Abortion: Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

[Mefpan]

I think abortions should be banned unless used for cases of rape,incest,or harm to the mother,why do i think they should be banned,well it's obvious without a larger population there are less people to fill the workforce,the millitary,and the police force.

We can't even get our shit sorted out to care for the humans we already have and you want that number to grow at any cost?

[Redsection]

I think abortions should be banned unless used for cases of rape,incest,or harm to the mother,why do i think they should be banned,well it's obvious without a larger population there are less people to fill the workforce,the millitary,and the police force.

The population of the earth is growing exponentially, regardless of abortion.

The human race also dies at a quick rate.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

So you believe that as soon as a woman crosses some arbitrary line, her rights matter less than the rights of the fetus violating her rights.

My views on abortion (and most things) are fluid and are certainly nowhere close to completely formed. That said, it does seem to me that a viable fetus does carry certain rights that supersede its mother's poorly-defined and poorly-supported right to have an abortion to some extent, at that time. Other than that, I'd probably consider myself pretty solidly "pro-choice."

At no point does the invader of a person's body gain rights superseding the rights of the person whose body is being invaded.
Considering that an abortion of any stage, in America, is 14 times safer than birth during a healthy pregnancy, for any and all reasons a woman has for obtaining an abortion is, first of all, justifiable, and second, none of anyone else's business.

[Stagnant Axon Terminal]

The population of the earth is growing exponentially, regardless of abortion.

The human race also dies at a quick rate.

Birth rate is a whole fuck of a lot higher than death rate in almost all countries.

[Redsection]

The human race also dies at a quick rate.

Birth rate is a whole fuck of a lot higher than death rate in almost all countries.

Not all countries,anyways it's that countries fault if they fall behind on the status quota.

[54e]

My views on abortion (and most things) are fluid and are certainly nowhere close to completely formed. That said, it does seem to me that a viable fetus does carry certain rights that supersede its mother's poorly-defined and poorly-supported right to have an abortion to some extent, at that time. Other than that, I'd probably consider myself pretty solidly "pro-choice."

At no point does the invader of a person's body gain rights superseding the rights of the person whose body is being invaded.
Considering that an abortion of any stage, in America, is 7 times safer than birth during a healthy pregnancy, for any and all reasons a woman has for obtaining an abortion is, first of all, justifiable, and second, none of anyone else's business.

Sure. Other than your "invader" argument being weak and a bit nonsensical, you've made some good points. I'm signing off, thanks for the discussion.

[Dyakovo]

A fetus =/= a baby.

What makes rape spawn different?

Okay, it's great that you think the fetus deserves to live. Should we force women to suffer through pregnancy because they failed to meet your arbitrary standards for not being "reckless"?

I just think that if someone does not think it all through, they could just put it up for adoption instead of getting rid of it.

So, that would be: Yes, we should we force women to suffer through pregnancy because they failed to meet your arbitrary standards for not being "reckless"...

[Dyakovo]

Curious lurker here, and sorry if this has been brought up before (I'm not going to read through 954 posts), but it seems like the question as framed in this thread is strictly black and white, which it most certainly is not.

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

[138]

Is there any reason why people are so obsessed with this issue. It seems like we fight about so much (in the US) that it gets kind of weird. Not to say it isn't important but still.

[Divitaen]

Is there any reason why people are so obsessed with this issue. It seems like we fight about so much (in the US) that it gets kind of weird. Not to say it isn't important but still.

Because abortion has been one of the most liberating forces for women in history. Abortion is the reason why women no longer have their jobs and education interrupted by unwanted pregnancies. Its the reason why raped women no longer have to suffer the indignity of coerced maternity. Because women are the sex capable of pregnancy, without abortion, they bear the full economic burden of unplanned parenthood. Abortion helps to close the gender gap by that much more.

[Divitaen]

At no point does the invader of a person's body gain rights superseding the rights of the person whose body is being invaded.
Considering that an abortion of any stage, in America, is 7 times safer than birth during a healthy pregnancy, for any and all reasons a woman has for obtaining an abortion is, first of all, justifiable, and second, none of anyone else's business.

