Abortion

druscilla's hands.:

I don't understand this at all.
I really need you to clarify because it sounds like 'if a pregnant woman had any heart she would abort', but I know that's not what you mean.

In retrospect, it does sound like that. ><

I'm speaking in the situation where the father doesn't want the child whatsoever. It was a response to "If the father had any heart at all he'd pay child support regardless of whether he wanted the kid or not."

It was hyperbole at any rate.

What I meant by it: the mother has the choice, if she cared for the father, and about his options and opinions, (which in the situation spoken of, is unlikely) she would get an abortion, because the father wants nothing to do with the child, but he'll have to pay for it for 18 years, even though he has nothing to do with making the decision.
Seeing as neither person is truly commited to the relationship, they're not ready for a child anyways- but that's beside the point.

The Strokes:

Why should he have to pay for a child he doesn't want whatsoever?

Because regardless of whether the mother chooses to have an abortion or not, it's still his child and he helped to create it.

The Strokes:

Why though? If your mother didn't want you, you'd never know, because you wouldn't exist.
If the mother had any heart at all she would have an abortion.

It easier for a guy to say she should get an abortion because he doesn't have to go through the procedure of cutting something out of him. It's not so easier for a woman. The mother has to make a decision to kill something which is inside her when other options are available ie adoption.

Are you totally for abortion?

varkatzas.:

I fucking love you, Dibs.

I hope you can do win this so-called friendly debate. You had a valid point.

There's really no such thing as 'winning' this debate. Especially as it's abortion. It's not a 'win' situation, there will never be a universal consensus. Also, given the subject matter, it deserves to be treated like a dignified, adult debate, more than simple point-scoring.

Anyway. I was reading in my newspaper this morning a story about anti-abortion license plates in America.
First of all, it amused me, because I imagine stuff like that would be illegal in Britain anyway. Then again, it raises a valid point. Should it be allowed? I mean, from my perspective it's all strange because I can't imagine people going round with abortion slogans (both pro and against) on their number plates. Still, I wonder what you all think about it.

Also, something else about that article amused me. It was this quote;
"How innocuous can you get," Skip Stam, the Republican minority leader in the state legislature, said. "Is there anybody out there advocating to choose death?"

I think that somebody has completely missed the point here.

ChemicallyImbalanced:

The Strokes:

Why should he have to pay for a child he doesn't want whatsoever?

Because regardless of whether the mother chooses to have an abortion or not, it's still his child and he helped to create it.

But she has the choice. He has no choice; all he can do is hope that the mother makes the choice that suits him best.

Dibs:

It easier for a guy to say she should get an abortion because he doesn't have to go through the procedure of cutting something out of him. It's not so easier for a woman. The mother has to make a decision to kill something which is inside her when other options are available ie adoption.

Are you totally for abortion?

Okay. Is it easier for a man to deal with his girlfriend killing the fetus he wants but she doesn't?

Why would you ask if I'm totally for abortion? That's not what I meant by what I said, I already clarified what I meant.

The Strokes:

In retrospect, it does sound like that. ><

I'm speaking in the situation where the father doesn't want the child whatsoever. It was a response to "If the father had any heart at all he'd pay child support regardless of whether he wanted the kid or not."

It was hyperbole at any rate.

What I meant by it: the mother has the choice, if she cared for the father, and about his options and opinions, (which in the situation spoken of, is unlikely) she would get an abortion, because the father wants nothing to do with the child, but he'll have to pay for it for 18 years, even though he has nothing to do with making the decision.
Seeing as neither person is truly commited to the relationship, they're not ready for a child anyways- but that's beside the point.

Just because it's difficult for the mother does not mean it's sunshine and rainbows for the father. If he's against this woman killing something he helped to create, it would be rather traumatic. And on the other side, if the mother decided to keep the child, and he was against that, it would still be difficult, because he would have to deal with that for eighteen years.

He would have to pay for a mistake he made when he was say, eighteen, and his girlfriend became pregnant, and he wanted her to abort, she kept the kid, and he has to pay child support for the next 18 years. What happens when he marries someone else? Wouldn't that be a little awkward? "Hey honey, careful you don't spend too much, I have to pay for my illegitimate child." Again, exxageration, but the entire situation surrounding an accidental pregnancy is awful, for both the man and the woman.

