# General Discussion > Opinions >  Should abortion be legal?

## Tsuyoiko

What are your views on abortion? Are you pro-life or pro-choice, or somewhere in between?

The poll is multiple choice.

BTW, I know this topic has been discussed before, but the thread died a long time ago, and I don't think the poll on it covers all the options.

----------


## lexico

so I might have a bias towards men, women, and children in that regard.
Nevertheless I believe the potential mother should have maximum rights to abortion since

1) it is through her body that warmth, nourishment, and accomodation is provided for the embryo~fetus before it is born into the world. In that sense she is the landlady, the child the tenant. It should be the landlady's right to accept a tenant or not.

2) if for any reason the potential mother feels unprepared to accpet the child, then it is fostering a bad envoronment for upbringing. The negative influence of an untimely child might have a hugely unfavorable impact on the child's upbringing.

3) it would be a sexist act of violence to take away a woman's right to her body or the manner in which how she can excercise a choice of free will. Furthermore the government, the legal system, the labour union, the church, the market system, and any other interest group should stop trying to gain women's support and debilitate the family institution in the process, as women are the center of the family power structure.

Aforementioned reasons lead me to believe that eveyone should just stay out of it, and let the women choose; is it going to be her career, her favourite party, the labour union, the child, or me ?

my choices were all the Yesses except the first two with the limiting "only when"'s and the last as it is degrading of human life in general.



> Yes - in cases of rape 1 100.00% 
> Yes - if the mother is underage 1 100.00% 
> Yes - as long as it's early 1 100.00% 
> Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world 1 100.00% 
> Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice 1 100.00%


ref: The Unabomber Manifesto, Dr. Theodore John Kaczynski, 1995

Ted Kaczynski's analysis of the dissolution of the family system by the state (run by industrialist-government complex) deserves a close reading. In addition, regarding his deteriorated relationshionship with his family, esp. his mother and younger brother, leads me to suspect whether his mother bore him at an "inconvenient time." I apologise in advance if my liberal interpretation of Mr. Kaczynski is in any way detrimental to his public image.

----------


## Kara_Nari

I agree with it to a certain extent...
I have met women who have had numerous abortions, this just angers me.
Why can they not be a little more careful? Surely it would make more sense to have an operation, if they are too lazy to use any other form of contraception.

I myself have never had an abortion, but I have known a lot of people that have, and even though they didnt want the baby for numerous valid reasons, they were so emotionally upset at the time from it, that they were much more careful afterwards.

Its not fair for an unwanted child to be born into the world, there are so many of them here already. It really breaks my heart. I think it is entirely fair for a woman to have an abortion if she doesnt think she can give the baby a decent life, or if she just plainly doesnt want a child right at that moment. 

It must be hard for the women, when they dont think they're ready for the child, but the father of the unborn baby really wants to have it. Actually its so difficult for both of them. Either way, im not opposed to it, only when it gets to the 5th or 8th time.

----------


## Kinsao

An unborn baby is capable of feeling pain at 20 weeks' gestation (and possibly younger but I won't claim it as I'm not a scientist). Therefore, I think only to save the life of the mother. The methods used are painful and I certainly wouldn't inflict them on an animal. 

I wouldn't "condemn" anyone who had an abortion of course (I know a lot of people who have and they have without exception suffered from either mental, emotional or fertility problems in later years  :Sad:  ).

----------


## Revenant

To me, morality seems to be all about the promotion of happiness (includes future happiness, a reason I do not blow someone away in their sleep, or in a coma or stupor, or even a friendless bum on the street). Of course we cannot guarantee that anyone will be happy in better conditions, but we must try.

Life is the absolute minimum condition for future happiness, and in that would I argue for the life-in-the-making. I would not lament the loss of my existence were I to have been aborted, and neither would I lament the loss of my life were someone to take a shotgun pointblank to my head while I was sleeping. But I know I would've missed out on a lot of happiness.

I was put into foster homes, as my mother wasn't financially or emotionally prepared to take care of me, and then adopted at age five. Were abortions more easily accessible at that time, I wonder if my mother wouldn't have aborted me.

I voted 'Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger'.

----------


## Kinsao

I agree with Revenant. Life is the most basic human right, and it is unquestionably a living thing. 

Also, there are many people (it seems to be getting more common - I don't know statistics?  :Doubt:  ) who find themselves unable to have children for one reason or another, and really want them. If I got pregnant, I'd definitely put the child up for adoption. Then I'd be able to think that even out of a distressing situation had come some good and some happiness for people.

----------


## Ma Cherie

Hmmm.......this is a really difficult issue to talk about not to mention controversial. I really think it depends on the circumstances, like cases such as rape. Although I think abortion is immorally wrong, but I guess it's one of those necessary evils.  :Doubt:  In a sense I'm someone who is pro-choice, becasue I don't believe politicians and any other people for that matter should telll a woman what choices she make especially without understanding her situation. But then, sometimes I wonder how having an abortion would solve anything. Especially with the health problems involed, and possibly emotional. 

However, it really pisses me off when I hear stories about young women having unprotected sex and getting pregnant and then suddenly decide to have an abortion because she can't take responsibility for her actions.  :Okashii:  

Since this isn't one of those right or wrong issues, I really believe it depends on the circumstances.

----------


## Doc

Everytime I hear about abortion I always think of this particlar t-shirt and its saying.

"Do you have a safe stance on abortion? Neither do I."

Abortion is a tricky issue that requires an ethical standpoint than a religious or moral standpoint. 

Is it ethical to have an abortion? 
Is it ethical for the woman to choose?
Is it ethical to have a partial fetal abortion even if the woman wasn't raped or in serious risk?
Is it ethical to continuously have abortions for carelessness?
Any many more.

You have to ask yourselves the ethical values of abortion before you take a stance on abortion. For me I ending up choosing the following for my answers to the poll:

Yes - but only if the mother's life is in danger 
Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger
Yes - in cases of rape 
Yes - as long as it's early 
Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice 

However, I do feel that partial fetal abortion is not only ethically wrong, but the defensive statements that women make for that particular action don't hold any water anyway.

If the mother is underage
It's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world
It's just another form of contraception

These types of excuses just go to show the lack of maturity and responsibility people take for their actions. It makes me sick to even know that there are people who continuously get abortions for their actions, and don't even care. All three choices show carelessness, selfishness, and are ethically all unsound.

I personally feel ethically that it is murder to have a partial fetal abortion even if the baby is not wanted. You know it already is a life so why not let it live, and let somebody else who wants to raise the child into adulthood? It just doesn't click ethically to have that mind set about abortion IMHO.

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Sensuikan San

With respect .... I think all the _guys_ should be banned from this thread!

It's a "girl" issue IMHO.

W

----------


## Doc

> With respect .... I think all the _guys_ should be banned from this thread!
> 
> It's a "girl" issue IMHO.
> 
> W


I ought to give you negative reputation points for that one, but I disagree with your point of view. Simply put this is just as much of an psychological issue for men as it is for women. So behaive yourself!  :Smiling: 

Doc  :Wavey:

----------


## Sensuikan San

Hi Doc !

Yes - I agree ... to a point!

I know a young guy and gal who have just had to go through this one, _for real_.

I agree. It is a great psychological problem for a guy too. Undoubtedly.

But for the woman - it's an incredible psychological problem* PLUS* a substantial _physiological_ problem!

Who's body is it anyway?

Leave it to the ladies - I don't think they completely discount our feelings. But they have a lot more to think about on this one than we do in the final, total analysis.

(Give me a bad rep. ..... _and I'll tell all the gals_ .... !)  :Cheers:  

W

----------


## bossel

> Who's body is it anyway?


Actually, there are 2 bodies involved: mother & embryo

----------


## Sensuikan San

Yes ....
*
.... I had a horrible feeling someone was going to say that*!

Laid myself wide open, didn't I !

But ... (boy ...! This does get hard!) ... as my wife _just_ asked me ... at what point does the fetus _stop_ being part of the woman's body and become an entity of it's own ?

...or is "it" an entity of it's own from day one?

(Damn! ... that's it! ... now _I'm_ into the abortion debate!)

Personally - and this may surprise many - I personally feel that the fetus _is_ an entity from day one.

However, I don't consider it to be a _viable_ entity until it is able to sustain life, independently, without high-tech assistance.

Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.

As to what prompts that decision - then I start to get a little severe. My own criteria would be very much -almost totally based on medical issues. If the woman's health or life be placed at risk ... no brainer! She gets the preference.

For other reasons .... I can't think of many .... but there very well could be in certain circumstances, all of which would have to be judged on their merits.