Sure. Other than your "invader" argument being weak and a bit nonsensical, you've made some good points. I'm signing off, thanks for the discussion.

Just saying, forced pregnancy is, by definition, clearly and unambiguously an invasion of a woman's body. Banning abortion means allowing women to undergo the indignity of having something stuffed into her uterus against her sovereign free will. By very defintion, that is bodily invasion, that is using a women's body against her desire. I can't see how it is anything else.

[Ashmoria]

How isn't he/she?

give me an actual case of an actual needless late term abortion.

This is kinda lazy, especially when you (Wallenburg) just gave me several hundred cases of needless abortions with your examination of my source.

no he didnt. he gave you polling. it doesn't even reflect the reality that it is ILLEGAL to get an abortion past viability unless its "needful". you suppose that the reason one might get an abortion at 17 weeks is the same set of reasons that one might get an abortion at 35 weeks. theyre not the same reasons at all.

so until you find me a MONSTER who woke up one day and decided to have an abortion--the most horrible abortion anyone can get--for no good reason, im content to rely on women's own judgment in these matters.

[Godular]

Abortion is Murder. What would YOU do if you were the baby? What would be your reaction if you discovered your own mother wants to kill you. This is disappointing. A perversion of all laws possible, this generation is fucked.

Didn't read the OP + 1

[54e]

Sure. Other than your "invader" argument being weak and a bit nonsensical, you've made some good points. I'm signing off, thanks for the discussion.

Just saying, forced pregnancy is, by definition, clearly and unambiguously an invasion of a woman's body. Banning abortion means allowing women to undergo the indignity of having something stuffed into her uterus against her sovereign free will. By very defintion, that is bodily invasion, that is using a women's body against her desire. I can't see how it is anything else.

If you read my arguments you'll find that I never talked about "banning abortion."

Curious lurker here, and sorry if this has been brought up before (I'm not going to read through 954 posts), but it seems like the question as framed in this thread is strictly black and white, which it most certainly is not.

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

This is just flat out wrong, and again, if you'll read my arguments you should understand where I'm coming from. I expected a little more logic from this group on NSG, but that's fine.

[Ifreann]

So you believe that as soon as a woman crosses some arbitrary line, her rights matter less than the rights of the fetus violating her rights.

My views on abortion (and most things) are fluid and are certainly nowhere close to completely formed. That said, it does seem to me that a viable fetus does carry certain rights that supersede its mother's poorly-defined and poorly-supported right to have an abortion to some extent, at that time. Other than that, I'd probably consider myself pretty solidly "pro-choice."

Ireland tries to afford rights to the unborn. So far it has lead to at least one woman dying when an abortion could have saved her life, and thousands of women every year leaving the country to get abortions in other jurisdictions.

[Godular]

Just saying, forced pregnancy is, by definition, clearly and unambiguously an invasion of a woman's body. Banning abortion means allowing women to undergo the indignity of having something stuffed into her uterus against her sovereign free will. By very defintion, that is bodily invasion, that is using a women's body against her desire. I can't see how it is anything else.

If you read my arguments you'll find that I never talked about "banning abortion."

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

This is just flat out wrong, and again, if you'll read my arguments you should understand where I'm coming from. I expected a little more logic from this group on NSG, but that's fine.

The instant any qualifiers are made, one is abridging the rights of the woman to control her own body. 'Sure you can get an abortion EXCEPT in this situation...'

Even after viability, the woman should have the option available. Though typically by this point she has opted to keep the pregnancy, there are always circumstances beyond anyone's control where the best and perhaps only option is a termination of the pregnancy.

[54e]

it doesn't even reflect the reality that it is ILLEGAL to get an abortion past viability unless its "needful" Source, please. you suppose that the reason one might get an abortion at 17 weeks is the same set of reasons that one might get an abortion at 35 weeks. theyre not the same reasons at all Source, please.

so until you find me a MONSTER who woke up one day and decided to have an abortion--the most horrible abortion anyone can get--for no good reason, im content to rely on women's own judgment in these matters.

