Abortion

[Syberia]

Like I just said. You can reasonably expect that a condom will work. The condom failure, then, is the third party.

If you'd like to hold the condom manufacturer liable for the abortion that's necessary because their product failed (so long as it was being used properly), I'd be all for that.

On the other hand, if two people are having sex without protection, unless they're so ill-informed as to not understand basic biology, in which case they should probably not be having sex anyways, they can reasonably expect a pregnancy.

 

[Familiar Trainer]

If you know there is a chance of your condom breaking and you can't deal with a child, then don't have sex. It's still exactly the same point as in the analogy I made, don't bet what you can't afford. It's not as if there are no other ways of having an intimate sexual relationship without penetration.

If you know there is a chance that swine flu could be contracted at anytime when outside of your house then stay inside at all times. Don't bet what you can't afford.

It mostly depends on the situation.

Exception 1.5.31

The woman is an alcoholic that was intoxicated during the time of penetration. The man is financially stable and is willing to look after the baby. The woman does not want the baby and wishes for it to be aborted. The woman's parents also wish for the baby to be aborted. In this case, the baby cannot be aborted.


I think my point comes across. Having a ton of exceptions is stupid. Just legalize it, with like 2 exceptions where the baby must be given birth to.

 

[RD6]

Lol, thanks for defeating your own argument for me. I guess the person who's mugged on the streets shouldn't be able to call the police, either? You expect to be safe when you go outside, just like you expect a condom to serve its intended purpose.


Lol, that's why 100+ years ago teens having kids was perfectly normal? Not to mention they have drugs and hospitals for this kind of thing now.

There is a much higher risk of a condom failing than a car hitting you.

Many woman died of labor 100+ years ago. After birth, most men re-married.

Edit: Also, there's a lot of things you expect, because you think they are likely, but there is a chance of things going unexpected. By having sex, you should be aware of that risk. If you do not know, don't have sex until you do know.

If you know there is a chance that swine flu could be contracted at anytime when outside of your house then stay inside at all times. Don't bet what you can't afford.

Most of you don't even think of probability.

 

[Syberia]

All risk and blame falls to the condom manufacturer, since they made a product that's supposed to keep you safe.

Many women did die of labor 100+ years ago, but I hope you're not seriously attempting to argue that it was because of their age, as opposed to a lack of medical care.

Edit: Also, there's a lot of things you expect, because you think they are likely, but there is a chance of things going unexpected. By having sex, you should be aware of that risk. If you do not know, don't have sex until you do know.

You can (sadly) fairly reasonably expect to be mugged if you go certain places (downtown D.C. after dark comes to mind). But I guess the people who go to these places, or even live there, shouldn't get police protection, because hey, it's their fault.

I must qualify this, however. By having unprotected sex, you assume all risks, and are an idiot. Especially if you get AIDS.

 

[Hamstern]

I am pro-choice because I think it's wrong to force a girl to have to carry the child for 9 month, giving birth to a baby (which is ALWAYS a risk for her life and health) and care for it or adopt it if she's not ready to have a baby.

I just think that's worse than if some undeveloped fetus dies, it isn't even aware that it's alive in the first place. I don't think it's right to do it to late thought (if it's not a hight risk pregnancy), but as a girl I'm certainly wouldn't wanna live in a society that banned abortion.

 

[Familiar Trainer]

Most of you don't even think of probability.

No, just as most people don't think of the probability that an item designed for protection will fail them.

 

[RD6]

All risk and blame falls to the condom manufacturer, since they made a product that's supposed to keep you safe.

Many women did die of labor 100+ years ago, but I hope you're not seriously attempting to argue that it was because of their age, as opposed to a lack of medical care.

I really can't provide evidence to this, because I don't buy condoms: I'm rather certain that condom companies have warning labels. If not, condom comapnies would have been sued out of all their money right now.

Also, on labor, yes, they didn't have medical care, but some weren't strong enough to bear the pain. Most teenagers who have sex are not from very rich parents(assumption from expereince, you can prove me wrong with evidence, or even a convincing argument :P), so they do have a chance of dying without proper medical care. If they don't have the emotional support from their parents(who sometimes rejects their child) and a parent, it may be difficult to live after delivery. All I am saying is if they person isn't strong enough, they can die, and it depends on the woman.

