Abortion

Faceless_time:

2.Yes that makes sense, because being adpoted is tough, it's far better to murder the child then give it a chance at life no matter what the odds.

No. It's not always the better option. For a white, upper middle class family, maybe. For someone who's living a reckless life on the streets? Abortion is a much better option. Not only can your body not support the strain of carrying a child, where are you going to give birth? You can't afford the hospital to give birth to this child. A free abortion clinic will likely save her life, save her from a painful pregnancy and risky birth in which the child could still end up dead.

It all depends on the situation. Adoption is not always the best choice, and neither is abortion. It's a horrendous decision to make either way.

Faceless_time:

3. Please, tell me, aside from the options I have covered, what other reason is there for a woman to get knocked up? Rape, incest, slutishness, or selfish pleasure are the only reasons for getting knocked up and getting an abortion. Aside from medical reasons of course, but then it is still the mothers responsibilty to give birth to the child.

How about a condom breaking? Drunken mishaps? Discovering a health complication after pregnant?

It is nowhere near so black and white as you described it.

Faceless_time:

4. So now were going to kill the baby because it is stressful and hard on the mother? I get that it is a torment but it is still not right to kill the baby. As for genetic defects, it might need special care but it is our responsibilty as a society to take care of such people.

Yes. We are. Why is it our responsibility to take care of people that will never be productive citizens? I am of the opinion that they are a burden on society, nothing more.

Faceless_time:

5.It is completely legal in several states in the U.S.A and other countrys to leave the baby at a police, fire, or medical station. They have a better chance at a good life when that happens than they do if they're sucked out by vacuum force in a late stage abortion and have their head smashed to pieces.

That doesn't happen. Unless there a severe health complications, late-stage abortions are highly illegal. And if the child has to be aborted after 7 months, they attempt to save the child.
Abortions must be performed in the first trimester(I believe), or it is illegal.

The Strokes:

Abortions must be performed in the first trimester(I believe), or it is illegal.

Twenty weeks, I believe, except in the case of the mother's health.
In the U.S., over 59% of abortions occur within 8 weeks.
28% at 9-10.
9.4% at 11-12.
5.9% at 13-15.
4% at 16-20.
1.4% at over 20 weeks.
[Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]

The Strokes:

No. It's not always the better option. For a white, upper middle class family, maybe. For someone who's living a reckless life on the streets? Abortion is a much better option. Not only can your body not support the strain of carrying a child, where are you going to give birth? You can't afford the hospital to give birth to this child. A free abortion clinic will likely save her life, save her from a painful pregnancy and risky birth in which the child could still end up dead.

Hospitals, at least in the U.S. are forced to take in mothers giving birth. If you live on the street give it up for adoption, at least the kid will live. It is her responsibilty to give birth to the child, I don't care about health risks. Why should the mother live and baby die? As a responsible person you have a responsibilty to the child you created.

The Strokes:

It all depends on the situation. Adoption is not always the best choice, and neither is abortion. It's a horrendous decision to make either way.

How is putting the child up for adoption or killing it a hard choice? Giving the child up is always preferable to killing it. It is a human, it has the right to live.

The Strokes:

How about a condom breaking? Drunken mishaps? Discovering a health complication after pregnant?

In all of these circumstances it was the mothers fault she got pregnant, she created the baby, she can either care for it or give it up.

The Strokes:

It is nowhere near so black and white as you described it.

Yes, it is

The Strokes:

Yes. We are. Why is it our responsibility to take care of people that will never be productive citizens? I am of the opinion that they are a burden on society, nothing more.

As human beings they have intristic and automatic value and deserve to live.

The Strokes:

That doesn't happen. Unless there a severe health complications, late-stage abortions are highly illegal. And if the child has to be aborted after 7 months, they attempt to save the child.
Abortions must be performed in the first trimester(I believe), or it is illegal.

It is still hard for the child to grow up and contribute to society, or love, or have kids, or make some woman/man happy if it is dead.

