Poll: Abortions in today's society: your views

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

This opinion comes in two parts, with the second superceding the first.

Part, the first - With the human population fastly approaching 7 billion people, I see abortion as a very viable option. Even with wars, disease, and nature all pitching in, we multiply faster than every factor imaginable on this planet can kill us. In addition, with all the limitations set upon ourselves as a collective species, especially those by religion that encourage being fruitful and multiplying, it is difficult to progress the idea that abortion is an option that should not be frowned upon. Without getting too lengthy, both genders have valid arguments regarding this issue and all of those valid points should be taken into consideration. To put this in perspective, in the USA, we have roughly over 300 million people. That equates, also roughly, into 4.5% of the human population on the planet...and we can't manage to properly care for that many!!! Even with laws, abortions are a tricky matter and they shouldn't be. HOWEVER...

Part, the second - Until AT LEAST 50% of the human male population have experienced their first pregnancies, their first labor pains, first bodily changes, first paternity clothing shopping experiences and their first deliveries, it is my opinion that men should NOT have a say in a woman's right to decide whether or not to have an abortion. Careful observers would note that this includes myself. I've always found it a little hypocritical that this world, that favors men more than women (thanks again, religion), shows little consideration to the fact that the woman undergoes the strenuous part of procreation...and yet...their opinions and thoughts on the matter are given the least amount of attention. For me, it's simply this - whatever a woman decides to do during pregnancy is her choice, even if it is to abort it.

 

[Woodsey]

First off: if anyone categorically states that abortion is bad no matter the reason, they can be categorically classified as an idiot.

I don't know if there's any on the Escapist, but there are people like that.

Well, you may categorically classify me as an idiot if you like, but kindly allow me to draw your attention to an important distinction.

An abortion is defined as an operation intended to end the life of the unborn child (or whatever you may wish to call the developing infant if this term does not please you). It is not an operation intended to save the life of the mother.

How can I say this with such confidence? Consider the following case. A pregnant woman is suffering from cancer of the womb. She will need an operation in order to survive, and as a consequence of this operation her unborn child will die. This is not an abortion, because its intention is to save her life. If, somehow, the child could be saved at the same time (even though, in fact, medical opinion is fairly clear that it can't be), then the operation would be seen not as a failure but as even more of a success. It saved two lives instead of one. In the case of an abortion, though, it would be seen as a failure if the child somehow survived, not as a success: because its aim was to end the life of the child. It failed to end a life that it was supposed to end.

Taking this definition of abortion, do you still feel the same way about anyone who categorically states that abortion is wrong?

Yes.

What if giving birth is the problem, or stages in the pregnancy are causing concern for the mother's health? An abortion may be recommended, and saying in that case that it's definitely wrong to take that option is definitely idiocy - if there is another option then I'd prefer that to be taken, but if an abortion is the best way then the importance of the two people is ranked as follows:

Mother > Baby

What if the mother is raped? Again, the mother's health takes precedent. People shouldn't be forced to give birth and then suffer severe psychological trauma.

What if the baby is likely to be still born? Again, psychological trauma (of both parents). There's a video of a man on YouTube who had that exact situation, and had to go to an abortion clinic whilst two crokey old women were standing outside screaming. So he went out, challenged them, and they left because they couldn't answer any of his questions.

Spoiler

What if the child is likely to be born with severe disabilities? Then you have to consider the child's well-being psychologically, the amount of pain it's going to have to endure, it's life-span and general quality of life, as well as whether or not the parents are going to be able (financially or otherwise) to support it.

I'm not saying that abortion is 100% the definitive answer to any of these things, but ruling it out of such situations is stupid, dumb, idiotic, and every other word you can think of for it.

The irony of the "pro"-life movement is that they don't seem to care about the ones considered to actually be alive.

 

[JenXXXJen]

I'm completely for abortions. A Foetus is not a fucking baby for a good while, and most, almost all, late-term abortions only take place in extreme circumstances where the mothers life is in danger, for instance. I hate this ridiculous stereotype of women suddenly deciding, six months in or whatever, that she doesn't want a baby. While I'm sure at least one person's done something like that, It's pretty fucking rare.

I also believe it should be entirely the woman's choice. It's her body, and that should be the end of it. Actually, to clarify, I don't think men should have any official or lawful say in the matter. But, assuming two people are in a healthy relationship, ideally it would be a joint decision. The man get's to have his say, but it's the woman's final decision.

If someone's anti-choice, we aren't going to be the best of friends. There's just so many misogynistic connotations with it, I'll just be completely incapable of speaking to someone like that.

 

[Nimcha]

This definition is wrong.

