Abortion

[Jude]

There's a few apparent problems I can see with both sides of the abortion issue; so I'd like to see what people have to say to my challenges.  Lets start this off right, with a light-hearted quote! (which in no way reflects my views on the matter)

I, ah... this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks.
- Bill Hicks

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

To Those in Favor of Banning Abortion:
- What about rape and incest?  Would you truly require a woman to carry a child to term if she didn't consent to its conception?
- If there is a choice between the child's life and the mother's, do you still agree with the ban?  (essentially always choosing the child)
- It is true that even if the fetus is not a person, it would be in time.  For some, this alone makes abortion wrong.  In such an argument, is murder equated with preventing the child's birth?  And if so, how is abortion worse than not choosing not to mate when you would? (thereby having the same ultimate effect)
- What about the overall economic and societal effect such a policy will have?  More unwanted children forced upon reluctant, typically poor parents will undoubtedly result in population growth, increase in crime, and a generally less happy populace.
- If you think the act is categorically wrong and comparable to murder, should the United States make a crusade of overthrowing all of the governments around the world that allow it?  Such a viewpoint equates Abortion to mass Infanticide, and in some places like Cuba Abortion is ridiculously common and even makes some 'civilized' nations guilty of genocide (considering minorities get abortions far more often).

[HairyHeretic]

Keep it civil.

This is a subject that can and will ignite strong responses in people. If you can't make your point without flames or attacks, walk away til you can.

I will be watching.

[Neroon]

Just to leave a little note here before things get underway here, this is a very emotive subject that gets people very hot under the collar.  Let's keep it civil, eh?

EDIT:  You beat me to it, Hairy and said it far better

[illimosis]

I heard a pretty interesting quote on the matter once: Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State.

I don't really feel up to writing out a whole tedious shpeel of my opinion on "souls" and all that hoo-hah, but I will say that while I do believe it should be legal, I also think the father -should- have a say in the matter, if he desires (the only exception being rape cases and the like. Consent is everything). I have known two men in the past who would have been fathers, but their partners left them and opted for abortion. It's certainly not as if men aren't affected by it at all. Sometimes, they're thoroughly devastated.

As for a woman's body being her own... it certainly is. And there's a lot of things you can do on your own. Getting pregnant isn't one of them.

[illimosis]

*cough* ^Can do on your own, even. Stupid-unapproved-no-edit-buttons:c


Fixed it for you - Hairy

[Nadir]

Abortion... hummm, mixed feelings, but I'm more in favour of giving the mother the choice. 

- What about people who use abortion as birth control?

They need to be re-educated on their options, on the repercussions of their actions and be made fully aware of what they do, as they are taking advantage of modern technology. Abortion is a major thing and should not be taken lightly - but then, so is having a child. Giving birth is a huge, massive life-changing choice. If the option of abortion is taken away, then for many it would no longer be a choice. Yes, if you have sex you should know the main function of that act is to get pregnant, not the pleasure that comes with it. If you cannot understand this and are prepared for the repercussions of your act, you should not be having sex. Abortion as birth control is... bad. Not a word I like to use, but fitting.

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

Uh, what? Foetus = cell cluster dependant on host = tumour, if you want to go at it like that. But seriously, I don't understand what your saying here. A little more clarity? 

- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?

I think a soul is earned. If you are not given the chance to earn a soul or were unable in your allotted time, you are not condemned to nothingness, you are given another chance at it. Then again, that's my personal belief system, and not everyone will recognise it as even possible as it isn't one of the majority dogmas. 

- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?

Because the woman donated 99.99(recurring)% of the raw material the baby needs to construct itself. A guy gives one cell. I sound kind of cold, being more science-orientated in my replies, but it meshes with and supports what I believe.   

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

I think more things than just 'it isn't aware, we can do anything to it' should be considered. It is a decision that should not be taken lightly. Just because we can do a thing doesn't mean we should. As for euthanasia (as in assisted suicide) it is something I am in favour of. But that is another topic.

[Jude]

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

Uh, what? Foetus = cell cluster dependant on host = tumour, if you want to go at it like that. But seriously, I don't understand what your saying here. A little more clarity?

My point was ultimately that one of the justifications regularly used for abortion is that "fetuses are not humans yet."  To me, that naturally implies that they are animals and thus can be considered an animal rights issue.

It's also true that fetuses are dependent on the mother for nourishment which can make them a parasite; but so are babies.  Where is the line drawn?

EDIT:  A new thought; as someone who was birthed by a mother, does that make a woman a hypocrite if she chooses to abort her child?  i.e. she had to rely on the use of someone else's womb in order to come into the word, but she's denying another person the same thing.

Is this a violation of the golden rule, and this immoral for that reason?

[jouzinka]

The line is drawn at 12 weeks of gestation because after that the fetus is a "complete" product and beyond the date only grows. Basically.

[illimosis]

My point was ultimately that one of the justifications regularly used for abortion is that "fetuses are not humans yet."  To me, that naturally implies that they are animals and thus can be considered an animal rights issue.

It's also true that fetuses are dependent on the mother for nourishment which can make them a parasite; but so are babies.  Where is the line drawn?

I didn't really understand that assumption either. I don't think these things have anything to do with each other -- I guess because I don't see animals as less-than-human. I mean, we're talking about animals that are actually alive, yeah? Already born and walk around and...living? We may be more intelligent beings, but that doesn't nullify their existence. I suppose that, too, is a conversation for another time :P

[Kotah]

I'm going to try to take this one easy like. Since this is such a hot topic.

First, my personal view: While I would never get an abortion, I am pro-choice.

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?

As far as using Abortion as simply a form of birth control, I will assume that you mean the 'mothers' that have multiple abortions. This, actually, isn't that common. In the case of 'mother' that do use it however, I don't find it's my place to make a moral judgment on their behalf. Abortion is not a decision taken likely by any woman I have ever met. The one's that do take it lightly? The ones that really are that overwhelmingly selfish? Perhaps it is better that they don't add to the genetic pool until they are able to act in a responsible manor. Why force a being into a life full of neglect? Either way, my opinion stands that it is each persons  choice. It is my choice not to.

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

As far as I can tell no cat has ever lobbied for abortion. If they were to, I would be happy to allow them. At the same time, do people ask their cat if they want to be sprayed or neutered? No, you do it with the best of intentions. This does not, in any way, mean that we shouldn't have our pet's sprayed or neutered, nor that people should be sprayed or neutered. As far as animal testing in concerned, if the puppy is going to cure cancer... 

- Do you believe in a soul? No
  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul? N/a


- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?

A father can leave the field of responsibility at any time. However, it is a great deal harder for a mother to do so.

I have a friend that got pregnant when she was 16. It was her first time with her boyfriend. He was christian, and she was not. When she told him about the pregnancy, he immediately broke up with her, wanted nothing to do with her, never told his family, and acted like she was a liar. When she got an abortion, because she was a 16 year old from a poor family, because if she had the child she would have had little life open to her other then a welfare mom, because he made it perfectly clear that he wanted nothing to do with her or the baby for the rest of his life...

He called her a murderer.

Who is in the right?

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet? 

Abortion laws at typically before the 20 weeks mark, and mostly before 14 weeks. Where as the fetus could not possibly survive without the mother. I believe it is more a factor of if it can survive outside of the womb, it should be allowed to. It's what most abortion laws are based off. The majority of abortions are pill form. Also, the day after pill? It's considered a form of abortion. At least it is in my state. You have to pay for it out of pocket because it can't be covered as a form of abortion.

And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility? 

This is a little tough to answer for me. I work in the health care field at a rehabilitation center for the criminally insane. We have other wards as well, and I have worked in all of them. I have seen the pain people are forced to abide by simply because the family will not let them go. People that are in so much pain they have ground their teeth down till they all have fallen out. However, because they are in a 'coma' the family want's them to wake up. They are left in terrible pain, with little hope, for years upon years. I don't think that people should be euthanize. However, there are cases were it would be in greater kindness to the patient to move them to hospice, make them comfortable, and let them go. for people that don't know what hospice is, it's pretty much you take them off medication other then pain killers, they receive all normal care that any other patient would, and you wait. Most patients that move to hospice have a better standard of living after they are in hospice then before. It is also quite possible to recover from hospice. This is what I have seen.

Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?
Yep.

[illimosis]

EDIT:  A new thought; as someone who was birthed by a mother, does that make a woman a hypocrite if she chooses to abort her child?  i.e. she had to rely on the use of someone else's womb in order to come into the word, but she's denying another person the same thing.

Is this a violation of the golden rule, and this immoral for that reason?

Heh, well that's the very idea behind abortion. Offering people the choice, letting them decide whether or not they want to or can be parents. One could argue that a mother's decision to bring a life into the world is a heartfelt gift, not an agony to be paid back later.

...that have multiple abortions. This, actually, isn't that common. In the case of 'mother' that do use it however, I don't find it's my place to make a moral judgment on their behalf. Abortion is not a decision taken likely by any woman I have ever met. The one's that do take it lightly? The ones that really are that overwhelmingly selfish? Perhaps it is better that they don't add to the genetic pool until they are able to act in a responsible manor.

^This. lol

Having already said I condone fathers having a say in the matter, my thoughts on the intricacies of it in response to the story of your friend (which is all too common :( ) -- were this ever a possibility, I would hope that the father is only able to disallow the abortion if he truly intends to be a part of the child's life, and should otherwise be bound to paying some sort of alimony. Or maybe it would be only an option for married folk. Rules should apply, but just remember, every case is different; there's plenty of cruelty on both sides of the field.

[Jude]

Hypothetical situation:  assume that the child in the womb was capable of communicating with the mother from day 1 by some form of thought sharing (telekinesis).

Would this make abortion wrong?

By the "woman's body" and "parasite" arguments, this would change nothing about the morality of the act.

Does this show a fundamental problem with those justifications?

[Phoenix]

To Those in Favor of Banning Abortion:
- What about rape and incest?  Would you truly require a woman to carry a child to term if she didn't consent to its conception?

In the case of rape or incest, it should be the mother's choice. After all, abortion issues are about the right of the woman to choose what to do with her own body. In the case of incest and rape, this right to choose was taken away from her.

She should be given counseling, because statistics show a disproportionate number of women who have abortions end up with terrible psychological side-effects at some point, including PTSD.

- If there is a choice between the child's life and the mother's, do you still agree with the ban?  (essentially always choosing the child)

The mother should get to choose, because in this case, it is self-defense. Yet some mothers would choose to give up their life for their child, and should have that right.

- It is true that even if the fetus is not a person, it would be in time.  For some, this alone makes abortion wrong.  In such an argument, is murder equated with preventing the child's birth?  And if so, how is abortion worse than not choosing not to mate when you would? (thereby having the same ultimate effect)

In the case of a conception that has already taken place, the the child's right to life comes into play. When a child has not yet been formed, there is no right to life, because there is not yet a child.

Since no one can honestly state whether or not, for sure, a zygote/fetus has a soul, awareness, or consciousness of some form, it is important to err upon the side of treating someone/something we know WILL become a human, like a human from the beginning.

If I must make a mistake in the treatment of a person, it is to treat a person as a person even if they aren't yet one... rather than to treat someone who is a person, as if they are NOT one.

But until the sperm and cell meet and form the first stages, it is obvious that they are NOT a person, and thus they have no right to life.

- What about the overall economic and societal effect such a policy will have?  More unwanted children forced upon reluctant, typically poor parents will undoubtedly result in population growth, increase in crime, and a generally less happy populace.

I'm curious as to what proof there is that these effects will happen? Has abortion "rights" really done anything to decrease crime, or to decrease the numbers of poor people having children?

From what I've seen, most of the people having abortions are young girls who are being coerced into them by parents or their boyfriend. In cases of mature women, they are often coerced into them, as well. The same goes with adoptions.

The threat that a child will "ruin your life" is coercion. The threat that you will be unable to raise a child simply because you are young or poor is also coercive.

Furthermore, it smacks of discrimination to hold up the poor as people who should have the unadulterated right to child prevention that has a high likelihood of leaving psychological damage for the woman. This isn't against Jude, this is a societal attitude, that the people who get abortions are all poor, and that the poor should be getting them/ have access to them. It has a certain "breeding like rats" kind of connotation in society, and this attitude should really be discouraged.

If we want the poor to have the ability to have fewer children if they so desire, then a program that allows them easier access (affordability) to birth control methods that don't involve the taking of a life is a better choice. Not only from a social standpoint, but also from a psychological standpoint for the people who must make this decision.

- If you think the act is categorically wrong and comparable to murder, should the United States make a crusade of overthrowing all of the governments around the world that allow it?  Such a viewpoint equates Abortion to mass Infanticide, and in some places like Cuba Abortion is ridiculously common and even makes some 'civilized' nations guilty of genocide (considering minorities get abortions far more often).

No, we should not. After all, we have enough problems on our own. Before we run around "policing" others, we should deal with our own issues. We really have no business policing the world while we have so many suffering in our own country. We should clean up our own backyard, or get our own plank out so to speak, before we go plucking at other nations' specks.





As far as the argument of choice, I agree that it should be a woman's choice. In response to enforced matrimony on the part of the state, the problem here lies with the fact that she decided to get pregnant to begin with. Therefor, she has already chosen for herself, about what to do with her body. If she wasn't raped or it wasn't incest, then she has made the choice to risk pregnancy and all it entails.

Once that choice is made, then the woman should be held to the same standards as men are. If a man engages in sexual activity, he is bound by law to provide for that child. Like it or not, he can only get out of an unexpected pregnancy if the woman chooses to have an abortion (at this time, since it's legal for women to abort, but not for men to bail on their children financially).

This should equally be the case for women, that if they choose to engage in sexual activity, they should have to face the consequences. This is true for men right now, they are enforced to paternity by the state, and no one is out there crusading that men should have the right to run off and not deal with the results of a pregnancy if he doesn't want to (quite the contrary, a whole movement is rising regarding better enforcement of child support responsibilities).

The argument of an unborn as a parasite again is a moot point. It is a 'parasite' with a right to life, and the mother has already made the decision to take the risk of having a 9 month 'parasite' in her body. Therefor, the right of the child to life trumps the right of the mother to comfort. Obviously, rape and incest are cases in which she did not have the chance.

I still see this as killing, but unlike in the case where the mother is killing for her own convenience or to escape responsibility for her own actions, it is not MURDER. All murder is wrong, but not all killing is murder.


____________________________

I support euthanasia, except that I have the same concern that people would be coerced into ending their lives in the way that so many women are coerced into adoptions and abortions now. It's a very difficult call to say that some should be forced to live a life of abject misery in order to prevent others from being coerced into ending their lives. Or should we risk that some might be coerced in order that others might have the right to choose?

These are not simple questions, IMO.

[Greenthorn]

There's a few apparent problems I can see with both sides of the abortion issue; so I'd like to see what people have to say to my challenges.  Lets start this off right, with a light-hearted quote! (which in no way reflects my views on the matter)

I, ah... this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks.
- Bill Hicks

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

To Those in Favor of Banning Abortion:
- What about rape and incest?  Would you truly require a woman to carry a child to term if she didn't consent to its conception?
- If there is a choice between the child's life and the mother's, do you still agree with the ban?  (essentially always choosing the child)
- It is true that even if the fetus is not a person, it would be in time.  For some, this alone makes abortion wrong.  In such an argument, is murder equated with preventing the child's birth?  And if so, how is abortion worse than not choosing not to mate when you would? (thereby having the same ultimate effect)
- What about the overall economic and societal effect such a policy will have?  More unwanted children forced upon reluctant, typically poor parents will undoubtedly result in population growth, increase in crime, and a generally less happy populace.
- If you think the act is categorically wrong and comparable to murder, should the United States make a crusade of overthrowing all of the governments around the world that allow it?  Such a viewpoint equates Abortion to mass Infanticide, and in some places like Cuba Abortion is ridiculously common and even makes some 'civilized' nations guilty of genocide (considering minorities get abortions far more often).

Could you please give a source for this (what is bolded). If it is a fact, then cite it...if it is an opinion, take it out...it's stereotyping  ;) Logic tells -me- that less poor people have abortions than middle class and up, simply because poor people cannot afford abortions.

[Torch]

She should be given counseling, because statistics show a disproportionate number of women who have abortions end up with terrible psychological side-effects at some point, including PTSD.

From what I've seen, most of the people having abortions are young girls who are being coerced into them by parents or their boyfriend.

In cases of mature women, they are often coerced into them, as well. The same goes with adoptions.

I'd like statistical references for all these statements, please. Something a tad more concrete than merely "from what I have seen". Perhaps some data from the NIH? The Kinsey Institute? Any recognizable authority on sexual behavior and health would be fine.

Unless, of course, these statements are merely your opinions.

[Jude]

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3422602.html

METHODS: A representative sample of more than 10,000 women obtaining abortions from a stratified probability sample of 100 U.S. providers were surveyed in 2000-2001; survey data are used to examine the demographic characteristics of women who terminate pregnancies. This information, along with other national-level data, is used to estimate abortion rates and ratios for subgroups of women and examine recent changes in these measures.

RESULTS: In 2000, 21 out of every 1,000 women of reproductive age had an abortion. Women who are aged 18-29, unmarried, black or Hispanic, or economically disadvantaged—including those on Medicaid—have higher abortion rates. The overall abortion rate decreased by 11% between 1994 and 2000. The decline was greatest for 15-17-year-olds, women in the highest income category, those with college degrees and those with no religious affiliation. Abortion rates for women with incomes below 200% of poverty and for women with Medicaid coverage increased between 1994 and 2000. The rate of decline in abortion among black and Hispanic adolescents was lower than that among white adolescents, and the abortion rate among poor teenagers increased substantially.

[Phoenix]

I'd like statistical references for all these statements, please. Something a tad more concrete than merely "from what I have seen". Perhaps some data from the NIH? The Kinsey Institute? Any recognizable authority on sexual behavior and health would be fine.

Unless, of course, these statements are merely your opinions.

http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf

It's a biased source, but it contains statistics based on scientific methods, so I assume it'll be good enough.

My statements are based on industry knowledge, not on statistics I found somewhere, that's part of why I gave vague generalizations, rather than specifics.

_________________

Study on the psychological impact of abortions:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

_________________

I did find a nice commentary on how even being threatened with being killed or beaten still means that the abortion was voluntary, though.

So to clear up what I mean by "coerced," I will state that the woman felt like she had little to no control over the choice, due to other people's actions such as threats.

Examples are when the man threatens her with physical violence or abandonment if she doesn't have one. Where parents threaten physical violence or abandonment. Where the woman is not given options nor properly informed of her rights and the risks involved.

I wouldn't want someone to think that I'm saying "coerced" in the purely legal sense, in which only a court order can "coerce" or "force" a woman into an abortion.

I'm talking social, and/or economic factors.

[Torch]

http://www.unfairchoice.info/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortions.pdf

It's a biased source, but it contains statistics based on scientific methods, so I assume it'll be good enough.

Actually, no it's not. The source itself is biased, the citations referenced by the source are biased (i.e. www.unchoice.org, LifeNews, etc.)

Sorry, you'll have to do a bit better than that.

My statements are based on industry knowledge, not on statistics I found somewhere, that's part of why I gave vague generalizations, rather than specifics.

Vague generalizations are useless and pointless in a debate. Again, if you can give me unbiased data from a source such as the NIH, the CDC, Kinsey Institute, or another recognized authority, then your argument has merit. Otherwise, it's merely your opinion. Which is fine, we are all entitled to an opinion. But you cannot present your opinion as fact in a debate.

Study on the psychological impact of abortions:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

Again, you cite a biased reference.

I did find a nice commentary on how even being threatened with being killed or beaten still means that the abortion was voluntary, though.

A commentary? A commentary is someone's opinion. Facts only, please.

[Valerian]

That first link certainly is biased, and as Torch says, I'd still like a better idea of the exact methods used to gather that data.  I suspect their information gathering was biased from the start.

However, also from the Guttmacher Institute that Jude cited are these statistics that don't quite mesh with yours.  (The Institute is pro-choice, but since their statistics are used by both sides of the argument, I'd venture to say that they're not at all biased.)

Most relevant to this discussion are the following:

• The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). This is partly because the rate of unintended pregnancies among poor women (below 100% of poverty) is nearly four times that of women above 200% of poverty* (112 vs. 29 per 1,000 women)

• The reasons women give for having an abortion underscore their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. Three-fourths of women cite concern for or responsibility to other individuals; three-fourths say they cannot afford a child; three-fourths say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents; and half say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

Even if you're defining "having problems with their husband or partner" as "being coerced," (a stretch at best) that's still somewhat below the 64% of women listed as "feeling pressured by others" into getting an abortion mentioned in your first link.

[PhantomPistoleer]

This is a touchy subject and because I don't have all the answers, I will go ahead and tell you why I am against abortion (despite being liberal).  I am not for the government telling a woman what to do with her unborn child, mind you.

From my point of view, I do not understand why a woman would give up a child.  My point of view is this:  my wife cannot have children.  I think she would make a pretty good mom, and I'd make a pretty awesome dad, but biological circumstances make my wife barren.  I would give anything to have a child of my own.  I don't make a big deal of it, but it would make me tremendously happy to have a kid.  Yet, in this same world, there are women who discard them.  I do not understand a very fundamental principle:  how can someone discard something that I find so valuable?

It's simple economics for me, but that same logic can be turned around on me.  Sometimes, it's not economic for a woman to have a child.  When I speak about economics, I'm not talking about money-- I'm talking about risk, demand, supply, investment, etc.

I do not think that women should have children if they do not want them.  I do not understand women who do not want children.  Yet, there are women who do not want children.  So, eek, crazy balancing act.

[Phoenix]

Believe what you want to believe. It's really not worth my time to go digging for statistics, as I've already made the point that most of what I know comes from dealing directly with women in such situations. At the end of the day, the argument revolves around what one views as coercion. Of course a pro-life site is going to slant responses by women to their views, and a pro-abortion site is going to slant them towards theirs.

A pro-abortion site is not going to see someone not being given full disclosure of the risks and being told by their parents that "having a baby will ruin your life" as coercion, while a pro-life site will.

It's impossible to find statistics on coercion that aren't biased, because the people paying for studies will have a pre-determined view they're trying to get established.

As far as the poor versus not poor argument, I never argued whether or not people getting abortions are poor. I argued that abortions shouldn't be the answer to poverty level birth control methods.

However, given that I view economic circumstances (often a temporary problem) and age (always a temporary problem) to be coercive to women having abortions, I would say that those statistics STRONGLY support my argument. That women in poverty situations are such a large amount of women having abortions speaks strongly to the coercive nature of poverty.

It would be better to help poverty-stricken people to not get pregnant to begin with, rather than helping them to do something psychologically damaging such as have an abortion.

[Valerian]

Believe what you want to believe. It's really not worth my time to go digging for statistics, as I've already made the point that most of what I know comes from dealing directly with women in such situations. At the end of the day, the argument revolves around what one views as coercion. Of course a pro-life site is going to slant responses by women to their views, and a pro-abortion site is going to slant them towards theirs.

A pro-abortion site is not going to see someone not being given full disclosure of the risks and being told by their parents that "having a baby will ruin your life" as coercion, while a pro-life site will.

It's impossible to find statistics on coercion that aren't biased, because the people paying for studies will have a pre-determined view they're trying to get established.

Stories from the people you've worked with are called anecdotal evidence, which is a misnomer, since they're not evidence at all in the scientific sense.  This does not make those stories less true, so let's not go off on that tangent.  I'm simply saying that stories do not equal statistics.  I offered up what are very probably the most unbiased statistics available (the Guttmacher Institute is a non-profit organization, doing mainly governmental studies), so if those aren't good enough, I guess that's that.

As far as the poor versus not poor argument, I never argued whether or not people getting abortions are poor. I argued that abortions shouldn't be the answer to poverty level birth control methods.

I posted that because Greenthorn had earlier questioned whether or not women below the poverty line have more abortions.

However, given that I view economic circumstances (often a temporary problem) and age (always a temporary problem) to be coercive to women having abortions, I would say that those statistics STRONGLY support my argument. That women in poverty situations are such a large amount of women having abortions speaks strongly to the coercive nature of poverty.

It would be better to help poverty-stricken people to not get pregnant to begin with, rather than helping them to do something psychologically damaging such as have an abortion.

Your definition of coercion previous to my earlier post mentioned nothing about poverty as coercion.  Your anecdotes all revolved around violence and threats of violence, not economic issues.  Please try to be more clear with your definitions if you're going to continue in this thread.

[Kotah]

... ok.

By your claims age and financial security are forms of coercion. You seem to list most things that might have an affect on a decision as Coercion.  :-\ Can I ask what isn't coercion?

Also, by laws today at least in my state, you have to be given a full explanation of the procedure, possible outcomes, complications, all of it... Prior to the procedure. I know this for a fact because, as an RN I'm the person that reads them to you. Then I hand you a clipboard for you to sign.  Note, i don't give them to you to read, I have to read them to you. Depending on the procedure, I also help you sign up for group therapy before you go home.  I don't know about other states, but in mine you cannot have a procedure done without a full understanding of it. You can't even get a tattoo without reading a three page explanation of what's going to happen.

I'm sure that not every where is as precise as the place where I work, but I work where I work for a reason. Still, I find it hard to believe that the women aren't given the full measure.

[Phoenix]

Your definition of coercion previous to my earlier post mentioned nothing about poverty as coercion.  Your anecdotes all revolved around violence and threats of violence, not economic issues.  Please try to be more clear with your definitions if you're going to continue in this thread.

Actually, I didn't define it prior to the last post. However, I think I alluded to it with my comments about the issue of using abortion as birth control for poor people.

Coercion can come in many forms, including societal pressures, religious pressures, family pressures, pressure from the father, economic status, with-holding of information on the risks and consequences, and more. However, many of these are combined, particularly by parents or the father, and by so-called "professionals" who are supposed to be "counseling" women who come for information.

I gave some examples, but my definition of what can be included under the umbrella of coercion is not limited to the couple of examples I gave. They were just examples.

When people around you leave you feeling like you have no choice (because you're too poor, too young, whatever), this is a form of coercion.

At no point did I claim that I had statistics, but I did go looking for some when asked to... even though there's no real reason to ask for statistics, anyway. Not only is the area of coercion one fraught with opinion anyway, but it's also fraught with bias.

Not to mention the fact that the thread itself is about opinions, not statistics anyway.

I've given statistic references, and of course, anyone who doesn't want them to be right, are going to argue that they don't count. That's how internet arguing works. Half of that is because statistics can be slanted whichever direction one wants them to go.

The psychological survey itself was enough to make it pretty clear that abortion isn't healthy for women, IMO. But that's just my opinion. After all, who really cares about the psychological results of abortion? The argument isn't about that. The argument is only whether or not it should be okay from a standpoint of "choice."

But for ME, I personally beg the question of whether or not it's really a "choice" when you don't have all the facts, and don't know how likely it is that you'll be in the high percentages of women who suffer psychological trauma.

At the end of the day, I'm not really sure what the point is of demanding statistics that don't have any realistic bearing on the questions at hand unless we're going to discuss whether or not women should be protected from bringing themselves psychological harm.

And I don't really think that a pro-choice institution is unbiased. But that's my opinion, and is based upon nothing more than years and years of anecdotal observations of people. I have no statistics on how often people slant statistics to show what they want them to as closely as possible, so don't ask.  :P

... ok.

By your claims age and financial security are forms of coercion. You seem to list most things that might have an affect on a decision as Coercion.  :-\ Can I ask what isn't coercion?