Why is abortion even an option aside from medical reasons when we can so easily give the child up?

Faceless_time:

Hospitals, at least in the U.S. are forced to take in mothers giving birth. If you live on the street give it up for adoption, at least the kid will live. It is her responsibilty to give birth to the child, I don't care about health risks. Why should the mother live and baby die? As a responsible person you have a responsibilty to the child you created.

That is more heartless than abortion. You're not giving the mother any rights, you're simply using her as an incubator for nine months and then stripping her of her child. In nine months, you bond. You feel that child you move, you feel it kick you. You bond with it. You stay up at night with it inside of you because you can't sleep. And then you just say "give it up". You have no fucking right to make that decision for her. None at all.

Faceless_time:

How is putting the child up for adoption or killing it a hard choice? Giving the child up is always preferable to killing it. It is a human, it has the right to live.

Actually, it is a fetus. And fetuses have no rights until after the twentieth week of pregnancy. And even after the twentieth week, a mother's right to live still wins against the fetus's.

Faceless_time:

In all of these circumstances it was the mothers fault she got pregnant, she created the baby, she can either care for it or give it up.

Pregnancy is not a punishment for a crime. It is a simply a natural state that occurs. Two women. One is a "slut", never uses protection, etc, etc, etc. Never gets pregnant. One ocassionally has sex, always uses protection, it fails, she gets pregnant. She is twenty-one, going to school and working full-time, does not have the money for the child, and cannot mentally cope with being pregnant for nine months and then give it up. She has no right to make a choice about the rest of her life? When she was doing everything to ensure she did not have to make the choice?

Faceless_time:

Yes, it is

No, it's not. You just think so. That doesn't make it true. I think 'Twilight' fucking sucks, but that still doesn't make it a fact.

Faceless_time:

As human beings they have intristic and automatic value and deserve to live.

Did Hitler have intrinsic and automatic value?

Faceless_time:

Why is abortion even an option aside from medical reasons when we can so easily give the child up?

Because it is not so easy as a situation as you describe. Nine months is a long fucking time to have something growing inside of you. Even if you don't want it, I'm sure most women couldn't help but bond. Then, to give it up, and have it out there in the world and have there be nothing you can do about it? To just know, somewhere, there is a piece of you walking around? I couldn't handle it. I know I couldn't. I don't even plan on getting abortion, but if I had to make the choice between the two I'd choose abortion. Otherwise, sometime in my life after giving the child up, I would off myself. I have no doubt. But I doubt the woman's feelings, or even her life, matter to you so long as the child/fetus lives.

For all humans having "intrinsic and automatic value" you seem to place none on women.

Faceless_time:

The Strokes:

How about a condom breaking? Drunken mishaps? Discovering a health complication after pregnant?

In all of these circumstances it was the mothers fault she got pregnant, she created the baby, she can either care for it or give it up.

How abominably anti-feminist.
In fact, your whole post just gives me the impression that you think women are second-class citizens who are little more than walking uteruses. They have no right to life, free choice, or liberty, and exist only because they have a moral duty to give birth. You can apportion all of the blame to women, because, by default, they got pregnant all by themselves because we're irresponsible and we're able control whether a condom breaks. Right.
It is simply untrue. The laws of most developed countries reflect this in granting women the right to an abortion.

Question-

Why is the decision ultimately left to the mother? Discarding the fact that she has to carry the child, does the father not have the same vested interest in it?

The way it is right now (a friend made me think about this) is a little unbalanced. The mother has all of the authority, but half the responsibility, whereas the father has no authority, but still has half the responsibility.

To explain that... A woman is pregnant, she wants to keep the child, the father pays child support for the next eighteen years-for a child he does not want. Second situation, a woman is pregnant, she does not want the child, the father does. The woman has an abortion.

How is this right?

Another question. (This law applies to the states for sure, not positive about anywhere else.)

