Poll: Abortions in today's society: your views

[Estelindis]

If the foetus is aborted to prevent harm to the mother it is an abortion. You're just dealing in very pointless technicalities. I say the aim of the operation is to abort the baby (thereby saving the mother), you say the aim of the operation is to save the mother, thereby aborting the baby by necessity. Same thing, different sentence structure.

I don't think the technicalities are pointless. I'm not simply reordering words. There's a genuine difference between one and other here in terms of aim. Having a different aim in an action can (but does not always) change the whole moral nature of an action. I find that a focus on the aim when it comes to right of life issues is very helpful, as it clearly shows us what kinds of operations are acceptable and which ones aren't. Of course, you're free to hold a contrary opinion, and I respect your reasons for holding it.

It's stupid because it's based on, "well... maybe, if we're lucky".

I see what you're getting at here. I really do. But is one free to kill a person who has already been born simply because they have a low chance of surviving a particular operation or situation, and their survival depends on little other than chance? No. (Of course, euthanasia is another issue which we could discuss, but again this would be off-topic. We have already identified the issue of persistent suffering and its treatment as off-topic, much as I'd like to discuss that as well.) So the only difference here is whether or not the person has been born yet. Whether or not you believe the unborn child is human yet - whether or not she or he is entitled to protection of her or his life like the rest of us - is what is ultimately comes down to. I think that whatever conclusions we draw on any of these matters will ultimately be based on this. And, while I disagree with many people on these matters, I do recognise that they have reasons for their differing opinions. Thank you for discussing them respectfully.

And I hope you watched that video.

Yes, I did. I don't agree with everything the commentators said, but I think the actual video segment of the confrontation speaks for itself.

This is not a perfect world. and will not happen. as nice a thought as it is.

This argument could be applied to many other fields - and, once we do so, we find it isn't especially strong. "We might like people not to murder / rape / torture each other, but this isn't a perfect world and it's going to happen anyway - nice as it would be if it didn't." Yes: it would be nice if people didn't do those things. Yes: in spite of our wishes, it seems an amount of people will do those things. Yet people don't seem to regard this as grounds for permitting murder, torture, or rape under the law, or saying "Well, I wouldn't do any of those things, but I wouldn't want to tell someone else they shouldn't do them."

If something is wrong, we have the right to stand against it: to hold up right action as an ideal, to educate against wrong action, and to do everything we can to prevent wrong action. The question is only whether the action is wrong - not whether it is realistic to ask if people will do it or not.

Obviously, there are various gradations of actions that are irresponsible or cause harm. (There are also various gradations of opposition we can offer to them - strong oppositon to minor infractions can be overbearing and intrusive. Proportionality is important.) I am not trying to equate them all with each other. I'm just pointing out via reductio ad absurdam that the argument put forward here against advocating sexual responsibility doesn't make sense.

 

[lacktheknack]

Or, you know, you could just not have sex. That might work.

This is true. As unimaginable as it is, this is the only fail-safe route of not being impregnated.

actually a vasectomy or tubal ligation is also fail-safe.

(Almost) true, but they aren't reversible, and thus probably not a good choice for someone in their twenties.

 

[spartandude]

On the subject of whether a man should have any say in this (from a man's view)

as some people have pointed out alot of people toss around terms like dual-responsibility and that men can go away if they want to (i dont encourage it), but most men dont do this and share responsibility.

however while i do agree that it is ultimately the woman's choice to keep it or not, but if she wants or expects the man to stay and raise the child then she should also take into consideration his opinion, but ultimately she can choose herself

 

[spartandude]

Or, you know, you could just not have sex. That might work.

This is true. As unimaginable as it is, this is the only fail-safe route of not being impregnated.

actually a vasectomy or tubal ligation is also fail-safe.

(Almost) true, but they aren't reversible, and thus probably not a good choice for someone in their twenties.

again, actually a vasectomy is reversible.

there is also a chance that the vasectomy doesnt actually work, there have been cases or perfectly done vasectomys getting people pregnant

 

[Actual]

Or, you know, you could just not have sex. That might work.

This is true. As unimaginable as it is, this is the only fail-safe route of not being impregnated.

Being male protects me from being impregnated! ...Except by aliens!

actually a vasectomy or tubal ligation is also fail-safe.

You do hear the odd horror story of vasectomies healing, but in general yeh that's a pretty solid baby defence initiative.

I'm in favour of adoption if it's a healthy baby. I'm not against abortion I just really think all alternatives should be investigated first.

 

[lacktheknack]

Or, you know, you could just not have sex. That might work.

This is true. As unimaginable as it is, this is the only fail-safe route of not being impregnated.

actually a vasectomy or tubal ligation is also fail-safe.