There is a 0% chance that there has never been a case of an abortion past viability for any reason other than health complications. It is statistically impossible, especially if you're looking at data that includes the polls based on women who aborted past 24 weeks. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time grasping this. If you continue to call these women "monsters" like you have been, you only further my point. However, no matter what you believe on abortion, we need to have compassion for women who make that choice no matter when they terminate. I'm not sure the term "monster" embodies that necessary respect.

I think some of you are mistaking me for the usual pro-lifer, and that is simply not the case.

[54e]

If you read my arguments you'll find that I never talked about "banning abortion."


This is just flat out wrong, and again, if you'll read my arguments you should understand where I'm coming from. I expected a little more logic from this group on NSG, but that's fine.

The instant any qualifiers are made, one is abridging the rights of the woman to control her own body. 'Sure you can get an abortion EXCEPT in this situation...'

Even after viability, the woman should have the option available. Though typically by this point she has opted to keep the pregnancy, there are always circumstances beyond anyone's control where the best and perhaps only option is a termination of the pregnancy.

If all rights are abridged in some way, then why can't we reasonably abridge a woman's right to an abortion when the fetus is viable? The argument is becoming circular - it seems like all this thread is saying is "she has unrestricted bodily sovereignty all the time simply because she does." I, as an American, have extensive free speech rights, but those rights are restricted in some cases, and reasonably so.

I understand the circumstances regarding health of the fetus/mother (and I fully agree with you that abortion should be available for cases like that).

[Divitaen]

The instant any qualifiers are made, one is abridging the rights of the woman to control her own body. 'Sure you can get an abortion EXCEPT in this situation...'

Even after viability, the woman should have the option available. Though typically by this point she has opted to keep the pregnancy, there are always circumstances beyond anyone's control where the best and perhaps only option is a termination of the pregnancy.

If all rights are abridged in some way, then why can't we reasonably abridge a woman's right to an abortion when the fetus is viable? The argument is becoming circular - it seems like all this thread is saying is "she has unrestricted bodily sovereignty all the time simply because she does." I, as an American, have extensive free speech rights, but those rights are restricted in some cases, and reasonably so.

I understand the circumstances regarding health of the fetus/mother (and I fully agree with you that abortion should be available for cases like that).

No, but in this specific case, you are making abridgments that impede on a woman's right to self-ownership and bodily sovereignty. There are certain inalienable and fundamental rights that we never impede upon, like the right to life or the right to bodily dignity and humane treatment. You can't tell a woman she owns her body if she can't also decide what goes in and out of her vagina. Its merely a logical extension.

And yes I apologise for misunderstanding your earlier comment but restricting abortion access after viability is still a form of state invasion of a woman's body.

[Dyakovo]

Actually, it most certainly is black and white. Either you think women should have the right to opt for an abortion if they so choose (pro-choice) or you don't (pro-life). There is no middle ground possible.

This is just flat out wrong, and again, if you'll read my arguments you should understand where I'm coming from. I expected a little more logic from this group on NSG, but that's fine.

No, it isn't.

[Godular]

The instant any qualifiers are made, one is abridging the rights of the woman to control her own body. 'Sure you can get an abortion EXCEPT in this situation...'

Even after viability, the woman should have the option available. Though typically by this point she has opted to keep the pregnancy, there are always circumstances beyond anyone's control where the best and perhaps only option is a termination of the pregnancy.

If all rights are abridged in some way, then why can't we reasonably abridge a woman's right to an abortion when the fetus is viable? The argument is becoming circular - it seems like all this thread is saying is "she has unrestricted bodily sovereignty all the time simply because she does." I, as an American, have extensive free speech rights, but those rights are restricted in some cases, and reasonably so.

I understand the circumstances regarding health of the fetus/mother (and I fully agree with you that abortion should be available for cases like that).

