What's your take on abortions?

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Thu May 10, 2007 4:11 pm

No, no big 'introduction article' for this topic. Plain and simple, what's your take on abortions? Pro-life, pro-choice or pro-something-else?

grizz · Post by **grizz** » Thu May 10, 2007 5:35 pm

Pro Life.

MD-2389 · Post by **MD-2389** » Thu May 10, 2007 6:58 pm

Its her body, not my choice..nor is it my responsibility. I think this is one of many situations that the government has no business sticking its nose into.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu May 10, 2007 7:23 pm

I used to be majorly pro-choice, but I am neutral now.

To me, it is an issue of when the unborn are considered human. I honestly can't answer that question, so therefore I have no idea.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu May 10, 2007 7:38 pm

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu May 10, 2007 8:14 pm

I don't agree Bet. All life is precious. There are those who have been born from that very situation that are very happy to be alive. And where \"the mother's life is in danger\". Most of the time that doesn't com about until the third trimester and medical advances these days make it relatively save both lives. I've had 3 cousins that have had toximia (called something else these days that I can never remember) and all kids and moms are fine. 2 cousins have had 2 kids even though it was a risk.

All children are able to be loved. Many adults are unwilling.

(i'm not snarling at you Bet. I just hear that reason all too often.)

I used to be pro choice until I found out what was involved (back in the 80's) when I realized.. hey.. this is a child, not a choice.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:19 pm

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:27 pm

what about adoption?

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu May 10, 2007 9:54 pm

Dakatsu wrote:To me, it is an issue of when the unborn are considered human. I honestly can't answer that question, so therefore I have no idea.

It's not to me. I think that debating whether or not the unborn are really "human life" is about as sensible as debating whether or not Pluto really is a "planet." There are no real answers to either question without appealing to some sort of metaphysics. In the case of the human life inquiry, I think that the question itself reeks of presumptive religious notions of the human essence and doctrine of the soul, so we should be cautious before accepting any so-called answers to it.

If killing human life is especially evil, it's because of qualities of humans--their capacity for emotion, pain, and rationality. It's not because of a human essence. It's not because of a human soul.

Jeff250 · Post by **Jeff250** » Thu May 10, 2007 10:10 pm

Duper wrote:There are those who have been born from that very situation that are very happy to be alive.

We should be careful though to not think that the prospect of having children who are happy to be alive is sufficient for justifying not having abortion. It seems as though if we take this reasoning to its fullest, we'll end up with an imperative like, "Have as many children as physically possible." It's certainly not a historically unprecedented principle, but even if true, abortion is probably the smallest way we are not living up to it.

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Thu May 10, 2007 11:14 pm

I'm for a parenting license.

Kyouryuu · Post by **Kyouryuu** » Fri May 11, 2007 1:38 am

Grendel wrote:I'm for a parenting license.

Yeah, it's kind of a strange thing, isn't it? We have to take tests and get licenses to drive a car. But the almighty responsibility of raising a child? Ah, hell, anyone can do that.

Not that I support the government in the bedroom. However, I wonder whatever happened to home-ec in high schools. Do they even teach that anymore? If we can talk about sex education, then we should also talk about the trials and tribulations of raising and supporting a family.

My stance on abortion falls on both sides. I'm pro-choice to an extent. I am uncomfortable with the concept of late-term abortions unless the life of the mother is somehow threatened by the pregnancy. There comes a point during any pregnancy where the developing child is unquestionably "living." It may not be able to feed itself or be completely sentient, but it kicks, has a beating heart, and moves about in the womb. I don't know exactly when that switch is toggled - far be it for us to pinpoint the exact moment of consciousness - but I think once you reach this point of no return, you are effectively destroying life.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Fri May 11, 2007 3:18 am

No matter where you draw the line, at either extreme or in the middle, you're bound to piss off a whole bunch of people. My personal take is that, unquestionably, in cases of rape there should be no restrictions on abortion. Now, that involves proving a rape took place, of course.

I don't make a special category for incest like others do because I feel the rape question takes care of that. Consensual sex between two members of the same immediate family is illegal and dangerous, not to mention disgusting, but it was consensual sex nonetheless. Forced sex is rape no matter who's involved.

For other cases, I'm quick to rule out third-trimester abortions. That's six whole months -- half a year -- during which time a decision could have been made, and the risks of performing an abortion at that stage are immense. And that's not even addressing the issue of the fetus/child's life.

