Essay:Where do you fall in the abortion debate?
Please, feel free to add your thoughts under a new heading.
- 1 mjkoz1998
- 2 Anonymous User 22.214.171.124
- 3 Allhailtuna
- 4 Edgerunner76
- 5 Researcher
- 6 Bob M
- 7 PalMD
- 8 SusanG
- 9 Stile4aly
- 10 AmesG
- 11 PoorEd
- 12 Dick Turpis
- 13 Javascap
- 14 Genghis Khant
- 15 Jeff L
- 16 Elassint
- 17 Lyra Belaqua
- 18 PFoster
- 19 Dream
- 20 Zmidponk
- 21 WaitingforGodot
- 22 Phentari
- 23 Shangrala
- 24 Silver
- 25 Toiretni
- 26 OneForLogic
- 27 Zahd
- 28 WilhelmJunker
- 29 Wazza
- 30 Spaceboyjosh
- 31 ENorman
- 32 Falco1029
- 33 Anonymous user 126.96.36.199
- 34 Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac
- 35 k61824
- 36 Neveruse513
- 37 BenB
- 38 Aboriginal Noise
- 39 Nutty Roux
- 40 Earthland
- 41 Weaseloid
- 42 Overlord
- 43 Jonno
- 44 DenaChemistry
- 45 Lacrimosus
- 46 Wicked Witch
- 47 Maratrean
- 48 Socal212
- 49 Colonel Sanders
- 50 Nebuchadnezzar
- 51 The Heidelberg Kid
- 52 Usaf2222
- 53 Bootmii
- 54 Anonymous User Doctor_Clown (who can't be arsed to register)
- 55 Inari
- 56 Dr. Swordopolis
- 57 KTo288
- 58 Armondikov
- 59 Inquisitor Ehrenstein
- 60 Madama Butterfly
- 61 Vyper
- 62 CopperPennies
- 63 Old Schooler
- 64 Revolverman
- 65 BCow
- 66 Bazer63
- 67 Smerdis of Tlön
- 68 MarmotHead
- 69 neonchameleon
- 70 Miekal
- 71 ikanreed
- 72 Arisboch
- 73 EFranklin
- 74 Kvltcat
- 75 Kugelschreiber
- 76 Keter
- 77 StickySock
- 78 Pbfreespace
- 79 Panzerfaust
- 80 188.8.131.52
- 81 Assac Isimov
- 82 Yisfidri
- 83 LynnR
- 84 LuodiWang
- 85 LeftyGreenMario
- 86 See also
Personally speaking, I am opposed to abortion. However, it is impractical to ban abortions, as alleys would be filled with the corpses of women. I cannot in good conscience call myself pro-life. The very people who shriek about abortion complain about caring the baby they helped bring into the world. That is not only hypocritical, it is also immoral. Just my two cents.
Anonymous User 184.108.40.206
Quite honestly, I think the abortion issue is a lot simpler than it is usually made out to be because of all the political bullshit it's associated with. So, does a woman have the right to have the baby/fetus/embryo growing inside her removed from her body? Yes, totally. Does that give her the right to kill it or have it killed? No. So ideally, abortions would remove the prenate from the mother's womb and put it inside an artificial "iron" womb or transplant it to another woman's womb. Now, neither resource is readily available at the time (the former because of current technological limitations and the latter because finding willing women isn't always easy and transplanting prenates isn't always practical depending on the developmental stage), neither are they in particularly high demand because of relative acceptance of abortion in society, as well as acceptance of the prenates dying during the procedure. This means that death is currently ensured in virtually all abortions. This means that it becomes an issue of conflicting rights. The woman's right is that of bodily integrity. Now what rights does the prenate have? I see two possible sources of rights for the prenate: the realisticness of it developing into a full-fledged human/person and its level of sentience. At the moment of conception, both qualities are virtually non-existent. Only after implantation can it be considered realistic for the prenate to develop into a full-fledged human/person. At this point, in my opinion, it gains the right to not be killed with no reason, though initially minor inconveniences to the woman may still be enough of a reason to kill it. As the embryo develops reasons need to become increasingly more serious for it to be justifiably killed, until we reach the level of a sentient fetus at which point I would only see the life of the woman being threatened as a valid reason justifying the killing of the prenate. Feel free to criticize my take on things as you see fit.