(Almost) true, but they aren't reversible, and thus probably not a good choice for someone in their twenties.

again, actually a vasectomy is reversible.

Ooh, good catch! Two problems, though:

1. It's freaking expensive to do and undo a vasectomy, and
2. It isn't failproof.

 

[Creator002]

I'm for abortion. I think that, if people don't want the baby they accidently conceived, I don't see why they can't get rid of it. People do even worse if they really don't want it, like throwing it in a dumpster or trash compactor.

 

[spartandude]

I love how people say terminate IT.

IT is a person, imagine this. One day your parents decided that you were an inconvience. So they decided to kill you. You would feel no pain, or have no knowledge you ever existed you would just be gone. How can you think of killing a person, because it's inconvienent. It doesn't matter if the child is aware yet. It will be one day.

But hey keep killing kids it's fine right.

Oh and why are Christians even brought up here. I know Christians that think abortion is fine. I don't because I look at my life and think what happened if I were aborted.

If i had no knowlege of my existance and had never felt anything or experienced anything, how does that make alive? its like saying dismantling a computer is wrong

But one day the computer will become setient. Should be dismantle the computer, even though one day it will fully develop?

But my computer ISNT senient, sure with enough programming and Artificial Intelligence could be built, but as my computer isnt an inteligence i feel no more remorse taking it apart than i do a table, something goes for a fetus before it developes self awareness

 

[Koroviev]

It's none of my business what a woman decides to do with her body and what lies therein. Moreover, I'm not particularly concerned with the fate of those who lack a conscious state. They won't mind, so why should I? Men might give their opinion, sure, but at the end of the day, they don't have to undergo all of the major physical changes that accompany pregnancy.

As for those who cite religious opposition, I think that's a moot point. If there is a God, then it can deal with those who have abortions as it sees fit. Humans need not interfere.

 

[Amphoteric]

In an ideal world there would be no abortion.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

I don't really have a problem with abortion. I have heard the arguments before. I personally believe that if you don't want the baby, get an abortion, it's better than neglecting your child because you didn't want him/her. If you want a baby but not yet, wear a condom or get an abortion and get her pregnant when you're ready for the responsibility of being a parent.

 

[XShrike]

If you don't want a kid either abort it or put it up for adoption. Kids that a raised by parents that want and love them tend to be more productive members of society. Unwanted/unloved kids tend to go the other way.

On the topic of abortion itself the father needs more say in the matter. As it is now if a women gets pregnant the father gets no choice in the matter. If the mother wants to keep the child then the father is force to pay child support. The other side I am not sure about. As I understand it the mother is the only one that can decide to abort or not. If the father actually wants the child but, the mother wants to abort there is little the father can do. Even if he does get the baby I don't hear about many mothers having to pay the father child support.

 

[Wade-DeadPool]

To me abortions are just okay. I'm not saying that it would be a easy way too go, but if the pill fails, the condom fails or someting els fail and your girlfriend get pregnant and you don't feel that this is the right time. As somebody els did write, it is better to not have they child, then to have it at a time, that it's life and yout life will be much harder, if not destroying it all togheter.

And yes, the man should have something to say about it. I know, it is in the woman, it is here baby, but 50% of that is also the man's baby. If one say "yes" and the other "No" you must talk it out. Some girl's will go for the "My body, my choice!"-card, don't fall for that.
If you care for her, if you are a good guy, you have a equal right in the decision.

That is what i think.

 

[fenrizz]

Why would anyone even care what a woman does to her own body?

It truly baffles me.

The 3 month rule we have in my country is just fine.


And also, and religious argument to the whole debate is invalid.
We do not care about your silly beliefs, and we do not share them.

 

[Estelindis]

This will be my last reply today. I have many tasks left undone that I must accomplish before nightfall. I'll answer folks some more tomorrow if there are more posts quoting me and if I have the time. Thanks to all who have discussed this very important topic with me.

Well, what I read from his post is that we should all be good little kids and be virgins until we can get babies.

"From her post," please. I am female.

What you may read from my post, as it is what I have stated, is that if we choose to share sex with our partner then we should make that choice it in full awareness of the possible consequences and ready to take responsibility for what might come about as a direct consequence of our actions. So we should be adults, not "good little kids."

The thing is that people have something called freedom and I don't believe that a fetus has freedom or any rights at all.
They're just a pile of tissue. That's all. With no mind, with no identity

What does freedom mean to you? Does a newborn infant have freedom? Does a two-year-old?

The way I see it, freedom isn't usually a matter of black and white. There are varying factors that make us more or less free. Knowledge is one of those - to the extent that we have imperfect knowledge, we have imperfect freedom. The more we choose to learn about the world, the more we approach true freedom.

