Abortion

[User 40136]

What are your thoughts on it?

I'm pro-choice and accept abortion, and have done for a long time. In most debates I've had concerning this topic, many people who are anti-abortion think only of the foetus' rights, and not the rights and quality of life available to the child after birth, which is considerably more important. Women considering abortion would probably not be likely be able to give the child the kind of quality of childhood that most of us have enjoyed, and though adoption is a possibility, it's a fact that many children do not get adopted, and languish in 'care' for years.

It's a very harrowing decision that many women don't take lightly, whatever anti-abortionists might say. Pregnancy and birth is also expensive, and dangerous. Most women these days would find the medical expenses hard to cover, much harder than birth control or abortion, and birth control is much cheaper so it's not like a lot of women would be so careless as to get multiple abortions. If abortion was outlawed, I couldn't imagine what it would be like to be pregnant, with no money, no help and nowhere to go. Probably desperate enough to seek help no matter what, as has happened in the past when abortion was illegal and many women died from untrained/unhygienic conditions by back-alley terminations.

Making abortions illegal would only cause an increase in the number of dangerous, unethical abortions which could cause harm and unnecessary pain to both mother and child. Having said this, I do think there is a certain limit to when on when you cannot have an abortion unless your life is threatened, when the fetus starts to become more developed and more aware of its surroundings (e.g: capable of feeling pain - but that kind of goes without saying.) I'm not sure if 24 weeks should be the maximum limit, as some fetuses are viable and can survive outside the womb at that point, but before then, I don't feel it's unmentionably evil.

Is there any reason besides religion that people oppose this? A reason other than "it's murder"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

 

[Nastyjungle]

women should always have the right to have an abortion, no matter the terms of her pregnancy, no exceptions

(ps i am not talking about late term abortion+)

 

[Xephyr]

women should always have the right to have an abortion, no matter the terms of her pregnancy, no exceptions

(ps i am not talking about late term abortion+)

That.

I also think that if a girl gets raped and is pregnant from that, then abortion should almost even be encouraged. No woman wants to be forced into having a baby that was fathered by a man that is among the sickest alive.

 

[cookie]

Abortion is one of those things that your stance on revolves around subjective and blurry opinions such as the value of the life of a fetus. I have no problem with abortion: as a straight man I wish fewer people would care about aborting fetuses so that it makes things less complicated should I ever accidentally knock someone up. I also sidestep the immorality of what could be considered murder by not attaching an inherent value to human life. I don't advocate murder because it disrupts society too much. I advocate abortion because apart from the stigma attached to it there it doesn't disrupt society; it might even make it run more smoothly since you'll have fewer single mums or unwanted children.

I might naively suggest that once a fairly standard and objective classification of sentience arises in the distant future a clear cut-off point between murder and abortion might be made. Any arguments about the "potential" of a fetus to become a fully-fledged human being are fallacious since you can trace a trail of events leading to birth as far back as you like and then you'd need to question whether any of those counts as "murder" (which Catholicism kinda does in a consistent manner but that just illustrates the impracticality of such an argument).

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

women should always have the right to have an abortion, no matter the terms of her pregnancy, no exceptions

(ps i am not talking about late term abortion+)

No matter the terms? Wouldn't the stage of the pregnancy also be a term of the pregnancy? If that's the case, why are you excluding late-term from that?

 

[Matthew]

The only time I thought ill of abortion was because of the less-thought of outcomes. I remember reading an article, I believe in the New York Times, about how a woman who was pregnant. She was accidentally hit by a car and her baby died. However because her child was still accepted as something which could be aborted she could not press charges for homicide (or was it manslaughter? I forget which). Of course you could argue that, "if she wants to keep it it's a human!" but that makes a very slippery slope argument.

I'm all for abortion, I think it could be a very good thing under the right circumstances. However a more in-depth idea of an "acceptable" time for a woman to choose to abort would make me feel more comfortable as a person. I'm going to go look for the article, but if someone has the link on-hand, or faster than me, for some reason please post it.

