Abortion
 

So, what do you all think about abortion? Should it be kept legal? Why or why not? Do you think that it is murder, even if say, it was done within the first month of pregnancy?


I'll withhold my thoughts until later :)

It should absolutely be legal. Some people just should not have kids. Although, I think it's dumb that a couple will get an abortion when all they have to do is use some damn rubbers and/or get on the pill. The only reason there is to have an unplanned kid is comlplete stupidity. People need to grow up and take responsibilty for their damn actions and understand the consequences of what can and probably will happen if they don't use protection.

Yes, abortion is a necessary means of population control.
There are too many people now.
I have no other deep feelings about it except that it is far often better than having children.

As this is one of the most irrationally debated issues of note, I'll take this opportunity to remind us of the need for the standard rules of decorum when voicing opinions here.

This went to the back quickly, but I'll answer.

I grew up around Labor & Delivery (L&D); my mom's a high-risk L&D nurse.
I worked two years in a L&D hospital.

And if I've learned one thing, it's this.
Governmental regulation is set too ridge to allow for the complexities involved with Child birth,
and the personal decisions made about it.

Life is not fair, and people make very difficult choices involving this.
This would be too much government interference in something so personal.
It would violate the inherent freedoms given to us.

There is no black & white.
And those who say so, obviously have not experienced first-hand.
Or are being arrogant enough to think they know better.

yes, a womans body is her own decision. period.

I think it should stay legal. Not every situation where an abortion is someone's solution was brought about by mere carelessness/lack of other contraceptive use. Every type of contraception, excluding abstinence has its failure rate. Sometimes there are circumstances beyond a person's control, and they are not ready for kids yet, or do not want any, ever.

I don't think it's the government's place to tell a woman what to do with her body, especially if it could be harmful or deadly. Carrying and bearing a child is not a cake walk for every woman, so I feel it is unfair to say that a woman should have to carry and have a child that she may not want or cannot take care of. Before I ramble on too much more, I'll hush. :)

Keep it legal, keep choice, get government out, period.

keep it legal. not only are we protecting a woman's right to choose, we are protecting the lives of women everywhere. prior to roe v. wade, thousands of women died every year due to botched back-alley abortions. the situation of penny in the movie "dirty dancing" was very common. if you are pro-choice, please, please, please visit www.plannedparenthood.com and check out their take action section. a woman's power over her reproductive health is being undermined every day.

Keep it legal...I don't think I would ever be able to do it, but I think a Woman should have that choice.

I agree with sixate.

Keep it legal, a woman or young girl should not be forced to have a child when they're not responsible to have one or have been raped. The government nor religious fanatics should have a say in their decision.

but the father's decision shouldnt carry as much weight as the mother's.


it's the woman that's gonna carry the baby around for 9 months and give birth to it.

if she doesnt want to go thru the process, it's her her body, her choice.


anyway, i'm REALLY surprised that i havent seen a pro-life person here! (maybe that's good!)

I'm a little surprised that this thread hasn't caused more controversy.

I'm not going to start one. I agree fully that it should be legal and it is a woman's right to choose. It is also a medical decision that should not be interferred with by some mealy-mouthed politician.

choice...

btw, there ARE ways preventing one from getting pregnant!:)

I was definitely expecting this one to be a heated debate, but I guess not...

Abortion should definitely be legal. Morally, I'm not sure, but in terms of real life, there's no question. Even if abortions were illegal, they would be done anyway, only in secret. That would mean physicians secretly performing abortions, and they would most likely not be the most reputable physicians, either. Also, if abortion was illegal, from a public health standpoint, it would be very bad. Some women would try to do self-abortions... I've heard of it being done with coathangers. The potential for serious injury is huge.

The only kind of abortion I'm really against is partial-birth abortion. The mother should make up her mind earlier to either have the baby or to not have the baby. At the point when doctors perform partial birth abortions, the mother might as well go through with the birth, then let someone adopt the child.

I want to make it clear that while I am 100% in favor of abortion. For me it has nothing to do with women's rights.

I don't believe in it personally..but i believe a woman should have the choice...especially if she was raped or having the baby would kill her..
I don't believe the government should regulate something so personal...what isn't my business or theirs should stay that way....NONE OF OUR BUSINESS
an old addage comes to mind "Mind your own beeswax"

they should be legal imo

I am going to peacefully disagree in this thread, as I am Pro-Life.

Primarily, understand that I agree that some people should -not- be parents. Many are unfit to be such, and many are unprepared. These individuals should use birth control methods (more than one in my opinion), such as birth control pills and a condom, or having tubes snipped in either partner (or both! :)).

However, I am pro-life because I'm sticking up for the unborn child. We were all once babies in our mother, and we had no voice. What if we were abortions? Oop, we no longer exist. How fair would that be?

Even if a child was to be raised in a foster home, or in an unwealthy family, or perhaps not even the greatest family, at least it's being given a chance to succeed. A positive mindset, hard work and determination can take you anywhere in life and I believe everyone deserves the opportunity to achieve.

I just can't believe that we'll take away unique individuals lives, by letting people MURDER their children. What about the child? What if YOU were that child?

And, just for arguments sake, in extreme situations I do agree with Abortion (Rape, Incest, etcetera). I also agree with it (as a parental choice) if the individual is 100% positively guarenteed to be born with severe mental and/or physical deformities (retardation, quadreplegic disfigurement, and so forth).

phew some oppostions.

if i was that unborn child, i wouldnt be here typing now.

that's it. i dont think i'd have any problem w/ it.


besides, we kill thousands of other stuff everyday that's @ a more developed stage than the baby is.

