Oppinions on abortion?

[UCUMAY]

Then let's fund medical research for a 100% effective, reversible, no side effect birth control.

>Implying people don't change their minds

EDIT: And aren't we already researching better birth control methods as well as fetal preservation technology?

Male birth control is in the pipeline. As for fetal preservation I simply don't know. I will do research.

Edit: A google search brought up nothing. But if you find something please telegram me.

[Demen]

Once you fuck, your opinion on all this rapidly changes.



And then there are christians...

You rang?

I'm all for our [women's] rights, but abortions are... in bad taste.

As is destroying entire towns with a flood.

[Keronians]

>Implying people don't change their minds

They might but everyone for the most part wins.

So then it's not everyone is it?

Also, would you criminalise abortion if we had such a contraceptive?

[UCUMAY]

They might but everyone for the most part wins.

So then it's not everyone is it?

Also, would you criminalise abortion if we had such a contraceptive?

No, (assuming you're talking about elective abortion) unless the government was willing to completely fund it to everyone who wanted it. I doubt that will happen. As for medical necessity I would still demand it be legal regardless if such a birth control existed.

[Keronians]

So then it's not everyone is it?

Also, would you criminalise abortion if we had such a contraceptive?

No, (assuming you're talking about elective abortion) unless the government was willing to completely fund it to everyone who wanted it. I doubt that will happen. As for medical necessity I would still demand it be legal regardless if such a birth control existed.

Yes, I'm talking elective, not therapeutic abortions. Those, of course, would remain legal.

Next point, if it was cheap (say, the price of a condom) and freely available, then I see no justification for elective abortions...

(Discounting rape for the moment).

[UCUMAY]

No, (assuming you're talking about elective abortion) unless the government was willing to completely fund it to everyone who wanted it. I doubt that will happen. As for medical necessity I would still demand it be legal regardless if such a birth control existed.

Yes, I'm talking elective, not therapeutic abortions. Those, of course, would remain legal.

Next point, if it was cheap (say, the price of a condom) and freely available, then I see no justification for elective abortions...

(Discounting rape for the moment).

Such a birth control wouldn't be cheap.

Implanon and IUD are very similar to this. (Except for side effects and not 100% but damn close) They cost over $700.

[Apollonesia]

You rang?

I'm all for our [women's] rights, but abortions are... in bad taste.

Then let's fund medical research for a 100% effective, reversible, no side effect birth control.

Anything is better than destroying the unborn. Sure.

[Demen]

You rang?

I'm all for our [women's] rights, but abortions are... in bad taste.

As is destroying entire towns with a flood.

[Wiztopia]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

[Marcheria]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

^This.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

Besides 'I don't like it', nope.

[Wiztopia]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

Besides 'I don't like it', nope.

That isn't a good argument.

[Dempublicents1]

Encouraging abortion at least allows the US to lead the world in one category.

How exactly is abortion being "encouraged"?

Even "liberal" places like Sweden and Denmark are nowhere close to our abortion rates per capita; it's a well oiled machine.

This actually has a lot to do with the fact that they don't have the puritanical viewpoints and laws that tend to go along with more stringent abortion restrictions. They make sure that sex education and contraception are readily available, so they have fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

Very few pro-choice people are actually 'for abortion'.

I actually didn't even notice that. I wouldn't have voted at all.

That was my response. Based on the parentheticals in the poll, I'd actually end up having to choose Pro-life, but then I know that would be interpreted as being in favor of forced pregnancy.

[Ashmoria]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

in theory you might get a good argument in a country with a very low birth rate.

in practice that gets you romania under ceausescu

[UCUMAY]

Encouraging abortion at least allows the US to lead the world in one category.

How exactly is abortion being "encouraged"?

Even "liberal" places like Sweden and Denmark are nowhere close to our abortion rates per capita; it's a well oiled machine.

This actually has a lot to do with the fact that they don't have the puritanical viewpoints and laws that tend to go along with more stringent abortion restrictions. They make sure that sex education and contraception are readily available, so they have fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

If you look at US stats it's the conservative southern states who have some of the highest teen pregnancy/abortion/ and unwanted pregnancy rates.

