Abortion

[her_beautiful_mistake]

dr2005 - I have been thinking about the comparison between drinking alcohol and abortion and it just doesn't quite work.

When you are pregnant, you cannot simply choose not to be pregnant. That act has already taken place - you either have a baby or you have an abortion. It is a decision about what to do with your body yes, but arguably birth is more traumatic than an abortion (especially at the early stages). Childbirth is also, even today, a considerable danger to the mother (potentially one of the most dangerous things a woman will do). Yes you are choosing what to do with your body, but either option has dangers and negative aspects. With regards to age, you cannot simply wish away a pregnancy because the mother is 13. That is a situation that has to be dealt with -- and the potential complications of continuing the pregnancy at a young age are actually higher.

With the drinking ages, you are helping to avoid irresponsible drinking. Alcohol has a more detrimental impact on younger people. You are attempting to prevent people from causing harm to their body by not drinking alcohol. Choosing not to drink alcohol avoids harm. Choosing not to have an abortion does not.

You cannot choose to not have an abortion because then your body will not be put at risk. Both abortion and childbirth have considerable risks and dangers.

I don't know if I've really explained myself properly but in a nutshell, I think the argument is hugely flawed.

[MisplacedDreamer]

Anyway, I am very curious as to the reasoning behind why someone would say that women who chose to get abortions would make shitty parents. It makes no sense and shows little effort put forth by the person who said that to attempt to see why someone has an abortion. Anyone who would make such a senseless comment hopefully will learn empathy or learn how to keep their mouth shut before they write unfounded and cruel comments.

Saying something as simple as "any parent who would consider an abortion would make a shitty parent anyhow" makes someone who has an abortion feel like shit even though the person who said it made an unfounded claim and probably didn't even give it two seconds of thought. It just sounded good for his or her argument and they just said it. Next time, think before you say something that could potentially trigger depression in someone. It's completely unfounded!

Why would someone who consider abortion be a good parent? For many reasons! One is personality. Some people are naturally good parents. Maybe they wait till they are financially stable or have job security. Maybe they wait till they are done with school. Maybe they wait till they are in a good relationship.

Just popping out a baby because a woman is pregnant isn't going to make them be some wonderful mother. Not every woman who carries to term will be a good mother and not every woman who has an abortion will be a good mother later on. There are so many different factors that one single factor like having an abortion isn't going to make a significant factor as to whether someone will be a good parent. Personality will be a larger factor in being a good parent than having an abortion ever will!

[kiwi_fish_bunny]

Originally Posted by larami

There's something called adoption, I don't know um I think they call it adoption : ).
I agree with abortion in cases of rape and endangerment of the mother. Did I said otherwise?? No. I just said that the women that abort becuase they can't or want to take care of the baby.
.

adoption, well thats a great way for the kid "hey Bob, ur mum couldnt have an abortion so she descided to just adopt you thats why you have no mom"...think about it for the number of abortions there would be alot of kids in adoption and what about those girls who get preaggas really young like 15? they not going to be able to look after it and im sure there rents would kill them if they found out!

Originally Posted by Ghost On The Highway

I'm pro-choice, but I also have no moral compass to speak of . I don't see how one can argue that abortion is not taking a human life and is not morally wrong. Of course, I also support population control, and view abortion as the lesser of two evils, the other being overpopulation and its consequences. And it's stereotypical and awful to say so, but I think it's best to start with those who'll never have a chance anyway -- any parent who would consider an abortion would make a shitty parent anyhow.

im sorry but i totaly disagree with this last comment, how could you say this? people make mistakes EVERYONE does. if you chose to have an abortion its fine, and then later on you can have kids when ur ready this does not make them a bad parent because they didnt feel ready for kids!

[Hallelujah]

I do believe that everyone should have the choice in certain situations. Ruling out abortion completely would put some people in awful situations - imagine how a rape victim would feel giving birth to their rapist's baby? In some personal situations, having a baby is the worst possible thing - some parents simply cannot cope and the child is left in a position where things can quickly turn out very bad. I think if the mother has a genuine reason as to why the pregnancy should be aborted then it should be allowed, but there could maybe be an evaluative system set up where the case can be discussed beforehand.

In an ideal world, every child would have the right to life, but unfortunately we live in a generation where children are born into abusive, unloving homes or desperate poverty, and to be honest, what kind of a life is that? I'm not saying we're ones to judge if they should live, but I do think there should be some limitations on the complete riddance of abortions.

I also believe there should be a limit introduced as to how many abortions are allowed, seeing as what I've said I think would work will never happen. If anything, it should be one unless in exceptional circumstances. I've seen in the news before where lasses consider it a method of contraception - why use condoms when you can just terminate? - and to me that is out of order. A message needs putting across that abortion is for the most desperate of situations.

My point - we can't judge people who have abortions unless we know the exact circumstances. Personally I'm against them, but everyone is entitled to a choice of opinion.

[Rainbow Dash]

I'm pro-choice. It's not a baby, it's a foetus, there's one hell of a difference.

[Imagine]

I've already stated my opinion in this thread but i believe that 2nd trimester abortions should be illegal. In some places you can get them up to 24 weeks. There have been babies that have LIVED at 24 weeks. Which in my eyes, is MURDER.

[Rainbow Dash]

I do agree with that, anything past 24 weeks is then wrong.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

dr2005 - I have been thinking about the comparison between drinking alcohol and abortion and it just doesn't quite work.