So you'd have no problem (from the point where you are right now) if you just had to give up everything and die?

You'd never get to hear your favorite song, know what Texas is, or become a Libertarian. And you have no problems with that?

abortion should be legal.
i couldn't agree with Art more.

If the unborn child was a part of the womans body, then I would absolutely agree with you. I definately have libertarian political leanings.

The trouble is, I am convinced that the unborn child fits every meaningful definition of life and that it clearly is a unique member of our species. Here, I am speaking as one with an undergrad biology degree and an MD.

The real question is whether or not the baby has a soul. I am sure that that is a question that should not be addressed by our government. Society does have a role in protecting innocent human life. I choose to err on the conservative side and I believe that our legal system is obligated to do the same.

I do recognize that others disagree and I understand their positions. Let me assure you that I am not a misogynist and I have no desire or pathological need to control women. In some societies, abortion is used to ensure male children. This should concern those who are worried about women's rights.

I really don't think religion should be brought into a governmental issue, especially when the government governs a variety of races and religions.

yeah, this should have nothing to do w/ religion


and as for me being here, that's cool

i'd never know these things existed, so i wont miss 'em.

That is actually the point I was trying to make, but did not do a very good job. But I believe that leaving religion out of the debate leads me to inescapable conclusion that the unborn deserves protection from the state. This is based on the same kind of reasoning that leads to laws protecting infants from abusive parents as well as just plain old murder.

Throughout history, life was thought to begin at birth because that is all we could really know or understand. Now we have the technology to know better. We really do know better. But for political and social reasons we ignore it.

But don't you think everyone deserves the opportunity to see all these things?

but, by giving protection the child (forcing the mother to go thru pregnancy for 9 months), you're in effect telling a person what to do .

kinda like a blue law.


you're just raping civil liberties when you're telling a person what and what not to do (like what if govt said u cant masturbate, since u're killing perfectly good semen or something)

you just dont tell people what they can do w/ their bodies!

dont u think an animal deserves to experience some things in life (like sex) before it's killed.

the baby @ that stage is no different than any other animal to me.

you know, abortion was legal in many states pre-roe v. wade.

I'm 100% pro-choice, but i'd like to see roe overruled. here's why: that way, if some silly states want to legislate an answer to a question that only a woman should answer about her own body, then let all the women move to another state and have those stupid politicians' economies crumble.

also, as long as roe is on the books, people don't pay as much attention to how quickly abortion rights are being chipped away...

and trust me, they are :(

In effect, you are about the equivalent to an unborn baby is to it's mother as I am to you.

Does this mean I can murder you, and call it fair?

Because the Mother isn't affecting her body when she kills her child, she's affecting the child's body.

EDIT: My Bad.

would you agree that we, as citizens, should be allowed to make personal choices about our own bodies and healthcare?

if so, you obviously believe that when a life is at stake, that choice can be erased.

which is fine -- but eventually it will boil down to an argument about whether, or when the fetus/embryo/zygote becomes a viable "life" .... which no one has the right answer to.*


*This is, actually, my source of discomfort with prohibiting abortion -- the law essentially makes a decision about life begins, which is something that most of the population has enough trouble deciding on its own! :)

Keep it legal. Let the person most affected make the difficult decision (the mother). As long as it is done early enough I see no valid reason to force something so potentially life changing and possibly devastating upon someone.

Well if they aren't prepared for consequences, they shouldn't accept the risk, should they?

its not about the womans right, its about the rights of the baby.

Don't want kids? use contraception.

end up getting pregnant but dont want a kid? have the baby and give the baby up for adoption.

Yes, i know that when most abortions are done, all thats being removed is a lump of flesh. Nevertheless that lump of flesh has the potential to be human.

In effect, with an abortion, you are denying the right of a child to exist. Religion has nothing to do with it, merely simple human values. in the end, i think most of us will agree that any form of life is better then no life at all.

As far as I know this is the only point where 'religion' enters into it, because the bible says life begins at conception.

By the way, I'm pro-life because legal abortion is one step closer to euthanasia and other forms of state-sanctioned murder. The death penalty is a different issue entirely, because the one being offed fucked it up for himself.

You know, I shuddered when I opened this thread, knowing how abortion discussions usually go. I was surprised to find people being pretty civil. I guess you can be surprised sometimes.

Anyway, as stated in yon Politics board, I'm a libertarian. The government should back off. I don't condone using it as a method of birth control-that's what pills and condoms are for, but making any part of it illegal is a step towards making all of it illegal, and that, I think, is unacceptable.

We have laws to sanction what is socially acceptible and unnacceptible. To believe that to kill your own child is socially unacceptible, in any form, would be to believe that it should be a law.

This isn't something that should be debatable; it should be law. If you do the deed, you accept the repercussions.

If someone shoots your mother, they go to jail for life or receive the death penalty. They cannot say "I didn't mean to put the gun to her head and pull the trigger", because they did it.

Similarly, if you stick your penis in a woman and pump until you've got children, you can't say "You didn't mean it" or "it was an accident".

should one religion's view get to prevail for all?

i certainly know many catholics who are pro-choice, too... which to me, underlines that religion is supposed to be personal. (which goes back to my "up to the individual" theory, of course :) ).

