weren't smart/informed/prepared enough, so now you no longer get to choose" is a little ridiculous. And we can't lose sight of the fact that you want to force a women who has clearly shown an inability to plan well and to learn from her mistakes to raise a child. You can't use a human being to try to teach a lesson to someone like that.

[KageSora]

http://stay-back-human.deviantart.com/favourites/#/d5843mc

 

thoughts?

 

 

personally knowing a few victoms of rape or almost just on the forum, and that's those who admited it

 

sexual harrashment is NOT rare like this person says

 

nor is abortion from medical reasons.

 

stupid prolifer is stupid

I'll break down what she says, I disagree with her quite a bit.

 

Well, aren't we all a clump of cells when you get right down to it? Yes, we're much more cells than a fetus, but we're still made up of many cells. Also, aren't plants alive despite being unable to think?

 

Yes, we all are just clumps of cells--the difference between me now and me as a fetus is that as a fetus I was not an established person and would not have been capable of caring one way or another about being aborted--I wouldn't have been capable of even knowing what abortion was, or even have a sense of self.

 

And I lol'd at the plant thing--yes plants are alive, when people use "alive" they typically mean "alive" not as in "not dead" or "animate" but as in "an established being", from what my experience has been. Also, people don't usually go "Wait, this is murder" before mass-killing weeds in a garden, or refuse to use paper because "Wait, a plant had to die for this paper to be made!"

 

Rather than answering any question I asked them, this person kept pulling out the rape card, as if that validated the trillions of unborn humans who have been killed

I do agree that the rape card is thrown around a lot. It should not be treated as a trump card that defeats all other arguments.

 

That said, it is a very valid point because it does address a very ugly reality. Rape does happen. Babies do result from rape. It is not a blanket justification for all cases, of course, but it still needs to be taken into consideration.

 

You wouldn't call a horse fetus a "potential horse", would you?

Actually, yes, I would call a horse fetus a potential horse--because it is not yet a fully-developed, independently-existing horse.

 

This person also acted like everyone who stands up for life is religious. While I am religious, claiming that only religious people are pro-life is a crock.

I do agree with this. There are religious people on both sides of the debate, and there are non-religious people on both sides of the debate. Everybody has their reasons, not all of them being religious. It seems to be more common to find the religious people speaking up about being "pro life" and the non-religious to be pro-choice, but it's not impossible to find people on the least expected side for their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).

 

 

This is why I often don't get along with pro-choicers... they always have the same empty arguments. I have met some who are very nice, but they are a rare breed.

 

And here I think they're making a claim just as "stupid" as the person they were arguing with. It very greatly depends on where you are. I've seen a ton of religious people who are complete s, and considering all the media attention they get, one could reasonably argue that true, honest, decent religious people are a "rare breed" if all they run into are the jerky ones who are terrible representations of their religions.

 

Additionally, most of the "pro-life" people I've seen break out the exact same set of empty arguments. Both sides have people who will just use the generic, well-established arguments without bothering to explain their exact stance or try to think of other arguments.

 

I will also, however, say that the stupider and nastier a person is, the louder they are likely to be, and the more likely you are to encounter them. This happens for both sides of the debate.

 

 

Most women are using abortion as birth control... that is the sad reality of it. They don't want to take responsibility for relying on condoms and birth control - which can be faulty. And they don't want to acknowledge that they chose to open their legs. If abortion were only used in the cases of rape and medical crises, I - and many other pro-lifers - wouldn't be as upset by it.

 

Abortion is birth control. That's exactly what it is, it's controlling population by restricting birth--just like other forms do, just in a different manner. Also, I'd like to see some stats on where they got the "most are using it because they don't wanna bother with other stuff" claim.

 

Also, so what if they have sex? Sex has more purposes besides baby-making.

 

Also going to take issue with "only rape and medical crisis"--how do you define medical crisis? Some would say "only if the mother's life is in danger". I've seen some people of the very disgusting opinion that it's perfectly alright for the mother to be completely mentally and emotionally broken by the pregnancy (extreme phobia of pregnancy, anybody?), and that's just fine so long as she pops that baby out. Would emotional trauma count as a medical crisis?

 

Also, what about kids who would then be born to a family that would abuse them because they never wanted the little brats in the first place? You could say don't have sex--but if they are having sex, what then? Doom the child to that?

 

Or condemn a child to be raised in an environment not good for it by people unfit to be parents? Or what about those who are not financially able to care for the child? Yes, you can claim adoption--but the system is far from perfect, what about the children who get chucked in and just age out because nobody wants them?

 

 

Because pro-choice people are often pushy and rude to pro-life people.

 

This cuts both ways--I've seen many "pro life" people who are pushy and rude to pro-choice people.

 

 

Additionally, I'd like to see some unbiased sources, instead of clearly "pro-life" sources. I will trust virtually nothing from one of those sources. That said, a clearly pro-choice source could also very easily be spewing BS claims--both sides have those who lie and misinform.