The woman has to deal with destroying a fetus, carrying it to term and giving it away, or living with a child accidentally created.
The man has to deal with the mistakes of one night, facing similar consequences, but given no choices. His situation depends entirely on the decision the mother makes.

say it lover-SAY IT.:

Hello, I'm the girl from the previous thread that a lot of people hated.
but that doesn't matter.

What I don't understand, is why don't you all believe in giving a child a chance?
It's totally unfair to just think that since you have a shitty life at the moment, it automatically means your child is going to have a shitty life.

I was reading through this thread, and I just need to comment on this.

Not all women who get pregnant have a shitty life. But do you know how much a baby costs? The first year of life alone is a lot of money. The check ups the mother needs to get while she's pregnant add up. The check ups the baby needs add up. A baby needs to get shots also. Do you think it's free to deliver the baby? No. Not all women with unwanted pregnancies have shitty lives, but that doesn't mean they can afford a baby. And what if it were twins? The cost would be double.

What I don't understand, is why don't you all believe in giving a child a chance?

Every child deserves a chance to have a great life, but if the mother has a child when she cannot afford it, neither of them are going to have much of a great life due to financial problems. What if the kid has a medical problem? That will cost even more than a healthy baby.

Honestly, I'm for abortion. It's the mother's body, it should be her choice. Is the embryo considered alive when it's only days into the pregnancy and is called a blastocyst and consists of 8 stem cells? It doesn't even have a heart beat at this stage, and it looks nothing like a human. What bothers me is when someone hears 'embryo' they think of something with arms, legs, and a head, but they don't actually look like that as soon as the pregnancy starts.

What happened to separation of church and power anyway? It seems as if everyone's letting their beliefs influence their choices. If you work for the government, should you really be de-legalizing abortion because you believe it's wrong, or should you be choosing what's best for the country you're living in? What if de-legalizing abortion caused women to get it done illegaly and unsafely? It could harm the mother's life.

^

Agreed. That's why I feel that women should have the right to choose.

dancing for rain.:

If you work for the government, should you really be de-legalizing abortion because you believe it's wrong, or should you be choosing what's best for the country you're living in? What if de-legalizing abortion caused women to get it done illegaly and unsafely? It could harm the mother's life.

Isn't stem cell research illegal? Why? Morals. It's messed up, because stem cell research could save many lives.

Abortion is legal in places at the moment, and I don't see that changing, but I also don't see abortion as being the best option for the country you're living in. You're making the destruction of future generations legal.
Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

The Strokes:

dancing for rain.:

If you work for the government, should you really be de-legalizing abortion because you believe it's wrong, or should you be choosing what's best for the country you're living in? What if de-legalizing abortion caused women to get it done illegaly and unsafely? It could harm the mother's life.

Isn't stem cell research illegal? Why? Morals. It's messed up, because stem cell research could save many lives.

Abortion is legal in places at the moment, and I don't see that changing, but I also don't see abortion as being the best option for the country you're living in. You're making the destruction of future generations legal.
Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

Yes, stem cell research is illegal, but I think it should be legal. It can help patients with diseases such as diabetes, parkinson's, and alzheimer's.

And for abortion, I know you're killong off future generations, but not every woman is going to get one. Babies are going to continue being born even if it's legal.

The Strokes:

Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

And saving life in the process. Crime rates have gone down since abortion was legal. So has murder.

druscilla's stereo.:

The Strokes:

Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

And saving life in the process. Crime rates have gone down since abortion was legal. So has murder.

Is it even possible to be able to prove that beyond reasonable doubt?
Surely there's a lot of other things that would need to be taken into account with something like causes of crime reduction.

Sheepy:

druscilla's stereo.:

The Strokes:

Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

And saving life in the process. Crime rates have gone down since abortion was legal. So has murder.

Is it even possible to be able to prove that beyond reasonable doubt?
Surely there's a lot of other things that would need to be taken into account with something like causes of crime reduction.

I've read the studies on it and I found the information and research to be very conclusive. That's my opinion though. I also believe in God and we all know how that argument goes.

I do believe that crime rates going down since abortion was legalized with proper adjustment for the life span of a human is directly linked to the legalization of abortion in the U.S. Can I prove it? Probably not. I can give you lots of evidence and information, but I can't prove it 110 percent. No more than someone can prove to me the opposite.