W

----------


## Revenant

An argument that I don't quite understand, is that since we don't know what a woman is going through, we have no right to make a judgement. To be honest, there are a lot of other immoral things done that I also do not fully understand. I do not understand why someone would want to rape (not really anyways, I can intellectualize), I do not understand what experiences, background, and circumstances drove someone to viciously maul someone, I can't say I actually understand their whole story, however, we still must make a judgement on the actions, and work for the prevention of these actions occuring again. 

Punishment is simply a conditioner, and some people must have limited freedoms for the safety and happiness of others. I am not a proponent of vengeful punishment or the death penalty. The last part is just to clarify, as I get a lot of people assuming that since I lean towards pro-life, I am also in favor of the death penalty.

----------


## Carlson

anything is legal as long as you dont get caught...

i think it should be up to the mother.. if she wants to get pregnate every few months and get an abortion thats on her shoulders... if think it would be a usefull tool if used right.. but then who to say what is right and what is wrong?

----------


## Kinsao

> Personally - and this may surprise many - I personally feel that the fetus _is_ an entity from day one.
> 
> However, I don't consider it to be a _viable_ entity until it is able to sustain life, independently, without high-tech assistance.
> 
> Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.


That's a difficult one. I, too, believe the fetus is an entity from day one, because it has its own separate genetic identity from conception onwards. It's not the mother, it's not the father. Of course, it's mind-bogglingly under-developed at that stage, but it's complete - no parts missing - and unique, with its own genes and therefore I would consider it as another individual. 




> If the woman's health or life be placed at risk ... no brainer! She gets the preference.


Yup, absolutely. 

On the other hand, I do have problems with issues around viability and "high-tech assistance". I see the point you're making, but... technology has changed so much recently. For instance, premature babies of a much earlier term can now be sustained by technology, enabled to live and recover to lead a normal life. And this is great news for the person and their parents. However, it does raise issues about the use of viability as a criterion for abortion, because many babies are aborted at a later stage of pregnancy than some of the premature babies who are assiduously cared for and who go on to survive. So therefore it does seem like a rather selfish and cruel case of some babies being got rid of because they're not wanted, and others being cared for. Incidentally, there is (or was - unfortunately I can't provide a source because I forgot where I read it  :Sorry:  ) a doctor in Holland who admits to routinely performing infanticide on premature babies. Why this should be seen as different from the later abortions I am not clear.  :Clueless: 

Anyway, I have strayed off the point.  :Gomen:  ... high-tech assistance... yeah... I guess what I'm trying to say is that viability (_with_ that assistance) has been going steadily up recently, younger and younger babies are enabled to survive. By specifying a point at which you cut off that assistance _because_ the creature is not viable without it... well, I feel that it opens up many cans of worms in relation to other issues of dependence/independence as well. For instance, what about an adult person who relies on certain medical/technical gizmos or procedures to sustain their life (even relatively basic things such as insulin or dialysis)... could some people with twisted agendas use that kind of argument to push the case for refusing these treatments on the grounds that the person is being kept alive by artificial means?  :Worried:

----------


## Index

It's a difficult issue, and everyone's opinion is valid. I think therefore that the choice should be left up to the woman who is pregnant. Nobody can make that decision for her, nor should anyone try, since it is her life and she has free will. Nobody can categorically state what is life, at what point a fetus is an independant being-there are arguments and counter arguments for every question, and since the particular women is closest to the issue, she should have the right to be final arbiter and decide.

----------


## bossel

> Until that stage is reached - I would consider "it" to be part of the woman's body ... and therefore within her own domain of decision.


With the rest of your post, I can agree. With this part, though, I don't. Viable or not doesn't matter. As soon as the foetus can feel pain, it should be treated as you would treat any animal: avoid unnecessary suffering. & the foetus is never a "part of the woman's body". At best (or worst?) you could say it's a parasite living off the woman's body. Just because it cannot (yet) exist independently doesn't make it a body part.

----------


## Sensuikan San

> With the rest of your post, I can agree. With this part, though, I don't. Viable or not doesn't matter. As soon as the foetus can feel pain, it should be treated as you would treat any animal: avoid unnecessary suffering. & the foetus is never a "part of the woman's body". At best (or worst?) you could say it's a parasite living off the woman's body. Just because it cannot (yet) exist independently doesn't make it a body part.


I must say ... it's_ very_ hard ....it's _impossible_ to disagree with your argument isn't it!

... but is this not the source of the whole problem?

Let us say that you're female - you have extreme medical problems - you're pregnant. The possibility of the child coming to term successfully is very remote .... and the probability of you suffering terminal illness or sudden death (prior to or during childbirth) is very high .......

_Whaddya gonna do?_

What's your husband/boyfriend/partner (who loves you deeply)gonna want you to do .... ?

Not easy to sit on a high horse, is it?

W

----------


## Kinsao

Well, I think that if the mother's health and life is at risk, that would provide a valid justification for an abortion.

I think where the problems arise is because of the fact that a large number of women have abortions because they don't want the child (for whatever reason), rather than for medical reasons.

----------


## Index

Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Thanks for all your responses guys! I think you've all hit the nail on the head - there is no answer! No matter what someone does in this situation is going to be right in some sense, and wrong in some sense. I know I would never have an abortion unless my life depended on it, but part of me thinks that for some people it would be preferable to bringing a child into the world that they then resent for the rest of its life. I know of someone who (allegedly) had seven abortions then had a child she clearly didn't want, presumably because she couldn't have any more abortions. It's hard to see how to prevent situations like that, while still allowing genuine people to make an informed choice.

----------


## Revenant

> Why do some people want to impose their ideas or beliefs on others? If the mother wants to have an abortion, she should be free to have one.


I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.

I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.

----------


## Revenant

Apologies for the double post, but I found a post on another forum that articulates so well a part of what I would like to say.




> Society's acceptance of abortion is the result of a solipsistic culture that values the self over all other considerations. 
> 
> Once conceieved, the tiny mass of cells will, if left alone, barring any natural problems, become a human being. That it "doesn't feel pain" or "can't think" or "is not viable," is absolutley irrelevant. We are all continuously developing. It does not stop with birth. I am not the same man I was ten years ago, and am certainly not the same as I was at 5. Development starts with conception and ends with death. To stop the development during any stage is murder. No individual should claim a "right" to do this since it necessarily relies on the same individual. My three year old cannot survive without my direct involvement in his life. Does this mean he is "infringing" on my rights? Does this mean I have absolute control over his existence since he relies on me while I do not rely on him? If not, the argument that it is because he has a bunch more cells than an embryo, has developed the ability to experience pain, or can speak in monosyllabic utterances, is absolutely absurd. 
> 
> To argue that a life can be terminated at any stage is a justification for murder, whether they are an embryo, an unproductive mentally and physically challenged person, or a doddering old woman. 
> 
> To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous. Because someone doesn't have running water, adequate food, or any safeguards against horrific diseases is to condemn billions of people who lived prior to the twentieth century to death (as well as a great many in the 20th century). How can a group of people draw up what is considered a good quality of life for all of humanity? What is it based on, and does it ever change? 
> 
> Since you can't suggest that killing a human life inside of you is ok, you must naturally refute its humanity. This is a sophistry that is so ingrained in the minds of contemporaries, a view such as the one I offered above will seem intellectually stunted or enveloped in a simpleton's morality, and easily disregarded. Therefore, I can, unfortunately, see no end in sight for this practice.

----------


## Kinsao

FYI, the medical textbooks used for study of medicine and training doctors and nurses, they state that human life begins at conception.




> To decide for someone else what constitutes an "acceptable" quality of life is also an exercise in unparalleled arrogance, as well as extraordinarily dangerous.


Thank you for posting this, Revenant. I have often had reservations and thoughts like this when I hear the phrase "quality of life" - not especially in relation to the abortion debate, but in relation to the elderly and people with disabilities. 

I prefer to treat "life" as more important, first and foremost, than "quality of life".

----------


## Index

> I would impose my idea that swindling is wrong, I would also impose the belief that murder was also wrong. It all has to do with doing one's best to protect the rights of others, and us pro-lifers believe it is protecting the fetus' rights to life and happiness.
> 
> I agree with Kinsao's response to Sansuikan San's hyposthetical(?) question.


Swindling or murder directly affect people whilst abortion does not. Why do you think it is your responsibility to protect the rights of others? Who put you in that position, and what makes you capable of judging whether a woman's rights are less worthy of protection than that of a fetus? I would put the rights of the mother above the rights of the fetus because she is already a functioning person and member of society who has a role and place in the world. A fetus is just a living organism that has no such position and is not even guaranteed of living after being born. I would only reconsider the legality of abortion if it was demonstratably affecting the existence of the human race due to negative population growth.

