Poll: Abortions in today's society: your views

[Cheesus333]

My friend survived her abortion. By which I mean, she was on the receiving end of it. I don't think she'll ever forgive her parents, and I don't think anyone has the right to try and make her do so.

I'm pro-life, but I can definitely see your viewpoint OP. If I were just getting into a lifetime career I wouldn't want a baby either, but ultimately, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't want to abort a child. As ever, the only real safe choice is abstinence but, hell, I wouldn't expect that off anyone except a eunuch. Or maybe a nun/monk.
Just take all the precautions you can, I suppose. Condoms, the morning after pill, etc. By the way, the implant you refer to, is that like a little chip that goes in the arm? Or is it something different? That bit's just personal curiosity, I knew a girl with that chip in her arm and I was wondering if there were different variations.

 

[Dogstile]

2. Equal responsibility breeds equal rights. If you believe this (which I strongly do), then both people should have a say in keeping or terminating the child.

What if one parent leans towards abortion and the other doesn't?

Flip a coin. It's an unbiased judge.

 

[Daverson]

Men are under-represented in any decision making when it comes to their kids...

Anyways, abortion, I personally think it's a good idea. The last thing we need with the current predictions of overpopulation is more people.

Bear in mind, any one of your ancestors from, say, 100 years ago, so about 4 generations, (assuming the average age of childbirth is around 25, liberal by today's standards, but in the past people were having kids earlier), and each family has two kids (that's probably less than average, but it does offset the whole 25 years thing). That's 1 person making 16. So, in laymans terms, the population increases by a factor of 8 every hundred years (because, obviously you need two people to make a baby, so divide 16 by 2!). By 2100 we'll have around 48 billion people on earth if measures aren't taken! D=

 

[DanielDeFig]

i have one word for you that is repeated here in Africa over and over (with regards to HIV/AIDS): CONDOM!

but seriously, it's better to be double-safe: pill or implant for the female, and comdom for the male. Condoms are "only" 97% effective anyways. Plus, the figure you gave (584), how small of a percentage is that out of the total number of women in the UK who use implants?

At the end of the day, most people i know are pro-choice (the womans choice, mind you), but as a philosopher who is not knowledgeable enough in biology and development phases of a human child, i tend to stay out of the abortion issue, on the grounds that i have no way of determining when life actually starts (it is always wrong to destroy a life, no matter who, when or how).
Once someone can physically prove, and logically convince me of when life starts, i would be pro choice for any time before that.

 

[Chameliondude]

I think it should be the choice of the parents, with a bit more swing to the mother if they want an abortion, for up until the point where it would be possible for the child to live if taken out the womb. Its her womb after all, I think that it is the same point as brain activity occurs, about 22-24 weeks (not sure)

Its absolutely rediculous to say no abortion after conception, because we define human death as without brain activity, and if it doesnt have any, its not human yet, and it will sound harsh but does not have the right to exist, just like every other sperm and egg that is not fertilised throughout your life. It also means people will not have to have a baby when it will grow up in a poor environment, like rape cases, with diseases such as aids, deformed, or in a drug addled or broken home. Life is about quality, not quantity...

 

[Squarez]

i believe abortion is wrong, but i also don't feel it should be illegal. but more to the point of your question, no, i don't feel men should have much say at all in the decision-making process. it's the woman's body. if we're gonna screw 'em, we gotta live with the consequences.

This is the kind of viewpoint I find highly objectionable for two reasons:

1. It's predicated on the view that men are entirely responsible for sexual acts. This is bullshit. Men and women both have equal urges to have and enjoy sex, so both have to be responsible for any outcomes.
2. Equal responsibility breeds equal rights. If you believe this (which I strongly do), then both people should have a say in keeping or terminating the child.