I am for abortion. Regardless of whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it is a woman's right, an individuals right. It is none of your business anyways, if they choose to get an abortion, that is their decision to make, not yours, so butt out.
Morals are out of the question, since not everyone believes the same, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

And even if it was illegal, women would still be going in back allies to have it done illegally, by unproffesional people, and endangering the mother's life.

Novocaine Abusers.:

I am for abortion. Regardless of whether or not abortion is right or wrong, it is a woman's right, an individuals right. It is none of your business anyways, if they choose to get an abortion, that is their decision to make, not yours, so butt out.
Morals are out of the question, since not everyone believes the same, and everyone is entitled to their own beliefs.

And even if it was illegal, women would still be going in back allies to have it done illegally, by unproffesional people, and endangering the mother's life.

No one denies that a woman has the right to do what she wishes with her own body.

The debate begins because people aren't sure when life begins (morally) or whether or not the fetus is part of her body.

That is why abortion is seen as murder to some.

And that is why there is a debate. Because the morals may or may not apply to one person, depending on your viewpoint, and the moment they apply to more than one person, it becomes ethically questionable.

The Strokes:

dancing for rain.:

If you work for the government, should you really be de-legalizing abortion because you believe it's wrong, or should you be choosing what's best for the country you're living in? What if de-legalizing abortion caused women to get it done illegaly and unsafely? It could harm the mother's life.

Isn't stem cell research illegal? Why? Morals. It's messed up, because stem cell research could save many lives.

Abortion is legal in places at the moment, and I don't see that changing, but I also don't see abortion as being the best option for the country you're living in. You're making the destruction of future generations legal.
Yes, you're saving women from risky street operations... but you're making the destruction of life legal.

Certainly not.
Maybe in America. But America isn't the world. It's been going on in Britain for some years. As I understand it, we're one of the world leaders in stem cell research.

Killing a woman in a botched abortion is still the destruction of life. Is that okay? Does she deserve what she gets? Is the foetus ultimately more valuable than her, so destroying her life is fine but destroying a foetus is terrible?

A lot of things destroy 'life'. Eating vegetables destroys plant life. Picking flowers destroys plant life. Killing animals for meat consumption destroys life. Switching off a life support machine destroys life. Suicide destroys life. Forcing someone to have a baby they don't want could very well destroy their life.

The Strokes:

The debate begins because people aren't sure when life begins (morally) or whether or not the fetus is part of her body.

That is why abortion is seen as murder to some.

I know there's debate because people aren't sure when life beings, but I thought most informed people believed a fetus was part of the woman's body. They just don't care. It is attached to the woman's body through the umbilical cord. It lives in her uterus. It eats her food. It is attached to the body. The question is more along the lines of, "do we have enough morals to care that we want to hijack a woman's body for nine months to allow a fetus to have rights surpassing a living, breathing human's?"

Recently, I've begun to think that the Islam culture has a solid viewpoint on abortion.
They grant a woman an abortion, on the ground of disability usually, but the abortion must be carried out before 120 days into the pregnancy as that's when the fetus starts to move and they believe it's when a fetus will get it's soul.
I'm not really sure why, I'm not that religious but this viewpoint just makes sense.

I'm pro-choice, however.
But I do believe that some mother's should be more careful and use protection.
Obviously, in the cases where they allow abortions - disability, negtaive affect on existing family, mental or physical harm to the mother - it should be allowed but I find it slightly annoying when pregnant women just go around without contraception and end up pregnant then just get an abortion like it's no hassle.

It seems sort of unfair to women who have a "legitimate" reason to have an abortion.

Part of me thinks that these women who end up pregnant through their own ignorance should have to deal with the consequences.

Johnny Quid.:

Part of me thinks that these women who end up pregnant through their own ignorance should have to deal with the consequences.

All of me thinks that pregnancy and a child are never a fitting punishment for a mistake.

^ What would you consider a fitting punishment?
Or are you in the opinion that no punishment should happen?

I don't mean that to sound bitchy, I'm just interested in your opinon.

Johnny Quid.:

^ What would you consider a fitting punishment?
Or are you in the opinion that no punishment should happen?

I don't mean that to sound bitchy, I'm just interested in your opinon.

I don't think punishment is necessary for sex.
(With the exceptions of rape, child pornography, etc.)
But sex that is consensual and legal, no. I don't see a punishment as necessary.