Go and engage in the mass massacre of innocent little unborn children. See if I care. I don't.
I'm probably more conservative than one might think, but no where near wackjob conservative. I support all of the typical exceptions (life of the mother and so on). I have no problem with abortion while the whatever is still just a bunch of cells. I'm even pretty supportive up to the "still looks like a chicken" stage. Once you start getting past that, my support wanes significantly.
IF there are facilities to support a fetus after viability, AND the government is willing to accept said fetus and care for it (after induced labor or some such), THEN I am willing to accept restrictions on abortion post-viability. Otherwise, I see no reason to enslave a woman to a potentiality. (And don't tell me she "asked for it" by choosing to have sex--I may have asked you to tie me up and throw me in your basement, but if you don't let me go when I ask it becomes kidnapping.)
And I'll proudly state here that I have helped a woman (my then-wife) get an abortion, because it was HER decision. I've seen the conflict in a woman first-hand (she didn't plan on getting pregnant, than decided to keep it, and then decided she couldn't). I am NEVER making that decision for someone else.
It's the mother's body. The fetus has no personality, no identity - the mother has both, and it's her call.
I'm a hard-ass. The mom is the person. The fetus is not. Of course, there are exceptions (abortion at 36 weeks is probably one of them). I also do not separate abortion rights from other reproductive rights, such as free and ready access to birth control, sex education, and the morning after pill.
I chose not to have kids. I think that population increase is the most threatening event in the history of the world. Population increase fuels (sic) global warming. The RC attitude to contraception and abortion is criminal. I can understand the views of brainwashed (my opinion) religious anti-abortionists but discount them. I don't know what I'd have done if I'd become pregnant - I always took care (single and married) to avoid it. As to foetus age - I dunno but probably agree with Doc. Until you've been faced with it personally I don't think you're qualified to make any decision and certainly not for a third party. Rambling - stream of consciousness - sorry.
I really see abortion as more of a moral issue and less of a legal one. Essentially, I believe that it's morally wrong to terminate a pregnancy except in cases of rape, incest, or where the mother's life is threatened. This being said, I don't think it's my place (or anyone's) to legislate morality. Abortion is legal and I see no reason to overturn the decision. The decision whether to have a child or not should be left to individual parents. Stile4aly 22:33, 24 January 2008 (EST)
I guess I'm fairly moderate. I like the current legal framework, at least before the Roberts court fraggleed it up. I think there should be an absolute right to an abortion for life & health reasons. And there should be an absolute right to choose pre-viability. I don't think it's right to put the women's interests below an inanimate, non-severable organism. Once we cross the viability line, though, I don't think there's a real autonomy issue in play anymore, barring extreme circumstances. The way I see it, by that point, the autonomy right has been effectively waived (absent a showing why the right couldn't be exercised earlier), and I think abortion restrictions after that point are fine.-αmεσ (soldier) 00:14, 25 February 2008 (EST)
I know that a 100-cell blastocyst is not a person, and I intuit that a fetus the day before birth is a person, but I think it's a harder call in-between. If it comes down to a choice between a mother's life and abortion at any stage the mother should have the choice. I guess I would suffer no qualms about abortion for the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, and every week after that the decision would become more difficult if the mother's life was not at risk. PoorEd 15:58, 28 February 2008 (EST)
I sort of agree with PoorEd. Obviously a zygote is not a person, and I believe the life of the mother comes first. The trouble can emerge when you have to weigh the life of a 7 month fetus and the health of the mother. "Health" can be vague. It can mean mental health, which can mean depression. So what that can mean is, if you allow for blanket "health of the mother" exemption, you can at least theoretically have a woman abort a 7 month fetus because having it might make her sad (if you can find a doctor to sign off on that). That's not so good. I think any time you're looking at a fetus that can live on its own, you start to have problems. That being said, such abortions aren't usually allowed under current law anyway, so I'm not entirely sure what the Right is complaining about when they talk of "partial birth abortions". Anyone who waits until their third trimester to have an abortion needs a pretty darn good excuse.
