[Thought Prompt] Abortion

[Dad]

Abortion:  the removal of a fetus from a woman's body.

 

Abortion has been practiced for thousands of years, and was legal in the United States as early as the time of the first settlers.  Abortion and the enforcement of abortion laws has fluctuated through many eras, but was most popularized in the 20th Century.  

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_abortion

 

http://prochoice.org/education-and-advocacy/about-abortion/history-of-abortion/

 

This isn't a topic we're all unfamiliar with, so I won't go into too much detail.  One of the most hotly debated topics is how abortion is a woman's right and affects her health if not properly handled.  Her body, her choice.  Now YCM, here's a thought for you:  what makes abortion wrong and why?

 

If you support abortion, what gives you the moral high ground over someone who thinks it wrong?

 

You know how this works.  Go. 

[Slinky]

The biggest thing against pro-life is that a woman shouldn't be forced to carry a rapist's baby.

[Flame Dragon]

My feelings on abortion on very complex. One on hand I do believe that the developing fetus does hold value. When "life" starts is irrelevant to me, it will, more often than not, become a life, and I believe that life is something worth protecting. On the other hand, I don't know anything about the woman who is considering the abortion. What choices got her to where she is, her living situation, or her economic security. I also believe the mentality of "you made a choice, why should your unborn child have to pay the price for your mistake" is flawed. A baby isn't something that should be used as a means of punishment, it should be celebrated.. I also believe that trying to guilt someone in this situation is incredibly wrong. My heart goes out to anyone who finds themselves debating between keeping a pregnancy or aborting it. That is one of the single hardest choices a woman will ever have to make, and it will follow them. If they keep it, it will radically alter their life, and if they don't that will be a choice that will follow a lot of the women who make it, regardless of how they felt about the choice when they made it. This is made all the worse by the fact that a lot of women are making this choice alone.

 

Ultimately, while I do not like it, I believe the choice isn't mine to make. I don't know anything about the person making the choice and forcing them to raise a child seems wrong. Not to mention you have situation like rape or cases where the pregnancy risks the mothers life where having an abortion is a choice most people will be ok with.

 

Honestly, I feel focusing on abortion is misguided. If your truly feel that abortion is wrong, you should instead focus on trying to prevent women from ever needing to have one in the first place. Better access to birth control and sex education can go a long way in preventing unwanted pregnancies, one of the main reasons women will have an abortion in the first place. Sadly, a lot of the people who hate abortion also believe in teaching abstinence-only which just does not work. People are going to have sex, that is reality, trying to stop that is like trying to stop the earth from spinning. If you want to stop abortion you need to accept that fact and try stopping it before the need for one ever arises.

 

 

As a slight aside, thanks for making this thread. Whenever I see people talk about abortion all these thoughts bounce around in my head, so actually writing them out felt good.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Strong Believer in the 3 Exceptions

 

Rape

Mother's life

Child's Health

 

Those are out of the control of the mother. Anything other than that is negligence

[Brinolovania]

This is something I've been meaning to research more at some point, but have never gotten around to.

 

As I see it, the issue really revolves around when fetuses develop certain features, mainly in the brain. When a fetus is first conceived, it's not a human baby, per se; Rather, it's a bundle of cells and stuff that has the potential to become a human baby. There's gotta be some time, though, where the fetus develops such that it's brain is actually functional and it's somewhat conscious. At that point, it does become a human baby that just hasn't popped out yet, and when it's gone that far, it does seem wrong to abort it.

 

I should say, in case it's not clear, that I am pro-choice. I think a woman should be allowed to get an abortion for any reason, because it's her body, it's not possible to know the exact circumstances she's, in, etcetera. But there is a point where the baby is human enough that you reeeeally shouldn't do it. Not sure exactly what the laws and/or research on that is, but that's the one thing I could see where there'd need to be restrictions.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This is something I've been meaning to research more at some point, but have never gotten around to.

 

As I see it, the issue really revolves around when fetuses develop certain features, mainly in the brain. When a fetus is first conceived, it's not a human baby, per se; Rather, it's a bundle of cells and stuff that has the potential to become a human baby. There's gotta be some time, though, where the fetus develops such that it's brain is actually functional and it's somewhat conscious. At that point, it does become a human baby that just hasn't popped out yet, and when it's gone that far, it does seem wrong to abort it.