 

[Syberia]

I am pro-choice because I think it's wrong to force a girl to have to carry the child for 9 month, giving birth to a baby (which is ALWAYS a risk for her life and health) and care for it or adopt it if she's not ready to have a baby.

I just think that's worse than if some undeveloped fetus dies, it isn't even aware that it's alive in the first place. I don't think it's right to do it to late thought (if it's not a hight risk pregnancy), but as a girl I'm certainly wouldn't wanna live in a society that banned abortion.

I'm going to assume that you're reasonably intelligent and use protection, though.

I really can't provide evidence to this, because I don't buy condoms: I'm rather certain that condom companies have warning labels. If not, condom comapnies would have been sued out of all their money right now.

If you design a product to perform an intended function, then warning potential customers that the product may fail to perform that intended function is a very cheap cop-out. The risk should be placed with the product manufacturer to perform as advertised, especially when you're dealing with something as sensitive as creating a life.

 

[RaikouLover]

Originally Posted by RDC
Edit: Also, there's a lot of things you expect, because you think they are likely, but there is a chance of things going unexpected. By having sex, you should be aware of that risk. If you do not know, don't have sex until you do know.

What were saying is that whatever contraceptive you use is supposed to protect you when used correctly. However, accidents DO happen. There shouldn't be a law that says "You had sex and this is what happened, shame on you... DEAL WITH IT." Sorry, but when I think of pro-life this is all that runs through my head. The only reason anyone would support pro-life is to force those who decide to have premarital sex to deal with that decision.. almost like a "told you so." But what about what is in that unborn child's best interest? Or the mother's best interest? Where does that come in to play? That is not a decision a law can make or should make for everyone.

Lets be real, having sex is as natural as eating, breathing, and shitting... Having sex when you are biologically able to have sex is natural too, and for a reason. The law shouldn't condemn that.

 

[RD6]

What were saying is that whatever contraceptive you use is supposed to protect you when used correctly. However, accidents DO happen. There shouldn't be a law that says "You had sex and this is what happened, shame on you... DEAL WITH IT." Sorry, but when I think of pro-life this is all that runs through my head. The only reason anyone would support pro-life is to force those who decide to have premarital sex to deal with that decision.. almost like a "told you so." But what about what is in that unborn child's best interest? Or the mother's best interest? Where does that come in to play? That is not a decision a law can make or should make for everyone.

Lets be real, having sex is as natural as eating, breathing, and shitting... Having sex when you are biologically able to have sex is natural too, and for a reason. The law shouldn't condemn that.

I'm pro-choice, not pro-life. >_>

Also, as I said before there are conditions, and for those conditions, this law should be legalized. The mother gets to decide mostly.

 

[Syberia]

RaiouLover, if you go down that road, you'll have to note that biologically, sex is intended for reproduction. I think we're a little more advanced than that, as humans.

All I'm saying this whole time is use protection, that way the whole abortion thing is a moot issue. Unless the protection fails, or you're raped, in which case neither one is your fault, and you need an abortion.

 

[sbc]

Like I just said. You can reasonably expect that a condom will work. The condom failure, then, is the third party.

You can also reasonably expect Manchester United to win the Premier League this season but I'm not going to go out and bet £10k on it or something. You know condoms are 97 or whatever % effective, if you still decide to use a condom knowing that then that's your fault.

If you know there is a chance that swine flu could be contracted at anytime when outside of your house then stay inside at all times. Don't bet what you can't afford.

That's not very applicable in this context, as you have no ability to affect whether or not you are infected with swine flu, as if someone sneezes on you you're fucked (unless it is feasible for you to wear bio-hazard suits outside). On the other hand in consensual sex you have the power to control what you do.

Last post in this topic for today as with all debates on this topic, nothing is achieved and no-one concedes any of their views regardless of what the other side says.

edit: stop giving counter examples that rely on being passive as if if you're not the one creating the baby and someone else is magically creating it and forcing it upon you.

 

[Syberia]

You used the best protection that's available. I suppose it's the fault of computer users if they get a virus that steals their credit card information, even if they use antivirus and firewalls, because they could have simply not used the computer?