Prior to that I think there should be mandatory counseling by two neutral, licensed third parties. And part of the licensing requirements should prohibit those with strong moral views or affiliations with religious or political groups who possess those views from obtaining a license. No person in the position of making such a huge decision like choosing to have an abortion should be pressured by someone with a hidden agenda or lacking a medical license. If you want to get advice from your pastor/imam/shaman/sun goddess, go right ahead, but the state will not sponsor or endorse their decision.

Also, I think that states should have the right to enact these laws. Healthcare has historically been a state issue, keep it that way. Federal law should only extend so far as to guarantee a woman's right to cross state lines to receive an abortion without repercussions in their home state. That's interstate commerce for ya

.

roid · Post by **roid** » Fri May 11, 2007 5:16 am

abortion? i suppose it's awwwite, needs a lot of salt though.

...

lol ok seriously, i'm pro-abortion.
Natural abortions kill most of us anyway.

Anti-abortion ppl confuse me with their control issues. You can't control the world, you can't control ppl's lives, ppl's choices. Humans are not a civilisation, we are individual lives. Trying to force ppl to not have an abortion is like trying to stop the moon by scrreaming at it. Ppl will do whatever the hell they want to do, and so they should.

There's too much suffering in this world, you can't control it, why bother trying to.

You only need 2 ppl to screw, it's not a big sacred thing with ceremony and pope-hats. 2 ppl in the woods can screw as much as they like and no-one would know. There could be ppl in the woods right now, screwing, popping pills, and sending anonymous antagonistic letters to militant pro-lifers.
hiding from the moral police

Just let us be the virus we naturally are.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:41 am

If the child is conceived by rape, I have no problem with abortion. Also, if a woman gets pregnant by accident (with her b/f, husband, etc) and the couple can't afford to have a baby, I'm for abortion. I know some will say why not give it up for adoption? May take is this, how would you like to have a baby inside of you for 9 months and then have to give it up? I doubt it would be that easy. But I think it's easier having an abortion.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:55 am

Choice..of course.

As a person who is far away from America and it's internal politics, all i ever see you talk about is bloody abortion or creationism. You do have a sh1tload of other problems to deal with as well no?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri May 11, 2007 6:58 am

Pro choice. It's none of my business and it's certainly none of yours. Kids aren't 'miracles'. Kids aren't special. They are like any other subgroup. A few winners, a whole lot of losers. There are far too many children nowadays, everyone is pumping out a litter of 3-4 each. There are actually TWO bus's that travel the same route because one isn't enough for all the rugrats.

Life is not precious, Duper.

CDN_Merlin · Post by **CDN_Merlin** » Fri May 11, 2007 7:59 am

There are approx 6 billion people on this planet. About what, I'd say around 3 billion don't have the life we do. In that 3 billion, about 1 billion are kids who are mal-nourished etc? I'm just pulling these figures out of my head so don't jump down my neck. I'm just trying to expand on Testi's post.

We have enough people on this planet to care about and many aren't cared for. Why do we need to force women to have kids they may not want or afford?

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Fri May 11, 2007 8:02 am

Here are my thoughts on abortion.

If you aren't willing to declare life begins at point X then you have no business telling anyone they can't remove the tissue growing in their womb.

If you have determined the point life begins at then abortion becomes murder from that point forward.

If you have found the point it becomes murder then it is up to the state to prosecute the murder unless you want to make it a federal offense.

The logic behind Row v. Wade that protects abortion as an invasion of ones privacy is really weak. Using that same definition of a 'right to privacy' I would think we could legalize all sorts of activity that neither side of the abortion argument would want to legalize.

For me I really don't know when life begins but It sure seems like a damn important thing to know! However, I'm not surprised that our two headed political party has found a way to avoid letting it be put into law because it would take away one of their most effective tools they use every election to polarize ignorant voters into clinging dogmatically to one of their two branches.
God forbid the people should be able to move past such a fundamental point and start looking for other criteria to select their representatives. As it is now too many voters are afraid to look outside the two headed one bodied party for fear of letting the other side win one of the few key arguments the party uses to keep them all on board.

Repub's shout: 'Tastes great'...... Dem's chant: 'No, it's less filling!'
Wake up people either way it's just crappy beer!

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Fri May 11, 2007 8:40 am

Testiculese wrote:
Life is not precious, Duper.

I expected that from you Testi. Like I said, many are unwilling. That TOO is a choice.

Sniper · Post by **Sniper** » Fri May 11, 2007 8:49 am

People will do what they want to do. I personally believe that as humans we do not have the right to determine if someone should live or die. I find it extremely selfish to terminate a life based solely on how effects yours. This is just another example of people shirking their sense of responsibility.