 

[Nastyjungle]

No matter the terms? Wouldn't the stage of the pregnancy also be a term of the pregnancy? If that's the case, why are you excluding late-term from that?

i am speaking terms as in rape, the mother being irresponsible, etc.
i think the mentality some people hold of "only rape victims should be allowed abortions" is ridiculous

late term abortions are slippery because you are entering the territory where the fetus could potentially live outside of the mother and be considered a fully developed baby
i am not against late term abortions per say but it is fuzzy where the line should be drawn for "too late to get one"

 

[askaninjask]

I feel that the allowance of abortion is distinctly different from the allowance of murder (many people like to equate the two, and maybe they aren't wrong, I'm not the judge), as allowing murder would break the social contract between a government and its citizens, while allowing abortion does not.

To paraphrase John Locke: I am a member of this country and a citizen of this government, and as a result I get certain things from the government, such as protection, and I give certain things to the government, mainly taxes. I do not want to live in a society where murder is legal, because I really don't want to be murdered. I am willing to give up my ability to murder people in exchange for not getting murdered. It's a pretty sweet deal.

Abortion does not follow that same logic. I am not an embryo, nor is any lawful member of our society. I am not willing to give up our ability to abort a fetus, as I don't get anything in exchange. Banning abortion breaks the basic social contract that underlies government.

 

[Smith]

yeah I agree that an abortion at like 7 or 8 months is somewhat sick. You've had more than enough time to REALIZE that you're pregnant, and you are certainly causing a sentient being lots of pain. I also agree that if you're aborting something that late, you could hypothetically Cesarean it out and it might live to be a full-fledged human being, which increases the "immorality" of it in my eyes. If there were a more clear-cut line for when the fetus becomes "sentient" I think you could set a more definitive boundary for this. I still maintain that if you are a single mother or have an otherwise broken household environment (maybe you have some psychological issues from being raped / left by your husband or something), then you should just abort it because you are GOING to mess up a kid.

Of course because this is the Internet most of us lean to the left so I would like so other opinions on the matter. I was debating (read: mostly just arguing) with a "libertarian" in my class who was against it, on the basis that the fetus has the POTENTIAL to become human in the right conditions (read: inside a female, not aborted). Cookie's idea that this was a slippery slope into masturbation or puberty or whatever doesn't really sit well with me because you still don't really have a "human being". Even if a fetus has just been conceived, it has all of its chromosomes and an identity, and is, in effect, a person. I'd like somebody more on the right to kind of elaborate this argument!

EDIT: The above is also an interesting point, but I think we're probably past a delegated vs. implied powers from the Constitution debate in our country, and most people will tell you that the government can kind of do what it wants.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

i am speaking terms as in rape, the mother being irresponsible, etc.
i think the mentality some people hold of "only rape victims should be allowed abortions" is ridiculous

late term abortions are slippery because you are entering the territory where the fetus could potentially live outside of the mother and be considered a fully developed baby
i am not against late term abortions per say but it is fuzzy where the line should be drawn for "too late to get one"

Okay, that's making more sense now.

(this topic has been surprisingly civil so far)

edit: sorry for jinxing it

 

[mattj]

Is there any reason besides religion that people oppose this? A reason other than "it's murder"? That's not a rhetorical question, I'd really like to know.

Why on earth would anyone have to supply a reason beyond "its murder"?

 

[cookie]

 

[zorbees]

Perhaps because it's a reason backed up with fallacies and dogmas.

 

[Fishy]

if aborting a fetus is murder, then starting arresting doctors.

abortion is the stickiest issue to talk about, especially because it's impossible to agree when the fetus inherits any "rights" before it is born. When is it appropriate to treat it as potential life? After it gets a heart beat? every single sperm that goes unfertilized into a napkin or flushed down a toilet has EXACTLY the same potential for life as a newly fertilized egg, it is just not as far along in the 'process' of maturation.

really, the fact is that aborting a baby is only the business of the woman. if a guy knocks up his girlfriend and wants to keep the child, even if it was an accident, if the woman doesn't want the fetus or doesn't feel comfortable/capable of raising a child, then she can do as she pleases. it's not as if choosing to abort a fetus is an easy decision by any stretch - aborting is a very invasive procedure, and although there are people that can choose to abort as easily as they can select what shirt to wear in the morning, not all women go without a burden on their shoulders after choosing what is best for them, which in the grand scheme of things, is all that matters.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Allow me to be a nitpicking douche for a second: not every sperm has the same potential (especially if you wear skinny jeans, Matthew). That's one of the reasons so many are made, mutations that make sperm unviable (extra tails, fucked-up tails (to use the technical term), etc.) are relatively common.