It's these unequal rights that I think leads to the most tension. You take a situation that two people are equally responsible for but are able to dump the majority of the negative consequences on one party. The woman gets first rights to the child (unless shown to be negligent), the father gets no say in termination and then has to pay for the child's upbringing for the rest of his life... I'm not saying I have the answer but this just seems wrong to me.

noooo... my opinion is based on the fact that it's her body, not on the misguided idea that only men want sex. if men carried babies to term in their bodies, i'd say the men should get the final say. also, despite issues of child-support, women still take the largest burden for child-rearing (unless you stay together and become a house-husband). put quite simply: a child will almost always have far greater impact on a woman's life than on a man's. oh, boohoo, us guys have to pay some money. if we want to, we can say f*** off and never have anything more to do with the woman or child than to write a check every month. if you ask me, it sounds like the system is skewed in OUR favor, not the woman's.

But what you guys both seem to be forgetting that it isn't HER child, it's BOTH OF YOUR's child. Ragardless of who has to ultimately give birth to it, you're both equally responsible for it's creation and it's raising. It annoys me that the mother automatically gets final say over what happens with it just because she has to give birth to it.

 

[Jonluw]

You should only have a child when you're ready for it. Negating a child is severely worse than having an abortion in every way, if you're not ready for it.

This. Very much this.

On the subject matter of her implant, I'd say you should start using condoms if you are very worried. Just to be on the safer side.

Aren't condoms fairly ineffective as far as contraceptives go? The pill, for example, only fails due to human faults. A condom, on the other hand, can fail on its own.
A condom's success rate is about 95%
The pill ticks in at about 99%, and the enirety of that 1% is people who forgot to take their pill one day and stuff like that. (At least if sex-ed class wasn't lying to me.)
Incidentally, 2% of people who get vasectomies still get children after the procedure.

 

[Baby Tea]

I was fairly Pro-abortion until I watched a speech from a woman who had actually survived a late abortion. Kinda put things into perspective that they are human beings. And when it comes down to it there's very few things worth murdering children for.

Was that Giana Jesson?
Because she's freaking awesome.

More on topic: I'm against abortion.
When used for convenience, it's a selfish cop out. Especially if the people involved weren't responsible enough to use proper protection. If you aren't using protection and are sexually active, you are actively trying to get pregnant. That's how it works. The child (Defined as such at conception, for the record) shouldn't suffer for that.

In cases of rape or medical trauma, it's far more understandable, though I cannot say that I'd still be OK with it.
I value human life. Even the unborn.

And if having a kid 'ruins your plans', then perhaps you should take extra protection precautions (Start wearing a condom), or stop being sexually active. If your plans are that important, then make the sacrifices. Otherwise prepare to have things change and blame no-one but yourself if they do.
It takes two to tango, not one.

 

[Dexiro]

No one has the right to kill a defenceless child, whether that child is born or unborn.

That's like saying you can't cut down a tree because it's defenceless. Fair enough you shouldn't kill a born child, but unborn (up until a certain stage) aren't capable of conscious thought or pain, they're no more sentient than vegetation.

 

[Nimcha]

I was fairly Pro-abortion until I watched a speech from a woman who had actually survived a late abortion. Kinda put things into perspective that they are human beings. And when it comes down to it there's very few things worth murdering children for.

Was that Giana Jesson?
Because she's freaking awesome.

More on topic: I'm against abortion.
When used for convenience, it's a selfish cop out. Especially if the people involved weren't responsible enough to use proper protection. If you aren't using protection and are sexually active, you are actively trying to get pregnant. That's how it works. The child (Defined as such at conception, for the record) shouldn't suffer for that.

In cases of rape or medical trauma, it's far more understandable, though I cannot say that I'd still be OK with it.
I value human life. Even the unborn.

And if having a kid 'ruins your plans', then perhaps you should take extra protection precautions (Start wearing a condom), or stop being sexually active. If your plans are that important, then make the sacrifices. Otherwise prepare to have things change and blame no-one but yourself if they do.
It takes two to tango, not one.

Let me ask you a question. Do you consider yourself a better person because you choose to, so to speak, take the moral high ground?