Feel free to argue about the validity of various criteria for life, but I will not engage with you if you treat your opinion as fact without backing it up. (I have already backed up my own opinion about the initial stages of human life.)

I'm not going to bother, you're obviously not going to change your opinion.

 

[DenSomKastade]

Getting abortion is okay. The whole "baby murder" thing is a joke that I will only take seriously when pregnant women have to pay for two at the cinema, otherwise if the embryo isn't counted as a person the how it be one. And yes I think stimcell research is good, many good thing can come from it. As for the stimcell they are just unused body parts atm.

 

[Popadoo]

No one has the right to kill a defenceless child, whether that child is born or unborn. A person can choose to share sex with their partner in the knowledge that no method of contraception is completely foolproof (or at least they should know that if they have a proper sex education - but, frankly, in the absence of one, an adult should do the research and find out for themselves from genuinely reliable medical and bioethical sources). Once a person makes that choice, the responsibility for that choice falls on them rather than on the innocent child who did not choose to be conceived. The person has the responsibility to carry the child to term and ensure the child is cared for.

It's not a child. At that point, it's as intelligent all a blob of meat. You still eat animals, right? Well, animals are more intelligent than that blob of meat at that point.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

Personally, I think it should be the women's choice, not some political or religious leader since it doesn't affect their life in any way, shape, or form.

Something I found that was rather... stupid... was in a bible that someone gave me. In the back in had all of these things (abortion, murder, etc.) and bible verses that were for/against whatever it was. I looked up abortion and I think there were two verses. Neither of them said anything that was even remotely close to talking about abortion. One was along the lines of "all children are God's children"... and? Where the fuck does that say anything about abortion being wrong? I bet half the people that say the bible is against it have never even opened a bible in their life. The bible doesn't say shit about abortion, people just interpret that it does. And those same people are the ones that aren't happy trying to live their own damn lives and have to stick their fingers in everyone else's pie...

No one has the right to kill a defenceless child, whether that child is born or unborn. A person can choose to share sex with their partner in the knowledge that no method of contraception is completely foolproof (or at least they should know that if they have a proper sex education - but, frankly, in the absence of one, an adult should do the research and find out for themselves from genuinely reliable medical and bioethical sources). Once a person makes that choice, the responsibility for that choice falls on them rather than on the innocent child who did not choose to be conceived. The person has the responsibility to carry the child to term and ensure the child is cared for.

What if the girl was raped and is too young or unable to care for the child? What if giving birth to the child would result in the mother dying, especially if it was due to the previous question? What if they knew the baby was going to be disabled or mentally retarded, or have something else that would make it's life harder than life already is?

 

[XT inc]

I used to be proabortion, but logically once you start the processes, I think it's unfair to the would be person to terminate them before they get a chance to live even if you don't want them. I can understand medical reasons, I.e severely mentally or physically handicapped signs before birth, but Not killing the starting point of what will be a baby.

that kid doesn't exist until pregnancy, but as soon as those cells start dividing you are on your way to a person, give it up for adoption. I don't think anyone can justify to me that calling the cells before a certain point, abortable.

 

[Estelindis]

What if both of them are allergic to latex and have to use the pill or an implant?
If that fails, then should they be forced to keep the baby?

If they are not prepared to keep the baby in the case of failed contraception (and they should be aware before having sex that no form of contraception is 100% effective) then they shouldn't have had sex in the first place.

I will probably sound very malicious, but do you recognise a pile of tissue (organs) as human beigns? Do you think that they deserve "rights"?

Has a pile of organs - say, for example, a person's removed heart, lungs, liver, and pancreas - ever developed into a new human life? Never. On the other hand, each and every one of us began as a fetus. The contrast could not be greater and there is no real room for comparison. (I would say that your analogy falls apart, but that would be to imply that it had ever stood together. No offence intended; I simply wish to be clear.)

Plus I'm one of those people who think it should be opted out that you have to sign under a release form so that they can take away your organs when you die. You're dead and you have nothing to do with them.

Not really related to the present discussion, but interesting.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

First off: if anyone categorically states that abortion is bad no matter the reason, they can be categorically classified as an idiot.

I don't know if there's any on the Escapist, but there are people like that.

Well, you may categorically classify me as an idiot if you like, but kindly allow me to draw your attention to an important distinction.

An abortion is defined as an operation intended to end the life of the unborn child (or whatever you may wish to call the developing infant if this term does not please you). It is not an operation intended to save the life of the mother.

