Opinions on Abortion

[Fallingwater]

As much as it pains me to say this, I will not support banning abortion in its entirety, because I have no right to make that choice for another person.

Hey, at least you're not part of the lunatic crowd who want to ban it in any and all circumstances.

I'm a very rational person; to me, an embryo is an embryo - a mass of cells. Yes, they have the potential to live, but they cannot think, remember or feel, and they exhibit no cerebral activity whatsoever (which isn't surprising considering no brain exists yet). They are, to all intends and purposes, less alive than an insect. To me this means that their elimination should present no problem (to the mind if not to the body), much like you wouldn't lose sleep over tearing a leaf off a plant. Frankly, I'm a lot more worried about physical consequences to the body of women who undergo abortion in unregulated places.

I do realize that women tend to be a lot more sentimental about this stuff, and I also realize that I'll never be able to fully comprehend this due to my lack of a uterus and presence of a penis, but anyone who thinks about it rationally can't but come to this conclusion.

What truly drives me up the wall is when I hear women, especially young ones, say that they would NEVER! have an abortion. Apparently they'd much rather sacrifice the best times of their life to give birth to a child that is very unlikely to get the attention it needs, and all for the sake of a bunch of totipotent cells. The masochistic mentality of most of the human race is a complete mystery to me.

My personal experience with abortion has, thankfully, been limited to theory, during a pregnancy scare that left me sick with terror for three weeks. Me and my girlfriend did agree when we started our relationship that in case of mishap she'd get an abortion, but women aren't exactly known for having rock-steady resolve in sentimental matters. Regardless, I researched everything I could about chemical abortion (via the RU486 pill): places that would give it in this vatican-infested country, prices, procedures, papers, the whole deal. When my girlfriend turned out to not be pregnant after all, I let out a sigh of relief that must have been heard in China.

On a side note, I'm pleased to see that threads about hot topics such as religion and abortion can be had in this forum. In most other forums I've visited they tend to degenerate into idiotic flamefests before the first page is over...

 

[ExodusinFlames]

I do realize that women tend to be a lot more sentimental about this stuff, and I also realize that I'll never be able to fully comprehend this due to my lack of a uterus and presence of a penis, but anyone who thinks about it rationally can't but come to this conclusion.

Its actually pretty close to even nowadays.

Otherwise good points in there. I've gone through similar scares myself. My girlfriend by her own choice opted for the procedure to be done, and in all honesty, I wasn't going to stand in her way. I made sure that she was alright, before and after (as I couldn't be in during) and other than the emotion involved in it, everything was relatively straight forward.
If the facilities aren't available then other less safe practices may be employed. If they want to get rid of it, they will. Registered health clinic or seedy back alley. Take your pick.

 

[Bluebacon]

One of the things I always find amusing is the "coat-hanger, back-alley abortion" story.

I mean, if someone who is against gay marriage makes an argument that it will only lead to further legalization of polygamy or bestiality or pederasty, etc., then he's making a stupid red herring/slippery slope/straw-man dipshit argument that will never happen and just confuses/avoids the issue.

But if someone thinks abortion should be illegal (based on whatever "sanctity of life" argument you choose), then immediately you get "OMG then pregnant women everywhere will die horrible bloody deaths by sticking rusty coathangers in their vag behind some dumpster! We can't let that happen!"

Is that really no less absurd of an argument?

Not really because in places where abortions are illegal, backstreet abortions happen, and they're not pleasant. In places where gay marriage is illegal people dont randomly start being polygamous or comitting bestiality.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/6230647.stm

 

[The-Big-D]

My opinion is that if you know the child is going to have something wrong with them which will cause it not to lead a properly life and might need like tonnes of medical care etc because its not fair giving someone life who cant live it properly i find it cruel.

Anything else then im pretty much against it.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

If the parent really wouldn't be able to handle it, it would be okay.

 

[Skeleon]

And no, it is not a collection of cells indistinguishable from any other creature at any stage. Perhaps visually it's indistinguishable, but not on the cellular level.