PS Solipsism might be just one explanation for why people have abortions. What about the person who chooses not to bring a child into the world becuase the conditions for raising that child are not there and so the child may become a burden to the rest of society? In my opinion it is solipsism to consider that your opinion should apply to everyone else. It is also solipsism to suggest that human life is what the universe revolves around.

----------


## Revenant

That is why this issue is so contraversial, cause people have completely opposite views on this. I do not believe as you do. I believe that from conception to death, the person's existence is continuously in development, and at least within the developed countries (I cannot speak for the undeveloped countries, as I know not much about them), there are other options and supports. So I don't feel it is right to intentionally deny an organism that would likely become just as you or I the right to life.

What defines what is a person and what is not? What does having a role in society mean? Would there not already be born people who don't meet this criteria? What of those who cannot function without our continued existence?

The debates always get a bit messy from here on out.

----------


## Ma Cherie

Just a thought and this may be off-topic, but what in situations where there's a huge problem with population? I'm not saying this is right mind you, but I was wondering?  :Doubt:  I'm talking about forced abortions to control population growth, and there are some people out there who believe forced abortions are okay, but are completely opposed to voluntary abortions in countries where it's legal if a young woman decides to have an abortion.

----------


## Winter

I dont get it, the arguement to keep abortion legal is that its 'not' murder, but capital punishment, which no matter what IS a form of organized murder, is legal.

I mean, either killing is wrong, or it isnt; whats with all the wishy-washyness of the issue?

----------


## Kinsao

I believe that killing is wrong (*whisperwhisper* except when someone _really_ pisses me off) and am opposed to capital punishment. 

I think the question is, though, whether you consider the fetus to be another human being with equal rights to all human beings, or whether you consider it to be inferior and have fewer rights because of its extremely early stage of development. 

Of course, it's been said before and I totally agree, that if the life of the mother is at risk, her life must take priority.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I find it hard to agree with any arguments that look at 'potentiality'. At any given moment we can say A might become, or has a good chance to become B, but I don't think we can base our morality on it. I think moral issues have to be resolved in the present, e.g. looking at what this foetus is _right now_, is it OK to abort it? Looking in terms of potentiality, are we going to lock up unruly kids now, because of the likelihood they will turn into criminals? No, we deal with what they are _at this moment_. Yes, we do that with one eye on the future, but it is the present situation that we deal with, IMO.

I don't really believe in the 'sanctity of life'. I believe in trying to look at a situation as a whole - I would call it a 'weak utilitarianism'. I don't accept blanket statements like 'murder is wrong', but prefer qualified statements, like 'murder is usually wrong, but we must assess each case on its own merits', which is more or less what happens in court. Is a woman wrong to kill a man who is raping her and has threatened to start on her daughter next, then kill them both? I would argue she is within her rights, if that is the only way she can defend herself and her child. Is a woman wrong to abort a foetus if she knows she cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising the child, or giving it up for adoption. I agree with those who believe that adoption is preferable to abortion, but what about the woman's right not to carry the baby to term? Pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal! I think a woman has every right to decide that she can't go through with it.

Having said that, I think it is absolutely crucial that people are educated to understand abortion as a last resort, and that they know about contraception. I am also in favour of raising the age of sexual consent to 18 (it's 16 in the UK at present) to give the message that sex is for adults. I would also consider some way of dealing with people who use abortion as a means of contraception, although I believe they are very rare. I'm not sure what form that would take, but counselling might be a good start. Some education in just how hard it is to be a parent might go some way to preventing unwanted pregnancies as well.

One more thing: IMO abortions should only be allowed up to the time of viability, and revised if that changes. At the moment in the UK it is 24 weeks. I think babies have been born a bit earlier than that, so perhaps it should be lowered.

----------


## Index

> What defines what is a person and what is not? What does having a role in society mean?


Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world. 



> Would there not already be born people who don't meet this criteria?What of those who cannot function without our continued existence?


I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...

----------


## Revenant

This is one of the few issues that I am a bit fanatical about. I know that both my brother and I (were abortions more easily accesible) could have easily been ended, and I know that my wife suggested an abortion at first when she first found out she was pregnant, just cause we weren't terribly financially stable. But I look at him now, and I am grateful to have him.

Ma Cherie, the question you ask is a difficult one, and I cannot answer. The people who support forced abortions and oppose voluntary abortions do not seem consistent, but I would be interested in hearing their reasoning for this.

Winter, I am opposed to Capital punishment, as I am opposed to anything that takes away life unnecessarily. I believe that most criminals by all rights should be locked up for the safety of others (the prison system does need some improvements though), but that a criminal still has the right to life. I am also opposed to the majority of wars, as it seems a lot of unnecessary deaths for oil, or whatever it is they are fighting over.



> I find it hard to agree with any arguments that look at 'potentiality'. At any given moment we can say A might become, or has a good chance to become B, but I don't think we can base our morality on it. I think moral issues have to be resolved in the present, e.g. looking at what this foetus is _right now_, is it OK to abort it? Looking in terms of potentiality, are we going to lock up unruly kids now, because of the likelihood they will turn into criminals? No, we deal with what they are _at this moment_. Yes, we do that with one eye on the future, but it is the present situation that we deal with, IMO.


I have an a different view of that, since the goal of morality is happiness, then it makes sense to keep whatever ideal conditions for happiness there are as long as possible. There is a reason why we do not let suicidal people commit suicide (padded rooms), there is a reason why I do not easily let the life of a person in a coma go. All have the potential to experience happiness in the future, and so it is with the fetus. A potential criminal probably won't actually kill someone, they may rape, or hurt someone, but only a small percentage actually take the life of someone. At least I always give the benefit of the doubt to the ideal of happiness.




> I would argue she is within her rights, if that is the only way she can defend herself and her child.


I would say she is well within her right.


> Is a woman wrong to abort a foetus if she knows she cannot cope with pregnancy, childbirth and raising the child, or giving it up for adoption.


I would say she is. In some ways I think the option of abortion causes people to take the easier route. She may have an emotionally difficult time, but most people are more resilient than they think. After a change in conditions, even for the worse, people most often return to their original setpoint of happiness. They work towards this, as the new perceptions they take on enable them to experience more happiness again, and it is happiness that everyone is after.


> I agree with those who believe that adoption is preferable to abortion, but what about the woman's right not to carry the baby to term? Pregnancy and childbirth are a big deal! I think a woman has every right to decide that she can't go through with it.


They are a big deal, but I absolutely believe that her discomfort for a the nine or ten months is in the best interest of the unborn being. The unborn being will then be able to experience life, and make his/her own search for happiness.



> Having a role in society means that you are connected emotionally and socially to others. Since one's identity is to a large degree determined by the world in which one exists and by the reflections of one's self that come from other people, I don't consider an unborn fetus a person. Its only connection is a physical one with the mother. Therefore I think that in determining whether the rights of the mother or unborn fetus should be upheld, I would say the mother takes priority due to her inclusion and participation in the social and phenomonological world.


Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month. 

Or let's take someone who is in a coma. They have been in a coma for quite some time, and as most coma patients go, they are neither moral persons nor moral agents. They don't have cognition, so they cannot be social people (and therefore be emotionally connected to anyone). I don't think that in their case, we can say it is alright to put them out.




> I'm not quite sure what you are saying here...


What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.

Also, there are already a lot of people that are a burden on society, but that isn't grounds to end them, so I don't see how that justifies the end of a fetus either.

----------


## Index

> Do we decide lives on the role they play in society? A friendless welfare bum who lost his family in a fire, what of him? He gets a small apartment from welfare, and just a bit of money for food. He never talks to anyone, and social services checks on him once a month. 
> 
> Or let's take someone who is in a coma. They have been in a coma for quite some time, and as most coma patients go, they are neither moral persons nor moral agents. They don't have cognition, so they cannot be social people (and therefore be emotionally connected to anyone). I don't think that in their case, we can say it is alright to put them out.
> 
> What I am saying is that non-viability doesn't seem a valid reason to end anyone's existence. A fetus isn't 'viable' apart from the mother, but then so are so many people not viable without our continued assistance.
> 
> Also, there are already a lot of people that are a burden on society, but that isn't grounds to end them, so I don't see how that justifies the end of a fetus either.


I'm not attempting to justify ending or terminating life. As I mentioned earlier, and you yourself have too, the arguments about this can go either way and often get heated. My point however, is that in such a situation, the decision should be left to the mother (for reasons mentioned above such as role in society) rather than to a third party. In this way a mother who shares your views on the issue is able to express her freedom to those views by not having an abortion, and at the same time the mother who considers abortion a viable option is also able to exercise her right to have one. Arguments for and against abortion are more than necessary, just as any discussion about ethics, morality or indeed most issues, but in this case I think the final decision about what view to subscribe to should be left to the individual.