As with the tragedy of rape - the child possibly produced is as unfortunate as the rape itself. However, I feel that along with the aspect of not being able to undo the event we don't have the right to terminate a life because of it.

I also find the pro-choice aspect kind of funny. If we're all suppose to be able to \"choose\" why are we negating the baby's choice. Since it's human like you and me, doesn't IT have a choice?

It's a lose-lose situation until people realize that, no matter how you slice it, killing is wrong. This won't ever happen, but I digress, in our world we save the whales and save the seals, but we could care less about our own children.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri May 11, 2007 9:54 am

Killing is wrong? Wow, how do we eat??

Dupster, gems are precious, 'cause they are rare. Humans certainly aren't rare! If life is so precious, why are you eating eggs in the morning? How was that steak last night? How many points on that rack on your wall?

If life was precious, it wouldn't be so proliferate. Not any yahoo on the street could pump out enough kids to fill her trailer like a sardine can.
If life was so precious, then 80% of a woman's fertilized eggs wouldn't get flushed out with her period because it didn't make it to the uterus wall.

I don't like abortions, personally. But I also live in reality where it has it's place. Every species on this planet performs abortions. Not technically, but mice kill some of their young if there's not enough food, for example.

What I would like, instead of abortions, is far greater use of the 5-year implants to stave off pregnancy in the first place. There is NO reason for anyone to get pregnant by accident these days. Moron Christians in government who treat sex like a crime (and apparently one they barely understand) are at fault for all these unwanted pregnancies by keeping kids ignorant and shrouding sex as a taboo mystery (YOU CAN'T HAVE ANY!) while requiring parental permission for contraceptives. You can't stop kids form having sex, that is what people do. Especially with all of it blatently on display on TV commercials.

Sniper, I have seen the lives of many people ruined, and I mean RUINED, by bringing just one into the world. McDonald's workers forever. Boy, that's fair to the child, eh? Can't feed'em, can't clothe'em, can't raise'em, don't even love'em! So instead, I get to pay for their clothes, food and education, in which they don't partake, until they are old enough for incarceration while the parents stay dirt poor because it costs a @#$%load of money to raise a child.

If it wasn't so Orwellian, I'd like to have mandatory implants at 13, and kept up until age 21, unless you're IQ is below 100, when you should be sterilized. Then again, if the most enthusiastic breeders weren't the least common denominator, it wouldn't be necessary.

Most people are better off not born. I can easily point to a hundred a day. Twice that if I was in a city.

Funny that I think this way, yet I'm the first (and usually only) person to stop and help someone when they need it.

Sniper · Post by **Sniper** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:00 am

You eat babys?

see, I can do the same thing.

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:28 am

Yea, eggs and veal, you?

Unless you are completely vegan, you cannot say killing is wrong.

SilverFJ · Post by **SilverFJ** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:34 am

What's gooey and red and crawls up your leg??

A homesick abortion!!

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Fri May 11, 2007 10:46 am

Pro-choice. In fact, pro-abortion!
The other question is if an unborn baby counts as a human, then why can't sperm count as human too? Every single one of those things in your semen can be a human, and can potentially grow up to be something great.

Sniper wrote:I also find the pro-choice aspect kind of funny. If we're all suppose to be able to "choose" why are we negating the baby's choice. Since it's human like you and me, doesn't IT have a choice?

Firstly, we don't know if it is a human.
Secondly, whose choices should matter more: That of an unborn baby, or that of two grown adults?

Sniper wrote:It's a lose-lose situation until people realize that, no matter how you slice it, killing is wrong. This won't ever happen, but I digress, in our world we save the whales and save the seals, but we could care less about our own children.

Unless you're a vegetarian, and go out of your way to not kill a single insect by accident or otherwise, don't bother with that argument.

Jeff250 wrote:If killing human life is especially evil, it's because of qualities of humans--their capacity for emotion, pain, and rationality. It's not because of a human essence. It's not because of a human soul.

Agreed. I don't see a foetus as a person, I see it as a giant parasite.

Grendel wrote:I'm for a parenting license.

AGREED!
Problem is, that won't actually reduce the amount of pregnancies by much. And what then?

Bet wrote:But, I put myself in the shoes of the 13 year old and I just can't let it happen to her.

Oh? And if you put yourself in the shoes of an adult that willingly knew the risk of sex but wants to have an abortion, then wouldn't you not want to have an abortion?