But why does the cellular level matter when the fetus doesn't yet have a brain and can't experience or feel anything at all?
Is the potential that this lump of cells might one day become a human being already reason enough to force women to keep it growing inside of her?

Personally, I'm pro-choice up until the the end of the first trimester without restrictions. And up until birth in certain conditions (danger for the mother, serious birth defects, rape, incest and so on, all the things we agree on anyway).

I just don't think a lump that is no more sentient than a cluster of your own skin cells has the same rights as a partially developed embryo (second trimester and onwards).

 

[GothmogII]

My opinion is that if you know the child is going to have something wrong with them which will cause it not to lead a properly life and might need like tonnes of medical care etc because its not fair giving someone life who cant live it properly i find it cruel.

Anything else then im pretty much against it.

That really depends, and I think perhaps saying that just writes off thousands of such people, who despite their ailments still lead relatively normal lives. And even some of the worse ones. For example take look at this guy: http://www.10news.com/health/3919722/detail.html

Ryan González born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis (Similar to Harlequin Foetus Syndrome), is a freaking Tri-Athlete of all things, with a disability that is often fatal, and yet from all appearances is doing well despite it.

I wonder if we were to ask him, would he have rather been aborted knowing what he'd had to go through?

 

[ShankHA32]

Abortion is a great thing, think of it not as destroying life but as saving another.
He in the Uk you can donate the stem-cells which can cure a MASSIVE range of illness',
Also what is the Time limit in the other parts of the world here in England its 24 weeks which is a bit long but it always varies.

If anyone brings religion into this then im going to havbe to perform some late abortions.

I take my hat off to you friend. Religion does occasionally become involved with people's decision which is stupid. Metaphysics should never become involved in something so huge. And heres something ive always been wondering. At what point did everyone and there long lost twin have an opinion on abortion? I mean you can't state your opinion in public without being swarmed by uninformed retards with contrasting opinions. Occasionally you run into someone with a contrasting opinion who ISNT a retard, but there like a gold nugget in a fuckin long riverbed!

 

[The-Big-D]

My opinion is that if you know the child is going to have something wrong with them which will cause it not to lead a properly life and might need like tonnes of medical care etc because its not fair giving someone life who cant live it properly i find it cruel.

Anything else then im pretty much against it.

That really depends, and I think perhaps saying that just writes off thousands of such people, who despite their ailments still lead relatively normal lives. And even some of the worse ones. For example take look at this guy: http://www.10news.com/health/3919722/detail.html

Ryan González born with Harlequin-type ichthyosis (Similar to Harlequin Foetus Syndrome), is a freaking Tri-Athlete of all things, with a disability that is often fatal, and yet from all appearances is doing well despite it.

I wonder if we were to ask him, would he have rather been aborted knowing what he'd had to go through?

Nah i mean like if you knew your child was like mentally, physically disabled cannot literally do anything and everything is done for them. There not living at all i think its cruel to leave them like that unable to live a proper life. Its not fair.

Alot of people with some problems can over come them but i mean in extreme circumstances.

 

[GothmogII]

Nah i mean like if you knew your child was like mentally, physically disabled cannot literally do anything and everything is done for them. There not living at all i think its cruel to leave them like that unable to live a proper life. Its not fair.

Alot of people with some problems can over come them but i mean in extreme circumstances.

What exactly -are- those extreme circumstances though? Downs Syndrome? A weak heart? Being born without limbs? Being born blind, deaf and speech impaired? (Hello Hellen Keller!) I mean...really, there isn't really any one thing you can say: This is insurmountable!

Then...maybe I'm not thinking hard enough. It just seems to me, anything that isn't going to immediately kill you (or that is a least controllable if it will) is something that you can learn to deal with. Not that it's easy mind you, but it's not a living death sentence either.

I'll stop anyway, getting off topic here.

 

[Arachon]

I'm for abortion, be it that you use it as a last resort against pregnancy, or instead of contraceptives.

