Abortion: Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[The Rebel Alliances]

OK, I normally do not get involved in this debate especially on NSG. But I had an idea I would like to run by both sides here.

Start off, I am "Personally" on the pro life side. Let me clarify, that means I dont believe there should be a blanket law on abortion one way or the other, it would not be enforceable and both sides lose. So, I do not believe a solution to this divisive issue can come from a law either banning or allowing on demand ect.

So, I came up with what I believe may be an original idea, as in I have never heard it suggested before. But if the divide cannot be crossed by a law, then we must analyze why abortions take place. There are a multitude of reasons. There are economics reasons, social reasons, rape, they simply do not want a child ect. Or they do not know how to raise one.

On the other side of the issue, we have pro lifers, who often waste effort on trying to get abortions banned or restricted and matching pro choicers protest for protest.

Recognizing that most of the Pro Life camp come from religious backgrounds, and they have organized religious institutions which have tax exempt status and often hold fundraisers for various causes. With so much support for Pro Life in these institutions, I would like to see a program set up by churches in communities, where each congregation pools money for local support programs to invest in abortion clinics.

Hear me out, this money would be used to inform women seeking abortions of alternatives, provide money to help raise the child, easy to access contacts to get in contact with potential adoptive parents, class workshops instructing expecting mothers on how to raise and care for an infant, providing support groups to help guide and ease pressure on the would be mother ect.

Generally make the pregnancy, delivery and initial providing for the child as easy as possible.

I am hoping this also appeals to the conservative sense of not wanting to involve the government, and tax payer money in these programs, as all of this would be funded on the local and charitable level. In this way, conservative elements can aid in providing for the mother and child and possibly stop many abortions which occur out of hardship, either social or economic.

Now, this is not going to prevent all abortion. Some simply want it, and it is their right by law. As it should be.

But I feel like that a system like this, would go a long ways in stopping the antagonistic debates. The "Us" or "Them" mentality. And bring both sides, of differing opinions to solving a very divisive issue.

Or maybe I am simply too optimistic. But I would like to believe the pro life camp would be charitable enough for such a program to work.

Now, I am fully open to critique here. Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Good but needs some changes? Is something like this acceptable to liberals? Conservatives?

Please let me know.

[Imperial Esplanade]

The right for a human being to live > the right to comfort

I didn't realize rape and compulsory organ "donation" were good things, or that self defense was bad.

1.) Rape is an incredibly exaggerated cause of abortion. In fact, it's not even 1%.

2.) Nobody is "donating" anything. Still your organs, the fetus is barely straining anything as its' practically a speck. Once its' organs are formed and functional, there's no need for the mothers' bodily aid via her organs.

3.) Self-defense? Of what exactly? The fetus isn't attacking anyone. The ONLY reasonable exception in regards to outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

[Shazbotdom]

The ONLY reasonable exception for outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

Wait, what? I had to re-read this five times. You are saying that the only time that Abortion should be outlaws is when the mothers life is at risk? Did you read this before you hit submit?

[Imperial Esplanade]

The ONLY reasonable exception for outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

Wait, what? I had to re-read this five times. You are saying that the only time that Abortion should be outlaws is when the mothers life is at risk? Did you read this before you hit submit?

Edited.

[Ardavia]

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

Must resist pulling Nazi card...

Anyway, as for your general statement:

Quick reality check:

If you plan to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion, making it a capital offense is not a good plan. First, the number of women dying from black-market abortions would skyrocket, and with them the fetuses would die. Then, as pointed out above, infanticide would rise too. Then you'd be executing anyone who provided this. But, going by your prior statements and your stance on the issue, that doesn't matter, does it? Screw women, and screw anyone else, we have to save the baybays.

[Ardavia]

I didn't realize rape and compulsory organ "donation" were good things, or that self defense was bad.

1.) Rape is an incredibly exaggerated cause of abortion. In fact, it's not even 1%.

2.) Nobody is "donating" anything. Still your organs, the fetus is barely straining anything as its' practically a speck. Once its' organs are formed and functional, there's no need for the mothers' bodily aid via her organs.