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Fri May 11, 2007 5:18 pm

Unequivocally pro-life, for a variety of reasons, and unequivocally pro-woman as well. The fact that so many women are forced to resort to abortion every year in this country is utterly disgusting, and I think it speaks volumes about how seemingly incapable our society is of extending aid to those who need it most.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:03 am

Top Gun wrote:The fact that so many women are forced to resort to abortion every year in this country is utterly disgusting, and I think it speaks volumes about how seemingly incapable our society is of extending aid to those who need it most.

We already do extend that aid... it's called Planned Parenthood.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat May 12, 2007 2:03 am

Top Gun wrote:The fact that so many women are forced to resort to abortion every year in this country is utterly disgusting, and I think it speaks volumes about how seemingly incapable our society is of extending aid to those who need it most.

Really though, the majority of abortions that are carried through aren't just because the parent(s) can't properly afford it, but because they just don't want to have a child.

roid · Post by **roid** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:08 am

Testiculese wrote:If it wasn't so Orwellian, I'd like to have mandatory implants at 13, and kept up until age 21, unless you're IQ is below 100, when you should be sterilized. Then again, if the most enthusiastic breeders weren't the least common denominator, it wouldn't be necessary.

Most people are better off not born. I can easily point to a hundred a day. Twice that if I was in a city.

Funny that I think this way, yet I'm the first (and usually only) person to stop and help someone when they need it.

i like the way you think

.

We used to have disease and wars to thin ppl out. The good ol days of hackin and slashin where the only ppl left were too strong to die, or too smart to play the game. SPARTAAA

Now we just need spaceships. god i love me some spaceships. VRUM VRUM off we go, then i'll feel at peace with humanity's plight.

"Retreat to space: a good alternative when democracy continually shits in your cereal"

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:34 am

I have some VERY strong feelings about this subject (a family member worked for an abortion-related organization when I was younger), but I'll refrain from voicing everything so strongly right now, and just try to summarize.

I think we can all agree that abortion is the intentional taking of a child's life. The big question is, \"should it happen\"?

So, here is my take, given the various scenarios:

For the mother's (or her family's) convenience, or to avoid some stigma: Should not happen, period. We don't allow people to take the lives of their 2-year old kid for convenience, do we? The same applies here.

When it is clear that the pregancy would kill both the mother and child: Should be allowed. Mothers should not have to sacrifice their lives for nothing (either way, the child cannot survive).

Other \"endangerment\" scenarios (e.g. \"it's either the mother or the child\", etc.): I don't know; This is the morally fuzziest of the situations, akin to those old \"Lifeboat: who gets thrown out to save the rest?\" scenarios.

Rape (when no \"endangerment\" applies): Should not be allowed; adoption is the best alternative. This is the hardest for me to say, because I empathize with the undeserved struggle that the victims face. The mother doesn't deserve any more trauma, but the child doesn't deserve to be killed, either.

------------

Plus, here are two things that I feel need to be pointed out:

1. Partial-birth abortion (which is exactly what the name implies, it's sick as hell) shouldn't be supported in any case. If the child can be partially born without endangering the mother (yes, the head is out), it can be birthed and given up for adoption.

2. Adoption is very under-used as an alternative. There are thousands and thousands of families out there who are just desperate for the chance to adopt; I personally know of at least four young couples in this situation. Why isn't this talked about more?

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Sat May 12, 2007 8:51 am

TIGERassault wrote:Firstly, we don't know if it is a human.

How are you defining "human"?

- By DNA? When I was a fetus, I had the same DNA as I do now. I hope you consider me human.

- By whether it's born/unborn? Interesting; why should my location determine my humanity?

- By something else? You'll have to explain how some other determining factor imples that a fetus isn't human until it's born.

TIGERassault wrote:...I don't see a foetus as a person, I see it as a giant parasite.

That's the problem, Tiger. You see a "blob of parasitic cells", where in fact there is something very much more like you than you realize.

Seriously, go do some research into fetal development. You will not find anything resembling a parasite. After only a few weeks (just barely into the beginning of the pregnancy), the fetus has a beating heart, a forming brain, arms, legs, ears, etc. Not much later, you can even make out its facial features!

Calling it a "blob of cells" isn't accurate, morally or biologically.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sat May 12, 2007 9:07 am

Foil wrote:I think we can all agree that abortion is the intentional taking of a child's life.

Don't include me in your genralising ta very much.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Sat May 12, 2007 12:31 pm

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sat May 12, 2007 4:09 pm

Foil wrote:That's the problem, Tiger. You see a "blob of parasitic cells", where in fact there is something very much more like you than you realize.