How can I say this with such confidence? Consider the following case. A pregnant woman is suffering from cancer of the womb. She will need an operation in order to survive, and as a consequence of this operation her unborn child will die. This is not an abortion, because its intention is to save her life. If, somehow, the child could be saved at the same time (even though, in fact, medical opinion is fairly clear that it can't be), then the operation would be seen not as a failure but as even more of a success. It saved two lives instead of one. In the case of an abortion, though, it would be seen as a failure if the child somehow survived, not as a success: because its aim was to end the life of the child. It failed to end a life that it was supposed to end.

Taking this definition of abortion, do you still feel the same way about anyone who categorically states that abortion is wrong?

Yes.

What if giving birth is the problem, or stages in the pregnancy are causing concern for the mother's health? An abortion may be recommended, and saying in that case that it's definitely wrong to take that option is definitely idiocy - if there is another option then I'd prefer that to be taken, but if an abortion is the best way then the importance of the two people is ranked as follows:

Mother > Baby

What if the mother is raped? Again, the mother's health takes precedent. People shouldn't be forced to give birth and then suffer severe psychological trauma.

What if the baby is likely to be still born? Again, psychological trauma (of both parents). There's a video of a man on YouTube who had that exact situation, and had to go to an abortion clinic whilst two crokey old women were standing outside screaming. So he went out, challenged them, and they left because they couldn't answer any of his questions.

Spoiler

What if the child is likely to be born with severe disabilities? Then you have to consider the child's well-being psychologically, the amount of pain it's going to have to endure, it's life-span and general quality of life, as well as whether or not the parents are going to be able (financially or otherwise) to support it.

I'm not saying that abortion is 100% the definitive answer to any of these things, but ruling it out of such situations is stupid, dumb, idiotic, and every other word you can think of for it.

The irony of the "pro"-life movement is that they don't seem to care about the ones considered to actually be alive.

What if the child was born perfectly fine, grew up healthy, hit his teenage years and killed himself in any number of ways for any number of reasons?

What if they had the child, it got sick a few months later and died?

What if they had a child, it grew up and became a junkie or alcoholic?

What if they had a child, it grew up and got into an accident and became paralyzed for life?

There are risks to parenthood. That's it. No matter whether you wanted it or not.

The only point I'll give you is if the mother was raped. They are different circumstances entirely.

 

[spartandude]

i say abortion is perfectly acceptable uptil 16 weeks because that is when teh fetus begin to show signs of self awareness, and aborting after that (imo) is killing, however im not entirely opposed to abortion after 16 weeks if its needed or if the pregnancy is comepletely unwanted but itd still feel a little un easy

 

[Mandalore_15]

My point is, abortions take away potential life and the only reason you present as to why you'd want to abort is that you're afraid it will strain your relationship. That is selfish (not evil mind you). Abortion is the easy way out... FOR YOU! It is by no means easy on your partner as it goes beyond grief for her (which even you may be struck by).

Adotpion isn't easy I'm sure. Current trends suggest it's difficult to put up for adoption as there are fewer and fewer people adopting (considering there are higher rates of infertility, I find this odd).

If your partner wants to keep it then all you can do is stick with it or bail. If you want to want to stay but are sure it will tear you apart, then consider adoption.

You should talk to a professional (multiple would be better) if your concerned. You won't find an answer here. Just opinions (which is what you asked for).

I think this comment was aimed at me, am I right? Yes, that is a reason why I would want to end a pregnancy. There are other reasons as well: I'm not ready to be a parent and don't think I could give the child everything it deserves at this point. Also, my ambitions and direction in life would have to be abandoned. These are not small sacrifices.

However, I don't view any of this as being in the least bit selfish. The reason that it isn't selfish in my eyes is that something that doesn't exist can't have any rights, regardless of whether it may (or may not) exist in the future. I'm not putting myself before my baby because my baby doesn't exist. All I'm doing is ensuring it doesn't exist.

But yes, if I were to force my partner to terminate a child that would be selfish. I value her equally as (if not more so than) myself, so if she said she couldn't handle the grief of terminating the pregnancy I would go through with it and support her and all that stuff, regardless of what it was doing to my life.

And as much as adoption sounds appealling to you, to me that would be worse than any other option. If I were to have a child I would then feel responsibility (and love!) for it. I wouldn't want to abandon it to our country's dire child adoption system. Because of this, aortion is a much more attractive prospect in my eyes

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

No one has the right to kill a defenceless child, whether that child is born or unborn. A person can choose to share sex with their partner in the knowledge that no method of contraception is completely foolproof (or at least they should know that if they have a proper sex education - but, frankly, in the absence of one, an adult should do the research and find out for themselves from genuinely reliable medical and bioethical sources). Once a person makes that choice, the responsibility for that choice falls on them rather than on the innocent child who did not choose to be conceived. The person has the responsibility to carry the child to term and ensure the child is cared for.