Coercion happens when someone tells you of your "things that might have an affect on your decision" without telling you anything that might have an alleviating effect on that.

For example, young girls are often told that having a baby will ruin their life, they are told that they can't afford a baby, they are told that they're too young to be a parent. They aren't told about people who have been their age and parented just fine. They aren't told about the options they have for help. They aren't told that both poverty and age are temporary conditions (poverty might not be in all cases-- age is in all cases).

When a person says, "I want to keep/have my baby, but I can't," then they are NOT voluntarily making a decision.

If a woman in a poor country were to feel she had no choice but to sell her child to an orphanage for adoption, would you say that she had done so voluntarily? Simply because she was forced to the decision by her state of poverty, she becomes "voluntary"?

Would we say that the woman was being exploited? Most of us would.

When an abortion or doctor's clinic makes money off of poor women by offering them the "service" of an abortion, when they don't want to have one but feel they are helpless to do anything else... they are exploiting her equally as much as the hypothetical mother in the 3rd world country who is forced to sell her child to an orphanage.

Actually, though, what happens in those cases is that the child is an underaged minor able to bear children. She is impregnated and the baby is sold. The grandparent signature allows for the legal sale of the child for adoption.

In these cases, the exploitation and coercion are very clear. But in the case where women in the USA are coerced into giving up children for adoption, or into having abortions, we suddenly find it all so unclear... suddenly it's just a 'thing that factors into the decision.'

Also, by laws today at least in my state, you have to be given a full explanation of the procedure, possible outcomes, complications, all of it... Prior to the procedure. I know this for a fact because, as an RN I'm the person that reads them to you. Then I hand you a clipboard for you to sign.  Note, i don't give them to you to read, I have to read them to you. Depending on the procedure, I also help you sign up for group therapy before you go home.  I don't know about other states, but in mine you cannot have a procedure done without a full understanding of it. You can't even get a tattoo without reading a three page explanation of what's going to happen.

I'm sure that not every where is as precise as the place where I work, but I work where I work for a reason. Still, I find it hard to believe that the women aren't given the full measure.

I'm glad your state requires that. I hope they don't just say, "side effects may include.... [side effects]" without stating the high likelihood of psychological trauma that is the reality of the likelihood. A 65% chance, say, of dying from something (NOT saying that's the likelihood of dying from an abortion-- for the mother, anyway), is enough for someone to be seriously sat down and told, "Listen, this is serious business."

However, when it's just a lifetime of psychological pain, it's played off as, "yeah, it happens." Chances that high should be addressed very strongly, so that if a person still goes through with it, then it isn't with a sense of not having really understood the chances of trauma.

[Nadir]

My point was ultimately that one of the justifications regularly used for abortion is that "fetuses are not humans yet."  To me, that naturally implies that they are animals and thus can be considered an animal rights issue.

It's also true that fetuses are dependent on the mother for nourishment which can make them a parasite; but so are babies.  Where is the line drawn?

o.O

Saying something isn't human does not imply it is animal. Whether a foetus is a human from the start, or is growing into becoming a human has little relevance  - abortion is killing a child. That is the cold hard truth - if people are trying to justify abortion by saying that the foetus is not human, it is pathetic and only shows they are as uneducated as the opposing party. If they don't like the fact that they are killing a baby, they should just squeeze it out and put the kid up for adoption.

... if you seriously think a baby is dependant on the mother, you have never been around one. It is easier to feed a baby with a mother (not the mother, but any mother making breast milk) around, but the baby is no longer depending 100% on one human.     

EDIT:  A new thought; as someone who was birthed by a mother, does that make a woman a hypocrite if she chooses to abort her child?  i.e. she had to rely on the use of someone else's womb in order to come into the word, but she's denying another person the same thing.

Is this a violation of the golden rule, and this immoral for that reason?

Counterpoint - who gives one person the right to dictate what another does with their body? No one is given the option of being born, so calling a person a hypocrite for making the decision they are not ready for the greatest responsibility of their lives is redundant.

What is this 'golden rule' of which you speak? And surely it is more immoral to bring a child into a situation over which the mother has no control.

Hypothetical situation:  assume that the child in the womb was capable of communicating with the mother from day 1 by some form of thought sharing (telekinesis).

Would this make abortion wrong?

By the "woman's body" and "parasite" arguments, this would change nothing about the morality of the act.

Does this show a fundamental problem with those justifications?

Your hypothesis belongs to fiction, not this sort of discussion.

[Torch]

But for ME, I personally beg the question of whether or not it's really a "choice" when you don't have all the facts, and don't know how likely it is that you'll be in the high percentages of women who suffer psychological trauma.

I asked for statistical references because you are continually making claims such as the one above with no basis in fact other than your opinion. It is your opinion that a high percentage of women suffer psychological trauma after an abortion. But you have no factual references to back up this claim, and the many others that you are stating in your posts.

You are making broad based, sweeping claims regarding not only every woman who seeks a legal abortion, but also every health care provider who performs the procedure, claims that have no basis in fact other than your opinion, and you are presenting that opinion as an irrefutable fact.

We get that you are against abortion (and adoption for some reason). We get it. But please stop presenting your 'evidence' as anything other than what it is - your personal opinion.

[Phoenix]

I asked for statistical references because you are continually making claims such as the one above with no basis in fact other than your opinion. It is your opinion that a high percentage of women suffer psychological trauma after an abortion. But you have no factual references to back up this claim, and the many others that you are stating in your posts.

You are making broad based, sweeping claims regarding not only every woman who seeks a legal abortion, but also every health care provider who performs the procedure, claims that have no basis in fact other than your opinion, and you are presenting that opinion as an irrefutable fact.

We get that you are against abortion (and adoption for some reason). We get it. But please stop presenting your 'evidence' as anything other than what it is - your personal opinion.

You obviously didn't read the link with extensive psychological questions and the responses of women to them.

It's further pointless to give statistics, since people can't be bothered to look over the link provided. The questions were extensive, and proved that the larger number of women did experience various issues, than didn't.


Statistics that you didn't bother to read:

Section 1
Present age:
<20    20-24    25-29    30-34    35-39    >39
2.7%    11.2%    27.0%    24.3%    23.9%    10.8%

(N = 259) Avg: 32.0 yrs
Race or ethnic origin:
White    Non-White
92.3%    7.7%

(N = 255)
State of residence:    Respondents from 35 states


Highest grade completed:
<12    12    13    14    15    16    17    >17
7.5%    40.2%    12.2%    17.7%    1.6%    16.9%    1.2%    2.8%

(N = 254) Avg: 13.6 yrs
How old were you at the time of your abortion?
<15    15-19    20-24    25-29    30-34    >35
1.9%    40.1%    36.2%    15.6%    4.3%    1.9%

(N = 257) Avg: 21.5 yrs
Time since abortion, in years:

(a calculated field)
<6    6-10    11-15    16-20    >20
19.8%    33.1%    31.1%    12.1%    3.9%

(N = 257) Avg: 10.6 yrs

Was your abortion.. . .
LEGAL or    ILLEGAL?    (Indicated one of each)

92.1%
   

7.1%
   

.8%

(N = 251)
How many abortions have you had?
One    Two    Three    Four or more
73.6%    17.8%    5%    3.5%

(N = 258)
Marital status at that time:
Single    Married    Engaged    Separated/Divorced
64.6%    15.4%    7.1%    13.0%

(N = 254)
How many weeks pregnant were you at that time?
<5    5-6    7-8    9-10    11-12    13-16    16-20    >20
7.7%    11.7%    28.3%    16.2%    21.1%    10.9%    2.4%    1.6%

(N = 247) Avg: 9.6 wks
How many children did you have at that time?
Zero    One    Two    Three    Over Three
74.2%    13.8%    8.5%    2.7%    0%

(N = 260)
What type of abortion procedure was used?
Suction    D & C    Saline/

Prostaglandin
   Other
80.0%    13.5%    3.7%    2.9%

(N = 245)
Were you awake during the procedure?
Yes    No    Unsure
79.6%    18.8%    1.6%

(N = 255)


Were you given pain killers or anesthetics prior to the operation?
Yes    No    Unsure
54.7%    32.0%    13.3%

(N = 256)





Section 2

The questions in the following section require an answer on a scale of ranging from 5 to 1. Answer by circling number 5 if you strongly agree with the statement, 4 if you agree , and 3 if you are uncertain . If you disagree with the statement, circle number 2, and if you strongly disagree with the statement or if the opposite was true in your case, circle number 1. If you believe the question does not apply to you, leave it blank.


     (N)    Strongly

Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    Prior to my abortion, I believed that abortion was a moral choice.    (252)    15.1%    9.1%    36.9%    22.2%    16.7%
2.    I believed abortion should be a legal option for all women.    (257)    29.2%    10.1%    24.9%    19.5%    16.3%
3.    My choice to abort was consistent with my prior beliefs about abortion.    (254)    36.2%    17.3%    18.5%    16.1%    11.8%
4.    My choice was inconsistent with my prior beliefs. I felt my decision was a betrayal of my own ideals.    (248)    12.9%    11.3%    15.3%    14.9%    45.6%
5.    My decision to have an abortion was an agonizing one.    (256)    8.4%    11.6%    7.2%    18.5%    54.2%
6.    Prior to my abortion I was a religious person.    (259)    16.6%    19.7%    17.0%    26.3%    20.5%
7.    There was a time prior to my abortion when I received professional counseling for emotional or psychiatric difficulties.    (248)    59.7%    12.9%    4.0%    10.1%    13.3%
8.    The memory of my abortion has faded with time.    (256)    52.0%    22.3%    6.6%    10.2%    9.0%
9.    The memory of my abortion is vividly clear.    (255)    8.2%    10.2%    9.8%    25.1%    46.7%
10.    The abortion procedure was painful.    (257)    10.9%    8.2%    12.1%    22.2%    46.7%



Section 3

The following is a checklist of possible post-abortion reactions. Answers again range from 1, "Strongly Disagree," to 5, "Strongly Agree." In general, answer 2 for NO , 3 for Uncertain , and 4 for YES . Only if you experienced a severe reaction, should you answer with number 5. If you experienced a strong reaction opposite to the one questioned, answer by circling number 1. If the question is not applicable to your case, leave the question blank.
AFTER MY ABORTION, I EXPERIENCED FEELINGS OF:    (N)    Strongly

Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    Guilt    (256)    0.4%    2.3%    4.7%    31.3%    61.3%
2.    Depression    (255)    0.4%    3.9%    7.5%    35.7%    52.5%
3.    Anger    (255)    1.2%    9.0%    9.0%    35.7%    45.1%
4.    Sorrow    (255)    0.4%    2.4%    5.5%    36.5%    55.3%

5.    Happiness    (241)    62.2%    22.4%    7.9%    5.4%    2.1%
6.    Grief    (255)    0.8%    5.5%    9.0%    40.8%    43.9%
7.    Bitterness    (251)    3.2%    8.8%    13.5%    34.7%    39.8%
8.    Regret    (257)    1.9%    3.5%    9.7%    32.7%    52.1%

9.    Rage    (245)    9.4%    20.0%    20.4%    21.2%    29.0%
10.    Anguish    (245)    2.0%    7.8%    14.3%    37.1%    38.8%
11.    Remorse    (254)    1.6%    5.9%    6.3%    41.3%    44.9%
12.    Power    (237)    58.6%    23.2%    12.2%    3.8%    2.1%

13.    Despair    (245)    2.4%    9.8%    13.9%    35.5%    38.4%
14.    Shame    (254)    0.4%    2.8%    5.9%    39.0%    52.0%
15.    Horror    (241)    4.6%    13.3%    23.2%    29.0%    29.9%
16.    Unworthiness    (254)    1.6%    3.9%    8.7%    33.5%    52.4%

17.    Loneliness    (250)    2.0%    6.8%    7.6%    38.4%    45.2%
18.    Hopelessness    (247)    2.0%    11.3%    13.4%    32.0%    41.3%
19.    Helplessness    (248)    2.0%    14.1%    11.7%    31.5%    40.7%
20.    Self-condemnation    (251)    1.2%    2.4%    5.6%    33.9%    57.0%

21.    Liberation    (234)    44.4%    25.2%    16.7%    11.5%    2.1%
22.    Rejection    (238)    4.6%    10.1%    24.8%    31.1%    29.4%
23.    Confusion    (250)    1.2%    6.4%    11.6%    44.4%    36.4%
24.    Anxiety    (248)    1.6%    6.5%    10.5%    43.5%    37.9%

25.    Constant stress    (246)    2.0%    14.2%    19.5%    33.3%    30.9%
26.    Withdrawal    (245)    2.9%    15.5%    16.7%    33.1%    31.8%
27.    Isolation    (241)    3.3%    17.4%    17.4%    31.5%    30.3%
28.    Sexual freedom    (235)    40.0%    25.5%    19.1%    11.1%    4.3%


     

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
29.    Self-hatred    (250)    2.8%    6.8%    13.6%    33.2%    43.6%
30.    Alienation from others    (238)    3.4%    20.6%    18.5%    31.9%    25.6%
31.    Inner peace    (237)    63.7%    25.7%    5.5%    2.1%    3.0%
32.    Unforgiveness of self    (258)    1.9%    5.8%    6.6%    31.4%    54.3%


     

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
33.    Unforgiveness of those involved    (252)    5.6%    15.5%    14.7%    34.9%    29.4%
34.    Having become degraded or debased    (243)    2.1%    12.8%    17.7%    37.4%    30.0%
35.    Having been exploited by other    (243)    2.9%    15.2%    19.3%    30.9%    31.7%
36.    Hatred of those involved    (240)    7.9%    22.5%    22.9%    22.9%    23.8%


I'm not going to bother with bolding all the rest of the signs of trauma, the list is pretty extensive. What I've bolded here is enough to show that a MAJORITY have experienced psychological trauma. The bolded numbers are "agree" or "strongly agree." They make up majorities.

I suppose that an argument could be made that there's no question, "I experienced multiples of these factors," so hey, someone who wants to claim that the data is invalid only because of that can do so.

But please don't bother with requests for statistics that you won't bother to read anyway. It's inconsiderate of my time, and of me.[/u]

37.    Hatred of man who made me pregnant    (249)    15.3%    29.7%    20.1%    16.9%    18.1%
38.    Hatred of all men    (243)    23.0%    33.7%    19.8%    15.2%    8.2%
39.    Fear of punishment from God    (249)    4.4%    12.0%    13.3%    34.9%    35.3%
40.    Fear of harm to my other children    (218)    17.0%    21.6%    12.8%    25.2%    23.4%

41.    Fear of another pregnancy    (245)    13.5%    23.7%    13.9%    25.3%    23.7%
42.    Fear of needing another abortion    (244)    24.2%    28.7%    12.3%    15.2%    19.7%
43.    Fear of touching babies    (246)    24.8%    37.0%    13.0%    13.8%    11.4%
44.    Fear of others learning of abortion    (255)    5.5%    9.4%    8.2%    42.0%    34.9%

45.    Fear of making decisions    (245)    6.9%    21.6%    23.3%    28.2%    20.0%
46.    Fear for unknown reasons    (245)    6.1%    16.3%    20.8%    28.6%    28.2%


AFTER MY ABORTION, I EXPERIENCED:    

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    Nightmares    (241)    16.2%    22.4%    14.9%    28.6%    17.8%
2.    Insomnia    (243)    15.2%    25.5%    14.4%    25.5%    19.3%
3.    Flashbacks to the abortion    (249)    8.0%    18.1%    10.4%    35.3%    28.1%
4.    Hysterical outbreaks    (244)    11.1%    25.4%    12.7%    22.5%    28.3%

5.    Uncontrollable weeping    (242)    5.8%    14.5%    9.9%    35.5%    34.3%
6.    Suicidal feelings    (244)    12.3%    22.5%    9.4%    24.2%    31.6%
7.    Greater closeness toward my lover    (242)    51.7%    29.8%    9.1%    7.0%    2.5%
8.    A loss of self-confidence    (249)    2.4%    9.2%    12.9%    38.2%    37.3%
9.    A loss of self-esteem    (254)    1.2%    5.9%    10.6%    38.2%    44.1%
     
10.    A loss of dignity    (251)    1.2%    8.0%    10.4%    42.2%    38.2%
11.    A general sense of loss    (253)    1.6%    4.3%    7.9%    42.3%    43.9%
12.    Greater self-awareness    (237)    36.3%    27.8%    19.0%    11.8%    5.1%

13.    Hallucinations related to abortion    (233)    30.0%    41.6%    13.7%    6.9%    7.7%
14.    Eating disorders such as bulimia anorexia, or binge eating.    (241)    22.4%    31.5%    7.5%    20.3%    18.3%
15.    A general sense of emptiness    (248)    1.6%    7.7%    7.3%    42.7%    40.7%
16.    A loss of sympathy for others    (242)    16.5%    22.7%    21.5%    22.7%    16.5%

17.    A compulsion to be a perfect mother    (231)    10.0%    19.0%    21.2%    24.7%    25.1%
18.    An inability to keep jobs    (232)    27.6%    33.6%    14.2%    15.9%    8.6%
19.    A loss of concentration    (236)    8.9%    22.5%    21.2%    29.2%    18.2%
20.    A difficulty in maintaining and developing personal relationships    (246)    9.3%    19.5%    14.2%    30.1%    26.8%


AFTER MY ABORTION, I BECAME:    

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    Preoccupied with thoughts of death.    (243)    14.4%    29.6%    13.2%    20.6%    22.2%
2.    Preoccupied with thoughts of the child I could have had.    (252)    5.6%    12.7%    10.3%    34.9%    36.5%
3.    Excessively interested in pregnant women.    (243)    21.0%    33.7%    15.2%    17.7%    12.3%
4.    Excessively interested in babies.    (244)    18.9%    28.3%    15.2%    19.3%    18.4%


NEGATIVE FEELINGS ABOUT MY ABORTION BECAME WORSE:    

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    On the due date of pregnancy.    (238)    10.9%    25.6%    20.6%    21.8%    21.0%
2.    On the anniversary of the abortion.    (235)    11.5%    17.4%    19.6%    26.4%    25.1%
3.    During a later pregnancy.    (199)    16.1%    18.1%    11.1%    28.6%    26.1%
4.    At the birth of a later child.    (200)    19.5%    21.0%    10.5%    23.0%    26.0%
5.    At the time of a later miscarriage.    (151)    33.8%    28.5%    10.6%    11.3%    15.9%
6.    When I later tried to get pregnant.    (181)    24.3%    24.3%    11.0%    19.9%    20.4%
7.    When exposed to pro-life propaganda.    (242)    8.3%    9.9%    5.0%    38.8%    38.0%
8.    When exposed to pro-choice propaganda.    (227)    10.6%    15.0%    9.3%    31.3%    33.9%
9.    When exposed to information in the mass media about fetal development.    (239)    7.1%    8.4%    7.9%    34.3%    42.3%


AFTER MY ABORTION:    

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
1.    I felt more in touch with my emotions.    (247)    37.7%    36.4%    14.2%    6.1%    5.7%
2.    I felt a need to block out and stifle my feelings.    (250)    3.2%    6.8%    10.8%    35.2%    44.0%
3.    I needed to "force" myself to be happy.    (250)    2.0%    10.8%    17.6%    38.8%    30.8%
4.    I felt unable to grieve.    (248)    8.5%    17.7%    13.7%    35.1%    25.0%
5.    My attitude toward life became more callused or hardened.    (245)    5.3%    11.4%    17.6%    35.5%    30.2%
6.    I felt more in control of my life.    (244)    41.8%    41.4%    9.4%    3.7%    3.7%
7.    I started losing my temper more easily.    (245)    5.3%    14.3%    21.2%    35.1%    24.1%
8.    I became more violent when angered.    (246)    10.6%    26.4%    15.4%    26.8%    20.7%
9.    I began to drink more heavily.    (244)    27.0%    27.5%    9.0%    19.3%    17.2%


     If so, would you describe yourself as having become an alcoholic?    (107)    Yes    No    Unsure
27.1%    50.5%    22.4%


10.    I began to use, or increased my use of drugs.    

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
(234)    33.8%    20.5%    5.1%    21.4%    19.2%


     If so, would you describe yourself as having become addicted?    (106)    Yes    No    Unsure
25.5%    61.3%    13.2%


     

(N)
   

Strongly  Disagree
                  Strongly

Agree
11.    Because of my abortion experience, I underwent a dramatic personality change.    (240)    6.7%    15.4%    26.7%    26.7%    24.6%
     If so, the change was for the better.

(1 - worse, 5 - better)
   (155)    61.3%    18.1%    12.9%    4.5%    3.2%
12.    I experienced a radical change in my ideals and moral beliefs.    (237)    8.4%    17.7%    29.5%    21.5%    22.8%



Section 4
Answer the following questions by checking the appropriate box or filling in the blank space as required.
          (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
1.    Was there a time after your abortion when you would have considered yourself pro-choice?    (250)    46.0%    36.8%    17.2%
2.    Was there a time after your abortion when you would have encouraged or supported a woman in similar circumstances to consider abortion?    (252)    31.7%    54.0%    14.3%
3.    Have you ever regretted having had the abortion?    (251)    94.0%    3.2%    2.8%
4.    Have you ever had a waking or sleeping visitation from the aborted child?    (248)    17.7%    73.0%    9.3%
     If so, was the mood of the visitation    ( 46 )    vengeful or    forgiving?

23.9%
   74.1%


          

(N)
   Yes    No    Unsure
5.    Did you ever talk to the aborted child prior to the abortion?    

(249)
   32.1%    61.8%    6.0%
6.    Did you ever talk to the aborted child after the abortion?    

(248)
   48.8%    45.6%    5.6%
7.    Did your relationship with your sexual partner come to an end after the abortion?    

(248)
   66.1%    31.0%    2.8%


     If so, how soon after the abortion ?

(N = 166)
   within 1 month    within 6 months    a year or more
     55.4%    22.9%    21.7%


          (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
8.    Did you experience greater irregularity of menstrual periods after your abortion?    (249)    33.7%    55.8%    10.4%
9.    Did you frequently experience heavy bleeding after your abortion?    (250)    41.2%    50.4%    8.4%
10.    Did you experience pain in the cervix or abdomen?    (249)    58.2%    31.3%    10.4%
11.    Did you experience an increased sense of pain during intercourse?    (247)    33.2%    49.0%    17.8%
12.    Did you experience a loss of pleasure from intercourse?    (248)    58.5%    28.2%    13.3%
13.    Did you develop an aversion to sexual intercourse or become sexually unresponsive?    (247)    46.6%    38.5%    15.0%
14.    Did you become promiscuous after your abortion?    (246)    42.7%    51.6%    5.7%
15.    Did you experience greater fear of becoming pregnant when waiting for each period to begin?    (246)    48.8%    45.5%    5.7%
16.    Did you have your self surgically sterilized in order to avoid the risk of needing another abortion?    (250)    8.8%    90.4%    0.8%
17.    Did you ever experience any false pregnancies after your abortion?    (247)    24.7%    68.4%    6.9%
18.    Did you attempt to atone for your abortion by conceiving a "replacement pregnancy?"    (245)    28.6%    62.9%    8.6%


     If so, how long after your abortion did you become pregnant again? (IN MONTHS)     (N=76)    

Months
1-6    7-12    13-24    25-36    OVER 36
15.8%    28.9%    15.7%    11.8%    27.6%


     (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
19.    Did you ever attempt suicide?    (248)    28.2%    70.2%    1.6%


     If so, how many times?    One    Two    Three    Four    Over Four
46.8%    30.6%    16.1%    0%    6.5%


          (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
20.    Were you ever physically abused as a child?    (248)    20.6%    71.4%    8.1%
21.    Were you ever sexually abused as a child?    (247)    24.3%    65.6%    10.1%
22.    Did you ever abuse your children before your abortion?    (193)    2.1%    96.9%    1.0%
23.    Did you ever emotionally abuse your children before your abortion?    (190)    4.2%    92.6%    3.2%
24.    After your abortion, did you experience a strong feeling of relief?    (248)    37.9%    49.6%    12.5%


     If so, did it last ...

(N =95)
   weeks    months    or years?
60.0%    12.6%    25.3%


     (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
25.    After your abortion, did you experience any negative reactions or ambivalent feelings?    (253)    89.3%    2.0%    8.7%


     If so, when did you experience the first of your negative or ambivalent feelings? (N = 228)    Immediately    Within 6 months    After a year or more
64.5%    18.9%    16.7%


     If so, when did you experience the majority(or worst) of your negative feelings?

(N = 222)
   Immediately    Within 6 months    After a year or more
21.2%    18.5%    60.4%


     (N)    Yes    No    Unsure
26.    Do you feel fully reconciled with your abortion experience today?    (251)    31.9%    51.0%    17.1%
27.    Knowing where your life is today, did your abortion improve your life?    (253)    5.9%    71.9%    22.1%



Section 5:
If you have never experienced any negative or uncertain feelings about your abortion, you may stop here.
THANK YOU for your valuable participation.
          

(N)
   Mild    Moderate    Severe    Very Severe
1.    Overall, how severe were the emotional aftereffects of your abortion?    

(246)
   5.3%    23.6%    41.5%    29.7%


          

(N)
   Yes    No    Unsure
2.    Was there any time during which your

reactions were so severe that you were unable to function normally at home, work, or in personal relationships?
   

(244)
   55.3%    34.8%    9.8%






     If so, how long did this disability last?    

MONTHS

1-6
   7-12    13-24    25-36    >36

41.5%
   7.6%    12.2%    12.2    26.4


     

(N)
   Yes    No    Unsure
3.    Would you describe yourself as self-destructive?    (245)    36.7%    50.6%    12.7%
4.    Did you undergo a nervous breakdown at some time after your abortion?    

(241)
   20.3%    63.1%    16.6%
5.    Were you ever hospitalized for psychological treatment because of the abortion?    (244)    10.2%    89.8%    --
6.    Was there a period of time during which you denied the existence of any doubts or negative feelings about your abortion?    

(245)
   62.9%    24.1%    13.1%




     If so, for how long?

Avg: 63.1 mos. (N = 124)
   

MONTHS

1-6
   7-12    13-24    25-36    >36

24.2%
   9.7%    8.0%    8.0    50.0%


     

(N)
   Yes    No    Unsure
7.    Despite your negative feelings, do you still believe the choice to have an abortion was the right thing to do?    

(247)
   2.8%    86.6%    10.5%
     If not, was there a time after recognizing your negative feelings during which would have still insisted that you had done the right thing?    

(214)
   19.2%    61.2%    19.6%


     If so, for how long?

Avg: 4.6 yrs. (N = 37)
   

YEARS

1
   2    3    4    5    >5

32.4%
   16.2%    8.1%    5.4%    18.9%    18.9%


     

YEARS
8.    How long did it take for you to begin to reconcile yourself to your abortion experience?    

<1
   1-2    3-5    6-10    >10
     Avg: 7.5 yrs. (N = 184)    

6.5%
   11.4%    25.6    35.3    21.2%


     

(N)
   Yes    No    Unsure
9.    Do you feel fully reconciled with your abortion experience today?    

(241)
   31.9%    48.5%    20.3%
10.    Has abortion made your life worse?    