3.) Self-defense? Of what exactly? The fetus isn't attacking anyone. The ONLY reasonable exception in regards to outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

You are misunderstanding the point.

If right to life overrides right to bodily sovereignty, then self-defence is bad, period.

[Imperial Esplanade]

I plan to make providing induced abortions a capital offense.

Must resist pulling Nazi card...

Anyway, as for your general statement:

Quick reality check:

If you plan to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion, making it a capital offense is not a good plan. First, the number of women dying from black-market abortions would skyrocket, and with them the fetuses would die. Then, as pointed out above, infanticide would rise too. Then you'd be executing anyone who provided this. But, going by your prior statements and your stance on the issue, that doesn't matter, does it? Screw women, and screw anyone else, we have to save the baybays.

Funny, I have yet to see any proof of this being remotely factual. That's really just baseless rhetoric.

[Imperial Esplanade]

1.) Rape is an incredibly exaggerated cause of abortion. In fact, it's not even 1%.

2.) Nobody is "donating" anything. Still your organs, the fetus is barely straining anything as its' practically a speck. Once its' organs are formed and functional, there's no need for the mothers' bodily aid via her organs.

3.) Self-defense? Of what exactly? The fetus isn't attacking anyone. The ONLY reasonable exception in regards to outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

You are misunderstanding the point.

If right to life overrides right to bodily sovereignty, then self-defence is bad, period.

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

[Ardavia]

OK, I normally do not get involved in this debate especially on NSG. But I had an idea I would like to run by both sides here.

Start off, I am "Personally" on the pro life side. Let me clarify, that means I dont believe there should be a blanket law on abortion one way or the other, it would not be enforceable and both sides lose. So, I do not believe a solution to this divisive issue can come from a law either banning or allowing on demand ect.

So, I came up with what I believe may be an original idea, as in I have never heard it suggested before. But if the divide cannot be crossed by a law, then we must analyze why abortions take place. There are a multitude of reasons. There are economics reasons, social reasons, rape, they simply do not want a child ect. Or they do not know how to raise one.

On the other side of the issue, we have pro lifers, who often waste effort on trying to get abortions banned or restricted and matching pro choicers protest for protest.

Recognizing that most of the Pro Life camp come from religious backgrounds, and they have organized religious institutions which have tax exempt status and often hold fundraisers for various causes. With so much support for Pro Life in these institutions, I would like to see a program set up by churches in communities, where each congregation pools money for local support programs to invest in abortion clinics.

Hear me out, this money would be used to inform women seeking abortions of alternatives, provide money to help raise the child, easy to access contacts to get in contact with potential adoptive parents, class workshops instructing expecting mothers on how to raise and care for an infant, providing support groups to help guide and ease pressure on the would be mother ect.

Generally make the pregnancy, delivery and initial providing for the child as easy as possible.

I am hoping this also appeals to the conservative sense of not wanting to involve the government, and tax payer money in these programs, as all of this would be funded on the local and charitable level. In this way, conservative elements can aid in providing for the mother and child and possibly stop many abortions which occur out of hardship, either social or economic.

Now, this is not going to prevent all abortion. Some simply want it, and it is their right by law. As it should be.

But I feel like that a system like this, would go a long ways in stopping the antagonistic debates. The "Us" or "Them" mentality. And bring both sides, of differing opinions to solving a very divisive issue.

Or maybe I am simply too optimistic. But I would like to believe the pro life camp would be charitable enough for such a program to work.

Now, I am fully open to critique here. Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Good but needs some changes? Is something like this acceptable to liberals? Conservatives?

Please let me know.

Or, maybe instead of pouring money into this (and other similarly obstructive measures against abortion), put it into helping research ways to support fetuses in an artificial womb, which solves the problem, an unwanted pregnancy, while still allowing the fetus to live.

Wait, no. That defeats the point of punishing women for daring to have sex, doesn't it?

[Arbitrary Humans]

I didn't realize rape and compulsory organ "donation" were good things, or that self defense was bad.