 

[mattj]

I hope y'all realize I'm asking this with honesty, and not trying to stir stuff up or troll. I'm only asking it because I've never heard a clear answer from any of my pro-choice friends or acquaintances.

Where is the cutoff and how do you personally determine it?

 

[Cartoons!]

Okay, that's making more sense now.

(this topic has been surprisingly civil so far)

edit: sorry for jinxing it

I'm confused. 'Civil' means everyone agrees and people who disagree shut up?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There are only two problems I have with abortion:

1) The father doesn't have any say in the matter. I know that it is the woman's physical responsibility but that baby isn't only the mother's. I am talking from a strictly legal standpoint. The father is at the mercy of the mother regardless of whether he wants to raise the child, and that does not strike me as gender equality. If the father doesn't want the kid and the mother does, "you should have used a condom LOL have fun for 18 years". If the father DOES want the kid and the mother doesn't, "well it's her choice!"

2) I don't want my tax money going to irresponsible couples for an abortion except in the case of a medical emergency (including miscarriages, danger to the mother, or the horrendous pregnancy-from-rape scenario). I know this is not a significant amount of money being spent, but it's still our money being used to promote reckless behavior by eliminating consequences.

Other than that, abortion should be legal IMO. Making it illegal sets a socially backwards precedent because of the religiously motivated rhetoric from its supporters.

Luckily for me, I'm a homo. Have fun with your abortion discussions, and I hope none of you ever have to go through this arduous process irl. I'm just glad my parents chose to have me at a time when their lives were stable enough to support a family.

 

[Paradoxus]

I can see TIK ruining this thread already...

I personally support that it's the mother's choice, but I have to get off the computer, thats why this is a shit post.

 

[Nastyjungle]

1) The father doesn't have any say in the matter. I know that it is the woman's physical responsibility but that baby isn't only the mother's. I am talking from a strictly legal standpoint. The father is at the mercy of the mother regardless of whether he wants to raise the child, and that does not strike me as gender equality. If the father doesn't want the kid and the mother does, "you should have used a condom LOL have fun for 18 years". If the father DOES want the kid and the mother doesn't, "well it's her choice!"

It should be the mother's choice. The mother is the one that must carry and nurture the baby within her for 9 months. Until the father can do that on his own, making somebody do something like that when they don't want to seems like cruel and unusual punishment.
Not to mention, "you should have used a condom LOL have fun for 18 years" doesn't apply too often, because it is generally accepted in society that as the father you can choose to duck out when you want, with the only thing you have to do legally being paying child support (which, honestly, you should use a condom if you don't want that to happen).

 

[Fishy]

i do agree with jrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr's points (just to clarify that i am always back and forth on either side of the fence for this issue) the father should have some say in the matter, but really it goes back to the faults of both the man and woman for not being responsible enough to avoid having to choose between aborting a fetus or not. and yeah, aborting shouldn't by any means be the "easy way out" for couples/women that end up pregnant and don't want to raise a child, but that's just the way people are. you'd have to fix the source of the problem, and that's people - not the way they handle their business. can you pardon women who were raped and found pregnant that want to abort? there's no clean-cut way to moderate how things should work, at all.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

but really it goes back to the faults of both the man and woman for not being responsible enough to avoid having to choose between aborting a fetus or not.

I agree with this completely. If it is the fault of both the man and the woman, then they should BOTH have a say in how the issue is resolved.