(AP) - Number of abortions per state in 1996, with the rate per 1,000 women:

Alabama 13,826, 14
Alaska 2,139, 15
Arizona 11,016, 11
Arkansas 5,882, 11
California 280,180, 39
Colorado 9,710, 11
Connecticut 14,094, 20
Delaware 4,482, 26
District of Columbia 13,674, NA
Florida 80,040, 27
Georgia 35,790, 20
Hawaii 4,916, 19
Idaho 1,022, 4
Illinois 53,613, 20
Indiana 13,341, 10
Iowa 7,602, 12
Kansas 10,685, 19
Kentucky 7,000, 8
Louisiana 11,865, 12
Maine 2,615, 9
Maryland 12,363, 10
Massachusetts 29,293, 21
Michigan 30,208, 14
Minnesota 14,193, 13
Mississippi 4,206, 7
Missouri 11,629, 10



Montana 2,763, 15
Nebraska 5,214, 14

Nevada 6,965, 20
New Hampshire 2,300, 8
New Jersey 31,860, 18
New Mexico 5,033, 13
New York 152,991, 37
North Carolina 33,554, 20
North Dakota 1,291, 9
Ohio 36,530, 15
Oklahoma 6,769, 10
Oregon 13,767, 20
Pennsylvania 38,004, 15
Rhode Island 5,437, 24
South Carolina 9,326, 11
South Dakota 901, 6
Tennessee 17,989, 15
Texas 91,470, 21
Utah 3,639, 8
Vermont 2,139, 16
Virginia 25,770, 16
Washington 26,138, 21
West Virginia 2,470, 6
Wisconsin 13,673, 12
Wyoming 208, 2
Total 1,221,585, 20


Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

And this

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf

• New Mexico had the highest teenage pregnancy rate (93 per 1,000), followed by Nevada,
Arizona, Texas and Mississippi. The lowest rates were in New Hampshire (33), Vermont, Maine,
Minnesota and North Dakota.

• In 2005, teenage birthrates were highest in Texas (62 per 1,000), New Mexico, Mississippi,
Arkansas and Arizona. The states with the lowest teenage birthrates were New Hampshire (18
per 1,000), Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Jersey.

Other research has noted and seeks to provide additional explanations for the longer-term trends
and changes, including shifts in the racial and ethnic composition of the population, increases in
poverty, the growth of abstinence-only sex education programs at the expense of comprehensive
programs, and changes in public perception and attitudes toward both teenage and unintended
pregnancy

In addition to the increases in teenage pregnancy, birth and abortion rates, the data presented
here indicate that there are still large and long-standing disparities in rates by race and by state.
These disparities echo those seen among unintended pregnancy rates, which are several times
higher for women of color.7 Research underway at Guttmacher to calculate state-level
unintended pregnancy rates will soon allow us to assess whether the state disparities seen among
teenagers carry over to adult women.

_________________________________________________________________
In summary.
If we keep comprehensive sexual education available, and various methods of birth control available you lower unwanted pregnancy. Lower unwanted pregnancy means less abortions.

Steps to do this.
-Fund comprehensive sexual education, and defund abstinence only
-Make hormonal birth control affordable, available, and easy to access
-Make condoms easily available in most businesses (even better if they are in every restroom), and affordable.
-Reduce social stigma/double standard on younger women carrying condoms.
-Fund medical research for a reversible effective birth control method for guys.

[Wiztopia]

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

in theory you might get a good argument in a country with a very low birth rate.

in practice that gets you romania under ceausescu

Japan then. They're not going to die out anyway though.

[Dempublicents1]

Biased poll.

To make it equally biased you should have written:

Pro-life (pro forcing a woman to give birth to a child against her will).

Yay for out of the box thinking!

And here I was thinking dropping the "for abortion" and "against abortion" would be enough...

Not really. The problem is that the term "pro-life" is used in different ways. Sometimes, it really is used to mean anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who label themselves pro-life but are nonetheless politically pro-choice. In other instances, it is used to mean that one is in favor of laws forcing women to remain pregnant - directly opposed to the pro-choice position.

[Wiztopia]

Yay for out of the box thinking!

And here I was thinking dropping the "for abortion" and "against abortion" would be enough...

Not really. The problem is that the term "pro-life" is used in different ways. Sometimes, it really is used to mean anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who label themselves pro-life but are nonetheless politically pro-choice. In other instances, it is used to mean that one is in favor of laws forcing women to remain pregnant - directly opposed to the pro-choice position.

Not to mention a person who is against abortion but supports the death penalty isn't actually pro-life.

[Keronians]

Not really. The problem is that the term "pro-life" is used in different ways. Sometimes, it really is used to mean anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who label themselves pro-life but are nonetheless politically pro-choice. In other instances, it is used to mean that one is in favor of laws forcing women to remain pregnant - directly opposed to the pro-choice position.

Not to mention a person who is against abortion but supports the death penalty isn't actually pro-life.

Yeah, that kind of pisses me off too. If you're pro-life, make sure it's universal! But then they use the "oh, but the babies are innocent and the criminals are guilty" argument.