1.) Rape is an incredibly exaggerated cause of abortion. In fact, it's not even 1%.

2.) Nobody is "donating" anything. Still your organs, the fetus is barely straining anything as its' practically a speck. Once its' organs are formed and functional, there's no need for the mothers' bodily aid via her organs.

3.) Self-defense? Of what exactly? The fetus isn't attacking anyone. The ONLY reasonable exception for outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

*wipes tear away* You must realize that the fetus is part of the mother until it is born, right? And yeah, fetuses can attack people. It's called maternal death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

[Nuevo Sealandia]

As unfortunate as this sounds, if you have to choose between a person who's not yet alive, cannot move independently, and cannot survive on its own, as opposed to a living, breathing woman with years of life experience and personal ties, I think it's pretty obvious who wins.

[Ardavia]

You are misunderstanding the point.

If right to life overrides right to bodily sovereignty, then self-defence is bad, period.

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

You are misunderstanding the point.

Let's say someone needs your kidney to survive. Is this person in the right to take said kidney, with or without your consent?

[Ardavia]

Must resist pulling Nazi card...

Anyway, as for your general statement:

Quick reality check:

If you plan to reduce the number of unnecessary deaths caused by induced abortion, making it a capital offense is not a good plan. First, the number of women dying from black-market abortions would skyrocket, and with them the fetuses would die. Then, as pointed out above, infanticide would rise too. Then you'd be executing anyone who provided this. But, going by your prior statements and your stance on the issue, that doesn't matter, does it? Screw women, and screw anyone else, we have to save the baybays.

Funny, I have yet to see any proof of this being remotely factual. That's really just baseless rhetoric.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... et_to.html
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/poli ... s?page=0,0
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/pr ... 98655.html

EDIT: Also, have Amnesty International's report on the situation in Ireland

https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eu ... 7/2015/en/

[Imperial Esplanade]

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

You are misunderstanding the point.

Let's say someone needs your kidney to survive. Is this person in the right to take said kidney, with or without your consent?

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

[The Rebel Alliances]

OK, I normally do not get involved in this debate especially on NSG. But I had an idea I would like to run by both sides here.

Start off, I am "Personally" on the pro life side. Let me clarify, that means I dont believe there should be a blanket law on abortion one way or the other, it would not be enforceable and both sides lose. So, I do not believe a solution to this divisive issue can come from a law either banning or allowing on demand ect.

So, I came up with what I believe may be an original idea, as in I have never heard it suggested before. But if the divide cannot be crossed by a law, then we must analyze why abortions take place. There are a multitude of reasons. There are economics reasons, social reasons, rape, they simply do not want a child ect. Or they do not know how to raise one.

On the other side of the issue, we have pro lifers, who often waste effort on trying to get abortions banned or restricted and matching pro choicers protest for protest.

Recognizing that most of the Pro Life camp come from religious backgrounds, and they have organized religious institutions which have tax exempt status and often hold fundraisers for various causes. With so much support for Pro Life in these institutions, I would like to see a program set up by churches in communities, where each congregation pools money for local support programs to invest in abortion clinics.

Hear me out, this money would be used to inform women seeking abortions of alternatives, provide money to help raise the child, easy to access contacts to get in contact with potential adoptive parents, class workshops instructing expecting mothers on how to raise and care for an infant, providing support groups to help guide and ease pressure on the would be mother ect.

Generally make the pregnancy, delivery and initial providing for the child as easy as possible.

I am hoping this also appeals to the conservative sense of not wanting to involve the government, and tax payer money in these programs, as all of this would be funded on the local and charitable level. In this way, conservative elements can aid in providing for the mother and child and possibly stop many abortions which occur out of hardship, either social or economic.

Now, this is not going to prevent all abortion. Some simply want it, and it is their right by law. As it should be.

But I feel like that a system like this, would go a long ways in stopping the antagonistic debates. The "Us" or "Them" mentality. And bring both sides, of differing opinions to solving a very divisive issue.

Or maybe I am simply too optimistic. But I would like to believe the pro life camp would be charitable enough for such a program to work.