I believe that choice is what makes humans a different type of animal. So in taking away the right to make a decision like that makes us no better then anything else. We, as people, make choices. Some are good, some are bad. I know great people who have had abortions, and they did it for a good reason. Like not having the right things to have a happy life for a child. If we make abortion illegal, what about all the children that are going to be found in garbage cans? Then, all the illegal ones that are preformed because you can't get someone good to do it for you. Females can die if the procedure is done wrong. So...what is the point of making it illegal again?

btw, what i've always found unique and interesting about the abortion debate is that there's no middle ground.

i mean, we'd all like to see women be able to make choices about their own bodies.

but if you believe that a fertilized egg is (or soon becomes) a life, and thus that abortion is murder, you can't allow murder in the name of "choice."

which means that there's no middle ground. which is pretty unique, no?

my exact stance on it.

Unlike most of the posters in this thread, I am a mother. I am Pro-Choice, and I plan to never be in a position in which I need to make The Choose.

As far as I'm concerned, when "life" begins is irrelevant to the issue. The question is when "humanity" begins. It's not illegal to kill an animal, and an animal is very much alive. It's not always illegal to kill a human, self-defense being the best known example of this.

When Helen began moving in response to external stimuli, that's when I would say she became human, and that was during the sixth month.

Third-trimester abortions need justification IMHO, mother's life in case, rape or incest, etc. Second-trimester ones put my teeth on edge; I think the would-be mother should have made the decision sooner, but the abortion should still be legal.

BTW, the Bible doesn't say when life begins.

Abortion should be allowed, but not encouraged. It is not a birth control measure. Don't want babies, use condoms, pills etc.

What if you are woman/young girl who got raped? Would you like to have the child of your rapist?

Eating chicken eggs are denying chickens from existing.

Religion has a lot to do with shaping people's morals/values. Simple human values different from religion to religion or lack of religion.

Passive eugenics. MMMMmmm. I have a hard time taking a stance on this issue. Personally I see nothing wrong with removing the fetus while it is simply a lump of cells. When it is actually formed into a being with a developed nervous system it is hard for me to say it is an ok practice (just because it is my belief that when it reaches that point it is a person). I think that everyone needs to follow their conscience. If someone feels ok with having an abortion, who's right is it to stop them? Not mine that is for sure.

If my girlfriend were to get pregnant, I would stand behind her unconditionally, whatever she chose.

However, I think she should have the right to choos abortion.

I also feel that it is perfectly ok to be pro life, and not get one, just don't go telling other people what they can or can't do.

Also, couldn't you save more lives by helping people who are already alive and being persecuted?

I feel it should be legal, but the method of destroying the fetus as its being born is questionable in my eyes. Im a male so I really can't totally relate to what a female goes through in considering that, but it would seem the first trimester is plenty enough time to decide. When brain waves are able to be measured I think second thoughts should be gathered. For various reasons it is ultimately up to the female.

This is another difficult issue for me. I used to be a staunch anti-abortion person, but since I've matured (or at least become more cynical) I've learned that there is never a black-white answer. I think it should stay legal if for nothing else, then for the women who would put themselves in greater danger by having it done anyway.

I also think the government/schools should promote sex education and ensure kids have access to contraception. Also that health insurance companies should cover the expense of bc pills, or other methods (those that don't already).

Some days, though, I think who cares? If the mother is even considering an abortion, it most likely means the child wouldn't be wanted anyway, right? Why force another unloved, rejected child into the world. I know there are many happy stories about adoptions, but there are also many unhappy ones.

Some of the other comments above brought up another issue: Euthanasia. What's so wrong with that for that matter? Why force someone to live as a vegetable or endure years of agonizing pain? Just pull the plug, end the suffering and save money. Economics, I think, would favor both options.

Many anti abortion people here have conceded that an abortion means removing a bunch of flesh with a potential to be something living. That's the point.. the thing being removed is NOT being killed. There's no life there, just the potential for life. Abortion should absolutely be legal and be made an option. Not all people who seek abortions are miscreants who didn't use birth control. If a woman is raped and gets pregnant she should NOT have to carry that child. If a woman gets pregnant and knows she can not care for the child (financially or emotionally), why should the child have to suffer????

to all the people that are opposed to killing a potential life, every time you jack off, you're killing MILLIONS of potential life!


when you abort a baby, the baby goes thru MUCH less pain (if it even feels any) than when you hunt.


it's OK to kill another living them for FUN and not OK to kill a fetus that cant even feel pain for reasons that are way beyond fun?


anyway, IF the woman chose not to go thru the 9 months and the delivery (for whatever reasons), you shouldnt make her do anything she doesnt want.

That doesn't really seem to be the same thing. An egg and sperm individually cannot develop into a fetus. But a fertilized egg is a zygote, which, barring outside or environmental factors, will become a fetus.

I'm kinda on the fence about this whole topic. The government shouldn't have control over such a personal issue. There are obviously some reasons that I think an abortion is acceptable. I still see an abortion as taking away a chance to experience and learn everything in this world. I can't say for sure but i'm just about positive if I got someone pregnant I would encourage her all the way to keep the baby.

