Abortion

@ CallusedSilk - I've divided my response in segments for ease of reading:

Regardless of whether or not abortion is an autonomy issue for the woman, abortion is still an issue of whether or not the fetus constitutes as a human organism. I'm not denying that unwanted pregnancy is a problem, because it is. However, the fact is that abortion is far from the best solution to unwanted pregnancy. Abortion is an extreme and ethically questionable procedure, and there are much better solutions available. The debate should steer away from making abortion more accessible, and instead focus on making PREVENTIVE measures (e.g. birth control, emergency contraceptive, etc.) more accessible, and also educating people about these preventive measures. Of course, I'm not saying that abortion should be illegal. What I'm saying is that abortion should be a last resort used in special circumstances ONLY.

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

In the case of a woman being at risk of suicide due to an abortion, I already addressed that in my previous post. If there is substantial risk to a mother's life (a mental condition causing risk of suicide is a VALID and REAL medical threat to a woman's life), then the abortion is ethical.

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

The ability to live independently of life-sustaining support has never defined whether or not something is a living and independent organism (e.g. patients requiring a ventilator or other life support to continue breathing are still independent organisms).

Additionally, just like a fetus at 12 weeks, a premature baby born at 20 weeks cannot live "independently" of the mother's body. The only reason why we would say a baby born at 20 weeks is viable is because we're in the 21st century and we have the technology to artificially reproduce the conditions it needs to survive. Thus, in medicine today, "viability" is really less dependent on the baby/fetus' own independent ability to survive outside the womb, but rather on our technological and medical ability to sustain its life by replicating conditions similar to the womb. Thus, the fetus' "independence" and "viability" is not a valid measurement of the fetus' worth as life, because premature babies do not TRULY have independence or viability separate from the mother, yet they are still considered independent organisms. tldr; Neither a 12 week miscarried baby nor a 20 week premature baby TRULY have independence of the mother. What really makes the difference is our medical and technological ability to sustain its life. Independence from the mother is not a valid argument.

In response to your other comment, of course this only applies to a fetus lol. A fetus is a developing human being lol.

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

I mentioned the beating heart merely as an example of a fetus' anatomical similarities to a fully developed human, and also to point out the fact that it is not a mere "clump of cells" as many pro-choice proponents frequently claim. Please don't ignore the fact that I also said the fetus has functional brain activity, because this also is another conveniently ignored fact.

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

I would again like to emphasize that I NEVER said abortion should be illegal. In fact, throughout my post, I stated several conditions that would make an abortion ethical.

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

I would also like to apologize for the lateness of this reply. I was at college orientation for the past three days! (Super excited to be a UT Austin Longhorn! )

@ as dreamers do.
The problem with your post is that you think that morality can be dealt in absolutes - saying that there are much better options available my be true for you, but not for others in the same situation. Adoption is rarely a better option than abortion, and sometimes birth control does simply fail. The emotional toll something like adoption takes on a woman is arguably much greater than disposing of a problem that is not tangible yet. You are denying women bodily autonomy by telling them that they can only have abortions under specific conditions that you deem suitable.

@ Fandango
It's a fact of medicine that prevention is always a better option than intervention. In other words, preventing an unwanted pregnancy is a better option than medically intervening to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. It's true that medical birth control is not foolproof, but the pill is not the only form of birth control. For example, copper IUD is (literally) 99% effective. Additionally, I had never mentioned adoption as a solution. That paragraph from my post was purely about PREVENTING pregnancies, not what to do with an already born unwanted child. If preventive measures were more available and people were more educated about them, the need for giving away unwanted children would DRASTICALLY reduce. Adoption would not be an issue if the unwanted pregnancy was prevented in the first place.

I've already explained why I don't believe this is an issue of woman autonomy. If you'll look at my previous posts, I've already said that the fetus is its own living organism--an organism distinctly different from the woman. Because of this, the woman is no longer dealing with just her own autonomous body, but also another organism.

And anyways, human autonomy has always been and always should be limited by morals and ethics, so I don't believe "autonomy" is really even a valid argument. It's a fact that certain things are simply unethical (e.g. murder, rape, etc.) and humans should not have the autonomous freedom to commit certain acts. In my opinion, an abortion is not ethical if the need for an abortion is completely preventable.