Myself, I am not too particurally fond of abortion, and I do not believe in completly unrestricted abortion, but I recognize that for some people, giving birth to a child could cause severe damage to themselves or others. I believe in abortion if the women
- Was raped
- Would suffer severe damage to her body as a result of the pregnancy
- The fetus would be severly deformed upon birth due to an inlying genetic disorder
I do not belive in abortion for most other cases, but I do not draw a hard line on it. In general, I believe that a pregnant teen (and I know a couple) should have to endure the consequences for her poor choice, and that a generally healthy women should be able to birth a child and set him/her up for adoption. I might lean a bit right on this, but... meh.
Warm regards, Javascap 12:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)
UPDATE: I still personally am not very fond of abortion, but I recognise the fact that it is not my right to dictate to other people what they can and cannot do with their bodies. I also recognise that a majority of fetuses naturally terminate in the first trimester, where most abortions are performed. For that reason, I accept legalised abortions. ĵ₳¥ášÇ♠ʘ secret trainer of infinitys! 16:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I believe that surgical abortion is best avoided. In most cases it's an admission of failure somewhere along the line - mainly a failure of education or a failure of access to efficient contraception. So the first thing to say is that proper sex education should be given to all children before puberty and continued through their teenage years. However, when termination is necessary then it should be done as quickly as possible. Professionals who stand in the way of someone who needs or wants an abortion actually exacerbate the possible trauma for the female.
I disagree with Javascap, many young teens don't get pregnant throught poor choice, it's through ignorance or being duped by the male. The psychological needs of the mother are also being dismissed, a woman can suffer just as much trauma by giving her baby for adoption as by having an abortion. The longer the delay in having an abortion the more likely that the fetus becomes viable, particularly with advances in medical technology. Maybe that's why some people try to delay the abortion until its too late.
Also, as a man it ill-behoves me to tell a woman what she should and should not do with her body. I don't believe that abortion should be used as a routine method of birth control but we have too many people on the planet already and eventually those Malthusian predictions will come to pass.
I think one of the biggest controversies in the abortion debate is that there doesn't seem to be a middle ground as far as law-makers are concerned. Politicians seem to be either pro-life or pro-choice with no gray area. Some may say that as long as the fetus isn't viable, then abortion is okay. The main problem with that stance is that viability of a fetus isn't a concrete term. Some fetuses (feti?) are viable at 20 weeks, but with a much greater chance of developmental problems.
I'm personally in that gray area. I don't think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control, however I don't agree with an outright ban on it. There are special circumstances in which abortion is a medical necessity, and there are also cases in which it improves the quality of life for all parties involved, even if that means termination of one (potential) life. I personally don't see any legislation that can solve this sensitive of a moral dilemma. There's really no wrong stance in this issue; either way, one is attempting to save a life, or the quality of life for one or all parties involved.
If the mothers health is at stake, then it should happen ASAP. If it is a child of rape, then as long as it is still in the cell stage. Anything else, and my answer will be a nearly unchangeable NO.
If the woman's longterm health is at stake, or was the victim of rape, underage, or other such crime, then it should always be allowed in the 1st trimester. Not afterwards. Lyra § talk 14:16, 21 May 2008 (EDT)
Torn. I have serious problems with abortion on demand in cases where the woman's health is not at risk. But in the long run, my moral code defaults to the liberty of the individual, above all else, and so it's not my place to tell anyone what to do--though I do wish more people would consider adoption.PFoster It's no place of mine or anybody else's to tell someone else what to do with her body. A fetus is not a person and as such has no rights--moreover, moralising about intensely personal matters like this is rarely productive. TheoryOfPractice 04:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I think abortion gets worse as the fetus develops. I think abortion should be avoided. But I don't think it's really like murder, I would more compare it to unnecessary killing of an animal (which I also object to). It may be the least bad solution and as such should always be legal, but it's not really an ideal thing to do.
In my opinion, you can't really have a 'one size fits all' solution to the abortion issue, as every situation is different. For some, having an abortion is simply a convenient way of getting rid of a relatively minor problem, and, in those cases, shouldn't really be allowed, to my mind. However, to others, having an abortion might be the best way of solving a very great problem indeed, due to other reasons (the mental or physical health of the mother, for example). As such, in my opinion, abortion certainly should not be outlawed, but we should never get to the stage where abortion is so routine and commonplace that it means nothing, even to the person having it.
There is simply no time when it is *ever* the right of the government to tell me when and how another human being will use my body for its physical home. Without the right to chose when and where I have an independant human reside inside of me, I cannot be a fully actualized human, nor can I ever be equal to "man" in this world. Should I choose to be a work-a-holic, an alcoholic, a sex-o-holic or just a third tier line dancer on Broadway, I cannot be equal unless I can say that I want to put my job, my health, my social life, or my selfish feminazi babykilling desire for having fun in front of some other beings choice to live inside of me.
Dear Pro-lifers, please note that my argument puts ME first, and there is not one single thing wrong with a woman being FIRST in her OWN life. also, please note I have not one single compunction or desire to "hide" the "fact" that the being inside me is a human, a baby, or any other term you think We Feminsts avoid. But it is irrelevant if it is a baby, or if it is a grown man, or if it is a cute cuddly puppy. If i don't want something else living inside me, that must always be my ultimate right to define.
By the way, anyone who says someone should "have to endure the consequences of her poor choice" does not understand a thing about the issues. If i go out and get herpes, should i have to "endure the pain and humilation" cause i was stupid and didn't use a condom? Or should i be able to avail myself of the medical technologies avaliable to me? If I go out and drink and drive, get my ass into a car accident and am "fine" other than my now disfigured face... should I not be allowed plastic surgery because i "made a horrible decision".
It should also be known that it is not only teens who get pregnant; a child should NOT be a punishment for stupidity; and 90% of all abortions occur when other BC was used (and failed).
I suppose I would have to be classified as "pro life." I say that reluctantly, as I consider some of the lunatics who call themselves "pro life" to have tainted that title forever. I think that abortion is wrong and should be avoided except in the most extreme cases. That said, I think there's tremendous hypocrisy on the part of a lot of "pro life" activists, in that they're more interested in winning than in compromises that would reduce the number of abortions. (I've heard a lot of them flat-out dismiss Democrats for Life, for instance, on the grounds that making any deals with Democrats is unacceptable.)
If someone could show me a way to actually end abortion, instead of just driving it underground and creating a windfall for criminals, I'd support it. I consider the attitude of, "Well, we outlawed it, if a woman illegally seeks an abortion and dies, that's not our problem" to be profoundly distasteful. "I wash my hands of this woman's blood." Hmm. Sounds familiar. --Phentari 14:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)
I like Canada's stance on it. I believe that limiting late term abortions is punishment to the uneducated. There are in fact women out there who wouldn't be able to recognize a pregnancy until being late into it.
I don't like abortion, but I believe it should be fully legal and protected. Instead, to "stop" abortion, people need to focus on the reason "why?" do women want to get an abortion (think about unwed, pregnant women. Now, think about how many others think of them). I believe that there may be people (extremely few) who are mentally ill and undergo abortion simply because it is convenient, then we don't need their gene in the gene pool anyway.
20 years in the future, when both women and men have a "on/off switch" that reliably prevents conception, and it's easily available to poor people, and religions don't try to prevent the pious from using it, then I think abortion should be made illegal (except for health reasons), because it'll be unnecessary in all other circumstances. Until then though, the fact that churches simultaneously preach against contraceptives as well as abortion, that's morally unacceptable IMHO. --Toiretni 16:27, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
Ok, so the answer here is, once again, obviously not simply "yes" or "no". Beyond that, though, it gets complicated fast. I support maximum possible availability of contraceptives and comprehensive sex education. It would be nice if all pregnancies were planned, and we should definitely try to move our culture toward that higher level of responsibility. Beyond that, though, I think the only effective way to make decisions about abortion is on a case by case basis. OneForLogic 17:23, 14 August 2008 (EDT)
I happen to believe in God. The general idea is don't kill
it her, unless you need to save the mother's woman's life, in which case you actually have a case to take to God when you die: "We both would have been dead" is a good one. And God, knowing and seeing and understanding all, probably doesn't buy this mental health of the woman nonsense. You got yourself pregnant; have the darn baby. You can drop it off at a friendly neighborhood liquor store for all He cares, just don't kill it and rob it of its chance to grow up and be Steve Jobs.
The practice is an ethical quagmire, which is exacerbated by the religious right's staunch opposition to measures which will reduce abortion rates without compromising reproductive freedom such as increased access to birth control, education, and support for single parents. I'm tentatively in favor of allowing early term abortions on the expectation that they would be rare and performed only when strictly necessary in a more responsible system.
I agree with Jon Stewart when he says that everyone wants a world where it doesn't happen. But until we can get the education and resources out there to make that happen, I think the choice should be absolutely the mother's at least until cells start differentiating and possibly right up until viability. Something without brain cells can't be what we think of as human. If you're going off genetics, I'm aborting millions of my potential descendants every night.
A fetus has no more agency than a severed finger. Equating pregnancy termination with murder is misleading and polemical.
As a principle I'm against abortion. Yet, I think it should be legal still. Not only are there cases such as rape, endangerment to a mother's life and incest where it is necessary, but as shown in the modern drug market and in the Prohibition era, just because something is banned doesn't mean it won't be done. Instead, it could possibly be done by unlicensed doctors and in unsanitary conditions, endangering the mother even further. I'd rather have somebody certified doing it legally.
Personally I believe that 1st and second trimester abortions are up to the mother. Partial Birth, or third trimester abortions, should only be done in absolute emergencies as by that time the decision should have been made so only a life threatening condition should revoke that.
Notification of parents is up to the clinic though I support it (If they're getting pregnant accidentally at that age, they're too stupid to make the decision themselves).
That covers any part of it I care about.
Anonymous user 220.127.116.11
A human being begins its existence at conception. This is a scientifically proven fact. Anyone who denies this may as well be denying evolution; and I'm willing to bet that anyone who denies the scientific fact that a human being begins its existence at conception would be willing to deny evolution if they wanted the Earth to be 6,000 years old as badly as they want abortion to be legal. It seems that atheists are just as willing to close their eyes, plug their ears, and start singing and spewing rhetoric when they come across a SCIENTIFIC FACT that they don't like!
Supreme Gamesmaster Yddisac
When the fetus becomes sentient, we have an issue. The time at which that happens is yet unknown, obviously, so we don't know when we have a problem. That said, methinks some time between 60% and 75% of the term would be the deadline, if at all.
