• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Abortions

Status
Not open for further replies.
panamaxis

panamaxis

how many seconds in eternity?
is a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnusis a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Two-Time Past SPL Championis a Three-Time Past WCoP Champion
Hi smogon, I’ve recently been asked to construct a persuasive paper on abortions, however, I’m not exactly sure which angle I should bring to this debate so I thought it may be constructive to ask for some opinions on abortions.

“Are you pro-choice or are you against abortions, or furthermore, do you believe there is some point in the development that should signify when an abortion should and should not be allowed?” Is there any other significant changes you would like to see in regards to this issue (such as if abortion clinics need to be more accessible to women)? Are you against it except for some special circumstances? If you yourself have had any experience in this subject, or even if you don’t I would thoroughly appreciate hearing your story or opinion.

However,

This is a touchy issue for some, so please stay on topic and it would be beneficial if you could provide reasoning as to why you believe what you do.

Firestorm said it would be okay to post this thread, however please do not start flaming other users for their opinions!
 
Well, the current legal insight for Australia is that a foetus, being a bundle of cells attached to the mother biologically, is considered part of the mother's body and therefore to kill it is a Grievous Bodily Harm. Abortions thus gain legality, because the one place where you can consent to any damage to your body is for medical procedures (surgery).

Personally, I have not seen a single nonreligious (or nonspiritual, if you like) argument about why abortions should not be possible. I believe that they should be freely available, but all of the available options should be described (e.g. putting the child up for adoption after carrying to term, since there are plenty of childless couples on the waiting list). This is not the same as "counselling", which is usually what religious groups call their attempts to emotionally blackmail people into doing what they want.

I also think that abortion should not be an alternative to birth control. Birth control should be made properly available and people educated in their use, because abortions are physically and mentally taxing for the patient and more expensive to perform than not getting pregnant in the first place.
 
As the joke goes, you can pay $0.50 for a condom, $50 for a morning after pill, $5000 for an abortion, or $50000 for a kid until the age of 10.

Every single pro-life person I've met has religious reasons for his choice, either overtly or covertly. As for me, I believe that it is a woman's choice until the baby is born, but that third trimester abortions should be discouraged (because at that point, you might as well put it up for adoption).
 
It all comes down to what you consider the bunch of cells within the womb of a woman. If we could find a clear cut line between alive and not alive (which we probably will not), then much of the controversy would disappear (although Catholics would still attack abortion regardless)
 
In my opinion, abortions should be allowed up to the point in pregnancy when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving were it to be delivered. (Exactly what a 'reasonable chance' is I'm not sure, I think you could argue for anything between 5% and 50%). After that point, if the pregnancy poses a threat to the mother then an induced or surgical delivery is preferable, and abortion should only permitted if other options would pose a substantially greater risk to the mother.

Of course it's unlikely law could be defined as such. (Though before 1990, English law WAS - while the abortion law set a date, the 'Infant Life Preservation Act' banned abortion if the foetus could have been delivered and kept alive). In practice a time would be defined - but that time regularly reviewed in light of medical developments (and revised downwards).

23 weeks is about the relevant time at present. This is close to the maximum term in many countries - though many others have much shorter time periods.
 
Pro-choice, happy with the UK's 24 week limit (which is unlimited in case of the foetus being unviable/pregnancy dangerous to the woman), would prefer fewer restrictions on it.
 
This thread again? I bet it hasn't even been a year already.

Pro-Choice, and I'm pretty sure I don't care whether it's 8 months fetus or 1 month. Actually, if at the time for abortion the baby could survive, I guess you could ask the mother if she actually wanted to give birth to it instead, but eh. As far as I know, not many women wait THAT long to abort.

I REALLY don't consider ANY fetus an human. I find it ridiculous to even ponder on that kind of idea, really.

Also, while doing some soft researching on this to refresh my memory, I found this chart giving numbers about how old fetuses are at time of abortion, and I find it sort-of comforting to see they don't really even pass the 20 week timespan.
 
If humans have inherent natural rights, and if fetuses are humans, then killing a fetus is wrong. However, I am not so sure the state or another coercive entity should intervene to prevent most (as in, 1st trimester or even 2nd trimester abortions) because there is so little agreement on whether a fetus (let alone an embryo) is a living human, especially since if a fetus is a human, the mother violates the fetuses natural rights, but if it is not, then the intervening entity violates the mother's right to self-determination.

I'd prefer that no women felt the need to get abortions, i.e. they'd have options that would allow them to bring the child into the world.
 
There are things that need to be reformed before the decision to allow/disallow abortion is made.

There is religion in many decisions, there are biological quips about what life is and basically one person's opinion against another's.

I believe that if there is no set standard to how abortion is okay, it will never be standardized.

