Choice, Life, and the politics of abortion

[feu]

So who's going to be my sparring partner on this one? Does anyone have a stong opinion on either side of this issue?

[jetflock]

As long as we have the death penalty....abortion should not be frowned upon...if we get rid of the death penalty, I'll defend abortion in another way.

[FATAL]

The question is: Who can say that he/she loses something when a fetus is aborted? Babies aren't fully concious even when born, so they certainly aren't hurt in the process. Not only that, but aborted fetuses are brilliant for scientific experiments.

[Osiris's_Legacy]

You're right about that Fatal. I think everyone takes abortions a little too seriously, though I can see where they're coming from (but they shouldn't use religion as an excuse).

In a way, it is ending a life however, becuase there was life growing to begin with, and that life could have become something great. Anyway, that's what I think and that's only one opinion. I'm sure there'd be a tonne more people who'd have something to say bout this.

[Yagisan]

Personally, I'm not a fan of abortion. I understand that there are reasons a mother may need to terminate a pregnancy. Ultimatly it is the parents choice, which is why, even though I don't always agree with it, I fully support their right to make that choice.

[Nomad]

In my book, Abortions are only OK if either the mother or the child faces danger or death. There are plenty of programs for low income families to have a child, so that is no excuse. If you really don't think you can take care of it, put it up for adoption so a family who can take care of it, can. There is nothing to say that you can't have contact with a child you've put up for adoption (unless, of course, your child is taken because you are an unfit parent, but that's a different issue).

As with prohibiting gay marriage, bringing in religion on the lawmaking process concering abortion (or any legeslative issue period) is wrong. End of story.

[Sigma]

Abortion is acceptable. Religious principles are worthless excuses-- if a child were to die normally, under whatever circumstances, the child would still go to heaven, therefore, an abortion is no different, as the unborn child is given the chance to go to heaven by default. A problematic child (from birth), such as one with severe mental disabilities or those exposed to various drugs (cocaine) are typically better off being aborted. These children would not survive birth under normal circumstances, nor would they survive in a world where there were not individuals dictating their entire lives for them.

Nomad, Yagisan and FATAL also have valid points in support of abortion; chance of death to the mother or child, the prerogative of choice and the scientific basis. I understand that this may seem cruel, but it really is not. That is just how it is-- life is not fair and never has been. Our very leaders and heroes are not as intelligent or beautiful as we perceive them to be-- and a world built by seemingly, perfectly capable individuals is still quite ugly. The children whom typically qualify for abortion have no place here, nor are they, in truth, capable of living despite being considered alive.

Legalizing abortion will stop (or radically diminish) the instances of "butcher" abortions, and tax dollars would (hopefully) go to much more productive causes. Abortions should be readily accessible to people who cannot afford such a procedure, but alternatives such as adoption should be given readily to the individual considering for those who prefer this course of action. Furthermore, proclaiming that abortion would increase the occurrence of people have unsafe/unprotected sex is not realistic. It has nothing to do with the mother-- it should be based completely on the child's quality of life and ability to be a productive and good human being.

[eX_Do0mY]

The main reason abortion is looked down upon is the reasons many people want abortions. This reason is simply because people don't want to raise their child. Also you have the factors of incest, etc. for many weirdos in the world.

It's simply like this. If you deliberately have sexual intercourse without birth control or protection, you know your chances of becoming pregnant are very high. You know that you have the possiblity of having a child on your hands to raise. If you have unprotected sex, you should always have things in mind.

If these basic principles of human life were kept in mind, many "unplanned" pregnancies could be peacefully prevented. But humans are stupid and do things like this without considering the consequences.

Many U.S. states are already illegalizing abortion, and are only allowing abortion if the birth of the child is a threat to the mother's life, or the child isn't able to live due to birth defects, etc. No exceptions to incest, etc.

The only acceptable reason for abortion is life threatening situations, in my opinion. Any other "excuse" for abortion can be counteracted by adoption, taking responsibility for your actions, etc.

Have fun on this discussion, guys :)

[rustyslacker]

Abortion is acceptable. Religious principles are worthless excuses-- if a child were to die normally, under whatever circumstances, the child would still go to heaven, therefore, an abortion is no different, as the unborn child is given the chance to go to heaven by default.
Hmm. Wrong. Some Christians would say that the child would go to Hell because he/she has not been baptized, so he/she is a sinner, and all o' that stuff. Just thought I'd point that out.