If a pregnant woman is killed, and the fetus dies, the murderer is charged with two murders. However, abortion is legal, because fetuses have no rights.

Why do we support the double standard? Because it's a woman's choice whether or not the fetus dies? She's still murdering it, because it was the killer's choice to shoot the mother, just as it is her choice to abort.

The Strokes:

Question-

Why is the decision ultimately left to the mother? Discarding the fact that she has to carry the child, does the father not have the same vested interest in it?

The way it is right now (a friend made me think about this) is a little unbalanced. The mother has all of the authority, but half the responsibility, whereas the father has no authority, but still has half the responsibility.

To explain that... A woman is pregnant, she wants to keep the child, the father pays child support for the next eighteen years-for a child he does not want. Second situation, a woman is pregnant, she does not want the child, the father does. The woman has an abortion.

How is this right?

Well, it's not exactly the father's uterus. :shifty I mean, most would talk about it, discuss and decide but ultimately, it's the mother's choice as it's her body.

Quote

Another question. (This law applies to the states for sure, not positive about anywhere else.)

If a pregnant woman is killed, and the fetus dies, the murderer is charged with two murders. However, abortion is legal, because fetuses have no rights.

Why do we support the double standard? Because it's a woman's choice whether or not the fetus dies? She's still murdering it, because it was the killer's choice to shoot the mother, just as it is her choice to abort.

Actually, not in all circumstances is the murderer charged with two murders.
I believe it depends on how far along the pregnancy is. :think:

ChemicallyImbalanced:

Quote

Another question. (This law applies to the states for sure, not positive about anywhere else.)

If a pregnant woman is killed, and the fetus dies, the murderer is charged with two murders. However, abortion is legal, because fetuses have no rights.

Why do we support the double standard? Because it's a woman's choice whether or not the fetus dies? She's still murdering it, because it was the killer's choice to shoot the mother, just as it is her choice to abort.

Actually, not in all circumstances is the murderer charged with two murders.
I believe it depends on how far along the pregnancy is. :think:

If the murderer kills the fetus, they don't get charged with the normal kind of murder of a human being, murder.
It's criminal homicide of an unborn child, instead.

They're both counts of murder, just...different kinds of murder. The law doesn't put fetuses on a par with human beings in this respect.

The Strokes:

Question-

Why is the decision ultimately left to the mother? Discarding the fact that she has to carry the child, does the father not have the same vested interest in it?

The way it is right now (a friend made me think about this) is a little unbalanced. The mother has all of the authority, but half the responsibility, whereas the father has no authority, but still has half the responsibility.

To explain that... A woman is pregnant, she wants to keep the child, the father pays child support for the next eighteen years-for a child he does not want. Second situation, a woman is pregnant, she does not want the child, the father does. The woman has an abortion.

How is this right?

Nobody aside from a woman has the right to make decisions about her body. If a man were allowed to tell her to get or not get an abortion, she would have no rights. She would be a piece of property forced to follow his every whim. I think it would be nice if the woman would discuss with the man his views, but ultimately the decision is up to her. She has to carry it for nine months, not him.

The Strokes:

If a pregnant woman is killed, and the fetus dies, the murderer is charged with two murders. However, abortion is legal, because fetuses have no rights.

Why do we support the double standard? Because it's a woman's choice whether or not the fetus dies? She's still murdering it, because it was the killer's choice to shoot the mother, just as it is her choice to abort.

It depends on a lot. How many weeks along was the fetus? If the fetus was exposed to air, did it breathe? I don't believe we should charge for two murders, but it doesn't matter whether you do or not. If you kill a pregnant woman, you're going to get quite a higher punishment than if the woman was not pregnant.

druscilla's moon.:

Nobody aside from a woman has the right to make decisions about her body. If a man were allowed to tell her to get or not get an abortion, she would have no rights. She would be a piece of property forced to follow his every whim. I think it would be nice if the woman would discuss with the man his views, but ultimately the decision is up to her. She has to carry it for nine months, not him.