When you are pregnant, you cannot simply choose not to be pregnant. That act has already taken place - you either have a baby or you have an abortion. It is a decision about what to do with your body yes, but arguably birth is more traumatic than an abortion (especially at the early stages). Childbirth is also, even today, a considerable danger to the mother (potentially one of the most dangerous things a woman will do). Yes you are choosing what to do with your body, but either option has dangers and negative aspects. With regards to age, you cannot simply wish away a pregnancy because the mother is 13. That is a situation that has to be dealt with -- and the potential complications of continuing the pregnancy at a young age are actually higher.

With the drinking ages, you are helping to avoid irresponsible drinking. Alcohol has a more detrimental impact on younger people. You are attempting to prevent people from causing harm to their body by not drinking alcohol. Choosing not to drink alcohol avoids harm. Choosing not to have an abortion does not.

You cannot choose to not have an abortion because then your body will not be put at risk. Both abortion and childbirth have considerable risks and dangers.

I don't know if I've really explained myself properly but in a nutshell, I think the argument is hugely flawed.

Interesting response and thanks for that. I guess I should clarify that I wasn't actually trying to draw a direct comparison - it was more a case of putting something out to provoke thought and gauge how far people are prepared to take the "people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish" argument. Part of the reason for it is that I feel, in the overall scheme of the debate, this is one of the weaker arguments in favour of abortion because by simple logical extension you can extend that to scenarios where such an approach is not desirable (like the alcohol one as you correctly pointed out). I think the issue of harm is a more difficult one, because how you define harm can take any number of different forms - physical harm, emotional harm, psychological harm, harm to prospects, harm to lifestyle choices - and trying to apportion weight and importance to them is always an arbitrary process by definition. There is also conflicting evidence on the subject of the harm caused by the abortion procedures, so it's an area I've tended to steer clear of in such debates.

As an aside to the above, I would be curious to know whether you would apply your aforementioned points regarding alcohol to drugs as well, in light of your earlier statement regarding their legalisation. I'm not trying to trip you up in asking - as before it's just to gauge the "own bodies" line.

[her_beautiful_mistake]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Interesting response and thanks for that. I guess I should clarify that I wasn't actually trying to draw a direct comparison - it was more a case of putting something out to provoke thought and gauge how far people are prepared to take the "people should be able to do with their bodies what they wish" argument. Part of the reason for it is that I feel, in the overall scheme of the debate, this is one of the weaker arguments in favour of abortion because by simple logical extension you can extend that to scenarios where such an approach is not desirable (like the alcohol one as you correctly pointed out). I think the issue of harm is a more difficult one, because how you define harm can take any number of different forms - physical harm, emotional harm, psychological harm, harm to prospects, harm to lifestyle choices - and trying to apportion weight and importance to them is always an arbitrary process by definition. There is also conflicting evidence on the subject of the harm caused by the abortion procedures, so it's an area I've tended to steer clear of in such debates.

As an aside to the above, I would be curious to know whether you would apply your aforementioned points regarding alcohol to drugs as well, in light of your earlier statement regarding their legalisation. I'm not trying to trip you up in asking - as before it's just to gauge the "own bodies" line.

Sorry, what is the question? I'll answer as well as I can. Sometimes my own views on these issues aren't 100% formed. Although I have issues my views seem to be quite fixed on I do try to be as fluid as possible, you never know where you'll read something that will change your mind.

I think one of the problems with abortion is that is SUCH a complex issue.. it's not something that I want to support, it's not something that I only have one or two reasons for supporting. "People should be able to do what they wish with their bodies" is not one of my arguments in support of abortion.

Would you support making abortion illegal, or do you just believe it to be morally wrong?

I support the legalisation of drugs out of the necessity for it (so I suppose yes the points I made for alcohol could equally be used for drugs). Similarly, I believe abortion has to be legal out of necessity, even if you do not agree morally with abortion, do you agree with that?

I do not think abortion is an easy decision, I don't think I would be able to have one (now - 10 months ago I'd have told you something different) but of course I've never been in that position and so I can't really say. Hypothetically saying "I would/would not have an abortion" means very little.

[Hallelujah]

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

Hypothetically saying "I would/would not have an abortion" means very little.

I agree. It's Ok us saying how we feel about abortion and if we think it's right or wrong, or whether we'd have one, but being put in the situation is an entirely different matter. I imagine your feelings would change dramatically if you were actually having to face the decision yourself.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by TheWhiteTornado

I agree entirely with this. Even if the fetus isn't yet a person, it still has a future. In my eyes abortion would mean denying it of that.

By that logic, males shouldn't be ejaculating at all because sperm is potential children. So I'm guessing you agree that men shouldn't ejaculate or have sex without having children?

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

Sorry, what is the question? I'll answer as well as I can. Sometimes my own views on these issues aren't 100% formed. Although I have issues my views seem to be quite fixed on I do try to be as fluid as possible, you never know where you'll read something that will change your mind.

No worries. The gist of it was "how much importance or weight do people place on the 'own bodies' argument, and how far can they willingly apply that argument?" The references to alcohol and drugs were aimed as springboards to get people thinking about those points and to see how much of a bearing it had on people's application of that argument. The answers you gave pretty much covered that - I just asked it in a more oblique way than was probably necessary. Blame the law degree for that.