 

 

 

 

Additionally, I use quote marks around "pro-life" because, honestly, many people I've seen who claim to be "pro-life" are also people who don't give a about the kid once it's out of the womb, and also people who don't care about the mother at all so long as she pops out that kid. Obviously, not all pro-life people are like this (and there are plenty of "pro-choice" people who really don't care about the welfare of the mother and child or the woman's right to choose or are just doing it to spite the religious people who are pro-life) and there are plenty of decent people in this thread who are pro-life, even if I disagree with ya. But many people do claim to be pro-life when all they care about is the fetus.

 

If you genuinely care about the child once it's born, and the mother, then I have no issue with you calling yourself pro-life. I just notice some of the very loud people claiming the title are not truly pro-life, but are more what I like to call "pro-forced birth", can't recall who said that term first (I think it may have been either this topic, or somewhere on Tumblr) since, as I said, they really only care about the kid before it's born. Even if they have the resources (time included) to raise a child, they wouldn't actually be willing to adopt the child that a mother would otherwise abort, instead wanting it just chucked in the system or raised by a person who would not make a good parent/be able to provide a good environment for the child to be raised in.

[Sorrowgrave]

rather than bother quoting what the above person said

 

I fear pregnancy to the point death would be a better alternative than carrying one to term,

though I'd throw myself down a few flights of stairs first.

 

and with my medical problems and all the genetic diseases and the I just do NOT want to be a parent mindset ..kids are a no no

atleast human ones.

 

I love my animals just fine thank you very much.

 

 

I saw this quote

 

if you're prolife that's fine, you can keep the fetus, just not in MY body

[St. Jimmy]

Most women are using abortion as birth control... that is the sad reality of it. They don't want to take responsibility for relying on condoms and birth control - which can be faulty. And they don't want to acknowledge that they chose to open their legs.

 

The whole "she should have kept her legs shut" bs is one of my biggest pet peeves. Why is it always the woman's fault? It takes two to conceive.

[FyreT1ger]

First of all, I want to say that I'm glad to see this topic here, or anywhere. I haven't read the whole thing as over 100 pages is a lot, but from what I have read, I'm amazed that it hasn't turned into a free for all flame war as so many tense topics do turn into. Because of the high flame rate, most websites don't even allow such topics to be posted. I do understand that the opening post did say don't attack each other, and from what I saw people paid attention.

 

Personally I'm against abortion, for what some of you might think is a strange reason. The term "unwanted" in every debate rubs me the wrong way. It sounds selfish to me. Is life or existence only worth something if it's wanted?

 

If life only matters if wanted, a person, male or female, could kill a stranger for no other reason than the killer didn't want their victim watching them or being in the same room as they. A person could kill himself or herself for the same reason. "I don't want this life I have already, so I'll end it." A child may even kill their parents or siblings because they didn't want them around for that killer child to do something they shouldn't. Of course the child killing their family sounds absurd, as once the deed was done that child would have nothing, if they were indeed still a child at the time. Adult children could kill their elderly parents because they just don't want to take care of them anymore. Could any of these be condoned because the victim was unwanted for one reason or another?

[7Deadly$ins]

First of all, I want to say that I'm glad to see this topic here, or anywhere. I haven't read the whole thing as over 100 pages is a lot, but from what I have read, I'm amazed that it hasn't turned into a free for all flame war as so many tense topics do turn into. Because of the high flame rate, most websites don't even allow such topics to be posted. I do understand that the opening post did say don't attack each other, and from what I saw people paid attention.

 

Personally I'm against abortion, for what some of you might think is a strange reason. The term "unwanted" in every debate rubs me the wrong way. It sounds selfish to me. Is life or existence only worth something if it's wanted?

 

If life only matters if wanted, a person, male or female, could kill a stranger for no other reason than the killer didn't want their victim watching them or being in the same room as they. A person could kill himself or herself for the same reason. "I don't want this life I have already, so I'll end it." A child may even kill their parents or siblings because they didn't want them around for that killer child to do something they shouldn't. Of course the child killing their family sounds absurd, as once the deed was done that child would have nothing, if they were indeed still a child at the time. Adult children could kill their elderly parents because they just don't want to take care of them anymore. Could any of these be condoned because the victim was unwanted for one reason or another?

Those people are able to sustain themselves without parasiting off another human's body.

[Shienvien]

Could any of these be condoned because the victim was unwanted for one reason or another?

No, because unlike early fetuses, those people already had consciousnesses, thoughts and feelings of their own.

 

Ending something which already is is a whole lot different from stopping something from coming to be.

[NobleOwl]

Personally I'm against abortion, for what some of you might think is a strange reason. The term "unwanted" in every debate rubs me the wrong way. It sounds selfish to me. Is life or existence only worth something if it's wanted?

 

Imagine your life for a moment, if no one cared about or wanted you. Just for a minute, imagine being that kid who has to deal with that fact every day of their lives. Would that life be worth living?

 

So many kids, actual children, commit suicide or try every year, solely because they are unwanted.

 

But, that question aside, the big thing is about what is best for the potential child. Is it right to bring a child into the world knowing that you are unable to bond with it emotionally, or even love it a little bit?

 

I've heard too many kids say that their parents were selfish not to abort them.