Abortion should be legal, and parents who oppose it shouldn't get one.

if i was in that position, then yes, i would have the kid, and give him/her up for adoption. Why? because im denying a human life otherwise.


chickens are not humans =)



And yes, i do agree with you, your upbringing, and therefore the religion you are bought up in do play a huge part in the creation of your values. But i was kinda talking about generic human values... ie dont kill another human =)

I just had to do a research paper on it, so I'll throw my two cents in.

Basically, I think it needs to be kept legal. Women have been having abortions all through out history, even in places where it is illegal and a severe sin. In places where it was/is illegal, it is hard and expensive for a woman to find a qualified person to perform one. This would lead most to go to someone who may not be qualified, and who's tools and methods may not be safe, causing many more deaths of the mothers.

After researching the methods of abortion, my views have changed slightly from what they used to be. While I still want it to be the woman's right to choose, I'd rather them not have an abortion, short of taking drugs (such as RU-486) at an extremely early period in their pregnancy.

People often bring up cases of rape and incest. Some women do still carry the child, however, most don't. This right here, I believe, proves that keeping abortion legal is not necessarily a bad thing, because with the woman's right to choose, it means that she can choose to have the baby, even in such "extreme" cases as these.

That's really just a short overview of what I wrote.. my whole paper was like 11 pages, and I won't bore you with that :)

Also, I must say that it is widely accepted and scientificly supported that sperm is not capable of forming life on it's own, so masturbation really can't be considered destruction of life. Also, when a man does ejaculate in a woman, he releases hundreds of millions of sperm, yet the woman's own body works so hard to kill off most of it. This is why people with low sperm count have trouble getting women pregnant.

Science is also coming up with new ways to support a fetus to full life at earlier stages of pregnancy. I see this having an impact on the laws that state when in pregnancy a woman can have an abortion. If a fetus can be successfully developed outside of the mothers womb, then it's hard to argue that an abortion should be allowed and/or performed.

"A woman?s body is her own decision. Period"
This part of the debate is most unctuous. It precludes the biological father?s decision in the matter, and also when looked at most literally also includes decisions and ethics concerning drug use and suicide. All of which I am in support of, the right of an individuals right to choose. But it is imperative to use non-jingoistic language for such a debate.

If you know your pregnate and don't want the baby, get the abortion done right away. I am not in favor of late term abortion unless the mother is at risk.

As mutt pointed out earlier, abortion is not an issue which should involve the federal courts at all, either pro or con.

If it is to be made illegal (remember that laws do not tell us what we can do, but define what we can not do), it must be made so by the states.

The arguement at hand (and the only valid one for making it illegal) is that it damages the fetus and that the fetus is a human life, which would be a criminal offense and as such would be restricted by a state law. There is no United States law against killing people. If you bash someone's skull in, your case will never ever be heard by the United States Supreme Court. If you kill a pregnant woman you will not be charged with any crime by the United States, but you will be charged with two - count them two - murders (no matter how far along the pregnancy nor the woman's stance on abortion) by the State in which the crime was commited.

Roe v. Wade should be abolished as the unconstitutional aboination of justice it is and make the citizens of the individual states exercise their constitutional duties and decide whether they consider it criminal behavior. The federal government has no business or authority telling the people of any state that they can't make something illegal if they want to. If the people of a state want to, by virtue of those they elect to state office, make public nose picking a crime they absolutely have that right. Same should go for abortion.

Yes, that does mean that some states will outlaw it completely (Utah, I'm looking at you) and some states would put no restrictions on it (California) but most would fall somewhere in between. That sounds like a messy situation and it is, but that's why we have separate states in the first place.

Now don't you all feel better now that I have solved the worlds problems for you?

In case you are wondering, I'm a tweener. There are some cases when it is absolutely justafiable and some cases when it just ain't.
If you are impregnated by consentual sex knowing full well you could get pregnant and just change your mind after seven months you're shit out of luck. You can't go around killing things just because they get in your way. Most places make it illegal to do that even to cats.

i've never understood the rape/incest exception. not that all anti-abortions folks believe in that exception, but the majority that I've come into contact with do believe in those exceptions.

Isn't that a shade inconsistent to avow that abortion is murder but then sanction murder in some situations?

I happen to believe that for most of pregnancy, it's not a viable life. But if I took the opposite view, I'm not so sure I would allow those exceptions.

Hey, I did say that, earlier:

who was it that said "if men could have babies, abortion would be sacrosanct?"

Just feels relevent to me... I agree with zmiley's comment earlier:

.

The other thing that I would add is that I was always a staunch pro choice person...until I had a child. Now my heart melts at the thought. Doesn't change my mind, but it adds shades of grey that I didn't know were there before.

Mutt, I stand corrected. Sorry I didn't give you credit where it was due.

I just can't believe all those women that flush potential humans down the toilet each and every month.

and people who say it is only ok in cases of rape are retarded. It wouldn't be enough for the girl to say she was raped, you would have to catch the suspected rapist, put him on trial, find him guilty, and then she can have an abortion... of course by now the kid is like 3 years old, then what?

keep it safe, legal.