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

I think one of the problems with abortion is that is SUCH a complex issue.. it's not something that I want to support, it's not something that I only have one or two reasons for supporting. "People should be able to do what they wish with their bodies" is not one of my arguments in support of abortion.

Agreed - it is one of the most complicated ethical dillemmas that exist and there is no easy answer. The reason I picked out the "own bodies" one is that, aside from the possible scientific objections, it's a line that's come up quite frequently in debates (not just here but generally) and it's one that tends to be used without necessarily being qualified or elaborated upon. Hence the question aimed at both. There are no easy arguments either for or against abortion and the most durable ones are those which come from a variety of reasons as you suggest.

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

Would you support making abortion illegal, or do you just believe it to be morally wrong?

I've come to the conclusion that making it illegal is not a practical option right now. Much as I find it morally wrong, I recognise that simply making it illegal will not solve anything and may cause more harm in the long run. I would like to believe that by massively improving our sex education and societal approach to family and sexual relations (both of which I feel, compared with our European neighbours, are pretty below par) the need for abortion will decline to the point where it's only needed in exceptional circumstances, but how likely that is to happen within my own lifetime is very much debatable.

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

I support the legalisation of drugs out of the necessity for it (so I suppose yes the points I made for alcohol could equally be used for drugs). Similarly, I believe abortion has to be legal out of necessity, even if you do not agree morally with abortion, do you agree with that?

As with the above, I feel at the moment it is legal out of necessity. Like I said, though, I hope that through improvements in education and advances in contraception (for example better development of implants) that its necessity will decrease over time. I would support moves to limit the availability of abortions in certain circumstances, but despite my own religious views I feel recriminalisation is not the answer.

Originally Posted by her_beautiful_mistake

I do not think abortion is an easy decision, I don't think I would be able to have one (now - 10 months ago I'd have told you something different) but of course I've never been in that position and so I can't really say. Hypothetically saying "I would/would not have an abortion" means very little.

Again I agree - it's very easy to say something when you're not in that situation yourself. Despite my personal objections to abortion I would like to feel I would still support someone I knew if they ended up in that situation and not to lecture them about their choices. Ultimately someone in that position needs support, not castigation. In the wider context though all we can really do is talk about it hypothetically and try to come up with good reasoning for our point of view.

[llamasliketoparty]

I'm pro-choice. I think abortion is wrong and is killing babies but it isn't my place to tell other people what to do with their bodies and their lives.

[L'espoir]

Personally I'm pro choice. If I wanted to choose not to have an abortion then good for me but who am I to tell other women that they shouldn't? That's the way I see it.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by Nova

There are other options. I'm not saying you have to keep the child. But having an abortion is taking the easy way out when you should have had the common sense to know that pregnancy is always a possibility.ontraception.

I completely disagree with you. If a woman does not want her baby, there simply is NO easy way out. Abortions have physical, emotional, and societal consequences. Carrying out the pregnancy also has physical, emotional, and other consequences (Whether she keeps the baby when she has it or gives it up for adoption). Both decisions will affect the mother FOREVER.

If we are going to have an abortion debate, can we start with a clean slate? E.g. not argue IF abortion should be legal, because at this point it is and it is not going away. Even if you outlaw it, abortions will continue to be available and kill thousands of women. We should be asking ourselves WHY so many women have abortions. WHY they have stigmas. We can also probably all agree that abortion is not a good thing. Pro-abortion is a misnomer. Even many pro-choicers have troubles with late-term abortions.

[Lugez]

I'll put in my two cents:

As it says on the left: I'm an Asshole. When it comes to the public, I really don't care about the whole abortion debate. Whether Sally gets an abortion or not has no bearing on my life or emotional state. I really dont care what she does with her baby.

But, I know that this isn't enough. So, I think of a situation in which it's more personal. I think: What if my sister got pregnant?

I think of this fetus, my future nephew/niece, as a living human being. The law can recognize it as a human being (if you kill a pregnant woman, you could be charged with double homicide), and many scientists and doctors have stated that it is human. Therefore, who are we to end my nephew/niece's life over an inconvenience? Economic, or otherwise? It just doesn't seem right to me.

I'm not passionate about this, because like I said, I really don't care what Sally does with her baby. But because I would want my sister to keep HER baby, I wouldn't be opposed to making abortion illegal. But I'm not going to go all out with it either.

To sum this all up in one sentence: Denying the gift of life to someone because of an inconvience is just plain wrong.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by Lugez

The law can recognize it as a human being (if you kill a pregnant woman, you could be charged with double homicide)

This doesn't happen as often as Law and Order would like us to believe. In many states the fetus is not legally considered a human; a person will not be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman in those states.

I believe it is only double homicide if the fetus is viable outside the womb.
I don't have exact links for this, but I can look if you want.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by footfoot

This doesn't happen as often as Law and Order would like us to believe. In many states the fetus is not legally considered a human; a person will not be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman in those states.

I believe it is only double homicide if the fetus is viable outside the womb.
I don't have exact links for this, but I can look if you want.

I believe it, don't need links. I never said it happens often, but it has happened. I'm just pointing out that there are some inconsistencies.

EDIT: After reading through the thread, I'm surprise at the number of "my body, my choice" responses. I never really understood how someone could have this opinion, even when I leaned more pro choice (I sway on this issue alot). Why? Because it's not about the woman's body. Yes, you can do what you want with your body. Get 20 piercings on your face or get a tattoo of daffy duck on your ass, I don't care. But when it comes to abortion, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. You have to make a decision for the life that's growing in your body. 2 people are involved in this equation, not just 1, and I have always believed that.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by Lugez

I believe it, don't need links. I never said it happens often, but it has happened. I'm just pointing out that there are some inconsistencies.

