Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life? (v3)

Heh, I would like to see you try to sprint down to first base with one of those things.

If it's a banana cup, it's not so bad. But one of those old-school triangular pieces of ****, now that's a nightmare...

 

then have to squeeze that basketball out of a opening the size of a soda straw.

Oh come now, it's bigger than THAT

Isn't it? ?

 

I do not support abortion when a fetus is viable outside the womb.

Exactly, anakin_girl.

Late term abortions should ONLY be done if it is the ONLY option and the mother will surely die.

I mean, I highly doubt a women wakes up after being pregnant for 8 months and says, "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant anymore-I know! I'll go and sign up for a highly risky surgical procedure!"

No, it's allowing the natural processes of nature to occur. It's allowing the consequence to come about of said woman having sex. (And before anyone says I'm condemning women for having sex, I'm also "condemning" men for it because if a woman abstains for the right reasons, then the man will be left without sex as well. Note that I don't condemn sex, just sex outside of marriage.) It's allowing a human life to be born into the world, same as all other human life.

Again-what about someone who was raped?
Or a married individual who doesn't want a child? Or can't have a child for health reasons?

If I ever want to have a child, I would have to be careful how I planned a pregnancy-because of my meds. Taking Paxil while pregnant can cause serious birth defects. But quitting Paxil cold turkey can also cause serious anxiety and depression. Add pregnancy to that and I'd probably end up suicidal. I'm not willing to have that happen to me again. EVER.
(I've been through Paxil withdrawal when my psychiatrist disappeared and until I could contact my primary care physician, it was HELL. And I wouldn't wish obsessive-compulsive disorder on my worst enemy. Not even a purist! )

There are probably medications I could switch to-but only under the careful watch of a psychiatrist or physician. And then I'd have to be WEANED off of the Paxil first.

Oh come now, it's bigger than THAT

Eh, the cervix does dialate, yes Stackky, but not by much. And there's also tearing and bleeding. How many women still die giving birth?

 

And I wouldn't wish obsessive-compulsive disorder on my worst enemy. Not even a purist!

Ouch!

I wouldn't wish manic depression on my worst enemy either--except maybe an Anakin-hating fanboy.

I mean, I highly doubt a women wakes up after being pregnant for 8 months and says, "Gee, I don't want to be pregnant anymore-I know! I'll go and sign up for a highly risky surgical procedure!"

And if she does do this, she needs to have the baby and give it up for adoption because she's definitely too stupid to raise it herself if she can't figure out she's pregnant before the third trimester.

"Oh no! What's happening to my stomach? Why am I throwing up all the time? Why do my boobs hurt? Gee, let me think..."

 

Obviously, this is a very serious, devisive topic. But for a moment, lets let go of personal anecdotes and suspect logic in an attempt to outsmart somebody else and focus on another aspect of this issue.

The fact of the matter is that no matter what side you are on, pro-life or pro-choice, I think that everyone can agree that abortions are terrible acts for everyone involved. No woman who has ever had an abortion has enjoyed it and would want to get another.

Why don't we try, as a society, to do what we can so that the number of abortions steadily decrease? And that doesn't necessarily mean legal action.

How about easing adoption laws so that couples who can't have kids can adopt and give pregnant women another option in case they don't want to raise the child?

Why can't we develop a more comprehensive and effective support structure for women who are pregnant so that their circumstances, financially, doesn't make the decision for them to have an abortion?

Also, why can't there be better support structures and support groups for women who have had abortions so that they can recover from that action?

There are many things that can be done, outside of the legalities of the issue, that can decrease the effects of abortions to women and to our society.

And in regards to health issues, which does encompass a large number of women, perhaps one or the other member of a couple can choose to "limit" their ability to contribute to having a child. There are such things as vasectomies precisely so that a couple who doesn't want a child doesn't have to worry about having another. This isn't foolproof, but they work pretty well.

Anyway, just my contribution to the discussion.

 

jedi-maximus:

Abortion should be a last resort, no doubt there. I think women should be presented with all the options. Some folks here on the pro-life side--I think DM and irishjedi--have mentioned organizations that will help pregnant women with shelter, maternity and baby clothes, medical care, assistance with nutrition, and adoption. I think women need to know that these are out there before she lies on the operating table and gets anesthetized for a D&C.

However, after learning of these options and she still wants an abortion, and she is in her first trimester, then she should be able to have one.

 

I'd like to see stupid things like abstinance only education ended, and see people-especially young teenagers-better informed about birth control and sex ed.

I will say I don't think teenagers should be having sex-I think they're too young, for the most part. However, I would like to see that they are at least informed.

 

Once the egg and sperm join (a human egg and sperm) what else is it going to be?

It could be "going to be" a fetus that never develops a brain. Why do you have to wait to find out?


As for punishing the "baby," how good is it to bring it into the world if they parents don't want it? That seems infinately more cruel to me.

While in some cases life may seem more cruel or more painful than death, that does not mean we should make a policy of dealing death to those whose lives are deemed not worth living.


NEITHER A FETUS NOR AN EMBRYO ARE BABIES YET!

And what is the quantifiable difference that distinguishes them? Just the amount of time they have existed?


So you're saying that a married man and woman should not have sex unless they want to do their Godly Duty of Reproduction, in spite of the consequences to the woman.

A man and woman who don't want to have children - even if they're married - should have the responsibility of preventing pregnancy.

You don't have a right to risk-free sex, even within marriage.


And again, you are putting the burden on the women. that is a fact that you cannot deny.

The burden is on women thanks in large part to biology. The government should require responsibility on the part of both parents, but it's not the government's fault that the woman carries the pregnancy. There is an extent to which you have a right to do what is biologically unnatural (it falls under the freedom to pursue happiness), but it does not extend so far as to outweigh anyone's right to life.