What I'm saying is, your opinion could be totally viable had the option of abortion not been available. But it is.

 

[Mandalore_15]

i believe abortion is wrong, but i also don't feel it should be illegal. but more to the point of your question, no, i don't feel men should have much say at all in the decision-making process. it's the woman's body. if we're gonna screw 'em, we gotta live with the consequences.

This is the kind of viewpoint I find highly objectionable for two reasons:

1. It's predicated on the view that men are entirely responsible for sexual acts. This is bullshit. Men and women both have equal urges to have and enjoy sex, so both have to be responsible for any outcomes.
2. Equal responsibility breeds equal rights. If you believe this (which I strongly do), then both people should have a say in keeping or terminating the child.

It's these unequal rights that I think leads to the most tension. You take a situation that two people are equally responsible for but are able to dump the majority of the negative consequences on one party. The woman gets first rights to the child (unless shown to be negligent), the father gets no say in termination and then has to pay for the child's upbringing for the rest of his life... I'm not saying I have the answer but this just seems wrong to me.

noooo... my opinion is based on the fact that it's her body, not on the misguided idea that only men want sex. if men carried babies to term in their bodies, i'd say the men should get the final say. also, despite issues of child-support, women still take the largest burden for child-rearing (unless you stay together and become a house-husband). put quite simply: a child will almost always have far greater impact on a woman's life than on a man's. oh, boohoo, us guys have to pay some money. if we want to, we can say f*** off and never have anything more to do with the woman or child than to write a check every month. if you ask me, it sounds like the system is skewed in OUR favor, not the woman's.

But what you guys both seem to be forgetting that it isn't HER child, it's BOTH OF YOUR's child. Ragardless of who has to ultimately give birth to it, you're both equally responsible for it's creation and it's raising. It annoys me that the mother automatically gets final say over what happens with it just because she has to give birth to it.

This was kinda my point... =P

 

[BlueAnubis]

I have read about this one contraceptive, it is 100% guaranteed to make sure your girlfriend never gets pregnant by you. It's this great new thing called:

Keepitinyourpantsyouhormonalretard.

Never fails, always works. Then, when you want to have kids, you can stop using it without any side effects.

Haha, just what planet are you on? Me and my girlfriend have been together for over two years and are in a very committed relationship, but the thought of not having sex now is simply unfathomable...

Apparently not committed enough to man up and say "I do" though. Am I right?

Another guy from my school was a bit of a Christian nutter and got married just because he was horny. Now he feels trapped in a loveless marriage at the age of only 22.

This guy? not so much a Christian as a person who calls himself one if that was the only reason he got married. If that is your reasoning, why not just get a mail order bride?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

ehh for the most part i think you should have the responsibility and live with the mistake

HOWEVER

the choice should always be there (up to a ceratin point, don't you dare do that 8 months in or something)

but really, bringing the child into a world where his parents wont love or care for him/her or putting them into a group home that wont love him/her and they scarecely are making it by, thats just bad and your killing them much more slowly in the long run, and alot of the thugs/criminals out there today are kids who didn't grow up with a stable family/environment, im not saying they shouldn't have been born but im just saying that being forced to have the baby isn't always the best choice.

if its rape or something however i am pro abortion on that, not that the child doesn't deserve a life but i dont know of a mother who would want to take care of a rape baby.

 

[s0m3th1ng]

I've had an abortion, rather my GF and I aborted a fetus, just putting that out there.
We already have enough people in the world, so if "killing children"(please) helps reduce our population, I'm all for it. Mostly serious about that statement...
I believe you need to take a test to bring another bloodsucking human life into the world. Been on food stamps and government assistance for the past 5 years? No baby for you. Have 5 kids and a rap sheet as big as their collective craps? No more leeches on society for you.
I am totally serious with that statement.