[Wiztopia]

Not to mention a person who is against abortion but supports the death penalty isn't actually pro-life.

Yeah, that kind of pisses me off too. If you're pro-life, make sure it's universal! But then they use the "oh, but the babies are innocent and the criminals are guilty" argument.

Which is a stupid argument and I have sadly encountered it many times. Once by a person claiming to be a pastor or something like that.

[Nulono]

All options including abortion and the alternatives should stay open.

Not all options. Infanticide, for instance, should be off the table.

The Government shouldn't decide but where do you draw the time line.
Pro life but it depends on some factors.

if you make abortion easily available and paid for by insurance/medicaid the line will draw itself.

today the vast majority of all abortions are done in the first trimester with a majority done at under 8 weeks. (the availability of home pregnancy tests also helps to lower the gestation time)

those OVER 13 weeks are mostly due to medical reasons. some few are done due to sudden personal disaster of a non medical nature. the tiny few rest are teens who were in denial.

And we should allow a teen to abort a 9-month fetus, and have the taxpayers fund it, be cause she was in denial?

Practically speaking I am for abortion, population is to high and all that jazz.


On a matter of principle, I am against it. I am not one to see the "value" of a human so I couldn't care less if a fetus is killed. The way abortion is treated is my problem. The purpose of sex is pro-creation, ( I don't think sex for pleasure is wrong ) so when a woman has sex ( not including rape ) she is allowing the fetus to be there. It is irresponsible to get an abortion in other words.

If you don't see value in a human, why not kill born people to fix the population problem?

Its still going to happen even if you ban it, so it may as well be legal so it can be managed and controlled by the government, in a safe way. Banning it will only move it from clinics to basements.

The same could be said about ANYTHING that's illegal!

Why not? It's an interpretation in line with most legal systems around. When it's stll in, it's not a person.

Because it can feel pain?

Not always.

WHY?

Why not? It's an interpretation in line with most legal systems around. When it's stll in, it's not a person.

So it's okay because it's legal?

If they knowingly ate contaminated food, then they should be denied medical care.

A woman does not allow a fetus to 'be there' when she is prevented from having an abortion. A woman is being forced to allow a fetus to 'be there'. The difference is fundamental.

But yes, let's make babies punishment for willingly having sex.

As for your response to the analogy...I doubt you'll be able to follow the ridiculous thread of where your 'morality' takes you.

Because it makes a lot more sense to punish the baby with death for the parents having sex.

the fact that you people can't take anything seriously is getting really old

with today's medical care it is a lot harder to die or have serious crippling effects than a hundred years ago

when the baby is born it can be put into an orphanage

I'm taking you seriously. Well, as seriously as your argument deserves.

You suggest adoption as though it is an alternative to abortion... but, of course, abortion is about terminating unwanted pregnancy, NOT what to do with a baby once it's born. So your 'adoption' alternative is not an alternative.

If you look at the reasons women abort, it's about the responsibilities of parenthood, not pregnancy.

We don't have the technology to end a pregnancy while preserving the fetus. The earliest we can do this, I believe, is 20 weeks.

And the odds aren't good at 20 weeks. It's around 1-3% survival.

He did say "earliest".

when did i say stopping the pregnancy? continue through the whole pregnancy and adopt the child

Being pregnant could kill an individual like myself. I take it you wouldn't care if I just died from it?

Who said they were against abortions to save the mother's life?

or how about wait until you're married?

That doesn't stop me from dying because of my genetic disease. Please continue being clueless if you enjoy it. I however don't find it flattering.

You need a better sarcasmometer.

when did i say stopping the pregnancy? continue through the whole pregnancy and adopt the child

>Implying the adoption system isn't massively overcrowded

>>Implying we should kill people to keep them out of a crowded system.

Meh. Once upon a time, nobody could even dream of that.

Our technology is getting better by the day. Hopefully, one day we'll be able to end pregancies while still keeping the unborn alive.

100% Affordable and effective birth control would be better. ;]

We've yet to find one.

1. The law doesn't specify that the fetus be taking blood from the woman (which, FYI, is not how it works). The placenta could be detached as long as it is still inside her.
2. You said that "[t]aking space inside another living being makes you not human".

1. Having a birth cord connection with mother generally shows that fetus is taking blood (or other form of nutrition) from a woman.
2. Okay, it was my bad on that part...

1. The fetus is taking oxygen and nutrients from the mother, but no blood.
2. So taking up space inside another organism doesn't make you nonhuman?

abortion is absolutely stupid because you can just put the child up for adoption

You obviously aren't a woman, and will never know the feel of a birth.



Neither am I, so what right do you have to force a woman through that pain? I'm no misanthrope and as such, will not argue any further than that simple question. And please, don't waste my time and yours with a religious answer, as it will most definitely be total and utter bullshit.

What right do you have to force a woman to put a newborn child up for adoption instead of drowning him in the bathtub?

I am pro-life, unless the pregnancy occured through an act without consent. You played, you pay.

Why does being conceived through rape give you less of a right to live? Or are you only pro-life because you think sex should have consequences? If so, should we also ban treatment for STIs?

Then, you're just a different type of pro-choice.


Neutral, perhaps?

No, the typical pro-choice crowd are very consistent on punishing a woman for willingly having sex.

Huh?

So tell me, pro-lifers: do you support what happened to Adam? Why or why not?"

No, I do not support it, because he's being made to save a life, not being told not to take one.

:oops:



Haha, that whole "pro-choice" typo never happened, okay?

You can edit your posts, you know. I'm not for "punishing" everyone. I want the child to NOT be punished for the parents' actions.

Fetus or not, a life is a life!

A fetus is not a life.



It's a pre-birth.

That's not a noun. A fetus is an unborn living organism.

force a woman through pain? unless she didn't consent it's her fault

Just because she consents to sex... Doesn't mean she consented to be pregnant. I know this because I'm a sexually active female.

Sure, I consented to pulling the trigger, your Honor, but I cannot be held responsible for his death.

pretty simple.

Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong.

I think the word you're looking for is "homicide". Murder is illegal by definition.

pretty simple.

Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong.

Murder is the killing of an alive human being.



A fetus is neither alive or a full human being.

This is factually incorrect. Whether the fetus is a "person" we can debate. Scientifically, the fetus is a living human being.

pretty simple.

Abortion is murder. Murder is wrong. Abortion is wrong.

Seriously? Murder is killing of a human being.

Fetus is neither human being nor is it a individual, and it is a parasite/ robber who entered woman's body and is leeching nutritions off her.

You can't be a "parasite/robber" without being an individual.

ethics plz

Okay. It is 'unethical' to force women into slavery. Thus, pro-choice.

Again, not being allowed to off your offspring != slavery.

Show me evidence murder is wrong. If you can do that show me evidence abortion is murder. Until then please kinldy stop wasting processing power.

Murder can be an excellent thing in some situations, and brutal in others. Just like abortion in my opinion. But I'm neither a judge or on a jury, and feel I have no right to judge others without facts.

When is murder excellent?

ethics plz

Ethics is irrelevant to legality.

So it should be legal because it's legal?

Our nation isn't falling apart - our nation is trending towards liberty and freedom, and the rightwing are willing to kill it rather than see it happen.

we aren't the ones spending trillions more than we have

Let's not go down this road.

Ethics factor into legality only when it effects social cohesion.

Sort of. In an ideal world, ethics has nothing to do with laws, becasue ethics are subjective and the law has no use for them. If social cohesion is a concern (i.e. murder), then that can be an argument in it of itself. Murder can't be illegal by sheer virtue of it being wrong, but it can be illegal and be wrong. As social cohesion is not major problem with abortion, (indeed, the case could easily be made that illegalizing abortion is BAD for social cohesion), it therefore has no gorunds to be illegal. The fact that it may be ethically wrong is irrelevant.

Many things have been legal and not harmed social cohesion, yet we changed them because they were wrong. Infanticide, slavery, sexism, ad astra.

Can't they just stuff the born child into a orphanage?

The pro-life get what they want : The child is born.
The pro-choice get what they want : They don't have to deal with the child.

And it also benefits the couples who can't have children for whatever reason

Oh yeah, let another resource-wasting, parasitic, unloved future delinquent enter this overpopulated world. That's genius!

Because we should kill people for taking up resources (which everyone does).

because the government is/was funding abortion

And saving money by doing so. How many would go on welfare, unemployment, etc.?

Wow. That's why I hate the GOP; they're willing to have people die rather than spend money.

Oh, good. I had hoped that this was a misunderstanding. I mean... how could someone be so insensitive?

Yes. My point: adoption is NOT a substitute for abortion. Clearly.

I know someone who actually believes that pregnant women shouldn't abort their children and proceed through the entire nine months... and then give it to an adoption service. Bloody awful.

You'd rather the child die?

Republicans complain about big government, but government is HUGE when it tells its women what they can and cannot do with their own body.

Even Libertarians hold that the government should prevent aggression, the initiation of force or fraud. Pro-life is about telling them what they can do to their offspring.

if you don't want to have a child, don't risk it

seriously people it's simple

I'd rather risk getting pregnant, thanks.

Not going to become celibate just to please you.

If you do reproduce, all we ask is that you not kill your child.

if you don't want to have a child, don't risk it

seriously people it's simple

Virgins shouldn't have a stance on the subject, friend.

If you want to not be a parent so much that you'd kill your own child, I think not having sex is sensible.

Once you fuck, your opinion on all this rapidly changes.



And then there are christians...

You rang?

I'm all for our [women's] rights, but abortions are... in bad taste.

Would you rather they use flavored medical instruments?

Has there ever been a good argument to be against abortion? You either get terrible arguments from people like Nulono or people who use religion as an argument.

Terrible arguments like human rights?

You rang?

I'm all for our [women's] rights, but abortions are... in bad taste.

As is destroying entire towns with a flood.

Huh?

Yeah, that kind of pisses me off too. If you're pro-life, make sure it's universal! But then they use the "oh, but the babies are innocent and the criminals are guilty" argument.

Which is a stupid argument and I have sadly encountered it many times. Once by a person claiming to be a pastor or something like that.

I can't stand those kinds of people.

[Grave_n_idle]

Not really. The problem is that the term "pro-life" is used in different ways. Sometimes, it really is used to mean anti-abortion. There are plenty of people who label themselves pro-life but are nonetheless politically pro-choice. In other instances, it is used to mean that one is in favor of laws forcing women to remain pregnant - directly opposed to the pro-choice position.

Not to mention a person who is against abortion but supports the death penalty isn't actually pro-life.

Which is why I refer to myself as against abortion, but pro-choice.

I'm pro-death-penalty, and pro-necessary-military-intervention, so it would be hypocritical of me to call myself pro-life.

[Grave_n_idle]

If you look at the reasons women abort, it's about the responsibilities of parenthood, not pregnancy.

Often, yes. Which doesn't mean that pregnancy is NOT a concern, or that we should force women to endure 9 months of it.

Again, not being allowed to off your offspring != slavery.

Sometimes, it is.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

All options including abortion and the alternatives should stay open.

Not all options. Infanticide, for instance, should be off the table.

Infanticide is not an alternative to abortion because it does not terminate pregnancy

Its still going to happen even if you ban it, so it may as well be legal so it can be managed and controlled by the government, in a safe way. Banning it will only move it from clinics to basements.

The same could be said about ANYTHING that's illegal!

Well, yea. The question is whether or not there's an actual need for it to be illegal. No one needs to hunt down Jane Doe for not carrying her baby to term.

A woman does not allow a fetus to 'be there' when she is prevented from having an abortion. A woman is being forced to allow a fetus to 'be there'. The difference is fundamental.

But yes, let's make babies punishment for willingly having sex.

As for your response to the analogy...I doubt you'll be able to follow the ridiculous thread of where your 'morality' takes you.

Because it makes a lot more sense to punish the baby with death for the parents having sex.

There is no baby, first off. Second, yes, yes it does.

Murder can be an excellent thing in some situations, and brutal in others. Just like abortion in my opinion. But I'm neither a judge or on a jury, and feel I have no right to judge others without facts.

When is murder excellent?

Let's go with Hitler. Wouldn't you have killed Hitler, if you knew what he was plannig on doing? Or Bin Laden?

Ethics is irrelevant to legality.

So it should be legal because it's legal?

Not, it should be legal because there is no reason for it to be illegal. By default, that should make it legal. Anything else is tyranny.

we aren't the ones spending trillions more than we have

Let's not go down this road.

Yea, that's not relevant to any of this.

Sort of. In an ideal world, ethics has nothing to do with laws, becasue ethics are subjective and the law has no use for them. If social cohesion is a concern (i.e. murder), then that can be an argument in it of itself. Murder can't be illegal by sheer virtue of it being wrong, but it can be illegal and be wrong. As social cohesion is not major problem with abortion, (indeed, the case could easily be made that illegalizing abortion is BAD for social cohesion), it therefore has no gorunds to be illegal. The fact that it may be ethically wrong is irrelevant.

Many things have been legal and not harmed social cohesion, yet we changed them because they were wrong. Infanticide, slavery, sexism, ad astra.

Are you seriously suggesting that slavery has never affected social cohesion? SERIOUSLY? Also infanitcide is bad for social cohesion, for every reason murder is. And sexism is not explicitly illegal either.

Most of the answers to you other posts are that fetuses=/=children. Fetus<child. Honestly this post is just way too damn long.

[Dempublicents1]

I am pro-life, unless the pregnancy occured through an act without consent. You played, you pay.

Well, at least you're honest about wanting to punish women for daring to have consensual sex.