Stole my words.
Basically I think abortion is murder.

 

[Wintermoot]

well if you dont want a kid wear a condom! I am pro choicesince its the mothers body

 

[Secret world leader (shhh)]

Unwanted babies + Overpopulation = Do not want.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

A story covered by the BBC today has really set me thinking:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12117299

To summarise, 584 women in the UK this last year have become pregnant despite being fitted with a contraceptive implant. Many of these women have found that by the time they've realised they're pregnant they are outside the window for having an abortion, and thus have been forced to keep the baby.

Now, this immediately caught my attention because my girlfriend has the very same implant. You can understand how this might worry me: we're both 22, both finishing university this year and looking forward to launching into our careers. However, if something were to happen and she got pregnant, it's pretty much game over. She has told me that she doesn't think she would ever feel comfortable terminating a child no matter what stage of development it was in. However, I would feel very strongly inclined towards termination (within a reasonable time frame), and I can't help but feel that even though I would stick by her and do my best as a father and partner in these circumstances, there would always be a part of me that would resent her for her decision and how it had ruined our plans.

So then, these are my questions to you: what do you think the average public attitude towards abortions is? What are your experiences of them? Do you think men are under-represented in the decision-making process and the financial aftermath?



N.B. I know some of you will say that this should be on the religion an dpolitics board, but frankly I want to keep religious views on abortion OUT OF IT. To me they are less than worthless.

Well, see... that's the thing. In sex education you learn that the only 100% method of not becoming pregnant is through abstinence. Everything else has a, sometimes, small chance to fail. So, if you're honestly overly worried about it, then you should either not have sex, or use multiple methods at the same time IE condoms, spermicide, female condoms, or what have you.

As for my view on abortion... from a logical standpoint, I'd have one done, but I certainly would not resent my lover if she did, but then again... that's being logical, which we as humans rarely are and I myself find that the logical standpoint tends to be a very cold one that I myself wouldn't have the heart to do. From an emotional standpoint, I'd side with whatever my lover wanted and she'd probably want the baby.

Edit: I would like to point out that on abortion in general, I'm very pro-choice. It's not my place to tell a couple whether or not they should keep their baby, and my place isn't something to be forced on them. There are so many different circumstances and so many different reasons for getting the abortion that I have no right to butt into. If a couple wants to get one, that's fine. That's their liberty and freedom to, and liberty and freedom is what America is supposed to stand for, isn't it? (I know that sadly that that isn't always the case. -_-

 

[spartandude]

Heh, I've never heard of that implant before. I can see your worry, if it's not 100% safe then what's the point right? Maybe your girlfriend should consider the pill?

My girlfriend was on the pill. Her doctor took her off it because it was giving her headaches and nasty mood-swings all the time. He also said that the implant was MORE effective than the pill... so far we've had no problems but this report has given me reason to question his statements!

The report said that there were 584 women who got pregnant while on implant, im willing to be however that there at least a million women in UK on the implant, remember no method of contraception is 100% effective and statistics show the implant is more effective than the pill, but of you're truly worried slip on a condom before sex

 

[moose_man]

I don't know my stance on abortion, but I do know that(at least in Canada) you can get an abortion if you're underage without telling your parents, and I think that if you don't have the balls to man up and tell them, you shouldn't be choosing the fate of an -at least potential- life.

 

[RicoADF]

2. Where the man wants to keep it and the woman doesn't is more tricky... I think in the end the woman should get to make the choice as it is her body that the baby needs to grow. However, with future technologies transplant surrogacies may be an option.

And herein lies the problem with that argument: you've already gone back on it. There just isn't any way that a male parent could have adequate and equal input on the choice of abortion.

It doesn't give him 100% equal rights, but the idea's he suggested does help to even the rules alittle. I think the guy should have a say in the matter and if it comes down to they can't agree on it then the guy should have the right to not be responsible if he doesn't want the child. If the girl wants to go ahead with the pregnacy and keep the child the guy can't stop her, but he should be able to chose weather he wants to be apart of the childs life (that means that if he choses not to be responsible it also means he has no rights to the child/be with the kid without the mother's aproval).

And for the record, if my gf fell pregnant and she wouldn't abort, I wouldn't leave her or the child nor would I allow it to be adopted since I wont have my child raised by someone else. So my view isn't from someone that would just leave, its from someone that believes in equal rights/responsibilities and the freedom of choice, even if I disagree with someone else's.