Is abortion right? (What's your view on abortion?)

[Condunum]

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE IN FULL CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BODIES


TRULY, THESE ARE THE WORST OF TIMES

My eyes.

[Mavorpen]

EDIT: A quote from a pro-choice friend of mine:

Cancerous cells are as human as a zygote in that it is a clone of the mother. Fetus though? That's going too far. Once you have a functioning brain, then you're a person. That's the long and short of it. Your location, inside or outside your mother's womb, doesn't matter.

It isn't a person. Your friend fails.

[Condunum]

EDIT: A quote from a pro-choice friend of mine:

It isn't a person. Your friend fails.

Potential person =/= Person, amirite?

[Sithaar]

I support abortion. I also support abortion past the ninth month.

[Condunum]

I support abortion. I also support abortion past the ninth month.

Murder?

[Ifreann]

Abortions for all!

*looks over* Oh, so you're hear for the job!
Here, take these tickets. Ever ticket is good for one free abortion. You'll be paid by the abortion, so go fast!

Can I keep a few for myself?

[Condunum]

*looks over* Oh, so you're hear for the job!
Here, take these tickets. Ever ticket is good for one free abortion. You'll be paid by the abortion, so go fast!

Can I keep a few for myself?

Sure. I thought you were male though...

[Mavorpen]

Can I keep a few for myself?

Sure. I thought you were male though...

Awkwarrrrdddd

[Ifreann]

Can I keep a few for myself?

Sure. I thought you were male though...

I plan to trade them for alcohol.

[Condunum]

Sure. I thought you were male though...

Awkwarrrrdddd

I just assume most Bronies to be male. So far, it's been safe for me...

Sure. I thought you were male though...

I plan to trade them for alcohol.

Fair enough. I'd recomend setting your price high, though.

[Wiztopia]

How is a tapeworm at fault?

A tapeworm isn't a person.

Keep in mind, I think that a Fetus is NOT a person. But, if, for the sake of Arguement, a Fetus IS a person, then killing it when it isn't at fault is murder.

But I don't think a Fetus is a person.


@Cummunist: That's a very broad justification for murder, if you extrapolate it out.

Murder is a legal term. It wouldn't be murder even if it was a person.

[Arkinesia]

EDIT: A quote from a pro-choice friend of mine:

It isn't a person. Your friend fails.

The more extended version is you can't claim that a young child is a person either based on intelligence criteria because up until age two there is virtually no difference from an in-womb fetus with a developing brain, therefore, a two-year-old couldn't qualify as a person.

A zygote is certainly not a person. It has unique human DNA but it doesn't have a brain. Just like the brain dead don't count as people, the pre-brained don't count as people.

[Vousielle]

It isn't a person. Your friend fails.

The more extended version is you can't claim that a young child is a person either based on intelligence criteria because up until age two there is virtually no difference from an in-womb fetus with a developing brain, therefore, a two-year-old couldn't qualify as a person.

A zygote is certainly not a person. It has unique human DNA but it doesn't have a brain. Just like the brain dead don't count as people, the pre-brained don't count as people.

And that is my problem with late-term abortion. Fetal development is a process, not a flipping of a switch. When the fetus becomes enough like a fully formed infant, and nears the same level cognitive development, I am in favor of a hands off until birth approach. If someone cannot care for and does not want the fetus they should abort it before that point, and in the 'I didn't know I was pregnant' cases I would prefer they carry the pregnancy to birth and make arrangements for it's care.

[Condunum]

The more extended version is you can't claim that a young child is a person either based on intelligence criteria because up until age two there is virtually no difference from an in-womb fetus with a developing brain, therefore, a two-year-old couldn't qualify as a person.

And that is my problem with late-term abortion. Fetal development is a process, not a flipping of a switch. When the fetus becomes enough like a fully formed infant, and nears the same level cognitive development, I am in favor of a hands off until birth approach. If someone cannot care for and does not want the fetus they should abort it before that point, and in the 'I didn't know I was pregnant' cases I would prefer they carry the pregnancy to birth and make arrangements for it's care.

Would you want it enforced for them to carry the term, though?

[SaintB]

It isn't up to us to decide if its right or wrong, its up to the parent(s)

Morality is not subjective

It isn't about morality - in reality there are so many people on this planet that are suffering the only real moral choice is to abort every new pregnancy for a few years to prevent them from suffering too. Its about personal choice and not forcing our morality on other people.


Forcing morality on others is usually in itself immoral.

[Auralia]

All members of the species homo sapiens should be considered persons, and should therefore have the right to life. Therefore, abortion is murder, and is not permissible unless the mother's life is at risk, in which case it would be treated as self-defense.

Ultimately, this is a question of what takes precedence - the right to life of the fetus, or the right to bodily sovereignty of the mother. Since the right to life is the root of all rights, I believe it must take precedence.