Now, I am fully open to critique here. Is this a good idea? Bad idea? Good but needs some changes? Is something like this acceptable to liberals? Conservatives?

Please let me know.

Or, maybe instead of pouring money into this (and other similarly obstructive measures against abortion), put it into helping research ways to support fetuses in an artificial womb, which solves the problem, an unwanted pregnancy, while still allowing the fetus to live.

Wait, no. That defeats the point of punishing women for daring to have sex, doesn't it?

No need to be condescending. You either just skimmed the post, or ignored the multiple times I have stated that women should not be banned from having abortions. Thereby, not 'punished for having sex'. Also, I do not see the measure as obstructive, it is not government funded. Nor is it mandatory, nor prevents the woman in question from going through with an abortion.

If you do not believe it is the best plan, simply say so, and offer an alternative. Which you did. The condescending attitude could have been left out, I stated that I was open to critique, speaking down to someone is not the way to have a productive discourse. Especially when the statement is inaccurate.

That being said, I was not aware that 'artificial wombs' were an option. So, thank you for bringing that to my attention, if I could ask, exactly how viable is the technology now? And is it a viable alternative for the near future?

[Ashmoria]

You are misunderstanding the point.

If right to life overrides right to bodily sovereignty, then self-defence is bad, period.

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

then you can concentrate on making sure that actual living children get what they need out of the government so that they can grow up to be happy healthy productive adults.

[Stellonia]

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

Except for protecting the lives of innocent children.

[Imperial Esplanade]

1.) Rape is an incredibly exaggerated cause of abortion. In fact, it's not even 1%.

2.) Nobody is "donating" anything. Still your organs, the fetus is barely straining anything as its' practically a speck. Once its' organs are formed and functional, there's no need for the mothers' bodily aid via her organs.

3.) Self-defense? Of what exactly? The fetus isn't attacking anyone. The ONLY reasonable exception for outlawing abortion is when the mother's life is at risk. Period. End of discussion.

*wipes tear away* You must realize that the fetus is part of the mother until it is born, right? And yeah, fetuses can attack people. It's called maternal death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

[Wallenburg]

*SNIP*

I'm glad to see a pro-lifer actually taking into consideration the reasons behind abortion, and actually wanting to address the social issues that compel many women to abort their pregnancies. However, your idea doesn't address the fact that women shouldn't have to carry what amounts to a parasitic growth until it comes to life and becomes a person. Bodily sovereignty is still a right, which is why I put forward to you this alternative:

Rather than spending money to cope with a greatly inflated adoption and social welfare program in response to more childbirths, we invest in medical technology and advancement in the realms of child delivery and other fields. We develop safer methods and more advanced equipment so that we can push the viability of a fetus further and further back toward conception. Eventually, we confirm a safe and stable design for an artificial womb and therefore allow women to remove fertilized eggs and have them grown outside of their bodies.

At the same time, we develop more successful methods of birth control and contraception, and we support the disadvantaged through education and workfare so that fewer women want to terminate their pregnancies due to financial stress or failed contraceptive measures.

What do you think of that?

[The Rebel Alliances]

*SNIP*

I'm glad to see a pro-lifer actually taking into consideration the reasons behind abortion, and actually wanting to address the social issues that compel many women to abort their pregnancies. However, your idea doesn't address the fact that women shouldn't have to carry what amounts to a parasitic growth until it comes to life and becomes a person. Bodily sovereignty is still a right, which is why I put forward to you this alternative:

Rather than spending money to cope with a greatly inflated adoption and social welfare program in response to more childbirths, we invest in medical technology and advancement in the realms of child delivery and other fields. We develop safer methods and more advanced equipment so that we can push the viability of a fetus further and further back toward conception. Eventually, we confirm a safe and stable design for an artificial womb and therefore allow women to remove fertilized eggs and have them grown outside of their bodies.

At the same time, we develop more successful methods of birth control and contraception, and we support the disadvantaged through education and workfare so that fewer women want to terminate their pregnancies due to financial stress or failed contraceptive measures.