I would just like to say - having only glanced at this page and understanding that other people share the opinions as those above me and in the first post - that I do think abortion should be allowed and that I disagree with the idea that we should focus on preventative measures.

We should focus on preventative measures, but first we should make sure every woman has the right to her body - which, by denying abortion for any reason, is being denied. Then we should focus on preventative measures. Condoms don't always work, birth control doesn't always work - and why? Well, because sometimes it just doesn't - but many clinics just hand it out, and women aren't educated. Birth control must be adjusted to first, this means 7 days using a condom - but in many cases correct testing isn't done to find the birth control, they are just written a random prescription and told "Here, you can stop using condoms in 7 days" and then find out 7 months later after almost killing themselves that "Oh hey, so no one ever ran tests? Yeah, you need a PAP and some bloodwork done before we can determine which is right for you." TL;DR: wide-availability for abortion should come before preventative measures, which don't always work

Adoption is a great idea - for those who catch it too late and have to go through with the pregnancy. If everyone went through with adoption when an abortion was an option... I don't think people realize how over populated we would be. There are already so many kids that need to be adopted, so, if someone doesn't use a condom or their birth control fails or whatever the issue is, they should never have to be told that "You know, it's not that abortion is wrong, it's just that there are other ways." We shouldn't be bringing more kids into this world when they aren't going to have loving homes. TL;DR: adoption shouldn't be guilted because there are far too many kids needing to be adopted already

And the whole heartbeat, brain function thing - I've never read up on it and frankly I don't want to, because it won't change my opinion - that's just ahhhh. I don't even know how to describe that without being offensive. I think it's a load of crap. No one gets upset over uprooting trees or destroying crops to build structures. No one gets angry about destroying our Earth but they'll get angry over an abortion because it has slight brain activity? So do plants! Many premature babies - like me, for example - can survive completely independent of the mother and of machines; others need the machine to breath, but are otherwise perfectly fine; beyond that, I haven't heard of any cases in which a preme babies that were kept alive and grown the rest of the way when the parent did not wish to go through with the birth. No matter the ability to sustain life, it should be up to the parent - in the long run it is them who will have to make the decision to live or die or to take home a child that won't make it past 3 or to tube up a fetus that is going to have more wrong medically than any family could handle. No one should be made to feel guilty about their choices. TL;DR: plants have brain activity too. That doesn't mean that fetus' should be considered living and that people should feel guilty for considering abortion

Also I just noticed about the IUD and other birth control other than the pill and personally, I think the risks outweigh the benefits - so personally, I would never get one. The shot is also a good way but I know too many people who had long periods (between 6 and 10 months) and that's just ridiculous. If I had the choice to do the IUD or other non-pill method or end up having an abortion down the road, I'd go for the abortion (hypothetically, obviously) because the other options make me uncomfortable and I don't think I should have to be uncomfortable just because there might be an outcome that other people are bothered by.

Human autonomy means that any thing, be it living or otherwise, living inside of or off of another being does not have human autonomy. A fetus or baby or human should have no right to human autonomy when it is in another person's space - and yeah that's probably ethics but still. I would think it's common sense that my body belongs to me and not something inside of me - for that line of thinking, my body could belong to the government when I'm taking medications. It seems really out there to say that human autonomy shouldn't be the issue when it's exactly the issue.....

I just felt the need to respond to you because, well, your response is really what has me thinking and trying to bring my thoughts out @ as dreamers do. So please don't take this as shade, because it totally isn't - I see and respect your opinions.

@ as dreamers do.

Quote

It's a fact that certain things are simply unethical (e.g. murder, rape, etc.) and humans should not have the autonomous freedom to commit certain acts.

Yet in some cultures individuals can commit these acts. It's an extreme example, but just because you and your culture feel that abortion is immoral, it does not mean others do. Just because you believe that a fetus is a living organism, doesn't mean others do. I don't want to change your mind about abortion, because I couldn't care less what you do with your own body, but suggesting that other women abide by your views about what does or doesn't constitute sentient life really doesn't sit well with me.

@ as dreamers do.
The comparison to the person on a ventilator is actually an interesting comparison considering the fact that unless a living will is in place, the person on the ventilator is not the final decision in whether or not they remain alive. If, for example, I were to get into a car crash and be more or less brain dead and on a ventilator to keep me alive, since I have no living will, it'd be up to my mother on whether or not I stay alive. She has all the legal and ethical rights to make the decision to not continue life support, and that's regardless of why. Her reasoning could be anything from she heard me mention I don't want to be like that, to her not wanting me to suffer, to her just not liking me.