----------


## Sensuikan San

Well! 

I finally made it! Joined the club, so to speak!

... I received a "Red Ball" - a negative rep. point for my posts on this thread !

and .... from the comment that came with it - I would be surprised if I was alone ...!

Apparently _someone_ (anonymous, of course!) ""Really doesn't agree with me" ... !

That's all. They don't agree with me! 

I don't think my posts were offensive. I think that I was honest, open, serious, balanced and qualified in my views. I did not display vitriol, extreme language - or even try to incorporate humor into a serious debate ...

... but "Mr/Mrs/Ms. X or whoever" .... "Really doesn't agree with me."

....and didn't have the courage of their conviction .... or even _courage at all_ ... to leave a name !

*And that and only that is what pee's me off !*

I'm old enough to not like, respect or approve of snarkey, self righteous, pompous, self serving, arrogant, snotty little cowards *who hide behind anonymity*!

Had they given their name - this post would not exist. Respect would have been given as due.

I don't agree with a lot of people on many things on the forum ... I think we can all say the same. But is that a reason (or a weak, mealy-mouthed excuse) to try to penalise? 

I think not! If that were the case - we would all, I'm sure, be handing out the "neg. reps." hand over fist - every day!

Don't get me wrong ... and this is the serious part of my post ... I'm not concerned with the bad rep. (actually ... it amuses me! I wondered when and how I was actually going to get one ...now I know!)  :Clap:  

What concerns me ... and interests me deeply .. is that it should have happened on *this* thread! 

I feel that it demonstrates to us all just how deeply this topic is of concern, and just how seriously it is taken by all. Obviously - just by disagreeing with my point of view - "somebody" is pretty pee'd off! 

Nothing wrong with that! We _all_ experience that feeling!

But by the nature of their action, and knowing the status of this topic in the world ... I am prompted to ask of "somebody" :

What's your next step?

Will you hang around an abortion clinic, rifle at the ready ... ready to kill or maim ....and demonstrate to us all how strong is your view on the sanctity of life?

_Anonymously, of course ...._

W

*P.S. - If I ever, EVER give anybody a bad rep. - I pledge here and now that I will sign it! That's the way I was brought up, and that's the way I brought up my kid.*

----------


## Revenant

Index, the decision is already up to the mother, and beyond my vote (which would definitely not be solely dependant on the candidates view of abortions), I have little say in the matter. I would still argue, in the hopes that one of our many voices would persuade a women to allow the unborn their own existence and hopefully happiness.

Sansuikan San, negative rep is quite normal on other forums, and are hardly so civil as the neg rep you recieved (i.e. 'you are sh*t and I hope you die' is just one of the reps I recieved). I'm surprised I haven't gotten any on this forum. I neither sign good nor bad reps, and will continue the same practice. Although, just to counterbalance the neg rep you got, shall I give you good rep.

----------


## Index

> Index, the decision is already up to the mother


Except in countries where abortion is illegal, unless you consider backroom ad hoc clinics at unafordable prices a good option?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> This is one of the few issues that I am a bit fanatical about. I know that both my brother and I (were abortions more easily accesible) could have easily been ended, and I know that my wife suggested an abortion at first when she first found out she was pregnant, just cause we weren't terribly financially stable. But I look at him now, and I am grateful to have him.


I think your personal experiences have given you a valuable perspective. If I had similar experiences I might feel differently, but the issue of abortion hasn't affected me personally. I'm glad that everything turned out well for you in the end.  :Smiling: 

I also think that the fact people disagree can be seen in a positive light, as it encourages debate and so ensures that we think hard about important issues like this.

----------


## Kinsao

I'm very surprised that you got bad rep, Sensuikan-san.  :Embarrassment:  I actually went back to look at your posts, and they seem to me a very fair and balanced expression of your opinion. 

I have a personal policy that I never bad rep anyone. Generally speaking, if their posts and the views expressed in them are so offensive as to seriously piss me off, I take the line that the person must have big problems and a short bitchy comment from me isn't going to help much. It's much more constructive to debate through posting (or pms if necessary). 

I hope whoever gave it to you gets the message that, although this forum is very polite in terms of rep, it's totally cowardly not to put your name.  :Okashii:  

And, yeah, disagreement is good, it generates the discussions. Let's keep it fair and reasonable, everyone have different opinions but that's no reason why there can't still be a civil debate.  :Smiling:

----------


## Mycernius

I have looked over this thread since Tsuyoiko san started it. Although I voted a while back, I feel that I must finally post. I have answered to the following
*1. Yes - but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger 
2. Yes - as long as it's early 
3. Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice*  
Although non of them really fit my actually view, they are the closest to it. I do believe abortion should be legal, it avoids bringing unwanted children into the world and avoids backstreet abortions where the woman could easily suffer and die. The term unwanted children might seem harsh to some people, but in some cases these children would be punished, beaten and even killed by the parents if they were allowed to come to full term. There are parents in this world who have wanted children and still treated them as punch bags, how do you think an unwanted child will be treated? 
I do believe in that it should be the womans choice. As John mentioned, a womans bond to a baby is often much stronger than a mans. It is easier for a man to say get rid of the child, it is not part of us in the way that it is part of a woman. We cannot feel its first kick or the happiness that some pregnant women give off, knowing that they are carrying a new life. Some women who have undergone abortions because their boyfriend has pressured them into aborting have suffered emotional stress and depression.
There was one choice that was not on the poll, but I feel it is important in todays modern age:
*Yes - if their is a risk of passing on severe disability.*
There are inheritable genetic conditions that are passed through families. Unborn children can now be tested to see whether they will be disabled by these conditions before the upper limit on abortions passes. While it is hard for the parents, they can have a choice of bringing up a child with a disability or aborting it. There was a programme on BBC Radio 4 called _It's my story_  about this very subject. It is worth listening to and is available for listen again on the BBC site. You'll find it Here under _It's my Story_
There is one thing I do not agree with on abortion and the whole abortion issue. That is the way that politicians, especially in the US, use it as an issue to gain votes. I find it cynical and disgusting that these people manipulate this issue to gain power. I really think that a majority of politicians, mainly men, don't really care about it. Just smile, say the right thing and get the votes  :Okashii:

----------


## nurizeko

Yes.

Period.

I understand everyone has different beliefs and opinions and stuff, but what is essential about our way of life is not only should everyone be free to make their own choices, should be free to have an abortion if she so wishes, but what makes it beautiful is that you are just as free to disagree and not support abortion.


So if you dont agree with it then thats cool, i respect that you have such a high respect for life, but, respect others, respect democracy and western values, and respect a person right and freedom to make their own choices.

----------


## Revenant

> I do believe abortion should be legal, it avoids bringing unwanted children into the world and avoids backstreet abortions where the woman could easily suffer and die. The term unwanted children might seem harsh to some people, but in some cases these children would be punished, beaten and even killed by the parents if they were allowed to come to full term. There are parents in this world who have wanted children and still treated them as punch bags, how do you think an unwanted child will be treated?


That is something to consider, but that also doesn't say that a child with a hard start in life won't find happiness. How many of those unwanted children are beaten? How many of those who were beaten never found happiness later in life? These would be questions I ask before drawing your conclusions.



> I do believe in that it should be the womans choice. As John mentioned, a womans bond to a baby is often much stronger than a mans. It is easier for a man to say get rid of the child, it is not part of us in the way that it is part of a woman. We cannot feel its first kick or the happiness that some pregnant women give off, knowing that they are carrying a new life.


Not to be offensive, but I have seen some of the most glib answers off of some women, and especially young women. Answers that are offensive to even some pro-choicers.



> Yes.
> 
> Period.


That's a bit authoritative, don't you think?



> So if you dont agree with it then thats cool, i respect that you have such a high respect for life, but, respect others, respect democracy and western values, and respect a person right and freedom to make their own choices.


But respect for one's right and freedom to make their own choices must be balanced against someone's right to life.

----------


## ragedaddy

I can understand both sides on the issue of abortion, and yes this is a very controversial topic to be dealing with. I chose to do a Dialectical paper on this subject matter in the US for my Ethics Class, and here are some of the arguments I came up with......