But you're killing that man's child.
I can understand the woman having the ultimate power in the decision- but why does the man carry half the responsibility? If you have all the authority, you should have all the responsibility.

druscilla's moon.:

It depends on a lot. How many weeks along was the fetus? If the fetus was exposed to air, did it breathe? I don't believe we should charge for two murders, but it doesn't matter whether you do or not. If you kill a pregnant woman, you're going to get quite a higher punishment than if the woman was not pregnant.

Why though? We support abortion. Taxpayers pay for abortions.
So if it's acceptable to kill a fetus when it is the mother's choice, why is it not acceptable to kill the fetus when the choice is someone elses?
Suicide is not looked upon kindly either, nor is assisted suicide. That's the suicidal person's decision, but you're still charged with assisted suicide if you help them.

ChemicallyImbalanced:

Well, it's not exactly the father's uterus. :shifty I mean, most would talk about it, discuss and decide but ultimately, it's the mother's choice as it's her body.

Yes. It's her body, but she didn't make the child alone. Why is it that we apport the men with half the blame and half the responsibility for making and caring for a child, but give them no authority in the decision about keeping or aborting the child.

The Strokes:

But you're killing that man's child.
I can understand the woman having the ultimate power in the decision- but why does the man carry half the responsibility? If you have all the authority, you should have all the responsibility.

Once again, no. This thread is for abortion, not infanticide. You are terminating a pregnancy that his sperm helped to bring along. No murder is occurring. If you kill his child, you should go to prison.
And if we used your logic, when a man and a woman divorce he shouldn't have to pay child support because it is always the woman's fault she had children.
Yes, his sperm helped to bring the pregnancy along, but he still does not have the right to take her body hostage for nine months and force her to carry a child to term she does not want.

The Strokes:

Why though? We support abortion. Taxpayers pay for abortions.
So if it's acceptable to kill a fetus when it is the mother's choice, why is it not acceptable to kill the fetus when the choice is someone elses?
Suicide is not looked upon kindly either, nor is assisted suicide. That's the suicidal person's decision, but you're still charged with assisted suicide if you help them.

Because you do not have the right to make decisions about someone else's body. It is the woman's choice to decide whether or not to have the fetus removed. If she decides to carry the child, there is nothing okay about murdering her and the fetus. It's a crime and sick, disgusting one at that. There is nothing "acceptable" about murder, let alone of a pregnant woman. Shit.

The Strokes:

Yes. It's her body, but she didn't make the child alone. Why is it that we apport the men with half the blame and half the responsibility for making and caring for a child, but give them no authority in the decision about keeping or aborting the child.

Because. It. Is. Not. His. Body.

The Strokes:

Yes. It's her body, but she didn't make the child alone. Why is it that we apport the men with half the blame and half the responsibility for making and caring for a child, but give them no authority in the decision about keeping or aborting the child.

I suppose this isn't directly relevant, but wow. Since when have men had not enough authority? Since when have women, ever, in the history of womankind, been in such a position of tyrranical authority?
I don't know, you're making out that men are the victims here, which is unusual, because since the beginning of time it's been the other way around. That the imbalance is being slightly addressed in this one case isn't such a massive abomination, I don't think.

Although there is also a case to argue for the child support thing. Yes, it would seem slightly unfair if men are given no decision-making power and then forced to pay money for this child. Then again, a man still has the right to make his opinions on abortion known. I don't think his consent should be needed, and it's not his choice, but he should be allowed his opinion (and maybe that opinion will affect the woman, who knows?). More to the point, it's not grossly unfair that men pay child support, whether they wanted a child or not. I know of guys who honestly don't care and refuse to pay it, and getting the money off them is not easy.

It may seem, on the surface, that there is gender inequality at work here, but in general, men are less likely to play an equal role in bringing up children in the first place. Hence child support.

druscilla's moon.:

The Strokes:

But you're killing that man's child.
I can understand the woman having the ultimate power in the decision- but why does the man carry half the responsibility? If you have all the authority, you should have all the responsibility.