I understand what viability is. I didn't need it explained to me. Nowhere in my post did I show that I didn't understand the concept.

I didn't ignore it. I merely questioned why people are so concerned about a heartbeat. Lots of living creatures that aren't defined as humans or people have heartbeats, yet (maybe I didn't make this clear enough and I apologize if I didn't) it comes up a lot in discussions about the ethics of abortion.

I pointed out the legality of it since I mistakenly believed it to be part of your argument. This misunderstanding happened due to the fact that I read your saying 'Rather than legalizing abortion' and I was pointing out that it's already legal and it's going to stay legal.

S'all good. I work a full time job so I tend to not reply right away either. (Congratulations on college! It's going to be a blast! Well, and a horrific bundle of nerves during finals, but you've probably already experienced that somewhat during high school. )

I used to be against when I was pregnant with my son, but after four years of being a parent and going through many struggles, I am now pro-abortion. Under certain circumstances. I had my first abortion in 2013 and I was a wreck for about two weeks. I did it because I am not financially stable, I want to go to college, I wasnt going to be staying with the father. He was leaving to better his life. It just wasn't going to work. It's hard enough with a toddler being a single mom.

Now to go and get pregnant and gave like 15 abortions. I don't agree with. I think after abortion number 3, you either figure it out or get in birth control. I've been on the depo since 2013 and have gained weight. Don't like it. But I'd rather not fall pregnant because I don't want to go through with another abortion, I told myself the next pregnancy, accident or not. I'd rather keep it then go through the emotional trauma, depending in my situation.

Legally, one must be born to be a citizen with rights.

I believe abortion is somehing that you shouldn't do, unless it is for medical conditions.

People say you can get an abortion because it is "your body" but believe it or not, that baby is a living life inside of you. If you don't want the child, go through the labor and give it up for adoption.

Though if they find out you have a medical reason, and need an abortion, otherwise it'll cost your life and not just the baby's I totally agree with that.

But dont go aborting a child just because you dont want it.

@ samrway
Take a foetus out of the womb at 14 weeks and it cannot survive. It might be living but it needs a women's body to develop and who are you to demand that a woman sacrifice her body for it?

You are basically putting the foetus before the woman and that is wrong. The reason why women can and should be able to abort a foetus if they 'don't want it' is because it's THEIR body and no one should be able to police it other than themselves.

A parasite can be living inside of a body - does that mean we shouldn't kill it? Because it's alive? Because that is what it sounds like when people argue about the foetus being living even though without the woman's body and nutrients it wouldn't survive.

@ monty green
A parasite and a living human are two completely different things though. A parasite is harming the body, hece me say if you need an abortion for medical reasons, go right ahead. But a living human isn't harming you, they are a life that needs to be cherished, and if you get an abortion, that life isn't being cherished. It's being ended before it even has a chance to start.

@ samrway
The labour itself can harm a woman's body, so even if the pregnancy is relatively easy there's still that moment where complicates can happen. Anything could happen to a woman during pregnancy, even in this day and age. Sure, the rate of survival is higher than it was maybe 100 years ago in with all our medicine but not every woman's body can survive labour and birth.

Answer me this: Why should a woman have to go through being uncomfortable in their own body just to be an incubator for something they don't want? Why do you think woman should be reduced to nothing more than incubators? Because that's what you're saying. You're trying to place a foetus above a woman's ability of freewill, a woman's ability to decide what happens to their own body. You're trying to say that a woman should have less choice than a man just because they can get pregnant. Would you honestly be okay with having to carry a foetus you don't want for months and then going through labour and never having your body go back to the way it came? For something you don't want?

@ monty green
This is all a matter of opinion, but if it were me (which it never will be) I would still go through with the pregnancy, and bring a beautiful life into this world. Even if it meant my body being a way I don't want it, and you can work out to get rid of baby fat anyway, then you can be back to normal.