 

Could any of these be condoned because the victim was unwanted for one reason or another?

 

The difference here is that there is a person there, an established human life. Is a fetus alive? Yes. Since there is no guarantee until after the legal cut off that a fetus is even capable of becoming a person, I can't view it as murder, so your examples really aren't the same.

 

Now, for me, religion impacts as well, since G-d says a fetus is not ensouled, it cannot be murder, but even ignoring that -- is it wrong to get rid of a tumor if it is unwanted? A tumor is living -- and if not, what happens if a fetus becomes a tumor? The fetus has not died. It still has a heartbeat, but it is no longer capable of becoming human. Is it then okay to "kill" it?

 

 

[KageSora]

Personally I'm against abortion, for what some of you might think is a strange reason. The term "unwanted" in every debate rubs me the wrong way. It sounds selfish to me. Is life or existence only worth something if it's wanted?

 

If life only matters if wanted, a person, male or female, could kill a stranger for no other reason than the killer didn't want their victim watching them or being in the same room as they. A person could kill himself or herself for the same reason. "I don't want this life I have already, so I'll end it." A child may even kill their parents or siblings because they didn't want them around for that killer child to do something they shouldn't. Of course the child killing their family sounds absurd, as once the deed was done that child would have nothing, if they were indeed still a child at the time. Adult children could kill their elderly parents because they just don't want to take care of them anymore. Could any of these be condoned because the victim was unwanted for one reason or another?

I feel there's a very big difference between "unwanted child" and "I'll kill this random person because I don't want them around."

 

 

first of all, killing an established person because you don't want them around does NOT make that person unwanted--they very likely had friends and family that did want them around.

 

 

However, if the family of the unborn child do NOT want that child--well, they hardly have friends that want them, and if the family doesn't want them...

 

 

Unwanted is used in the term of the parents-the parents do not desire that child. And I don't think it's right to force somebody to give birth to something they don't want to incubate. That is very, very wrong.

 

On the suicide thing: A suicide is a tragedy because they leave behind people who DID want them, though I can understand hating life so much that death seems the better choice. A fetus, on the other hand, if aborted for being unwanted is not leaving behind people who will grieve and wonder why for the rest of their lives, who will mourn the loss because said fetus does not have people who want it around.

 

 

I've never seen "unwanted" used in the context of "The fetus already has so many people who want to have it around", I've seen it in the context of "it has no connections to this world aside from the parents, and they don't want it."

 

 

You could say, "But what about the case of an elderly parent who has no friends or other family and the child doesn't want them around?" Well, does the elderly person enjoy their life? If they want their life, then they're not unwanted even if their child doesn't want them around. A fetus has no concept of it's own life, and therefore cannot want it's life, it cannot grasp the idea of life and therefore cannot want to live.

[hazeh]

What about the fetuses that ARE wanted but have to be aborted?

 

Edit: Saw a video today, so I want to ask the same question that was asked in the video.

For those of you who believe abortion should be illegal, what should the punishment by law be for those women who get illegal abortions?

Edited July 25, 2012 by Shiny Hazard Sign

[brairtrainer]

I can't answer your question Shiny Hazard Sign, but they aren't taking it into account in China.

 

Read an article in USA Today yesterday that talked about forced abortions in China. A woman was kidnapped by government workers while shopping. Her husband meanwhile was going around paying all the differant organizations you have to pay to have another child.

 

I don't have a link since I bought the paper but apparantly forced abortion is allowed and pushed for by the government as a way of keeping families in line. The woman in question was 8 months pregnant when the abortion was forced.

[Brite]

it has no rights...

 

it isnt a baby yet.

 

i has not yet been born.

 

it is a fetus...

 

you may aswell give rights to a rock...

 

Saw this on the deviantart pro-life mumbo jumbo. And couldn't agree more

[Fuzzbucket]

I suppose saying "no-one has a right to die" didn't quite put the point across - I'll try again. (Although funny you should say that; there used to be old UK laws where the punishment for suicide was ironically the death penalty.)

 

Everyone has a right to life and therefore the right to any and all viable treatment that will preserve that life - and therefore as part of that right, someone of sound mind can refuse life-saving treatment. But while that same person can ask for no more interventions, they could not ask for any actions that could be construed as euthanasia. Even those on the Care Pathway are made comfortable, but they are still provided with nutritional needs etc. So by "right to die" what I mean is that no person can ask for medical interventions that will end their life; they can only refuse further intervention.

Increasingly, civilised countries are changing that. And quite right too. Why should someone like that paraplegic footballer in Northumberland (I think he is) who DESPERATELY wants to die be denied the right to ? Or Diane Pretty, who had - I think it was - advancing MND. Deaths like those are ghastly - even with so called Care Pathways. It means that you can choose the time of your death and be sure it is a good death, rather than having to commit suicide before you were ready, just because no-one is allowed to help you later - not even your friends, who would risk prosecution.

 

While we wait - thank goodness for Switzerland - and even in the UK, the Assisted Dying bill is about to go through I think ? HIGH TIME.

[Wantdew]

If you don't want the baby use protection that is all I have to say.