 

[Pirika]

The idea that the embryo or the fetus with few weeks can be considered a human being is based on a religious concepts.

A secular State should not ban abortion based in religious concepts.

 

[Syberia]

It is based on nothing of the sort. Secular individuals can reach that conclusion just as easily as religious ones, without invoking God or the Bible at all. The idea that we should not kill is also rooted in the ten commandments, I suppose the government shouldn't be able to enforce that either.

And before you say that scientists can determine exactly when life begins, I will point out that the criteria they use are entirely subjective, and ultimately rooted in scientific beliefs. The question of when life begins is not one that can be answered by hard science, as everyone's definition of life is different.

 

[moot]

Okay comments like this piss me the fuck off. So two 17 year olds who have been dating for say... 3 years and are in love decide to make love... and they use protection and it fails (accidents happen)... so then abortion is out of the question? They clearly weren't trying to have a child, and them having sex was what they were biologically and emotionally (see: the love part) ready to do. By supporting abortion, you are discouraging people from having sex in the first place, which is as "unnatural" as gay marriage (funny how most pro life supporters are against gay marriages, but thats another debate). I don't give a shit about when YOU believe others are ready to have sex and their shouldnt be a law to discourage sex among people who are not financially able or ready to support a child. But biologically, humans were having sex and marrying teenagers off since the dawn of time for a reason... its only society that has made premarital sex less accepted and able because of how long it takes to get financially stable currently.

I said stupid, not unlucky. There is nothing wrong with having sex when you are in love. There is a huge difference between that and having unprotected sex because you know you can get an abortion anyway, which is what I meant when I stated that.

 

[umbarsc]

Yeah, abortion is such an easy, cheap, and painless process that there's really no reason to put a condom on in the first place.

For me, the reason murder is a bad thing is not because the fact that you're killing a being with two arms, two legs, and a head, or that you're stopping a beating heart. For me, it's the fact that they are a sentient being with real thoughts and emotions. That, for me, is the difference between abortion and shooting someone in the head. A fetus is essentially a mosquito, except that a mosquito won't grow into a human while a fetus might, and I don't buy the "potential for life" argument. As pointed out, sperm would also fall into this category, because you could just as easily put that sperm in a sperm bank where it would eventually mix with an egg and become life. If you're arguing that sperm isn't the same because it won't become human on its own, neither will an egg + sperm. It requires the host to sustain it while it develops, and if the host didn't sustain it, it would die out.

 

[Syberia]

So you would be ok with killing a couple days old infant? They are just as sentient as some of the fetuses killed in late-term abortions, which I do not agree with.

 

[Deck Knight]

The idea that the embryo or the fetus with few weeks can be considered a human being is based on a religious concepts.

Indeed. Those damned holy rollers and their unfounded theories about chromosomes, deoxyribonucleic acid, hereditary traits, special continuity, etc.

It is always interesting watching people squirm over what can be deduced by common sense and basic knowledge. They have lots to say about how foolish and stupid religious people are for believing in a higher power, but when their unquestionable faith in abortion is challenged they suddenly go "human genome? genetic recombination? What madness do you speak sir? Science has nothing to say on this matter."

Abortion takes a human life. This is indisputable scientific fact. Take any human pregnancy, any human pregnancy at all and chart a model that does not include induced abortion. The two remaining options are miscarriage and birth. Because abortion requires a third party to induce it abortion should not be considered in any natural theory.

Abortion is a cruel and terrible answer to a real problem. The problem is crisis pregnancies. I pledge my time and support to organizations that offer them counseling and material goods. People who volunteer of their own free will to protect both mother and child. Unlike abortion mills they do not receive government subsidy or, in the case of most local agencies, have a congressional liaison (lobbyist) as a paid staff position.

In no other realm is an invasive surgery that results in the termination of a life, possibly permanent relevant system damage and life-long mental trauma considered anything less than a monstrous quackery.

Over 3000 human beings are aborted on a daily basis in the United States alone. You wonder why we have such a huge entitlement crisis coming down the road with Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? Because a bunch of stoned hippies who are now are government officials didn't realize that killing 40 million new workers over 36 years might be a problem down the road.

How many more women and children have to be suffered at the altar of Molech before we stop justifying death as the answer for sexual irresponsibility?