@ samrway
The fetus actually has been show to have incredible influence over the pregnant individual's body, including, but not limited to, things such as changing the blood sugar levels in the body and being the reason more than a few organs actually shift in position for the duration of the pregnancy. Hormone levels rise and fall, which can have a lasting impact during and after the pregnancy itself. The delivery itself can result in a woman dying and even without that extreme, there's still extreme physical pain. Do you know what perineotomy (also known as episotomy) is? It's when in order to help the fetus to be born, the doctor literally has to cut an incision starting from the vulva toward the anus. That incision isn't sutured close until after the delivery is finished. This procedure is declining in practice, but is still common in quite a few places in the world and women still have to be careful when searching for who to help deliver their baby to what their rates for this are.

I'm wondering what all you're considering when it comes to health and wellbeing of a human being when you're putting the fetus above the mother. You state medical reasons should be the only reasons, but what about the ones I just listed? Is it just medical reasons that can risk death? And even if that's the case, what all are you counting? I mean, doctors won't even prescribe me diet pills because I have a history of suicide attempts and diet pills target hormones in the brain. A pregnancy would do the exact same thing, only on a much large scale, so do I have a valid reason to get an abortion if I were to get pregnant?

Abortion has never been about vanity. It has been about a woman taking her own health into her own hands and being respected enough to make her own decisions about her body and her life. No one in this debate is arguing that life isn't beautiful and that babies aren't precious. What the abortion debate has always been about is whether or not a woman should have the right to decide how and when she makes the decision to take that step in her life. Maybe she never will, and that's her business and it's her life. Maybe she'll have as many children as she's physically able to have, and that's also her business. Maybe she'll end up somewhere in between. Also another choice. Regardless, when it comes down to it, the woman somewhere right now contemplating what decision to make when it comes to her pregnancy has a right to make that decision for herself.

We're pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

@ samrway
Both my sisters had children they wanted and neither of their bodies have gone back to normal. My eldest sister's mental health has been affected by the pregnancies and they were wanted. So it's not just the woman's body that gets affected by a pregnancy - their health and mental health can be affected. And honestly, sacrificing them for a child is not worth it. At all.

@ CallusedSilk: THIS.

@ samrway: I think you have good intentions with suggesting adoption over keeping a baby you don't want, but have you really thought about that? Do you know how many children in AMERICA alone need to be adopted? The numbers vary with who you check with but the numbers are consistent in one respect: OVER 100,000. With as many millions, billions? of people living in America alone, how is it that so many kids are being overlooked? Because people have their own, people pay for surrogates, people adopt from other countries. Since we have a user from the UK consistently commenting, let's look at their stats. 70,000.

So you're telling me that instead of worrying about getting over 170,000 kids adopted out + everyone else in the world, that we should basically force more women to have more kids that will go into the system? That sounds ridiculous when looked at this way. And what about the living conditions? Looked after children who live in group homes don't always have the best conditions because the homes don't always have enough funds. Often they are given bare necessities. And what about those who are fostered out? A temporary home. They face physical abuse, r*pe, verbal and mental abuse. This is not to say that these things happen in every case, but they happen in many.

Prospective mothers should not be given the false hope that by putting their child up for adoption they will have a better life. And can we talk about the cost of adoption? "A voluntary adoption of a newborn through a non-profit agency will generally cost between $10,000 and $25,000." That means people will have to be willing to spend up to 25k to adopt a baby. If no one is, than a baby goes into the system and might never know what family is? That is such a trash thing to do unless you really have to. Adoption < Abortion. Abortion over adoption every time.

And now building from what CallusedSilk said, there are tons of illnesses that pregnancy could intervene in. Should she still be forced to have a child because oops she got pregnant? If she can't even get diet pills she shouldn't be put in the position of going through with a pregnancy because people think abortion shouldn't be her choice. It puts her at risk and if that's not a risk she wants to take, she shouldn't have to.

So let's examine a few things. She brought up the changing the blood sugar levels during pregnancy. This is something I didn't even know about. This is important and should be something people are taught. Why? Well there's diabetes for one. Diabetes runs in my family, a change in blood sugar level is not something I need. Abort. Then a few organs actually shift during pregnancy. If wearing a waist trainer is problematic because it causes the shifting of organs, why isn't pregnancy given the same amount of precaution? I have enough health problems, I don't need to have my organs shift and get fatter than I already am. Abort.