I've always been cool with the early kind, but the late ones where they sucks out the fetus brain is just wrong.

i just read the post about the soldiers stealing money in iraq....i was shocked by how many people were outraged by these soldiers stealing 'from the people of iraq'...anyway, i was feeling impressed with the morality of TFP....then, i saw this thread. i think the contrast is startling: when someone takes money, everyone is outraged...when someone takes a life? indifferent. if it is a womans choice, when should that choice end? shouldn't she (or the father) be allowed to terminate the child as long as she (he) is legally responsible for it, then? after all, its her house. i go one step furthur than most pro-lifers, in believing that abortion is never justifide: not in rape, not in deformity, not in convinience. who is to judge who should or shouldnt be given a chance? im not...i dont think any one else is, either

Makes perfect sense to me, how else would you explain Jeebus? :D

All kidding aside, I think it should be legal. Being a guy, I'd prefer not to have any kids born because of me before me and my wife (whomever she will one day be) are ready. Accidents happen, and i think it's better than bringing an unwanted child into the world who's parents aren't necissarily ready/willing to love and support it, and who may not be able to financially support themselves, let alone a baby.

The only problem I have with abortion is when it is used as birth control, the way a condom or the pill is. If an accident occurs, fine, get one. But one of my friends friends (really, no joke) has had six, or so i've been told, and that's just wrong. It's irresponsible. I gosh darn don't like it.

"God" didn't create abortion for no reason..

I think it should be kept legal. Ive had a close call when my bf put the condom on backwards and it broke...I hoping that I would be able to find an abotion clinic if I needed to. I know hospitals do..my mothers hospital does..and she told me that theres this one girl who had like 8 abortions already! Im surprised she could still get pregnant. People like her shouldnt be able to have that option, but if she were to have a child..shed prob sell it or kill it by neglect or worse...But what about women who get raped and pregnant?Ive read stories where a woman had that child and gave it up for adoption..the child turned out fine, but waht about those who make the world worse for others? I would like the option of abortion to stay open and from threats of those who oppose. Though how do you control people from abusing this choice.

Abortion is murder IMO.

Yes, with abstinence being the only one that's 100% effective.

Abortion is not murder. And until men can get pregnant, they should have NO say whether a woman chooses to carry the fruit of their loins or not. Over the childbearing years, many women have to resort to abortion at least once. Just as aside, it is not an easy choice to destroy one's potential child. Many women quietly mourn the death throughout their lives.

I think abortion should be legal, not because of woman's rights but in fact for the rights of the child and cause it is what is best for the child. Someone would only consider an abortion in an extreme case. These people don't want a child and are unfit to be parents (for whatever the reason is). A child should be entitled to be born into a family (even if it is just a single parent) that cares about them and will take care of them. Why should a child have to suffer a life of misery for the mistakes of its parents? Yes, there are probably some exceptions in which the child could turn out to have a normal life but those are exceptions not the rule. I think most of these children if forced to be born will have a miserable and unhappy life. Adoption would be a could alternate, however there are already too few people willing to adopt.

I'm for keeping abortion legal.

What's interesting about abortion to me, is the way it's marketed. Very few issues are in constant debate as guns and abortions. Each are really a more symbolic fight than a real fight-how many people lobbying for the rights of women to have an abortion will have one themselves? It's not going to be, contrary to the image, the clean cut business woman who terminates the pregnancy because she wants a career. It's going to be the bum who smokes crack and doesn't want to get sober, so she terminates it.

So, who's pushing it? Religion. Religion has found something very marketable in abortion. The same way the gun issue takes hold in the south, religion has got abortion. Religion simplifies abortion-God knows the future of the baby, and by killing it, you interefere with his plan. Of course, this assumes that God has a plan that humans can mess up.

But I digress...so they claim it's murder. But it's really on the fence. I believe both sides genuinely believe what they are saying. I believe that the people picketting outside abortion clinics honestly believe it's murder. And I believe the people who fight just as hard to keep those rights feel that it's a right women deserve. I believe the people that maybe a little shady are preachers who use it as a way of getting money.

My ultimate point is that these symbolic fights are often waged to the detriment of the bigger picture. The bigger picture, in both the gun and abortion fights, is for the goverment to give people as many freedoms as possible. I hope people remember that.

I'm a firm Pro-Lifer. Why? That child has no say...the parents did. He either could have worn a condom, or just flat not stuck his cock in her. She could have been on the pill, or used something else. They are responsible, completely.
Now, there are extenuating circumstances, where one or both of the lives (mother or baby) are at severe risk. In that case, I'm not opposed. There has to be some sort of common sense involved.
By the way, extenuating circumstances do NOT include a birth defect, a child born from her cheating, or a few others I can't think of right now. Possibles would be a rape. Although, even then, I would advise to carry it, and then put it up for adoption. I would advise adoption anyways, as there are plenty of good people out there that can't have kids.

One more thing...in what I've read so far (the first page on my screen), this has stayed calm. That's great. We can agree to disagree on stuff. There's not a whole lot of point in getting heated over things. Thanks for that...let's keep it up.

I think that abortion should be allowed in special cases. ie. victims of violence, medical conditions, and other extreme circumstances.

However, I am highly against using abortion as a method of birth control.

I know someone who has had 5 abortions in the last 4 years because - 'she didnt like using the pill or condoms'

I have no respect for that at all.

<- Pro-Choice.

why?

for me is less of a women's rights issue as it is hmm, reasoning similar to sixate's.

and i suppose partly children's rights thing, just because i think there's too much risk that an unwanted child will somehow suffer in their upbringing..whether it be abuse or neglect or poverty or whatever else.

one more thing - Abortion Prevention is so important, and by that i do *NoT* necessarily mean abstinance...

effective birth control should be available to ALL. easily obtainable & free if necessary.

But do you realize how rare it is statistically for women to do that? That majority of women who have abortions, have only one in their lifetime; a smaller though not insignificant percentage have two. The number then drops to a small minority that have more than two abortions. Why focus on extremes?

If men could get pregnant, we wouldn't even be debating this topic. It would be a given that it would be legal and accessible.

abortion is the slaying of an innocent child whose right to life doesnt enter into the matter, while i agree some people should never be parents, i also feel that no one except GOD has the right to decide who lives and who does not!

I say you should have the right to an abortion at any moment in the pregnancy up until your water breaks. Until the baby's born it's your choice as to what you do.

People should be educated on abortion, though. If you don't want an abortion based on religious reasons, fine, that's your choice. If you don't want to have an abortion for whatever reason, that's good, don't have an abortion, but don't let your morality in that re gard make me guide my life.

I spend a good deal of time assisting in the prevention of abortions. I teach sex-ed.

One of my major problems with the anti-choicers is that many of them are also against teaching safe sex beyond abstainance. People have sex. All the time. Whether their Gods and teachers and parents and presidents say it's right or wrong. And without proper sex-ed, there will be unwanted babies. Then, whether their Gods and teachers and parents and presidents say it's right or wrong, people will have abortions.

May as well make it safe.

(Incase you don't know, I'm staunchly prochoice)

Edit: not to say that contraception is infallible. I know it isn't. But it does help.

I've always felt abortion should be legal, and the govt has no business in it what so ever.

Now, as for our high voiced friend here and any others against the issue. I have some thoughts for you


Do you eat any sort of meat at all? If so, don’t you feel that cow, pig, chicken, whatever should have had the opportunity to see and fulfill life? But it didn’t.

Would you rather a baby to be born into a family that can not take care of it what so ever, and force that baby into a possible life of malnutrition and high levels of disease? Would it not be better for that baby to not suffer?

Some people should not have kids’ period, some people are simply not ready and to immature / financially well off.

As long as you don’t add in religion (which I happen to have zero of, which also HEAVILY affects my opinion here) I really do not see where there can be much of an issue.

Life and Death, it happens every second of the day. There is more to this earth then just us humans. We share it with many other creatures that have been here much longer, and many of them kill their young. Do you get ruffled up about that too?

I cant see where you can draw the line between the death of a baby vs. the death of any other thing we do daily just for our own needs.

Heck I wouldn’t even call it a baby if its in a early enough stage.

Oh and if you have no memory of the event, there’s nothing to be lost.

You know what's a fun game?

Read an entire thread on abortion- and there are tons of them here at the TFP- and count the number of times you see a "pro-life" or anti-abortion person invoke God in their post.

Actually, make it easier on yourself- just count the ones that don't. This way, you won't need a pen and paper. :)

This "debate" will never die.

women may very well have the right to make choices for THEIR body...but its not their body thats being sucked out or torn to pieces.

Alright, folks, here's my opinion:

According to Auriana Ojeda, book editor of Should Abortion be Restricted?, “Abortion is one of the most controversial issues in American society and politics today”(6). The argument of whether abortion should be allowed or restricted has lead to many passionate debates among governments, religious organizations, and political advocates. By believing that abortion should be legal, a “pro-choicer” advocates a woman’s right to her own body and the right to choose. Also, by keeping abortions legal, women will have the opportunity to have a medically safe abortion in clean surroundings. If restricted, which “pro-lifers” (also called “anti-pro-choicers”) support, young women and teenage girls will have back-alley operations done, leading to illness and death. If abortions are kept legal, as dictated in Roe v. Wade, women will be able to achieve much more, control their own reproductive lives, and fulfill basic personal goals without being hindered by unwanted pregnancies.

The path to women’s right to choose has not been an easy one. Although legal until the mid-1850’s, abortion laws banning abortion after the first fourth months of pregnancy began to emerge by the 1820’s. By the turn of the century, every state had restricted abortion. Soon women were risking their lives to have illegal and highly dangerous back-alley abortions. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in the 1930’s, approximately 800,000 illegal abortions were being performed each year, leading to 8,000-17,000 deaths annually. Early reformers saw these extreme risks of keeping abortion illegal, and pushed for legalization. Finally, between 1967 and 1971, during the push for women’s rights, 17 states legalized abortions. Also, according to the ACLU, “In 1968, only 15 percent of Americans favored legal abortions; by 1972, 64 percent did” (Ojeda 62). This shift in public opinion led to the landmark case Roe v. Wade in 1973, which forbade most existing states’ abortion bans.

The final decision of Roe v. Wade was based on the 14th amendment, the constitutional right to individual privacy. This amendment states, “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property…” (U.S. Constitution…). Liberty is the right to choose how one ultimately lives out his or her life and thus, the Court found this right “broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy” (Ojeda 62). The Court upheld that the state could not interfere with a woman’s rights to abortion, unless there was a convincing cause for regulation. A compelling reason in protecting the possible life of a fetus could only be declared once it became “viable,” typically at the beginning of the third trimester of a pregnancy. Thereafter, abortion was also allowed for certain health reasons (birth risks for the mother, extreme deformities, and genetic abnormalities, etcetera). As the Supreme Court later restated in 1992, “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Ojeda 62). By legalizing abortions, women were given the right to manage their own reproduction.