It isn't inconsistent if it isn't charged when the fetus is not considered human (before X cut off date). It would be inconsistent if double murder were charged when the fetus was ANY date old thereby legally defining it another human being and thus the abortion debate would be partially moot.

EDIT: After reading through the thread, I'm surprise at the number of "my body, my choice" responses. I never really understood how someone could have this opinion, even when I leaned more pro choice (I sway on this issue alot). Why? Because it's not about the woman's body. Yes, you can do what you want with your body. Get 20 piercings on your face or get a tattoo of daffy duck on your ass, I don't care. But when it comes to abortion, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. You have to make a decision for the life that's growing in your body. 2 people are involved in this equation, not just 1, and I have always believed that.

You're saying it's selfish to have an abortion. There is no easy way out. Whether she keeps the baby, adopts it out, miscarries it, or aborts it the woman is not getting out of the situation emotionally or physically unharmed. You're assuming that having the baby is ALWAYS the best option (not including rape etc). There are so many factors that come into play after the baby is born. Is the mother ready? Does she have a support network? Is the baby being adopted out? (What about the half million other foster children waiting to be adopted out in an already taxed foster care system). Can the mother afford a baby? Can the mother afford the medical care/hospital bills associated with having a baby? The baby is not guaranteed a perfect life the moment it is born. The mother is not allowed to just go back to her normal life. This frames the situation as practically inconsequential as long as a woman HAS the baby.

"2 people are involved...not just one". Here it becomes another question: why does a fetus, at the outset just cells, have complete control over a full grown woman's body? Why does it dictate her future the second it implants in her womb? I don't care if it was reckless unprotected sex (as distasteful as that is), a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term a fetus just because it will eventually develop into a baby.

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

Saying something as simple as "any parent who would consider an abortion would make a shitty parent anyhow" makes someone who has an abortion feel like shit even though the person who said it made an unfounded claim and probably didn't even give it two seconds of thought. It just sounded good for his or her argument and they just said it. Next time, think before you say something that could potentially trigger depression in someone. It's completely unfounded!

As much as I agree with their statement being unfounded, I have to hold back a laugh at what you're saying. One of the things that I find to be of utmost stupidity and annoyance is when people say "well [thing] could be a trigger, why don't you smarten up and be nicer!". EVERYTHING is a trigger, meaning your projected anger could be a trigger also for that person. Bet that didn't get two seconds of thought, especially the bolded sentence. To put it in a more commonly used example, it's like a mother spanking her kid at the playground saying "hitting others is not good, don't hit!". Also, if you paid more attention to their entire post, their statement didn't help, it was irrelevant as their post was about abortion as a method of population control.

It possibly making those who got an abortion feel depressed isn't an argument against it. It may make abortionists depressed, the receiver of abortions depressed, the receptionist of abortion clinics depressed, the parents of the receiver of the abortion depressed, friendly neighbour depressed, etc... . Point is, it can make anyone depressed and scolding someone in this manner is like treating them like a 5-year old (unintentional pun).

To avoid any misconceptions I may get, I am not supporting their statement as it's nonsense. But I'm also not supporting the argument of it being triggering or making people sad.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by footfoot

It isn't inconsistent if it isn't charged when the fetus is not considered human (before X cut off date). It would be inconsistent if double murder were charged when the fetus was ANY date old thereby legally defining it another human being and thus the abortion debate would be partially moot.

But why is the fetus considered human in the first place? That's whats inconsistent.

Originally Posted by footfoot

You're saying it's selfish to have an abortion. There is no easy way out. Whether she keeps the baby, adopts it out, miscarries it, or aborts it the woman is not getting out of the situation emotionally or physically unharmed. You're assuming that having the baby is ALWAYS the best option (not including rape etc). There are so many factors that come into play after the baby is born. Is the mother ready? Does she have a support network? Is the baby being adopted out? (What about the half million other foster children waiting to be adopted out in an already taxed foster care system). Can the mother afford a baby? Can the mother afford the medical care/hospital bills associated with having a baby? The baby is not guaranteed a perfect life the moment it is born. The mother is not allowed to just go back to her normal life. This frames the situation as practically inconsequential as long as a woman HAS the baby.

But all those factors that you just listed still aren't grounds for denying someone the right to life.

Life isn't perfect for any of us. Some have it worse than others, but life is never a cakewalk. But go to any person who is less fortunate than us. Go to all those kids/adults who have been adopted. Go to those kids/adults who live/lived in poverty with their mother. Ask them if they would have rather been killed before they were born. I guarantee you that no matter how shitty one's life is, the vast majority of those people would have rather lived life than be aborted.

When someone aborts, that person being aborted doesn't even have a chance of living life. It may be inconvenient for that person to live, but at least the baby has a chance at life. When you abort, you deny them that chance.

Originally Posted by footfoot

"2 people are involved...not just one". Here it becomes another question: why does a fetus, at the outset just cells, have complete control over a full grown woman's body? Why does it dictate her future the second it implants in her womb? I don't care if it was reckless unprotected sex (as distasteful as that is), a woman shouldn't be forced to carry to term a fetus just because it will eventually develop into a baby.

