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

[Yandere Schoolgirls]

An acorn isn't a tree, and a fetus is not a human

[Oppressorion]

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:

...Which I will argue.

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.

This argument is absurd, and is equivalent to "But you CAN'T make slavery illegal! If you don't, all the slavers will be unemployed!" While I sympathise with the victim's plight, choosing to be subject to the coathanger treatment certainly does not earn it.

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).

I am not one of those people, and will happily endorse a budget increase in exchange for saving the lives of unborn babies.

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.

If only we had a number of couples in the country who wanted, but couldn't have children for some reason and would happily give one a loving home. If only only there were some way of - of tranferring a child directly after birth to this loving family, so that it is legally theirs. If only...

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.

Give birth, then give it up for adoption.

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?

Fine by me, totally agree in this case.

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.

I'm not religious, and oppose abortion on ethical grounds. I have this startling belief that "Right to Choose" does not mean "Right to Kill"

So, NS, what's your opinion?

I don't like it. No matter how terribly the mother is affected, sacrificing human life is not the way to go.

[Ifreann]

I don't like it. No matter how terribly the mother is affected, sacrificing human life is not the way to go.

When the alternative is forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their wishes, yes it is.

[Freeline Territory]

Call me cold hearted, but I find the argument that it is immoral to abort to be fucking absurd. A human being has a right to decide how to handle a parasite that is functioning within their own body. And yes, a fetus is a parasite, it has all the characteristics of a parasite. A parasite is an organism that lives in or on another organism, and benefits by deriving nutrients from the host.

When the child is actually born, there you go then I am against the murder of anything that has already come out of the womb. When we celebrate somebodies birthday, we don't base it off the moment they were conceived, no we base it off of the day, hour, minute that they came out of their mothers womb and became relatively self sustaining (in the sense they do not require necessary fluids from mother for breathing, organ functions, etc. Their bodies handle it themselves).

Here's an absolutely revolutionary, insane, radical concept for anybody who is against abortion...If you don't like abortions, don't fucking get one. But don't disable other people who want or actually need one from getting it simply because you don't like it. That's called being a greedy prick, and nobody likes a greedy prick.

/rant

[Oppressorion]

I don't like it. No matter how terribly the mother is affected, sacrificing human life is not the way to go.

When the alternative is forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their wishes, yes it is.

I disagree. At worst, the mother has to be pregnant for 9 months and then never has to think about it again. The alternative is destroying years of life that the (various terms depending on age at the time) could have lived - I object to it for the same reason that I imagine you would killing a child that had been born. To me, it doesn't matter where it is or how old it is, it's still life.

[Freeline Territory]

When the alternative is forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their wishes, yes it is.

I disagree. At worst, the mother has to be pregnant for 9 months and then never has to think about it again. The alternative is destroying years of life that the (various terms depending on age at the time) could have lived - I object to it for the same reason that I imagine you would killing a child that had been born. To me, it doesn't matter where it is or how old it is, it's still life.

As somebody stated before, an acorn isn't a tree, and a fetus isn't a fully functioning human being.

[Oppressorion]

I disagree. At worst, the mother has to be pregnant for 9 months and then never has to think about it again. The alternative is destroying years of life that the (various terms depending on age at the time) could have lived - I object to it for the same reason that I imagine you would killing a child that had been born. To me, it doesn't matter where it is or how old it is, it's still life.

As somebody stated before, an acorn isn't a tree, and a fetus isn't a fully functioning human being.

A baby, or even a child, isn't "fully functioning" either: it has nowhere near the physical or mental maturity of an adult, or even a teenager.

[Ifreann]

When the alternative is forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their wishes, yes it is.

I disagree. At worst, the mother has to be pregnant for 9 months and then never has to think about it again.

Apart from the whole giving birth thing, and the permanent effects pregnancy will have on her body. And, you know, the fact that she is being forced to remain pregnant against her wishes.

The alternative is destroying years of life that the (various terms depending on age at the time) could have lived

*shrug* There are no other options. We can't politely ask embryos to leave, so they must be removed. They can't survive that, so be it.

- I object to it for the same reason that I imagine you would killing a child that had been born.

The difference being that a born child is not something that is happening to a woman's body. Pregnancy is.

To me, it doesn't matter where it is or how old it is, it's still life.

No born human has the right to use another's body against their wishes. When was the last time you were legally forced to donate blood or an organ? Never?