> One major reason why abortion should remain legal is because of its historical precedence, and how the constitution views this act. Historically, in the state of Texas, it was illegal to have an abortion except in the case of saving the motherfs life. However, in 1973 a monumental case took place in the Supreme Court, and this trial was known as Roe vs. Wade. Norma Corvey, also known as Jane Roe, was arguing against Dallasfs District attorney, Henry Wade, that it was against her rights of privacy as a woman not to be able to terminate her pregnancy. This was probably one of the most controversial as well as significant court cases in the 20th century, and the final decision was that the Supreme Court voted in a 7-2 decision which signified to deny a woman the right to abortion was unconstitutional. Justice Harry A. Blackmun was appointed the majority opinionfs Spokesperson, and he ultimately made his decision on this issue of abortion based on the 14th Amendmentfs due process clause which was said to guarantee this right to privacy (abortion) and it should be upheld. Therefore, advocating for abortion to be illegal would be going against the constitution that our nation was founded on, so with this in mind abortion should still remain legal.
> (Goldman, Jeffrey. A case of Privacy: How the U.S. Supreme Court reached the decision that sparked a quarter-century of controversy, CNN.com, Retrieved October 12, 2005, from Encyclopedia Britannica Online. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/roe...ories/privacy/)
> 
> There is a huge debate on how one can consider abortion as an act of murder when there really isnft a clear and concise explanation that determines whether a fetus is a human being. Many Pro-lifers believe that the when an egg becomes a zygote, it is considered to be a living being, but other pro-choice advocates argue that this fetus is just a part of the womanfs body until it is born. Historically, speaking the Anglo-Saxon law has never officially recognized as a fetus being a human being, so this makes a strong argument for people not being able to consider abortion an act of murder. It is very difficult for even someone to draw the line on the number of months maximum that should be allowed for an abortion, because the actual day of conception cannot always be measured accurately. Therefore, if a maximum time period was proposed then how could someone really prove that it is in fact 24 months, and what kind of proof would that have to present in order to go through with the abortion. Ifve heard arguments before that classifying a fetus as a human is rather ridiculous when if in fact it was taken out from the mother it wouldnft be able to breathe on its own.
> (Morgentaler, Henry, "Abortion Is a Moral Choice" . The Abortion Controversy. Lynette Knapp, Ed. Current Controversies Series. Greenhaven Press, 2001. Excerpted from Henry Morgentaler, "The Moral Case for Abortion," Free Inquiry, Summer 1996. Reprinted with permission from Free Inquiry.
> Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Thomson Gale. 12 October 2005)
> 
> There was a recent report in the New Scientist, about the US and New Zealand conducted a study on when a fetus starts to feel pain. Before the study was conducted, the US Government made claims that a fetus could feel pain after 20 weeks. However, the study concluded that the fetus is in a sleep-like state, and that they really can feel any pain until they reach 29 weeks. There is another argument that the fetus does have a heart beat before it is born, so clearly it is very hard to clarify when or if in fact a fetus should be considered a living being. Therefore, this point signifies that abortion really canft be seen as committing an act of murder when no one is really able to define when a fetus is actually considered a living being.
> (Coghlan, Andy & Young, Emma. Why fetuses don't feel pain. (This week: International news and exclusives) New Scientist, Sept 3, 2005 v187 i2515 p8(2) Retrieved from EBSCOhost on 10/12/05)
> ...

----------


## Pachipro

It is interesting that, to date, no one has selected any form of "No". Personally, I feel it should be legal and that it is a woman's right whether she wants to bring a child into this world or not regardless if she is pregnant. 

I know some will beg to differ with me on this, but in my own opinion, and based on alot of reading from different sources "outside the box" so to speak, I believe that the "soul" does not enter the body until the time of birth. Up until then I believe it is not a full fleged human being regardless of what it looks like in the womb or what the church might tell us to believe.

I know for a fact that if abortion were legal back when I was born that I would not be alive today as my mother was only 17 at the time. Still, if she chose to abort me, then I feel that that was her right.

----------


## Kinsao

I don't believe that historical precedent should have a bearing on people's opinions on this issue. Important decisions should be based on reasoning and ethics, independent from from such things. Actions that might have been wrong under some circumstances could be OK under others, and vice versa. Things change.

Oh, and by the way, Norma Corvey (Roe) actually changed her view and she became pro-life later on in her life, and said that she regretted very much what she had done regarding that court case and the resulting ruling.

I have said before, that medical text books define life as beginning at conception. Making this into a grey area could have serious consequences for the lives and treatment of premature babies. 

Mycernius, I appreciate what you are saying about disability. But I feel that reflecting this attitude in abortion laws/debates sends out a message about what we, as a society, think about disability and people with disabilities. Of course, no-one can deny that disability is a "bad thing" in that we wouldn't wish it on people and would much rather it not happen to them... but it gives the message that people with disabilities are somehow inferior, not as good as "normal", healthy people. How would you feel if you have a disability and you know that people are getting rid of their babies because they maybe have that condition? I personally feel that people with disabilities are just as valuable and have as much to contribute to society as people who are lucky enough to be in good health. By getting rid of them you are not just denying them their existence, but you are denying a whole network of people the chance to interact with them and be involved in their life, in ways which can change many people, even if the person themself doesn't have the capacity to be aware of that.

----------


## No-name

When does life begin?
Do you have references for those medical texts?
What are the different views?

----------


## nurizeko

> But respect for one's right and freedom to make their own choices must be balanced against someone's right to life.


But its the prospective mother's choice, welcome to the democratic west, despite mild incompetence of some politicians, we live in a free society, where we have so much freedom to decide and choose our own path.

If a mother isnt ready for such a responsibility, and she chooses not to carry on with hte pregnancy, then that is her choice, you can disagree, but you will never have the right to dictate how she lives or what she does with her body.


I think pachipro's got a very enlightened look on it, he's alive now so theres no risk to his life, so he can quite comfortably admit if his mother had aborted him, that was her choice, how can one have a right to life before their even born?, before their even a viable reasonably se;f-sustaining organism?.

I know some folk dont like this being looked at from a biological point of view but it has to be.
I believe if in the human spirit, i believe its earned as little bit as a time, and i think the current abortion laws reflect that well, i do believe by the time a child is born its on the earth for the long haul, and its life should be defended at the sacrifice of your own if you must, but inside the legal abortion time?...i think its purely the prospective mother's choice.

----------


## Mycernius

Kinsao, I see your arguement. I was not passing any judgement on those that choose this path. There are those that have lived with various disabilities and know that there is a high risk that it could be passed onto their children. Some will have children, regardless of the risk. They say that they have had a good life, despite being disabled. Other decide that they do not want to put any child through what they have been through. The Radio programme had a woman who is a carrier of a genetic disorder that causes severe learning difficulties. Her first son has this, so she decided to test any unborn children for the problem. She has aborted twice because both children would suffer the same as her son. She still regards herself as a mother of three and was very heartbroken at aborting them, but she felt it was better than having to let them live. What we have to watch out for is when the state starts to have a say in this. Just imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had the technology to determine whether the unborn was fit to be born.

----------


## Silverbackman

I think it should be entirelly a woman's choice up to 4.5 months. Afterward I think it is immoral because it is closer to birth than not being born (as 4.5 months is the midway point between birth and conception).

When I was younger I used to see no problem with partial-birth abortion but after watching how abortions are at such a late period (the case I saw was 8 months) it seemed very barbaric. If you look at the pictures at some of these partial birth abortions you would see this.

----------


## Revenant

> But its the prospective mother's choice


It is now (at least within Canada and Japan). However, the ethics of it simply being the mother's choice is questionable.


> welcome to the democratic west, despite mild incompetence of some politicians, we live in a free society, where we have so much freedom to decide and choose our own path.


Democracy is great. However we still have laws that should be based on ethics, and it is the ethics of this that is being discussed.



> If a mother isnt ready for such a responsibility, and she chooses not to carry on with hte pregnancy, then that is her choice, you can disagree, but you will never have the right to dictate how she lives or what she does with her body.


I have no right to prevent her from getting an abortion, if that is her wish, but it isn't just her body. If it were just her body, it would also have the exact same DNA as her. A fetus' DNA and mother's DNA aren't the same, and so it can't be termed as just a part of her body.



> I think pachipro's got a very enlightened look on it, he's alive now so theres no risk to his life, so he can quite comfortably admit if his mother had aborted him, that was her choice, how can one have a right to life before their even born?, before their even a viable reasonably se;f-sustaining organism?.


A fetus isn't viable, but we don't decide whether someone's life is worth keeping based on viability. There are people who couldn't live without our continued support. They need our money, our time, our energy, and special apparatuses to keep them alive.  A fetus isn't viable apart from the mother, but then neither is a newborn viable apart from our continued assistance either.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Mycernius, I appreciate what you are saying about disability. But I feel that reflecting this attitude in abortion laws/debates sends out a message about what we, as a society, think about disability and people with disabilities.