It's not about control. It's the fact that a decision is made about the human in the woman's body. In the end, the choices are "kill" or "let live." And I'm not one to kill another human being because of inconviences in the mother's life. Go ahead, deny a human being life because of economic reasons, "overpopulation," or other personal ones. But I'll always be here thinking about how wrong that is.

The most optimal solution, in my opinion (in a world where rainbows drop skittles, and unicorns sing ballads), would be to improve the adoption system and provide mothers with additional resources to help her raise the child.

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by Lugez

But why is the fetus considered human in the first place? That's whats inconsistent.

If the baby can viably live outside of the womb, I suppose it is considered human because it does not need the mother anymore to survive. Thus, it could technically be premature or induced and survive whereas a fetus would not. A baby that can survive outside of the womb has all human characteristics and I guess - rights to life and ability to live - in the eyes of the law. I'm trying my best to answer your question clearly. Sorry if I am failing.

It's not about control. It's the fact that a decision is made about the human in the woman's body. In the end, the choices are "kill" or "let live." And I'm not one to kill another human being because of inconviences in the mother's life. Go ahead, deny a human being life because of economic reasons, "overpopulation," or other personal ones. But I'll always be here thinking about how wrong that is.

It's all about the language and the framing. It's not killing if the fetus can't survive outside the womb yet. If a fetus is 1 week old , an abortion merely fails to allow possible future development into a human baby.

The most optimal solution, in my opinion (in a world where rainbows drop skittles, and unicorns sing ballads), would be to improve the adoption system and provide mothers with additional resources to help her raise the child.

This is EXACTLY the correct thinking. WHY are abortions still in high demand? WHY are they necessary? Lack of sex education is schools, lack of access to contraception (or education on how to use contraception), dismal resources to help women care for a child that they can't afford, difficulties of mothers keeping work after maternity leave, short maternity/paternity leaves, teen pregnancy, ETC.

You're exactly right that outlawing abortion is not a solution. It just puts the problem under the rug (while women continue to have illegal abortions and die in large numbers from them). Addressing the social and economic issues I mention above will RADICALLY reduce the need and want for abortions. This shouldn't be in a "skittles and rainbow" world. If politicians and regular Americans spent more time improving the problems I listed above -- in fact the same amount of time we squander over debating abortion's legality -- we might have some of these problems fixed by now.

[Hallelujah]

Originally Posted by Lugez

But why is the fetus considered human in the first place? That's whats inconsistent.

I think that's what makes this an impossible debate to solve - everyone has their own ideas on what constitutes a human life and that means that abortion is one of those things that will never have a definite rule for/against, because of variety of opinion.

I understand that some people believe that it isn't a mothers choice to make - it isn't her life that would be ending therefore it isn't fair to pass judgement, but at the same time, didn't we, as humans, spend the last god knows how many years fighting slavery and injustice and whatever else to have our own human rights? I don't think this is an argument that can be won, I think people have to accept that it will always be a borderline subject. To me it's necessary to introduce some limitations on abortions, but ruling them out all together would be a horrific mistake. The overpopulation and poverty would become too extreme. And I know we all run the rick of it when we have sex, but it's a healthy aspect of life - and what of the people who devoutly use protection who are in that 0.1% where it fails completely?

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by footfoot

This doesn't happen as often as Law and Order would like us to believe. In many states the fetus is not legally considered a human; a person will not be charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant woman in those states.

It would not be legally considered a person, not if it's not considered a human.

Originally Posted by Lugez

But why is the fetus considered human in the first place? That's whats inconsistent.

All fetuses from human parents are considered human because they have human DNA, made from 2 humans usually and will be a human later on. It's always a human in biology and in law. It may not be considered a person though but a person need not be a single human in law. A person is someone/thing responsible for doing certain things within the realm of the law. So the debate never is whether it is a human as there's nothing to debate in that; the debate is over whether it is a person and at what time in its development within the womb is it considered a person, or if it is never considered a person within the womb. So if someone is charged with double homicide for killing a pregnant mother, it is because the fetus has been considered a person.

Arguing when human life occurs is something I find to be a self-defeating argument. If we start in thinking at what stage we would consider whatever organism to be alive, we'll always answer that it's considered alive at the point when it's growing or a similar answer. So the same will be for human life. When it is growing on its own, it is alive. There is no need to argue that it is not conscious at that time because we would consider a growing tree to be alive yet it is not conscious. Thus, it's self-defeating because at the moment where it is growing on its own, it is alive. To say it's growing on its own yet is not alive I find stupid. It may need assistance to grow from the mother.

Another inconsistency would be when it comes to other "humans". To avoid a long side-trail I'll be as brief as I can. Within the taxonomy, there is a tribe hominini, which are humans, only these are more ape-like. Basically, if you ended up killing one of these, you could be charged with murder when using the argument that double homicides on pregnant women are because the fetus is a human. If you turned around and shot pretty much any other non-human animal, each kill wouldn't ever be treated like a murder.

[dr2005]

For the sake of clarity, the legal status of a fetus is determined based on personhood, not on its status as a human. Human is a biological concept; person is the legal one. A court cannot determine if something is human or otherwise because it is outside of its remit.