[Big Jim P]

I do not have the right or privilege to tell a woman what to do with her body. The right to chose, either way, is theirs. I respect and support that right.

However, beyond a certain point (I don't know where that point lies. You'll have to ask someone wiser than I), and barring certain extreme circumstances, I consider abortion wrong as it destroys an innocent.

[Mavorpen]

If only we had a number of couples in the country who wanted, but couldn't have children for some reason and would happily give one a loving home. If only only there were some way of - of tranferring a child directly after birth to this loving family, so that it is legally theirs. If only...

It's too bad that millions are aborted each year and only a couple hundred thousand are adopted. Care to explain why you want to make the rest of them suffer while only a few get adopted. Can you stand to see a child's eyes filled with hope, only to face rejection? Oh, I forgot, you don't care about them once they are born. You don't care if they die immediately after birth or are abused. All you care about is your nonsense belief that you're doing the right thing.

[Mavorpen]

A baby, or even a child, isn't "fully functioning" either: it has nowhere near the physical or mental maturity of an adult, or even a teenager.

I think he meant that the fetus isn't a being independent of his or her mother.

[Auralia]

No born human has the right to use another's body against their wishes. When was the last time you were legally forced to donate blood or an organ? Never?

If someone stole a kidney from you, would you be legally entitled to rip it out of their body (killing them in the process) in order to get it back? Because that's more analogous to abortion than organ and blood donations.

[Kilobugya]

A baby, or even a child, isn't "fully functioning" either: it has nowhere near the physical or mental maturity of an adult, or even a teenager.

It's not just being "not fully functioning", an embryo have **nothing** of a human personality. An adult dog or cat or pig is much closer to having (but still very far) a personhood than an embryo is. Personhood is the consequence of a very complicated brain architecture, and embryos don't have that. A human baby, even if not fully functional, has the brain architecture that can hold personhood and consciousness, not fully wired, but the architecture is there, so we can suspect it has a form of consciousness and personhood already, and must protect it. But that just doesn't hold in an embryo.

[Kilobugya]

If someone stole a kidney from you, would you be legally entitled to rip it out of their body (killing them in the process) in order to get it back? Because that's more analogous to abortion than organ and blood donations.

No, because in abortion (at least for early abortion, it's less clear for late abortion) there is no consciousness, no person, to destroy. An embryo doesn't have the brain structures to hold a personhood, and is therefore not a person.

[Ifreann]

No born human has the right to use another's body against their wishes. When was the last time you were legally forced to donate blood or an organ? Never?

If someone stole a kidney from you, would you be legally entitled to rip it out of their body (killing them in the process) in order to get it back? Because that's more analogous to abortion than organ and blood donations.

I wasn't making an analogy with abortion, I was making one with forcing women to remain pregnant.

---

A baby, or even a child, isn't "fully functioning" either: it has nowhere near the physical or mental maturity of an adult, or even a teenager.

It's not just being "not fully functioning", an embryo have **nothing** of a human personality. An adult dog or cat or pig is much closer to having (but still very far) a personhood than an embryo is. Personhood is the consequence of a very complicated brain architecture, and embryos don't have that. A human baby, even if not fully functional, has the brain architecture that can hold personhood and consciousness, not fully wired, but the architecture is there, so we can suspect it has a form of consciousness and personhood already, and must protect it. But that just doesn't hold in an embryo.

Of course, at the end of the day the personhood or otherwise of embryos or foetuses doesn't matter.

[Oppressorion]

If only we had a number of couples in the country who wanted, but couldn't have children for some reason and would happily give one a loving home. If only only there were some way of - of transferring a child directly after birth to this loving family, so that it is legally theirs. If only...

It's too bad that millions are aborted each year and only a couple hundred thousand are adopted. Care to explain why you want to make the rest of them suffer while only a few get adopted. Can you stand to see a child's eyes filled with hope, only to face rejection?

You would prefer them all killed?

Please keep these:

Oh, I forgot, you don't care about them once they are born. You don't care if they die immediately after birth or are abused. All you care about is your nonsense belief that you're doing the right thing.

remarks about me to yourself.

[Hallistar]

If someone stole a kidney from you, would you be legally entitled to rip it out of their body (killing them in the process) in order to get it back? Because that's more analogous to abortion than organ and blood donations.

No, because in abortion (at least for early abortion, it's less clear for late abortion) there is no consciousness, no person, to destroy. An embryo doesn't have the brain structures to hold a personhood, and is therefore not a person.