Abortion is an acceptable operation. Just because you may not agree with something doesn't mean it should be made illegal, whether it's for religous reasons or not. I think humans should have all the freedoms they possibly can, and illegalizing abortions would only restrict people.

However, I do support some form of abortion control. For example, needing parent permission, or proof of hardship, or something. *shrug*

[Anakite]

The question is: Who can say that he/she loses something when a fetus is aborted? Babies aren't fully concious even when born, so they certainly aren't hurt in the process. Not only that, but aborted fetuses are brilliant for scientific experiments.


Scientists are looking into another way. Apparently, brain cells have similar properties, and they can be multiplied if injected into, say, a mouse's brain. I wish I had a link to the article...

[jetflock]

Why not just make the morning after pill over the counter?
Hmm. Wrong. Some Christians would say that the child would go to Hell because he/she has not been baptized, so he/she is a sinner, and all o' that stuff. Just thought I'd point that out.

well, yeah. but that is stupid. not you, the christian point of view.
The main reason abortion is looked down upon is the reasons many people want abortions. This reason is simply because people don't want to raise their child. Also you have the factors of incest, etc. for many weirdos in the world.

It's simply like this. If you deliberately have sexual intercourse without birth control or protection, you know your chances of becoming pregnant are very high. You know that you have the possiblity of having a child on your hands to raise. If you have unprotected sex, you should always have things in mind.

If these basic principles of human life were kept in mind, many "unplanned" pregnancies could be peacefully prevented. But humans are stupid and do things like this without considering the consequences.

Many U.S. states are already illegalizing abortion, and are only allowing abortion if the birth of the child is a threat to the mother's life, or the child isn't able to live due to birth defects, etc. No exceptions to incest, etc.

The only acceptable reason for abortion is life threatening situations, in my opinion. Any other "excuse" for abortion can be counteracted by adoption, taking responsibility for your actions, etc.

Have fun on this discussion, guys :)
Alot of the problem is poor education. People are not informed, or are mis-informed. The government does a lousy job with the poor.

Back to what I said before, if your going to kill human beings with the death penalty, you can't change the rules for abortion. A human being, is a human being.

[Sigma]

Hmm. Wrong. Some Christians would say that the child would go to Hell because he/she has not been baptized, so he/she is a sinner, and all o' that stuff. Just thought I'd point that out.

That is ridiculous. I can imagine a Christian proclaiming the mother is going to hell for giving permission to abort the unborn fetus, but the percentage of Christians actually stating the child would go to hell is probably so small it isn't even worth mentioning. I have never met a religious individual who would claim such a thing personally, and I can not imagine an individual, short of the most fanatical zealots (whom should have, most likely, been aborted themselves), saying such. How can a non-conscious entity, that hasn't even taken a single breath, be held accountable for not being baptised? ;)

It's simply like this.

No, it's not. Abortion is a very complicated issue and all you stated is rhetoric. Perhaps unprotected sex accounts for fifty percent of abortions (probably a hyperbole) but the other half, the cases I, FATAL, the very right of choice and the danger of going through child-birth for the mother and child are still awaiting true debate. The illegalization of abortion is completely unrealistic in the scope of the entire world. The only places where such a topic is even debatable is nations with more wealth and even then, there need to be exceptions for rape victims, severe retardation cases, crack-babies, et cetera. If even you can make exceptions for the safety of the mother/child, how can one push for an overall, conclusive ban to abortion? What about children who are born with HIV?

Again, adoption is a good start; so is using protected sex, however these will not account for every case. I acknowledge the Christian argument against using protected sex/having abortions-- but unfortunately, this is not realistic. The choice must be given to the mother, and I am sure enough that ninety percent of them will make the right choice.

[Nomad]

Why not just make the morning after pill over the counter?

But, OMG, that would be killing a few random cells that have started to form! That's murder! In seriousness, I can somewhat understand why the FDA hasn't passed "Plan B" for OTC status. They claim there isn't enough data for girls under 16. Of course, the makers of Plan B then slapped a label on it saying "For women 16 and up", but I can tell you right now that I guarantee there would be plenty of parents who'd pretend to be pregnant just to get the pill for their kid who fucked up, and probably get them killed.

So in the mean time, I think it's better to just to educate, and advocate abstinence, and at the very least, use of condoms and other contraceptive divices.

Back to what I said before, if your going to kill human beings with the death penalty, you can't change the rules for abortion. A human being, is a human being.