Aborting because of disability makes me uneasy too, particularly since I work with disabled people. I know someone who aborted a foetus because it had spina bifida. That made me really sad, as I have a student with spina bifida, and he is a wonderful, happy person. But at the same time, I support her decision as she would not have coped with a child with such severe disabilities. I think she did the right thing, but I still feel upset about it.


> What we have to watch out for is when the state starts to have a say in this. Just imagine what Nazi Germany would have been like if they had the technology to determine whether the unborn was fit to be born.


I think this argument is important, and it goes the other way. The state has no right to decide that a foetus should be aborted, and equally should have no right to decide that a woman cannot choose to abort. The idea that a state can say a woman must have a child when she doesn't feel able seems very wrong to me.



> I think it should be entirelly a woman's choice up to 4.5 months. Afterward I think it is immoral because it is closer to birth than not being born (as 4.5 months is the midway point between birth and conception).


I think that's a pretty good idea. It's unlikely that a baby is ever going to be born that early, and although it is arbitrary it makes a kind of sense. It also addresses Ragedaddy's point about determining the time of conception. Even if the woman is more pregnant than she thinks, there is going to be little danger of aborting a viable foetus if the limit is 4.5 months.

----------


## Revenant

> The state has no right to decide that a foetus should be aborted, and equally should have no right to decide that a woman cannot choose to abort. The idea that a state can say a woman must have a child when she doesn't feel able seems very wrong to me.


Just to argue this, what is your reasoning that the state cannot say a mother must deliver the child rather than abort it? The state can say it is wrong to murder a newborn, but based on what? We must have an ethical model to work with.



> I think that's a pretty good idea. It's unlikely that a baby is ever going to be born that early, and although it is arbitrary it makes a kind of sense. It also addresses Ragedaddy's point about determining the time of conception. Even if the woman is more pregnant than she thinks, there is going to be little danger of aborting a viable foetus if the limit is 4.5 months.


Why that time? What makes it immoral after, and not before, both do exactly the same thing?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Just to argue this, what is your reasoning that the state cannot say a mother must deliver the child rather than abort it? The state can say it is wrong to murder a newborn, but based on what? We must have an ethical model to work with.


Consider an analogy. I need a kidney transplant and you are a suitable donor. I will die without the transplant. You have been told that you can survive with only one kidney, but there will be considerable discomfort and disruption to your life. Should the state have the right to force you to give me a kidney?


> Why that time? What makes it immoral after, and not before, both do exactly the same thing?


I don't think I said it would be immoral after that time, but that (although fairly arbitrary) it seems a sensible limit to minimise the possibility of aborting a viable foetus.

----------


## Indiana Gardener

Options 1, 2, and 3 from the top.

A person is a person. If we ask "Should abortion be legal?" Then we should also ask...

Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to roam the streets with tongs, knives, saline injections, and other implements of their trade targeted at people who are working, shopping, and otherwise going out their daily business?

Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to break into homes with tongs, knives, saline injections, and other implements of their trade targeted at children who are at play or in a crib?

As long as we go this far; Should it be legal for abortion Dr's to go about with guns ready to knock off anyone who any other person doesn't wish live any longer? Such as, "Say I've got this really annoying colleague at work. doc, can you just take care of him / her for me?"

This may all seem really far fetched, but it fits in the same catagory. A life is a life, no matter the age.

----------


## bossel

> Options 1, 2, and 3 from the top.
> [...]
> This may all seem really far fetched, but it fits in the same catagory. A life is a life, no matter the age.


Quite far fetched, yes (but not un-expected: when I saw your nickname I just had the feeling something like this was going to come). 

Life is life? Hmm, I thought, this thread showed that it's not quite so simple.

----------


## PRIZMATIC

Very much a complicated question and to it is possible only full knowledge of all circumstances for everyone personally,only it is necessery to remember,that everyone after a life,the meeting God waits and there to answer...
Aborting - it aborting... of life...

----------


## Revenant

Necromancy I know, but I have a new argument, and I just wanted to put it forward.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously there is cause and effect, and we cannot look at just one moment, and not take into account the cause and effect of things. That would be like a father spending all the college money on gambling, cause his ten year old son said he didn't need it, nor wanted it. Even though the child doesn't want, or feel he needs the money now, we can infer that he very well may want to use that money later, when he changes his mind, and he actually wants to use that money. 

We can infer that an unconcious or comatose woman, upon awakening, would condemn the person who had sexually assaulted her while she was unconcious or comatose. The woman however during the actual time of sexual assault is not protesting, or condemning the man doing this to her. It has nothing to do with what is happening in the here and now. 

Let's look at a pregnant mother who drinks. Can we infer that the child, after it is born, will not like the fact that the mother drank, and that he now has physical deformities because of his mother's choice to drink? The child at the time of the mother's drinking was but a fetus (the fetus had no thoughts, no self awareness, and of course felt no pain, it wasn't protesting in the slightest), and the drinks ingested at the wrong time of pregnancy disrupted the development of the fetus (I do speak from personal experience on this one, as my birth mother drank (I am adopted), and I have severe varicose veins as a result, besides some other odd vascular abnormality, to which I do not understand, cause it was diagnosed in Japan, and they do not speak English well enough to explain it exactly to me). 

So a fetus does have future views that we can infer, therefore it would be wrong to drink during pregnancy. It all follows along the golden rules of 'do unto others as you would have done unto you'. If you wouldn't want to have some sort of physical abnormalities, then one can also infer that a fetus in the future would also not want this as well. 

So we can indeed infer future thoughts, views, and abilities. 

So then, if one aborts a child, we can indeed infer that the child wouldn't have wanted that to happen, after all, I wouldn't want to be carved up like sushi and scraped out. If one attempts to circumvent this, by simply negating the entity, then one is indeed trespassing on the future views of that entity, since we have already established that future views can be inferred, and that that future view would be that the child would have wanted to keep his/her life.

----------


## Dutch Baka

I think it should be legal, on special condititions, that it can only be when the woman is less then 2 months pregnant. we live in a world were people make big mistakes, people think easy about sex, not using condoms.

When a woman is pregnant, and its sure that she can't take care of the baby, she can also let the baby be adopted by somebody. (nowadays people even sell baby's....) so i think when something is completely hopeless, when somebody is being raped, and younger then 2 months...

just a question, from how many weeks does a unborn child starting to shape form, feeling?

----------


## Revenant

I thought I should add that I do support abortion in some circumstances, obvious one being if the birth would likely end in the mother's death, or if the fetus was determined to have some genetic defect that would result in it living a life of suffering. Perhaps some other instances, but those two can I think off the top of my head.

----------


## Dutch Baka

Nowadays you can test your unborn child on things( Things is the wrong word, but I cant find a better word for it, my excuse for that), and one of them is the down syndrome, when you know this, would you still want a child like this?

----------


## Revenant

It isn't something that I would wish for, but the life of a down syndrome child, to whom I know would want their life should not have their existence hinged upon my wishes. At least I would take care of the down syndrome child, doing my best to take on Marcus Aurelius' philosophy, gAccept the things to which fate binds you, and love the people with whom fate brings you together, but do so with all your heart.h

----------


## g

I personally don't have anything against abortions.
In saying that it is still not a nice thing. I'm only young so yet to experience fatherhood in any sense.




> The only people who think abortions are a good idea are those who are already born

----------


## Nicky

I picked:
Yes - it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world 
Yes - it should be entirely the woman's choice
I think if abortion was illegal, women would just go back to the old coat hanger trick. If it must be done, I'd rather they have it done in a doctor's office.

----------


## afailedaffair

Religon shouldn't interfere with law.

The natural rights is all up to definition of when "life" starts.

I don't agree with abortion if the baby has already created a CNS, however if the mothers life is at risk, I would rather have the mother whom life IMO is more important, survive than the baby, who even at birth could still die.

----------


## nurizeko

Thats an interesting point rev, but void, because to be aborted, the potential to become human-life is gone, how can it not want to be aborted if it already has been, and was never self aware enough to remotely understand the concept let alone make a decision.



Simply: Its totaly the decision of the individual involved if they want an abortion or not, religion smaligion, its meaningless, modern society works like this: you dont have to abort unwanted pregnancies if your religion tells you to, however you have no say whatsoever over what another individual completely unrelated to you wants.

The alternative is another world war, where the forces of secularity and science totaly nuke the s*** out of the religious sects, and stands over the charred smoking remains of civilization to begin again un-interupted.

At least the way it works now, everyone gets to live their life their way within the accepted norms and laws of general secular society.

That secular society respects your right to religion, respect our right to abortion, and you can continue to pray to god, if not, then...war, death, horrible mess, ruins everyones day, and no more religion.