[MisplacedDreamer]

I have seen two girls break down at similar comments at a GAP display. It does make people break down and cry. There is a reason why there were extra counselors at the college for those days that the GAP displays were up (not the initial day because the student health services weren't aware of GAP coming.) It does happen and I don't give a shit if I triggered something for the poster who said that comment. The post with my anger was not directed as a reason to allow abortion, it was directed as a wake-up call for people to watch what they post and post accurate information and not bullshit meant to hurt other people. (I don't even know if moderators at TH actually care that much anymore based on some of the threads that were allowed. A statement like that is not some philosophical statement, it was a statement meant to dehumanize people who seek abortions.)

Adding emotional thoughts like "what if you were related to the baby" is meaningless because if I was related to the baby, it still wouldn't be my responsibility. I wouldn't be the one paying for it or dealing with the emotional consequences of any action I choose as the mother would be. It is nice in theory, but the law shouldn't be emotional or subjected to a person's own taste.

I don't think my personal taste as to whether or not abortion is right or wrong should factor into the legality. Yes, this should be a legal debate because people actively campaign in the US to have it made illegal or have various parts made illegal and not a personal taste issue.

This is a cold statement and I have thought about it a long time. A woman is already here. She is already contributing to society. A fetus is not. We have no idea what type of person that fetus may become if he or she will reach an age of maturity. If the woman feels it is better to get an abortion in her situation, then I don't see why a potential should be allowed to overrule someone who is already born and achieved adulthood (in terms of reproductive capability.) There are plenty of babies and older children in the world for people to concern themselves with.

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

I have seen two girls break down at similar comments at a GAP display. It does make people break down and cry. There is a reason why there were extra counselors at the college for those days that the GAP displays were up (not the initial day because the student health services weren't aware of GAP coming.) It does happen and I don't give a shit if I triggered something for the poster who said that comment. The post with my anger was not directed as a reason to allow abortion, it was directed as a wake-up call for people to watch what they post and post accurate information and not bullshit meant to hurt other people. (I don't even know if moderators at TH actually care that much anymore based on some of the threads that were allowed. A statement like that is not some philosophical statement, it was a statement meant to dehumanize people who seek abortions.)

I'm confused, the only Gap I know of is a clothing brand and I'm sure it has nothing to do with abortion. So what/who is GAP? Seeing 2 people cry over something doesn't mean that it makes many people cry.

If you don't care that you may have triggered the other person, then you don't care about being nice to others to avoid triggering. You only care about avoiding triggering if it triggers someone you like or has a similar position as you do. If they don't, you don't give a shit about them and don't care how affected they are from being triggered. Did you not say:

Anyone who would make such a senseless comment hopefully will learn empathy or learn how to keep their mouth shut before they write unfounded and cruel comments. ... Next time, think before you say something that could potentially trigger depression in someone.

Maybe I'm mistaking this for the username MisplacedDreamer.

As much as I would love to respond to the issue of the mods because I think I would agree with you, no such thread would probably be allowed by the mods. I love the irony in it.



Adding emotional thoughts like "what if you were related to the baby" is meaningless because if I was related to the baby, it still wouldn't be my responsibility. I wouldn't be the one paying for it or dealing with the emotional consequences of any action I choose as the mother would be. It is nice in theory, but the law shouldn't be emotional or subjected to a person's own taste.

I don't think my personal taste as to whether or not abortion is right or wrong should factor into the legality. Yes, this should be a legal debate because people actively campaign in the US to have it made illegal or have various parts made illegal and not a personal taste issue.

This is a cold statement and I have thought about it a long time. A woman is already here. She is already contributing to society. A fetus is not. We have no idea what type of person that fetus may become if he or she will reach an age of maturity. If the woman feels it is better to get an abortion in her situation, then I don't see why a potential should be allowed to overrule someone who is already born and achieved adulthood (in terms of reproductive capability.) There are plenty of babies and older children in the world for people to concern themselves with.[/quote]

[MisplacedDreamer]

No offense, but you need to do a better job nitpicking. I did not personally attack the poster initially beyond saying that she needs to keep her mouth shut and learn empathy. Then I attacked his or her bullshit statement. I couldn't even recognize the person's screen name if I saw it again on the boards. It is important that people stand up to bullshitters when they say shit. People shouldn't be afraid to hurt other people's feelings when they say clearly unfounded shit such as what was said.

Let's use an example of what I mean that is not abortion-related. Let's say there is a Neo-Nazi saying that black women deserve to be raped because they are black and white men are superior. I would hope that people would start calling the Neo-Nazi out on his statements as being ridiculous and not sit by because they may trigger depression in the Neo-Nazi by confronting his statements.

I don't care if I triggered depression in the person because the person does need to learn to keep their mouth shut before saying something like that. It added nothing to the debate beyond getting us side-tracked and trying to demean someone who has chosen an abortion.

Anyway, I didn't realize CDC published reports on abortion from the states. It's self-reported and a few states did not report in all the categories (such as four or five for age group.)

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwr...cid=ss5808a1_e

Chances are I have been here a lot longer than you have on TH and I have seen how the site and especially the debate forum has slowly changed with the different moderators. Some of the threads that people post wouldn't have been allowed with several previous moderators.

Do I need to learn empathy? Depends on who you ask. It's a little hard to empathize with someone who doesn't respond to why they would make such a ridiculous statement or at least admit that they made it in anger.