Guidelines need to be written before making a big decision like publicly-recognized abortion rights, and I'm sure those will take YEARS to settle.
 
I have never really understood the argument that abortion should be illegal because it has the "potential to become human life." If you follow that logic then masturbation should be illegal as well because every sperm cell, no matter how slim the odds are, has the potential human life.

Also, the drawing the line at third trimester abortions hasn't made sense so me either. The baby still has will likely become a human if not aborted, it still can't think, and it has never been technically alive.
 
Actually, the argument is that the fetus is human life. And really, on the basic, genetic level, once conception occurs, that person's genetic makeup is set in stone.
 
My opinions: Abortion should be legal and federally funded, but only in the cases of conception because of rape/incest/etc or if it would be too dangerous to continue. Otherwise, legal, but not funded, provided it is not able to survive, even with life support. Otherwise, illegal. Plenty of people want to adopt, so adoption helps keep the potential in there while not significantly harming the biological parents. Why not just put unwanted kids up for adoption?
 
Aura Guardian said:
My opinions: Abortion should be legal and federally funded, but only in the cases of conception because of rape/incest/etc or if it would be too dangerous to continue. Otherwise, legal, but not funded, provided it is not able to survive, even with life support. Otherwise, illegal. Plenty of people want to adopt, so adoption helps keep the potential in there while not significantly harming the biological parents. Why not just put unwanted kids up for adoption?
Click to expand...

Something tells me you are not a woman. Pregnancy is a very traumatic and difficult time for many women, even in the case of a wanted pregnancy; the potential consequences for the woman are huge. Assuming the woman in question keeps her college course/job/home/family relationships/etc in check the latter stages of pregnancy and birth are difficult and occasionally - though rarely - fatal.

Something else tells me you have not thought this through properly. 'while not significantly harming the biological parents' - the father has nothing to suffer from the pregnancy, physically. The woman does. Your argument of significant harm simply does not stand - I can think of few things worse than to be forced to carry a pregnancy I did not want to keep. To suffer the tiredness, the stretch marks, the sickness, the soreness and the occasional wetting myself. To feel something I did not want there grow and kick me from the inside. To restrict almost everything I would want to do - drink, smoke, fuck, drugs, caffiene - and to not be able to take the medication I need because hell, I'm pregnant! The hospital checkups. The event of giving birth, wrecking my vagina and pelvic floor, having physical reminders of the pregnancy all over my body.. Everything.

(And, in America's case, the expense of being pregnant, which I hear is quite large).

In addition to this, were I to get pregnant and decided not to keep it I would much rather abort than adopt for all the physical and practical reasons outlined above (I could not put my life on hold for six months whilst I was used as some sort of incubator) because I simply would not be comfortable with the thought of my progeny wandering around probably being informed one day that it was adopted and coming to find me.
 
Abortion should never be funded by public funds under any circumstance.

akuchi, tell me a scenario where you could have this hypothetical baby without aborting it? Even though I've moderated my stance to the point that abortion should not be prevented with the use of force, at the same time, I am still very opposed to the practice, and would prefer it be possible that abortions are 100% unneccesary.

Also, in your case, I just get the feeling that you don't ever want a biological child, or would not mind not having one - why not look into sterilization? I don't know about the dangers of it though.
 
Ancien Régime said:
Actually, the argument is that the fetus is human life. And really, on the basic, genetic level, once conception occurs, that person's genetic makeup is set in stone.
Click to expand...
I believe that the intrinsic value of an organism is based on its intelligence and sentience not its genetic code. If humans ever find alien life or succeed in creating artificial life (robots) that can rival the intelligence of us, they should be extended equal rights. I do not believe that early term abortion is wrong because early term fetuses are not sentient.
 
I have yet to see a definition of what is called natural law that couldn't be described as begging the question, but I do believe that certain entities should be granted enforceable rights by a system of laws. I believe that a necessary, if not sufficient, condition for an entity to be granted legal rights is that it must possess some form of sentience. It's very difficult to define what sentience is, but I believe pregnant woman and girls possess it. It's also very difficult to determine the exact moment at which sentience appears in the prenatal development of humans, but since I put stock in science above than magical powers of sperm I would estimate it at some point around the late second trimester or early third trimester of pregnancy. This is consistent with the legal limits placed on elective abortions by a certain Supreme Court case in the United States. Some women will have abortions at later points in their pregnancies, either because their pregnancy places their health or life at risk or because the fetus they are carrying has a condition that is incompatible with survival.