By that logic, since I need a kidney, and you're a match, some people with guns are going to arrest you and force you to undergo surgery to give me one of yours.

Hey, my right to life trumps your bodily autonomy.

False analogy. At fertilization, your right to bodily sovereignty has already been "violated", so to speak. A more accurate analogy would be a case where someone stole one of your kidneys and transplanted it into their body. Would you have the right to remove it, if you knew that it would kill them? I think it's clear that the answer is no.

[Cupcakesland]

I am opposed to it, because it consistutes ageism.

[Wiztopia]

I am opposed to it, because it consistutes ageism.

[Vousielle]

And that is my problem with late-term abortion. Fetal development is a process, not a flipping of a switch. When the fetus becomes enough like a fully formed infant, and nears the same level cognitive development, I am in favor of a hands off until birth approach. If someone cannot care for and does not want the fetus they should abort it before that point, and in the 'I didn't know I was pregnant' cases I would prefer they carry the pregnancy to birth and make arrangements for it's care.

Would you want it enforced for them to carry the term, though?

As opposed to what? As said after a certain late point, I am against abortion. The problem is pinning down exactly what point that is.

[Norstal]

If the woman had consented to an activity that she knew could result in a 40-year-old human being appearing in her womb, then I would argue that she has no right to remove that person if such removal would result in the death of that 40-year-old person.

Well, I guess all you need now to break into a house is a one-time permission to get into that house.

[Revolutopia]

If the woman had consented to an activity that she knew could result in a 40-year-old human being appearing in her womb, then I would argue that she has no right to remove that person if such removal would result in the death of that 40-year-old person.

I know the Christian Right likes to deny women the rights over their body, but in the real world individuals can resend consent at anytime (aka it is still rape if you continue to have sex with a woman who tells you to stop even if she said yes before). Thus even if a woman consented to the initial pregnancy she has the right to resend her consent at a later date.

[Condunum]

If the woman had consented to an activity that she knew could result in a 40-year-old human being appearing in her womb, then I would argue that she has no right to remove that person if such removal would result in the death of that 40-year-old person.

I know the Christian Right likes to deny women the rights over their body, but in the real world individuals can resend consent at anytime (aka it is still rape if you continue to have sex with a woman who tells you to stop even if she said yes before). Thus even if a woman consented to the initial pregnancy she has the right to resend her consent at a later date.

This. At late term, I guess cesarian is an option, but forcing her to carry the full term is breach of her rights.

[Forsher]

I personally believe that it is a mother's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy or to give birth to the child. A woman being able to control her reproduction is fundamental in women's rights. There are a few main supporting arguments that I would like to post:

1. If abortion is outlawed, then illegal, back-alley abortions will continue. These clandestine abortion are largely unsafe, with many involving the use of coathangers, dangerous chemicals, and unsafe actions, such as bumping the fetus. It is better if women are able to safely get an abortion with modern technology.

2. Face it, a large percentage of abortions involve poor women. If the woman is forced to carry the fetus all the way through term, then this can be a huge financial burden on her. It would also impact the child, who has to live in this environment. Also, this may force an increase in the welfare budget (which many pro-lifers, especially Republicans, oppose).

3. Most fetuses that are aborted are unwanted. An unwanted child may suffer emotional distress growing up in a family that does not want it.

4. If a woman is raped and becomes pregnant due to this, she ought to be able to terminate the pregnancy. She should not be forced to carry a baby that she doesn't want (and will only remind her of the rape) and possibly cannot financially or emotionally support.

5. If a woman's life is in danger, she should DEFINITELY be able to get an abortion to save her life. This is just common sense: it's either the fetus dies, or the woman AND the fetus dies. Either way, the fetus is dead. Why not save the woman in the process?

6. For many, being pro-life is for religious reasons, and religion should stay separate from public policy. If you're religious and are opposed to abortion, then DON'T GET ONE! But don't trample on other women's rights to choose.


So, NS, what's your opinion?

It's silly to abort after 28 weeks. 27 weeks, 7 days, 23 hours and 59 minutes, be quick about it.

[Cameroi]

THERE ARE PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD WHO THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD NOT BE IN FULL CONTROL OF THEIR OWN BODIES


TRULY, THESE ARE THE WORST OF TIMES

i don't know that there's ever been a time when there haven't been. conceivably there could be some future time in which there aren't.

[Kilobugya]

What makes a human a person is inside the brain. As long as there is no brain developed enough to hold personhood, there is no person, so it's not any wrong to abort. The only meaningful question is "when is the brain developed enough to contain even a primitive person" ? On that I prefer to err on the safe side, and put a low limit (12 weeks sounds reasonable, unless the life of the woman is threatened, or the foetus has severe defects), but I'm not very sure of what the limit should be - I guess it's up to biologists (especially embryologists) to answer the question, they know more about it than I do.