Once again, no. This thread is for abortion, not infanticide. You are terminating a pregnancy that his sperm helped to bring along. No murder is occurring. If you kill his child, you should go to prison.
And if we used your logic, when a man and a woman divorce he shouldn't have to pay child support because it is always the woman's fault she had children.
Yes, his sperm helped to bring the pregnancy along, but he still does not have the right to take her body hostage for nine months and force her to carry a child to term she does not want.

The Strokes:

Yes. It's her body, but she didn't make the child alone. Why is it that we apport the men with half the blame and half the responsibility for making and caring for a child, but give them no authority in the decision about keeping or aborting the child.

Because. It. Is. Not. His. Body.

To be honest, what would we even do about it? Yes, it's sad if the father would want to keep the baby and the mother wanted to abort, but you can hardly make the woman keep it based on the his choice.
I think it should be a joint decision, but ultimately if they disagree it's up the the woman, because she's also carrying it, not just helping to create it.
What would you suggest the woman does? You can't force her to keep it.

druscilla's moon.:

Once again, no. This thread is for abortion, not infanticide. You are terminating a pregnancy that his sperm helped to bring along. No murder is occurring. If you kill his child, you should go to prison.
And if we used your logic, when a man and a woman divorce he shouldn't have to pay child support because it is always the woman's fault she had children.
Yes, his sperm helped to bring the pregnancy along, but he still does not have the right to take her body hostage for nine months and force her to carry a child to term she does not want.

No, that's a different situation. They made the joint decision to have a raise children as a married couple. I am talking about a boyfriend and girlfriend who make a mistake and are pregnant. The girlfriend wants to have the kid, the boyfriend doesn't. It is her decision to carry it to term, but because he fucked up and forgot to wear a condom, he has to pay child support for the next eighteen years. How is that at all fair?

druscilla's moon.:

Because you do not have the right to make decisions about someone else's body. It is the woman's choice to decide whether or not to have the fetus removed. If she decides to carry the child, there is nothing okay about murdering her and the fetus. It's a crime and sick, disgusting one at that. There is nothing "acceptable" about murder, let alone of a pregnant woman. Shit.

Why does she have the ultimate power of life or death over the human being growing inside of her?
Do not give me the same line of "it's her body." You are also destroying the potential for life.

Would you be disgusted if a pregnant woman were shot on the way to have an abortion, not killing her, but killing the fetus?

druscilla's moon.:

Because. It. Is. Not. His. Body.

Fine. It's not his body. Why does he have to pay for something he didn't want?

Bloodraine:

Although there is also a case to argue for the child support thing. Yes, it would seem slightly unfair if men are given no decision-making power and then forced to pay money for this child. Then again, a man still has the right to make his opinions on abortion known. I don't think his consent should be needed, and it's not his choice, but he should be allowed his opinion (and maybe that opinion will affect the woman, who knows?). More to the point, it's not grossly unfair that men pay child support, whether they wanted a child or not. I know of guys who honestly don't care and refuse to pay it, and getting the money off them is not easy.

If you want to have the child, and your boyfriend doesn't, are you really going to let them tell you to get an abortion?

The Strokes:

Why does she have the ultimate power of life or death over the human being growing inside of her?

Because she is a grown woman with infinitely more rights than a fetus, which is not a human being in the legal or ethical sense.

The Strokes:

Do not give me the same line of "it's her body." You are also destroying the potential for life.

Yes, and when you remove a cancerous tumor you are also destroying the potential for life, but oddly enough I've never seen anyone advocating for the rights of advanced melanomas.

The Strokes:

Would you be disgusted if a pregnant woman were shot on the way to have an abortion, not killing her, but killing the fetus?

The woman chose to have an abortion. She did not choose to get shot. Assaulting a woman with a deadly weapon and terminating a pregnancy are two entirely different things.