 

[Pirika]

It is based on nothing of the sort. Secular individuals can reach that conclusion just as easily as religious ones, without invoking God or the Bible at all. The idea that we should not kill is also rooted in the ten commandments, I suppose the government shouldn't be able to enforce that either.

And before you say that scientists can determine exactly when life begins, I will point out that the criteria they use are entirely subjective, and ultimately rooted in scientific beliefs. The question of when life begins is not one that can be answered by hard science, as everyone's definition of life is different.

If the point is protecting life we shouldn't kill animals, for example. The point is if we can consider a fetus with few months a human being even if it haven't developed a brain, and consequently don't have any kind of mental activity.

As you said, this leads to individuals conclusions. But individuals opinions should not become a law. For example, if a religious woman have a unexpected pregnancy, she may decide to have the baby because she believes that life is sacred since it begins. But she cannot force another woman who got pregnant to do the same. Every woman has the rigth to decide if she wants to have a baby or not.

You also said that the idea that we should not kill is rooted in the ten commandments. But this isn't a exclusive religious idea. Before someone had written the bible or the ten commandments, the ancient civilizations like the greeks, persians, egipts, had created laws about murder and killing. This is a necessary idea for a civilized socitety.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Well, this issue really doesn't have any relation to me considering I'm a homo, and even if I was straight I would never want to have any children (prolly a good thing)..but anyways,

Although I would personally never encourage a woman to get an abortion, I can definitely see why many people would want it as an option. It's not just about the potential-birthee (I'm using that word since calling a fetus a child is a blatant misnomer), it's also about the family supporting it. Some people can not afford to have children. Accidents happen. I would rather have a non-living fetus removed than have that potential-birthee grow up in a desolate home in deep poverty, ruining any chance its family has of getting stable again.

Also, I read an article recently that really sums up my views. It directly quotes Sarah Palin's address at a pro-life fundraiser and points out that what she said is actually a great justification for allowing abortion:

That was not, of course, Palin's intention in revealing that she momentarily considered having an abortion. Twice, actually -- once when she discovered she would be a mother at 44, again several weeks later when she discovered that her baby would have Down syndrome.

I'll quote Palin at length, partly because I want readers to see that I'm not taking her remarks out of context, even more because the account of her anguished choice about whether to "change the circumstances" is so gripping and so genuine. Instead of the Tina Fey caricature, we see a flesh-and-blood woman whose moral certainties are being put to a real-world test:

"I had found out that I was pregnant while out of state first, at an oil and gas conference. While out of state, there just for a fleeting moment, wow, I knew, nobody knows me here, nobody would ever know. I thought, wow, it is easy, could be easy to think, maybe, of trying to change the circumstances. No one would know. No one would ever know.

"Then when my amniocentesis results came back, showing what they called abnormalities. Oh, dear God, I knew, I had instantly an understanding for that fleeting moment why someone would believe it could seem possible to change those circumstances. Just make it all go away and get some normalcy back in life. Just take care of it. Because at the time only my doctor knew the results, Todd didn't even know. No one would know. But I would know. First, I thought how in the world could we manage a change of this magnitude. I was a very busy governor with four busy kids and a husband with a job hundreds of miles away up on the North Slope oil fields. And, oh, the criticism that I knew was coming. Plus, I was old . . .

"So we went through some things a year ago that now lets me understand a woman's, a girl's temptation to maybe try to make it all go away if she has been influenced by society to believe that she's not strong enough or smart enough or equipped enough or convenienced enough to make the choice to let the child live. I do understand what these women, what these girls go through in that thought process."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/19/AR2009041901997.html

But of course, if Mrs. Palin had her way, other women in her position would not be allowed to make the same choice that she is so thankful for making.

I'm of the opinion that if you don't have a fetus currently inside of you, you dont get an opinion on abortion. Nobody purposely has unsafe sex to get pregnant with the intent on aborting the potential-birthee. Abortion opponents like to think that abortion recipients are just sluts who dont know what birth control is, but they just NEED to fulfill their sex drive. It's pretty similar to how rape victims are portrayed as "asking for it". These are real people going through real shit. Do you think an expecting mother doesn't feel horrible enough as it is about getting an abortion, without having blatantly hypocritical neocons and religious fanatics lambasting them both verbally and physically?