(238)
   60.9%    16.4%    22.7%


11. Place a check mark next to whichever of the following persons you went to for help in coping with your negative feelings, and check whether or not they were helpful.
(N)    Talked with:    was Helpful    Not Helpful    Uncertain
(86)    psychologist/psychiatrist    38.5%    58.1%    3.5%
(63)    social worker/counselor    41.3%    57.7%    1.6%
(92)    clergy    68.5%    31.5%    0.0%
(69)    parent(s)    36.2%    62.3%    1.4%
(145)    husband/boyfriend(s)    46.9%    49.0%    4.0%
(144)    friends    60.4%    38.2%    1.4%
(88)    post-abortion counseling group    90.9%    8.0%    1.1%
(45)    other : __________    80.0%    17.8%    2.2%
Among the most frequent listed "other" were religious references to God, Jesus, the bible, and prayer (39%).Also listed were sister, aunt, and bartender, nurse, and pro-life person.

[Trieste]

All right. I'll bite, albeit warily.

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?

If I were going to be against things because people with different morals than mine might use them to do bad things, I would have been crusading against the child support system years ago. It falls on the same lines as, "I may not like what you say. I may in fact loathe it, but I will - I will - defend your right to say it." The right to choose includes the right to make choices that I may not agree with, but it's still a right. In an ideal world, there would be better education and supportive families for, say, girls who get pregnant in high school.

And, in an ideal world, there would be better support for reproductive control. More affordable birth control, better condoms - how about birth control for men? That's still not widespread enough yet.

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

No. Stop. Back up. I am not 'okay' with any of it. I am not 'okay' with abortion. I think it's a terrible choice to have to make, and I think nobody should ever have to face it. I think every child should be planned, and I think every infant should have a loving, safe home to go home to. This is not the case.

Animals have no rights. I think we shouldn't hurt them gratuitously, but I really don't care how many chickens a year KFC kills. The only reason I might care is because of the statistics of how much of that potential food goes to waste. I have three cats. I love them dearly(even the kitten, who is a hellbeast and seems to be in desperate need of kitty ritalin). However, if I really needed to eat, I wouldn't really hesitate to trap and eat a feral cat. It's just that simple.

Why not my own cats? Same reason I wouldn't kill and eat a person I've lived with for about 5 years - because I love them. I don't love a fetus - I just don't.

- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?

Yes, and moot question: I'm a reincarnist. For all I know they do have a soul, but that doesn't really have much bearing on what's done with their physical body. This whole thing ties into my own personal belief system that I won't go into. I am not Christan, and I'm thinking this is more suited to Christians.

- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?

There is no biological mechanism by which the man is forced to take responsibility. Not so for mommy.

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

I support removal of the fetus.* We do not currently have the technology to keep a newly-conceived embryo alive outside of the mother's womb. We hardly have the technology in some cases to keep a newborn, full term child alive outside of the mother's womb. Not to mention that euthanasia is dealing with an entirely different set of (I use this term with the utmost sarcasm) victims. The elderly have generally contributed something to the world around them (whether that something is worthwhile is not up to me). Note the difference between already have and potentially could, the latter being the argument that's usually used in favor of anti-choice laws.

I think the fact that pro-choice advocates are often asked about eugenics is a telling sign. It speaks of a misconception that the anti-abortion crowd has done its best to disseminate. Let me clear it up right now: I am not 'pro-life', but I am not anti-life because I don't agree with those who identify as pro-life (a misnomer, but I won't get into that). I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. I think abortion is an awful thing, and if I could do away with the need for it, I would. However, I cannot - so I feel that those women who feel that an abortion is the appropriate step for them deserve to have the option open to them. This does not make me pro-abortion, this does not make me a murderer. This does not make me a bad person.

* Actually, that's an amazingly oversimplified statement of my stance. I support the right of a woman to choose to remove a fetus from her body that she does not want, at any point in the pregnancy. If the fetus can survive on its own without the mother, hooray. Even better if the mother chooses to carry the fetus to term and then put it up for adoption. However, I do not support the wanton destruction of a potential life, and support Other Means as well as the option to abort.

[Torch]

You obviously didn't read the link with extensive psychological questions and the responses of women to them.

It's further pointless to give statistics, since people can't be bothered to look over the link provided. The questions were extensive, and proved that the larger number of women did experience various issues, than didn't.


Statistics that you didn't bother to read:

First of all, please do not make assumptions on what I did or did not read. Thank you.

Secondly, I did read your link, and I responded thus earlier in the thread:

Study on the psychological impact of abortions:

http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/after_abortion_psychological_rea.asp

Again, you cite a biased reference.

This was a survey, nothing even remotely resembling an extensive psychological study with parameters, co-factors, blind subjects and the like. And a mere cursory read of the questions provided in the survey (which was given to 260 women seeking counseling services from three pro-life religious organizations) reveals a severe bias on the part of the authors, and the questions are horrifically designed to produce the desired response. (i.e. Yes, having an abortion was a traumatic experience that scarred me for life). Any reputable mental health agency would laugh those questions and the way they were presented out of their offices.

Simply the fact that you cite this poorly executed, poorly sampled, unscientific, biased survey as evidence to back your claims just lends credence to my argument that you cannot back up your claims with anything other than your opinion.

[Kotah]

Let's all simmer down guys. We all want to debate this, and none of us want the thread to be locked.

This is the main reason why I am pro-choice:
Back ally abortion deaths.

If you need a reason more then that....

[Phoenix]

You win. Want a cookie?

I have nothing more to say to you or about statistics. Thanks and have a good night.

[Phoenix]

Let's all simmer down guys. We all want to debate this, and none of us want the thread to be locked.

This is the main reason why I am pro-choice:
Back ally abortion deaths.

If you need a reason more then that....

You should make every crime legal so that people won't die while trying to get away with it? This is not a logical argument. Make theft legal so that when people do it, they don't take unnecessary risks and thus die or injure themselves? Make rape legal so that no woman will be killed so that she can't identify her rapist?

[Trieste]

Let's all simmer down guys. We all want to debate this, and none of us want the thread to be locked.

This is the main reason why I am pro-choice:
Back ally abortion deaths.

If you need a reason more then that....

This seems more of a legality concern than a moralistic concern, but I wholeheartedly agree. There is no substitute for quality reproductive care, including abortion services.

[Nadir]

Things that are made legal are forced to give some level of quality or suffer prosecution - so yes, Kotah's argument is logical. Look at the prohibition on alcohol in America's past. It meant that alcohol was only available illegally, and it wasn't safe or pleasant to consume yet people did. After the prohibition was lifted, the quality increased, because it had to.   

[Phoenix]

Things that are made legal are forced to give some level of quality or suffer prosecution - so yes, Kotah's argument is logical. Look at the prohibition on alcohol in America's past. It meant that alcohol was only available illegally, and it wasn't safe or pleasant to consume yet people did. After the prohibition was lifted, the quality increased, because it had to.

Again, this argument can be used for so many things. Should be legalize meth so that labs don't explode?

Should we legalize poisons so that people don't have to drive their children into ponds?

Where does the argument of protecting the criminal end? Particularly if you are of the view that abortion is murder, to begin with. Do we legalize murder by poison, so that murderers don't risk a gun backfiring on them?

I suppose the idea works if you don't believe that having a back alley abortion is murder anyway, but that argument doesn't really work for me.

There are a few things that may be justified by the "make it legal so that people don't get hurt doing it illegally," but murdering someone else isn't one of them, in my opinion. If you're that determined to kill someone, then I think that dying may very well be the risk you'll have to take.

[Trieste]

Things that are made legal are forced to give some level of quality or suffer prosecution - so yes, Kotah's argument is logical. Look at the prohibition on alcohol in America's past. It meant that alcohol was only available illegally, and it wasn't safe or pleasant to consume yet people did. After the prohibition was lifted, the quality increased, because it had to.

I think the government learned its lesson with prohibition, and you see the results now with cigarettes; they think you shouldn't smoke, so they tax the hell out of cigs instead of making them outright illegal.

In all honesty, though, that sort of nannying grates on me. I don't really want the government deciding what I should put into and take out of my body any more than I want them deciding what I put into and take out of my fridge every day.

[Valerian]

Again, this argument can be used for so many things. Should be legalize meth so that labs don't explode?

Should we legalize poisons so that people don't have to drive their children into ponds?

Where does the argument of protecting the criminal end? Particularly if you are of the view that abortion is murder, to begin with. Do we legalize murder by poison, so that murderers don't risk a gun backfiring on them?

I suppose the idea works if you don't believe that having a back alley abortion is murder anyway, but that argument doesn't really work for me.

There are a few things that may be justified by the "make it legal so that people don't get hurt doing it illegally," but murdering someone else isn't one of them, in my opinion. If you're that determined to kill someone, then I think that dying may very well be the risk you'll have to take.

Repeated because it's good advice: simmer down.

Have you read the logical fallacies thread?  You've committed at least two such fallacies in each of your last several posts here.  Let's try to keep this at the level of civilized debate rather than a contest to see who can be the loudest and most sarcastic.

[Kotah]

And you are moralizing that abortion is murder rather then a woman's choice.

Abortions are going to happen if we want them or not.
Would you rather have the girl die in a back ally, or receive proper medical care?

Drug use is going to happen if we want it or not.
The safe syringe exchange program has reduced the spread of std's through IV drug use. There are people using heroin that have sex. Those people then might have sex, with say, your 16 year old daughter and give her aids. All because of a dirty needle.

Teenagers are going to have sex, if we want them to or not.
Do you want them to have adequate knowledge when they do so? or just wait for them to contract something, or get pregnant, before we decide that they should hand out condoms in schools?

The point isn't to control the problem, it is to lessen the degree of backfire.

Edited because this thread needs a kitten.

[Torch]

Things that are made legal are forced to give some level of quality or suffer prosecution - so yes, Kotah's argument is logical. Look at the prohibition on alcohol in America's past. It meant that alcohol was only available illegally, and it wasn't safe or pleasant to consume yet people did. After the prohibition was lifted, the quality increased, because it had to.

A good point. In fact, the first laws prohibiting abortion were passed precisely because women were dying at the hands of unlicensed doctors providing abortion services, and in a misguided attempt to prevent those deaths, abortions were outlawed in the 19th century. Prior to that time, abortions were perfectly legal in many states, and abortifacients could even be seen advertised in newspapers.

Strangely, the concern over the fetus seemed to be absent, as the concerns were for the welfare of the mothers only. The change in focus from the mother to the fetus seems to be a 20th century invention.

[Nadir]

Again, this argument can be used for so many things. Should be legalize meth so that labs don't explode?

Should we legalize poisons so that people don't have to drive their children into ponds?

Where does the argument of protecting the criminal end? Particularly if you are of the view that abortion is murder, to begin with. Do we legalize murder by poison, so that murderers don't risk a gun backfiring on them?

I suppose the idea works if you don't believe that having a back alley abortion is murder anyway, but that argument doesn't really work for me.

There are a few things that may be justified by the "make it legal so that people don't get hurt doing it illegally," but murdering someone else isn't one of them, in my opinion. If you're that determined to kill someone, then I think that dying may very well be the risk you'll have to take.

If legalising drugs is a way to divert money away from drug barons and back into the main economy then yes. How is depriving a drug baron of funds 'protecting the criminal'?

As for the poison, there are many that are legal right now. What sort do you mean? Be more specific.

Legalising murder is not something I am in favour of, but my view of murder and yours don't seem to mesh. A mother killing a foetus (or more correctly, having it killed) is not something she should be penalised for. She should have every option open to her, with abortion being the last one. Murder of a healthy, peaceful child or adult is more difficult to justify, and I honestly wouldn't want to. Things are not black and white, as your argument seems to be painted.

Kotah's argument is one that supports and protects the mother and the surgeon. Options and freedom of choice is what I am in favour of. Aborting a foetus is not a new concept. Doing it in a way that means the mother is safe from physical harm and legal attack is, though I think it is going to stay. 

[Vekseid]

You obviously didn't read the link with extensive psychological questions and the responses of women to them.

Which would be wise, since it's worthless.

This survey instrument was distributed to women who had contact with WEBA, Victims of Choice, or Last Harvest Ministries.

Self-selected surveys are worse than useless for gathering statistics. Useless would be something that was clearly damaged, enough for anyone making a decision to throw out as erroneous. These surveys are worse than useless, because people like yourself cite them.

In the statistics field, this is as good as outright lying.

It's further pointless to give statistics, since people can't be bothered to look over the link provided. The questions were extensive, and proved that the larger number of women did experience various issues, than didn't.

This is false. It proves only that a large number of people who contacted these three organizations, who accepted a survey pressed to them with no selection measures detailed, suffered more than those who didn't. Considering that these organizations seem to provide support for this - no one is claiming that no one has this sort of trauma.

By citing bad statistics, you only hurt your cause. You would fare far better fighting those causes you can win.

Just as an example...

Race or ethnic origin:
White    Non-White
92.3%    7.7%

The standard deviation for a survey of ~260 people is around 6%. This result is five standards of deviation off from known data. That's insane. I saw this before I looked into their methods - when you see a discrepancy of more than two deviations, something is suspect. More than four, you might as well have printed gibberish.

You do not promote your cause by referencing bad data. If you have any involvement with these organizations, you should do your part to get better data, because then you can focus on getting specific problems - for example, people pressured into abortions - recognized and solved.

You can't win a moral victory on the back of falsehoods.

[Vekseid]

As another example of the self-selection effect:

How many weeks pregnant were you at that time?
<5    5-6    7-8    9-10    11-12    13-16    16-20    >20
7.7%    11.7%    28.3%    16.2%    21.1%    10.9%    2.4%    1.6%

A rather heavy focus on post-first trimester abortions, compared to the norm. In such a self-selected survey, you might expect that people who deliberated longer about having an abortion would have more concerns - and thus more regrets.

[jouzinka]

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

1) Then I suppose better sexual education is in place. I mean... seriously, who would go willingly for much more expensive and risky abortion, rather than use some of the usual contraception methods.

2) I suppose I don't have much of a view on animal rights. I'd agree with Trieste, that kind of put it well for me.

3) I don't believe in reincarnation. However, I think in the BBC's document Human Body I've seen that children actually become self aware in about one year of age, which is also when the brain fully develops. So, until then I wouldn't think kids have much of a soul, certainly not as a fetus.

4) Because ultimately the man can always close the door behind him and leave the mother to her destiny with the kid. I've seen this happen way too many times.

5) More of a slogan? o_O My sister had nausea from hour 0 till after the labor, lost 25kilos during her pregnancy, had failing liver, kidneys... try to tell her about a slogan. Pregnancy IS a huge stress for woman's body, because frankly, the fetus isn't much more than few cells holding together, a parasite drawing everything it needs from the host. Without the mother it can't survive on its own.

Otherwise I suppose it depends on what you define as life. What is enough to define a living? Is it breathing, some force to distribute bodily fluids and a secretion? Or is it actual awareness of the world around, enjoyment of the world around? If you said yes, then of course, fetus is alive, abortion is murder and washing your hands with a soup is genocide.

Ultimately I think that until we're able to give women an unfailing  contraception method (save for sterilization and abstinence), which we aren't now, we can hardly revoke her ultimate solution, the final "safe brake." 2 women out of 1000 get pregnant despite using hormonal contraception diligently. How many is that a year? What do you tell them? How do you justify to them that despite having taken precaution, they still end up with a child they obviously don't want?

[Greenthorn]

Another thought: In all these surveys and such, what about those who self-pay for abortions?  Or those who choose not to be a part of these surveys?

All anti-abortion sites will focus on negative aspects while pro-choice sites will focus on positive ones...it's how people get sucked into the beliefs of either.

I am totally pro-choice.  If one gets an abortion, then it's their decision, not mine.  My brother and I have this argument quite often when he visits  ::).  There are too many possibilities behind a decision to tell every single person "no, it's wrong". 

Do I like the thought of rampant abortions as a means of birth control? No, absolutely not, but there are also abortions happening for reasons such as a non-viable fetus, or one that will be born severely disfigured, or one that is the result of incest...

[Jude]

If everyone can agree that people who use abortions as birth control and repeatedly have them are doing something wrong, why can't the country agree on a compromise position of only punishing those who use abortions as such?

A staggering fact I saw as I was reading through statistics yesterday:  in recent years, 47% of all women who have an abortion have had one before.  That means roughly half of the people who have abortions are guilty of that abuse.  This isn't a small problem by any means, despite how downplayed it is by pro-choice individuals.

Why not require sterilization or some other form of punishment after your second abortion?

Why should someone have the right to have a child later on if they've killed 2 fetuses given to them previously?

Another thought: In all these surveys and such, what about those who self-pay for abortions?  Or those who choose not to be a part of these surveys?

This would only effect the results of the statistics if for some reason there were different attitudes in the segmented population.  i.e. if people who self-pay or opt out have different statistical results than those who do not.  I don't know if either of those things would affect the result or if the statistics didn't somehow take those matters into account.

Either way if that was addressed to me and the statistics I provided, I'm gonna have to call logical fallacy on this one; moving the goal post.  You can't ask someone to provide data which has no glaring problems with it and then disregard it by raising the bar after the fact, I met your challenge.

[HairyHeretic]

Are you also in favour of sterilisation of the man involved?

[Jude]

Are you also in favour of sterilisation of the man involved?

Possibly.  Only if there was some way to determine that the man was not willing to take care of the child in these instances as well.  If he has no say in the matter and she chooses to get her child aborted both times against his will, that wouldn't be entirely fair.  Then again, if he stayed with a woman who did that to him and continued to have sex (putting himself in that position) it could be argued he brought it upon himself.

Either way if we were to pass a law enforcing that idea, I think it would have to involve a lot of oversight, a judge to determine if it will be enforced or not based on the circumstances, etc.  It would have to be the maximum penalty; one of many options.

EDIT:  Another problem is that under the current laws she could have the child aborted without even telling him both times, suddenly he sterilized for his part in the experience?  Not really fair at all.

[jouzinka]

Why should someone have the right to have a child later on if they've killed 2 fetuses given to them previously?

And why not? Does having an abortion make a woman a bad mother?

Child is a lot of responsibility, time and money-consuming, something you should have when you're prepared for it and when you're ready to sacrifice a lot on the altar of your children.

If you're not then I certainly see an abortion as a lot more responsible and humane solution than delivering a baby in secrecy and toss it into a garbage in a bag, let it suffer with you through times when you don't have next to anything to eat or vent your frustrations on it, or add another baby to the creches.

[Jude]

If you're not then I certainly see an abortion as a lot more responsible and humane solution than delivering a baby in secrecy and toss it into a garbage in a bag, let it suffer with you through times when you don't have next to anything to eat or vent your frustrations on it, or add another baby to the creches.

If those were the only options you'd have a point.  Adoption is always a possibility.

[jouzinka]

Of course. That's why so many newborn babies actually DO end up tossed in the garbage.

[Jude]

1)  I'm willing to bet you have no idea how often babies end up tossed in dumpsters.  I know I don't have the slightest clue.  If you're going to seriously use that as a claim to support your argument, it would be nice to have an idea of what "so many" is.

2)  Even if that is the case, this in no way speaks of adoption being a failed solution.  Adoption requires a lot of time for the process to occur, knowledge of it as a viable solution, and lots of effort.  The sort of people who toss a baby in a dumpster probably aren't thinking very clearly and/or are looking for a quick fix to their problem; they obviously don't care about the kid if they're doing that to them.

[jouzinka]

1)  I'm willing to bet you have no idea how often babies end up tossed in dumpsters.  I know I don't have the slightest clue.  If you're going to seriously use that as a claim to support your argument, it would be nice to have an idea of what "so many" is.

Isn't one baby that ends that way more than enough?

I don't say adoption is a failed solution. But there's a line between having it as one option and having it as the only option = forcing women to actually deliver babies they don't want. The health risk and stress it forces on them during the pregnancy is in my opinion way too much to have someone else decide for you if you want to undergo it or not.

[Jude]

One baby being dropped in a dumpster out of 400 million residents in the United States doesn't concern me.  Freak occurrences will always happen, it's all about the odds and the ratios.  It's not possible to create a perfect world, so we have to do the best we can.

And I would agree with you in the first instance, but after that if you continue to have sex irresponsibly and end up with the same problem that's where we start to diverge.  If there was evidence that could be produced in court that birth control was used and failed in both circumstances I would feel differently (though I do not know if such would be scientifically possible--though blood samples would show it possibly?).

[jouzinka]

One baby being dropped in a dumpster out of 400 million residents in the United States doesn't concern me.  Freak occurrences will always happen, it's all about the odds and the ratios.  It's not possible to create a perfect world, so we have to do the best we can.

A born, which is far more "palpable" a being than a fetus, doesn't concern you, yet here you are, fighting for the rights of those that aren't even born yet.

And I would agree with you in the first instance, but after that if you continue to have sex irresponsibly and end up with the same problem that's where we start to diverge.  If there was evidence that could be produced in court that birth control was used and failed in both circumstances I would feel differently (though I do not know if such would be scientifically possible--though blood samples would show it possibly?).

All right and where do you draw the line? Say you have a 38yo mother, who had an abortion when she was 18 due to a misstep and here she is, 38 with failed barrier contraception (pesar, condom and the like which you can't prove), pregnant and wanting to have an abortion, because she already has children. She obviously falls into your 47% category, so you put her on trial? And then what? If she can't prove she was using a condom that ruptured you force her to have the baby and put it up for an adoption, but whoops, the baby is born disfigured and mentally ill, so nobody wants it for adoption.

What do you do?

Force the mother to raise the child?

[Oniya]

Recently, a friend of mine became pregnant.  She has always wanted to be a mother.  She has a wonderful man in her life. 

Unfortunately, she found out that the wall of her uterus is not formed properly.  It is far too thin, and the stretching required by pregnancy would cause it to rupture, killing both of them.

Tell me:  What 'options' should have been considered.

Currently, I have no health insurance, and struggle from paycheck to paycheck as sole breadwinner.  My husband and I use protection.  If I were to get pregnant, I would not be able to afford prenatal care, much less the fees necessary for a normal delivery - and gods help me if there was a problem delivery.  Sure, adoption is an 'option', and I have reasonable assurance that I could go through a normal delivery, but the monetary issues (lost wages + medical bills = lost house) would completely destroy us.

Tell me:  What 'options' should be considered?

Now, instead of some faceless person on the Internet, put yourself or your girlfriend in these scenarios.

[Jude]

The biggest problem I have with the "It's my body, I can do what I want with it" argument is that it's inconsistent.  We tell people what to do with their bodies all the time as part of law.

Even if you ignore the fact that all law essentially governs what we do with our body (i.e. murder is doing something with your body to take someone else's life), we even have laws on an internal level which govern what we can and cannot do to ourselves.  You can legally be stopped from committing suicide, taking drugs, and many other internal-focused actions.

Even if you believe the harm principle (i.e. if an action does not harm anyone other than yourself it should be allowed) there's still the fact that you are harming a life that would be without your interference; one which you directly created fully knowing it could happen with your actions.

The truth is, if I had to decide where I fall on the issue, I am pro-choice.  But I can still see the inconsistencies and problems with the arguments on both sides of the issue.  There's nothing productive to be gained from each group sitting on their side of the fence and railing on about how they're totally right and glossing over all of the problems with their position; and make no mistake, there are problems with both sides.

The truth is, I am convinced, there is no perfect position to take on abortion.  Someone gets screwed no matter what the policy decision is.  It's all about building a good compromise to minimize the amount of damage done to both side's legitimate concerns.  I just wish people would start talking the whole thing a bit more seriously and productively and less evangelistically.

All right and where do you draw the line? Say you have a 38yo mother, who had an abortion when she was 18 due to a misstep and here she is, 38 with failed barrier contraception (pesar, condom and the like which you can't prove), pregnant and wanting to have an abortion, because she already has children. She obviously falls into your 47% category, so you put her on trial? And then what? If she can't prove she was using a condom that ruptured you force her to have the baby and put it up for an adoption, but whoops, the baby is born disfigured and mentally ill, so nobody wants it for adoption.

What do you do?

Force the mother to raise the child?

You bring up a good point.  Change the proposed law so that there's a 10-20 year forgiveness period.

That's the thing; we don't have to get bogged down by specific ideas.  Everyone needs to learn to compromise on their ideals somewhat so that the country can actually conclude this issue in a healthy fashion rather than deepening the growing divide between us on all of these issues.

[Jude]

Recently, a friend of mine became pregnant.  She has always wanted to be a mother.  She has a wonderful man in her life.

Unfortunately, she found out that the wall of her uterus is not formed properly.  It is far too thin, and the stretching required by pregnancy would cause it to rupture, killing both of them.

That's a clearcut case where abortion should absolutely be done.  I wouldn't begrudge anyone who gets one done where the child would live but the mother would die as well.

Currently, I have no health insurance, and struggle from paycheck to paycheck as sole breadwinner.  My husband and I use protection.  If I were to get pregnant, I would not be able to afford prenatal care, much less the fees necessary for a normal delivery - and gods help me if there was a problem delivery.  Sure, adoption is an 'option', and I have reasonable assurance that I could go through a normal delivery, but the monetary issues (lost wages + medical bills = lost house) would completely destroy us.

Tell me:  What 'options' should be considered?

Now, instead of some faceless person on the Internet, put yourself or your girlfriend in these scenarios.

I think you missed the point where I said I wasn't against abortion categorically; just its continual use (which I consider abuse).  In your position I would think it totally justifiable and understandable.

A lot of the issues you're bringing up relate to the healthcare problem, and that's a whole other can of worms which we really shouldn't get into without a derail.  If someone would like to make a spin off topic, I'd be glad to discuss it, however:  I think everyone can agree that we should make effective, quality birth control easily accessible (possibly even free) to anyone who needs it.  You don't even need to make it an issue of human rights, it's a matter of what's best for society as a whole.

[Ryven]

If I were going to be against things because people with different morals than mine might use them to do bad things, I would have been crusading against the child support system years ago. It falls on the same lines as, "I may not like what you say. I may in fact loathe it, but I will - I will - defend your right to say it." The right to choose includes the right to make choices that I may not agree with, but it's still a right. In an ideal world, there would be better education and supportive families for, say, girls who get pregnant in high school.

Pretty much sums up how I feel on the entire thing...

[jouzinka]

Specific ideas are ultimately specific people's lives that are going to be affected. A good movie to see about this issue is "If These Walls Could Talk"

One problem I have with this whole "let's ban abortions" issue is that in its essence it's awfully populist. It's so much easier to step up in front of your voters and say: "We ban abortions, because an XY number of children are murdered in them!" than actually step up in front of your voters and say: "Friends, the number of XY abortions is a result of our neglect in raising our children to responsibility and lack of enlightenment in contraception issues. The abortion is misused and it's OUR fault and we have to take actions to remedy this situation."

Why 10 years? Why not five? 5 years is the difference between high school and college graduate, which is a completely different person in regards to maturity... ultimately, who gets to decide how, why... ?

On another note, it is incredibly naive to think that banning abortions will bring an equal rise in natality. Abortions will always be performed. ALWAYS. Sometimes by doctors in hospitals, sometimes by angelic grannies on kitchen tables in the women's houses, with instruments that were hardly boiled over, God forbid sterilized and women will be ending up bleeding to death, or dying in awful pains of total sepsis because of the usage of dirty instruments or in the better case barren, disfigured... Good book to read about how this grey environment existed is "A Case of Need" by Michael Crichton.

In the light of that I'm all for giving the women the choice of doing it legally with all the care that's needed for the procedure to be done right.

[Oniya]

The problem is, when you declare a procedure illegal, you're doing that for the valid uses as well as the abuses.  What is to stop one of these 'serial abortion' people from going from one clinic to the next, declaring hand-to-heart that this is their first one?  What's to prevent a doctor from declaring a woman who has numerous miscarriages (which, like it or not, are a form of natural abortion) to be 'unfit'?

Every 'plan' to limit availability is going to have some way for people to get around it - whether that's from outright lying to a doctor, or going to a back-alley - or even taking matters into one's own hands, on either the woman's part or the man's.  One of the leading causes of death in pregnant women is homicide.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I don't agree with it but I could never force my opinion on anyone.  The choice is not something I will ever be faced with so I can't begin to put myself in the place of someone who needs to make that decision.

I do believe, though, that anyone who campaigns against a woman's right to choose that alternative should also campaign to provide the necessary support system a woman will need to give birth to and raise the child.  I hate it when I hear someone say no you shouldn't then turn and walk away as though they've done all they could.

[Jude]

I realize the plan won't be perfect, but even a plan where women who do their best to dodge it and lie about it can get around it is better than the current system where a whopping 47% of all abortions performed are done on people who have had them before.

No matter how you feel about abortion you have to admit that is a shameful statistic that speaks of a great lack of responsibility on behalf of a segment of the population.

And I really don't think this has anything to do with complete ignorance.  I don't think anyone at this point has sex not knowing that a child could come of it.  Even the abstinence only people are aware that there's a good chance their inability to control themselves will result in a earthshattering outcome.  Obviously I think Abstinence Only isn't a productive thing to teach our children and we do need to make birth control more acceptable and face that reality; but that's only one side of things.

I can't understand how anyone can be completely pro-choice and refuse any compromise on the subject when such an attitude has complete disregard for the way a good portion of the country feels.  We don't need a law as extreme as anything I proposed, involving sterilization, but shouldn't we put some protections down, if only to have a law on our books related to this matter which actually reflects the democratic principles of our country instead of an oppressive majority's view?

I am not for banning abortions outright, not now, not ever.  But this is such a counterproductive issue that hurts the country politically in so many ways.

As a people we're going to have to start resolving our political issues by compromise and sacrifice if we want the political process to start working again.  "No, get over it" doesn't work in a relationship, and whether we like it or not, the various factions in our country are related, if only by citizenship.

Generally people accept that extremism is bad, but when it comes to this issue, I just don't get why people can't see that.

[jouzinka]

I can't understand how anyone can be completely pro-choice and refuse any compromise on the subject when such an attitude has complete disregard for the way a good portion of the country feels.  We don't need a law as extreme as anything I proposed, involving sterilization, but shouldn't we put some protections down, if only to have a law on our books related to this matter which actually reflects the democratic principles of our country instead of an oppressive majority's view?

I've bitten my tongue long enough for now, but I'd like to point out that I'm always amazed how men feel the clutching need to discuss and bring forth this issue. I haven't, in any debate, hear woman bring this up. Maybe I'm just (un)lucky.

Anyway, I don't think countries need a law to restrict abortions. Countries need every mom, dad, TVs and publishers and whatnot to start leading the kids towards more responsibility and protection when sex is concerned, but that's not a popular issue, I know, plus the results can be expected no sooner than in fifteen or twenty years. I see that putting restrictions is just so much easier...

I am not for banning abortions outright, not now, not ever.  But this is such a counterproductive issue that hurts the country politically in so many ways.

Forgive me for saying so, but I don't see how banning or not banning abortions can hurt a country politically?

As a people we're going to have to start resolving our political issues by compromise and sacrifice if we want the political process to start working again.

Sacrifice? That sounds so noble, but please, tell us what you are personally willing to sacrifice in this issue. As long as you don't come forth, at least to yourself, and say WHAT it is that you'd sacrifice, you're only pushing others to make the sacrifice.

[RubySlippers]

I will keep this simple the child is a living person at conception, as a Libertarian I'm all for the mother having every means available to avoid that from happening but once a child is creates its rights EQUAL the mothers to life. So unless there is a case of self-defense where the mother WILL die from the pregnancy and there is no hope to give the child a chance abortion is murder. In the case of rape and incest the unborn child comes first unless the mothers life is in danger. Adoption or other options including counseling are available.

And what about all the children that are aborted that could be productive citiazens, doctors and tradespeople we eliminate with abortion. We could abort a Einstein or a Bach just as much as a Hitler or Stalin, God has His ways if a child is born its His will. If a child is created the soul and child are sacred.

[Jude]

I've bitten my tongue long enough for now, but I'd like to point out that I'm always amazed how men feel the clutching need to discuss and bring forth this issue. I haven't, in any debate, hear woman bring this up. Maybe I'm just (un)lucky.

That's really nothing short of a personal attack, as it references my personal sex directly.

What exactly is your point anyway; because I'm male my opinion on the matter isn't relevant?

[Oniya]

Okay - things that would help:

Education.  You say that you don't think that anyone out there has sex without knowing that a child is a possibility, but I'd disagree, especially with the younger couples, and those that have not had some form of sex ed - which is still only given with parental permission in schools, and there are still parents who think if they don't learn about it, they won't do it.

Availability.  Birth control should be safely and confidentially available - without stigma - as should unbiased counseling regarding the options should it fail.  This should include adoption and motherhood-support as well as abortion.  One thing I'm tired of is people assuming that the 'choice' in pro-choice doesn't include the first two options (which would sort of make it not a choice, wouldn't it?). 

Support.  Regardless of the outcome, the people involved (including the man if he chooses to remain involved) should have the ability to make their decision freely.  While I'm at it, post-natal or post-abortion counseling should be readily available as well.

[Callie Del Noire]

I agree with Oniya..

Education: I don't mean JUST the girl (or even the boy) but the entire family. Mom and Dad need to understand that kids WILL 'play' and while the average person on this board is aware of that, there is a LARGE percentage of the parental population is in denial ("My child don't do that...")
Teaching the repercussions and impacts as well as the mechanics of sex will do a lot.

Availability: While we're not the WORSE country when it comes to birth control methods that I've been in, we need to be a bit more accessible.  (At one point when I lived in Ireland, they had allowed birth control. IF you could find a doctor who would prescribe and IF you could find a Pharmacist who would fill it.. big IFs at the time)

Other factors play in this.

-Responsibity: Both partners need to be responsible (Not likely to happen in modern society sadly)


All this is fine and good BUT Abortions shouldn't be banned. Why?

Because if you regulate the conditions of the procedure you can control the availability BUT MOST importantly.. if a person wants an abortion..they will GET ONE. Better it to be done by accountable, regulated and trained personel than some back room hack who is doing it for a quick buck.

Because folks, it happened BEFORE Roe v Wade.. and it will happen if Abortion is taken off the books as an option.

You want to do away with Abortion? I got the way you do that.

Change our culture to eliminate it. Don't make it illegal.

Don't shoot our doctors in their church or blow up their clinics or anything like that.

Teach the FULL facts about the consequences of sex and don't act like it's a dirty secret (And I mean the FULL brief.. STDs, Birth Control and the rest..)

Find a way of making folks be more responsbible with their actions (good luck with that my inner cynic says)

Personally, given some of the most fervant anti-abortion folks that I have met are fundies of the first order who think sex is 'dirty' I doubt the pro-life movement will do the steps needed to change our culture to eliminate abortion as an option.

And if anyone out there says that education is being done.. I'm sorry.. My mom worked with the Health Department for two states.. I drove her around several times and met girls who didn't understand that 'sex makes babies'. The amount of ignorance in some teens is truly terrifying.

[Greenthorn]

If everyone can agree that people who use abortions as birth control and repeatedly have them are doing something wrong, why can't the country agree on a compromise position of only punishing those who use abortions as such?

A staggering fact I saw as I was reading through statistics yesterday:  in recent years, 47% of all women who have an abortion have had one before.  That means roughly half of the people who have abortions are guilty of that abuse.  This isn't a small problem by any means, despite how downplayed it is by pro-choice individuals.

Why not require sterilization or some other form of punishment after your second abortion?

Why should someone have the right to have a child later on if they've killed 2 fetuses given to them previously?
This would only effect the results of the statistics if for some reason there were different attitudes in the segmented population.  i.e. if people who self-pay or opt out have different statistical results than those who do not.  I don't know if either of those things would affect the result or if the statistics didn't somehow take those matters into account.

Either way if that was addressed to me and the statistics I provided, I'm gonna have to call logical fallacy on this one; moving the goal post.  You can't ask someone to provide data which has no glaring problems with it and then disregard it by raising the bar after the fact, I met your challenge.

Again, cite please.

Segmented population?  There are different attitudes in each individual, so why not in each segment?

I can ask for you to provide data.  Anyone can.

I just want clarification.

[jouzinka]

And what about all the children that are aborted that could be productive citiazens, doctors and tradespeople we eliminate with abortion. We could abort a Einstein or a Bach just as much as a Hitler or Stalin, God has His ways if a child is born its His will. If a child is created the soul and child are sacred.

That depends. If you are a fatalist, then the child has actually no future as a doctor or the next Einstein. Its destiny IS to be aborted.

That's really nothing short of a personal attack, as it references my personal sex directly.

What exactly is your point anyway; because I'm male my opinion on the matter isn't relevant?

If you feel that way, I'm sorry. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, merely an observation. Although, since you ask, I do believe that this whole issue should be more discussed by women, then men, because in the whole scale it will affect women more. Of course men should have a say in the individual case with their partner, but as a nation-wide issue, I'm not so sure. I guess that makes me sexist, yeah, I know.

[Valerian]

As for the point in red, that came from this link to the Guttmacher research that I posted yesterday. The full statistic reads:

Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

There's also a "statement of accuracy" linked at the bottom of that page that discusses their methods.

There's a PDF available from this page that gives some more detailed statistics about those women who have more than one abortion -- actually, there are quite a lot of articles viewable at that site that give a great deal of useful info, so anyone who's interested in more should browse through there.  Their scientific methods and sampling look good.

[Nadir]

Thinking by numbers, saying approximately half the people who have abortions now have had them in the past is not a surprise. How long have abortions been legal? Not long enough for people to fully accept them, especially with such controversy on the issue. The people who are going to trust abortion the most will be those who have tried it in the past. The percentage should decline steadily over time - both because the education and easier access to contraceptives, and because more people will see the procedure as less threatening.

[Aiden]

I had a huge debate with my friends last weekend.

In the end we all hated one another after that because they called me a hypocrite which I really was to be honest.

My views on it
"let the woman decide, it's her body"
BUT (Huge)
If it was my situation
I would forbid the mother of MY child to abort, I would live with an eternal guilt if I knew I did not do anything in my power to not bring my offspring into the world.

Am I ready for a child at my age? No
Do I take the risk by having (un)protected sex?(There is always that risk the pill might not work) Yes
Will I take any and ALL responsibilities for having sex? Yes
(A few years ago, I was not mature enough to answer this question and I am glad I did not end up with an STD or a pregnant girlfriend in my younger days).

In the end all the statistics and views meant nothing to me since I already know what I would do in this situation.

[Greenthorn]

Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

Thank you Valerian.

Now see, TWO PERCENT of women and out of that TWO PERCENT, 47% have had at least one previous abortion.  The way I saw it posted was that 47% of women who have had an abortion have had one before...there was not a complete statistic mentioning the 2% part (in the post I quoted).  This makes the statistic less shocking to me. 




Again, thank you for the clarification.

[Silk]

If you feel that way, I'm sorry. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, merely an observation. Although, since you ask, I do believe that this whole issue should be more discussed by women, then men, because in the whole scale it will affect women more. Of course men should have a say in the individual case with their partner, but as a Nationwide issue, I'm not so sure. I guess that makes me sexist, yeah, I know.

Sorry I have to call fowl on this one, because the male is more often than not as equally affected in this, if not more so since it seems common ground that he "Doesn't have a choice"

One of my close friends had sex the girl he had sex with lied that she was on the pill, when she got pregnant she acted as if it was his fault. But she went ahead and had the baby, my friend pleaded with her not to but he didn't get that choice. He now has to give her allmost half his wages to help raise the kid he is not allowed to see, did not want, and from the start was being played for the fool.

I've said for him to stop paying welfare because she is not letting him see his child but hes spending his now turning 25 life working his butt off for the child that doesn't even know he exists. Should males not get a say in the matter? Should they remain subservient to the females choice and as a result not having a choice in the matter? Just because some guys walk away doesn't mean the women cannot also, but the woman "Can and does" blackmail the father to being her whipping boy.

[Zakharra]

I had a huge debate with my friends last weekend.

In the end we all hated one another after that because they called me a hypocrite which I really was to be honest.

My views on it
"let the woman decide, it's her body"
BUT (Huge)
If it was my situation
I would forbid the mother of MY child to abort, I would live with an eternal guilt if I knew I did not do anything in my power to not bring my offspring into the world.

Am I ready for a child at my age? No
Do I take the risk by having (un)protected sex?(There is always that risk the pill might not work) Yes
Will I take any and ALL responsibilities for having sex? Yes
(A few years ago, I was not mature enough to answer this question and I am glad I did not end up with an STD or a pregnant girlfriend in my younger days).

In the end all the statistics and views meant nothing to me since I already know what I would do in this situation.

So you are for "let the woman decide, it's her body" until it happens to you. Then your stance is "Hell no! I helped make that baby, I should have a say if you wanting to abort it."  You are implying that you would prevent her from getting an abortion if she wanted one. 

If that's your belief, that is hypocritical

[jouzinka]

Sorry I have to call fowl on this one, because the male is more often than not as equally affected in this, if not more so since it seems common ground that he "Doesn't have a choice"

One of my close friends had sex the girl he had sex with lied that she was on the pill, when she got pregnant she acted as if it was his fault. But she went ahead and had the baby, my friend pleaded with her not to but he didn't get that choice. He now has to give her allmost half his wages to help raise the kid he is not allowed to see, did not want, and from the start was being played for the fool.

I've said for him to stop paying welfare because she is not letting him see his child but hes spending his now turning 25 life working his butt off for the child that doesn't even know he exists. Should males not get a say in the matter? Should they remain subservient to the females choice and as a result not having a choice in the matter? Just because some guys walk away doesn't mean the women cannot also, but the woman "Can and does" blackmail the father to being her whipping boy.

If you feel that way, I'm sorry. It wasn't meant as a personal attack, merely an observation. Although, since you ask, I do believe that this whole issue should be more discussed by women, then men, because in the whole scale it will affect women more. Of course men should have a say in the individual case with their partner, but as a nation-wide issue, I'm not so sure. I guess that makes me sexist, yeah, I know.

What I meant was that in the nation-wide law issue it should be the women, who decide whether they want to keep the abortion as an option or no. I never said men shouldn't have a say if they do or don't want their own kids, see the bolded part. :-)

[Silk]

So your implying that women choose the law, but men can air a greivance with the mother? How is that any different from what it is now?

[jouzinka]

I'm sorry, Silk, but I'm having trouble understanding the question. Can you rephrase it, please?

[Trieste]

There is no yardstick against which to legally hold a man. Nothing forces him to take responsibility, and we as a culture should not condone that. However, the implication that this is a woman's topic where men shouldn't be included is both ludicrous and insulting. It's like saying women shouldn't have an interest in urology because we don't have a penis. Are you saying that fathers cannot love their children as much as mothers? Are you saying that an abortion is not as much a concern for an involved father?

Sorry I have to call fowl on this one

*cannot resist some humor*

[Oniya]

Assuming that the father is involved (and isn't just some 'baby-daddy'), then both parents should make the decision together.  But if the father has no interest in being involved, then - I'm sorry - he vacates his rights along with his responsibilities.  That being said, if the woman knows he has no desire to be involved, she should take that into consideration in her decision, and not expect anything from him in the future.  Conversely, if he does take on the responsibility (both emotional and financial), then he should have parental rights, where that child is concerned.

[Silk]

Assuming that the father is involved (and isn't just some 'baby-daddy'), then both parents should make the decision together.  But if the father has no interest in being involved, then - I'm sorry - he vacates his rights along with his responsibilities.  That being said, if the woman knows he has no desire to be involved, she should take that into consideration in her decision, and not expect anything from him in the future.  Conversely, if he does take on the responsibility (both emotional and financial), then he should have parental rights, where that child is concerned.

Which currently is not the case.

Man not interested man? leaves = Women not interested? women leaves (Both abort adopt and neglect senses)
Man not interested? leaves = Women interested? keeps
Man interested? Stays = Women interested? = Keeps
Man interested? Stays = Women not interested? Not a thing man can do about it
Man interested but women not let them see? Depressing = Women interested with man but not let man see? Blackmail.


I see a strange trend here
Edit:
A Father and a Dad is completely different things, A father is a male who has birthed a child with a female.

A Dad is a male parent

[Trieste]

Assuming that the father is involved (and isn't just some 'baby-daddy'), then both parents should make the decision together.  But if the father has no interest in being involved, then - I'm sorry - he vacates his rights along with his responsibilities.  That being said, if the woman knows he has no desire to be involved, she should take that into consideration in her decision, and not expect anything from him in the future.  Conversely, if he does take on the responsibility (both emotional and financial), then he should have parental rights, where that child is concerned.

x2. Well-stated, Oniya.

[jouzinka]

There is no yardstick against which to legally hold a man. Nothing forces him to take responsibility, and we as a culture should not condone that. However, the implication that this is a woman's topic where men shouldn't be included is both ludicrous and insulting. It's like saying women shouldn't have an interest in urology because we don't have a penis.

Mainly for the bolded part I came to think that the decision whether to keep abortions as an option should be women's.

Urology is about urinary tracts that both men and women have, not about a penis.

Are you saying that fathers cannot love their children as much as mothers? Are you saying that an abortion is not as much a concern for an involved father?

No and no.

[Oniya]

I know it's not currently the case.  In my personal opinion, though, if you expect the man to shell out the cash take responsibility, he should have the rights that go along with it.  As Ol' Ben would say, 'It's a bit like calling an ox a bull.  He's grateful for the honor, but he'd rather have back what's rightfully his.'

If the man's a scumbag, better to sever all ties with him.  He's not likely to pay in those situations anyways.

[Trieste]

Urology is about urinary tracts that both men and women have, not about a penis.

If you insist on splitting hairs, beg pardon, a urologist with a medical focus on erectile dysfunction.

ffs.

[Kate]

Personally I feel the idea that abortion is "against God's will / affront to god / impinges on a "right" of a soul that is not their own" are not statement that I give credibility to for several reasons

I see God as "the everything" god is life, all thoughts you have, from a quantum mechanics point of view "all realities being all possibilities existing at the same time"
I beleive the choices we make choose which of these "realities" that our awarness finds more dominate, its not like the other realities didn't exist, they just dont exist subjectively or in an experienced way. As such one action that "god" (assuming one exists) shakes his or her or its head at and says "hmm im disappointed I made this to test you so you choose the "Right way for "you" - which was explained to another that you should trust over your own thoughts" or society doing likewise for non religious reasons calling it "human rights" is a little rich.

The concept that you are god and part of it and are perfect as you are - all decisions and actions are perfect but WHICH version of perfect is a choice of the individual - and the reason for life in the first place - as a soul to choose what it wants to refine is equally valid compared to any religion in my view... but all these are "perspectives" of individuals, the mess people get into is valuing one as more objective than another.

Does someone who is not educated have a "less objective" perspective than one is educated ? No .. I think "objectivity" is a myth. "learning" is not becoming more objective, becoming aware or being attentive to something isnt being more objective, it could be said that "learning" is an act of becoming more bias and "less objective".
Assuming research on a topic makes one's perspective more sensible is very presumptuous.

The concept that one may view their perspective as more enlightened and objective than another's to the point of insisting particular behavior for another that has alien values to them I view as arrogance.

If there is such a thing as a soul (Which I do beleive in) I dont think it changes anything as a soul can't be harmed, if one body or existence is changed so it cant be a vessle it will just look for another in another time/reality/existance (big assumption perhaps but on par with the assumption 

a) Mom/life does the work and the new soul "appears" at time X and its its "Right" to own the vessel from T = X+ (After x weeks when features become prevalent)

b) New soul appeared from the get go and the body is ITS property from T = 0+ (conception)

c) New souls are hungry and are lining up so really all bodies of "potential babies" are their "right" ie they all own them at T = NEGATIVE X onways (ie prevention = impinging on their "rights")

Either way I can't see "aborting" has harming a soul nor do I beleive souls have "rights to bodies" what they do is USE bodies as tools.

At worst I think an abortion may delay a "desire" of a soul to incarnate and refine skills in a life, but she wouldn't be impinging on its RIGHT to do so, only removing one opportunity for ONE to ... at that time.

remember a woman that aborts at time = T1 may do so to organise sitations where she can have MANY children at time = T2, if she was forced to have one at Time = T1, she may not be able to have more later.

Life exists everywhere, that idea that more human life = better I think is like ?
huh says who ??

Qualiy of life is important also. If a child is born in circumstances where misery concerning its upbringing prevails, it effects many, it could be that 2 need to quit jobs or turn down promotional oppintunities ... true the baby may go on to be a great healer - but the mother COULD also become a great healer if she didnt have that child then ... Comparing "what ifs" for this issue is just asking for long lists supporting each side for academic reasons no more, it doesn't move the argument.

To a large extend the woman is a highly dependent medium for development. Very complicated biology is required for a human to grow from one cell. I view someones "privates" as a limb of theirs, a hand can be used to help someone, a hand can be used to slap someone. A hand can be used for many things, what the person that owns it does with it is .... a choice.

Yes the child is dependent on the mother for longer than just the time in her body.
So the idea of when the child should be considered being protected by the "state" as an "individual" I think is very strange. I can see the argument of "well in a way its an individual the moment its a seed because it has the potentional to be one if certain circumstances are favorable and its up to humans to ensure this circumstances are endeavored for" pulls a few strings I think unnecessarily.

The concept of what is an "individual" or a "potential individual" I think is what causes a lot of issues.

With the right "favourable circumstances" your liver cells can be made into a new individuals.... by cloning ... yet we "kill off many potential clone-individuals that just need favorable environment to become distinct and individually human"  each time we drink wine ... they will have the same genes as the "parent" but identical twins have the same genes also ... and they are recongised as different and may have different souls.

Actually is their one soul in each of your liver cells waiting to be cloned ?

Snapping a glass of wine out of a mans hand and saying "your aborting countless people ! / baby killer ! You have no RIGHT to impose on THEIR RIGHT to be BORN as individuals ! You know that with the right biological conditions you have the means to ensure they could grow to become people you sick fool"
would have most men blinking thinking ... whoa slow down hon.

It could be said "yeah but that is artificial its not nature's way so it doesnt really count but natural abortion is bad, your being ridiculous with that stance" ... also doesnt make sense.

Neither are cloning nor natural births are "artificial" if one choose to view everything as "life". Your own thoughts actions and capabilities are "life" .. which may or may not include abilities of making your own cloning laboratory and supplying liver cells for massive amounts of mini-mes. (which is a perspective)

Debatably cloning and natural births are are "man made" 
(ie without many choices from "parents" it wouldn't have happened).

Ethics is highly subjective.
"Right" vs "wrong" is highly subjective
What is "objective" ... is subjective.

Choices simply give different probability bias towards different outcomes, all possible outcomes are "life"

I personally view that utopia should be strived for - creating heaven on earth for those that are living on the earth as "independent" individuals.
Independant and individuals though is not a concept that really exists until they are independent CULTURALLY ( ie you can walk into the utopia and walk out again without issues - you engage into its values when it suits you)

Society taking the view that the parents MUST do this or that or be thrown in jail for abuse via neglect of care etc is not giving them freedom to do what they choose without threatening to remove increasing amounts of liberties. I think that culturally the biological parents must assume responsibility for its raising and development is HIGHLY backward -and the current view of this causes many passions to flair over this issue.

Many of the elderly that are able bodied or those that simply want to and are educated would be far better parents than the biological parents in many instances and would gladly want their life part of younger generations and would adore to aid their raising... but be solely responsible with consequences of not being consistent for 18 years ? ... no...

I would adore to see the child itself view all of humanity as its teachers, its "parents", its friends, its helpers its supporters.. etc we (humanity) are one big family, the sooner we stop trying to wedge people into historical family units the better (the average "working" healthy family units I think is broken anyway due to too much influence of particular individuals in the childs upbringing not letting them be rounded as being raised by a group of elders would give them)

Women generally do have strong maternal instincts with their own children, if they wish to act of them ... fine.... role of the biological father to provide the means for it even if they don't want to ?
No.

Men generally have a strong instinct to sow their seed ... role of each woman to raise any that come from this to do their duty and raise it ?
No.

Role of the mother to pay for it ? No. Role of the elders of the mothers choosing to raise it when she wants to run about doing other things ?  I think so. Elders have a lot to teach, they are more worldly than biolgical parents and like have seen it all before. This also would stop generation gaps forming, less pressure and stress for all ... "single mothers" stop being relevant .. (As they are not expected to raise them on their own) ... all good I think.

I also beleive it would stop the need for "two people different genders need a house each" rubbish ... this try to mimic the historical "family unit" is causing us all harm.

Culturally while society puts providing means on the shoulders of the the father with massive consequences of loss of liberty if he doesnt "do this and that" the farther should have rights to the decision also.  If the mother to be chooses to go ahead against the fathers wishes - the state expecting the father to pay for it I think is a little rich.

Ideally I think the mother can choose while it is IN her body.
When it is out ... its societies role to provide the means of raising, not the biological mother nor the biological father.

If the elders insist on something that retards this a little to stop it getting out of hand - we take their advice very seriously - not because we will be punished by law if we dont - but because they are in those positions because their view is respected (not enforced)

I also think inheritance is a not healthy culturally also - it encourages greed, and removes a lovely opportunity to re-distribute wealth and resources and power evenly or on a merit / need basis.

[jouzinka]

If you insist on splitting hairs, beg pardon, a urologist with a medical focus on erectile dysfunction.

I'm sorry, Trieste, but you are the one who's splitting hairs, because the basis of the two subjects is completely unrelated. At least to me. There's a difference in being interested in the mechanics of erectile dysfunction and leading a discussion whether to ban Viagra because it's not healthy on the men's heart and can be dangerous. (a lame example, I know, but I use it only to get a point across)

[Silk]

I'm sorry, Trieste, but you are the one who's splitting hairs, because the basis of the two subjects is completely unrelated. At least to me. There's a difference in being interested in the mechanics of erectile dysfunction and leading a discussion whether to ban Viagra because it's not healthy on the men's heart and can be dangerous. (a lame example, I know, but I use it only to get a point across)

Its related in regard that your implying that men should have no say in women's affairs, so in the spirit of equality (As hard as it is for a sexist/feminist etc to understand what equality is) would mean that women should stay out of all male affairs, because that won't take us back a few century's.

[Scott]

I just wanted to give everyone a coffee break :)

[Torch]

I also think inheritance is a not healthy culturally also - it encourages greed, and removes a lovely opportunity to re-distribute wealth and resources and power evenly or on a merit / need basis.

[threadjack]

I realize the above statement has nothing to do with abortion, but let me say this:

Over my cold dead corpse will any government entity tell me what I can and cannot do with my net worth, whether it is in the form of cash, real estate, investments, or spanish doubloons buried in a mason jar in my backyard. I willingly and gladly pay my fair share of taxes, and aside from that, it is for me to decide what I do with my personal wealth as long as I am not breaking any laws. If I want to leave it to my kids, put the money in a trust fund, donate every cent to charity, or buy everyone in the United States an ice cream cone, I will goddamn well do as I please, thankyouverymuch.

I get twitchy with the mere mention of "redistributing wealth".

[/threadjack]


Oooh, coffee! *pours a mug full*

[jouzinka]

Is there actually a male affair that would affect women as much as you claim abortions affect men? Is there one that would be as much discussed by women?

Just for the record, I didn't say that men shouldn't have a say in women's affairs generally, but in this particular one, but I guess that doesn't matter. Someone has to be baddie of a thread.

[Oniya]

Is there actually a male affair that would affect women as much as you claim abortions affect men? Is there one that would be as much discussed by women?

Vasectomies?  Not that I see many men rushing out to get them...

[Silk]

Feminist topics in general seem that way, allways happy to talk about males shortcomings and issues when not allowing males to really have the say in the matter without getting a ton of accusations thrown at them. And yes it does affect them alot because I've seen some feminist subjects and it is extremely hurtful to the lads.

[Torch]

Is there actually a male affair that would affect women as much as you claim abortions affect men? Is there one that would be as much discussed by women?

How about the fact that many insurance companies gladly cover Viagra and Cialis, but won't cover some forms of birth control for women?

[Aiden]

If that's your belief, that is hypocritical

I stated originally that my views were hypocritical. I don't expect other to understand or accept my views.

If I get a female pregnant, then she will have the child. At that point if she wants nothing to do with the child for whatever reason she can walk out of their life forever.

Father's should have rights also.

[Scott]

How about the fact that many insurance companies gladly cover Viagra and Cialis, but won't cover some forms of birth control for women?

I think it's because if there's no new people, there's no future money for their company maybe?

[Torch]

If I get a female pregnant, then she will have the child.

Unless you plan on literally chaining this young lady to your side, there would really be nothing stopping her from getting an abortion. I suppose you could sue her after it was done, claiming it was done without your knowledge, but that would be your only recourse, that I could think of, anyway.

[Aiden]

Or I could talk to her like a responsible human being, maybe?

[Trieste]

Men shouldn't have a say in what women do with their bodies because the man cannot possibly understand what the women go through. Pregnancy is a deeply personal experience that has emotional and physical ramifications for the woman that men can educate themselves about but they cannot understand because they do not have the requisite body parts.

(Ergo they should not be involved in abortion policymaking.)

True? Good. Let's see if we can keep the train of thought on track:

Men Women shouldn't have a say in what women do with their bodies because the man  woman cannot possibly understand what the women go through. Pregnancy Erectile dysfunction is a deeply personal experience that has emotional and physical ramifications for the woman that men women can educate themselves about but they cannot understand because they do not have the requisite body parts.

(Ergo, they should not be urologists.)

Sex is an integral part of most healthy romantic relationships, and it affects both the man and the woman in a standard hetero relationship. (Homosexual relationships are not relevant, here.) If you don't think that's comparable to dealing with an unwanted child, then you may be placing pregnancy on an emotional pedestal that just doesn't exist. You are underestimating the male psyche.

Someone has to be baddie of a thread.

Not really, but you're supporting a position that is quite frankly sexist. When the rest of the thread doesn't agree with you, you resort to being passive aggressive. It's not really supporting your point.

[Raven41174]

This may jump off a bit, but I believe the father should have rights and a say also.  If having the child is not going to endanger the mother, and the father wants to take that child and pay any related expense to having that child, he should be allowed.  Abortion is way to widely used as a form of birth control, and it should not be allowed for that reason.  If the woman is raped, or having the child will endanger her life,  these are really the only reason I can see for abortion.

[Trieste]

How about the fact that many insurance companies gladly cover Viagra and Cialis, but won't cover some forms of birth control for women?

Insurance companies suck. Haven't you been paying attention? xD

[Torch]

Or I could talk to her like a responsible human being, maybe?

No one said you couldn't. But your statement "she will have the child" suggests a finality that has already been decided. You would have to prepare yourself for the possibility that even though you could talk until you are blue in the face, she, theoretically, could still choose to terminate the pregnancy.

[Torch]

Insurance companies suck. Haven't you been paying attention? xD

*snort* I was distracted by the coffee.

[Cecilia]

If I get a female pregnant, then she will have the child. At that point if she wants nothing to do with the child for whatever reason she can walk out of their life forever.

Father's should have rights also.

Uhm..What are you going to do tie her up in a room and force her to give birth?   AS far as I know that could be considered torture.  Being pregnant, in case you've never noticed, is not exactly a fun thing.  First, you're tired and puking for three months.  That's great for the job process, by the way.  Then, once you're no longer exhausted from the thing growing inside you, you begin to hurt.  Sometimes it hurts a lot--the back, the hips, the breasts.  Everything can ache.  Then, when you get even larger, you can't sleep because nothing feels good.  The baby kicks you in the lungs, the stomach and you have to pee every ten minutes.  This is all before giving birth where the baby practically tears you apart coming out or you get sliced open so the baby can be pulled out.  All of this at a great expense to the mother's emotional well being and physical state.     It can be a life-threatening condition and there's always some possibility that the mother could die from the process. 

That's also assuming you actually know you've fathered a child.  Most women I know who have had abortions do so because they don't want to raise a child with the father. 

[jouzinka]

Not really, but you're supporting a position that is quite frankly sexist. When the rest of the thread doesn't agree with you, you resort to being passive aggressive. It's not really supporting your point.

All right, so the ideal situation is an omnipresent discussion where everyone has a say, then abortions are banned, while men still keep the possibility to walk away whenever they choose from the responsibility?

I'm sorry, but I prefer sound sleep and thinking of that isn't very much helping it.

No one said you couldn't. But your statement "she will have the child" suggests a finality that has already been decided. You would have to prepare yourself for the possibility that even though you could talk until you are blue in the face, she, theoretically, could still choose to terminate the pregnancy.

Assuming Aiden knows about the pregnancy in the first place.

[Silk]

All right, so the ideal situation is an omnipresent discussion where everyone has a say, then abortions are banned, while men still keep the possibility to walk away whenever they choose from the responsibility?

I'm sorry, but I prefer sound sleep and thinking of that isn't very much helping it.

Nobody is saying about abortions being banned, were saying that the father should have a say if the child is to be aborted or not, the male walking away is not going to infringe the mothers right to be a mother but the mother choosing abortion even though the father wants the child IS infringing on his right to be a father, that is the main difference there.

[jouzinka]

Nobody is saying about abortions being banned, were saying that the father should have a say if the child is to be aborted or not, the male walking away is not going to infringe the mothers right to be a mother but the mother choosing abortion even though the father wants the child IS infringing on his right to be a father, that is the main difference there.

I've said twice already that I didn't dispute that.

[Zakharra]

Or I could talk to her like a responsible human being, maybe?

and if she doesn't want the baby?

[Torch]

Assuming Aiden knows about the pregnancy in the first place.

Yep, I've known more than one woman who has terminated a pregnancy with her boyfriend being none the wiser. Now, whether he found out later or not I'm not sure of, but at the time, he was completely unaware.

[Caeli]

Please stop the personal attacks and keep things civil, please.

This is a controversial issue and I understand that people feel strongly about the topic, but I don't want to resort to locking this thread if you are unable to discuss this without resorting to insults and sarcasm.

[Nadir]

Can I just ask, why are people making the point that abortion is birth control? It keeps popping up - exactly what else is an abortion? Plastic surgery? Everyone who has an abortion is doing it as a form of birth control. I don't understand what other function it has.

[Aiden]

and if she doesn't want the baby?

Why are we having sex in the first place if we are not willing to deal with the results together?
Why didn't we use protection or use a different form of birth control when we were together?
These are questions I ask myself NOW, (not in my younger days, again I was lucky)

If an ex or current girlfriend would have gone behind my back to have an abortion I would cut off everything to do with that person for ever, plain and simple.
"Suck it up nine months then walk out that door and never look back"
Would be my reply Zakharra.

[Caeli]

"Suck it up nine months then walk out that door and never look back"

... And I wasn't going to post, but I find it difficult to believe that you could possibly dismiss pregnancy and having a baby is a matter of "sucking it up" for nine months. As others have stated, it's a deeply emotional experience for the mother, whether she wants the baby or not.

I haven't had yet a real deep want for children of my own, and I've never been pregnant (and I don't wish to be for good while), but I really don't think pregnancy is as simple as walking around with a big stomach for nine months.

[jouzinka]

Can I just ask, why are people making the point that abortion is birth control? It keeps popping up - exactly what else is an abortion? Plastic surgery? Everyone who has an abortion is doing it as a form of birth control. I don't understand what other function it has.

I suppose it has to do with the term that birth control is meant to be contraception method, preventing the conception completely, which abortion isn't, since the conception already occurred.

[Kotah]

So, I thought I would discuss the possible repercussions of creating and amending new abortion laws. Since we haven't really addressed the repercussions.

There is a law passed that a woman can only receive an abortion do to incest/rape:
We have a sudden influx of women claiming they have been raped, and receiving abortions.

How do we control this problem? According to my sexual harassment training (for work), which could be fallible but from what I remember so don't come down on me, 1 out of every 10 women has been sexually assaulted. Only a fraction of these are ever reported. How do we know who was really raped? Only the one's that file a report? Not every woman is willing to file a report when they are raped. Do we put the woman on trial? That would seem rather harsh on the women that really were sexually assaulted. Innocent till proven guilty, but you have to prove that you were raped?

There is a law passed that women can't have more then one abortion:
Women go from place to place to get abortions.
Possible influx in back ally abortions.

I don't know how you would honestly control this problem. If a woman feels she had no other way out, she is going to do what she feels she needs to do. If you limit the availability of care, you force people to find other methods.

What if a woman has an abortion and 9 months later she get's raped? It's easier to get pregnant after you have been pregnant before. Even if you did have an abortion.

What if the woman has a medical condition? I know a woman who's uterus walls are two thin for her to carry a child. She would have to abort any pregnancy she has, or face death. I know a woman who had a reoccurring problem in pregnancy where the  placenta is formed backwards. Where it's supposed to be against the front of her belly, she had a problem twice where it forms along her spine.

How are you going to control these problems? Make it ok for some, and not for others? Once again you are going to see a lot of women calling rape to get what they want.

ECT.

Women, when desperate, will find other methods around it. If you make it harder for women to receive abortions the rich will leave the country to have it done, and the poor will take whatever means necessary. Including suicide.

The point of the matter is, who are we to force out morality on anyone else? What gives us the right to decide if abortion is or isn't right for Peggy Sue. Why should you even care? You have never met Peggy Sue. You will never meet the child she may or may not have. Peggy Sue is the one that will have to deal with her choices. Not you. Peggy Sue should have the choice. Peggy Sue can have sex with whoever she wants.

As for the birth control question. I have my own little birth control opps due February 1st. I was on the pill.

[Torch]

but I really don't think pregnancy is as simple as walking around with a big stomach for nine months.

I've done it twice, and I can tell you without a doubt that it isn't. Huh, I wish it was.  :P 

I, for one, did very little 'glowing' whilst being pregnant, and instead did a whole lot of this:  >:( >:( >:(

[Valerian]

Okay, everyone:

Please keep in mind the original purpose of the thread, way back when -- to answer specific questions asked by the original poster.

If we could get back to that, that would be great.  A step back for everyone might be a good thing at this point.

[Lilias]

"Suck it up nine months then walk out that door and never look back"
Would be my reply Zakharra.

That deserves a reply of 'You can have it if you can graft it onto yourself and let it grow inside you.' I've done the whole pregnancy and birth thing, and it's traumatic, even as much as I wanted it. Inflicting pain equal to childbirth on a man would qualify as torture by any standards.

Back on track: There are cultures, like the Chinese and Indian, that unfortunately promote, unwillingly but surely, selective late-term abortion, in cases when the sonogram reveals the baby to be a girl. The practice was made illegal in India a couple of years ago; I'm not aware of official data for China, but it takes more than a law to eradicate a practice.

I feel that a crucial element in lowering the number of abortions without banning them is, apart from education (general as well as sex ed), an overhaul of the adoption laws, including the rediscovery of fosterage. I can't quite blame people who believe that an unwanted child is better off dying unborn than being raised by the state. The hoops one has to jump through in order to adopt are outrageous, and I know a lot of families who don't care about legalities and names either, they just want little people to care for. Like old-time communities, where everyone looked out for everyone else's children, not just their own. Everyone would be much better off in such arrangements; the SOS Villages are such an effort.

How could we know if someone has been using serial abortion as birth control? Well, doesn't one need proof of identity when they go to the hospital to give birth? Make it mandatory for abortions as well, and put that into a national database.

For the record, I consider that life starts when the zygote is implanted in the womb and starts growing in viable circumstances. Miscarriages are not abortions (although they used to be treated as such; the term even was 'spontaneous abortion'), and anyone faulting a woman who terminates an ectopic pregnancy (where the zygote implants inside the Fallopian tube, being both non-viable and potentially lethal to the mother) deserves to be castrated.

[Aiden]

... And I wasn't going to post, but I find it difficult to believe that you could possibly dismiss pregnancy and having a baby is a matter of "sucking it up" for nine months. As others have stated, it's a deeply emotional experience for the mother, whether she wants the baby or not.

I haven't had yet a real deep want for children of my own, and I've never been pregnant (and I don't wish to be for good while), but I really don't think pregnancy is as simple as walking around with a big stomach for nine months.

I am not dismissing pregnancy like I would a sport's injury.
I understand (not firsthand) that pregnancy takes its toll on the mother emotionally and physically.
But in MY (Warning Aiden does not speak for all men) case, I would support the mother of my child in whatever way I could. If she wants nothing to do with the child, she will have no future with me and after that is done, she can grant me sole custody and never talk to me and her child again.

(pregnancy as a result from  one night stands (<---in this case...I mean really now...), incest and rapes is in a completely different category for me.)

[Caeli]

What about people who use abortion as birth control?

I'm taking this to mean women who use abortion as a chronic method of terminating unwanted pregnancies. I don't know if there are any statistics out there on this kind of issue, but I do not believe laws should be... selective.

What I mean by that is, you can't say that abortion is okay, and then give a huge list of stipulations about when and how it is okay. All laws are, to some effect, selective (for example, the difference between homicide and murder is a matter of intent, as a bad example), but making abortion laws situational would make it hugely difficult on the part of hospitals and doctors to decide when each situation falls under "okay" and "not okay".

But I digress. For a simple answer - medically, I can't say that I am comfortable with the idea, but it is not my body. The women who do that - I would hope that they did not come to each decision to abort the fetus lightly.

If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

The issues are unrelated - not human does not necessarily mean animal.

I am also not "okay" with terminating life because "it isn't human yet" - I'm not okay with terminating life, period, no matter how it happens. But nothing is so black and white, and abortion is one of those issues. I believe that there are situations when abortion might be the best choice for the mother... and I don't believe that it is my place to judge whether it is "right" or "wrong" or "okay" for her.

Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?

Yes, I believe in the existence of souls. I can't know that an unborn child doesn't have a soul - only the gods can answer such a question.

If the unborn child does have a soul - do I believe that there are situations when being born might be a worse choice than terminating a pregnancy? Yes, I do. Maybe it's not unfair, to not give the baby a chance to be born - but just as things are most often NOT black and white, so there is nothing that is guaranteed.

I can only say this from personal opinion, but I would certainly weigh my ability to raise a child in a healthy and safe environment as one of the factors if I was considering abortion. Things like having a steady job, someone to take care of the baby with me, good prospects for the future, living in a safe neighborhood and a in a place with access to good schools... a baby is long-term, and I think the future needs to be taken into account. It's not just a matter of "you're killing something with a soul".

Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?

Because only the woman goes through the pregnancy.

That's not to say that men do not have a say or an opportunity to voice their opinion - but ultimately, it is the mother who will be going through pregnancy and giving birth, along with the requisite potential complications and side effects.

But in MY (Warning Aiden does not speak for all men) case, I would support the mother of my child in whatever way I could. If she wants nothing to do with the child, she will have no future with me and after that is done, she can grant me sole custody and never talk to me and her child again.

Support or not, it's still the mother who has to go through the pregnancy. Whether or not I believe in abortion or agree about whatever ethics or morality discussions on the topic, I can say definitively that I support the woman's right to choose abortion.

No, it's not a sports injury. But it's also not just nine months of being pregnant.

[Zakharra]

I am not dismissing pregnancy like I would a sport's injury.
I understand (not firsthand) that pregnancy takes its toll on the mother emotionally and physically.
But in MY (Warning Aiden does not speak for all men) case, I would support the mother of my child in whatever way I could. If she wants nothing to do with the child, she will have no future with me and after that is done, she can grant me sole custody and never talk to me and her child again.

(pregnancy as a result from  one night stands (<---in this case...I mean really now...), incest and rapes is in a completely different category for me.)

I'm sorry, but with that attitude, I cannot see how a woman could stand to be with you. Far too controlling. This isn't a personal attack, just an observation.

The fact you have sex, doesn't mean a child should result. Both of you might have been using a contraceptive and they failed. No contraceptive is 100% safe. Sex is fun. A great recreational activity. The fact she might not want a baby and you do shouldn't mean she should have to bear the child.

Back on topic, abortion should stay legal. The only one that should be questionable is late term where the baby can survive out of the womb. At that point, it does slid into the range of manslaughter/murder since the child is viable by then.

[Greenthorn]

(Urology is the study of the urinary system including, but not limited to, incontinence in women and men, erectile dysfunction, sexually transmitted diseases, kidney failure, and so on.  Since I have worked for a urologist, I thought I'd throw this in here.)

[Aiden]

Well your observation seems like a personal attack, based on my opinion on the topic.

I'm done with this topic.

[Valerian]

There's a few apparent problems I can see with both sides of the abortion issue; so I'd like to see what people have to say to my challenges.  Lets start this off right, with a light-hearted quote! (which in no way reflects my views on the matter)

I, ah... this abortion issue in the States is dividing the country right in half. You know, and even amongst my friends - we're all highly intelligent - they're totally divided on the issue of abortion. Totally divided. Some of my friends think these pro-life people are just annoying idiots. Other of my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks. How are we gonna have a consensus? I'm torn. I try and take the broad view and think of them as evil, annoying fucks.
- Bill Hicks

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

To Those in Favor of Banning Abortion:
- What about rape and incest?  Would you truly require a woman to carry a child to term if she didn't consent to its conception?
- If there is a choice between the child's life and the mother's, do you still agree with the ban?  (essentially always choosing the child)
- It is true that even if the fetus is not a person, it would be in time.  For some, this alone makes abortion wrong.  In such an argument, is murder equated with preventing the child's birth?  And if so, how is abortion worse than not choosing not to mate when you would? (thereby having the same ultimate effect)
- What about the overall economic and societal effect such a policy will have?  More unwanted children forced upon reluctant, typically poor parents will undoubtedly result in population growth, increase in crime, and a generally less happy populace.
- If you think the act is categorically wrong and comparable to murder, should the United States make a crusade of overthrowing all of the governments around the world that allow it?  Such a viewpoint equates Abortion to mass Infanticide, and in some places like Cuba Abortion is ridiculously common and even makes some 'civilized' nations guilty of genocide (considering minorities get abortions far more often).

Just a helpful reminder, as I'd rather not have to lock the thread.  Tempers are running high again, so let's all try to stay a little calmer when posting.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'm sorry, but with that attitude, I cannot see how a woman could stand to be with you. Far too controlling. This isn't a personal attack, just an observation.

The fact you have sex, doesn't mean a child should result. Both of you might have been using a contraceptive and they failed. No contraceptive is 100% safe. Sex is fun. A great recreational activity. The fact she might not want a baby and you do shouldn't mean she should have to bear the child.

Back on topic, abortion should stay legal. The only one that should be questionable is late term where the baby can survive out of the womb. At that point, it does slid into the range of manslaughter/murder since the child is viable by then.

Case in point: A girl I knew in College named Roulette (for obvious reasons) and one of the preacher's kids I knew was his 'trial from god' as another failure of contraception.

The only 100% sure method of contracpetion is to NOT have sex.

[Oniya]

Case in point: A girl I knew in College named Roulette (for obvious reasons)

Sue the parents for emotional suffering now.

[jouzinka]

I think Callie changed her name, that's why the remark, but I can be mistaken...

[Neroon]

I guess it's my turn to post something here.  If what I type comes across as a bit cranky, well blame it on the fact I've had a bloody hard day at work.  I'm not going to argue hypotheticals or make sweeping moral judgments based on any religious or antireligious feeling.  I'm not going to try and convince anyone to any point of view either.  All I want you to do is think.

That's it.  No more, no less.  Just consider, the people who get abortions, the people who decline abortions and keep an unwanted child are just that, people.  They are as complex and as wonderful as you or I, whichever decision they make.  The effects of te decision they make, be it to abort a pregancy or not to abort it are profound and nobody simply shrugs it off.  I should know, as I've had to deal with this at the sharp end.

Twenty years ago, I was engaged to be married to my first wife and thanks to that small percentage that proves condoms aren't 100% effective, she got pregnant.  She decided to abort and there was not a damn thing I could do about it.  The reason was mainly because she didn't tell me until she asked me to accompany her to the clinic.  At that point, I wasn't about to argue with her; she was in incredible emotional pain about it being terrified of what her father would say about it, despite the fact that we were to be married less than six months later.

All I did was tell her that I would be happy and honoured to care for the child but she was set on sweeping the whole affair under the carpet with an abortion.  In the face of that determination, I stood by her and supported her decision; I didn't believe- and I don't believe now- that I had a right to force my wishes on her and I've always believed that you should stand by those you love. whether you agree with what they do or not.

That abortion had a shattering effect on her.  Not immediately, nor even a year later, but shatter her it did.  Some four years later, when our daughter was three, my first wife had a complete nervous breakdown, one so complete that it took eighteen months for her to be off medication and another year to recover.  Through the treatment, it transpired that the cause of the breakdown was a repressed feeling of guilt over the abortion.

Very few people go through such complete breakdowns and emerge the same person on the other side of them and that was true with her.  Where she had been a confident person before, full of laughs and decisive actions, she became hesitant and always second guessing herself and very easily influenced by others.  A decade later, the strains on the marriage caused by the change in her personality caused it to break.

A tragic story?  Perhaps.  And then, perhaps not, for who can say that things would have fared better if her decision had been different and now I'm far enough away from it for it not to hurt.  The point is, it is easy to glibly talk about the people who are involved in abortions, easy to draw the issue into moral abstractions and matters of law or ethics but, in the end, when you discuss abortion you are discussing the actions of real people and we neglect that fact at our peril.

Whatever you decide about the rights and wrongs of abortion, I hope that your decision is tempered by an understanding and an empathy for the people who have faced, are facing and will face the decision to abort or not to abort for real.

[Serephino]

Personally, I'm against abortion.  Unless you are a complete moron, you should know that you are risking pregnancy every time you have sex.  So basically, if you have sex and get pregnant, you knew the risk, you deal with the consequence.  The use of birth control helps, but it isn't 100% effective.  I know someone who got pregnant 3 times on the pill.  She gave herself an abortion twice by binge drinking.  The third time it didn't work. 

There are exceptions to every rule of course.  If the mother's life would be endangered, or there was something wrong with the baby, then the mother should be able to choose.

I also think the father should get some say.  Sure, a man could walk away, but have you ever heard of a little thing called child support?  There are so many cases where a man doesn't want to be a father, but the woman goes after him for child support and forces him to be a father.  Under the law a man has a legal responsibility to support a child whether he wanted it or not.  But if the woman doesn't want the baby suddenly the man has no rights?  I really don't think that's fair.

If a woman wants the baby she has the right to have it regardless of the father's wishes.  Why shouldn't a man have the same right?  What if the father really wants the kid?  Sure, the woman has to go through the pregnancy, but that's only because a man can't.  I'm sure there are men out there who would go through the pregnancy if they could. Why punish them because they can't?   

[Oniya]

I remember reading something about how a man could theoretically support a child.  Surgery would be needed for both putting the fetus into the abdominal cavity and for delivery, of course...

[Callie Del Noire]

Sue the parents for emotional suffering now.

Actually her mom was a Bond fan with a sense of irony.

[Oniya]

I suppose it could have been much worse then - Honey Ryder, Tiffany Case, Pussy Galore...

[Callie Del Noire]

I suppose it could have been much worse then - Honey Ryder, Tiffany Case, Pussy Galore...

Actually.. IF I remember right.. in the book, that is how Roulette said she got her name.

[Kate]

(Personally I think the father should only have a say if she wants to keep it but anyway)

Watching Aiden's posts was very interesting.

This to me reflects the advantage of those that treat the matter more maturely and address more aspects of it. Those that do not find themselves pressed in a point of trying to defend a ridiculous stance and their pride "aborts" staying with it for the "whole 9 months" (lol sorry)..

I think most of the world would see his arguments as difficult to hold faith in.

The concept that "Meaning" is subjective is not one that many find easy to grasp.

"Well your observation seems like a personal attack, based on my opinion on the topic. I'm done with this topic. "  - Aiden

Firstly - everything is as personal as one identifys it as, just like the idea of an abortion by an ex or gf of Adiens is personally affronting to HIM, the idea of going through with it may be personally affronting to HER.

This topic is very personal to many, this was made clear in the beginning as a warning that many heated views on the topic will likely appear. This topic is about as close to personal as possible.

... beforehand ...
"Why are we having sex in the first place if we are not willing to deal with the results together?" - Aiden

- The same reason why Aiden speaks a statement like while not willing to be "dance" to the perspective of others that are not HIS that he disagrees with after the fact he did that / said that.

The urge to speak or have sex is its own issue, cultural imposition of "you have to address this also if you choose that or its already done" is the freedom that we are discussing. So his own actions do make a powerful case for those disagreeing with him.

"Why didn't we use protection or use a different form of birth control when we were together?" - Aiden

The circumstances where it was known and a choice (ie not rape and all could afford it) etc aside, somethings do spontaneously happen without logical reason optimized form a sustainable logistic sense, not everything is planned. Falling in love is disadvantageous for a mind in many regards as it forces focus towards something that is separate from previous ambitions. "it highjacks" the mind in many ways. This defines passion to me. Also the birth control method may not have worked.

"If an ex or current girlfriend would have gone behind my back to have an abortion I would cut off everything to do with that person for ever, plain and simple. "Suck it up nine months then walk out that door and never look back"
Would be my reply Zakharra.- Aiden"

For her case I hope so ... hypothetically.
... later when he finds out that she needed to in order to live or both die, and had to immediately before she could explain things to him ...

well... such a situation would be justification beyond what such an approach will be being interested in nearing. This is good though for her, approaches like that do greatly aid refining woman's abilities to know what sort of guys suit being a father, likely this gives good reason for her to associate with others that are more inclined to suit her nature.

In short his "I want to turn my back on this" suits "good", as much as his ex's view of wanting to turn her back on going through a pregnancy is "good".

One thing I must say though is that I do not view Aiden's stances as representing other "pro-life" views, there are pro-life views considerably more interesting to me than Aiden's ...

however even Aiden's views are not "him", they are just his views "then" and they should direct all HIS related behavior "after wards"

Just like a woman who falls pregnant (with the intention to) ... may change her mind.  Just like a man saying "I will love you forever till sickness and death ra ra ra"... may change his mind afterwards...

Freedom of choice = freedom to "live",  to me, but this is my perspective which I do not claim is "right" for all or better for those that disagree with it, as such I will not expect him to change his behavior to suit my values.

To me imposing values on another that is more or less independent with consequences that are enforced by the state is a unnecessary needfulness that is immature and very damaging to our culture in most regards.

[Kate]

[threadjack]
I realize the above statement has nothing to do with abortion, but let me say this: Over my cold dead corpse will any government entity tell me what I can and cannot do with my net worth, whether it is in the form of cash, real estate, investments, or spanish doubloons buried in a mason jar in my backyard. I willingly and gladly pay my fair share of taxes, and aside from that, it is for me to decide what I do with my personal wealth as long as I am not breaking any laws. If I want to leave it to my kids, put the money in a trust fund, donate every cent to charity, or buy everyone in the United States an ice cream cone, I will goddamn well do as I please, thankyouverymuch. I get twitchy with the mere mention of "redistributing wealth".
[/threadjack]

- I feel it was related due to the concept of "ownership" who owns the "right" etc... in the context of consequences of belief in "rightful ownership" of someone "owning" something that effects the wants others have.

(btw "wealth" => ownership constructs, associated with the state, individual, god, souls ...  or any other conceptual entity. I think entiry constructs like "you" "it", soul etc are mainly created to give infrustructure to the concept of ownership. In this way the idea of "ownership", "owns" perspectives it is accepted by)

Is a construct that I think causes disunity in humanity, (and yes greed personally) and is main driver for passions to rise in the subject of abortion.

If addressing this is deemed of a different scope to most, I am happy to drop the issue and let it become a different thread if others feel they wish to express their views on it.

[HairyHeretic]

If addressing this is deemed of a different scope to most, I am happy to drop the issue and let it become a different thread if others feel they wish to express their views on it.

Probably better to take that particular discussion to a new thread, yes.

[Kate]

Probably better to take that particular discussion to a new thread, yes.

- HH

- "God's" "will" be done :)
( On earth as it is in ... https://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=49532.0 )

[RubySlippers]

This raises an interesting point can a person OWN another one ,de facto, slavery?

If not then the unborn child as a person as many believe is the case has no more or fewer rights than the mother. If yes than of course the child is property ,a slave or non-person, and can be aborted.

But unless one can be absolutely sure life doesn't begin at conception we should give the child the benefit of the fact and not allow abortion save if the mothers life is in danger. Even if the child is from an act or incest or rape or likely going to have birth defects the childs right cannot be placed under the mothers.

I tend to support the view of the child having equal rights to the mother barring the mothers life being put at exceptional risk if the child was carried to a term when the child can be removed, and place into care giving the child a chance. Yes that means the child being premature even to a remote chance of survival.

My opinion is its a soul blessed by God and only He should choose to take this life but one must show respect to the life already here if that life is really in danger.

[Kate]

Ruby, I disagree with some of the takes you have - I would adore to argue some of the points your proposing.

You do seem to come over as one that is of a religious faith - this is good - it isnt bad it just simply is. What makes your opinion relevant from my perspective is not what god believes but what you beleive.

The two of us talking of what is "right", what "rights" an unborn has, right to life etc will likely address many of your core beliefs about life

I am a strong advocate of faith - and yes I do beleive that "faith" can work miracles and humanity has a lot to learn from historical documents deemed religious, I beleive attributed miracles however is due to mis-understood abilities of a person's mind tat are awakened by resolute "confidence/faith" in an outcome - not from any over-arching appeal to something "else". (Miracles have been attributed to several of different faiths, it makes me beleive any paranormal powers individuals have (which I do have "faith" in believing is true) is not proof of their belief systems, however I do beleive that they may be related - usually those that are "great healers" through "paranormal" methods do have a very strong belief in divinity of a sort.

Religion lets sidestep for the moment though (I saw how the "put faith in its place thread went .. lol) I really did mean this concerning the topic of abortian

... would you be interested in discussing your views with "heretics" like me in this forum ?

(I may (and others also ) in many instances dismiss what you deem as true and beleive another version of "truth" is more relevant, if I do I not intend it as directly insulting to you personally, more so towards reasoning of certain stances).

[Cythieus]

A man breaks into a house and strangles a pregnant woman to death. He's caught and later tried for double homicide. If the law is willing to recognize this as a second life and therefore second murder when it happens this why, why is it okay to elect to kill the child? Even things considered property for the sake of sale and transferal such as animals, are not to be killed or tortured needlessly.

I'd argue a Human life is a Human life, and the only time that life should be threatened with death is when it endangers another life. Even in cases of rape, you have to ask the question, is it the child's fault that it was conceived that way? If we kill it, we're treating the baby as a criminal. I'd rather say kill the rapist but for some reason that's not allowed either.

Also, in the case of rape, women's bodies have reactions to help fight off conception during high stress moments. Legislating an entire law on a small percentage of something that might happen is kind of bad idea. If your car goes out of control because of something such as say, a bee stinging you, you are still at fault. There's no law saying that "if a bee stings a person causing them to wreck..." because its not something that happens often.

I think the only case where unborn children should be killed is when the mother's life is in danger.

[Zakharra]

 So if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she should have to bear the child? To have a constant reminder of what happened to her growing inside of her womb?

[Cythieus]

So if a woman is raped and gets pregnant, she should have to bear the child? To have a constant reminder of what happened to her growing inside of her womb?

On the off chance, pretty much yeah. There are measures they take when you report a rape to make sure you don't actually get pregnant. The first thing that should happen when someone is raped is they should report it and get the rape kit stuff done. If you don't not only are you taking the chance of getting pregnant, you're taking the chance of letting the person who raped you walk away free.

[Oniya]

There are many cases where rapes go unreported.  Rapes committed while the woman is under the influence (and therefore doesn't realize it), rapes committed by family members (they happen, they're sick, and the perp is unlikely to help the victim report it), girls who are afraid of being blamed for what happened to them...

As much as I agree that someone who is raped should report it first thing, I'd consider it cruel to force someone to go through nine months of reliving it just because they didn't.

[Cythieus]

There are many cases where rapes go unreported.  Rapes committed while the woman is under the influence (and therefore doesn't realize it), rapes committed by family members (they happen, they're sick, and the perp is unlikely to help the victim report it), girls who are afraid of being blamed for what happened to them...

As much as I agree that someone who is raped should report it first thing, I'd consider it cruel to force someone to go through nine months of reliving it just because they didn't.

Let's be honest, rape isn't something your likely to forget in 9 months, its not something your likely to forget in 9 years. I know people who are 23 and were raped when they were five and they still have issues over it. But by accepting that rape makes abortion okay you're 1. Punishing an innocent child who had nothing to do with the action committed and 2. giving those who weren't raped and out to get abortions.

And if rape is so unreported, then wouldn't they be just as reluctant to tell the doctor it was rape to abort the baby?

[Oniya]

So you're saying that a woman would cry 'rape' if that was her only option, which is filing a false police report, as well as risk getting her actual sex partner arrested for a felony?  As for your second paragraph, they probably wouldn't tell the doctor it was rape.  They would want the option to get the dual trauma (being raped and having the abortion) over with as quickly and safely and quietly as possible.

[Trieste]

On the off chance, pretty much yeah. There are measures they take when you report a rape to make sure you don't actually get pregnant. The first thing that should happen when someone is raped is they should report it and get the rape kit stuff done. If you don't not only are you taking the chance of getting pregnant, you're taking the chance of letting the person who raped you walk away free.

Heh.

You watch too much SVU. The morning-after pill and a high dose of antibiotics doesn't magically make the little microorganisms in semen go away.

[Cythieus]

So you're saying that a woman would cry 'rape' if that was her only option, which is filing a false police report, as well as risk getting her actual sex partner arrested for a felony?  As for your second paragraph, they probably wouldn't tell the doctor it was rape.  They would want the option to get the dual trauma (being raped and having the abortion) over with as quickly and safely and quietly as possible.

Women cry rape when caught having sex, wasn't it not that long ago that some black kids were in trouble because a woman claimed they had raped her when they hadn't? A woman pulled the same thing on Kobe Bryant. And it happened to a Lacrosse Team. A girl at my high school claimed a student raped her when they were caught having sex...

Let's face it, there are those out there who are willing to not only cry rape for something like abortion, but for reasons of money or sympathy. It's not that rape victims are at fault, but if I was a rape victim, I would be extremely pissed about how some women and men in this country think rape is a joke or a way to escape trouble.

And if they didn't tell the doctor it was rape, then how would they get the abortion? If abortion has to be allowed for rape and the baby harming the mother or killing her, then one of those things would have to be present to preform the abortion. Two of them you can test for.

Heh.

You watch too much SVU. The morning-after pill and a high dose of antibiotics doesn't magically make the little microorganisms in semen go away.

Let's look at it this way, many rapists are unable to ejaculate, when a male ejaculates nervous or under stress, there are less sperm and the sperm are less healthy. When a female is ejaculated in under stress she has a lessened chance of conception. Many rapes don't even involve the male ejaculating. Then couple in the rape kit, couple in the normal chances of pregnancy failure. Your looking at maybe 10% chance. I seriously doubt, without even looking that more than 10% of rapes produce a pregnancy.

[Cecily]

I don't know why when the subject of rape is brought up it always comes back to blaming the victim.

[Cythieus]

I don't know why when the subject of rape is brought up it always comes back to blaming the victim.

No one is blaming the victim, read what I said and find where any real victims were blamed. I blamed people who report false rapes which does happen.

I am simply saying that the chance of getting pregnant through rape is pretty slim, and we shouldn't allow abortion across the board based on it.

[Zakharra]

 Not all women report a rape. It's incredibly degrading and humiliating. It does leave mental scars that can take years to heal, but not everyone knows that have been raped. There are many cases of women being too drunk or drugged to remember. They might not know until days, weeks or months later when they are told or enough clues  come to them.

To make them have to bear a child that they want nothing to do with, a constant remoinder of what happened to them, growing in their womb will keep that memory very fresh in their mond. It can be seen as the rapist is still raping them every moment because the evidence is something they cannot avoid for a single moment.

[Cythieus]

Not all women report a rape. It's incredibly degrading and humiliating. It does leave mental scars that can take years to heal, but not everyone knows that have been raped. There are many cases of women being too drunk or drugged to remember. They might not know until days, weeks or months later when they are told or enough clues  come to them.

Then how would we go about allowing abortion in the case of rape?

I ran the numbers, only 1 in 1000 rapes produces a pregnancy and only half of the assailants deposit semen in the body. Only about 1 % of abortions is attributed to rape.

To make them have to bear a child that they want nothing to do with, a constant remoinder of what happened to them, growing in their womb will keep that memory very fresh in their mond. It can be seen as the rapist is still raping them every moment because the evidence is something they cannot avoid for a single moment.

If we take the "she was passed out and didn't know she was raped" example, then she won't be reminded of anything. She will feel violated yes. But I can't condone killing another human who didn't commit the offense. There are children born of rape who go on to do great things, have mothers that love them or go on to be adopted.

No one is blaming the mother for it and the father deserves to go to jail or maybe even worse. But the child is a victim too. They're not conceived in love. But at the same time, they can find it somewhere someday. 

[Trieste]

Let's look at it this way, many rapists are unable to ejaculate, when a male ejaculates nervous or under stress, there are less sperm and the sperm are less healthy. When a female is ejaculated in under stress she has a lessened chance of conception. Many rapes don't even involve the male ejaculating. Then couple in the rape kit, couple in the normal chances of pregnancy failure. Your looking at maybe 10% chance. I seriously doubt, without even looking that more than 10% of rapes produce a pregnancy.

First: would love to see where those numbers are coming from, because I can't seem to find one single bit of evidence to support it.

Second: Let's take a reasonable population. A million people, right? NYC supposedly exceeds 8 million, so it seems like a million would be a good estimate for the young women of a reasonably populated area. Now, a study c. 1985 (I cannot recall the head researcher's name for the life of me) placed the statistic at 1 in 4 women between the ages of 18 and 25 as being victims of rape. Critics of that study have slammed it as being too generous in its definition of rape and placed that statistic as closer to (I think) 1 in every 20. Let's take the more conservative value: 1 in 20 women. 5% - okay, so let's take your 'less than 10%". I'm feeling magnanimous. Let's take 5% of that 5% - so we now have 0.25% of women between the ages of 18 and 25 who are raped and have the rape result in a pregnancy.

That's a population of 2,500 women. 2,500 unwanted children. It's a small percentage, but it's a lot of people. And considering that only a portion of rapes (I think I read 1 in 10 somewhere - which would mean 250 women in my hypothetical gaggle of rape victims) are reported, you're not exactly looking at an epidemic of abortions. Considering a good chunk of those women will hold the morals that make abortion inappropriate, I don't see where allowing those women to seek peace would start causing the downfall of society or whatever.

[Cythieus]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_pregnancies_are_due_to_rape

This site talks about Pregnancy being rare and 99% preventable:
http://www.merck.com/mmhe/sec22/ch253/ch253c.html

This site is a pro-life one, but its one of the few I could find even mentioned pregnancy, but it gives sources:
http://www.realweb.ifastnet.com/stats.html

This site was given to me by a friend, I am reluctant to trust it because some of the numbers (such as 1/4 of women being sterile) look flat out wrong, but it mentions how most men don't ejaculate inside:
http://www.christianliferesources.com/?library/view.php&articleid=461

The rape argument for abortion is basically a moot point, because it doesn't account for 95% of the the abortions out there, that's a generous number. This argument is used to usually make the other side back down and waver on their point, if they don't waver then they're cast as insensitive and hateful towards women. But on the contrary no one in their right mind likes rape or hates women. I just don't see it as a valid reason to kill babies by the thousands when its only even accountable for 1% of the babies in the first place.

[Zakharra]

Then how would we go about allowing abortion in the case of rape?

If we take the "she was passed out and didn't know she was raped" example, then she won't be reminded of anything. She will feel violated yes. But I can't condone killing another human who didn't commit the offense. There are children born of rape who go on to do great things, have mothers that love them or go on to be adopted.

No one is blaming the mother for it and the father deserves to go to jail or maybe even worse. But the child is a victim too. They're not conceived in love. But at the same time, they can find it somewhere someday.

Oh, she'll notice it when her stomach starts to swell with a child. She might not have realized she was raped before, but I'm talking about when they -do- find out about it. To be forced to carry a child concieved by rape is almost as bad as being raped again because ot will go on for months instead of one time. It's real hard to get over something when the result is growing in your womb.

[Cythieus]

Oh, she'll notice it when her stomach starts to swell with a child. She might not have realized she was raped before, but I'm talking about when they -do- find out about it. To be forced to carry a child concieved by rape is almost as bad as being raped again because ot will go on for months instead of one time. It's real hard to get over something when the result is growing in your womb.

If her stomach swells that much and that's her first sign, it would probably be past the point she could abort it. Of course she would have missed periods and other things to notice.

But let me ask you, which is the worse crime raping an innocent person or killing and innocent person?

[Oniya]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_people_are_willing_to_admit_that_rape_isn%27t_a_womans_fault_why_do_they_still_say_the_woman_should_have_to_keep_the_kid_like_the_kid_is_more_important_than_the_woman

[Cythieus]

[url=http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_people_are_willing_to_admit_that_rape_isn%27t_a_womans_fault_why_do_they_still_say_the_woman_should_have_to_keep_the_kid_like_the_kid_is_more_important_than_the_woman]http://wiki.answers.com/Q/If_people_are_willing_to_admit_that_rape_isn%27t_a_womans_fault_why_do_they_still_say_the_woman_should_have_to_keep_the_kid_like_the_kid_is_more_important_than_the_woman[/url]

That's the longest URL I've seen in a while...

I answered this earlier though, if we allowed women to abort babies for only rape and health purposes, plenty of women would lie and say they had been raped. Women lie and do this already all of the time and its been reflected time and time again in cases. That's not to say there aren't real rapes and real rape victims, but there are horrible people who would rather lie and sully everyone who has really been through that, than deal with a child that's actually partly their fault.

And again, the baby is Human, the babies not at fault nor is s/he the rapist. So how can you punish them?

[Vekseid]

Let's be honest, rape isn't something your likely to forget in 9 months, its not something your likely to forget in 9 years. I know people who are 23 and were raped when they were five and they still have issues over it.

"People". That's a rather specific pair of ages for 'people'.

I know a girl who was drugged and raped for four months, morning noon and night, when she was ten. She put up with it because her family needed his money.

I know a girl whose own father raped her when she was five. She still loves him.

I know a girl who was raped by the one man she thought she could trust. It broke her in many ways.

I know a girl who was raped by her drug dealer.

I know a girl who was raped by a house guest, where revealing the rape would have led to different legal problems.

I could go on. Elliquiy has a significantly higher proportion of women who have been through such trauma, and I've seen enough of it to be sick of dehumanizing and denigrating them as you do. Do you sense a common theme, at all?

But by accepting that rape makes abortion okay you're 1. Punishing an innocent child who had nothing to do with the action committed and 2. giving those who weren't raped and out to get abortions.

You claim to know rape victims. Honestly, if you do, it's pretty clear to me that you have not the remotest bit of comprehension regarding the trauma involved. "They should always report it" - ironically, people like you are a big part of the reason it goes so underreported.

No one is blaming the victim, read what I said and find where any real victims were blamed. ...

Here, I'll highlight:

On the off chance, pretty much yeah. There are measures they take when you report a rape to make sure you don't actually get pregnant. The first thing that should happen when someone is raped is they should report it and get the rape kit stuff done. If you don't not only are you taking the chance of getting pregnant, you're taking the chance of letting the person who raped you walk away free.

1) You have no comprehension of what pregnancy entails. You would gladly beat and torture a woman - physically and emotionally - for nine months, to get your so-called 'moral' rocks off.
2) More rapes end in pregnancy than consensual sex. "Off chance"? No.
3) As I mentioned above, you have not the remotest sense of comprehension about the trauma involved and why it might go unreported.
4) 70% of conceptions end in miscarriage. What are those losses, then?

You know nothing about pregnancy, nothing about rape, but are more than happy to judge people who have gone through each.

You might as well be a preschooler trying to convince us the Earth is flat. Except that would be a lot kinder to the women reading who have been through one, two, or all of the topics discussed in this thread.

[Cythieus]

"People". That's a rather specific pair of ages for 'people'.

I know a girl who was drugged and raped for four months, morning noon and night, when she was ten. She put up with it because her family needed his money.

I know a girl whose own father raped her when she was five. She still loves him.

I know a girl who was raped by the one man she thought she could trust. It broke her in many ways.

I know a girl who was raped by her drug dealer.

I know a girl who was raped by a house guest, where revealing the rape would have led to different legal problems.

I could go on. Elliquiy has a significantly higher proportion of women who have been through such trauma, and I've seen enough of it to be sick of dehumanizing and denigrating them as you do. Do you sense a common theme, at all?

You claim to know rape victims. Honestly, if you do, it's pretty clear to me that you have not the remotest bit of comprehension regarding the trauma involved. "They should always report it" - ironically, people like you are a big part of the reason it goes so underreported.

Here, I'll highlight:

1) You have no comprehension of what pregnancy entails. You would gladly beat and torture a woman - physically and emotionally - for nine months, to get your so-called 'moral' rocks off.
2) More rapes end in pregnancy than consensual sex. "Off chance"? No.
3) As I mentioned above, you have not the remotest sense of comprehension about the trauma involved and why it might go unreported.
4) 70% of conceptions end in miscarriage. What are those losses, then?

You know nothing about pregnancy, nothing about rape, but are more than happy to judge people who have gone through each.

You might as well be a preschooler trying to convince us the Earth is flat. Except that would be a lot kinder to the women reading who have been through one, two, or all of the topics discussed in this thread.

I would like to see where I am judging people who have gone through rape (not people who lied about it). I wouldn't ever say a bad thing about a rape victim and yes I know multiple people who have gone through rapes, but that one case was stated like that just because of how I typed it, there's a girl who's four days older than me who was raped by a family member and has issues with it to this day.

It makes me sad to see that the argument against abortion boils down to rape, which is not where the argument even belongs if someone can prove that the chances are slim to none. More over it the link you posted does more to give rape a purpose than vilify it. Now people can say "its just evolution."

You don't know me, nor do you know the people I know and I assure that I have nothing but sympathy for rape victims. But I can't think of how that should effect the life of an innocent person who had nothing to do with the incident. Your response was frankly more flame than it was factual. Your quote about miscarriages has no place here because those have nothing to do with rape or abortion.

And my knowledge of pregnancy is neither demonstrated nor seen by what I have posted in this thread. Your still working on a 1 and 1000 ratio of people who actually get pregnant from rape and your still working on abortion being right, which even if it were only allowed in the case of rape, it still wouldn't be right in any other cases.

[Zakharra]

If her stomach swells that much and that's her first sign, it would probably be past the point she could abort it. Of course she would have missed periods and other things to notice.

But let me ask you, which is the worse crime raping an innocent person or killing and innocent person?

No. She could still abort it You might not want her to, but to force her to bear a unwanted reminder of a rape is sheer torture to her mind and soul.  If it is over and done with, she can begin to heal, but  if she has to bear the child, she will be unable to start healing since the proof she was raped is inside of her every single day for months.

[Cythieus]

No. She could still abort it You might not want her to, but to force her to bear a unwanted reminder of a rape is sheer torture to her mind and soul.  If it is over and done with, she can begin to heal, but  if she has to bear the child, she will be unable to start healing since the proof she was raped is inside of her every single day for months.

No I meant that there's a law about how late in a pregnancy you can abort, I know that there are circumstances where the law is nullified. But I am not sure if that's one of them.

[Vekseid]

I would like to see where I am judging people who have gone through rape (not people who lied about it). I wouldn't ever say a bad thing about a rape victim and yes I know multiple people who have gone through rapes, but that one case was stated like that just because of how I typed it, there's a girl who's four days older than me who was raped by a family member and has issues with it to this day.

You demand that
1) Everyone who is raped report it and
2) Accept the full and complete consequences if a pregnancy has developed in the interim for whatever reason.

So long as you demand the second, the first will suffer, and you spread evil for it.

It makes me sad to see that the argument against abortion boils down to rape, which is not where the argument even belongs if someone can prove that the chances are slim to none. More over it the link you posted does more to give rape a purpose than vilify it. Now people can say "its just evolution."

...purpose? The purpose of civilization is that we take these uncomfortable facts of our existence, and deal with them. The same way we use gene therapy to deal with genetic problems, and agriculture to feed billions.

You don't know me, nor do you know the people I know and I assure that I have nothing but sympathy for rape victims. But I can't think of how that should effect the life of an innocent person who had nothing to do with the incident. Your response was frankly more flame than it was factual. Your quote about miscarriages has no place here because those have nothing to do with rape or abortion.

Watch them suffer for nine months with a constant reminder of a night of horror in their belly - and then, after the child is born, the likeness of their rapist on their face for years to come - is sympathy?

You call it good. I call it evil.

Nothing to do with rape or abortion? What do you think a miscarriage is? A magical sky pixie decides a fetus should be forcibly evacuated from its mother's womb?

Hell, even trying to draw the line between accidental miscarriage and abortion is an impossible one.

And my knowledge of pregnancy is neither demonstrated nor seen by what I have posted in this thread. Your still working on a 1 and 1000 ratio of people who actually get pregnant from rape and your still working on abortion being right, which even if it were only allowed in the case of rape, it still wouldn't be right in any other cases.

I believe abortion is the right of the mother in any and all cases. Rape doubles the issue because - more than any other right, she should also have the right to choose the father of her child.

[Zakharra]

No I meant that there's a law about how late in a pregnancy you can abort, I know that there are circumstances where the law is nullified. But I am not sure if that's one of them.

You notice a pregnancy at about 4-6 months. More than early enough for it to be aborted.


This is what got me to reply:

I'd argue a Human life is a Human life, and the only time that life should be threatened with death is when it endangers another life. Even in cases of rape, you have to ask the question, is it the child's fault that it was conceived that way? If we kill it, we're treating the baby as a criminal. I'd rather say kill the rapist but for some reason that's not allowed either.

Also, in the case of rape, women's bodies have reactions to help fight off conception during high stress moments. Legislating an entire law on a small percentage of something that might happen is kind of bad idea. If your car goes out of control because of something such as say, a bee stinging you, you are still at fault. There's no law saying that "if a bee stings a person causing them to wreck..." because its not something that happens often.

I think the only case where unborn children should be killed is when the mother's life is in danger.

  You made the case thaty even in the case of rape, that the child shouldn't be aborted, and the unwilling mother should be forced to bear it. In your case you are not willing to make an exception against abortion even in the cae of rape. You even said that if that was the only exception, that women would be claiming to being raped so they could get abortions. So it must not be included as an exception.

[Oniya]

With that, you are referring to 'late term' abortions, and the exact number of weeks varies from state to state.  It is also not a law in every state.  The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health. 

[Cythieus]

I had a bit long post typed out but deleted it to say this: The problem of rape hits too close to home for me. It's nothing to do with pregnancy or abortion that I am posting here. And it has nothing to do with my stance on abortion. If you've had an abortion here, I don't agree with it, I don't like it, but it doesn't mean I don't like you, or I blame you, or I think you're a bad person. I know no one is happy with having to get an abortion.

But I don't condone rape, I don't like it, and I don't think there's any excuse for it. I think that its something sub-human and that in many instances it should be punishable by death. If you were sexually assaulted and you thought I meant to offend you, then I'm deeply sorry. If you didn't report it or couldn't I'm also sorry. I know how society treats rape victims, in some places their killed and called the instigator, in other instances they're just ridiculed and called liars and put on trial themselves. Neither is the right way to do things.

Someone I love a lot was raped, and didn't report it, and didn't see a doctor and did all of the things I said not to do here. (she later did get tested and came up clean) She's very near and dear to me and I tried to convince her but she didn't do it. Then she tried to kill herself. I on the other hand felt like there was nothing I could do to help, and I still feel like that. So don't think I don't care if someone is raped, because its a terrible thing and I don't ever think it should be taken lightly, or lied about because its disrespectful to those who have gone through it. I can guess that some of you reading this have been through some kind of sexual assault, perhaps even some of the men. Its not okay and there's no excuse for it. Ever.

I'm deeply sorry that anyone would have to go through with that and I didn't mean to offend you.

[Trieste]

Odin, you're certainly not a bad person I'm sure, but until you learn to state and defend your position a little less evangelically, I'm going to ignore you. You're trying to drive a point home and hitting other issues with the friendly fire.

With that, you are referring to 'late term' abortions, and the exact number of weeks varies from state to state.  It is also not a law in every state.  The Supreme Court has held that bans must include exceptions for threats to the woman's life, physical health, and mental health. 

The myth that all pregnant women should be thrilled to be pregnant needs to be addressed as the next step to this. Biologically, a pregnancy is pretty much a war-of-the-hormones (see gestational diabetes for a really good example) and there's really no reason why someone should be mentally happy to have a little shrimpy fetus take up residence either. The Cult of Procreation gets a bit irksome, especially with population pressures.

[Cythieus]

Odin, you're certainly not a bad person I'm sure, but until you learn to state and defend your position a little less evangelically, I'm going to ignore you. You're trying to drive a point home and hitting other issues with the friendly fire.

I don't think my views were stated in regard with religion, nor would I think it was an appropriate jump off point for this debate. (because its a debate) But you don't have to ignore me, I'm not saying anything more on the subject.

[jouzinka]

I'm surprised. Really, I guess I'm even more naive than I thought...

Jude was here advocating the life of fetuses that might, but might not be born if nature (or God or whatever you call it) had its own go with them, yet a born baby left to die in a dumpster doesn't concern him.