 

I should say, in case it's not clear, that I am pro-choice. I think a woman should be allowed to get an abortion for any reason, because it's her body, it's not possible to know the exact circumstances she's, in, etcetera. But there is a point where the baby is human enough that you reeeeally shouldn't do it. Not sure exactly what the laws and/or research on that is, but that's the one thing I could see where there'd need to be restrictions.

 

Why should we reward irresponsibility and ignorance. You know that sex can make kids. Outside of the three exceptions there's no rational excuse for people ignoring the consequences. Proper contraception would prevent a fetus formation in the vast vast majority of times.

[Flame Dragon]

This is something I've been meaning to research more at some point, but have never gotten around to.

 

As I see it, the issue really revolves around when fetuses develop certain features, mainly in the brain. When a fetus is first conceived, it's not a human baby, per se; Rather, it's a bundle of cells and stuff that has the potential to become a human baby. There's gotta be some time, though, where the fetus develops such that it's brain is actually functional and it's somewhat conscious. At that point, it does become a human baby that just hasn't popped out yet, and when it's gone that far, it does seem wrong to abort it.

 

I should say, in case it's not clear, that I am pro-choice. I think a woman should be allowed to get an abortion for any reason, because it's her body, it's not possible to know the exact circumstances she's, in, etcetera. But there is a point where the baby is human enough that you reeeeally shouldn't do it. Not sure exactly what the laws and/or research on that is, but that's the one thing I could see where there'd need to be restrictions.

If memory serves (and I could be wrong) the general guide lines is that women have full right for an abortion in the first trimester of the pregnancy and states can start making laws putting restrictions during the second (I believe the back half). I'm reasonably certain your not allowed to have an abortion in the third trimester. I am reasonably certain most abortions a performed in the first trimester and ones past like 18 weeks are exceptionally rare.

[Andx]

I've always been bothered by the "her body, her choice" argument. Mainly because even from the moment of conception the unborn child is not her body at all. Genetically that little cluster of cells is not her. It happens to need to be a guest in her body for the next nine months to develop but it's not part of her. And if it's not her body why does she get to choose what happens to it?

 

Anyway if not obvious from that I'm pro-life in pretty much all cases except the things Winter brought up. Rape, and threats to the life of the mother or child are about the only reasons I could justify an abortion given the vast amounts of prevention that exist and are accessible. Using abortion, ending new lives before they can even really begin, because you don't want to have to be responsible isn't something I encourage or want.

[Icy]

I literally have a freaking checklist for this. Keeps it simple and keeps it taking into account everyone who could potentially be involved... I'd like to think.

 

I will not support the abortion if;

• The child is greater than 22 weeks along. As this is the point in which the child can survive outside the womb; its effectively living and no longer a parasite. Just cooking a little bit longer.
• If the hospital or other approved health care professional refuses to care for the child appropriately at that point, whether through refusal to perform the operation or insisting you terminate the child and you are not a rape victim then the doctors involved as well as their place of employment are subject to infant murder laws as if it were already born.

 

This does not apply to rape victims. I will support it until the child comes to term, however at that point the doctors must consider their oath to a degree in that they must inform the mother that this is where the child can survive on its own and to make sure the mother is making what she feels is the right decision to terminate. Prior to that, no extended counseling should be administered.

 

If the child is less than 22 weeks along, I will support the abortion regardless of the mothers decision. It is her body and their is no threat to a life. However I believe the mother should consider the following;

• Was the decision to have a child a mutual decision between her/his partner(s)? If so, consult with the other expectant parent.
• Was the decision to have a child the sole decision of the mother via in vitro or other methods? If so, consult your mental health care professional. Consider yourself.
• Was the child the result of an accident, such as a one night stand between willing parties? If so, do you have contact with the donor? If so, determine if its far enough along that you'd consider bringing it to term and giving it into care with the donor should they decide to be an expectant parent.
• Are you a part of a religion, culture, religion or other ways of life that would look down upon this action beyond a social level? Such as beliefs in the spirit or afterlife? If so, consider yourself.

 

... you should have the idea at this point.