I honestly can't understand all the sentiment against the use of abortion as a contraceptive method, or even casual sex, especially considering women. Khell Sennet said in a post on the first page that too many abortions should be accompanied by sterilisation. I've found similar statements throughout the thread. What this does is punishing women for having unprotected sex, whereas men can walk away freely. If women having abortions should be sterilized, why not snip the bollocks of men who accidently get their girlfriends/wives pregnant?

 

[Lily05]

I'm a woman. And if I get pregnant, for whatever reason, I'll decide what I will do. It's my life, that I have to live by myself - every single day. I'm an adult, I decide what I want, do, wear, eat, believe, watch, and so on.

I strongly believe you can't really judge something unless you've experienced so. So I can't say whether I would or would never have an abortion - I just hope I'll never have to come to the point where I have to decide so. That's why I believe most reasons to be anti-abortion I've read so far just really don't seem thought through. At all.
Where on earth are you planning to find all those adoptive parents you're talking about? I know that where I live, they're having a hard time finding adoptive/foster parents. So we'll just jam all those children into orphanages?
Also, I have met people over the years who had their mother/parents tell them having them was the biggest mistake of their lives. And that made them pretty depressed. So you'd rather have a child come into this world, to be perfectly miserable because the parents aren't capable of loving them?
Because really, hundreds of people can say it's wrong, but they're they're not the ones having to raise the actual child, and they don't know what it's like to be in that particular woman's situation!

That being said, I don't think it's a matter that should be taken lightly and should be seen as someone called it before, a magical way of un-impregnating. It is a medical procedure, after all. Not to mention the psychological aspect. So please do stop making it harder on women who are going through a hard time already - and in my opinion, abortion isn't murder, so she won't harm a real human being by it. She should have the freedom of choice, and if you have decided to believe so, she'll face God by herself at some point. No need for anyone else to tell her what or what not to do, to tell her right from wrong. To quote Jesus; "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.".

 

[Arkhangelsk]

Pro-choice, a woman has the right to decide whether she wants to be a mom or not, and other people have no right to intrude. If they think abortion is wrong, fine. Don't have an abortion. But don't force your beliefs on to other people, it's wrong, immoral, and one step back to the days when independent thoughts were banned.

When the child has evolved enough to feel pain, then it can be questionable, but until then, it's A okay for me.

 

[Alex_P]

There is a point when the "collection of cells" as you guys put it, becomes a human being, and that point is before it enters the world. Since we do not know when exactly this occurs, we should err on the side of caution when performing abortions. In other words, we shouldn't do so unless it is necessary to do so. (Mother's life is in danger, or it would ruin the rest of the mother's life: rape, incest.)

But there isn't "a point" at which the fetus-thing suddenly becomes a fetus-person. It gradually acquires characteristics that we identify as human.

-- Alex

 

[asiepshtain]

Pro-choice here
I don't see how anyone else can dictate to a woman what she can and can't do with her own body. And that group of cells in her womb is not a child.

Yes it is. Once the egg and sperm cell unite there is a genetic uniqueness that will develop under optimal condition to a child. We are now smart enough to know that life doesn't begin in birth but when a new genetic being is created. That small cluster of cells already has a different DNA then that of the mother. Abortion is murder, simple.

However, that does not mean a stance for pro-life. For example, self defense permits murder, in a case where the pregnancy is endangering the life of the mother it is in her self-defense to abort the child.

Unique genetic structure or not, for about 3 to 4 months it lacks many of the essential quualities required to be considered "alive" much less "human".

For that first trimeseter, the embyro/fetus is nothing more then the pure definition of "parasite", and as such should not recieve special treatment otherwise if not being planned on carried through.

I disagree. your definition 'alive' or 'human' aren't explained but they seem to be ones for a fully developed-functioning being.

A single cell is alive. And while an embryo is indeed in symbiotic ( not parasitic) relationship with the mother, this doesn't make it not-human. You need to remmber that trimester is a fuzzy term, there is no clear line between first to second to third trimester. There is however, a very clear moment between the insemination of the egg to after it. In that exact moment, the egg and sperm cell both containing half a genetic code ( worthless alone) join and become a full, unique and functional genetic code, life.

