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.