Oh, and GAP stands for Genocide Awareness Project. Last time I checked, Gap the clothing brand was spelled Gap. They refuse to reveal their sources of these so-called abortion pictures. The founders were lawyers from what I understand and they are very quick to file monetary lawsuits for any college that does not allow their pictures in full display in highly trafficked areas.

http://uweekly.com/newsmag/04-21-201...val-are-mocked

Oh, and in 2009 they had large trucks that displayed pictures of quotes that were heavily chopped up from Obama and his wife saying they were pro-choice. I tried to research the quotes but didn't have much luck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9kESs2St4Y <- graphic and I do not recommend watching. I am watching it so it looks like it is anti-abortion side. Their stats are inaccurate when they say over 1.3 million abortions are performed annually as it looks like the number is one a decline. Latest stats for US was under 900,000 compared to a peak of a little under 140,000,000 in 1991. The latest number from the CDC was in 2005. So it's kinda twisting the facts there as those numbers dropped dramatically in 97.

[MichWolverineFreak]

pro life. I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself. The way I see it, if you got pregnant, its your fault unless you were raped. I think people should just stick it out with their babies. pro-choice doesnt mean anything to me because its not giving your baby a choice.
I used to think conservatives were acting dumb because our economy crashed, so I was extremely liberal, then I looked up what liberalism was and I disagreed with a lot of it. Now Im Independant because I dont like what the liberals are doing but I dont like what the conservatives have done.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

pro life. I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself. The way I see it, if you got pregnant, its your fault unless you were raped. I think people should just stick it out with their babies.

And if the condom breaks? Is it still their fault?

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

pro life. I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself. The way I see it, if you got pregnant, its your fault unless you were raped.

1) Only the girl gets pregnant. Her male partner in crime does not. He can walk away. The Girl gets pregnant. The Girl has to deal with the consequences (abortion or otherwise). Sometimes, even with proper protection, condoms break and pills fail; Sometimes it's no one's fault. It happens.

2) Abortion is not about convenience. It is not a light, easy decision with no consequences. There are physical, psychological, and financial consequences to pregnancy, adoption, and abortion. If framed in a narrow black and white box, sure it is easy to say abortion is killing a baby. But please, take a step back and look at all the surrounding factors.

Not only should we consider how going through with a physically, emotionally, and financially pregnancy will adversely affect a woman who is not prepared for such a situation, we should ask why a woman might have an abortion. Let's get to the root of the problem - which is not abortions but what leads to abortions (poverty, lack of sex ed, etc* see my comments a few posts above).

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

No offense, but you need to do a better job nitpicking. I did not personally attack the poster initially beyond saying that she needs to keep her mouth shut and learn empathy. Then I attacked his or her bullshit statement.

I never said you stated anything beyond this. In fact, I quoted what it was you said and referenced specifically that. I'm not sure why you're getting the idea I'm putting words into your mouth.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

I couldn't even recognize the person's screen name if I saw it again on the boards.

I fail to see the relevance and the point you're making.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

I don't care if I triggered depression in the person because the person does need to learn to keep their mouth shut before saying something like that.

But you're still a hypocrite as I said before. I think you already know this because I've said it and you could probably figure it out so hopefully I won't need to say it further to have it stick in.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

Chances are I have been here a lot longer than you have on TH and I have seen how the site and especially the debate forum has slowly changed with the different moderators. Some of the threads that people post wouldn't have been allowed with several previous moderators.

This is side-tracking and I'd be happy continuing it in a PM. If you wish, then get the date that you first joined, which would have to be before the server reset.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

Oh, and GAP stands for Genocide Awareness Project. Last time I checked, Gap the clothing brand was spelled Gap.

Amazing that I spelled the clothing brand Gap as Gap before.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

They refuse to reveal their sources of these so-called abortion pictures. The founders were lawyers from what I understand and they are very quick to file monetary lawsuits for any college that does not allow their pictures in full display in highly trafficked areas.

I've seen photos and videos of such people, never knew who they ever were though. I always thought they weren't a group but were independent people doing this and that the GAP was something else because of the word "genocide". I've seen similar youtube videos (maybe it was the same, not sure) but I've chuckled at how the common argument they give is "ZOMG, look at how this shit look!!!". Certain parasites and STIs/STDs look worse than those. I agree with not liking the fact they don't verify their sources. Overall, I don't care for the group's arguments because they're mainly about making people feel grossed out while tossing around information without sources. The human body naturally is considered gross to so many people when you show certain photos of it.

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

pro life. I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself. The way I see it, if you got pregnant, its your fault unless you were raped. I think people should just stick it out with their babies. pro-choice doesnt mean anything to me because its not giving your baby a choice.

I don't know what your school taught you but there are other scenarios that call for abortion, such as having sex and the condom breaks or the fetus is ill and needs to be aborted or is affecting the mother too much and needs to be aborted. It's not just about convenience.

[hopefaithlove]

I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder. There is no reason for a person to do it, in my opinion.

[hopefaithlove]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And if the condom breaks? Is it still their fault?

Yes. If you have sex, you must be prepared for the possible consequences. The main reason for sex is to procrerate.

[InMyTimeOfDying]

i'm pro-choice. nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body and we don't know the circumstances.

[Alrex]

I'm all for abortion

If the baby doesn't get aborted, I have a feeling it would turn into a future criminal because of the lack of parenting.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by MichWolverineFreak

pro life. I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself. The way I see it, if you got pregnant, its your fault unless you were raped. I think people should just stick it out with their babies. pro-choice doesnt mean anything to me because its not giving your baby a choice.

You went to a religious school didn't you? I only ask because you don't seem to know much about abortion at all.