[Tentacruel]

This is a really salty issue.  I'm not gonna get too detailed, but I am really bothered that people act like it's some logical scientific debate, usually your left-leaning atheist types.  

It's not.  It's purely an emotional argument.  You can't scientifically prove that a fetus is or is not a person at a given point.  It's all a matter of perspective and worldview.  

 

I'd say I lean more pro-life, but I don't get too riled up about it. 

[Aerion Brightflame]

First I have to put a disclaimer that I'm a Brit and our cultural attitude to abortion is a world apart to yours. I don't think I've ever seen abortion be a heavily contested issue in the media say for the past 10 years I can actually recall fairly well. There's not a stigma around it here, it's just something that people get done when they feel it's needed. 

 

If you are pregnant, and you and you partner think you should have an abortion and bring the child to term within the first 24 weeks (Because I think it starts being a gradually increasing health risk to do so after that), you should be able to do so legally. But, other nations might not view things the same way due to whatever cultural reason - So the compromise has to be contraception and sex-ed have to be mandatory and easily available (As in you can get that s*** for incredibly cheap or for free). You don't get to do both as a government unless you want to deal with the resulting consequences. 

 

Hell even easy access to emergency contraception would be enough to help in a lot of situations, and it's skirts the morality of the issue because the morning after pill prevents fertilisation in theory. 

 

But I have to echo TR here - This is not a scientific issue, this is one of morality. If you were truly a cold bastard you could weight the relative burden the options are on the economy and decide based on that, but most don't for obvious reasons. 

[Brinolovania]

This is a really salty issue.  I'm not gonna get too detailed, but I am really bothered that people act like it's some logical scientific debate, usually your left-leaning atheist types.  

 

It's not.  It's purely an emotional argument.  You can't scientifically prove that a fetus is or is not a person at a given point.  It's all a matter of perspective and worldview.  

 

I'd say I lean more pro-life, but I don't get too riled up about it. 

I agree that it's a matter of emotions and perspective. However, it's also can true that science can help form that perspective. I'm not trying to say we should think about abortion as a purely objective issue that's decided by "the fetus is a functional baby by X week," although it may have seemed like I was. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be ALL emotion. The 22 weeks thing is basically all I was going for.

 

Why should we reward irresponsibility and ignorance. You know that sex can make kids. Outside of the three exceptions there's no rational excuse for people ignoring the consequences. Proper contraception would prevent a fetus formation in the vast vast majority of times.

There's also the point that there are many situations where people who didn't want/expect/plan for a kid aren't gonna be great parents if the pregnancy does go through. Plus there's the whole "her body, her choice" thing.

 

That said, it is not good if people run around getting abortions willy-nilly. I agree that sex ed and contraception need to be more universally and freely available in the US.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I agree that it's a matter of emotions and perspective. However, it's also can true that science can help form that perspective. I'm not trying to say we should think about abortion as a purely objective issue that's decided by "the fetus is a functional baby by X week," although it may have seemed like I was. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be ALL emotion. The 22 weeks thing is basically all I was going for.

 

 

There's also the point that there are many situations where people who didn't want/expect/plan for a kid aren't gonna be great parents if the pregnancy does go through. Plus there's the whole "her body, her choice" thing.

 

That said, it is not good if people run around getting abortions willy-nilly. I agree that sex ed and contraception need to be more universally and freely available in the US.

There's adoption. "Her Body, Her Choice" really isn't a thing. You can't do a lot with your body. Starting with prostituion. It's just a catchphrase the left likes to use and ignore when convenient. Sex was designed to make kids. If the situation was out of your control, then yeh, otherwise there's no reason to kill the child for your faults

[Brinolovania]

There's adoption. "Her Body, Her Choice" really isn't a thing. You can't do a lot with your body. Starting with prostituion. It's just a catchphrase the left likes to use and ignore when convenient. Sex was designed to make kids. If the situation was out of your control, then yeh, otherwise there's no reason to kill the child for your faults

Could you expand on what you mean by "you can't do a lot with your body?" I see what you mean about prostitution, but prostitution could probably be made legal and regulated a bit and be fine tbh. I mean, that won't happen, but it theoretically could.