You claim to be close to a rape victim, yet you are so ready to put that particular girl through pregnancy and then possibly raising the child. That sounds absurd to me.

If I may be equally absurd, I'd say why don't we address the abortion problem from an entirely different point of view. Let's perform a vasectomy on every newborn boy. It's a reversible procedure, it would arch over the rocky years of the youth without the fear of impregnating anyone and later, when the time comes and one is in a committed relationship/marriage and WANTS children, the ducts can be sewn back together. Of course it won't eliminate all unwanted pregnancies, but it certainly will lessen their number and the number of abortions as well.

[Kate]

Jouzinka I like where your coming from.

I beleive that the method of abortion should be humane if it is late in the pregnancy (Nothing that cause the unborn pain) ...

I'm going to through a really big spanner in the works here.

I beleive that a woman should have the "right" to have an abortion at ANY time during pregnancy, and rights of the child as protected as an individual only kick in literally when its outside her body, and this is why.

a) I beleive that the those believing the child has a right to be born which exceeds the mothers right for what she wishes of life is simply a CHOICE of an individual.  I the "mother" is a citizen with rights - the unborn is part of HER body - which like a  tattoo or piercing - she can do with as she wishes.

b) Even if we assume the unborn has a soul and also wants to LIVE - if this life was granted - what it would consume or need for a "acceptable quality of life" would entail massive consumption of other life (even if they were a vegetarian - simply by being high up on the food chain - this includes eating plant material).  Even with no population or environmental isssues - it being born isn't "adding to life" on this world,  (its changing a balance of life ... no more no less). Which balances are more "right" is subjective.

WITH current population and environmental issues a full life span would be more destructive than its own individual destruction, yes there are exceptions where it could if let live grow to become a great healer and heal the planet etc .. but in the same breath so could the MOM if she didn't have to take care of it.

c) Assuming the "soul" of the unborn wants to be born is a choice.

Souls may want to just perfect the formation of gene selection before being born in earnest (Because they are vain or because of whatever reason we don't understand) and choose to be incarnated in MANY situations where they know an abortion is fated for doing so - and when they do want to be born properly - they may choose situations where they will not be aborted.

Furthermore a soul may be wondering the earth and may have just found itself in an unborn accidentally or be "bullied" there or tricked into it in a spiral sense...

or ITSELF changes its mind - and does state this desire not to be born by influencing the emotions of the mother (many mothers state a connection to the unborn's mind/soul/whatever)

... perhaps their own desire to abort is an agreement made between the mother and the unborn, perhaps aborting its HER representing the unborn's wishes not her own).

None know. We all have different belief and value structures.

Believing the mothers impulses to abort is "against gods will" or "against good" or "against the will of the unborn" or "against life" or "against the living" is a choice of belief of a take on objectivity of the believer.

Insisting others should adopt this "take on objectivity" is the insister's will misplaced on another citizen.

If it was "life's will" to not have an abortion, there wouldn't BE a debate, the mother would WANT to have the child. The mothers will is the most relevant and dominate representative of "life's will" in this context.

[Jude]

Jude was here advocating the life of fetuses that might, but might not be born if nature (or God or whatever you call it) had its own go with them, yet a born baby left to die in a dumpster doesn't concern him.

Yes, uncommon events that are completely unpreventable don't worry me in a cosmic sense.  If I saw a child in a dumpster as I was walking by I'm not gonna whistle Yankee Doodle and walk on my merry way completely unphased.

I'd really like to see you try and keep posting on this subject without taking cheap, personal shots at people and/or trying to make them out to be bad human beings in the process of arguing your point.  If you really can't post here without being offensive to people on a personal level, you shouldn't post here.  Learn to separate the ideas from the person when you're arguing political issues.  And you knew what you were saying was offensive before you clicked the post button on many occasions (as you even prefaced one of your comments with a I probably shouldn't say this).

This is a discussion on a forum about a topic.  No one here is sitting outside an abortion clinic with a sign yelling at the women going in.  I even identified as a pro-choice person; what exactly are you hoping to gain?

Woo!  Maybe if you spew enough bile my way I'll change my mind out of disgust for being associated with such vitriolic extremism!

[jouzinka]

My main problem, Jude, is that we're all saying an A, that the number of abortions is too high and something should be done about it, but somehow this thread failed to address the B - how to bring the other half of the parenting couple to responsibility.

Both you and Odin are talking about sacrifices in one way or another, but truth be told the issue can hardly ever really touch you, because you are both men and in any case you can always turn on the heel and walk away, while pregnancy or abortion is an issue that (theoretically) touches every woman who can't run from the responsibility.

If we ban abortions and at the same time don't address the problem how bring the fathers to responsibility, it's like preaching water and drinking wine, moreover when we can't offer and infallible birth control - and excuse me, 2 per mille chance of getting pregnant for hormonal contraception is hardly an infallible birth control - we can't simply dump the problem on every single one of the women that in the case they become pregnant have hardly any helping hand!

I find that awfully unfair.

I'd really like to see you try and keep posting on this subject without taking cheap, personal shots at people and/or trying to make them out to be bad human beings in the process of arguing your point.  If you really can't post here without being offensive to people on a personal level, you shouldn't post here.  Learn to separate the ideas from the person when you're arguing political issues.  And you knew what you were saying was offensive before you clicked the post button on many occasions (as you even prefaced one of your comments with a I probably shouldn't say this).

Thank you. With your help I may even become a better person, but in the light of

Woo!  Maybe if you spew enough bile my way I'll change my mind out of disgust for being associated with such vitriolic extremism!

it sounds strange...

This is a discussion on a forum about a topic.  No one here is sitting outside an abortion clinic with a sign yelling at the women going in.  I even identified as a pro-choice person; what exactly are you hoping to gain?

Honestly? I'm just hoping to get a point across and see some empathy, but I see that it's harder than I thought.

[Jude]

My main problem, Jude, is that we're all saying an A, that the number of abortions is too high and something should be done about it, but somehow this thread failed to address the B - how to bring the other half of the parenting couple to responsibility.

Both you and Odin are talking about sacrifices in one way or another, but truth be told the issue can hardly ever really touch you, because you are both men and in any case you can always turn on the heel and walk away, while pregnancy or abortion is an issue that (theoretically) touches every woman who can't run from the responsibility.

If we ban abortions and at the same time don't address the problem how bring the fathers to responsibility, it's like preaching water and drinking wine, moreover when we can't offer and infallible birth control - and excuse me, 2 per mille chance of getting pregnant for hormonal contraception is hardly an infallible birth control - we can't simply dump the problem on every single one of the women that in the case they become pregnant have hardly any helping hand!

I find that awfully unfair.

So do I, and I fully support increasing the responsibility that males have towards the child by means of laws (even if nothing is done to refine the rest of the abortion laws).  To be truthful I don't know what the current responsibility is, but I always thought you were required to financially support the child as is; but I have no problem with them passing more laws to strengthen that into something more.

I've never bothered to look at the legal obligations of the father, but I know if I was ever in that position my personal obligations would be greater than what was required by law.

I don't recall ever saying anything contrary to that, and I do recall implying all of that.  So if that's the reason you've been so nasty, I haven't the slightest clue where you got that from.

[jouzinka]

I know I can get waspish, but I personally don't think I'd get particularly nasty. If you'd people care to point me out to places where you think I was nasty or passively aggressive or whatever, I can shed some light on the 'whys.'

[anastacia]

Against my better judgment I have decided to weigh in on this issue. I will attempt to refrain from personal attacks but since the subject of rape has come up as a common theme in this thread I feel I  must register my personal offense at the repeated reference to "those that lie about [being raped]" as if this was almost the norm, when in actuality that unconscionably callous attitude and is a major factor in why 58% of rapes [1] are estimated to go unreported each year.

I am not sure if you or someone you happen to believe has experienced being falsely accused of rape, but please do not try to weigh that against the 90,500 women in one year that were raped [2] and the estimated 52,500 women that were raped but were afraid to report the horror that was perpetrated against them fearing that she would be forced to defend herself to small minded and frighteningly insensitive people.   

As far as abortion, I believe it is completely separate issue. Until the fetus can survive outside of my body it is not a person or a child. It is 'me', and I alone will decide what happens to my body.

I am almost certain that I have more experience than many with women that have made a choice of this magnitude and whether they chose to go carry through to term or terminate, it was NEVER a choice made cavalierly or without great emotional sacrifice.

[Callie Del Noire]

So do I, and I fully support increasing the responsibility that males have towards the child by means of laws (even if nothing is done to refine the rest of the abortion laws).  To be truthful I don't know what the current responsibility is, but I always thought you were required to financially support the child as is; but I have no problem with them passing more laws to strengthen that into something more.

I've never bothered to look at the legal obligations of the father, but I know if I was ever in that position my personal obligations would be greater than what was required by law.

I don't recall ever saying anything contrary to that, and I do recall implying all of that.  So if that's the reason you've been so nasty, I haven't the slightest clue where you got that from.

Thing is the fraternal side of things are majorly screwed up in some states. I know of at least 3 guys in the navy who were literally screwed by the law by the fact that girl x named them as daddy and put them on the birth certificate and by the time they found out they couldn't do anything.

Some states (and nations) have some truly outdated laws dealing with fraternal responsiblity. IE.. you on the birth cert.. you're the father.. and financially responsible. (DNA testing hasn't been caught up in areas yet)

[Torch]

All fathers, biological or otherwise, can relinquish their parental rights. All it usually requires is an affidavit of waiver, which usually has to be brought before a judge who signs off on it, and there all responsibilities end, financial and otherwise.

However, in a few states, I know Illinois is one of them, a man can, under certain circumstances, be forced to continue to pay child support even after rights have been terminated. But those are handled on a case by case basis. For the most part, once parental rights have been extinguished, all responsibilities by the father are ended.

[Kotah]

In Illinois, you can be forced to pay unless you relinquish your parental rights. This can happen before birth. Unless you are married to the woman at any time during the child's conception or life. Men  can also refuse to have their names applied to birth certificates, again unless you are married.

It all comes down to if you are married or not in this my beloved state.

[Kate]

This does concern the father's rights if the mother wants to proceed with the birth but the farther is against it.

[MercyfulFate]

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

Abortion as birth control? I'd need to see real life examples, because it sounds like one of those things that barely ever happens and is blown into the end of the world. If it does, it's messed up, but it's not like most women would see it as contrite as ordering drive through.

The fetus isn't a living thing, so reconciling it with animals and how I fee about them doesn't really fit. It's not about it being non-human, it's about whether it's living at all.

Soul? Can't say

The woman is the one responsible for it, men don't really have the right to make the decision unless she chooses otherwise. That's like saying women should have as much say in a man's vasectomy.

Abortion is justified in cases of massive brain damage, retardation, etc. in my mind. Call it callous, but...

[Kenshin]

-People who use abortion as a type of birth control piss me off. However it should not be the government’s decision whether or not they should be able to have an abortion. There is a problem also with having many abortions as it cause issues with the body that can be fatal, such as cervical cancer.
-I am not an animal rights activist in any way; I enjoy meat and don’t see why people who don’t eat it don’t. However I suppose I do understand, killing an animal is killing what is known as a persons in philosophy, which means they feel pain and pleasure, respond to pain and pleasure and more complicated stuff that I don’t know. A fetus is a non person, doesn’t feel pain or pleasure, doesn’t react to them etc. It is an embryo, not a living breathing being yet.
-I don’t know what to believe about souls, if they exist or not. What I do believe is if we have a soul, it goes back into the world. Atomism I think it’s called.
-I don’t know how to answer that because it doesn’t seem right. I think you mean why should the women only have the right to abort the fetus and not the man? Even so, I don’t know how to answer that.
-I do not believe that abortion is right nor wrong, nor is it good or bad..at least not set as one or the other. It depends, and with that I will say that it is justified on several things, like the fetus not being a “persons” yet and the circumstances of the reason. I also support Euthanasia, although I do not know how it would be acceptable. Maybe if there was an extreme case of something horrible. If life is more painful to live than to rest perhaps dying would be better if not being about to be treated?

[SleepyWei]

-People who use abortion as a type of birth control piss me off. However it should not be the government’s decision whether or not they should be able to have an abortion. There is a problem also with having many abortions as it cause issues with the body that can be fatal, such as cervical cancer.

When was there even a mention that it was the government's decision?

-I don’t know how to answer that because it doesn’t seem right. I think you mean why should the women only have the right to abort the fetus and not the man? Even so, I don’t know how to answer that.

He meant shouldn't the man get a equal say in aborting the child if he gets the woman pregnant.

[Trieste]

I really think the 'woman who uses abortions wantonly as birth control' is about as much of a myth as the so-called Welfare Queen who serves as the spectre of welfare reform (and those opposed to over-reform). I would need to see hard stats from a reputable source to believe she exists.

[Serephino]

I do know someone who, though she didn't go to a clinic for an abortion, she'd do it herself.  How do I explain this....  Basicly, if she had any kind of inkling she was pregnant she'd go on a drinking binge to get rid of it.  Now this girl has been a heavy drinker since she graduated high school and has a high tolerance.  She'd drink until she made herself sick.  That pisses me off. 

I also know someone who was raped at 11 and got pregnant.  Her father, a hardcore Mormon, made her carry it to term.  He also wanted the baby to go to the father, who was a friend of his.  I guess every individual is different, but she had no ill feelings toward the baby.  In fact, she somehow made sure the baby went up for adoption to save him from the hardcore Mormon lifestyle.  The rape itself affected her, but carrying the baby didn't.  She even said something to me about trying to find him to meet him when he turns 18.  She can't before that because she's worried of what her father might do if he finds out where the kid is.

I've been raped myself.  I'm not really sure how I feel about it though.  It happened while I was drunk and passed out.  The only reason I know it happened is because one of the guy's friends who walked in on it had a guilty conscience and told me months later.  So I can say that if you have no memory of the event it's just confusing.  I do feel violated, but not much other than that.  Maybe I'm strange...  I just can't get all that upset over something I can't remember.  Obviously I didn't get pregnant.  I'm not sure how I would feel if I did though.  I've been thinking about it all day and I honestly can't answer that.   

[Kate]

"A fetus is a non person, doesn’t feel pain or pleasure, doesn’t react to them etc. It is an embryo, not a living breathing being yet." - Arcaina

A - like I i do beleive that abortion is ok. Don't be quick to justify it in terms that are not mandatory for your reasons though, as a view like this may cause those to choose to go full term if it does experience pain during a procedure.

I think that late in the pregnancy it would be able to experience pain, for example if a new born is sleeping and i go up to it and crush its foot and walk away chances are its crying, if i did so hours before hand in the womb chances are it would feel something very similar, birthing doesn't suddenly flush it with a new-wiring in the brain for that matter.

Late term abortions I do beleive should assume it can feel pain and procedures should be adopted that are painless (ie lethal injection with something pleasant .. then do whatever you want etc)

Is abortion a form of birth control ?

In short ... yes, by definition as it can control what one births.

Is it one that woman use as a STANDARD form of birth control ?

No.

Why ?

Even if they cared nothing for the child, its an unpleasant experience psychologically, expensive and dangerous, for these reasons it is used as a last resort

[MercyfulFate]

I really think the 'woman who uses abortions wantonly as birth control' is about as much of a myth as the so-called Welfare Queen who serves as the spectre of welfare reform (and those opposed to over-reform). I would need to see hard stats from a reputable source to believe she exists.

Exactly, the welfare thing almost never exists yet people act like it's a rampant problem. Same with the abortion stuff.

Although there are women that give birth, dump the baby in a trash can and go back to the prom and dance.

[Trieste]

Yes, but ... the reason it gets on the news when it happens is because it's unusual. You don't see births on the news every day - a new baby isn't shocking, isn't news. Unusual things are. Most people would never conceive of doing that. I don't understand why 'most people' (if you want, you can try to throw 'reasonable' in there, but most people aren't 100% reasonable) can't be factored into the equation instead of the wackos. You don't regulate documentaries based on Michael Moore, and you don't regulate abortion based on That Woman.

[MercyfulFate]

Yes, but ... the reason it gets on the news when it happens is because it's unusual. You don't see births on the news every day - a new baby isn't shocking, isn't news. Unusual things are. Most people would never conceive of doing that. I don't understand why 'most people' (if you want, you can try to throw 'reasonable' in there, but most people aren't 100% reasonable) can't be factored into the equation instead of the wackos. You don't regulate documentaries based on Michael Moore, and you don't regulate abortion based on That Woman.

Well said.

[Salomé]

Jouzinka, I'm going to use what you posted as a launching pad for what I have to say. :-)
"Both you and Odin are talking about sacrifices in one way or another, but truth be told the issue can hardly ever really touch you, because you are both men and in any case you can always turn on the heel and walk away, while pregnancy or abortion is an issue that (theoretically) touches every woman who can't run from the responsibility."

The whole "abortion doesn't concern men" argument only works in a limited way because you're already arguing from the implicit assumption that abortion is not infanticide. If abortion were morally equivalent to infanticide--and many of those opposed to abortion argue from this point--then the issue would be less about pregnancy and unfairness than about the preservation of human life.(Yes, it's unfair that the preservation of human life must involve inconveniencing a woman for 9 months, probably more--but it's not enough justification for abortion, IF abortion = murder).
Infanticide is an issue that touches everyone, regardless of whether they can or cannot have babies.

Of course, I'm not necessarily arguing that abortion = infanticide.

But I do think that many of the disagreements stem from the fact that people argue with fundamentally different assumptions about what abortion is. Sorry to state the obvious, but many people who are arguing "pro-choice" seem to take it for granted that aborting a fetus is completely different and separate from murder. There are many people still believe that abortion is essentially infanticide.

If you consider this fundamental difference in approach, then you can knock out all the "superficial" arguments concerning women's rights and rape. As callous as it sounds, if abortion, measured on some imaginary scale of morality, were equal to murder, then even if the fetus were a product of a rape, the "right" thing would be to allow it to live. Even if the mother's life was at stake, if the fetus' life were deemed to be equal to the life of a mother, it would be one life against another--not a simple one way choice. And of course, aborting a fetus simply because it might be inconvenient would be out of the question. Even social issues, like poverty or overpopulation, would not be a consideration. (Killing people is the most straightfoward, obvious solution to overpopulation, but what government would ever seriously consider that as an actual solution? None, because it's firmly fixed in our minds that killing people is wrong.)

Before you protest this, and argue that abortion is not infanticide because a fetus is not a baby...
Then what  differentiates a fetus in a significantly moral way from a baby? What difference makes it so that it's justifiable to kill a fetus but not a baby? Physically a fetus is less developed, but a baby is physically less developed than an adult human being. Does that make infanticide less morally repugnant than say, parricide?

I'm throwing this question out there for everyone--can anyone mark a specific moment in the life of a fetus (from its conception to its birth), and throughout its development within the womb, when it ceases to become merely a bundle of cells, and becomes a sentinent human being? This is not a rhetorical question, by the way.
If one is going to argue for abortion, then one must draw the line somewhere. Not many, I'm sure, would simply draw the line at birth, and claim that it would be acceptable to abort a fetus a day before birth while simultaneously speaking out against infanticide.

Jude, you bring up a lot of practical considerations in your original post. But I think moral considerations come first. What I mean by that is--you can throw all these horrible case scenarios at me, illustrating the impracticality of banning abortion--the social problems, the potential wars. But unless you can first persuade me that abortion is not murder, the purely practical arguments in support of it are useless. In the context of general uncertainty today (that is, lack of consensus) over whether abortion can or cannot be classified as murder, the idea of say, waging war on Cuba for legalizing abortion seems ridiculous. But imagine if Cubans were legalizing the murder of all senior citizens over a certain age(or any other example you can think of, where there is absolutely no vagueness)--that's ageism.

The pragmatic considerations are important, but you can't exactly use them in arguments--it might be more practical to NOT wage war on the countries that legalize abortion, but to justify doing so you would first have to prove that legalization of abortion = NOT mass infanticide. So many of your more pragmatic points, while intriguing, would not really deter a "pro-life" argument that equated abortion with murder; they're similar to the argument that "a woman has the right to her own body" because they ignore(whether explicitly or implicitly) the perspective which argues that abortion might be as wrong as killing a baby.

[Trieste]

We do not have the right to police other nations in their laws, no matter what Dubya tried to say.

Similarly, I do not believe that I have the right to police what other women do with their bodies. It is not advocating murder - it is called 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'. I am also not trying to jump on you, Salomé, but I do not have to justify my stances by your morality. While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.

[Salomé]

We do not have the right to police other nations in their laws, no matter what Dubya tried to say.

What about humanitarian intervention? It's true that the Bush Administration pursued an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. But I don't think the mention of Dubya was appropriate here; it just makes it seem like you're trying to simplify the debate and lump "pro-life" with Dubya. When I think intervention in a more positive sense I think along the lines of UN Peacekeeping & the ICJ. I'm not against the principle of UN intervention in genocides. I believe it's more important to stop genocides then it is to protect state sovereignty. The idea of state sovereignty, and even the concept of a state itself, are relatively recent, and I believe them only in the utilitarian sense--respect each state's sovereignty so that they're all happy. :-) There's no inherent moral value in respecting state sovereignty except because of the practical benefits (no war, etc)--a state is not a human being.

But I don't think the issue is even whether you or I believe or do not believe in intervention--particularly not the Dubya brand of it. My point is that if abortion is positively, undoubtedly not murder, then certainly intervening in another country's abortion laws would be unjustified. But if abortion = infanticide = genocide--then would you still be averse to intervention?

Similarly, I do not believe that I have the right to police what other women do with their bodies.

Neither do I, to a point. I believe no one has the right to police what people do to their own bodies, if their own bodies are the only bodies involved.
But my point was that some people believe that abortion is not just an issue concerning women and their bodies, but that they believe the issue involves another body--the body and life of a fetus. I'm sure many of these people also believe in the right of people to do what they  want with their bodies--except when their actions harm another (i.e. the fetus). In your above claim, there's already an implicit simplification of abortion to merely an issue of women and the right they have over their bodies. You avoid entirely the possibility that the fetus might be considered a third party--a body separate from the body of the woman, and posessing its own right to live. You argue from the assumption that abortion is not murder without addressing the assumption directly at all--and once again, I repeat, I don't claim that it is, or isn't.

I'm only saying that such assumptions are problematic, because much of the debate revolves around the disagreement over whether abortion is or is not murder.

Since you, as someone who believes in pro-choice, think abortion is most emphatically not murder, could you explain why? And where would you draw the line? At what point in the fetus' development would it be acceptable to abort it, and at what point would it be unacceptable? And why?

That's really what I was trying to ask, above.

Also, I don't mind that you used my name, or "you" --it makes it easier to argue--but for the record, I haven't specified my personal stance on the issue. I don't necessarily think that "pro-choice" = baby killing.  I was following a certain line of logic and questioning assumptions that I found problematic, but really, I'm more curious than anything.  "Pro-life" argues that because a fetus is an innocent human life, it should be protected--just like the life of a baby, a child, a teenager, an adult...etc. How would you respond to this?

I do not have to justify my stances by your morality. While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.

Sounds like moral relativism. But what if I decided that I had the right to kill anyone that called me "dear?" What if my personal moral code said murder was acceptable as long as I didn't murder brunettes? It sounds completely arbitrary, but must I justify my stances on murder by your stances on morality? Sorry if that came across as flippant--the example was silly, but I hope you get my point.

In any case, this is irrelevant. I generally don't expect others to justify their stances against my measuring stick, but at the same time, whether we like it or not, there are certain universally accepted moral precepts in today's world that you cannot ignore when debating things like abortion. One of them is the idea that human life is precious and should not be harmed.

To reiterate with a point I made several times already: I don't think either "pro-choice" or "pro-life" support murder; both sides agree that murder is bad. The issue is in their disagreement over what "murder" is. So perhaps it doesn't have to do with morality at all. It's a technical issue, perhaps a scientific one. So I'll ask again. If abortion is not murder(and therefore acceptable, and not a contradiction of the belief that human life is precious), why? What makes killing a fetus acceptable, but killing a baby, or an adult, unacceptable?

It is not advocating murder - it is called 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'.

I used the term "pro-abortion" because I think "pro-choice" (the term) ignores the crux of the point of debate. And it implies that those who are "pro-life" are against CHOICE, while "pro-life" implies that those who are "pro-choice" are against LIFE--which is not true at all. Both sides simply have different ideas of what constitutes "choice" and "life."
You could argue that pro-abortion implies that the woman will necessarily abort her baby, but the term could also simply refer to support of abortion, although not necessarily choosing it.

I didn't want to be repetitive, believe me. But hopefully I did make myself clear.

[Lilias]

What about humanitarian intervention? It's true that the Bush Administration pursued an aggressive, interventionist foreign policy. But I don't think the mention of Dubya was appropriate here; it just makes it seem like you're trying to simplify the debate and lump "pro-life" with Dubya. When I think intervention in a more positive sense I think along the lines of UN Peacekeeping & the ICJ. I'm not against the principle of UN intervention in genocides. I believe it's more important to stop genocides then it is to protect state sovereignty. The idea of state sovereignty, and even the concept of a state itself, are relatively recent, and I believe them only in the utilitarian sense--respect each state's sovereignty so that they're all happy. :-) There's no inherent moral value in respecting state sovereignty except because of the practical benefits (no war, etc)--a state is not a human being.

I haven't seen any such humanitarian intervention in the cases of systematic late-term abortions in case the fetus is female, a common practice in India and China for decades. India was left to finally outlaw the practice by itself, and is now struggling to enforce the law, while China remains an untouchable holy cow.

Before intervening to stop genocide, one needs to define it first.

[Kate]

Genocide is the deliberate attempt to destroy a particular race or sub-race of humanity.

Although attempted by Nazi's and elsewhere since (Africa), and beforehand
(btw in South America the conquistadors DID have armour the bronse tipped arrows and spears and sword could puncture but that wasn't why they conquered ... they sort of did it
by disease alone .. something like 90 percent of the astec's I think died from smallpox and something else hitting them at the same time they had no tolerance for.

Btw although they practiced sacrifice ...  when the spanish they saw the capital they literally thought they were in paradise it as so beautiful - the emperor had his best men without weapons to meet them - as a sign of strength - which the spanish saw as an opportunity - and massacred them then took the emperor hostage ... burned the wooden bridges etc .. raised the city (i think they burned it ...) and the rest is history

but  only one time was an attempt at genocide "successful" (Shudder) - that is by the English.

(In tasmania (part of australia) all those living there had blonde hair and were literally killed off ... every single one - as such native title claims in that area don't really exist.

beforehand in history though ... it was attempted a lot !

(Romans realised it wasnt a hot idea ... and that just taking power by marring into the existing nobility and accepting whatever culture was already there PLUS adding roman gods and goddesses worked pretty damn well (... as long as roman citizens were held in high regard and taxes went to rome ... rome = happy )... much easier way to get others under your yoke and shackle.

One thing done in the last 3 generations though is the institutionalized cultural use of slavery of another race ... slavery it still happens (child labor etc) but it is not culturally organized en-mass top down like it used to be.

MASSIVE step forward.... long way to go ...

[Salomé]

Lilias,

From the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide:

The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.

Genocide is pretty clearly defined, compared to abortion, so I'm not quite sure about what you  mean by "one needs to define [genocide] first."
If you mean that the UN can seem hypocritical and selective in its intervention of genocide, then I agree, but the UN is inevitably limited in what it can do;  China is on the Security Council & there's an obvious conflict of interest.

