Abortion?

[dani99]

In that case, I understand what you mean but it still doesn't make me think that abortion is anymore right. I don't think I can see any good in abortion at all. I'm not telling anyone not to get abortions, because it's not my place and it's not my choice.Yes, it does make me sad seeing people make that choice because I wouldn't make it myself an I wish more people would think like me, but I know that won't happen. I'm not calling anyone names like saying people who get abortions are bad people. I'm just saying I think it's wrong, and I don't think that is considered attacking.

[Henry Tyrell]

Originally Posted by dani99

I'm not calling anyone names like saying people who get abortions are bad people. I'm just saying I think it's wrong, and I don't think that is considered attacking.

You say to abortion is killing a baby. Therefore those who get abortions are murderers.

You want to claim that isn't attacking? Good luck with that.

[dani99]

Technically, yes, you're right. But, that is just the way you are taking it. I'm not calling anybody a murderer. I'm just saying it how it is without being bold about it, thank you.

[Converse]

If the baby is considered a full fledged human from the instant that it is conceived, then we can technically arrest the women for holding the baby hostage against its will in her stomach. Also, if a women was raped, do you want that baby who is gonna have an awful life with a mother who never intended to have it, isn't death better? Pro-Chioce.

[dani99]

No, because it's technically not against it's will. The mother is the care giver of the child, so the child stays with her as if it were staying in a house. Nobody said the baby would have an awful life, nobody said the child would have a bad life. It just all depends. Accidental pregnancies happen sometimes. But no, I stand by my opinion - I don't see the right in abortion.

[Converse]

Originally Posted by dani99

No, because it's technically not against it's will. The mother is the care giver of the child, so the child stays with her as if it were staying in a house. Nobody said the baby would have an awful life, nobody said the child would have a bad life. It just all depends. Accidental pregnancies happen sometimes. But no, I stand by my opinion - I don't see the right in abortion.

When did the baby ever give consent to being held in the uterus of the women? also, you want rape children, or accidental children to have to live with knowledge of them being "bastards"?

[dani99]

I don't think a child needs to give consent to live with it's mother. And, I never said I WANTED rape children. But if the situation came up, I still wouldn't agree to abortion. Things happen. I was an accidental child, and my dad was out of the picture for a long time. In the end, I was the only reason why my parents married and ended up having a violent and abusive relationship. But I'm glad my mother didn't abort me, I'm glad she did the right thing and gave me a chance at life, even if I had a terrible childhood with my father who ended up ditching our family anyways.

[Converse]

Originally Posted by Converse

When did the baby ever give consent to being held in the uterus of the women? also, you want rape children, or accidental children to have to live with knowledge of them being "bastards"?

Also, if a baby is born to a 16 year old girl who's family is already poor, and will be born into poverty and wont be able to enjoy life fully, and always be worryign abotu whether they will be able to eat that night, do you think they'd enjoy that?

[dani99]

Well, things happen. I know my family is tied down paying for my mom, step dad, my baby sister, my two brothers, four dogs, two cats, and myself - but I was pregnant before and although it would have been such a struggle, we would have made it work out anyways.

Or, I have a friend who is having a baby girl any day now. Her family is poor and she's 15 almost 16 years old. Despite their issues, they chose life and they're going to make do with what they have.

Not to mention, there is the morning after pill that a woman can take to prevent pregnancy in the first place. You can't kill what was never there. Because the sperm and egg don't meet right away, it takes a few days.

[Fictional]

I'm pro-life. And before you ask (because it always gets asked in threads like these) I am also anti-military, anti-death penalty, anti- gun ownership, and I've been vegetarian from birth.

thebigmole, (apologies if it was someone else) was it you who said "Oh so you are pro-choice." in response to someone saying they don't wish to make something illegal? That's like saying that because one doesn't campaign to make eating meat illegal, one must eat meat oneself. Or like saying because one doesn't campaign to make islam illegal, one must be a muslim. That's a pretty big step.

I'm pro-life, but I'm not going to go around shoving that down people's throats or campaigning to make abortion illegal. I don't think it makes me feel any less strongly that abortion is the taking away of a baby's life that
I don't stand on street corners handing out propaganda fliers or picketing clinics and that I appreciate that there are circumstances when other women feel that abortion is an ok step to take.