 

Other than that I feel like we're just running into a moral difference here. Early on in the pregnancy, I wouldn't consider an abortion killing a kid. I'd consider it removing a blob of cells from the mother's body that could potentially be a kid some day. In that light, I think it's OK if the mother wants to end the pregnancy, although I will agree that getting an abortion because "I didn't feel like having the baby" or whatever is... questionable.

[Tentacruel]

I agree that it's a matter of emotions and perspective. However, it's also can true that science can help form that perspective. I'm not trying to say we should think about abortion as a purely objective issue that's decided by "the fetus is a functional baby by X week," although it may have seemed like I was. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be ALL emotion. The 22 weeks thing is basically all I was going for.

 

 

Fair point. I would agree that science can help us to be informed about the development cycle of a fetus and let people be educated when drawing their own conclusions.

[Icy]

This is a really salty issue.  I'm not gonna get too detailed, but I am really bothered that people act like it's some logical scientific debate, usually your left-leaning atheist types.  

 

It's not.  It's purely an emotional argument.  You can't scientifically prove that a fetus is or is not a person at a given point.  It's all a matter of perspective and worldview.  

 

I'd say I lean more pro-life, but I don't get too riled up about it. 

 

Before a particular point, the developing child is little more than a parasite feeding off its host. Not truly a child, unable to do more than cook in there. It is only after it grows enough does it cease being parasitic. So no, it's not purely. Though as I've said, it'd be great for the expectant mother to take into account all emotional variables pertaining to how and why the child to be was conceived.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I'm very glad not to have to worry about this and feel for fertile women who do, but in addition to contraceptive vaginal sex there're enough recreational sex options that don't involve a risk of pregnancy (manual, oral, toys, etc.) to have a good time.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Remember a while back, when Trump said if Abortion was illegal the woman should be punished in some way?

 

Makes perfect sense when you think about it.

 

Trump think abortion should be illegal except for the 3.

 

If so, getting an illegal abortion is a crime. 

 

A woman giving consent to such a crime is an accomplice in the crime (murder potentially) along with the Doctor

 

In which case, she should logically be punished

[Dad]

So at what point when that child is born into a broken home, a shattered family, and raised without a mother or father do we say "oops"?  I don't like abortion.  But the minute you start advocating what women can or can't do with her body, and govern it by the state, you've gone too far.

 

Next we'll be regulating the amount of times people can engage in self pleasure on a monthly basis.  It's ridiculous.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

So at what point when that child is born into a broken home, a shattered family, and raised without a mother or father do we say "oops"?  I don't like abortion.  But the minute you start advocating what women can or can't do with her body, and govern it by the state, you've gone too far.

 

Next we'll be regulating the amount of times people can engage in self pleasure on a monthly basis.  It's ridiculous.

Clean up the adoption system mate. A sheet ton of people WANT to adopt. But can't cause it's so expensive and bureaucratic. You wouldn't have so many children living in broken homes if we didn't basically have modern slave trade in the adoption industry

 

Better alive than dead. It's not the same, this is a life being snuffled for irresponsibility 

[Dad]

We're already regulating sex (almost).  We want more people to adopt but you're not gonna stop abortion by controlling women's health.  There are so many factors when it comes to that child being born, that just saying it was irresponsible is in and of itself irresponsible.

 

If you or I were to impregnate a woman and she was tell us she didn't want to keep it, and she refused to explain why, we would never understand it.  But regardless of either of our thoughts, that is her body.  There is (possibly) a life inside it.  But she is in full control.  Are we saying women shouldn't have control?  Because that's what it sounds like.  And let's not hold the adoption system hostage.  It's expensive because housing children is incredibly costly.  And it's bureaucratic because if adoption agencies were privately owned, they'd be as bad as privately owned prisons.  It's difficult because families are difficult.  And families are not for everyone.

[MiracleGhost47]

Looking at it from a practical perspective, even a born child is technically the mother's property. The child originated from her DNA, used her nutrients, and (often) resides in her quarters. A child (or fetus) of the mother that created it is essentially the mother's own material, just as any other machine that the mother may have built. 

When it comes to the moral, non-technical perspective, things can get quite opinionated. "Do not do to others what you would not do to yourself" is a common guideline, but due to sectionalism, it is, unfortunately, a flawed guideline. There are some who might say, "I wouldn't mind if my parents destroyed my fetal tissue. I never asked to be born anyway." There are also some who would say, "My life has helped make the world a better place. I would hate it if my parents destroyed my fetal tissue.". Of course, these are just a few examples. There are a plethora of perspectives, so it's no surprise that this has been one of the more serious divisive issues.

Personally, I look at it with intrigue. You see, abortion isn't just about questioning whether or not it's moral to halt the development of a fetus, it's a matter that closely relates to the meanings of life itself. Where life begins and where it ends are sometimes difficult to define. Regardless, I shall give my opinion to the best of my abilities. 

While it's true that a child or fetus is a women's property to a physical extent, the will to survive is not something that can be inherited. There are suicidal individuals, and non-suicidal individuals. Everyone has a mind, and how it grows is partially determined by the wielder. Unlike a computer or robot, no one can utterly manipulate a child to follow a specific life set by the developers. Humans simply weren't made to work that way. They follow the path they believe in. Of course, that's not to say that the parents should have no authority over them. The parents should have authority over their children to a heavy extent, but they should not own the right to forcefully control their children's values. The parents are free to make suggestions, present data, and all instill discipline. What they shouldn't do is purposely slaughter a child, because if that happens, the child's own-developed values will mentally cease.

You might be thinking, "what values could a fetus possibly have in a dark, moist womb"? Well, when a baby is born, the first thing it usually does is cry. This choice to cry is decided from the fetus. Some babies are actually known to "kick", indicating that it has decided to value attention from the mother. Following up their attempts to get attention, they may decide to cry as soon as they find the opportunity to come into the world. This is really all just a theory, but it seems logical enough. So, am I saying that I'm against abortion? Not necessarily. I know next to nothing about how a fetus develops. I'm unsure how many days/months it takes for a fetus to actually get a mind of its own. If abortion is installed before the fetus is developed enough to have a will, there's nothing wrong with the procedure as far as I can see.

In conclusion, I would like to restate that this  is a serious topic. I expect people to disagree with me in some areas. It’s because of this that I prefer if people gave their children to orphanages whenever possible rather than have abortions, regardless of how developed the fetus really is. That way, some pro-life and pro-abortion groups have a chance for mutual satisfaction. At any rate, I hope this discussion will be interesting, and that you learn something new from it. 

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

https://voicesinbioethics.org/2016/03/21/ectogenesis/

 

Isn't this the solution that we all need?

 

Mothers don't have to carry a child they don't want.

 

Children wont have to be killed because their mothers didn't want them

[Aerion Brightflame]

Alternatively Emergency contraception exists and entirely skirts the moral issue because it takes effect before fertilisation occurs. It won't add to overpopulation either and won't have iffy legal implications around it as I imagine would occur in some situation. It also doesn't rely on broken existing services. 

 

It's as an effective a solution for unwanted children and it's readily available nowadays (And probably a lot cheaper). 

[Aerion Brightflame]

So here's a question to all pro-life members on here:

 

Why do you call yourself pro life and not just anti abortion?

 

Because to me there should be a distinction - Anti abortion is simple. You are opposed to the idea of abortion, and thus you want to remove it as an option and leave it at that. There's no complex questions to ask there, no social issues to work through, you are simply opposed to the idea of abortion. You don't really care about the consequences on the mother, once she's brought the child to term she loses any care you had for her. 

 

It essentially looks like this: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BYNHgMqCIAAS1cd.jpg

 

But pro-life - Pro-life shouldn't be about forcing children into homes that don't want them. Pro life should be addressing the underlying issues that drive people to 'frivolous' abortions. Mothers not being able to provide, the stress, a lack of formal sexual education and lack of contraception. It should be about making bringing up a child in the world a desirable option to people who end up pregnant without wanting it at first. So essentially changing the social programs in the US to help support new mothers. Frankly pro-choice does a better job of this currently. 

 

So with that in mind, can you clarify if you are anti-abortion, or pro-life instead?

 

Because current 'pro-life' policies and politicians look more like anti-abortion or about shaming women for having sex. Or just about 'no sex unless you are doing it to have a baby'. Which is entirely distinct from what pro-life should be about.