Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Rich]

I'm with you all the way on this Rich - lets hang em....

That privilege is reserved for those whose constitution make great claim on protecting the sanctity of life, ie., The US., Iran, China etc.,etc.,

 

[Access_guy49]

I believe that abortion should be legal for several reasons.
Mostly, I try to take religious perspectives out of the equation because law is not really suppose to make decisions based on religion. (not to mention we as a species have no unified view on which religion is correct, or if any are).

Logic: If a woman wants an abortion, she will get an abortion. Making it illegal simply makes the conditions of an abortion far more dangerous. There are stats that indicate abortion levels decline when abortion is illegal, but you must ask, how many doctors performing illegal abortions would list how many abortions they have done in a survey?..answer, none.
If a woman makes the choice (and lets not forget, this is a choice she has likely thought about, this isn't like choosing an outfit), then i would rather know that she will have the option to get it done in a safe environment so that we only loose one life, and not two.

Everytime a woman gives birth, there are risks. We cannot legally force a person to subject their body to anything in order to save a life. Otherwise the argument could be made that people would have to donate their kidney to save the life of another. I'm not here to argue if a fetus is a person. because really, to my argument, and my logic, it doesn't matter. The rule should apply to all people.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Access guy - you bring up an interesting (and probably very valid) point - that when abortions are illegal, it is quite possible that the actual numbers don't change. But reporting DOES change. Abortion has been around since the time of Hippocrates, 'cause the Hippocratic Oath mentions abortifactants. (He called it a pessary, I believe.) The only change is who reports it.

Regarding religious denominations that allow abortion: Before I became atheist, I was a Methodist. The discussion came up with the pastor. He said that for Methodists, it is a matter of conscience because the Methodist heirarchy doesn't (or at least didn't, at that time) have a position one way or the other. So chalk up one for Methodists.

 

[c_smithwick]

IMHO the abortion debate boils down to two arguments - a moral/religious one and a legal one. Right now, the legality of abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is predicated on the medical evidence that strongly implies that a fetus cannot survive outside of the mother until at least the second trimester, and therefore cannot be considered a separate life until then. So, LEGALLY, since there is no life, there is no citizen and hence no applicability of laws protecting a citizen. As crude as it might sound, until the second trimester, medically, the decision of a mother to abort is no different than her decision to have a tumor excised. MORALLY/RELIGIOUSLY, the definition of when "life" begins is usually different and often hotly debated. If you agree with the above postulation, it is easy to reconcile being in favor of legal abortion, yet against the death penalty, for in the case of the latter you are taking a life, whereas in the former you are not - legally. When you argue abortion, be clear from which side you are arguing - the legal side or the moral side - and you might be more readily welcomed into the argument by the "other" side.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

C Smithwick - you have touched on exactly the problem that causes everyone to do the dance. There are multiple definitions by which one could view the problem, and we cannot even get the two sides to agree on which set of definitions to use, much less to get them to debate the validity of the definitions themselves.

 

[Eva]

Simple answer. The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies. Stage of development, dependencies on other persons, or other factors are only secondary to the fact that it is living and is not the mother and not the father, and is genetically indistinguishable from itself as a 3 year old child, 17 year old teenager, 45 year old adult, or 93 year old on his or her deathbed. The circumstances in which the new life comes into existence can never be enough to consider the intentional ending of its life justified, as sympathetic as they might be.

 

[oumahexi]

I agree with Eva. Bottom line, if you don't want to get pregnant use contraceptives. Every teenager should be made aware of the other uses for condoms (not just to make balloons) condoms are life savers. Wear it don't dare it.

 

[Rabbie]

I agree with Eva. Bottom line, if you don't want to get pregnant use contraceptives. Every teenager should be made aware of the other uses for condoms (not just to make balloons) condoms are life savers. Wear it don't dare it.

Victims of ra** often don't get the chance. Anyway no method of contraception apart from abstinence is 100% perfect.

 

[dpw204]

Not having read this thread, this might be risky; but I thought I'd throw out my solicited opinion:

Any women that wants an abortion should be able to get one.

IMO if EVERY child in the world were a WANTED child the world would be a much better place.

Children can sense when they're viewed as a bother, as unwanted. It's tough enough in this world with-out starting with no support.

 

[ColinEssex]

IMO if EVERY child in the world were a WANTED child the world would be a much better place.

Children can sense when they're viewed as a bother, as unwanted. It's tough enough in this world with-out starting with no support.

It would also help if mothers wern't so selfish by going out to work. They should be home raising the children, then the kids wouldn't be pushed from pillar to post with many people teaching it things that can confuse it.

If money is a problem, then don't have the kid until you can afford it. If you're stupid enough to get preggers - then lose the foetus and go on the pill.

I'm sick of these women moaning on about having to take time off work to babysit their own kid. There was a mother on the wireless today moaning on that a local primary school is only doing three days a week to "break in" the kids gently - then build up to 5 days after 6 months. So mum has to babysit for the 2 days or pay a childminder.

Col

 

[Adam Caramon]

If money is a problem, then don't have the kid until you can afford it. If you're stupid enough to get preggers - then lose the foetus and go on the pill.

I agree with most of this (not sure it is solely the woman's responsibility to make sure the children have a good upbringing). However, I laughed at the pregger's part. You make it sound like a disease.

"I'm sorry miss, you've come down with a terrible case of the preggers."

 

[Alc]

Simple answer...

Ah, if only the many, many people who have debated this at great length had come to you in the first place.

While you're at it, could you sort out the whole 'Does God exist?' thing, as that seems to come up again and again here. What about the whole right to bear arms, debate?

Both of these, as with abortion, have produced some lengthy discussions. Perhaps you could resolve those in around a hundred words, too?

 

[Rabbie]

Ah, if only the many, many people who have debated this at great length had come to you in the first place.

While you're at it, could you sort out the whole 'Does God exist?' thing, as that seems to come up again and again here. What about the whole right to bear arms, debate?

Both of these, as with abortion, have produced some lengthy discussions. Perhaps you could resolve those in around a hundred words, too?

But that would spoil all the fun of an interesting discussion

 

[Alc]

But that would spoil all the fun of an interesting discussion

And wouldn't we feel foolish when we find out that what appear to be complicated topics, involving varying viewpoints, can be resolved in a few sentences?

 

[Eva]

The woman who chooses to have an abortion is favoring murder over the joy that only a child can bring - even one that is born from ra**.

By the way, has anyone ever asked a woman who was raped and kept her baby if she regretted it? If it brought her more pain? It is a complete propaganda that offering a woman an abortion actually helps her cope or reduces the pain of being raped. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that undergoing an abortion causes significant psychological and emotional trauma, not to mention physical trauma on women. Post-abortion infertility is not as uncommon as we would like to think. See the "Silent No More" website.

As an alternative to contraceptives, look up FertilityCare, a method of avoiding pregnancies and women's healthcare that is 99% effective and is completely natural and doesn't carry the risks and side effects that chemical contraceptives have.

 

[Alc]

The woman who chooses to have an abortion is favoring murder over the joy that only a child can bring - even one that is born from ra**.

Your opinion - and one you are perfectly entitled to - but still JUST an opinion. Worth no more or less than anyone else's. Although it must be easier to view things as black and white.

By the way, has anyone ever asked a woman who was raped and kept her baby if she regretted it?

Is this a serious question? You do appear to think that you're the only one who's ever given this matter any thought. Of course people have considered this. A 30 second serahc on google came up with this link, among others.
http://www.helium.com/items/1435492-keeping-a-child-after-ra**
Once again, if there was one uniform way in which women react, the answer would be as clean-cut as you make out.

It is a complete propaganda that offering a woman an abortion actually helps her cope or reduces the pain of being raped.

Based on....? Have you spoken to every woman who was ever in this situation? Then hos can you possibly say that none were helped?

On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence that undergoing an abortion causes significant psychological and emotional trauma, not to mention physical trauma on women.

Again, based on...? If the evidence were overwhelming - for OR against - the debate would be over. The fact that you believe the answer to be 'simple' doesn't alter the fact that many people see differently.

 

[m_elect]

The question behind question is 'does God exist'?

If God does not exist then moral absolutes do not exist. This point cannot be debated. Abortion is no better or worse then removing lint from your belly button.

If God does exist then one must find out what God says about abortion.

 

[Alc]

The question behind question is 'does God exist'?

If God does not exist then moral absolutes do not exist. This point cannot be debated. Abortion is no better or worse then removing lint from your belly button.

If God does exist then one must find out what God says about abortion.

According to this link http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality,
morality can be (but isn't necessarily) religion-based. I tend to think that certain moral standards/rules/call them what you will would exist in order for society to function, even if we hadn't invented religion.

As far as finding out what God thinks about abortion is concerned, since every religion seems to have a different idea of what God wants in general and it's all open to interpretation anyway, that's not going to be much help to us.

 

[m_elect]

According to this link morality can be (but isn't necessarily) religion-based. I tend to think that certain moral standards/rules/call them what you will would exist in order for society to function, even if we hadn't invented religion.

If moral absolutes exist they must come from God, otherwise they are simply personal preferences. If a society agrees on a set of morals they're still just personal preferences on a larger scale. And I doubt societal morals are ever actually upheld. Are there really no homosexuals in Iran? Societal morals, by observation, change over time. All depends on where and when you live. That makes them relative, unless someone can identify a morality gene and prove that it evolves. Good luck.

I appreciate the honesty of Richard Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

 

[Eva]

The fact that intentionally ending the newly conceived life is murder is not an opinion. The science supports it based on the evidence I stated previously,

"The embryo formed at conception is a new and unique existence, with all that is required for life until he or she dies. Stage of development, dependencies on other persons, or other factors are only secondary to the fact that it is living and is not the mother and not the father, and is genetically indistinguishable from itself as a 3 year old child, 17 year old teenager, 45 year old adult, or 93 year old on his or her deathbed."

Medical textbooks will state as much. This isn't a issue of morality or religion or culture. It is a question of science.

I'm not sure how I insinuated that I was the only person to have thought of this before, but you still haven't addressed my question. My question is to bring to light the great amount of ambiguity regarding the "facts" that abortion is really a healthy choice for women post-ra** - or at any time. I have certainly never seen any "facts," however I have seen facts demonstrating the exact opposite.

Sometimes things are simple. Ending the life newly conceived boy or girl (because it is one or the other at the moment of conception) is murder. There is no fundamental difference between it and itself at any other stage in life. Different amounts of dependencies, different levels of cognition, different appearances, etc.

It is propaganda because it is contrary to the facts and there is a lot of money to be made in abortion. There are a lot of strong feelings about abortion, but we don't make decisions regarding right and wrong based on feelings. We base them on facts. And please don't tell me that what is right for me may be wrong for you, because then we have no grounds for considering stealing wrong, murder wrong, child molestation wrong, etc. And that is rather ridiculous.

Your suggestion that the debate would be over if there were overwhelming evidence one way or the other is, respectfully, a bit naive. Since the evidence is not overwhelming that abortion is healthy and is a benefit to individuals and to society, then considering if the "pro-choice" side is in fact wrong in their assessment (and especially that the new life is not "alive" or "human"), then wouldn't the more prudent and responsible position go something like this:

"Since the evidence is not overwhelming, we should consider abortion illegal lest we risk the murder of innocent life?"