EDIT:: Converse, you said "accidental children [having] to live with knowledge of them being "bastards"[.]" I really don't see what the problem with having unmarried parents is. I'm a "bastard" but I've been raised very well by loving parents in a family with a stable income that puts me thoroughly into the middle classes. So being a "bastard" isn't quite the negative thing that you're making it out to be.

[dani99]

Well said, Jessy <3

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by dani99

Not to mention, there is the morning after pill that a woman can take to prevent pregnancy in the first place. You can't kill what was never there. Because the sperm and egg don't meet right away, it takes a few days.

I'm not sure where you're getting this information from but it is completely wrong. The sperm and egg "meet" in less than 24 hours, in fact less than 1 hour. In a research paper published in 2010, Dr. Leung et al conducted a meta-analysis and found when such medications are taken after ovulation, they are largely ineffective. It is not a 100% certainty that it will prevent pregnancy even if taken at the appropriate time.

[Coffee.]

The morning after pill works both as a preventative measure, and will get rid of newly conceived eggs.

[dani99]

But, the egg doesn't reach the uterus until a few days later (that's what I was meaning to say. I'm sorry, my 2:30 in the morning brain is taking over). No, the morning after pill doesn't ALWAYS work, but it works for MOST women (not all, most) since it (depending on what brand, I believe ) can have up to around 90% reduced chances of pregnancy. Yes, there is always that small chance it won't work, but it's usually an effective thing to take - the sooner the better.

Traci - I've always heard them say on the Plan-b commercials that it won't work if you're already pregnant and it's not the "abortion pill".

[Coffee.]

But if the sperm had met the egg, even if that conceived egg isn't in the uterus, it's still a conception. Is that abortion?

[dani99]

The meaning of "conception" can be debatable. Some say it starts as soon as the sperm and egg meet - while others may beg to differ and say it starts when it attaches itself to the lining of the uterus. So, basically, if it hasn't yet reached the uterus, I don't really think it could be considered abortion. That's how I view it, anyways.

[Coffee.]

As the meaning of "conception" is, so is the meaning of "life," so we can't make a law if we can't agree.

[Maloo]

Pro choice. It's nobody's business but your own. The world is overpopulated as is, let's not bring more children into the world that the parents didn't want or couldn't care for.

[dani99]

This topic never was about a law, though. It was all about opinions, is all. Laws were just thrown in there as a natural sub-topic, since it's normally debatable if abortion should be legal or illegal. But, I stand for what I believe - I'm pro-life all the way.

I know what other people do is beyond my business, but that doesn't mean I can't believe the procedure itself is wrong.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!

What is your criteria for individuals unfit to be parents?

The mentally unfit, economically unfit (If you're living on welfare, and consistently unemployed, you don't need children), the socially unfit, etc.

Generally people who would be irresponsible parents, and those with bad genetics of course. Those with bad genes could always adopt, but we certainly don't want them to reproduce.

[dani99]

But wouldn't that be a hassle going through so many procedures and tests and studying just to see if they genetically, mentally, physically, financially, and what not fit for a child? Not to mention they would have to spend quite a while studying their home life to see if it was fit for a child.

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by Guile

The mentally unfit, economically unfit (If you're living on welfare, and consistently unemployed, you don't need children), the socially unfit, etc.

Generally people who would be irresponsible parents, and those with bad genetics of course. Those with bad genes could always adopt, but we certainly don't want them to reproduce.

How about we have the governments out our bedrooms, alright?

[dani99]

Originally Posted by Revolution

How about we have the governments out our bedrooms, alright?

^ Agreed. lol.

[Guile]

Originally Posted by dani99

But wouldn't that be a hassle going through so many procedures and tests and studying just to see if they genetically, mentally, physically, financially, and what not fit for a child? Not to mention they would have to spend quite a while studying their home life to see if it was fit for a child.

