Abortion

[CitizenGeek]

Of course, if you're raped you can choose to love that baby all the same, so there's the choice.

Loving a baby is not choice. It's not like some mothers just arbitrarily decide not to love their babies. It doesn't happen like that. Judging by your post, abortion is a much more complicated matter than you think.

I think anyone pro-choice should actually go and see an abortion being carried out first-hand to fully label themselves 'pro-choice'.

You're confusing the issue. Abortion is about so much more than the actual medical procedure. No one has ever claimed that the abortion procedure is entirely pleasant, and it isn't. But that's no reason to deny it to women.

 

[CitizenGeek]

Surely it's our duty as human beings to protect the life and liberty of all other humans....

The point is that it's not a baby, it's a foetus. There is a difference between the two and this is why abortion is legal in most countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

[Yagami]

Uh, well..

I have kinda balanced views. I see how abortion could effect someone's life, like Jayme said, if abortion is going to ruin someone's life and drown them with guilt, it shouldn't be allowed; If you think about it, ruining someone's life to a point where they consider suicide is like murdering someone (something).

But then again, if a teenager get's pregnant, and wants a second chance - Where will they turn? Would you honestly rather see a baby brought up by a 15 year old girl and neglected/not treated properly than to kill a thing that well, isn't really living until later?

 

[chaos]

There is also another problem that everyone else seems to be forgetting. Regardless of the legality of the act, there will still be abortion clinics. If abortion is legal they will have standards to follow and will be within reach for the poorest, if abortion is illegal, they will still be carried out in the dark...

An unexpected pregnancy is such an extreme situation, that I fin it hard to criticize such people who resort to this.

 

[ayase]

It's interesting no-one has really addressed the "morality" topic yet - not wanting to get into religion, we're doing pretty well at steering clear of that so far, but whichever side of the debate you are on, your view is that it is or isn't morally acceptable to abort an unborn child. And that's fine. For You.

But just consider, everyone, that your morality isn't shared by all - and as such, why should it be law? Isn't it better left up to the individual? We wouldn't like other laws passed solely on one groups concept of morality (like in Saudia Arabia, Iran, etc.)

Now here's where I start to seem a bit harsh. The whole process of abortion, as melonpan was talking about, really doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm a bit disconnected because it's a surgical procedure, and things like that have never bothered me. Perhaps I don't have the same feeling that everyone has a right to life. Hell, I'm pretty sure I don't, because some people who are *actually alive* are treated as less of a person than some anti-abortionists treat foetuses. Think of all the kids in Africa starving to death and infected with HIV. The fact is, if you're alive and living a happy, long life - that's not a right, you are damn lucky. The planet is already overpopulated, and I think that people who are already alive are far more deserving of help, and having others stand up for them than people yet to be born.

Addition: Something I will agree some of you on is that perhaps the father (though not in cases of rape, obviously) should also have a say. If he is willing to look after the baby once it is born, but the mother isn't - then I think it's fair enough that it should be born and given to him.

 

[melonpan]

Loving a baby is not choice. It's not like some mothers just arbitrarily decide not to love their babies. It doesn't happen like that. Judging by your post, abortion is a much more complicated matter than you think.

I have no idea what you mean by the second part.

So you're saying it's impossible for a mother to not love her baby?

And, you haven't stated your view on the matter in full, yet.

 

[shira]

Surely it's our duty as human beings to protect the life and liberty of all other humans....

The point is that it's not a baby, it's a foetus. There is a difference between the two and this is why abortion is legal in most countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

The problem is though, its only a Foetus up until about 8 weeks (correct me if im wrong, it may be 4. I cant remember off hand, and im eating so im not gonna google it).

If its while its a foetus I can understand, but after 1-2 months, then no way; it should be kept.

This may seem to go back on what I said earlier but, now im thinking about it my views change a bit.

 

[melonpan]

Surely it's our duty as human beings to protect the life and liberty of all other humans....

The point is that it's not a baby, it's a foetus. There is a difference between the two and this is why abortion is legal in most countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

I think it's around 20 weeks that the difference between "baby" and "foetus" becomes indistinguishable.

To me, it's outright wrong to abort a baby that could live (supported by medical intervention) unsupported by its mother (via the umbilical cord) on the outside.

 

[melonpan]

Abortion is about so much more than the actual medical procedure.