It should be the mother's choice. The mother is the one that must carry and nurture the baby within her for 9 months. Until the father can do that on his own, making somebody do something like that when they don't want to seems like cruel and unusual punishment.

Likewise, forcing the father to give up his paychecks for a kid he doesn't want for EIGHTEEN YEARS could also be considered cruel. The mother is under no obligation to carry the baby for 9 months. If she wanted a baby so badly, she should have found a man to consent to raising the child.

I just find it completely ridiculous that you could say something like "it should be the mother's choice" and then turn around in your next paragraph and say "the guy should have used a condom". If the child truly belongs to the mother as you suggest, then the father shouldn't be responsible for it by default. I don't understand the double-standard when you say it is his responsibility but he can't actually do anything about it.

Not to mention, "you should have used a condom LOL have fun for 18 years" doesn't apply too often, because it is generally accepted in society that as the father you can choose to duck out when you want, with the only thing you have to do legally being paying child support (which, honestly, you should use a condom if you don't want that to happen).

It's not generally accepted by society, men are seriously screwed in terms of reproductive and custodial rights in this country. I don't think you understand how lopsided child support is in favor of mothers in the US

 

[Eraddd]

1) The father doesn't have any say in the matter. I know that it is the woman's physical responsibility but that baby isn't only the mother's. I am talking from a strictly legal standpoint. The father is at the mercy of the mother regardless of whether he wants to raise the child, and that does not strike me as gender equality. If the father doesn't want the kid and the mother does, "you should have used a condom LOL have fun for 18 years". If the father DOES want the kid and the mother doesn't, "well it's her choice!"

2) I don't want my tax money going to irresponsible couples for an abortion except in the case of a medical emergency (including miscarriages, danger to the mother, or the horrendous pregnancy-from-rape scenario). I know this is not a significant amount of money being spent, but it's still our money being used to promote reckless behavior by eliminating consequences.

Biggest issues in my opinion and jrrrrrrrr nailed it succinctly.

Other than that, it's kind of absurd how people say "abortions should be illegal." Making it illegal creates a rather shady market for woman who want abortions and abortionists, who should not be performing abortions in the first place, attempting them. Would you rather have a system where woman can have abortions safely done, or have a shady market where woman will still get their abortions but done in a medically unsafe manner, placing the woman at risk also.

Also @ nastyjungle, the courts in America are usually swayed in favour of the woman in almost every custodial case. If the woman refuses an abortion while the male still wants one, the male is completely fucked for life financially, not to mention the kind of social abuse he'll take from others.

 

[Spork]

2) I don't want my tax money going to irresponsible couples for an abortion except in the case of a medical emergency (including miscarriages, danger to the mother, or the horrendous pregnancy-from-rape scenario). I know this is not a significant amount of money being spent, but it's still our money being used to promote reckless behavior by eliminating consequences.

What if they have no money for the abortion, i.e. teenage girls? Surely their child is going to be a whole lot more expensive to the government than the abortion would be (especially since children of teen mothers are more likely to be unskilled workers when they grow up)? If you advocate cutting all welfare too though then i guess your argument's consistent.

Abortion is a very very tricky issue. In one sense, you need to let people have control over their children and bodies, but at the same time you need to protect children from abusive parents. Therefore you have to draw a line somewhere that marks a transition from foetus to human child. The current line is probably about right, but you could probably advocate putting it later (because the babies that are extremely premature and survive only do so with heavy medical intervention, and as medical technology advances foetuses are going to be able to survive even more prematurely) or putting it earlier (if it has even the slightest potential to become a functioning human child at this stage in the pregnancy, isn't it human life?).

I don't agree that a fertilised ovum is a human child, nor do i agree that women should be able to kill their babies. But the area between the extremes is quite blurry and difficult to decipher.

 

[Nastyjungle]

it is true that it is the actions of both the man and the woman to fertilize an egg
but after that, until the child's birth, it is the woman and the woman only, and as such she should have the major say about what happens to the baby during that period of time
once it is born it becomes a dual responsibility again
i dont think the legal slant is so unjustified as you make it seem