Yes, free speech rights vanish the instant they infringe upon the rights of others. The fetus' existence alone is an inherent imposition upon the rights of the woman. Its rights do not exist until such time as its ongoing existence is NOT wholly dependent on its connection to the woman.

Past viability, the doctor must be concerned with preserving both lives as necessary, but there are atill things a woman can do if the situation requires it.

[Ashmoria]

it doesn't even reflect the reality that it is ILLEGAL to get an abortion past viability unless its "needful" Source, please. you suppose that the reason one might get an abortion at 17 weeks is the same set of reasons that one might get an abortion at 35 weeks. theyre not the same reasons at all Source, please.

so until you find me a MONSTER who woke up one day and decided to have an abortion--the most horrible abortion anyone can get--for no good reason, im content to rely on women's own judgment in these matters.

There is a 0% chance that there has never been a case of an abortion past viability for any reason other than health complications. It is statistically impossible, especially if you're looking at data that includes the polls based on women who aborted past 24 weeks. I have no idea why you are having such a hard time grasping this. If you continue to call these women "monsters" like you have been, you only further my point. However, no matter what you believe on abortion, we need to have compassion for women who make that choice no matter when they terminate. I'm not sure the term "monster" embodies that necessary respect.

I think some of you are mistaking me for the usual pro-lifer, and that is simply not the case.

yes there is a zero chance that some one some time in the past 42 years has had a late term abortion for ridiculous reasons. probably. I know of no such cases but I am willing to accept that it is extremely possible for that to have happened.

but at the same time there have been thousands of late term abortions that saved the life of the pregnant woman. so the question is how much risk do we need to take--the risk that the delay in authorizing an abortion might end up in maternal death--in order to prevent the vanishingly rare case of a woman who cavalierly decides on a late term abortion and talks her (well probably not HER, but SOME doctor somewhere because so few places do late term abortions) doctor into doing it against his professional judgment of medical need.

again I am quite comfortable with "erring" on the side of letting women (and their doctors) make that decision.

[Tigeria]

Because I grew up in a religious house (my family is more secular now, although we are ready to believe in a higher power should it present itself to us) so I adhere to the belief that a woman has full control over her body, however a fetus, a developing child, developing lifeform, is not her body it is its own entity, so aborting it is still murder, just a different kind. Understand I'm not the kind of person that would go out of my way to call every person that has aborted a child a murderer. It's just a simple fact. It's like tearing down a tree, a tree has life and we know it, but it can't move or show emotion and we can't tell if it feels pain. So it's murder on a specific level.

"What about rape?"

Even then, life is developing, I don't believe life should be extinguished because of a disgusting, repulsive, traumatic event. Yes I realize the woman may not want to have the developing child because of that, but the developing child didn't intend that to happen, nor did it cause said rape. Yes I realize that's not a good enough argument for this point and the woman might still want to abort. All I can say here is that I can't accept abortion because of developing life.

"...women's rights and misogyny!"

I don't hate women or want to punish them because I want a developing child to have a chance at life. I believe women should be fully equal to men. And I believe developing children should be as equal to anyone else in that they should live.

"Health risks"

I don't know the health risks involved in pregnancy, but I acknowledge that health risks exist. I acknowledge that some women may want to abort because of certain health risks during pregnancy. My view is if the unborn child is physically killing the mother, unless it's developed enough to be considered an infant, abortion could be considered an option. But if there's a way to save the child we should go for it and try to continue developing the child until it is ready to be "born".

Again, I grew up in a religious household, so abortion feels morally wrong and quite unnecessary unless the pregnancy is harming the mother-to-be. I'm not completely informed on all of this and this is a personal opinion.

[Washington Resistance Army]

So it's murder on a specific level.

You are literally wrong. You could make a case it's killing, but not all killing is murder.

[Tigeria]

So it's murder on a specific level.

You are literally wrong. You could make a case it's killing, but not all killing is murder.

Murder is killing. Simple as that.