Seriously, go do some research into fetal development. You will not find anything resembling a parasite. After only a few weeks (just barely into the beginning of the pregnancy), the fetus has a beating heart, a forming brain, arms, legs, ears, etc. Not much later, you can even make out its facial features!

Calling it a "blob of cells" isn't accurate, morally or biologically.

When I said "it's a giant parasite", I wasn't saying it's similar to a parasitic insect; that would be just crude. I'm saying that it's a creature that's going to drain you of a lot your life scource for 9 months.

Also, nobody said anything about a "blob of cells". Don't be putting words in my mouth.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Sat May 12, 2007 6:12 pm

Foil wrote:I think we can all agree that abortion is the intentional taking of a child's life.

Uh, no. We don't. That kind of statement is scary; it's indicative of some pretty serious horse-blinders.

Top Gun · Post by **Top Gun** » Sun May 13, 2007 12:42 am

TIGERassault wrote:
Top Gun wrote:The fact that so many women are forced to resort to abortion every year in this country is utterly disgusting, and I think it speaks volumes about how seemingly incapable our society is of extending aid to those who need it most.
Really though, the majority of abortions that are carried through aren't just because the parent(s) can't properly afford it, but because they just don't want to have a child.

Do you have any statistics to back that up, or is that just your take on things? I'm not meaning to be harsh; I'm just curious if there have ever been studies conducted on that particular point.

And if it is true, exactly what does that say? Excluding the very rare circumstances of rape and incest, the parents consensually performed an act whose sole biological function is to produce offspring. At least from my point of view, in a certain sense, abortion is a form of trying to have your cake and eat it too. If a couple is absolutely committed to not having children, there are any number of ways to ensure that that doesn't happen. The way I see it, in the vast majority of cases, if the woman has become pregnant, then that "choice" has already been made, and both people should have the responsibility to deal with the consequences.

Again, please note that I am not including rape or incest in this in the least, nor am I commenting on my feelings on any forms of contraception. Also, like I said above, I really don't know at all what percentages of abortion are performed as a matter of "convenience," or of desperation, versus those due to actual physical concerns. It's those cases of desperation that I was speaking of with my post above; I really do find it despicable that our society pushes a "quick fix" on women, particularly single women, when they're in a time of need. If you ask me, it's our culture that's at fault; we should be creating support networks for these women, not shuttling them off to an outpatient clinic at the drop of a hat.

Duper · Post by **Duper** » Sun May 13, 2007 12:58 am

HERE are stats.

And HERE (this is more indepth)

ccb056 · Post by **ccb056** » Sun May 13, 2007 1:30 am

Since no one has any convincing argument nor evidence that a fetus is not just a human being in an early stage of development, I don't see abortion as anything other than murder.

And while the state already has limited control over your body, I don't have a problem with them outlawing you're killing someone else.

Will Robinson · Post by **Will Robinson** » Sun May 13, 2007 8:04 am

ccb056 wrote:Since no one has any convincing argument nor evidence that a fetus is not just a human being in an early stage of development, I don't see abortion as anything other than murder.

And while the state already has limited control over your body, I don't have a problem with them outlawing you're killing someone else.

That's a key point there. It doesn't take one side of the political spectrum anytime at all to declare we have a scientific consensus on global warming, because the definitive statement serves one of the parties.
However it doesn't seem to serve either party if there is a definitive statement on when life begins because if the medical community was able to speak with authority on that point then the abortion issue would quickly become a non-issue for most voters and thus both parties would lose one of their most powerful keep-our-voters-on-the-plantation tools.

I believe if the medical community came out and said, with authority and scientific explanations ready, that "Until the fifth week you can not consider it to be a life." then a substantial majority of voters would take that time frame as the point at which abortion should be outlawed. Fifth week, ninth week, twentieth week... whatever the timeline, once America buys the timeline the issue is dead politically and the law will be passed. What would be left would be a minority on each side saying either, 'all abortion should be legal'... or.... 'no abortion should be legal'... but neither faction would represent enough of a voter block to get any momentum in congress.

So I have to ask myself, does the medical community know when life begins but are divided along ideological lines that have nothing to do with medicine?
Or is it really indeterminable at this point?

I find it surprising that a majority of doctors don't speak with one voice to when an abortion should be considered a murder.
It's such an important point you would think Congress would have appointed a blue ribbon panel of doctors to give them some guidance! They do it over less important issues all the time, why not on something as important as the potential murder of millions of babies?!?

What's your take on abortions?

What's your take on abortions?

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re:

Re: