Abortion, How many is too many?
 

I couldn't find a place to put this in any of the other abortion threads and I thought it deserved a thread of it's own.
I consider myself pro choice but as of late I'm questioning my beliefs because the way the system is being abused.
Let's say, Hypothetically, There's this woman who's had 4 children and put them all up for adoption had 2 abortions and is now pregnant again. She's going to abort this pregnancy as well.

When do you say enough is enough. After multiple adoptions and abortions, Shouldn't the hospitals be encouraged to STRONGLY RECOMMEND that she be fixed?

I heard a person from the NZ Family Planning agency, that after something like two abortions thing start to get a little dicey. Like future health complications and things like that.

I don't think hospitals should have the power to refuse further abortions or to recommend sterilisation. I think the woman in question needs some counselling and probably should be encouraged to actively use contraception.

I agree... Two friends in college had 2 abortions each. Both got pregnant again, and had the babies. I mean, there are ways to prevent these things :rolleyes:

Birth control is not a difficult concept, if a person can't figure out the basics of birth control, they have no business having sex. There's something seriously wrong with a person who has two abortions, did they not get it the first time? And then to get pregnant again? It's sad that women that irresponsible and stupid should be allowed to become parents, I would feel sorry for the children.

There aren't enough ways to describe how wrong it is to use abortion as a form of birth control, not to mention the trauma that it does to the body.

I don't imagine that these people are going to private doctors for these abortions, but to clinics, that MY tax dollars pay for, so if someone is that stupid, then I have a right to say NO, they can't have anymore.

If they are too irresponsible for birth control, god only knows what diseases they are also carrying. What's wrong with the guys too, birth control is not just a woman's responsibility?

I think there are legitimate reasons for abortion. Ex: mothers life is at risk, rape, etc.
However, I firmly believe that it should not be used as a form of birth control. I once had an employee who had 4 abortions. Each one made her sicker and sicker. Towards the end of her employment she was sick at least once a month with some kind of feminine problem.

I consider myself to be pro-choice. Although 2,3 or 4 abortions is problematic, to say the very least. Anyone can make a mistake. Things...happen, OK? But, for crying out loud, learn from your mistake. Don't keep doing the same thing over and over again. As I said, I'm pro-choice. But, I have a huge problem with those that use abortion as a form of birth control.

if they want to pay for it and it doesn't get funded from my tax payer dollars...

then i don't care how many times they get an abortion. it's ONE less person that could be on welfare.

None of my business, really, but I still have an opinion.

I think one is understandable, absolutely. Two is unfortunate but accidents happen. Any more than that and I think you've demonstrated a level of irresponsibility and inability to plan that should call into question your fitness to have kids in the first place and you should probably just get your tubes tied.

I think that cybermike's example in his question was hypothetical, and while there probably are *some* women who use abortion as a form of back-up birth control I think this is extremely rare. Having an abortion is never easy physically or emotionally and i doubt very much that it is often done without forethought. to speak of the extreme as if it is common misrepresents the issue and implies that all women who find themselves in the unfortunate position of considering abortion are heartless and irresponsible, something that is rarely the case.

Gotta agree with Lurkette. After a couple of times COME ON! Take a little responsibility. You're not making mistakes anymore your just being stupid.

I agree, but with anything else you don't really want to do, it gets easier every time to keep doing it. I fully believe that there are many women out there who use abortion as a means of birth control. While I am pro-choice, I think there should be a little more regulation as to why people should be able to have abortions. I think it's sick that any woman can walk into a Planned Parenthood that performs abortion and get one in the next fifteen minutes.

Some states have waiting periods on abortions. Is it fair to the young woman who doesn't have a place in her area to have an abortion, to travel a few hours only to confirm her pregnancy, then to be told she has to come back tomorrow for the procedure? Making that trip all over again?
http://archive.aclu.org/issues/repro...g_periods.html
<hr>
You need a license to drive a car, you need a license to own a gun, any idiot can go out and have sex, and just not be prepared for the consequences, where does sexual responsibility start?

As usual, BOR speaks the truth. ;) :p

How many is too many?

One.


Now, before you go bashing me on the head with your placard, let me tell you I'm PRO-choice. I don't believe I have the right to tell you what to do, and that abortion isn't justified in some circumstances. I come from Ireland where we have had a very contentious debate on abortion for many years, with several referenda to change (and rechange) our constitution on the topic; abortion was constitutionally illegal in Ireland and still, more or less, is from a legislative point of view. I'm reminded of one of the placards the Pro-Life campaigners used to carry. Get your rosaries off my ovaries.

So, whilst I support the women's right to choose I just personally don't know if I could go through with it, or feel comfortable with a child of mine being aborted.

See? It's possible to hold a peronsal moral stand, admit it is not perfect or written in stone and could change in certain personal circumstances, AND support the other side of the argument on principle; ie, I'm pro-choice, but anti-abortion.

Why can't we all get along like this sometimes?! :)


Mr Mephisto

Re: Abortion, How many is too many?
 

She should be the poster "child" for sterilization.

i don't know what sort of "test" you propose we give women before allowing them to have an abortion not to mention what you want done if she "fails". there is no one served by forcing a women to keep an unwanted child and i certainly don't see how you can justify forcing someone into putting a child up for adoption. you could possibly make a case for forced sterilization but even though we all like to joke about it i don't believe that many people *really* want to go down that road.

abortion is ugly. but no one benefits from condemnation -- this energy could be much better invested for counseling and education.

The problem should be solved before it gets to the point where someone has an unplanned pregnancy. Birth control is pretty effective when used properly, and its really not that hard to use. if a person isn't smart enough to use it properly, then don't have sex.

Education is critical, but where's the education coming from? I know of many women back in college who "forgot" to take the pill one day, How could you forget? You are sexually active, how could you forget?

Women seem to get all the condemnation, these aren't immaculate conceptions we're talking about.

It's pretty simple.

This is one of the few things that ARE black and white.

You either allow abortion or you don't. If you allow it, then you can't say "Only twice, or only three times..."

So I'm pro-choice. And I personally would simply choose not to abort (in most circumstances).


Mr Mephisto

I disagree that it's a black and white case. No other law we have is- sometimes shooting someone is OK, and sometimes it isn't.

While I agree that the men are as equally responsible for the abortion (how not?), it must be rare to have them around at the clinic. I'm personally A-OK with forcing citizens to become sterilized, it's not like there aren't enough children up for adoption, much less there being too many people on Earth. Here's my dream law- two abortions, tubes tied for the ladies. Two illegitimate children they abandon or have aborted, tubes cut for the fellows. What could be more fair to society?

I don't know how women can forget the pill either. I've been on a once a day pill for over a year now, and I have only forgotten to take it once. I know a girl who forgot to take her birth control for a fucking MONTH, during which time she got pregnant.

Abortions due to personal irresponsibility or "accidents" like "I forgot to take the pill" SHOULD be condemned, damnit. That's damn recklessly irresponsible behavior, both towards your own life and a potential other life. Telling someone "It's OK, you messed up, but don't let anyone shame you for that kind of behavior" is backwards.

But on top of that, I would also like to see the men in as deep of shit as I want to see the women. For example, force the men to reimburse the state for the cost, and make the abortion count as their first illegitimate kid (towards the rule of two I proposed earlier). Maybe even spend a month or two in Federal Pound Me in the Ass prison.

The problem is that both sides of this issue are too polarized. The anti-women-pro-patriarchy side wants no abortions, ever. The pro-baby-killers want women to be able to flush one down whenever the urge hits her, on the state's nickel no less. I think rational people are uncomfortable with either option. Having an abortion that isn't from rape (or something equally horrendous) or because the mother's life is in danger (I guess- my birth put my mother's life in great jeopardy, but she had me taken out in a C-section with no anesthesia rather than the alternative) are the only cases I can agree with.

Because you made a mistake or can't provide a good life isn't a good enough excuse to do this an unlimited amount of times. If you couldn't have provided a good life, don't have unprotected sex. If you're so unlucky that birth control has failed on you twice, maybe you just need to bow to fate.

So to close this rant, I would like to see mandatory sterilization for men and women, and I would like to see personal responsibility advocated, and the lack thereof condemned.

I'd have to agree with Mr. Mephisto, one.
But I come from a different point of view. I am not pro-life, I'm not pro-choice, I'm not pro-anything. I'm just anti-choice.

I think that it would be fine for anyone to have an abortion, but they need to prove to the government that the baby deserves to die. Thus people who were raped can have one, or medical problems, or incest. But those who use it as birth control are SOL. If we're going to have justifiable homicide and the death penalty, we might as well have abortions, but only after court procedings.

I'm not saying anyone should be denied abortion, If you go to the clinic to have your 3rd abortion you shouldn't be turned away at the door. That will only lead to dangerous do it yourself methods. I'm saying that they should recommend that she be steralized because obviously she's not going to learn. She's using Abortion as birth control.

If she does want to have children in the future, there's always adoption.

I said the situation was hypothetical only because I don't know how much of the real situation is fact.
Actually, what I explained in my original post was probably 99% fact. I ended up leaving out the information that I got from a third party because I don't think it related to the topic, but the truth is that she most likely would have aborted the children she put up for adoption if she had her way.

One, two, three, fifteen...

What difference does it make?

It's a traumatic experience and most women don't enter into it lightly. There's no need to legislate. The women that are unaffected by this procedure probably won't let a little thing like the rules stop them in any case.

No limit is the way to go. Trust the people that actually own the womb to do what is right for them.

No. That assumes that the people who own the womb are responsible, and trying to argue that all women are responsible would be like saying all men are nice guys. That's not reality. Try swapping other words for womb in there and see how it sounds: guns, cars, liquor, corporations. There's something broken about a system where Jane Roe herself has come out strong against it.

The reality is that some, not all, not a majority, of women having abortions are doing so lightly. If you refuse to believe that, then just take it hypothetically. Hypothetically, is it OK to use abortion as just another form of birth control? I gotta say no.

Any abortion is too many.
Abortion is murder, plain and simple.
In regarding partial birth abortion, it is only a matter of inches that determines whether or not the baby has legal rights to LIVE.
If you are still not convinced, take a look at some abortion pictures, they will surely change your mind. It is sad when prisoners guilt of a capitla offense get killed by the state by a painless injection AFTER they are offered a free meal of their choice and an innocent baby gets sliced and diced, scorched with salt, or have their brains sucked through a fucking TUBE!!
It is sick and utterly pathetic, but that is my opinion on the issue.

BINGO!

Actually, I'm somewhere between this and lurkette's post. One is too many, but I know it's going to happen from time to time, so I don't stress over it too much. Hospitals really ought to start noodging repeat customers toward a more permanent solution, though.

none of the things you listed are body parts. do you honestly think that my uterus is equivalant to you liquor?

it makes no difference if a woman is responsible or stupid or cruel it's her womb. it's her body. i don't see anyone advocating castration for men who father illigitamate children.

Neither did you see anyone advocating hysterectomies for women. However, you could have easily read that I did recommend that the men be sterilized.

I won't speculate as to wether abortion is up to full blown murder or not, but there was something definitely alive before that's dead after. For that reason alone, I think that this should be taken more seriously than gun, car, liquor, or corporation ownership. While one could argue that this is only about the woman, there are costs to society as well. Those clinics aren't free. Not to mention that one has to question the judgment and maturity of anyone (man or woman) that has had more than 2 potential offspring aborted.

Additionally, the main problem I see with the current system is the utter lack of any checks. Some women can and do have abortions almost on a whim. Even if it's just one, is that not too many? Shouldn't there be some kind of check and balance to the system? As a society, we got together and made all kinds of laws about what people can and can't do with their bodies, so it's not like that's some sacred boundary that's never crossed.

I didn't want to bring that up, but yeah, anyone who argues for partial birth abortion does not actually understand what it entails. Anything involving forcing scissors into the back of someone's neck and sucking their brains out with a vaccuum is not a medical procedure.

And to brianna, what about trusting a rapist with his penis? He must know what to do with it? His raping of someone affects somebody else's life just as much as a woman's abortion does, perhaps even less so, since you can't recover from not living.

Don't we sterilize rapists? Why not serial abortionists?

hilbert: do we sterilize rapists? i don't think so. and i wouldn't advocate cutting their penises off either. i find it somewhat disturbing that i'm being asked to compare a woman who gets an abortion to a rapist.

I am certainly not advocating abortion as a birth control method. I'm not even defending abortion, it's an ugly horrible thing that no one enjoys. but even in the worst case you cannot force someone to raise a child, force someone give a child up for adoption or force someone to be sterilized. such acts are counter to a free society and besides being extremely cruel would never be legally enforceable. we live in a country built upon a respect for personal freedoms even when individuals use those freedoms unwisely, i'm glad. I would agree that suggesting birth control option to any woman who gets an abortion is a good idea and most state require counseling which usually includes a birth control discussion.

i also find the argument that you should have a say in a woman's abortion because you're paying for it extremely questionable. i've been looking online trying to find a figure representing the percentage of planned parenthoods budget that is government money and what percentage of that money goes towards abortion but i'm having a hard time. however, i do know that lots of people who go to planned parenthood pay for the services -- it's not free, it's on a sliding scale, if you can afford to you pay and lots of individuals and organizations donate money to planned parenthood, they are certainly not only a governmentally funded institution. if you really want to bring financial arguments in i'm sure that forcing a woman to raise a child she can't afford would ultimate be much for costly to society than an abortion.

No, We don't sterilize rapist but we do take extreme measures to make sure a convicted rapist doesn't do it again. The sex offenders database seems to help reduce the number repeat offenders.

Unlike rapist, Knowing that someone had an abortion before isn't going to stop them from doing it again. I'm not saying that the SODB stops all or even alot of offenses, but it does help.

Why? Doesn't bother me in the least.

Because you aren't the one who is being aborted

Ask those who are being aborted, then. I suspect you'll get no complaints.

Two things...First of all, if that doesn't do you any good, try "fist"...but, in my opinion, the logic is bad, anyways.

*raises hand* I am in favor of it, and the laws are starting to go that way, too, observe:
Deadbeat Dads Offered Jail or Vasectomy

I am usually a clever smartass, in person and online, but I'm just gonna try to weigh in with a voice of reason here. Bear with me.

Everyone agrees that it is absolutely imperitive that we fight to protect life, babies espcially. In our society, one of the most vile crimes is killing a child, and, regardless of the amount of justification or rationalization, noone would say it is a womans right to smother her newborn baby.

However, it is also important that we not lose any personal freedom. The government should not have any control over our personal lives, if the only person affected is ourselves. It woudl be an outrage if condoms were made illegal, or if a government decided that people weren't allowed to have their wisdom teeth removed. It is essential to our society that we don't allow legislation to take away these very important pieces of personal freedom.

Almost everyone will agree with those two basic facts: We need to not kill babies, and the government needs to not tell us what to do with our bodies. At this point, schools of thought diverge.

Everyone who contemplates the issue has to believe one of three things. Either a fetus becomes a person at conception, a fetus becomes a person at birth, or a fetus becomes a person sometime inbetween. I do not foresee that there will ever be any way to 'prove' scientifically that one way of thinking way is more accurate than the rest, so it ultimately comes down to an educated opinion around which people form personal beliefs.

Any time personal beliefs are the foundation of an argument, it is very difficult, and almost pointless to debate it. There is very little anyone can say that will convince someone with one belief to join another school of thought, since all sides are based on opinions (albeit opinions that can be backed up by facts).

This entire post was a very roundabout way of answering the original question.

If you believe that life occurs at some point after conception, and you could theoretically abort before that point, then, IMHO, you have no ground to argue anything except that having multiple abortions or using abortions as birthcontrol is dangerous, ineffecient, and expensive--not that it is wrong.

If you believe that life begins at conception, then any abortion is too many.


I suppose you could theoretically believe that abortion is wrong, except in cases of _____, but I never understood people with that arguement...the circumstances don't change the point at which you believe life occurs, so how does it matter?

I apologize if this is considered flamebait, I just don't understand people who try to argue about abortion.

Actually we don't quite sterilize, but there have been laws like this: http://archive.aclu.org/news/w082396a.html on the books.

Now why would you not compare getting an abortion to raping someone? Granted it's an extreme case, and I did not mean to say that people who have abortions are evil, But, I did mean to show a case where the federal government does regulate your body.

Tell me, which is worse, killing an innocent woman or killing an innocent pregnant woman?

And if they are the same, then would kicking a pregnant woman in the stomach be no worse than kicking someone who isn't in the stomach? Since you're only stopping a bodily function rather than killing someone?

The courts no longer see it that way, so how come if I kill your unborn child it's illegal, but if you do it's not? Or at least how come it's more illegal than me cutting your hair against your will?

There's a difference between you doing to me, and me doing to myself. That's kinda obvious.

That is true, but if a fetus isn't a part of YOU, but its own indepentant person, then there is no difference.

And if it is a part of me, then it isn't, and I've got rights to my own body.

a fetus cannot live on it's own and it's physically connected to the mother that makes it a part of her body. and as a part of a woman's body the fetus has an immense effect on the woman's health both physical and emotional. being pregnant is hard, it's even harder when you didn't want a baby to begin with. no one (especially no MAN) can comprehend how difficult it is to be faced with the possibility of a baby that you do not want and i think it's incredibly egotistical and condescending to say that an outsider has any domain over another person's body.

if the pro-life movement is so concerned for the life of the baby why arn't they looking for a way to easily allow a fetus to develop without a mother? where's my artificial womb?

The survival date for premature births is getting pushed back on an almost monthly basis...I believe the earliest surviving baby is around 10 weeks, and babies born between 15 and 20 weeks have a better than 50/50 chance of survival now.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/child...eemies.chance/

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/inter...648024,00.html

Who? Doesn't 'who' typically mean a PERSON?

from dictionary.com, just for you, denim:


Well, considering that that child is a living part of YOU (I mean.. does a heartbeat equal life?), and you are getting HELP killing it, wouldn't that be a form of euthanasia? That'd be a stretch, I suppose, but last I checked euthanasia's illegal...


Personally, I don't believe in abortion. Not a chance. I would rather die so my child could live. However, I am Pro-choice. It gets to a point, as lurkette said, that it's just flat out irresponsibility, BUT if it's legal, then more will be done in clinics by professionals, reducing health risks as opposed to a girl doing it on her own at home.

Are you serious? Shit, where's my flying car? :confused:

Me too. However, I would like to hear a rational counter to this secular (that means non-religious, for the non-dictionary inclined) argument:

Assume for the moment that the thing being aborted is not a "person" in any moral sense, and that we're not even going to entertain the conceit of a soul. What is being aborted, however, is undeniably human, albeit at an early stage of development, and is most certainly not part of the mother- it's a new entity, right down to the DNA. If not properly encapsulated, the mother's own immune system would attack it (and sometimes does, which is not great for either of them). Although Pro-Choice, I've always found the "It's My Body" argument to be fatuous. It's not the mother's body being aborted, it's some separate thing's partially developed body. Call a spade a spade.

I mean, how is denying that the aborted thing is alive and not a part of the mother not like arguing that the flu I had last week was a part of me? The germs came into me from an external source (I'm guessing from the fountain at work), gestated, grew, cells multiplied, and my health was affected.

I don't want anyone to say that abortion is universally wrong, I don't believe that either. Unfortunate, yes, but not necessarily evil. I just want to know how it's not killing. If you render something that was living unto a dead state by deliberate means, I think that's called killing. Dictionary.com says that killing is "To cause death or extinction; be fatal," and I don't think being aborted put a new spring in the step of the thing that was aborted.

She should just use some kind of protection. I'm also pro-choice but i think she's sort of abusing the system... clearly she doesnt want kids, so why not ensure she doesn't make any more?

Bravo shades. There are many intelligent arguments for and against abortion, but there are also some that don't make a bit of sense.

Denim - "Ask those who are being aborted, then. I suspect you'll get no complaints."

How about this:
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/giannajessen.asp
http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/amy.asp
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/20..._survivors.htm

Read these and then get back to me

I don't need to. If they weren't aborted (meaning "killed"), they can't speak of how they feel about being aborted.

The point is that this thread has gone the way most "abortion" threads go: directly to the chasm of "It's this way!" "no it's not, it's this way!" with no further actual discussion. I recommend closing this thread.

Because you're such the authority, correct?

People are voicing their opinions. If you don't agree, that's fine. Everyone's been pretty mature about it so far, yes?

Not especially, no.

I'd say other than your contributions, this has been a very mature discussion of all sides of the abortion debate...everyone but you mostly managed to avoid the typical abortion cliche arguments.

Look, you're the one who's given one line responses, some of which appear to be intentionally flammatory. If you don't like the way the thread is going, just don't read it anymore. Personally, I'm interested in hearing other people's opinions and thoughts, and I don't recall reading any intelligent thoughts from you.

Offering inflamatory fodder as "evidence" of anything is useless. I've simply been involved in more of these "arguments" than I care to remember, and don't see any point in bothering to spend a lot of time on this. No one changes their minds based on one of these "debates".

If you don't care to spend any time on it, stay away from the thread. You didn't provide 'evidence' of anything other than your opinion. Again, if you don't like it, hit your 'back' button and read something else.

After reading numerous posts from both sides of the "debate". I'm going to point out that nobody has considered the potential health risks to the mother giving birth.

There are cases where a woman's health would be severely at risk by giving birth. Yet, those opposed to abortion would suggest that these people's rights to make health decisions for their own bodies should be legislated away. It's also ironic that many modern "conservatives" give lip service to shrinking government yet want the intrusive hand of legislation to be imposed on a person's right to make health choices for themselves.

Finally, the Anti-Abortion movement has been known to produce outright lies to promote their agenda. Besides shooting doctors and occasionally acting like loons -their websites often contain ridiculous propaganda designed to ensnare the gullible. It's actually very difficult to believe anything coming from one of their sources -especially the alleged "testimony" of someone who allegedly survived an abortion.

Shooting doctors - so the pro-life community gets blamed for the actions of 3 or 4 lunatics?
And by the way, it is not considered abortion if the procedure is to save the mother's life. Since it is an indirect way of killing the baby, it is not considered abortion because the AIM of the procedure is not to abort the baby, but to save the mothers life.Recommend closing the thread because you do not want to spend the time reading the stories? It is not our fault you are too lazy to back up your claims. Those kids were botched abortions so YES they CAN talk about it because they were so close to death but due to a miracle, they were saved.

The flu is a virus. Viruses are not alive.

Back to the topic, after 2-3 abortions I think that the mother and father should get councilling and some education and spend some time in a chastity belt. Maybe they will appreciate sex more. There is no need for anything as permanent as sterilisation.

They should learn that they are responsible for their actions, and if they show they are irresponsible, then someone will take it away that responsibility (and the choices that go with it).

Accidents happen, but there are irresponsible people out there.

Just curious, as to what do the pro-lifers who post here (eg soccerchamp76) think about aborting a child who was concieved as a result of rape ?

I don't think the circumstances should matter. It still comes back to my point that you either believe that it is wrong to terminate a fetus after a certain point, or you don't. If you believe it isn't wrong, then by all means, abort a rape! The emotional stress will be enormous on everyone involved.

On the other hand, if you believe it is wrong, then there are no set of circumstances that should make it right.

Another thought...one of my closest friends is the product of a rape that her young-teen mom choose to keep and raise...I wonder what she'd have to say on the topic.

I agree with twisted on this. Murder is murder, regardless. One of the few reasons I'm pro choice though, is because of the health risks involved in doing it in the first place. IF it's going to be done, it NEEDS to be done in a clinic, by a 'professional' (I can't help but think of a hitman when I say that), NOT by a girl at home.

First and foremost, it shouldn't be anyone's business except the mother's. If she gets pregnant and doesn't want to carry though with the 9 months of pregnancy, then she shouldn't have to.

I think the main problem with the abortion issue is that too many people are trying to impose their religious beliefs on other people. That's not right.

You might believe that a woman who is a few weeks pregnant has another "life" inside of her at that point, but I might see things differently and instead see it as merely a cluster of cells. To me, it's not alive in the sense that you'd think something to be alive. It's not a living breathing person and it doesn't have a developed mind that can think and act on its own.

The fact of the matter is, abortions are legal. If you don't agree with it, you kinda have to live with it. You have to realize that there are things in life that will no doubt upset you because they don't follow YOUR standards. What's wrong to you might not be wrong to someone else.

As long as the effects of what a person does doesn't harm anyone else, then why would anyone care? People are just too worried about what others are doing instead of focusing on their own problems.

[edit]
Some might say it's murder, but the technical definition of murder is UNLAWFUL killing of one human by another. Again, abortions are legal.

i agree with the statement that one is too many.

Keep in mind I am pro-choice simply because i'd rather not have the government telling people how to live their lives however personally if i ever got a girl pregnant i'd fight like hell to keep the kid, just dont believe in abortion personally but also dont believe i have the right to impose my beliefs on others/

There are procedures that can be done within 24 hours to prevent conception from taking place. However, most girls and women are too scared (rightfully so as they were just part of the worst crime one can live through) to go to the police and/or hospital because of what people will think of them.

And to Stompy, my beliefs are not religious based. I do not believe in God at the moment and have never been religious in my life at all. My views on abortion are MORALLY based because I see no reason why a mother who WILLINGLY had sex would want to then murder the baby resulting from her actions?
I.E. You shoot someone with a gun, and you know that they are going to die, but for some reason believe you do not believe that you should be punished for it.

And to my previous responce, there have been people that were "rape babies" and are glad that their mother did not have an abortion as they would not be alive. The baby may be part of the rapist, but it is also 50% hers.

IMO, that's like comparing apples to oranges, as that person would already be alive and not just a clump of developing cells with no active mind/consciousness. Ending a life of a fully developed (not to mention, already born) person vs. an embryo are just two vastly different things. To me, it's just an embryo. Granted, the longer you wait and the more late-term it is, the more of an obligation you have to carry it through (aren't late term abortions illegal?). As humans, we own our bodies, not the government, so to terminate a growing embro inside a female is really a drastically different concept than walking up to someone for no apparent reason and shooting them in the face.

Am I glad my mother didn't have an abortion? It's easy to say yes now that I'm alive, aware of myself, and understanding of exactly what life is, but if she chose the other route, big deal. I wouldn't have known it any different.

But in the end, the moral dilemma is based purely on personal interpretation. If my girlfriend accidentally became pregnant because the pill failed and we came to the decision that now is not the proper time to have a child, I wouldn't think twice about going through with an abortion. The only people who'd be upset with it are those against abortions, but then again, if I lived my life how everyone else wanted me to live it, I'd be a pretty disappointed human being.

I suppose this will forever be a never ending debate until the origin of the consciousness is ever noted during the development of the embryo, but thank god it's legal and thank god women have the choice to decide what's right for themselves.

[edit]
Not trying to change anyone's opinion, of course, but just stating my own and my appreciation for the fact that it's legal.

Well, I will respect your opinion Stompy despite our disagreements.

The major problem I have is when I see a picture of an aborted baby at just 6 weeks it looks like a miniature person and I cannot reason how a doctor could willfully terminate it.
My 2 cents.

My friend has had a few aboritions.. and now she is talking about having a kid soon. She says that she regrets "giving up" her other ones... and she wants one now... all I think is that it is just to keep her relationship together (she's 18).

For your question I feel that the hospital should definitely tell the patient of her options... They probably do, but they obviously need to put it out more than they are doing for this woman. Even though they shouldn't get involved in peoples lives too much it's not right for the woman nor for the children she is leaving and loosing.

I agree with you here. I couldn't stand to let my baby be killed.

I guess I also see it from the viewpoint though that there are women out there who CAN'T HAVE CHILDREN, who have LOST children, and who instantly feel a bond between herself and her child. Maybe that's why it gets to me so much that there are women out there who 1) don't learn from their mistakes 2) DO IT REPEATEDLY 3) consider it a form of birth control.

I'm just answering the original question.

Abortions are like divorces. One is understandable. Two means your judgment and responsibility are questionable, unless the first one happened when you were _very_ young. Three means you don't know what you're doing and probably never well.

Oh yeah, this goes for guys as well. It's _your_ abortion, too, even if somebody else is having it for you.

As for whether it should be legal or not, my 80-year-old fundamentalist mother _hates_ abortion -- but wouldn't outlaw it. Because she came from a time when it wasn't, and saw women have their lives ruined for having a kid out of wedlock, or even dying in back-alley abortions.

Because -- face it. All legalizing abortion did was make it available to -everybody.- The rich have always had access to safe abortions through their connections, and always will -- even if it's outlawed for the rest of us.

I will not discuss at what point a clump of cells changes into a form of life, it's really hard, and science will always be able to bring the point at which the cells can live outside the mother earlier. However, if it is just a clump of cells then currently our laws have inconsistencies. For example, you can get vehicular manslaughter if by your actions, when driving a car you cause an accident where a mother loses a baby. Yet, if it's just a clump of cells, how could this possibly be right?

In fact, according to some of the arguments, would the person who just committed the crime just done that mother to be a favor by removing a parasite from her body?

And the argument that the government has no right to tell you how to use your body is flawed. The sole purpose of laws are to tell people what to do with their body's and minds. I can murder someone with my body, but the government tells me that is wrong. I can be nude in public, I can be a prostitute, and I can trespass, but those things are all illegal. Those are all occasions where the government tells me what to do with my body: cover it, keep it from having sex, or keep it away from some arbitrarily divided place.

I will agree that there are circumstances where abortion will save the mother from injury or death, and that is definitely a valid reason. And although I don't personally agree with it, having an abortion after a rape also has some merit.

But ending someone else's potential life for your own comfort is not a valid reason in my mind. I will not hate anyone who does such a thing, I have and will do what I can to support anyone I know who has made that choice, but I fell that society is wrong for allowing it to happen.

How come adoption is never really talked about? If you cannot keep the child, put it up for adoption rather than killing it. A life that seems like it would suck to you is infinitely better than no life at all.

And Stompy, you asked about late term abortions being illegal. They are in fact very legal, check out a google search on "Partial Birth Abortion." If you can provide an argument as to why that should be allowed, I would be open to hearing it.

But if you define a fetus as alive, we would be both committing infanticide

But more importantly, there is a difference between me removing your fetus and me removing your hair? That should be obvious. Which is what I'm trying to get at. People like to claim that it's just a clump of cells, but if it is just that, then how can you explain why it has more of an emotional attachment to people then a hairstyle or fingernail?

IMO, they're attached because one day it will be a child. They're attached to the fact that they're currently growing another human being inside of them and that they WILL be a mother and have a family.

If you get into an *accident* which results in the mother losing her baby, do you really get manslaughter (and jail time) for that? That's kinda messed up... accidents happen, ya know? But if you purposely went up to a mother and did something that resulted in her losing her baby, then yes, it makes sense for that to be illegal as opposed to the mother making a consious choice in having a doctor remove a fetus.

As for the govt having the right to determine what you can/cannot do... a lot of those examples you gave fit well with "your rights end where mine begin" or basically your actions have a direct impact on others. That's why you can't trespass, be nude in public, etc...

Also, there are quite a few laws that don't really make much sense like prostitution. Yeah, might seem dirty and nasty to most people, but if someone wants to accept money for sex and both parties consent, then why is it anyone else's business? Is it because it's not taxed? Go to Nevada, you can shell out money at a bunny ranch and go to town as you please.

The banning of drugs is another nonsensical law. If I go home and decide to smoke a joint in the privacy of my own home, then why shouldn't I be allowed? Why is it one form of altering your consciousness is legal (alochol) while another is illegal (marijuana)...

What about cigarettes? You get tons of people who feel cigarettes should be illegal and banned, but really... it's not their place to do so. If I want to smoke, then I'll smoke.

Abortion, to me, is in the same category. Yes, those against it will produce some very insightful questions from a moral standpoint, but it really boils down to personal choice. I think in reality there are far more pressing issues that are negatively affecting our society than people who get abortions.

As for late term abortions, I thought I heard somewhere that Bush made 'em illegal, but if they aren't well.. I feel if you're in your 7 month of pregnancy, you can't exactly say, "Well I didn't know. I'm not ready and I don't want it." You should've said that earlier on. Might as well tough it out for another 2 months.

Let's put it this way: if my girlfriend became pregnant and we knew about it in the first month or two, then an abortion would be a likely choice if we decided that now wasn't the right time (and now isn't the right time, so that'd be the most likely scenario). If, for some strange reason, we didn't know she was pregnant till 7 months into it (which is highly unlikely)... I personally wouldn't consider an abortion. Why? I don't know, probably because it's more developed at that point and could actually live on its own (I think) if it happened to be born at that stage in the development of the embryo.

Yes, it is a law in some states.

The problem is that you're very much affecting someone else's life with an abortion, especially a late term one. And right now as long as a full grown baby's head hasn't been outside the mother, it currently has no rights, even if it could be potentially alive and breathing without the mother.

Well he tried to push for a law banning partial birth abortions, but it was struck down by the supreme court, I believe. It had nothing to do with late-term abortions.

I'm not trying to be a smart ass or go off on some crazy tangent with this, but a lot of the questions those who are against abortion present can also be applied to animals.

Those against abortion, do you eat meat? If so, you do realize that the animal you are eating was slaughtered and essentially raised to die? What gives humans the right to kill animals in that manner?

What about eggs? Those are dead chicken embryos that could've grown into full chickens. You take those chicken's lives away so you can eat.

I guess my point is... what does it matter? Why would you care so deeply for an undeveloped human embryo, yet at the same time disregard supporting life of all kinds?

Sure, tons of moral questions could be brought up about killing animals for food, but most people don't worry about it. Why is that?

I think at some point you just gotta either accept some morally questionable (on some level) things we do as a society (porn, drinking, cigarettes, abortion, etc..) as a fact of life or forever take a stance fighting the never ending battle to change the way things are.

Ask a simple question, get a simple answer. In order for me to live, those animals and plants have to die so I can eat them. I haven't seen "human fetus" on the menu anywhere yet, and anyway think it easy to show it would be inefficient (if we used them as a food source, our species would quickly starve).

Yeah but... you don't HAVE to eat meat. You can get the same nutrients via other methods.

See where it leads? Infinite followup questions.

It's all perspective.

You may ask me a simple question "What gives you the right to kill a fetus?"

I might say "it's not alive". A mother might say, "it's mine, I'm not ready for a baby." etc... simple answers to simple questions.

In the end, it really just boils down to: if you don't like it, don't do it; no one's making you. It's a choice, an option for others who feel (and have made the decision) that it is right for THEM, based on any reason or no reason.

That's not how a society works. There are plenty of laws that hard code moral judgments. For example, I can't shoot someone who cuts me off in traffic (even though he would totally deserve it and I live in Texas at the moment). I may decide for myself that the value of human life is trumped by my irritation at traffic problems, but the rest of society got together and said that wasn't cool.

In other words, there is behavior society will tolerate, and behavior it won't. Some parts of it are more easily justifiable than others depending on who you are, but they are absolute (unless you are rich or famous). Abortion happens to be a popular issue at the moment because it's really only being openly debated now. I just wish it would be debated honestly.

I might also that your argument is basically relativism, and that argument should always be disregarded. One could always argue one way or the other on it and be correct, inasmuch that it's right from someone's viewpoint. It's an obvious fallout from asking "What is it about X that I ought not to Y" and seeing that for any X and infinite Y exist. Remember, it's not all relative.

If we allowed relativism to be a valid platform, how should we ever put consistent punishments on crimes? Some might argue that embezzling is just sticking it to the man and hand down a slap on the wrist, whereas others might sentence you to death for violating the noise ordinance (I would).

In any other case, that would be true. The main difference in this case and the others where people refer to blatant and intentional murder of another living person is a simple one: abortions are legal.

Our government is for the people, by the people. Some might argue this, but when all is said and done, that's how it works.

When the subject of abortions came up to the supreme court, they obviously made a wise choice in deciding that it really isn't their place to tell others what they should/should not do in this area. It was too much of a grey area to make such a decision, and rightfully so. Yes, it presents a plethora of moral questions as well as shares common ground (on some level) with murder, but it's really not the same. If it was, it would've been made illegal. To them, there clearly wasn't enough there to make them decide that abortions should be illegal... and trust me, all the moral questions that others have brought up have without a doubt been thought of by the justices.

The truth of the matter is: it's too much of a grey area.

So yes, that's how OUR society works. Again, you might not agree with it, but the cold hard truth is you have to live with it whether you like it or not and chances are, it will NOT change anytime soon.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: what's morally wrong to you might not be morally wrong to someone else. You may think/feel they're wrong and can have all the arguments against it you want, but until the law dictates otherwise or god himself appears and tells people "abortions make baby jesus cry", they aren't.

So what? It's their body, not yours and not mine. The analogy is flawed. Guns, cars, liquor and corporations are possessions. A body isn't the same thing. Not even close.

Ok, here is one: When you misuse your voice/your right to free speech, you can be jailed. When you misuse your dick, you get jailed. When you misuse your power over your developing children, you get talked to. then you WILL do it again and then you get jailed. (don't know why, on that one).
If a woman misuses her uterus, what happens? There was a *potential* life there. This leads to very odd conversations about what lives are worth keeping around.
The government DOES regulate what you do with your body all the time. It is usually concerning your body infringing on another body. So, what about a body growing in a body?!

Sit and think about that one... Unless it was rape or something similar, the person probably knew the risk that that would happen. It is NOT an invading body. It was one that was put into effect knowingly by both parties. So, we could treat this like a contract between to individuals, consenting to a physical contract. In that case, legally, both of them should be responsible for its upkeep or termination.

weird when you extrapolate, isn't it...

Maybe there should be a BPB (Better Person Bureau)?

Not entirely true.

If my g/f happens to be on the pill and that miniscule chance occurs where she gets pregnant, it shouldn't matter.

We took precautions, it still happened.

If we decided it wasn't a good time to have a baby, we'd go through w/ an abortion.

I don't expect everyone to agree with it, but that's fine. Thank god I have the choice to live my life how I want to live it (while making LEGAL choices) without living it how others want me to live it. What kind of life would that be?

I just don't understand why people argue about it.. like trying to justify it. If you're against it, great! Then next time you have a baby when you aren't ready, you can do your part and follow through with it. If you aren't against it, great. Next time you have a baby when you aren't ready, you'll know the legal choices you can make.

It seems that abortion isn't really the issue.. seems more like an issue with people not being able to understand or accept the fact that not everyone shares the same morals/ideals as one another. That's what baffles me about society.

To each his own, I say.

I don't really see, in any way, how the baby would -deserve- to die. Also, the distinction between 'baby' and 'fetus' is sort of important here.

The only distinction is time.

In cases of partial-birth abortions, it is a matter of about 2 inches.

See that's the thing, it's not just a personal moral thing, it affects someone else's life greatly.

Just because something is legal, does not mean it is right. At some point, someone said, "hey this human slavery thing is wrong, even if it is legal, we should change those laws." That's the key here, people are willing to fight (in the legal sense) for what they see as right. Go on and say "but you can't place your morals on other people." But in fact, that's exactly what all laws are about. You can name a law, and I bet you could also find someone with morals that don' t agree with it. In the case of murder, we put those people to death.

If my g/f has an abortion, it doesn't affect you. It doesn't affect anyone but me and my g/f.

In fact, I could have one every week and not tell anyone. The only time it affects anyone is if I say something about it. If no one ever knew, then there wouldn't be a problem!

It does affect other people because who knows what that kid could grow up to be?
Beethoven grew up in a broken home and he turned out to be one of the most famous and greatest composers ever.
OTOH, he could turn out to be a drug dealer.
So, yes, your decision does affect others.

Everyone's kinda starting to repeat themselves, so I'll let this be my last post.

Here's the reality of it all: if you're against it, you don't have much choice. You have to live with the fact that our society practices abortions.

You have every right to speak out against it and to have a differing opinion, but really nothing beyond that. It's honestly no one else's business what choices other people make in their lives unless it affects YOU directly and it's pretty ignorant to believe otherwise. Seriously, if my g/f decides to get an abortion in the future, that's our (her) choice and no one else's. To us, it is the right choice. Unless you are in MY shoes living MY life (or can prove the how it has ruined/affected your life in any way), then you kinda just have to respect that decision.

...and using "he could've been Einstein" is absurd for obvious reasons.

If I take a stroll in the park on the northern path, I could meet a person who inspires me to get into biology where I will eventually find a cure for cancer... but that day I decide to take the south path instead. So did I just fuck humanity out of the only chance at a cure for cancer? Well, if it never happened, then no. You can't predict the future. Life is a series of cause and effect and because of this, you can't use a "what if" as an argument and expect it to hold any water. It hasn't happened and it never will, so you'll never know.

I don't think a limit needs to be imposed. Each abortion should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Previous abortions do need to be taken into acount, but the reason for the abortion should also be taken into account.

If someone has had 2 abortions because of accidental pregnancy after the second abortion she (and her lover) should have to go through counselling and be educated not only on all the different methods of contraception, but also on the different forms of pleasure and STDs assosciated. If they have alternative ways to satisfy their sexual appetite, perhaps they will have intercourse less often. They should also be encouraged to think before they act, and hopefully reduce impulsiveness (that could lead to unprotected sex).

Yup. Have the State pay for it even, it'll pay for itself in the long run.

People who use abortion as a REGULAR method of birth control - well, it's a shame they weren't aborted themselves.

I just saw this thread managed to work it's way back onto the first page so I figured I'd give a half-assed reply before it died again.

I'm still torn on the subject because I think people should have the right to choose but when they constantly make the wrong choices someone should step in and educate these people.

As for killing a potential human, Doesn't every egg produced have potential to become human? Every sperm potentially human? Wouldn't the only way to truely be pro-life is to fertilize every egg you produce.The fact is by even using a condom you're denying a potential human life. A fetus cares as much about living as the unfertilized egg does, why the difference?

Thought I'd point out that no, in fact, most eggs and most sperm do not make it to the final stages of development at the time of possible fertilization. Sperm in particular, the vast majority are not correctly equipped at the time of release, as it were, because of the variability of ejaculation ; )

they might not make it to the final stages of development, but every sperm in my testicles and every egg in (non-existant) girlfriend have the potential to become a human life one day.

i guess each time i jerk off, i'm committing mass murder...

/i felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of sperm suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...

The point is, as he said, is the potential. Every sperm is sacred? Every time your SO swallows, potential life is lost....
Anyway...someone in my family had had 2 abortions. She got pregnant a third time (fertile little thing that she was) and her doctor told her if she did not carry this one, she may never carry to term. She had a quickie wedding and 6 months later, a beautiful boy.

Up to a few years ago, in California, women on Medi-Cal/Medi-Aid who were giving birth by Caesarian were offered a free tube-tie option, if they wanted it. The doctors were already going to open them up, so if they wanted to be sterilized -- no problem. It wasn't pushed, it was just an option. I knew a guy who worked as an orderly in an obstetrics ward, and he spoke some Spanish. So it was his job to explain the option to the welfare-cases who spoke only Spanish. Some of them had already had a lot of kids because frankly, they were poor, undereducated, and Catholic. He said he had women grab him by the wrist and pull him down to the bed and shout "Si! Si! Si!" They just didn't want _any_ more children.

Oddly enough, the state did away with that option a few years ago in one of those budget cuts that actually does more harm than good.

They could be SUPER unlucky and have had a couple of condom breakages that led to pregnancy or something. Granted, it wouldn't be common, but it could happen.

Just reading the first few responses- If my mother had been forced to get her tubes tied (she had four abortions), I would not be here and neither would my sister.

I have two answers. One is too many, and any amount should be legal. I think it is tragic that women decide that abortion is their best option. At the same time, I think that it is preferable for a woman to abort than to carry a child that she does not want. Personally I would be in favor of "breeding" licenses. But as that is not, and probably never will be a legitimate option, I will remain sadly pro-choice, but favor options other than abortion.

Such a loaded question and I had a violent personal reaction to it. I used to be very close friends with a toxic person. She has a beautiful now six year-old daughter with one man and told another that she was his child. The biological father hates the mother, and the other man had no clue he wasn't the father. During the course of one evening she told me in one breath that she'd had four abortions, and that she truly felt her God only "wanted me to have one child". Now, most of our friendship was me challenging her and forcing her to re-examine her choices/beliefs by her own report. When I asked her how should could say that if she'd been pregnant five times, she looked stunned and had no answer. To the last day of our friendship, she still couldn't come up with an answer.

I also work with a woman who has a fairly low IQ, around 70-75, and she's had 6 children. She's 22. She's been pushed around by her family, lovers, friends for years and doesn't have the self-esteem to stand up and say no. For that I don't blame her. She doesn't have the intellect or foresight to demand that the man who is pushing her around put on a condom. She's been begging for a tubal ligation for two years. Florida Medicaid will not pay for a tubal until she has nine children or turns twenty-five. She's trying to get her life together and I do have a lot of respect for her, but she's just lost custody of four of her kids again, despite her best efforts. So now We the People of the State of Florida are paying for her kids. And will be paying for the next few too, instead of a procedure that will cost, what, $500 to Medicaid? She can't afford an abortion, but she's a carrier for a genetic disorder that could cause more of her future children (and there will be more) to have this metabolic problem. She loves those kids, though, with all of her heart.

I just feel that our country is letting us down on so many levels, and when my local government stands up on my local news and says, "We've cut the Medicaid budget for non-essential procedures (read: non-Life-saving)," and "The United Way is cutting funding for Planned Parenthood and other local free clinics due to the negative press associated with the abortion debate..." I wonder what is going to happen to these women and our economy. And to the young women who are so desperate that they seek out illegal, unsanitary places to get their abortions and end up sterile or dead from infections. And to me, if I ever get placed in a situation where I have to decide. I hope that I will never be put in that position

I guess I just can't decide how many is too many. There are too many variables. I keep coming up with my ex-friend being wrong and feeling sorry for this other woman that she couldn't get them.

Oh God. This sort of thing just makes me want to puke. This makes me want to pay for the poor woman's tubal myself. Sadly, I think she'll still be taken advantage of sexually... This is why I don't believe there is a God that gives a shit about what we do.

If the abortion threatens the mother's life? No limit. Though repeated instances might indicate that there exists a moral responsibility to avoid conceptions and that said responsibility is being shirked.

In all other cases? One is too many.

To avoid making this post simply a repeat, I'll address the potentiality argument being thrown around.

Sperm is potential human life. The zygote/embryo/fetus is human life with potential. The pivotal difference is that sperm is not the sum of ingredients needed for human life. The zygote is. If one were to argue that the nourishment a zygote needs is an ingredient in and of itself, then I would point out that this makes potential humans of us all.

Once all ingredients are joined, we have a human life. All other points from then on are points of potential fulfilled. This fulfillment continues past viability and well past birth.

And simply because an issue has shades of grey, does not mean those shades are indecipherable. Abortion is always killing. Abortion is not always unjustified. It's justified in response to a threat against one's life, just like all other forms of killing.

i don't remember the exact amount, but something like 2/3 of the 'human lives' formed by the joining of a sperm and an egg are spontaniously aborted by the body. and even throughout the the pregnancy, the fetus on occasion is spontaniously aborted/miscarried. until it is born, it is still only a potential life. until it is outside of the mother and surviving without being attached to her through the umbilical, it only has the potential of being an independent human life.

Yep.

Doesn't follow.

Oh, it's not an independent human life? Sure. It's dependent until it's born. Then it becomes dependent in a different way. The mechanics change, the vital need for assistance in order to survive remains. Potential remains unfulfilled.

If anything I think it would be fair for all insurance companies to refuse payment for a person who wants an abortion after the second abortion. I think it would be fair for them to refuse to pay for prenatal care as well. If that person going to pop out but if they want to use that form of birth control then they should be willing to pay the price. Perhaps hurting the pocketbook might wake someone up.

Course then there's the problem of the hospital paying for the costs. BUT hospitals can refuse care after the bill is past due by a certain amount. Yes they have to offer emergency care when the child is born but they can take the child away at that point probably. Depending on how careless she's been throughout the pregnancy.

Sure it's a woman's body but it's our tax dollars, our insurance rates, our hospitals they are wanting to use then we have a right to refuse that part.

I'm not sure how we could regulate this unless the person was proven to be extremely careless or endangering the lives of the children that she DOES give birth to. I see no reason to not sterilize someone in that situation. Fuck with a child's life and health and your's will be forfeit in my book.