I agree to a point. However, you're saying that if the Death Penalty is abolished, then women who would surely die during childbirth, or children that would either die or have to live with horrible and possibly greatly disfiguring medical problems, cannot have the possibility for abortion. In the former case, someone is going to die anyway, and a child without a mother generally doesn't turn out well (I can attest to that myself, although I had a mother, she's pretty much shit.). And in the latter case, it's simply cruel to let these kids be born.

And I'm not talking about problems that can be fixed so they can lead somewhat normal lives. I'm talking, like, siamese twins that developed inside each other and die before the end of the second trimester. I mean like children with FAS, whose organs grow outside their bodies and die as soon as they're exposed to open air. Negligible deaths like that can easily be prevented before anyone is seriously hurt.

[jetflock]

heh, the smartest people I know come from 1 parent homes....

[Aliotroph?]

I'm fine with abortion. I don't go with that argument about destroying something that potentially could grow up into the emperor of the Fourth Great and Bountiful Human Empire. Most abortions are so early the fetus lacks anything resembling a real nervous system so it wouldn't feel anything either.

People are stupid and they tend to have babies they don't want or can't support. Nobody else is ever willing to support them properly either (there are way more children needing adoption than parents to take them). Making more won't solve anything.

And what kind of state doesn't make an exception for incest? That sounds like a danger to the child if I ever heard of one! :/

[jetflock]

And what kind of state doesn't make an exception for incest? That sounds like a danger to the child if I ever heard of one! :/

Lol, any state containing particular religious groups that believe in it. I visited my GF's family, in they're community, was this crazy incestual church that everyone is trying to shut down, though they are legally a religion.Its really sick. I'll have to ask her to tell me what its called, as I forgot about this till now. Hella fucked up. I think they are in and out of the local news for daughters wanting abortions of THEY'RE own father's child.
(sorry for spelling, just waking up)

Edit (I missed this)
In my book, Abortions are only OK if either the mother or the child faces danger or death. There are plenty of programs for low income families to have a child, so that is no excuse. If you really don't think you can take care of it, put it up for adoption so a family who can take care of it, can. There is nothing to say that you can't have contact with a child you've put up for adoption (unless, of course, your child is taken because you are an unfit parent, but that's a different issue).

As with prohibiting gay marriage, bringing in religion on the lawmaking process concering abortion (or any legeslative issue period) is wrong. End of story.
Heh, those programs are abused form the get go. My friend Keva has6 kids, gets a shitload of money from welfare. Spends the food stamps on steak/meat as opposed to baby food/formula. They live in a big house. She is ripping off the system. Her income aside from welfare and other various gov. money is above average. Coming from Camden (Jerse is the toilet/cesspool, I have seen people who need help and never get it, and people who don't need it, and take advantage of it.
As for gay marriage, I don't think the gays really need it. all they need is the tax deduction, otherwise, marriage is under god. why woul dgay's want to be married under institutions that dislike them anyway? (Though, I understand why some would fight for it, I am just not sure its worth it)

[Aliotroph?]

It would be more worth it to strip everybody of marriage as far as the government is concerned and just let people call it whatever they want. Civil unions for all!

[Yagisan]

hmm, so I needed to be married before "God" ? damm that sucks, as I was married on an Asian country that most certainly does not believe in "God". Does that mean my marriage is invalid ? hmm, the government here said it is legal, so it must be valid - but there was no "God" involved. Oh no - does that mean I need to belive in "God" too now to be married. Damm this just keeps getting worse and worse. I feel so discrimnated against - why must marriage be under "God", if he exists we should sue him/her/it for discrimination and make a truckload of cash.





(Above post may contain traces of black humor. humor not gauranteed to satisfy. Religous zealots may be offened. by reading this post you acknowlegde that you may be offended, but have waived your right to an religion based rebuttal if indeed you are offended.)

[Aliotroph?]

You, sir, deserve a prize for that post! I couldn't possibly have thought to say that in such a clever reply without a month of revising my post!

*Hands Yagisan a beer.*

[xbolt]

Some Christians would say that the child would go to Hell because he/she has not been baptized, so he/she is a sinner, and all o' that stuff. Just thought I'd point that out.
Not true. I'm a Christian, and I know that God is fair, and He'll work something out for those poor kids. Also, you don't get saved by being baptized, that's just a public way of saying: "I'm a Christian now!"

Anyway, I believe abortion is wrong, plain and simple. I just don't understand why some parents do that, instead of putting the kid up for adoption. I've never been a good debater, so I won't say any more.