"Hormone levels rise and fall, which can have a lasting impact during and after the pregnancy itself." I have a hormone imbalance that causes my period to be irregular. I have a shitty doctor so we have no idea what's going on because the one blood panel and hormone test looked normal. Hormone levels shifting can cause an abundance of issues, and should I have to take that risk because my already existing issue has not been figured out and diagnosed? No. Abort. Oh, and then there's post-postpartum depression. I already deal with anxiety and depression, should I risk it becoming worse for a child that I'm not even going to keep? Definitely freaking not. My life is important too. A b o r t.

And then there's the minor, but still important that people don't think about. My mum has had back problems since having me. I'm only 19 and I have back problems that I'm currently being treated for that cause extreme and constant pain in my back. Sometimes it's so bad that I just sit and cry. Sometimes I can't walk because it's so bad. Sometimes it raises up into my shoulders, which effects my arms. Sometimes it moves into my legs, which makes it even harder to walk. Sometimes I can't even walk because the pain is so bad. Sometimes the pain is subsided and then I'll almost fall down. I almost took a whole rack down in Target trying to steady myself because the pain came on so bad and my legs buckled. If pregnancy can give you back problems, should I risk making mine worse? Should I risk the nerve that is possibly pinching to be damaged? That sort of thing can result in being paralyzed. (Obv will find out soon if it's pinched because I'm getting an MRI, but still. What about people who can't afford what I am so lucky to have as far as health care goes?) NO. Abort.

No one should be forced or feel forced to carry a pregnancy to term just because ~abortion~ is ~so bad~ Everyone should have the choice to put their own health first. Bodily autonomy isn't even considered by people who are pro-life these days except to say that a fetus should have bodily autonomy. No. It shouldn't. Because a fetus' body exists directly in the body of the mother and therefore the bodily autonomy of the mother should come first. This is not an issue like conjoined twins where one wants the surgery to become separate people while the other doesn't; this is a thing that cannot survive on its own living inside of an off of a fully-formed human being. One can form conscious decisions while the other cannot. (And please don't even start on "Well what about animals and animal rights, if they can live why can't a baby" because I literally do not care. Killing animals at the rate we do is destroying the Earth and should be taken into consideration. Abortion does not have nearly the same effect or speed.)

PRO-CHOICE, not pro-abortion.

I am definitely pro-choice. I believe that a woman should be able to do as she pleases with her body. If she wants to abort, let her. I don't think the white men that are in power in the US should be able to dictate what women should do with their bodies, since they've never had to go through childbirth or suffer through menstrual cycles.

@ insufferable;
I just want to give a friendly reminder that it's not just 'white men' in power that are giving women a hard time about abortion. I mean, Ben Carson is another republican male currently in the news about abortion and he's not white. Although he is being talked about for his refusal to support abortion in any instance, even in rape or instance or in the time where a woman's life is in danger. He also wouldn't abort Hitler.

Which, I'm not sure why anyone is talking about Hitler with it.

Here's the argument from me. I fell pregnant at 19 in my first year of university. I explored all options. Did I continue my edication ( having already paid thousands towards it). Did I think about my life and my body? Or did I have the baby, loosing thousands of pounds and discontinuing my education for years?

I had a responsibility to the life inside of me. I had my beautiful daughter, then another after that! Both my pregnancies were difficult, my second child was severely ill. I know what it feels like to nearly loose a child and I would never want to experience actually loosing a child. So to say that it's a myth that abortions don't lead to mental health problems is ludocrous.

Secondly to say that birth isn't always a joy. Hell yes it is. Weather your child goes up for adoption or weather you're going to keep that little bundle it's a joy! I had sepsis through my first birthday, I was hallucinating like a son of a bitch and was seriously ill, but it was the best moment of my life. Producing a baby is a joy.

The argument that "my body, my choice" just seems insane to me. What about that babies body, does that baby not have a choice? Yes I understand that some mothers are just not in a safe place mentally to have a baby, and in extenuating circumstances like that I can't comment on, but in the case of unwanted pregnancies their are always ways that don't include killing someone. There are always parents that want a baby, you might even be one of them when you look into that little babies eyes.

I understand this is just one opinion but I've lived it, I've had the choice and regardless of the struggle, money worries, and missed opportunities I'm just so so glad I made the choices I did. Me and my girls lives are much richer for it.