But you're still making it the woman's responsibility to not have sex.

And how much does the law have to do to hold a man responsible before you'll concede abortion "rights"?


Why can't we develop a more comprehensive and effective support structure for women who are pregnant so that their circumstances, financially, doesn't make the decision for them to have an abortion?

There are a lot of groups willing to support pregnant women who have financial need; I think the stigma attached to unplanned pregnancy still plays a big role.


And in regards to health issues, which does encompass a large number of women, perhaps one or the other member of a couple can choose to "limit" their ability to contribute to having a child. There are such things as vasectomies precisely so that a couple who doesn't want a child doesn't have to worry about having another.

You mean, the couple would actually have to anticipate the potential results of their actions and take steps to prevent it in advance?

 

A man and woman who don't want to have children - even if they're married - should have the responsibility of preventing pregnancy.

You don't have a right to risk-free sex, even within marriage.

So you are suggesting that my husband and I are to deny ourselves marital sex because I have health problems.

Lovely.

As I've told a couple of others in the thread--I'll let you discuss that with him--and I'll make sure I'm several rooms away.

 

No; I am suggesting that you shouldn't have unprotected sex and expect not to get pregnant. In your case, some sort of permanent alteration - such as a vasectomy - might be the ideal solution.

If I believe that abortion violates a right to life, am I supposed to overlook that for the case of a married couple simply because they expect to be able to have completely unprotected sex? Why? Because you have some right to what feels best, and no potential pregnancy should stop you from doing what you like?

Do what you like, but don't ask me to let you undo the results when it means terminating a life.

 

I'm not dumb enough to have unprotected sex; however, even permanent sterilizations and birth control pills are not 100 percent effective.

 

Terminating a potential life. There is a difference.

 

Sure, I suppose there is. The whole question is where it qualifies as a life, or rather, as a living human individual that should be protected under the law.

I say the same criteria should be used for determining life in fetuses that is used for determining it in those who have been born.

I believe that would limit elective abortion to the first trimester.

All those opposed... explain why.

 

I'm pretty sure I read that the point of viability is around 24 weeks, and if that is the case, I think 24 weeks is plenty of time to decide whether you want the baby or not...

 

I agree, Special_Fred.

 

But viability is not what we use to determine life (or the right to life) in those that have been born. So why should it be the criteria for determining life in a fetus?

 

Which is why I have been saying awareness or some sort of sentience. Basically when there is brain wave activity beyond what simply keeps the body alive is when I feel it makes sense that the fetus becomes a thinking human being, even if it is thinking in a very basic or primitive way. It can miss itself, it can want to live now. Before it was I feel in no significant way, different from just my hand living in a vat in terms of ?is it a human life.?

The high probability that it will become a human life is still something worth debating if anyone ever would.

From a practical point of view, I can somewhat understand why we stop at viability, but the pro-life crowd is right when they say that means nothing for determining human life.

 

The high probability that it will become a human life is still something worth debating if anyone ever would.

But a high probability of death does not equal death, so how can you use that argument for life?

 

womberty

What? I am not saying that the fertilized egg is a human life, I am just saying that the fact that it will be (pending any miscarriage or what not) is still an important point and one that can (I feel should) be debated.

 

But viability is not what we use to determine life (or the right to life) in those that have been born. So why should it be the criteria for determining life in a fetus?

Eh, not quite. For example, treatment of certain ailments-how far should the hospital go to keep a person alive, if they're fatally ill? Do not rescusitate orders and such.

 

I am not saying that the fertilized egg is a human life, I am just saying that the fact that it will be (pending any miscarriage or what not) is still an important point and one that can (I feel should) be debated.

But we do not use a high probability of death to treat a person as though they are dead, so how can you use the high probability that something will become a life to treat it as a legally recognized and protected life?


For example, treatment of certain ailments-how far should the hospital go to keep a person alive, if they're fatally ill? Do not rescusitate orders and such.

For one thing, a do-not-rescusitate order is a statement of the patient's wishes. Barring any such statement from the individual, the law assumes an intent to live.

However, the point I was making is this: we determine whether a person is "alive" or "dead" on certain criteria, and it is not viability. A person on a respirator is still "alive" unless their brain shows a lack of higher function, in which case we consider them "dead."

 

womberty

I am not saying that since it will be a human life, it should be treated as a human life. I am just saying that maybe (I don't know, that is why I say we should debate it) it should be treated diffrently than something that will never become a human life, like a rock.

 

The only time a Woman should be able to get an abortion is if she is raped, but it should be done at a reasonable time after.

So, do you think abortion is killing a child, or just that it's something you shouldn't do?

If you think it's killing a child, then why is it okay when the woman was raped?


If she has sex and gets pregnant thats her fault.

Let's be careful about calling a pregnancy someone's "fault." After all, isn't the father responsible for the pregnancy as well?


Everyone knows the risks of having sex. So if you get pregnant you should just deal with it.

Well, what if I said, "Everyone knows the risks of having sex, so if you get an STD, you should just deal with it"?

Should a person be able to take medicine to treat an STD, or should they just be stuck with it since it's their fault they got it?

I think there's a difference in an STD and a pregnancy - an STD does not involve a separate human life. However, you can't just say that a person has to be stuck with the outcome of sex; you have to have a good reason why.

If that reason is because the fetus or embryo is a human life, then what makes it okay to have an abortion in the case of rape?

 

380FAF-you're a male, right?



I once saw a sticker that had a little girl holding a huge pair of scissors saying, "If you cut off my reproduction choice, can I cut off your's?"

 

I once saw a sticker that had a little girl holding a huge pair of scissors saying, "If you cut off my reproduction choice, can I cut off your's?"

Now take the scissors out of the girl's hand and stick them in the back of her head and you have how some people view abortion.