Abortion is a personal issue, and I don't see how anyone has the right to dictate how we are to conduct ourselves in personal matters. No laws should cover abortion, unless to provide for freedom in the matter. Worried about me "taking a potential human being's life"? Too bad, worry about your own excuse for a life. It isn't a human BEING until it's out and breathing it's own oxygen. Anything else is a part of the Mother and hence, her personal choice in getting rid of it or not. Did I just advocate late stage abortion? Oh noes!

Hmmm...I'm a fairly nihilistic person.

Aren't condoms fairly ineffective as far as contraceptives go? The pill, for example, only fails due to human faults. A condom, on the other hand, can fail on its own.
A condom's success rate is about 95%
The pill ticks in at about 99%, and the enirety of that 1% is people who forgot to take their pill one day and stuff like that. (At least if sex-ed class wasn't lying to me.)
Incidentally, 2% of people who get vasectomies still get children after the procedure.

The only way a condom will fail is through misuse: Doubling up, keeping them in your wallet or pocket, using old ones, not enough lubrication, and human intervention. Human intervention includes malicious acts, such as poking holes in them, and failing to wear them properly. Worn correctly and in good condition, they are 100% effective. Those figures are for condom USE as a whole, not on the quality of it as a contraceptive.

Also, shouldn't this be in the political/religious section?

 

[zehydra]

I consider it to be a living thing seperate from the mother. I don't think that we are in the right in killing it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Let me ask you a question. Do you consider yourself a better person because you choose to, so to speak, take the moral high ground?

What I'm saying is, your opinion could be totally viable had the option of abortion not been available. But it is.

I don't consider myself a better person because of anything.
And the fact that you consider my point of view 'moral high ground' says far more about you then it does about me.

The availability of abortion doesn't make it's use for convenience any less cowardly or selfish.
I don't care if there is a clinic on every corner: All it does is destroy life for the sake of shirking the responsibility of one's actions.

 

[Easton Dark]

A huge burden on families that may not be prepared for them.

A being without a developed conciousness.

Go ahead, it's none of my business what you do with your body.


All acceptable arguments that I would use.

All it does is destroy life for the sake of shirking the responsibility of one's actions.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Create Life. End Life.

 

[zehydra]

It's absolutely sensible to get an abortion in your situation, should you girlfriend get pregnant. The average public attitude towards abortions are overly positive, unless you count religious fanatics, and who does?

You should only have a child when you're ready for it. Negating a child is severely worse than having an abortion in every way, if you're not ready for it.

On the subject matter of her implant, I'd say you should start using condoms if you are very worried. Just to be on the safer side.

Trust me, not everyone who has decided to keep a baby due to an "unintentional" pregnancy are happy with their choice later in life.

I disagree. A neglected child is at least alive. It is better to be alive than dead.

 

[Nimcha]

I have read about this one contraceptive, it is 100% guaranteed to make sure your girlfriend never gets pregnant by you. It's this great new thing called:

Keepitinyourpantsyouhormonalretard.

Never fails, always works. Then, when you want to have kids, you can stop using it without any side effects.

Haha, just what planet are you on? Me and my girlfriend have been together for over two years and are in a very committed relationship, but the thought of not having sex now is simply unfathomable...

Apparently not committed enough to man up and say "I do" though. Am I right?

What do you mean by that?

 

[Jonluw]

I have read about this one contraceptive, it is 100% guaranteed to make sure your girlfriend never gets pregnant by you. It's this great new thing called:

Keepitinyourpantsyouhormonalretard.

Never fails, always works. Then, when you want to have kids, you can stop using it without any side effects.

Sex is a fundamental part of the human experience. There's a reason it feels good, and you have a strong urge to do it.

Keepitinyourpantsyouhormonalretard is a highly unnatural product, and can come with side effects such as severe stress and depression.

Most people only want 1-3 children. This contraceptive would mean that such a person would only get to have sex during 1-6 periods (unless one has fertility problems) through the course of his or her entire life; and that is simply an unthinkable proposition for anyone who is not borderline asexual.