Not a threat, dont get me wrong, im not wanting war or anything, but, thats the only other solution i see, all im seeing lately is religion banging heads with religion, or against secularism, and if religious folk dont start being more respectful of everyone elses rights, its going to end in a war, and i feel religion would be the loser in this conflict....how many vets who have seen their buddies head blown off believe in god, or like him?, exactly.

----------


## Ma Cherie

This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.

----------


## Revenant

Nurizeko, I know that the fetus' potential is gone after an abortion, and that whatever views it might have had is also gone. But we can without much, if any doubt know that fetus would not want to have the mother drink during pregnancy, and would condemn the mother for having done so when it is old enough to have a say. We can also know that a fetus would also want it's life.

I would say it is very wrong to drink during pregnancy. But even at that, a child like myself who was affected by drinking during pregnancy would still value life. So if it immoral to affect a fetus' future life by drinking, how much more immoral is it to negate it? I would say a lot more. 

BTW, I do not belong to any religion, so that entire religion spiel doesn't speak to all pro-lifers.

Does anyone understand my logic, or even agree with it?

----------


## Kinsao

> This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.


RU-486 is horrible.  :Sick:

----------


## nurizeko

> Nurizeko, I know that the fetus' potential is gone after an abortion, and that whatever views it might have had is also gone. But we can without much, if any doubt know that fetus would not want to have the mother drink during pregnancy, and would condemn the mother for having done so when it is old enough to have a say. We can also know that a fetus would also want it's life.
> I would say it is very wrong to drink during pregnancy. But even at that, a child like myself who was affected by drinking during pregnancy would still value life. So if it immoral to affect a fetus' future life by drinking, how much more immoral is it to negate it? I would say a lot more. 
> BTW, I do not belong to any religion, so that entire religion spiel doesn't speak to all pro-lifers.
> Does anyone understand my logic, or even agree with it?


Maybe, i dont, sorry, but its the same as saying something like "but this lump of clay is precious because it can be formed into fine pottery and then burried in the earth for a long time so its really rare and stuff."

A fetus _may_ have the potential to become a fully formed sentient and (hopefully) intelligent person, but at the present it is just a a fetus, a lump or rough form of cells, it neither breaths or feeds for itself or thinks or in anyway acts independent of the woman its growing in.

If the prospective mother wishes an abortion, it is her legal right to it, i dont know how more easily to explain it, i respect the pro-life point of view, but if people cant respect the live and let live system of society the west has, then we might aswell return to stone-age barbarism (though the stone-age probably didnt have any pro-lifers or animal lovers and stuff...).

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> This is kind of off topic perhaps, but I was wondering how does anyone feel about the use of RU-486? It's a medicaded way to have an abortion without going through the surgical process.


I had never heard of it, so I found this info. It doesn't sound too bad, kind of similar to the morning after pill. Although I would never have an abortion anyway (except for life-threatening reasons), I certainly wouldn't choose this method, as you would see the embryo. Reading that bit really upset me - especially at six weeks when it already has eyes, apparently.

----------


## -rika- shinya`

in my opinion, abortion should never be legal unless it is a rape case/the mother's life is in danger. as for 'better than bringing an unwanted child into the world', if no person in your family will love the baby, there is always another family wanting to adopt a child. it's sad denying it life just because of the mother's selfish needs. i don't have anything against them, but..it's just not right to me

----------


## Ma Cherie

> I had never heard of it, so I found this info. It doesn't sound too bad, kind of similar to the morning after pill. Although I would never have an abortion anyway (except for life-threatening reasons), I certainly wouldn't choose this method, as you would see the embryo. Reading that bit really upset me - especially at six weeks when it already has eyes, apparently.



RU-486 isn't like the "moring after pill". Thanks for that information by the way. :Cool:  It's a misconception to call it a "morning after pill" because it's taken in doses instead of just taking one pill. Besides, it's commonly used as a contraceptive, and there seems to be a misconception about the use of it. While RU-486 is used to abort the fetus non-surgically, the "moring after pill" is used to prevent pregnacy.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> It's a misconception to call it a "morning after pill" because it's taken in doses instead of just taking one pill. Besides, it's commonly used as a contraceptive, and there seems to be a misconception about the use of it. While RU-486 is used to abort the fetus non-surgically, the "moring after pill" is used to prevent pregnacy.


Sorry for not being clearer - when I said it was 'kind of like the morning after pill', I meant in the sense that it is a pill you take usually at home without any medical supervision, with effects that are similar (though more severe) to the morning after pill.

----------


## moffeltoff

If both mother and father of the unborn child agree on abortion it should be legal.
If only the mother can be contacted the mother should make the decision.
If the health of the mother is threatened in any way the the child should be a decision made by the doktors.
But if the mother of the unborn child was just beeing uncarefull ,while having sex and there is no reason for abortion if you ask me unles she is under age.

----------


## Canek

NO.

it's a murder.

----------


## Segia

If a woman wants to practise an abortion it doesn't matter if it's legal or not. She'll do it anyways and in most cases without leaving proofs of it.

----------


## Cambrius (The Red)

A woman needs to have freedom over her body. It's a natural right. Yes, abortion should be legal within reasonable parameters, but it must not be treated as a form of birth control.

----------


## Wilhelm

Only in case of rape and in case the mother's life is in danger. But not a woman who wants to have fun and irresponibly gets pregnant. It's not a game.

----------


## Antigone

Heavens, and here was me thinking that it would take two people to have fun and get irresponsibly pregnant.

----------


## LeBrok

Mother creates life, mother takes life, and it doesn't get more natural than that.

If mother or parents chose to terminate combination of their genes, let's be it. Most likely showing that their DNA combination is a failure. Doesn't get more Darwinian, isn't it?

But on other hand if we consider that parents DNA combination is a human being regardless of its state of development, shape, and life experience, then we have to admit that abortion is a murder of a human being. 
We need a definition of human being with emphasis on what age it receives human rights protection. Is it when parents genes combine, or at 3 months? Maybe at birth, or age 18?

Hey, this is timeless issue that exists as long a as human kind. It can only be regulated by law, but the outcome will never be satisfactory, morally justified, philosophically put to rest, never.

Yes, it's a murder, but mother should have legal rights to do that.

----------


## Canek

abortion is a crime. women who abort should be punished as homicides.

----------


## Riccardo

> A woman needs to have freedom over her body. It's a natural right. Yes, abortion should be legal within reasonable parameters, but it must not be treated as a form of birth control.


I totally agree with you!  :Good Job:

----------


## Orchid

> A woman needs to have freedom over her body.


You can say so, if you talk about diets or plastic surgery. Children, even if they're unborn, are another human beings, not just "part of woman's body". 
Fetus isn't a parasite - it's a child, that's way I thnik that abortion is a murder. It can be legal only in one case - if woman's life is in danger.

----------


## Melusine

If you are MALE "it is none of your business".

If you are FEMALE it's your own choice" Yes or NO

IF you are religious, and this is your POV, "butt out". Go to a Religious forum .

Melusine

----------


## Antigone

> If you are MALE "it is none of your business"


Wow, women in the US have evolved so far ahead of the rest of us that they can now fertilise themselves?

----------


## Melusine

There is such a thing as "envitro fertilzation," and "artificial insemination" .

sooooooooooooooooooo yes, a women can "fetilize themselves if a women (anywhere in the world where the technology is available) wants to by-pass the MALE we can.

----------


## Antigone

Indeed, but thats immaterial to the debate. If anyone goes to all that trouble to get pregnant it is because they want a pregnancy and the resultant child. There wouldn't be an abortion, not unless there was serious medical complications anyway. 

As to your comment that it is not the business of the male, I disagree. The male is just as entitled to the right of free choice as is the female, to deny any male the same right as any female is discrimination.

----------


## Orchid

> IF you are religious, and this is your POV, "butt out". Go to a Religious forum .
> 
> Melusine


Heh, if you're atheist - butt out. Go to an atheist forum. 

Yes, I'm religious. But, as I must worry you, my opinion about abortion doesn't come only from my religion. I just can't catch the difference between killing unborn children and killing baby who is born, but still dependent to parents' care. But nobody votes for women's right to kill born babies, do they? Child is always a child - and murder is always a murder.

----------


## Melusine

The thread here is: Should abortions be legal? 

It has nothing to do with a man's rights, its about the legality of abortion. The only persons that would be punished if an abortion is done illegally (wherever in the world abortion is illegal) is the WOMEN, and the Dr. or person (whether they are male or female who performs the abortion.)

This thread is now OFF TOPIC

THIS is NOt a religious thread nor a religious forum

Better yet, do start a new thread about religion according to Europe Forum rules.