Agreed. And I don't know why some mention Adoption as a panacea, there isn't enough adoptive families to go around if all those fetuses became babies..

[Divair]

An acorn isn't a tree, and a fetus is not a human

At least we agree on one issue.

[Condunum]

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:

...Which I will argue.

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.

This argument is absurd, and is equivalent to "But you CAN'T make slavery illegal! If you don't, all the slavers will be unemployed!" While I sympathise with the victim's plight, choosing to be subject to the coathanger treatment certainly does not earn it.

No, that's really not an equivalent. He's arguing that abortions are inevitable, and it's better to keep them sanitary and safe, as opposed to risky and unsafe.

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).

I am not one of those people, and will happily endorse a budget increase in exchange for saving the lives of unborn babies.

Great. Since you're not one of "those people," you don't quite understand what having a child when you're already under economic stress can do.

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.

If only we had a number of couples in the country who wanted, but couldn't have children for some reason and would happily give one a loving home. If only only there were some way of - of tranferring a child directly after birth to this loving family, so that it is legally theirs. If only...

Ahh, one of the oldest, and stupiest pro-life arguments.
Foster care in California is overwhelmed.
Foster Care is both more dangerous than family preservation, and the enrire system is overwhemled
Putting children in a bloated system is a stupid alternative to never allowing the fetus to become a child.

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.

Give birth, then give it up for adoption.

Adoption is not an alternative to abortion. Abortion is to prevent childbirth, while Adoption is to put the child in state care. It doesn't work like that.

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?

Fine by me, totally agree in this case.

Fair enough, but it should be okay in all cases.

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.

I'm not religious, and oppose abortion on ethical grounds. I have this startling belief that "Right to Choose" does not mean "Right to Kill"

It's not killing.

[The Cummunist State]

When the alternative is forcing women to remain pregnant and give birth against their wishes, yes it is.

I disagree. At worst, the mother has to be pregnant for 9 months and then never has to think about it again. The alternative is destroying years of life that the (various terms depending on age at the time) could have lived - I object to it for the same reason that I imagine you would killing a child that had been born. To me, it doesn't matter where it is or how old it is, it's still life.

At WORST?! Do you assume all mothers are cold hearted fuckers who will just forget they had a child that is possibly being abused in a orphanage right now because some moralistic dictator said that "No, you can't have control of your own body."? That's sick.

[Ifreann]

It's not killing.

Nobody in their right mind would deny people the right to kill.

[Condunum]

It's not killing.

Nobody in their right mind would deny people the right to kill.

I'm sorry Ifreann, but it has to happen. I'm just exercising my rights.
*loads shotgun*

[Wiztopia]

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:

...Which I will argue.

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.

This argument is absurd, and is equivalent to "But you CAN'T make slavery illegal! If you don't, all the slavers will be unemployed!" While I sympathise with the victim's plight, choosing to be subject to the coathanger treatment certainly does not earn it.

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).

I am not one of those people, and will happily endorse a budget increase in exchange for saving the lives of unborn babies.

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.

If only we had a number of couples in the country who wanted, but couldn't have children for some reason and would happily give one a loving home. If only only there were some way of - of tranferring a child directly after birth to this loving family, so that it is legally theirs. If only...

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.

Give birth, then give it up for adoption.

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?

Fine by me, totally agree in this case.

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.

I'm not religious, and oppose abortion on ethical grounds. I have this startling belief that "Right to Choose" does not mean "Right to Kill"

So, NS, what's your opinion?

I don't like it. No matter how terribly the mother is affected, sacrificing human life is not the way to go.

Your argument is the only absurd one. Comparing slavers and back alley abortionists is absurd. You're also pretty disgusting that you want to force a woman to go through 9 months of pain of remembering her rapist.

[Mavorpen]

You would prefer them all killed?

Yes. Your emotional bullshit doesn't work, sorry.

Please keep these:

Oh, I forgot, you don't care about them once they are born. You don't care if they die immediately after birth or are abused. All you care about is your nonsense belief that you're doing the right thing.

remarks about me to yourself.

No thanks, it's true.

[A High Dark Place]

It's not killing.

Nobody in their right mind would deny people the right to kill.

Ah, but if they're dead they're not in their right mind. So they might well deny people their right to kill.



... I"m just trying to see this issue from the point of view of a dead fetus. Thought experiment like.