And knowing what some people will think, go ahead and say I'm an idiot for being a Christian and believing abortion to be wrong. I don't care.

[rustyslacker]

Not true. I'm a Christian, and I know that God is fair, and He'll work something out for those poor kids. Also, you don't get saved by being baptized, that's just a public way of saying: "I'm a Christian now!"
Your views don't sum up the views of all Christians, and my statement does not either.

These aren't the droids you're looking for!

[eX_Do0mY]

Not true. I'm a Christian, and I know that God is fair, and He'll work something out for those poor kids. Also, you don't get saved by being baptized, that's just a public way of saying: "I'm a Christian now!"

Let's not go there again. I bet you are in a Methodist church, or the likes of.

Mark 16:16- He who believeth and is baptised shall be saved; He who believeth not shall be damned.

BUT you are right about the God working something out for kids. God has an "age of accountability" set. He has done this because we all know children are not mature, and cannot believe in something like God.

Anyways, back on topic. This is an abortion thread, not a religion thread.

[FATAL]

But usually those two are related, as the people opposing abortions tend to base their opinions on religion.

I just can't see the harm in abortions. The fetus/baby doesn't feel anything, and if it's the parents' choice to abort it, I doubt it would hurt them either.

[Nomad]

Up until a certain point, the child is not hurt, no. But an abortion is the premature ending of a person's life. It might take you a while to understand the significance of such a thing. It just seems so inconsiderate of me to end what could be the next Beethoven or Mozart's life, or the next Einstein, or whatever. Sure, could be the next Hitler too, but he really wasn't that bad of a guy. Just a little nutty.

[feu]

Inconsiderate? That sounds like the talk of someone who doesn't have a uterus and will never have to actually make this decision.

Abortions have been happening (in one form or another) since the beginning of time. Making it illegal will NOT stop it, it will just make it dirty and deadly.

[Nomad]

Inconsiderate? That sounds like the talk of someone who doesn't have a uterus and will never have to actually make this decision.

What does that have to do with anything? If I could bear a child, I would.

Regardless. Yes, I believe it is inconsiderate to prematurely end a childs life. I've already previously stated that I am against abortion unless there is certain danger to either the mother or the child during the childbearing process, or to either of them afterwards.

Otherwise, abortion is just being used as an expensive form of birth control. Although I do not advocate the non-use of birth control, abortion should not be used as such. If people are not prepared for the responsibilities of parenthood, they should have not been fucking in the first place, or at least should have used protection (if they hadn't).

At any rate, if people dont' want to deal with their child, they can put it up for adoption.

There are plenty of more positive alternatives to abortion. Whether you have a uterus or not, you should be able to agree.

[Aliotroph?]

And I would argue that people aren't even really people until they've been around for a while. A person may be born with a potential for all sorts of great things but if they're born in horrid conditions with no stability or security, they're not too likely to become a Mozart rather than a Hitler. You can possibly be more considerate by aborting some fetuses. It's also extremely easy to make more babies if needed. I'd rather protect the stability of lives that already exist than spend a load of energy protecting lives that don't yet exist.

I'm probably repeating myself now so I'll just wander off. I don't feel like touching religious arguments at all today.

[Nomad]

Children born into bad conditions should be put up for adoption.

[Sigma]

That isn't a realistic conclusion however. There are many people who keep a child for the simple fact that they will get a bigger welfare check or can claim more on tax returns-- only to turn around and purchase alcohol or marijauna with it. As I stated before, the adoption alternative is a good one, but unfortunately cannot solve all of the problems that might occur. The health and mental stability of the child should be considered first and then the conditions the child will live in.

Furthermore, the adoption alternative is only realistic in countries with enormous wealth. There are thousands of children who are ten years old in Africa that eat less in one month than the majority of us eat in one, good day. Many of these children are quite intelligent, but apparently people would rather invest huge sums of money into a mentally retarded child that will never amount to anything than a child who just needs the proper resources to do something good.

[Aliotroph?]

Yeah, pretty much.

People in poor countries seem to think they need lots of children to support them though. That doesn't help anything. :(

[Nomad]

Then I propose that every citizen be monitored, to prevent any child from being born into bad circumstances.

:P

[jetflock]

i think we should just turn babies into a nutrient rich stew, and feed them to the homeless.

[Aliotroph?]

Hehe, we don't need any new food; we just need a better distribution mechanism for poor people. We have too much food. :p