In 1992, the Supreme Court was faced with another legal debate concerning reproductive choice in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The Court protected the constitutional right for a woman’s individual choice, and proclaimed that under the “undue burden test,” state regulations cannot put “a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus” (Abortion Timeline). U.S. Supreme Court Justices O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter supported the individual rights of women by asserting, “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence…and the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under the compulsion of the State” (Ojeda 44). When women have the individual right to their own bodies, they are also given the right to lead a better life.

When allowed the choice of abortion, women are able to prevent irreversibly ruining their lives. Not all pregnant women are able to adequately care for a child. Some suffer from mental and physical problems that disable them from managing a very active baby. Still others are deep in financial debt, unable to provide the huge expenses of a child. What’s more is that in high-visibility jobs (like waitressing), women are often forced to quit their job once their pregnancies becomes noticeable. Very few women are paid full wages when on maternity leave, and rarely are their jobs held open for them. After becoming pregnant, women may discover that they have been demoted to a lower-status “mommy track” jobs (Currie 42).

If forced to give birth, a mother may not have only ruined her life, but her child’s as well. In one study, 41 percent of women deprived of abortions regretted giving birth, and a third of those surveyed “harbored anger and resentment against these unwanted children” (Currie 39). If women are not allowed the choice to have an abortion, they will not only be dramatically affected mentally, but physically as well. Additionally, without the right to an abortion, women will affect not just themselves but many others.

When abortion was made completely illegal by the early 1900’s, it did not stop women from finding other means to get rid of their pregnancy. During these times, illegal clinics were run by inexperienced doctors and other unlicensed practitioners with no true concern for their patient. One story by Susan X, describes Doctor Harvey Lothringer, who performed an illegal and brutal abortion on her when she was only 18 years old. She illustrates a picture of absolute horror, explaining how the doctor charged her a large sum of 400 dollars, would not allow her boyfriend stay with her while she was paralyzed with fear, scraped the lining of her uterus so much that she was later unable to menstruate for a year, and then used a German Shepherd to “dispose of the evidence” (Lest we…). This doctor later served four years in prison, when, after a 19-year-old girl died during an illegal abortion he performed, he dismembered her body and flushed it into the sewer system. Furthermore, women would resort to using knitting needles or hangers as abortion instruments. Other lawful doctors had to treat these maimed women when an illegitimate abortionist caused extreme damage to her body. There are countless cases of doctors that could do nothing for women after they were infected with gas gangrene, septic shock, kidney failure, and a variety of other fatal diseases during an illegal abortion.

It is obvious through these stories and the death toll of illegal abortions that if restricted, women will not just stop having abortions. As commentator Anna Quindlen writes, “It is a great mistake to believe that if abortion is illegal, it will be non-existent” (Currie 37). That is why it is essential that women have the right to their own bodies. If abortion is criminalized, the reality is that women will just once again turn to uncertified butchers. If regulated, the death toll of abortions will dramatically fall because the environment in which to get an abortion will be safe, sanitary, and much less painful—mentally and physically.

An argument that many pro-lifers bring up is that killing a fetus that could potentially be a baby is murder. The key point in this is that the fetus is a potential human being, not actually a human being. Although a newborn baby can feel pain, as seen through observations, there is practically no real evidence that a fetus can feel pain. Pro-lifers typically translate simple bodily reflexes as pain; however, as Stephen Currie writes, “The synapses are not yet well developed enough to permit the feeling of pain as a true human would experience it” (24). Most importantly in this argument is that almost nine out of ten abortions are performed in the first few weeks after conception, when really the fetus is an embryo, only a two inch long ball of cells that hardly resembles a newborn at all.

Pro-lifers contend that a fetus could have been born and then grown up to be the next Einstein; however, it should be noted that the fetus could have also grown up to be the next Adolf Hitler. As stated by the webmaster of ‘I’m Not Sorry.net,’ “The potential for evil is just as strong as the potential for good.” In fact, evil is more probable than good in unwanted pregnancies, because the children may grow up in a household full of discord and resent.

In addition, pro-lifers are particularly fond of quoting the Bible in order to back the notion that abortion is murder; however, these biblical references are far from convincing. The Bible does not expressly address abortion, but it does not prohibit it. In fact, if any evidence can be drawn from the Bible it would imply that abortion is not at all like murder. An example of this is in Exodus 21, where a man is sentenced to death for killing a woman; however, if he hits a pregnant woman, causing her to miscarriage, he is only fined. Such a light punishment is contradictory to the belief that aborting a fetus is murder (Currie 28).

Not only does the Bible illustrate how murder and abortion should not be viewed in the same light, but so do other manuscripts of other mainstream religions. In the Talmud, a Jewish script based on the Old Testament of the Bible, it is stated that “the fetus is as the thigh of its mother”; that is, it is only a part of her body. Although cautioning against having abortions on a whim, many American Jewish leaders concur that abortion and murder are simply not the same thing. As a Catholic theologian visiting an abortion clinic reports, “I have held babies in my hands, and now I held this embryo. I know the difference” (Currie 26). In fact, as a universal rule, even present laws in the United States do not identify a fetus as a “person,” and murder is defined as killing someone already born. Hence, the pro-lifer’s argument against abortion because it is murder is moot.

Although some may be opposed to the idea, a woman must be at liberty to choose whether she wants to have an abortion or not. If a woman is not given the freedom of choosing to have an abortion, essentially her body is not hers anymore but instead the government’s and an unborn mass of cells called a fetus. As author Roger L. Shinn asserts, for a woman “to be forced to give birth to a child, against her will, is an overwhelming violation of her freedom” (Currie 40). Moreover, if denied access to medically sound abortions, a woman will instead only be forced to relinquish herself to an unreliable illegal abortionist. All of the achievements women have accomplished over the last century concerning reproductive rights will have been in vain if abortion is made illegal again.