What do you think of that?

I actually like the idea. And it does seem to be the best way for both sides to get what they want. Also, a personnel thank you to actually seeing what I was trying to address with my post and idea, and giving a alternate solution with the same professional manner. Such attitudes are rare in General, which is why I normally stick to RP.

But I felt like pitching the idea, and getting feedback on it, which you have provided.

Conservatives and Liberals do not have to be enemies, in fact, they should not be. We are team members with differing views. Thanks for seeing that.

[Neutraligon]

*wipes tear away* You must realize that the fetus is part of the mother until it is born, right? And yeah, fetuses can attack people. It's called maternal death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

No see a fetus is actually physically attached to the woman.

[Wallenburg]

*wipes tear away* You must realize that the fetus is part of the mother until it is born, right? And yeah, fetuses can attack people. It's called maternal death. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death

You must realize that a fetus is a part of the mother only because we legally decided it to be so, kinda like the same way a slave was once considered to legally be 3/5 a man and a woman incapable of voting.

Freedom of speech, religion, and peaceable assembly, universal adult suffrage, and right to privacy are guaranteed to citizens only because we legally decided it to be so. Your point?

[Ashmoria]

You are misunderstanding the point.

If right to life overrides right to bodily sovereignty, then self-defence is bad, period.

Except, again, who needs defending here? The mother? Hardly ever, unless its' a rare instance where her life is endangered. The fetus? You know, the person who can legally be killed for literally any reason whatsoever?

or you could understand that the state has no interest in forcing women to bear unwanted children. then maybe you might realize that what strangers do about their own medical, family, and reproductive choices is none of your business.

then you can concentrate on making sure that actual living children get what they need out of the government so that they can grow up to be happy healthy productive adults.

[Ardavia]

You are misunderstanding the point.

Let's say someone needs your kidney to survive. Is this person in the right to take said kidney, with or without your consent?

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

You are still not getting it.

If right to life overrides bodily sovereignty, self-defence is a bad thing, and forced organ "donation" would be a good thing.

Everything is natural, by the way. That doesn't mean squat. As for healthy...? Yeah. Sure. Whatever. I'm sure there are women in this thread who have been pregnant and can elaborate.

No need to be condescending. You either just skimmed the post, or ignored the multiple times I have stated that women should not be banned from having abortions. Thereby, not 'punished for having sex'. Also, I do not see the measure as obstructive, it is not government funded. Nor is it mandatory, nor prevents the woman in question from going through with an abortion.

Your plan appears to involve pouring money into trying to convince women not to get abortions by camping out inside abortion clinics. I'd say that's fairly obstructive.

If you do not believe it is the best plan, simply say so, and offer an alternative. Which you did. The condescending attitude could have been left out, I stated that I was open to critique, speaking down to someone is not the way to have a productive discourse. Especially when the statement is inaccurate.

That being said, I was not aware that 'artificial wombs' were an option. So, thank you for bringing that to my attention, if I could ask, exactly how viable is the technology now? And is it a viable alternative for the near future?

http://uk.businessinsider.com/the-major ... ?r=US&IR=T
http://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2 ... ss-births/

If all the money that has been poured into trying to make abortion illegal for decades had instead been directed to research in this field, we would probably be far further along in it, even if it might not be necessarily viable yet.

[Neutraligon]

You are misunderstanding the point.

Let's say someone needs your kidney to survive. Is this person in the right to take said kidney, with or without your consent?

I understand you're point completely. I just also completely disagree with it. First off, you're assuming an adult (or even a child) puts the same amount of strain on your organs as an unborn fetus prior to its' development of organs. Fact is, that's factually incorrect. Your analogy is a logically poor one from the start. However, taking your example, there is no natural basis for another fully-developed human being sharing YOUR kidney, that's an artificially-forced scenario. Pregnancy is a very natural and a very healthy process, unlike the poor example you've provided above.

Actually no it is not necessarily healthy, it is often unhealthy. And you were the one who said right to life trumps everything, which means of course self defense does not work since it violates right to life.