----------


## Antigone

> The thread here is: Should abortions be legal? 
> 
> It has nothing to do with a man's rights, its about the legality of abortion. The only persons that would be punished if an abortion is done illegally (wherever in the world abortion is illegal) is the WOMEN, and the Dr. or person (whether they are male or female who performs the abortion.)
> 
> This thread is now OFF TOPIC
> 
> THIS is NOt a religious thread nor a religious forum
> 
> Better yet, do start a new thread about religion according to Europe Forum rules.


Well I'm glad you realise what the topic of the thread is at least. In simple English, as it takes two people to create a foetus, i.e a male and a female then both have an equal right to an opinion and a free choice (to vote) on whether an abortion of said foetus (created by both male and female remember) should be legal or illegal. 

I have at no stage mentioned religion, only the legalities which is in keeping with this topic.

Sheesh, why so agressive?

----------


## Fire Haired

when a s[perm and egg connect that is the begging of a human being if u stop it there it is murder. What about the baby also only about 1% of abortions are because of rape still dont kill a baby because a girl was rapped. A fetus is a human a fertlized egg is a human there is no excuse to abortion pleas give me some arguments. Abortion is murder i know people put abortion with extreme right winged people but if u think about it is wrong dont put other political viewes into the debate of abortion.

fertlized egg is the begging of a human(even though it is a scientific fact). nearlly 100% of abortions the baby has arms and legs. There is no debate abortion is murder people are blinded and think it is about womans rights

here are some abortion stats 


*

ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS*


In 2008, approximately 1.21 million abortions took place in the U.S., down from an estimated 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2008, nearly 50 million legal abortions have occurred in the U.S. (AGI).Based on available state-level data, an estimated 1.16 million abortions were performed in 2009, 1.13 million were performed in 2010, and 1.06 million in 2011.In 2009, the highest number of reported abortions occurred in New York (119,996), Florida (81,918) and Texas (77,630); the fewest occurred in Wyoming (≤20), South Dakota (769) and North Dakota(1,290) (CDC).The 2009 abortion ratios by state ranged from a low of 57 abortions per 1,000 live births inMississippi (Wyoming had too few abortions for reliable tabulation) to a high of 713 abortions per 1,000 live births in NYC (CDC).The annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline through the 1990's. Overall, the number of annual abortions decreased by 6% between 2000 and 2009, with temporary spikes in 2002 and 2006 (CDC).The US abortion rate is similar to those of Australia, New Zealand, and Sweden but higher than those of other Western European countries (NAF).In 1998, the last year for which estimates were made, more than 23% of legal induced abortions were performed in California (CDC).In 2005, the abortion rate in the United States was higher than recent rates reported for Canadaand Western European countries and lower than rates reported for China, Cuba, the majority of Eastern European countries, and certain Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union (CDC).Nearly half of pregnancies among American women are unintended; about 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion. Twenty-two percent of all U.S. pregnancies end in abortion. (AGI).
*WHO HAS ABORTIONS?*


In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population (NAF).In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).Among women who obtained abortions in 2009, 40.2% had no prior live births; 46.3% had one or two prior live births, and 13.6% had three or more prior live births (CDC).Women between the ages of 20-24 obtained 33% of all abortions in 2009; women between 25-29 obtained 24% (CDC).In 2009, women aged 20-29 years had the highest abortion rates (27.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 20-24 years and 20.4 abortions per 1,000 women aged 25-29 years) (CDC).50% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25; women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all U.S. abortions and teenagers obtain 17% (AGI).In 2009, adolescents under 15 years obtained .05% of all abortions, but had the highest abortion ratio, 785 abortions for every 1,000 live births (CDC).Black women are more than 4.8 times more likely than non-Hispanic white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2.7 times as likely (AGI).The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).37% of women obtaining abortions identify themselves as Protestant, and 28% identify themselves as Catholic (AGI).At current rates, nearly one-third of American women will have an abortion (AGI).
*WHY ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?*


On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI).Only 12% of women included a physical problem with their health among reasons for having an abortion (NAF).One per cent (of aborting women) reported that they were the survivors of rape (NAF).
*WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?*


88-92% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).In 2009, 7% of all abortions were performed at 14-20 weeks' gestation; 1.3% were performed at ≥21 weeks' gestation (CDC).Percentage of 2009 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
≤6 wks
7 wks
8 wks
9 wks
10 wks
11 wks
12 wks
13 wks
14-15 wks
16-17 wks
18-20 wks
≥21 wks

32.3%
17.8%
14.0%
9.3%
6.6%
5.1%
3.9%
2.8%
3.4%
1.9%
1.8%
1.3%


*Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman's last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo. The images on ourPrenatal Development and Abortion Pictures pages are more precisely captioned with fetal ages in accordance with standard teaching texts on prenatal development.
*HOW ARE ABORTIONS PERFORMED?*


In 2009, 82.3% of abortions were performed by curettage (which includes dilatation and evacuation). Most curettage abortions are suction procedures (CDC).Medical abortions made up approximately 17.4% of all abortions reported (CDC).Ninety-six per cent of the more than 140,000 second-trimester abortions performed annually in the USA are accomplished by the technique of dilation and evacuation (D&E) (NAF).
*WHO IS PERFORMING ABORTIONS?*


The number of abortion providers declined by 11% between 1996 and 2000 (from 2,042 to 1,819). It declined another 2% between 2000 and 2005 (from 1,819 to 1,787) It has remained stable between 2005 and 2008 (1,787 to 1,793). (AGI).Forty-two percent of providers offer very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 95% offer abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-four percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Eleven percent of all abortion providers offer abortions past 24 weeks (AGI).Most abortions in the USA are provided in freestanding clinics; in 2005, only 5% occurred in hospitals, down from 22% in 1980, and only 2% took place in physician's offices (NAF).
*ABORTION FATALITY*


In 2008, 12 women died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortion (CDC).The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions(CDC).
*THE COST OF ABORTION*


In 2009, the average cost of a nonhospital abortion with local anesthesia at 10 weeks of gestation was $451 (AGI).
*MEDICAL ABORTION*


In 2005, 57% of abortion providers, or 1,026 facilities, provided one or more types of medical abortions, a 70% increase from the first half of 2001. At least 10% of nonhospital abortion providers offer only medication abortion services (AGI).In 2005, an estimated 161,100 early medication abortions were performed in nonhospital facilities (AGI).Medication abortion accounted for 17% of all abortions in 2008 (AGI).
*ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION*


Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use ofcontraception (CDC).54% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users reported using the methods inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users reported correct use (AGI).8% of women having abortions have never used a method of birth control (AGI).9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice (NAF).Condom use confers protection against STIs, but it does not provide top-tier protection from pregnancy because of breakage, slippage, inconsistent use, and low continuation rates (NAF).
*ABORTION AND MINORS*


40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion (AGI).35 states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion: AL,AR, AZ, CO, DE, FL, GA, IA, ID, IN, KS, KY, LA, MA, MD, MI , MN, MO, MS, NC, ND, NE, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC,SD, TN, TX, UT, VA, WI, WV, and WY. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have the alternative of seeking a court order authorizing the procedure (AGI).
*ABORTION AND PUBLIC FUNDS*


The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman's life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest (AGI).17 states (AK, AZ, CA, CT, HI, IL, MA, MD, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA and WV) do use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds (virtually all from the state) (AGI).

----------


## Leandros

For rape victims, or when the mother can lose her life, yes it can be acceptable.

----------


## Héloïse

Yes, Women should decide for there body

----------


## morris

I voted 'Yes- but only if the mother's physical or mental health is in danger'.

----------


## elghund

Those are tough choices; however, one choice should be added to the poll: if the baby has profound disabilities (e.g., missing most of his brain; an individual missing all his limbs, eyes, hearing apparati, etc.); in other words, when it seems living living life would be worse than death itself. I heard of one individual who was missing his face and much of his brain. They fed him with a dropper, through a hole that led straight to his esophagus. From what I heard, he died when he was around eighteen years of age. He appeared to be in an infantile state his whole life.

----------


## RoeGriffin

It’s necessary to the protection of foundational rights for women to allow abortion. It’s inhumane and torturous to force a person through something as financially, physically, and emotionally trying as an unwanted pregnancy

----------


## Ceribell

There needs to be some boundaries…. 3 months maximum. 
I sometimes have to work with premature babies, some as young as 28 weeks gestation.
To see these little babies struggling to survive and to not acknowledge that they are human is sick. It is murder.
I do not think that taxpayers money should go to fund this sort of thing.

----------


## AlfonsoVIII

Abortion is a crime.

----------


## Olivia_19

it should be entirely the woman's choice

----------