Human beings develop and grow. It's our nature to do so. We eventually become far more than one might have imagined, looking at our humble origins in the womb. But without that first step we never would have taken any others. So if you take away that life, you remove all possibility of freedom. Is that really what you want? (The unborn child will never have a chance to be truly free if they are deprived of life: a life that you wouldn't choose to take away from a very young child who had already been born, even though they are, as yet, only a little freer than the unborn.)

Right, but if the person in question has taken steps to ensure that they DONT get pregnant, and they do because of a failed contraceptive, is that still there fault?

When you say "ensure," it depends what you mean. You may mean "to make sure," but as we've already established that's impossible (I mean in the sense of full certainty). You may mean "take all the steps one reasonably can, given that it's not possible to be completely sure." In that case, I feel sorry for them, but it's still their decision to share sex - no one else's decision.

I mean, we might like the reality to be different (in terms of being able to have sex without the possibility of children), but wanting it to be different doesn't make it so. We need to deal with reality as we find it. And if parents don't have responsibility for the existence of children, who does?

(Would makers of contraceptive technology be willing to "guarantee" their products by setting up care centres for any children conceived as a result of failed contraceptives? I'm not seeing them make a profit. I'm also seeing lots of people who just didn't take proper care with their contraceptives trying to fob off their kids! But this is just mental whimsy - don't mind me. I don't see any company ever doing this, for half a dozen reasons that spring easily into any mind that considers this for even a few seconds.)

EDIT: Have you Considered giving the baby up for adoption? I understand that there is a lot of horror stories about foster homes, but I know all too well that there are plenty of loving people who simply cannot have a baby, when it is all they want in the world.

Yes - giving the child up for adoption (to a reliable agency or foster parents one knows one can trust) is included as a possible way of fulfilling their responsibility to the child. Though I do rather find myself caught in a similar bind re. the certainty, don't I? I mean, one couldn't be totally sure the foster parents or the agency would be good.

After giving this some minutes of reflection, I think the crucial distinction is this. If a person comes into existence as a direct result of one's actions, it's wrong to make the person suffer the consequences of one's own actions by killing the person. But that doesn't mean that by accepting one's duty towards the child and allowing the child to live that one gains total control over the child's life. Whether one looks after the child oneself, or relinquishes that duty to another guardian, there are always going to be aspects of life that one cannot foresee. But at least the child would have a chance to find that out for himself or herself: to make their own life.

 

[Fleaman]

Or, you know, you could just not have sex. That might work.

This is true. As unimaginable as it is, this is the only fail-safe route of not being impregnated.

Didn't help Mary.

 

[funguy2121]

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.

I think any woman who has an abortion should respect her man when making the decision, and try to be understanding about his feelings. However, it's her uterus, and I think her decision is paramount. As you've stated, if your GF becomes pregnant her career is over, her life becomes dramatically different from what she wants, she will suffer from social stigma, and she will have to have a kid when she isn't ready.

Now, I want to know about this drug. My ex could tell she was pregnant almost immediately (this may have been psycho-sematic since I told her when the accident happened). But overwhelmingly, women can tell after a matter of weeks. Does this drug throw off their "system" so that they can't tell? Does it negate the morning sickness, inexplicable cravings and the rampant hormones?

I'm sure that in the UK, just as in the US, there are many alternatives. I would imagine that tens of thousands and possibly hundreds have used this implant. While that is a relatively low number, it is scary. So your best bet is still to use the ol' glove (use Durex if they have them over there - much safer than Trojan and they don't feel like a paper sack) and seek out alternatives.

 

[SodaDew]

I say only abortions during cases of rape and other types of offenses and conditions and only before certain stages of development.

 

[Chomajig]

A baby that hasn't been born yet isn't a proper life. They aren't sentient until about 6 months in, and before then, if you took it out, then it wouldn't be recognizable as a human being. Most people don't even remember anything until at least 2 years of age. So abortions aren't really even killing anything

 

[joshuaayt]

Illegal abortions are the worst idea since that guy didn't go commercial with "Tennis for two".

"Oh, hey, I'm pregnant. I can't support this baby, and I'd like to avoid immense, pointless physiological damage to myself, as well as an uncertain future with either foster homes or poverty for the child (a "child" being distinct from a "non-sentient wad of organic material"). Can I prevent all of this suffering, Doctor?"

"LOL, no. That thing in you will eventually become a person, and we don't really care if that person has a shit life- at least they'll be alive."

"Can't you extend that argument to sperm, then? Sperm are alive, more or less, and they represent the potential for a human being."

"...So, yeah, anyway, no abortions."