---
Works Cited
“Abortion Timeline.” The Daily of the University of Washington-Seattle Online. Accessed 12 March 2005 <http://archives.thedaily.washington.edu/1999/100499/N7.Griswold.html>.
Currie, Stephen. Abortion. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2000.
“I’m Not Sorry.net: Celebrating the Right to Choose FAQ.” 2003-2005. Accessed 15 February 2005 <http://www.imnotsorry.net/FAQ.htm>.
“Lest we Forget…” Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, Inc. Accessed 17 February 2005 <http://www.wcla.org/articles/lest.html>.
Ojeda, Auriana, ed. Should Abortion Rights be Restricted? San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2003.
“US Constitution: XIV Amendment.” Legal Information Institute. 1999. Accessed 13 March 2005 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html>.
---

Pretty well agree with this passage. A woman's right to choose - yup, the right to birth control like a pill or a condom, not to killing a child.

Having said that, I realize there are some realities here. To start with, I'd liek to see abortions restricted to 14 weeks and under, and go from there.

I'm a pretty liberal person, except on this issue. There are a lot of selfish people out there.

Fundies are so cute when they're all charged up about something.

I am not an anti-choice person, however surely women do not need abortions to control their reproductive lives or unwanted pregnancies, the pill and various other techniques (condoms etc) offer nearly 100% protection, I believe (and sorry if I misquote) that USTwo noted 20 years of sex and no unwanted pregnancies.

Similar to men women have the options of abstainance, and protection, can it really be said that women need abortions to control their reproductive lives (abstainance has a nearly 100% gurantee of no kids, there has only been 1 reported case of an abstinant woman having a kid as far as I know, and that was 2000 years ago).

Good luck not using a pen and paper. I've had more than a couple posts on the matter. NONE of which invoked God.

Cute theory. Just don't pretend that it's scientific. There is no scientific reason for defining 'human being' so as to exclude prenatal stages.

I've always been amazed at the road taken by "anti-lifers", and how their means of jusitification has always coincided with the same line of reasoning used to justify just about every atrocity ever perpetuated; they attack the status of humanity, just the same as jews and and blacks humanity was denigrated.

Edit: Hopefully this will remove the Godwin effect. My apologies, still think it's a fair analogy.

Oh shit. Godwinned.

it is really pretty simple, this:
if you oppose abortion dont have one.

strangely enough, that is an entirely viable option under the present legal scenario.
under it, folk who imagine there to be a god who would disapprove are free to imagine that there is a god who disapproves and to act accordingly. there is no reason for this to be more than a position that can shape discussions that precede having this procedure.

or: theirs is a position within the game, not a position about the game as a whole.

or: arguments from the anti-choice sectors are political arguments dressed up in the register of theology or "science" or "philosophy"---they are neither compelling or binding on folk who reject the politics. nor should they be. there is no contradiction between such opposition and the fact that abortions are legal and safe.

what irks me is the assumption that you often encounter from the antichoice crowd that the present legal situation entails a cavalier attitude toward abortion--that somehow the safety and legality of the service itself evacuates the complexity of the decision to have one--this hallucination entails the idea that it is the right that takes this matter seriously--by extension, then, no-one who disagrees with them politically does.

every so often you see a group of far right activists arrayed along a public way holding up huge images of aborted foetuses--the assumption behind this as a political action is the above. but when you talk to these folk, the ones behind the huge images of aborted foetuses, you find the "thinking" to be extraordinarily narrow on the question itself---the real problem appears to be that not everyone believes as they do.

the antichoice crowd is wrong about the assumption that they are required to force serious discussion of the implications of having an abortion--an assumption that is both offensive and patronizing. the positions typically outlined on the matter by the antichoice crowd are not even about abortion directly--they are about the frame of reference within which their opposition to abortion functions. the opposition, then, is not shaped by the issue itself, but rather by a desire to impose its religious assumptions on the rest of us. so far as i can determine, that is the reason for the anti-choice movement. the assumptions about the ease of abortion is a correlate of this position, a way of recoding their total intolerance of differences in views.

Do you think everyone opposed to abortion is a "fundie"?

I'm as agnostic as you can get, but oppose abortion.

I find cute the smugness and the antagonizing factor of this comment.

I'm for it, for many reasons. I don't favour it for use as birth control, but when shit happens, it does no-one any good by saying 'its your mess, now deal with it' to potential mothers.

I'm not against killing humans. I am against killing persons.

And while I know that this brings up the whole "women weren't considered persons a hundred years ago" thing, I don't think it's necessarily the same. Women display characteristics of personhood, and in my opinion, fetuses don't. At least not at first.

Perhaps I'm a selfish, terrible and unethical person, but this is just what I believe.

It really isn't that simple. This argument cannot settle the issue.

The differences between "if you oppose abortion don't have one" and "if you oppose infanticide don't commit it" still need to be examined. There are obviously significant differences, but do they lead to different conclusions?

I'm incredibly skeptical of any abortion argument - from either side - that includes the phrase "this is simple". I've never seen a 'simple' argument that didn't fail in some way to account for some important angle of the issue.