I'm also not sure about how the examples you bring up concerning China and India are relevant to the argument on abortion I discussed at length above, because China and India were heavily criticized for their laws regarding systematic, sex-selective late-term abortions. It is possible to be "pro-choice" without supporting late-term abortions, and many people are.

But then again, rethinking it, I suppose it's adds another intruiging dimension to the argument. Obviously, "pro-life" would be unconditionally opposed to the sort of abortion rampant in China & India; "pro-choice" would most likely be divided. But why? It once again leads back to the original question I asked about that elusive LINE that must be drawn, dividing the fetus from the baby, dividing life that is (relatively) acceptable to extinguish and life that is not.
So I think the question still has more to do with defining (acceptable) abortion.

[Lilias]

Genocide is pretty clearly defined, compared to abortion, so I'm not quite sure about what you  mean by "one needs to define [genocide] first."
If you mean that the UN can seem hypocritical and selective in its intervention of genocide, then I agree, but the UN is inevitably limited in what it can do;  China is on the Security Council & there's an obvious conflict of interest.

I'm also not sure about how the examples you bring up concerning China and India are relevant to the argument on abortion I discussed at length above, because China and India were heavily criticized for their laws regarding systematic, sex-selective late-term abortions. It is possible to be "pro-choice" without supporting late-term abortions, and many people are.

'Heavily criticised' is nowhere near 'humanitarian intervention', and if the cases of India and China don't qualify as genocide, then nothing that's happening in the first world does.

I'm just reminding everyone participating that a) abortion happens everywhere, not just where people have the leisure to debate on it, b) morals are absolute, so incompatible with any 'conflicts of interest', and c) no international organisation is qualified to act as a moral authority.

[Oniya]

I used the term "pro-abortion" because I think "pro-choice" (the term) ignores the crux of the point of debate. And it implies that those who are "pro-life" are against CHOICE, while "pro-life" implies that those who are "pro-choice" are against LIFE--which is not true at all. Both sides simply have different ideas of what constitutes "choice" and "life."
You could argue that pro-abortion implies that the woman will necessarily abort her baby, but the term could also simply refer to support of abortion, although not necessarily choosing it.

I didn't want to be repetitive, believe me. But hopefully I did make myself clear.

The problem is that the very structure of the term 'pro-abortion' implies that interpretation.  It is very difficult to find a short, pithy term involving the prefix 'pro' that doesn't imply an 'anti' and vice-versa.  Pro-life implies that its counterpart is anti-life.  Pro-choice implies that its counterpart is anti-choice.  Anti-abortion implies that its counterpart is pro-abortion. 

Use of 'pro-' and 'anti-' attempts to compress an incredibly complex decision and range of views into black and white, and that just isn't going to be accurate, any more than an arrangement of the 1812 Overture for recorder and xylophone.

[Valerian]

Use of 'pro-' and 'anti-' attempts to compress an incredibly complex decision and range of views into black and white, and that just isn't going to be accurate, any more than an arrangement of the 1812 Overture for recorder and xylophone.

*cringes at the very idea of such music*  But I agree wholeheartedly otherwise.

Salomé, If you're going to continue to use this math:

But if abortion = infanticide = genocide--then would you still be averse to intervention?

no one is ever going to take up that side of the argument.  By the definition you quoted, abortion is most emphatically NOT genocide.  As a categorization, neither infants nor fetuses represent any sort of "national, ethnic, racial or religious group".

You seem to be stating that somewhere, right now, Group A is forcing abortions on all pregnant women from group B in an attempt to wipe out group B, and I don't think that's what you mean to say.

[All Powerful Nateboi]

To Those in Favor of Allowing Abortion:
- What about people who use abortion as birth control?

I'd have to start seeing some reliable proof of this happening. I'm sure there are some people who do, but I'm sure there are some people who purposely get sick to get off of work. "Some people might do X" is never a good reason to make a law.

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)

Those aren't actually my reasons for being alright with abortion, so it works out for me.

- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?

Actually, I rather presume an unborn child *does* have a soul. That's why I Have to be alright with abortion. See, it's like this. I've been homeless. I've seen the unfiltered *shit* some children have to go through. I have, personally, seen newborns left to die and babies traded for baggies of crack. Until this country has an infrastructure in place so that this kind of thing doesn't have to happen, then I have to accept that sometimes, letting an unborn child go back to be with the divine is a more merciful and loving choice than making them live the horrible, abuse and shit filled life that they'd be living otherwise.

- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?

Because the other option is that a man can make a woman get an abortion.  Plus, many states do have the option of a man waiving all paternal rights.

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?

Well, as I implied earlier, yes. I do think that that's part of the justification. When a child is a newborn, we leave everything up to their parents. THat's because we feel that the parents are in the best place to be able to judge what is and is not best for that child. And since death is more merciful than continued life in some cases...well, there it is.

I'm honestly not sure if it's possible to support abortion and not euthanasia. I do support it (as you might have guessed), so that's not really a question that's come up for me.

[Trieste]

Since you, as someone who believes in pro-choice, think abortion is most emphatically not murder, could you explain why? And where would you draw the line? At what point in the fetus' development would it be acceptable to abort it, and at what point would it be unacceptable? And why?

That's really what I was trying to ask, above.

It boils down to when it becomes feasible for this thing, this collection of protein and enzymes and cells, to live outside the womb of another. I suppose you could call it murder, if you want, but you murder ticks when you remove them from your body and flush them down the toilet. You murder viruses when you take antibiotics (and it's closer to the genocide to which you've been referring, too). 'Murder', if you define it as 'to intentionally kill' is something we do all day. I resent its use because it is an attempt to bring loaded language into a debate. 'Murder' is a dirty word.

Removing unwanted matter from the body should be the decision of the host, not random people who live six states away.

Sounds like moral relativism. But what if I decided that I had the right to kill anyone that called me "dear?" What if my personal moral code said murder was acceptable as long as I didn't murder brunettes? It sounds completely arbitrary, but must I justify my stances on murder by your stances on morality? Sorry if that came across as flippant--the example was silly, but I hope you get my point.

Many, many theses have been written arguing that moral relativism is a) evil or b) wonderful. It's something debated up until this very day in academia, and so dismissing something as 'moral relativism' is essentially an unfair dismissal of what was said.

Also, if you decided that you want to kill all blondes and spare brunettes, you would be arrested, because enough people believe that you would be in the wrong to have made it against the law. Law follows majority belief, and that is the only reason this is even an issue- because enough people have morals that differ enough that they cannot agree on a law. Unfortunately, there isn't much room for moral relativism where the law is concerned, so something that is not black and white is forced into the black and white rigidity of illegal versus legal.

And for me, legality is about the only reason to debate widespread reasons for allowing abortions.

[Salomé]

'Heavily criticised' is nowhere near 'humanitarian intervention', and if the cases of India and China don't qualify as genocide, then nothing that's happening in the first world does.
I'm just reminding everyone participating that a) abortion happens everywhere, not just where people have the leisure to debate on it, b) morals are absolute, so incompatible with any 'conflicts of interest', and c) no international organisation is qualified to act as a moral authority.

I'm not excusing lack of humanitarian intervention with the fact that there was heavy criticism; I'm not sure why you juxtaposed the two. The lack of humanitarian intervention in the cases of China and India I chalked up to the inevitable limitations of the UN. And I don't mean to demean the points that you are making, but I don't realize what their significance is--or at least, why you wrote them in response to my post--unless by "everyone participating" you mean that your points were intended to be completely unrelated to what
I wrote.
In any case--
Concerning "a) abortion happens everywhere, not just where people have the leisure to debate on it"... yes, this is true, but what is meant by that? The statement seems to insinuate that debating the right or wrong of such a commonplace happening is the only possible because of the leisure that wealth/economic stability brings... in other words, it seems to undermine the existence of such a debate itself(because regardless of the debate, abortion happens, period), but even if discussing the morality of abortion is a privilege of the leisurely, if it's truly a moral issue--which is what some people believe--it's a matter that should be discussed. That was a bit speculative, yes, but it was my attempt to understand where the statement was coming from.
For b)-- If you believe that morals are absolute, that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong, then many people (including Trieste, I think) might disagree with you. ("While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.") In any case the pertinent point is that in politics & policies, morals are not regarded as absolute; many states and state-like entities manipulate 'morals' to act in ways that might have been considered immoral before. China uses cultural relativism to excuse its actions, actions that much of the world views as humanitarian crimes. Laws are often said to be the bare minimum of morality, but quite often laws are not written in accordance with what many people perceive as (im)morality--for example, the death penalty.
c) No international organization is qualified to act as a moral authority? It depends on what you mean by 'moral authority.' But the UN is technically qualified, in the sense that many of its conventions are considered to be the standard for international codes of 'moral' conduct. Sure, the UN can't arbitrary say, "purple is the color of evil"--moral authority does not stem from the UN. But it was grated to the UN by an agreement by its member states, who agreed to its conventions. E.g. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The problem is that the very structure of the term 'pro-abortion' implies that interpretation.  It is very difficult to find a short, pithy term involving the prefix 'pro' that doesn't imply an 'anti' and vice-versa.  Pro-life implies that its counterpart is anti-life.  Pro-choice implies that its counterpart is anti-choice.  Anti-abortion implies that its counterpart is pro-abortion. 

Use of 'pro-' and 'anti-' attempts to compress an incredibly complex decision and range of views into black and white, and that just isn't going to be accurate, any more than an arrangement of the 1812 Overture for recorder and xylophone.

Yes, you essentially summed up my more specific criticisms of the terms "pro-choice" and "pro-life" with more general statements about why the very use of the prefixes "pro" and "anti" can be problematic. While to a certain extent I agree with your general statements about "pro" and "anti," we cannot simply end with criticism; for practical purposes we need a handle for "pro-choice" and "pro-life." I was attempting to use a term that I thought was more accurate (even if only more slightly so). "Anti-abortion" and "pro-abortion" might not fit the bill perfectly, but I thought they were relatively better;  I was not attempting to compartmentalize the spectrum of opinions into "black" and "white." One can argue that "pro-choice" does not necessarily support abortion; it only believes that people should be free to make the choice concerning abortion--but in this very consent to a choice there is an implicit acknowledgement that the act of abortion is not an act that harms others. Anyway, from a practical standpoint I guess I was wrong; my using the term only sparked tangential debates... but if you've noticed, I switched back to the more widely used "pro-choice" and "pro-life" if only to avoid confusion.

Salomé, If you're going to continue to use this math: no one is ever going to take up that side of the argument.  By the definition you quoted, abortion is most emphatically NOT genocide.  As a categorization, neither infants nor fetuses represent any sort of "national, ethnic, racial or religious group".
You seem to be stating that somewhere, right now, Group A is forcing abortions on all pregnant women from group B in an attempt to wipe out group B, and I don't think that's what you mean to say.

I should not have used the equal sign, which, after all, is a mathematical symbol, but I was hoping that you'd infer from context that by "abortion = x" I merely meant "abortion is the moral equivalent of x." If you take the equal sign literally, certainly infanticide =/= genocide, but neither does abortion =/= infanticide. I can imagine people using it as a slogan, no one would argue that abortion WAS infanticide, because by definition one refers to the killing of fetuses and the other, to the killing of infants.
But there are people who DO argue that killing fetuses is just as morally reprehensive and wrong as killing infants--a point that no one seems to be addressing directly. And if it were established that mass abortion were morally equivalent to mass murder, then comparisons to genocide would not be out of the question. Perhaps infants don't belong to a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group--but they belong to an age group, and ageism is a form of discrimination too, just like racism. 

[Jude]

I have a hard time delineating what makes Abortion OK even though I'm not in favor of its outright banning.

I'd like to say it's a matter of sentience, but there's compelling evidence to show children are not sentient until sometime after birth.

Then there's the social contract argument, claiming that only those who agree to it are offered the rights therein, and fetuses cannot agree to a social contract.  Again, nor can infants, so it's difficult to use that as a justification.

Then there's the point of view that "the fetus cannot survive without the mother's support" and this gives terminating its existence validity.  If you take this moral statement to be this specific, then yes, a fetus is the only "human-like" organism that cannot survive without the specific biological mother's support (as infants can be raised by other people).

But if we make this moral argument a bit more general instead of having it be an incredibly specific notion, the principle becomes, "It is okay to terminate human life if it is dependent on others for survival."  This is where euthanasia and outright infanticide come into play.  You can disagree with the widening of the moral criteria, but it does make you wonder why such a narrow action is okay, but if you try and broaden it at all, it isn't.

I honestly can't think of a single logical contradiction to draw out or even identify the morals that are at play here.

[Salomé]

I resent its use because it is an attempt to bring loaded language into a debate. 'Murder' is a dirty word.

Removing unwanted matter from the body should be the decision of the host, not random people who live six states away.

In the same way that you resent the use of the word 'murder' to describe abortion, those who view abortion as no better than murder might justifiably be offended by your use of the term "unwanted matter" to describe a human life.

And sorry, I should have clarified: by murder, I meant the legal definition of murder, which means the premeditated killing of a human being.

It boils down to when it becomes feasible for this thing, this collection of protein and enzymes and cells, to live outside the womb of another.

Can you please explain this? So are you saying you draw the line at birth? If abortion happens anytime before birth, it's acceptable?
I would still need an explanation/justification, however.

What it really boils down to is that this "unwanted matter" is viewed by some as of EQUAL moral worth as any baby you might see in the hospital, and that it deserves the same right to live. That is why these people, who argue from this perspective, view abortion as murder. Their justification for putting fetuses in the same category as babies might be that "birth" is not enough of a difference between fetuses and babies... essentially, all the things I listed in my original post. What I would like is your take on this: why it is acceptable to "remove" fetuses, but not babies? You cannot simply argue that because the fetus is attached to the mother, the mother should have full control. You must first prove that there is some quality of the fetus that sets it apart from (I suppose, makes them inferior, somehow, to) babies, and makes it okay to kill them.

I think the debate is more about whether moral relativism is "true" or not (whether morals are relative or not) rather than whether it's evil or wonderful. In any case, although the value of moral relativism as a philosophy of ethics might be debated still (and I offer NO opinion on whether it's good or bad or true or false) WHAT moral relativism is, is not debated, it's pretty clearly defined here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
. What you said sounded like moral relativism.

While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.

For my murderous rampage against all those not smart enough to dye their hair brown, yes, I might be arrested. But that would be irrelevant. What I'm saying is, regardless of whether I'm arrested or not, would you be able to say, YES, my actions were justified because I was following my personal code of ethics? Or would you decide that the thing I decided to define as "Just Wrong" (in this example, anyone not a brunette), because it was NOT "Just Wrong" in your book, was...wrong?

Law follows majority belief, perhaps, but even if my actions are illegal, it doesn't say anything about the morality of them. Unless your personal sense of morality is intrinsically tied up with the idea of absolute and unconditional obedience to the law--but then you'd be contradicting what you said about everyone getting to pick their own "Just Wrong."

Legality is the reason for me too. But that doesn't make these moral arguments any less important to me; utilitarian arguments are far less effective. I mean I could say something like, "Abortion may or may not be wrong in a moral sense, but statistics show that legalized abortion will have an x number of positive effects on the economy, quality of life, etc. Therefore it should be legalized," but it wouldn't be fly. This kind of thinking just isn't popular, especially because it justifies too much of what may be "immoral," sacrificing the means for the ends.

[Neroon]

I think that there is a need for some people here to calm down.  Some recent posts seem to have moved from answering Jude's questions or explaining one's personal point of view and instead heve moved into an attempt to convince other to agree with the poster's beliefs.

To repeat the advice given at the start of the thread, keep it civil and if you can't post with a calm mind walk away till you can.  To make that possible, please refrain from using emotive language or from demanding another poster prove this or that.  Thanks.

[Chea]

Personally, I'm against abortion in all cases, here's my reasoning.


First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.

[Trieste]

But if we make this moral argument a bit more general instead of having it be an incredibly specific notion, the principle becomes, "It is okay to terminate human life if it is dependent on others for survival."  This is where euthanasia and outright infanticide come into play.  You can disagree with the widening of the moral criteria, but it does make you wonder why such a narrow action is okay, but if you try and broaden it at all, it isn't.

To restate what I said about this earlier (in my answers), we have the technology to keep these people alive, so people who are overly disabled, who are dependent on machines but still live, can be kept alive by technology. The difference for me between euthanasia and abortion is medical technology. I've avoided the topic of who should pay for this theoretical fetus-on-life-support and other specifics like that (the short answer is, 'it depends').

I think, if someone has an organism in their body that they do not want, they should be able to remove it. It doesn't matter if it's a tapeworm or a fetus. If people are that concerned with the life of the fetus and how sacred that life is, they can step up and keep said fetus alive. If they can't do so, that is still not the responsibility of the gestational host. Being a 'mother' takes more than donating genes, just like being a father does, and forcing someone into that responsibility is just not my cup of tea. I don't care if it's by abortion or by in situ adoption and subsequent removal.

[Serephino]

If I'm not mistaken, the widely accepted limit for abortions is 12 weeks.  I don't find that too unreasonable.  Of course at 8 weeks a fetus has all organ systems it would need to live.  I learned a lot when doing research for my fanfic.  So if whether or not the fetus can feel pain is the cutoff point that seems to happen pretty early.

My source for all of this was  http://parenting.ivillage.com/pregnancy/0,,nc26,00.html

I do believe in souls, but I'm not really sure when it enters the body, but I don't think it happens much before birth, so that isn't a factor for me. 

[Kate]

First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never  be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.

- Chea49

Belief 1: believe that abortion is murder.

Belief 2: unborn is a child = individual = person

Belief 3: unborn has a "right" to experience life (inherited from the magical world of right-dom)

Belief 4: Existance of a new human individual is more important than the quality of life of  those effected by it.

Belief 5: Soul's don't exist so one body is one individuals sole chance of life.

Belief 6: Others should share beliefs 1-4.

*

These beliefs are choices.

Some beleive otherwise and wish to live by their own beliefs.

[Salomé]

If you read over what I wrote, I was never trying to persuade anyone to change their beliefs. That's the opposite of what I want; I never even revealed my stance on this issue.

For the record, if anything I'm a libertarian more than anything else, and "pro-choice" should be my default position. But although I value personal rights and liberty, I also believe that “the right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins.” I may want to support abortion, or the idea that people should have the choice concerning it, but one thing stands in my way--the niggling doubt that the fetus should not be harmed.

I was hoping that someone who was "pro-choice" could explain the reasoning behind their stance--i.e. why it's okay to kill a fetus but not a baby.

The "fetus depends on the mother for survival" argument might be compelling if the mother's life were in danger but otherwise it's just not enough to say that because of inconvenience--and I realize this is a weak word to describe the effects of pregnancy and birth on the mother--it would be permissible to terminate the life of an innocent human being. Unless you challenged this belief itself, but that comes later. That is why the following argument

...If people are that concerned with the life of the fetus and how sacred that life is, they can step up and keep said fetus alive

is not enough--unless the life of a fetus can be said to be less valuable somehow than the life of an infant, then abortion should not be left to personal choice any more than infanticide is.

Chaotic Angel, I think in a sense you have the most compelling argument. Sorry if I'm misinterpreting what you said, but if I may clarify...
So, as long as abortions are carried out at less than 12 weeks of gestation, they are acceptable, because before that, the fetus does not feel pain? Essentially that would mean that merely being human is not enough to qualify the fetus for the right to live--b/c the fetus is undoubtedly human--the fetus must also be able to feel pain, and this ability (or lack therof) to feel pain is what sets the fetus apart from babies. 

My problem with this is that (1) fetuses develop at different rates--a prematurely born baby might be less developed than a fetus--and some fetuses might be, at 11 weeks, quite able to feel pain and (2) is it enough to say that a person's ability to feel pain is what makes it wrong to kill that person? What if you kill someone painlessly? And doesn't this devalue human life, and the whole idea of the sanctity of human life?

-

Oh, and just to throw it out there:

Peter Singer makes a similar argument, and I find his reasoning to be pretty persuasive. You could argue, like Singer, that pain is what gives human the ability to make moral choices, and pick between what's right or wrong. And that that ability to make moral choices is what makes human life valuable in the first place (rather than a religious reason, like "humans are made in the image of God," or "humans have a soul," or the argument that being human, in itself, makes human life valuable). Then a fetus, because it's not morally aware, would be no more "precious" than say, the cow we kill to eat.

But Singer also believes that according to the situation, it's also acceptable to kill babies (as long as it's done in a way that minimizes suffering)--
"...the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings." While I like the consistency of this argument, I'm on the fence about it, esp. trying to argue pro-choice with it, because if these qualities Singer mentions are the criteria for the right to live, then euthanasia becomes acceptable. And I'm also forced to question why this level of self-consciousness, that we have, is enough, but that level is not? It just strikes me as too arbitrary.

[Kenshin]

When was there even a mention that it was the government's decision?

You have me there, as there was no mention. Although I was talking about it being a law against abortion.

[Kenshin]

We do not have the right to police other nations in their laws, no matter what Dubya tried to say.

Similarly, I do not believe that I have the right to police what other women do with their bodies. It is not advocating murder - it is called 'pro-choice', not 'pro-abortion'. I am also not trying to jump on you, Salomé, but I do not have to justify my stances by your morality. While there are certain things that are Just Wrong, you do not get to decide what they are for me, nor I for you.

Hm, I said I was pro abortion because I couldn't remember "pro choice" at the time. My apologies.

[Kenshin]

Personally, I'm against abortion in all cases, here's my reasoning.


First of all, I like many antiabortionists, believe that abortion is murder. Its no different than if I kicked a pregnant women down a flight of stairs and killed the child in the process. I aslo believe all children have the right to exprience life. Though I'm athiest and thus don't believe in souls, the unborn child hasn't willingly done anything that would warrant the mother to terminate it. Once you kill someone there'll never be another of the individual, that person will never know life, it'll never have a chance to do anything.

So you have created a maxim not to ever kill an unborn child? I think most things under any circumstance are feasible, even murder. My question out of general curiosity is, do you think it is ok for the women to make their own decision about their own baby? I think people should be able to make their own decisions personally. I have heard some stories about abortions that made me sick, however it was their choice and I do not think that should be denied to them.

[ShrowdedPoet]

My opinions of abortion are. . .conflicted.  One upon a time I was a Christian and solid die hard antiabortionist.  I was in college in the 8th grade and writing papers for my Freshman English one and two classes 10 plus pages long on the wrongness of abortion.  I believed it was worse than murder.  At least if you snatched someone off the street and killed them they'd have a chance to fight back but the unborn baby doesn't even get that. 

But now. . .  Now I am a Pagan and I still believe in the sanctity of life.  I still feel that abortion is wrong and sometimes would liken it to murder.  But here's the difference.  Now when my daughter is grown and if she has an unwanted pregnancy that's her choice.  I will stick by her choice.  I would never get an abortion but I also wouldn't stop people who want one.  At my Christian stage I would have called for the mother to go to jail for murder.  It is the mothers choice.  And it hurts my heart.

As for the rape victim.  I have a friend who is the product of rape and in her own words.

"My mother descided to keep me because I was alive.  My mom loves me.  She is happy that I was born."

She is a sweet woman and I love her to death.  She has two beautiful children.  The world would be a little less bright if she were never born.

[Autumn Sativus]

- What about people who use abortion as birth control?
I don't agree with using abortion as a method of birth control, but I won't take away your right to do so. It is an extremely taxing experience on both the mental and physical health of the woman, if someone would rather put themselves through an invasive, painful, expensive procedure, than use a more 'normal' type of birth control, that is their choice. Kind of a 'I don't agree with what you're saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'

- If you are okay with terminating the life because it's "on someone else's property" and "it isn't human yet"; how do you reconcile this with your view on animal rights? (i.e. fetus = not human = animal = animal murder)
I don't agree that it is terminating a life. It is terminating a potential life, and I don't see it as being anything at all. It is a potential child... not an animal. I do believe it's still human, by the way.

- Do you believe in a soul?  If so, how can you know the unborn child doesn't have a soul?
Yes I believe in souls, and I would believe that the fetus has a soul once it has thought. If the pregnancy were terminated after that point, I believe that the same thing would happen to the soul as might happen to might if I passed on... it is renewed in another being.

- Why should the woman get the decision solely on whether or not to abort the child, when the man is equally responsible if she chooses to keep it?
When the man can carry the child in his body for half of the pregnancy, he can have a say in what happens to the fetus. Though the man did help to create the child, he has nothing to do with caring for it, carrying it, and watching his body be taken over by something he may or may not want, before it is born. When the man can take over the pregnancy at the halfway mark, I'll happily let him decide what happens... before then, it's my body, and my decision.

- Typical trite "woman's body" arguments aside (which are more of a slogan than an actual justification); do you believe abortion is justified based on the fetus not being self-aware (or conscious, sentient, etc.) yet?  And if so, what about people who suffer from certain mental illness or reach a certain degree of senility?  Is it possible to support Abortion and not Euthanasia?
If the fetus can function outside of the womb, then I would suggest it be put on some sort of support system until it can fully survive on its own. As long as it is dependent on the woman's body, it's her responsibility to decide what happens to it.
And yes I do believe it is possible to support one and not the other. I don't agree with euthanasia for those with metal disabilities, because the decision was made to take on the responsibility of a child by their parents. Just as with anything else, when parents pass on, we have family and institutions to take the responsibility, for a price. Once the decision has been made to bring a child into the world, it's a little late to go back on it. I can understand pulling the plug on those who are on life-support, if it is the best decision, I could even understand euthanasia for those who are suffering, it is often better to see someone go peacefully than to watch them suffer for too long. But just because of a mental disability... I don't think so.

[Doomsday]

I'm under the opinion that a lot of pro-lifers are either thinly-veiled misogynists or un-conscious misogynists.

[Doomsday]

- Chea49

Belief 1: believe that abortion is murder.

Belief 2: unborn is a child = individual = person

Belief 3: unborn has a "right" to experience life (inherited from the magical world of right-dom)

Belief 4: Existance of a new human individual is more important than the quality of life of  those effected by it.

Belief 5: Soul's don't exist so one body is one individuals sole chance of life.

Belief 6: Others should share beliefs 1-4.

*

These beliefs are choices.

Some beleive otherwise and wish to live by their own beliefs.

Except by legal definition murder is the unlawful taking of a life. You can argue that fetuses are 'alive', but because abortion is legal, it is not murder in any way. In this debate murder is nothing more than a loaded word.

[Oniya]

Except by legal definition murder is the unlawful taking of a life. You can argue that fetuses are 'alive', but because abortion is legal, it is not murder in any way. In this debate murder is nothing more than a loaded word.

As a point of interest, in the Torah the word for 'murder' is the one used in the commandment - which means that lawful killing is not a sin (which is a good thing, if you read some of the punishments codified in Leviticus.)

[Nadir]

Do pro-life people protest about life-support machines being turned off?

[Trieste]

In the US, they do.

[Nadir]

Hum.

[Morven]

God put us on the earth to suffer, 'n all.

[Nadir]

But... but surely, people in a vegetative state are cheating. I mean, they're sleeping through their suffering. That's just not good sportsmanship.

[Trieste]

I know. And the social worker people don't like it if you start trying to kick them awake, either.

*mumbles something about a restraining order*

[Nadir]

Well that just isn't fair! You should protest.

[Trieste]

Protest the protesters?

[Nadir]

I'm trying to read that, and my brain is screaming 'Double-negative!' at me, and I can't work out what would get nullified and what would be left behind... ugh