Faceless_time:

How is putting the child up for adoption or killing it a hard choice? Giving the child up is always preferable to killing it. It is a human, it has the right to live.

Nope, it's not always preferable. If it was, then abortion wouldn't exist, would it? :shifty
Think about if for a sec. Women have been having abortions for time immemorial. Even when abortion wasn't really legal anywhere, abortions still happened - just not in a medical environment.

Here's the bottom line: pregnancy is not always the better choice. Even if you plan on putting it up for adoption at the end of it.

The Strokes:

druscilla's moon.:

Because you do not have the right to make decisions about someone else's body. It is the woman's choice to decide whether or not to have the fetus removed. If she decides to carry the child, there is nothing okay about murdering her and the fetus. It's a crime and sick, disgusting one at that. There is nothing "acceptable" about murder, let alone of a pregnant woman. Shit.

Why does she have the ultimate power of life or death over the human being growing inside of her?
Do not give me the same line of "it's her body." You are also destroying the potential for life.

Would you be disgusted if a pregnant woman were shot on the way to have an abortion, not killing her, but killing the fetus?

1.) Because it is not a human citizen yet, it is afforded no rights, and it is attached to her body and she is allowed to make decisions about her body. A fetus has no rights because it is not a citizen of humanity. The mother owes it nothing until the twentieth week.

2.) By using condoms, we are also destroying the potential for life.

3.) I think shooting innocent people is always disgusting. Even more so if the victim is a visibly pregnant woman.

I'm Irish and here abortion isn't legal but I think it should be. I'm not necessarily for or against abortion especially the late term abortions. Whether we like it or not abortion is going to happen and wouldn't it be better that it happened in a clean safe hospital setting rather than a backstreet alley where there is a risk of the mother dying too.

The Strokes:

Bloodraine:

Although there is also a case to argue for the child support thing. Yes, it would seem slightly unfair if men are given no decision-making power and then forced to pay money for this child. Then again, a man still has the right to make his opinions on abortion known. I don't think his consent should be needed, and it's not his choice, but he should be allowed his opinion (and maybe that opinion will affect the woman, who knows?). More to the point, it's not grossly unfair that men pay child support, whether they wanted a child or not. I know of guys who honestly don't care and refuse to pay it, and getting the money off them is not easy.

If you want to have the child, and your boyfriend doesn't, are you really going to let them tell you to get an abortion?

I would let him tell me, because I grant him the unequivocal freedom of speech that I grant all human beings, but I would certainly not listen to him.

Although perhaps you could clarify what you're saying, because I really don't understand the point that you're making.

Bloodraine:

I would let him tell me, because I grant him the unequivocal freedom of speech that I grant all human beings, but I would certainly not listen to him.

Although perhaps you could clarify what you're saying, because I really don't understand the point that you're making.

You understood correctly, I believe.

You wouldn't let a man order you to have his child, or get an abortion, yes?

The point I'm trying to make is that once a couple is pregnant, all of the decisions are left to the woman. This is right, I suppose, because it is her body, she shouldn't be forced either way. However- the man should not bear half the responsibility because he has no authority in the matter.

druscilla's morning.:

1.) Because it is not a human citizen yet, it is afforded no rights, and it is attached to her body and she is allowed to make decisions about her body. A fetus has no rights because it is not a citizen of humanity. The mother owes it nothing until the twentieth week.

3.) I think shooting innocent people is always disgusting. Even more so if the victim is a visibly pregnant woman.

Why the twentieth week? Is that when they become "human"? Because they weren't human before that or anything. They were just a bundle of developing tissues, but once they have recognisable body parts, they're "human"?

I understand why it's worse to shoot a visibly pregnant woman, but if it's so terrible for another person to kill her fetus, why is it acceptable for her to kill it?
If some person were crazy enough to want to keep a cancerous tumor, and they were hospitalized after an accident, and the cancer was removed, would that be wrong? Is it only acceptable to destroy something if it's contained within your body?