That said, it's not as if the demand for abortions is set in stone. Humans have always enjoyed and will always enjoy sexual intercourse for its own sake, and women have abortions because they become pregnant without desiring to. Once in a while this happens despite a woman and her partner using a contraceptive method while having sex. Much more often, it happens when no contraceptive method is in use. Taking this into consideration, any person who claims to oppose abortion but wants to make contraceptives illegal or difficult to obtain is simply being disingenuous. That person isn't concerned with any theoretical pain or anguish suffered by embryos, but has issues with female sexual activity that need to be resolved. He or she may or may not realize that it is impolitic to call women sluts, but the intent of his or her rhetoric is the same either way.
 
Ancien Régime said:
Abortion should never be funded by public funds under any circumstance.

akuchi, tell me a scenario where you could have this hypothetical baby without aborting it? Even though I've moderated my stance to the point that abortion should not be prevented with the use of force, at the same time, I am still very opposed to the practice, and would prefer it be possible that abortions are 100% unneccesary.

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean here; if you mean what situation would I want to have a child in - it's as simple as when I would feel comfortable and ready to have a child. Whilst that may be different for everyone, and everyone's priorities are different, for me personally, ideally: I would like to be in a long-term relationship (or even married!) with someone who I had already planned to have a child with, in a financially comfortable situation, decent house in an alright area, mentally sound, etc.


Also, in your case, I just get the feeling that you don't ever want a biological child, or would not mind not having one - why not look into sterilization? I don't know about the dangers of it though.

Dude, I'm twenty! Whilst I am quite happy to accept the existence of women out there who know they will never want a child at this age, for whom sterilisation would be a comfort, I am not one of them. I would, I think, very much like to have a child of my own someday. Possibly several. I also want to foster, but that's beside the point. Were I to get pregnant now I honestly don't know what I would do.

However, I am under no illusions about how very shit pregnancy can be and often is, and just because I might want to carry on a pregnancy does not mean I should enforce that on women who do not or cannot. My view on abortions is simple I guess: if you don't like them don't have one.
Click to expand...
 
I believe that it should be a woman's right to have one if they desire, anything less would make them second class citizens by my why of thinking. From a legislative stand point I cringe at the thought of it being unfunded or illegal because this is imposing ones religious views on a mass of people (this should sound similar to many arguments in support of gay marriage, etc). this style of legislation shouldnt be present where there is a seperation between church and state. I am also bothered by the fact that men would be in a position in which they overrepresented enough to be able to affect what rights women have. the women's rights issue is critical to me. it is their choice, no law should stop them from determining what happens to their bodies. outlawing or restricting abortion is parallel to legalizing rape from my perspective. the type of attitude common among male law makers that they should ever in any circumstance be able to make these choices for women is what has led me to think of american culture as a "rape culture,” if you will.



edit: i also have a medically justified opinion, but there are people on these forums who are more versed in biology and thus better able to present it (and they have in previous posts).
 
My perspective is as follows:

1. An unborn foetus is a parasite and it has no inherent right to live off its host.
2. Therefore, a woman should have the right to choose to have an abortion.
3. However, abortions should not be subsidised, or this would create moral hazard; the individual must face wholly the consequences of her decision.

Cliff note: "liberty".
 
I think it's easier to argue pro-abortion then it is to say lolsavethebaby.

1. What if the women was raped? She doesn't want the baby then. Classic case.
2. The baby might have been a mistake.
3. The mother is scared to go through the labor and doesn't have enough money to support the baby.
4. Nearly all abortions take place in the first trimester, when a fetus cannot exist independent of the mother. As it is attached by the placenta and umbilical cord, its health is dependent on her health, and cannot be regarded as a separate entity as it cannot exist outside her womb.
5. Teenagers who become mothers have grim prospects for the future. They are much more likely to leave of school; receive inadequate prenatal care; rely on public assistance to raise a child; develop health problems; or end up divorced
6. Like any other difficult situation, abortion creates stress. Yet the American Psychological Association found that stress was greatest prior to an abortion, and that there was no evidence of post-abortion syndrome

I've studied this a bit.
 
mtr said:
Every single pro-life person I've met has religious reasons for his choice, either overtly or covertly. As for me, I believe that it is a woman's choice until the baby is born, but that third trimester abortions should be discouraged (because at that point, you might as well put it up for adoption).
Click to expand...

Pretty much this. One thing I'd like to point out is that quality of life SHOULD be considered. For example, if a 15 year old gets pregnant her and her babies quality of life might be greatly compromised compared to if she got an abortion and had a baby say 7 years later after a university degree, marriage or other assets are secured. Another example would be a crack or FAS baby- or even a baby with a horrific disease or disorder, burdening the parents and the child for the entirety of that child's life (however short it may be).

If the child's existence is going to cause a significant drop in quality of life for all immediately involved or is going to have a shit quality of life itself, I say that should be weighed a little heavier in logical reasoning for an abortion than what jeezy might have to say.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top