From this point forward the being is both alive, and human. And to terminate its existence is to terminate a human, we have a name for that, killing. Note that this does not mean a ban to all abortions, as a society we have declared killing acceptable on certain occasions, self defense for example. We just need to remember that when we talk about abortion we are talking about killing.

 

[Thanatos34]

There is a point when the "collection of cells" as you guys put it, becomes a human being, and that point is before it enters the world. Since we do not know when exactly this occurs, we should err on the side of caution when performing abortions. In other words, we shouldn't do so unless it is necessary to do so. (Mother's life is in danger, or it would ruin the rest of the mother's life: rape, incest.)

But there isn't "a point" at which the fetus-thing suddenly becomes a fetus-person. It gradually acquires characteristics that we identify as human.

-- Alex

I completely disagree. Your example here, would have us decide whether or not we can kill something based on whether it resembles a human being in physical appearance.

 

[Thanatos34]

And no, it is not a collection of cells indistinguishable from any other creature at any stage. Perhaps visually it's indistinguishable, but not on the cellular level.

But why does the cellular level matter when the fetus doesn't yet have a brain and can't experience or feel anything at all?
Is the potential that this lump of cells might one day become a human being already reason enough to force women to keep it growing inside of her?

Personally, I'm pro-choice up until the the end of the first trimester without restrictions. And up until birth in certain conditions (danger for the mother, serious birth defects, rape, incest and so on, all the things we agree on anyway).

I just don't think a lump that is no more sentient than a cluster of your own skin cells has the same rights as a partially developed embryo (second trimester and onwards).

The fetus can feel relatively early in development, I believe it's six to nine weeks. In fact, I'm pretty sure it was the UK that recently began administering anesthesia to "fetuses" they were aborting.

They are a potential human, but they do not have the same rights as a human, as pointed out earlier. This does not mean that one should be able to abort them willy-nilly, simply because it's inconvenient.

 

[Alex_P]

I completely disagree. Your example here, would have us decide whether or not we can kill something based on whether it resembles a human being in physical appearance.

Not its physical appearance. Its ability to perceive and interact with its environment, especially other people.

Assigning full legal personhood to an embryo at fertilization or at implantation is arbitrary essentialism. Human DNA by itself isn't capable of thinking or feeling in any recognizably human way, and therefore shouldn't qualify for personhood and be treated as a person -- especially if that comes at the expense of the body right of someone who is a living, thinking person. It's ludicrous to treat the potential-human as a legal (or moral) person before its brain has even started to form.

-- Alex

 

[Thanatos34]

I completely disagree. Your example here, would have us decide whether or not we can kill something based on whether it resembles a human being in physical appearance.

Not its physical appearance. Its ability to perceive and interact with its environment, especially other people.

Assigning full legal personhood to an embryo at fertilization or at implantation is arbitrary essentialism. Human DNA by itself isn't capable of thinking or feeling in any recognizably human way, and therefore shouldn't qualify for personhood and be treated as a person -- especially if that comes at the expense of the body right of someone who is a living, thinking person. It's ludicrous to treat the potential-human as a legal (or moral) person before its brain has even started to form.

-- Alex

I'm not even beginning to see your side of the argument here, and it's really not helping me understand you.

If it is going to become a human if we do not interfere, then at what point does it get human rights? When it is outside of the mother's body? Is that what you are saying here?

Also, are you saying that if something cannot perceive and interact with it's environment, we should be able to kill it? There are humans with disabilities that cannot do this, should we just knock them off, too?

I agree that it's right to life should not make an actual human suffer grievous harm, but if the human is not going to suffer grievous harm, then the fetus should be allowed to live. We have come up with this idea that abortion is a right, (as you put it, a body-right), and that this somehow supersedes the right to life, which is guaranteed in the US constitution, in any case.

By the way, the fetus' brain begins its development, (as the brain is, really, developing all through life), a mere three weeks after conception. So is this the point where you would assign rights to the fetus?