Women don't get abortions because they WANT to, getting pregnant on a whim is hardly ever the case. They get them because they HAVE to. More than half of all abortions are by women under the age of 25 making less than $30,000 a year. And this is from a source that clearly doesnt support choice: http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/fastfacts.html. These are people who are struggling to live on their own, and now we want to force them into a situation where they are putting themselves and the potential-birthee at risk of living in poverty for the rest of their lives? Give me a break.

 

[Pirika]

Indeed. Those damned holy rollers and their unfounded theories about chromosomes, deoxyribonucleic acid, hereditary traits, special continuity, etc.

It is always interesting watching people squirm over what can be deduced by common sense and basic knowledge. They have lots to say about how foolish and stupid religious people are for believing in a higher power, but when their unquestionable faith in abortion is challenged they suddenly go "human genome? genetic recombination? What madness do you speak sir? Science has nothing to say on this matter."

Abortion takes a human life. This is indisputable scientific fact. Take any human pregnancy, any human pregnancy at all and chart a model that does not include induced abortion. The two remaining options are miscarriage and birth. Because abortion requires a third party to induce it abortion should not be considered in any natural theory.

Of course, abortion takes a human life the same way stem cells research does. Can we really consider a bunch of cells without complete organs or even a brain a human being? You can believe that it is, but you can't force a woman to not abort based on your individuals beliefs.

 

[Ancien Régime]

This the only relevant question pertaining to abortion:

Can a fetus/embryo/fertilized egg be classified as a human being or not?

If it cannot, then not only is abortion eminently moral, but denying a woman's right to it would be immoral (under the principle of non-aggression, as in that case it would indeed be her body, her choice).

If it can, then abortion is an aggression against the fetus and is eminently immoral.

If the question cannot be satisfactory decided, then what should the policy be? I'd prefer to "err on the side of life", if we are not sure whether we are committing aggression, at least let us potentially choose the one that doesn't actually kill people.

How would you like it if someone stole your money, and then you had to pay for that crime? Sucks, doesn't it?

How would you like it if someone stole someone else's money, and then they stole twice the amount from you? Sucks, doesn't it?

 

[E.A.]

I'm catholic so we're supposed to be against it, but I really have no idea where to stand. I'm leaning towards against it, based on reason alone. A lot of people claim that an early abortion is just killing off a bunch of cells that don't realize anything. Similar principles apply by shooting someone in the back of the head (without them knowing you're there.) You have just killed a bunch of cells, without the cells realizing it. Also, those "few cells" also develop into a human person, unlike a bunch of skin cells, which die and fall off. However, the bunch of cells in the womb are not a human yet, just the potential to be become human, so that's highly controversial.

I think most of us can agreed that third-trimester abortions (and even infanticide) are just wrong. In this day and age, a child born premature by about a month or so has a good chance of surviving. At the end of month 8, there really are no major differences between the fetus and an infant, except for being inside the womb as apposed to out in the world.

And lastly, I am okay with an abortion where the mother's life is endangered and the child is not likely to survive (like when the child attaches to the kidney instead of the uterine lining... I forgot the term for it.) I'm undecided as to whether an abortion should be allowed when a woman was raped non-voluntarily, because it is a human life, but then again, the woman (and probably the man,) had no intentions of having the child.

So yeah, that's where I stand.

 

[umbarsc]

It can be classified as a human being, but that's not the relevant question. We can't say it's ok to kill "non-humans" but not to kill "humans" simply because of how they are classified.

The real question we would need to be asking is:

Would it cause more social harm to legalize or ban abortion?

After, that is essentially the purpose of laws. (You're not going to make an anarchist rant about how laws are there for greedy people in power to oppress the common man, right?)

I think this is a much more interesting way to steer the topic than to discuss ethics.

Similar principles apply by shooting someone in the back of the head (without them knowing you're there.) You have just killed a bunch of cells, without the cells realizing it.

Morally, the difference is that the man was sentient and aware that he was conscious, at least for me. A fetus can't experience real emotions or thoughts. Neither can a deer, yet deer hunting isn't fully outlawed (and restrictions are put in place for environmental purposes rather than ethical purposes)