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder. There is no reason for a person to do it, in my opinion.

Point 1: please look up the definition of murder, you do not seem to know it.

Point 2: The bolded part is the most important part of you post. It is your opinion, do you think you have the right to force that opinion on others by taking away their right to choose?

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

Yes. If you have sex, you must be prepared for the possible consequences. The main reason for sex is to procrerate.

Says who? Where does it say that sex is mainly for procreation. Think about this, people have sex ALL OF THE TIME. Yet a person can constantly have sex and constantly not get pregnant. Do you think that no one should have protected sex because that defeats the purpose of it?

[Lugez]

Half my post just got erased so now I gotta edit...ugggghh..

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And if the condom breaks? Is it still their fault?

Of course it is. Every time you have sex, you risk getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. Even if theres a 1% chance that it won't work, you still risk it. Whether you're pro choice or pro life, I don't see how you could think that it's NOT their fault in this case.

It's all about the language and the framing. It's not killing if the fetus can't survive outside the womb yet. If a fetus is 1 week old , an abortion merely fails to allow possible future development into a human baby.

So what you're saying is that it isn't human because it can't survive outside with the mother...Ok...Why not take this to a different level? What about all those people in the ICU living off machines? They can't survive off their machines and can't survive the environment. Therefore, they're not human. Right? And if it is 1 week old, you fail to allow possible future development, causing DEATH. In other words - You kill it. Another human being.

This is EXACTLY the correct thinking. WHY are abortions still in high demand? WHY are they necessary? Lack of sex education is schools, lack of access to contraception (or education on how to use contraception), dismal resources to help women care for a child that they can't afford, difficulties of mothers keeping work after maternity leave, short maternity/paternity leaves, teen pregnancy, ETC.


You're exactly right that outlawing abortion is not a solution. It just puts the problem under the rug (while women continue to have illegal abortions and die in large numbers from them). Addressing the social and economic issues I mention above will RADICALLY reduce the need and want for abortions.

We're on the same page in what should be done, but I still don't think that abortion should be legal because I view it as killing an innocent human being. But you won't see me parading the streets about it. I'd deal with some kind of medium similar to what Brandon posted.

Abortion is not about convenience. It is not a light, easy decision with no consequences. There are physical, psychological, and financial consequences to pregnancy, adoption, and abortion. If framed in a narrow black and white box, sure it is easy to say abortion is killing a baby. But please, take a step back and look at all the surrounding factors.

It sort of is about convenience. People do it because it's the easy way out. Not saying it makes it easy, but its certaintly the easiest way.

And I do look at all the surrounding factors. None of it justifies killing another human being.

This is a cold statement and I have thought about it a long time. A woman is already here. She is already contributing to society. A fetus is not. We have no idea what type of person that fetus may become if he or she will reach an age of maturity. If the woman feels it is better to get an abortion in her situation, then I don't see why a potential should be allowed to overrule someone who is already born and achieved adulthood (in terms of reproductive capability.) There are plenty of babies and older children in the world for people to concern themselves with.

Here, you're basically killing another person because he/she doesn't contribute to society. This is exactly what I think is wrong, and we shouldn't kill babies because "the woman will feel better." It doesn't justify it at all. Also, we don't know what the baby will be like in the future...But again, it's not grounds to kill it. I prefer to at least give the baby a chance at life.

i'm pro-choice. nobody has the right to tell a woman what to do with her body and we don't know the circumstances.

Like I said in a previous post, it's not about the woman's body. It's about the human life that's growing inside her body.

I'm all for abortion

If the baby doesn't get aborted, I have a feeling it would turn into a future criminal because of the lack of parenting.

So because the baby *might* turn into a criminal, we should kill it? I'm sorry, but this reason is just ridiculous. You'd might as well kill all kids who have bad parents because they *might* turn into criminals. That's essentially the same thing.

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

I'm pro-life. Abortion is murder. There is no reason for a person to do it, in my opinion.

Even if the fetus is seriously ill or dead and is affecting the mother's health? If the girl is impregnated from rape she should have to live with the rapist growing inside of her and having the child out of rape? There are reasons for it. Abortion isn't murder because murder as far as I know applies to a person and a fetus is not considered a person in law. Abortion is killing, it's death, it's ending a human's life, all those are true but it is not murder.

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

Yes. If you have sex, you must be prepared for the possible consequences. The main reason for sex is to procrerate.

I agree, you must be prepared for the consequences but the condom breaking is not their fault. The condom shouldn't break, it's designed not to break, there's quality control to test that it doesn't break but sometimes there are errors. What is your point in that sex is meant to reproduce? Are you suggesting sex should be unprotected?

[emma01]

I certainly believe it should be legal, even though I am against abortions because parents simply dont want the child, it is better for everyone if that child is not born into an unloving home where it may be abused or adopted out, and growing up knowing it was not wanted and abortion was an option for it. I would be devastated if mum told me she may have aborted me.
Also, having abortion ILLEGAL would put some people in horrible horrible positions. There is of course the reason that the mother has been raped and would have to give birth to a baby that was brought about by an illegal act, but what about if having the baby puts the mother in serious danger and could kill her. Most people in this situation would choose to keep the mother safe, and kill the baby. I am sorry but I would rather a 20 year old woman live than an unborn baby that has been growing for what, 12 weeks? If abortion was illegal then it is like saying well sorry mum but you are just going to have to die, this unborn baby is more important than you.