Yeah, it's the effect on the ex-mother after the procedure and a new life being taken, but ultimately the word "abortion" defines the medial procedure.

"much more complicated procedure than I think".

I never said it wasn't complicated, quite the opposite. I'm saying it's too complicated for me to make a decision on completely.

Do you always have to be so belittling in the majority of things you say?

Or is your ultimate desire of this thread so you can make yourself seem like you're better than everyone else?

I'd really like to read your in-depth views on this matter from start to finish, and your absolute judgement on the issue.

 

[Ryo Chan]

Surely it's our duty as human beings to protect the life and liberty of all other humans....

The point is that it's not a baby, it's a foetus. There is a difference between the two and this is why abortion is legal in most countries in the Northern Hemisphere.

I think it's around 20 weeks that the difference between "baby" and "foetus" becomes indistinguishable.

To me, it's outright wrong to abort a baby that could live (supported by medical intervention) unsupported by its mother (via the umbilical cord) on the outside.

but by taking a child out of it's mother just so it can survice, isn't that like playing god?

Sooner or later some country is going to stop abortions in 1 way as put it as, well if u don't want the child, we'll take it and use it for medical research/cloning/ect. I'm not says average everyday people would do, but people with low/no morals definatly would, infact i would not be at all surprised if someone mentioned China was up to it.

 

[CitizenGeek]

I have kinda balanced views. I see how abortion could effect someone's life, like Jayme said, if abortion is going to ruin someone's life and drown them with guilt, it shouldn't be allowed;

I really doubt very many women come to the decision to have an abortion lightly or without thinking about the consequences first.

 

[melonpan]

but by taking a child out of it's mother just so it can survice, isn't that like playing god?

"Playing god" makes up a hell of a lot of medical treatments. Organ transplants, any kind of surgery really, on the creating life side of things - cloning (body parts at this stage though), fertility treatments (IVF).

It's ridiculously complicated. Once you define yourself as "pro-life" or "anti-pro-life" it's going to be hard to conflicting opinions if you agree with stem cell research and all that. But I guess it all comes down to at what stage of cell development you consider it be okay to abort.

 

[ayase]

Sooner or later some country is going to stop abortions in 1 way as put it as, well if u don't want the child, we'll take it and use it for medical research/cloning/ect. I'm not says average everyday people would do, but people with low/no morals definatly would, infact i would not be at all surprised if someone mentioned China was up to it.

You see that is morally abhorent to me. Both the idea and the insinuation that China might do it. Japan and Germany actually came closest to this kind of thing during World War 2. Japan actually experimenting on the Chinese.

One country where abortions became illegal for non-religious reasons and had terrible repurcussions for many children was Romania under Nicolae Ceauşescu. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceauşescu#The_1966_decree

Excerpt: "By the late 1960s, the population began to swell, accompanied by rising poverty and increased homelessness (street children) in the urban areas. In turn, a new problem was created by uncontrollable child abandonment, which swelled the orphanage population and facilitated a rampant AIDS epidemic in the late 1980s"

To me, the suffering of living humans is so much worse than the euthanasia of a being who was never even aware of it's own existence in the first place.

 

[chaos]

Now here's where I start to seem a bit harsh. The whole process of abortion, as melonpan was talking about, really doesn't bother me. Maybe I'm a bit disconnected because it's a surgical procedure, and things like that have never bothered me. Perhaps I don't have the same feeling that everyone has a right to life. Hell, I'm pretty sure I don't, because some people who are *actually alive* are treated as less of a person than some anti-abortionists treat foetuses. Think of all the kids in Africa starving to death and infected with HIV. The fact is, if you're alive and living a happy, long life - that's not a right, you are damn lucky. The planet is already overpopulated, and I think that people who are already alive are far more deserving of help, and having others stand up for them than people yet to be born.

Spot on! most people consider living the greatest thing possible. Well, I know a british guy who chose a wife over the internet... then went to Filipinas to make sure he chose well married the girl and came back with her here. He did test drove other girls over there or so I've been told.

If you consider the majority of the world that lives in ****, people who actually believe the food is better than freedom, than I think your opinion is unbiased. Otherwise, it's just the basic developed country that take opportunities for granted.

 

[Chaz]

Well my view is pretty much this: If the parent and/or child is going to have major problems with the birth and afterwards (i.e. financial and daytime support) as a result of the parent being abused sexually etc, then abortion should be at least advised.

If it was a "simple mistake," well, you've bloody well had it, and now you have to pay the price in responsibility. Even if you have financial problems etc. as harsh as it is to the child, the parent should take responsibility for their actions.

They say that the soul of the baby doesn't form fully in the 1st week or so. If that's the case, then in the extreme circumstances, it's best that both the parent and the unborn child are put out of their misery before it truely begins.

 

[ayase]

If it was a "simple mistake," well, you've bloody well had it, and now you have to pay the price in responsibility. Even if you have financial problems etc. as harsh as it is to the child, the parent should take responsibility for their actions.

Chaz, you and Spyro have both said this - To say: "You must deal with the consequences of your irresponsible act" is fair enough, but what gives you or anyone else the right to say "but by the way, there is one option that I'm not going to allow you to take?"

 

[chaos]

If it was a "simple mistake," well, you've bloody well had it, and now you have to pay the price in responsibility. Even if you have financial problems etc. as harsh as it is to the child, the parent should take responsibility for their actions.

Chaz, you and Spyro have both said this - To say: "You must deal with the consequences of your irresponsible act" is fair enough, but what gives you or anyone else the right to say "but by the way, there is one option that I'm not going to allow you to take?"

The troublesome thing is that I find it harsher for the kid than for the parents in certain places. I'm thinking childhood labour, prostitution, death by starvation and the likes here. But maybe, for a place like UK where the government would care for the kid, maybe you're right.

 

[Chaz]

If it was a "simple mistake," well, you've bloody well had it, and now you have to pay the price in responsibility. Even if you have financial problems etc. as harsh as it is to the child, the parent should take responsibility for their actions.

Chaz, you and Spyro have both said this - To say: "You must deal with the consequences of your irresponsible act" is fair enough, but what gives you or anyone else the right to say "but by the way, there is one option that I'm not going to allow you to take?"

Simple: If we didn't say that, then then it's like saying (without actually using the words) that everyone can have the birth, and then give it to adoption... So then it's ok for irresponsible people to get a maturnity leave from work, and then shove a kid into an orphanage, which would then be too packed for the staff to keep on top of.

What the hell kind of people give their own ofspring such an insecure start to their lives, just for their own comfortable lives? Those kind or ill-moralled idiots should pay the price, not the kid!

Not saying this about the general public, but there are sick people around. There should be no mercy for them.
You want a loop-hole, go find one!

 

[ayase]

If it was a "simple mistake," well, you've bloody well had it, and now you have to pay the price in responsibility. Even if you have financial problems etc. as harsh as it is to the child, the parent should take responsibility for their actions.

Chaz, you and Spyro have both said this - To say: "You must deal with the consequences of your irresponsible act" is fair enough, but what gives you or anyone else the right to say "but by the way, there is one option that I'm not going to allow you to take?"

The troublesome thing is that I find it harsher for the kid than for the parents in certain places. I'm thinking childhood labour, prostitution, death by starvation and the likes here. But maybe, for a place like UK where the government would care for the kid, maybe you're right.

I doubt a high level of government care would last long though, if abortion became illegal. Who's going to pay for all the new orphanages and care homes? Some of you might be happier paying higher taxes if you knew it meant kids got a chance at life, but the vast majority of people want their taxes to go down, not up, and don't even consider what their tax money actually does.

I'm a little confused by your second post, Chaz. The option I would allow people is the option to have an abortion. You seem to be saying that people should have to give birth and look after their children themselves, and not be able to abandon their them. Good luck enforcing that. Did you see my link about Romania?

 

[Ryo Chan]

Sooner or later some country is going to stop abortions in 1 way as put it as, well if u don't want the child, we'll take it and use it for medical research/cloning/ect. I'm not says average everyday people would do, but people with low/no morals definatly would, infact i would not be at all surprised if someone mentioned China was up to it.

You see that is morally abhorent to me. Both the idea and the insinuation that China might do it. Japan and Germany actually came closest to this kind of thing during World War 2. Japan actually experimenting on the Chinese.

woah, don't get this the wrong way, i didn't mean that as at shot at China from out of no where, but they do experiment on their own people, or have u not seen the news where people go in for a normal operation and come out altered in some way by rogue surgeons who are experimenting illegal treatments?