We are talking about the literal fabric of humanity, what we're made of, everything we are, or can be. The cost of doing this would certainly be under the amount we waste on medical care for the genetically unfit. If we were to say, stop the bottom 2% from breeding every generation (or 5%, what have you), then imagine the strain we'd lift off of the health services, education, and a variety of things, imagine if there were 6 million less people driving on the roads in America, eating food, buying gasoline, going to school, getting sick. By god, we have solved half of the world's problems if we eliminated the bottom 20, no, even 10%!

[Coffee.]

Think this is off topic, and this can go off into a completely different debate about human rights and reproductive liberties. Let's keep to just abortion for now.

[Tomar]

Personally I'm pro-choice. To me if that baby was going to be brought up with a poor standard of living then it isn't fair on the baby, okay granted adoption is an option, but unless a major overhaul takes place I have no faith in that system, I mean would you like to have grown up on adoption? I wouldn't, you may be different. And also a ball of cells maybe found living in the world, but that ball of cells can sustain life, a ball of cells in a womb could not sustain life on the outside. If the whole adoption system was a lot better and there was less of a stigma involved I may change my stance but as it stands I'm pro-choice. I don't have a problem with anyone that supports pro-life but I do not agree with some tactics a !minority! use, granted that without them I wouldn't have a beautiful sister!

[Magical Forest.]

I'm pro choice. I would much rather bring a baby into the world when I am prepared emotionally and physically and give it the best chance of life I can, rather than struggle and put that child at risk.
I'm on a lot of medication, so I'd have to come off it if I were to continue with a pregnancy, which could seriously effect my mental state. If I were to get pregnant now, when I'm still unstable and heavily reliant on anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, the poor thing would never have a chance. I would probably have to make the decision to have an abortion for both mine and a potential baby's life.
Though I am trying to make sure that there is a very slim chance of me getting pregnant. I'm extremely strict with my birth control.

I don't think that a woman should have an abortion as a method of birth control. If you really didn't want to have a baby then you would have at least tried something to protect yourself.

[Bibliophile]

Pro-choice. Has anybody considered cases where the mother would die if she kept the child?

[Jas]

Originally Posted by chickenonsteroids

Do any pro life vs pro choice debates turn out ok?

Yeah, actually. When I worked for Planned Parenthood Ottawa I was pretty frequently involved in discussion around abortion, and we managed to keep it civil most of the time.

[Tomar]

Each and every individual case is different. Some people will have lived comfortable lives so they may find it hard to empathise with why you wouldn't want to bring a baby into the world. I think people do take advantage of abortion being at their disposal, and are careless with sex but sometimes it can be purely accidental despite any protective measures taken, and if they aren't in any position to bring up children I think it's the right thing to do. However one concern of mine is the stage at which it is able to terminate pregnancy, there has been stories of babies surviving outside the womb a mere couple of weeks after the cut off point which bothers me somewhat. A decision should be made earlier as your reasons for abortion should be stable and strong. But I stand with pro-choice.

[Raining Glitter]

Originally Posted by Dez

I'm pro-life except in cases where there will be considerable damage to the mother or child if the pregnancy were to continue (such as if it was life threatening) or in cases of rape.

Ditto!
I feel sex is an adult choice and that it comes with risk-just like any other choices. I also feel that if one living cell on another planet counts as "life" to scientists, a fetus fertilized should count as a living thing with the right to live too. Although that's my personal opinion and I feel acknowledge that it is an opinion and doesn't make it "right" .

[dani99]

Well, Hannah, that makes plenty of sense to me. Those with medical issues that NEED a certain kind of medicine can't exactly help that, and it's either the the baby dies or has developmental issues (if it's lucky to survive) from the medication or the abortion. While I do agree that this is a good exception, because if falls under possible life threatening situation, that does not make me pro-choice and I don't think abortion is right, but I also don't think putting both the baby and mother at risk is right, either.

As for you, Holly, I have mentioned quite several times that it's an exception if the baby was going to harm or kill the mother.

[DemonQueen]

I'm not going to bother reading the three pages of posts in this thread - I'm just going to put my opinion down here.

I am pro-choice. It is the woman's choice in whether or not she wants to go through with this. Getting pregnant at a young age, or even an older age, is hard and if you aren't ready for it? Then you have a choice to make.

YES pregnancy is 100% preventable. What happens when it's against your religion to use birth control and you use a condom when it breaks? Obviously you weren't being stupid and rebellious by not using protection. What do you do?

I had an abortion and it was the HARDEST decision I have ever had to make. Do I keep it, do I not.. I was too young and knew that I could not provide for this child and that I could not go nine months carrying this child knowing that I would have to give him/her up.

I'm not going to look at this thread after I post this. I just had to get my opinion/statement/whatever out there.

[Maloo]

Originally Posted by Bibliophile

Pro-choice. Has anybody considered cases where the mother would die if she kept the child?

Yes, over and over lol.

[dr2005]

What I would give for this subject to be stickied and black-listed so we don't have to go through this every few months or so. We really have done this topic to death and a lot of this is just turning over old ground again - just as it was the last few times. As such, I'm going to repeat what I said last time, which is that the labels of "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are in themselves illogical straw men - no one aside from the most dedicated troll is going to set themselves up as being "anti-choice" or "anti-life" which are the true opposites to both these positions. The sooner we throw these labels in the garbage, where they belong, the happier we'll all be I reckon. Or at the very least, we'll have got the debate back onto the actual topic of "abortion, yay or nay?"

Incidentally, there is a fairly specific definition of a living organism in biology, and by that definition life begins at fertilisation when cell division via mitosis commences. Hence, an embryo is alive from a scientific perspective and claims that it is not are with respect bogus. Whether it is a person or not is the true nub of the debate, and that is an ethical/legal problem rather than a medical one.

Originally Posted by thebigmole

So incredibly and unbelievably pro-choice. As pro-choice as a person can be. And I mean no offense because I do not know you, but I am not a fan of the pro-life stance at all. I find it incredibly self centered to think that every woman should line by your own personal, not backed up with facts, beliefs.

There's a slight flaw in this logic, which hopefully I can illustrate below:

You believe abortion should be a universally available right to all pregnant women. Fine - that's your prerogative. Myself and others do not agree with that position - that is our prerogative. However, in order for your position to be implemented, the state has to make provision for - and in a lot of cases fund - provision of abortion services, via taxpayer money. Even if a large percentage of the population does not agree with abortion, therefore, you are in effect demanding they foot the cost of implementing your beliefs. On a more personal level, as a taxpayer I am funding the provision of abortion services even though in a number of instances I do not agree with them. Where, therefore, is my choice? How is that not imposition of your beliefs upon others? Your belief that abortion should be a universal right is based on no greater level of empirical fact than mine, yet my objection is trampled over by default. That sounds less like pro-choice and more like pro-my-point-of-view, if you take choice in the strictest sense of the word.

I don't intend this to sound like a personal attack, I add in haste - it's more that the logic for me doesn't work. Both pro-choice and pro-life positions entail, in one way or another, the imposition of their beliefs upon wider society in one form or another.

[ALLorNOTHINGforCHRIST]

I am pro-life. Yes even in cases of rape.

[Sythan]

Pro-Choice

Women are perfectly capable of deciding what's best for their own bodies. I firmly stand against any type of control on what women can do regarding her body, nor is it any of my damn business what she does.

[WhisperingSilence]

I'm unsure. Depends on the circumstances, say you chose to have a baby and the man your with upon finding out your preganant becomes violent ect you might then abort the baby to save it from a live of violence but then you could just as well leave and go to a womans refuge or something. Or say when you go to have a scan and the scan shows up something is wrong with the baby say the baby had a tumor on its brain or the scan shows up that your child may have a restricting disability which will require surgery after surgery some people might chose to abort thier baby under this circumstances to save thier unborn child from a life of pain and spending most of their childhood in and out of hospital. Others however may chose to keep thier unborn baby or if the mother cannot provide for thier child then I also think abortion is ok. I'm unsure on this but I do think that people should have the choice about abortion. I don't beleive in aborting a baby because it's a mistake but I think under some circumstances it's alright.

[blumemusik♫]

Pro-life. But I'm completely pro-life, even in cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

[Maloo]

Originally Posted by asthenophobia.

Pro-life. But I'm completely pro-life, even in cases of rape or if the mother's life is in danger.

So only the unborn child's life is precious, not the mother's?