Re: Anonymous user 18.104.22.168
I would argue the validity of "A human being begins its existence at conception." the argument usually comes in the form of the embryo is genetically distinct from the mother at the moment of conception. Well, So as most eggs produced by the mother, since they are haploid (only one chromosome from each pair) and it is technically alive, so it is different than the mother. Unless the egg is diploid and capable of parthenogenesis (and it has to be the clone type as well), it is clear-cut that it is genetically different. (The argument, in case anyone missed it, is life begins before conception, so through mensural period and natural means of the eggs dying in the ovaries, it is discarded anyways, and it has nothing to do with sex/sperm/conception; looks like evolution/creation have more murders done through menstrual cycles than elective abortion.)
Even for the sake of argument, that the argument is human life begins at conception, so what? If it doesn't make it to the walls of uterus (for implantation), it doesn't do anything important anyways; Are we now ethically obliged to put on some sort of device so to force attach these embryos to the womb (to save their life) now?
For the christian wingnuts, why it is not a problem for miscarriage, when it is "God's plan" (given God exists, and the aforementioned supernatural being actually cares) to have the woman made the decision about elective/medical abortion anyways? The Catholic church has changed the opinion on Judas's role in Jesus' death (given that both Judas and Jesus actually existed) as part of "God's plan", so why can't we
sweep these under the carpet of categorize it under "God's plan"? In fact, given such logic, everything can be labelled as "God's plan" (as in, free will in the religious sense becomes an illusion once you bring up the notion of "God" that is capable of planning)
And for the christians, don't even think of putting up abstinence as an alternative, because you already made one or more exception(s) to the rule: who are you to decide that any particular woman wants to carry the messiah/antichrist? and how in the world would you distinguish between the two before the baby is born, if the antichrist happens to be conceived in exactly the same way?
Life of the potential child
Most importantly, if your life sucks, one of the most obvious reason for it is because you are/have been alive in the first place (otherwise, you don't have a life to compare to a standard to indicate that it sucks), so it probably is a good idea to leave the option open -- who am I or anyone else to gaurantee the life of that child isn't going to suck?
For the religious right who want to eliminate the debate of abortion altogether (and take your view of carrying every child to term), Let's use your crippled understanding of Biology and change the world into the world of Aldous Huxley's Brave New World, by inventing the Hatchery (Not the one from Starcraft where you can only have 3 worms to spawn stuff at any given moment; you simply need too many of that) and make the human race sterile on its own (So the women won't get pregnant. Ever.)
Finally, my own stand: Let the technology decide what can be safely performed. (maybe a hatchery eventually in the orphanages for the women who don't want to go through the viable stages, as defined by the technology level). Screw the ethics, since they change just like technology anyways.
Thieh 04:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The morning after pill and abortion pill are fraggling lifesavers (no pun intended). Surgical abortion is fine by me, but I would recommend non-invasive alternatives. Late term abortion is also fine, but I imagine the sooner, the better.
While I understand and sympathize with the logic behind many pro-lifers arguments, I feel that it is the womans call on what she wants to do with her body, esspecially as pregnancy is highly stresfull and demanding (both physically and mentally) on a womans body. Personally I am all for it up until the second trimester as it is little more than a grouping of cells up until that point, however I believe it should be legal at all stages in the cases of rape, incest, and the mothers life being ind danger. Personally, if I knocked a girl up, i would encourage her to go for adoption but in the end i would accept that it is her decision, and that ultimatly, she has the right to decide what goes on in her body
I'm not a terribly big proponent of abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. I also agree that it is not my place as a man to interfere with whatever a woman chooses to do with her body. So I suppose I am pro-choice.
Abortion, the pill, the morning after pill, and rubbers should be widely available to all, as well as responsible sex education on how and when to make teh sweet loves safely and enjoyably. Moms are people. Fetuses are not people until perhaps the beginning of the first trimester, when reasonable considerations should be made to balance the life of the mother with the life of a fetus if it is viable. From an American perspective, the right to abortion may not be well-founded in the Constitution, which in my not so humble opinion speaks to failings of the Constitution itself in requiring the implication of the right to abortion as a negative personal liberty right as much as any of the other liberty rights conservatives and liberals alike take for granted that are less than clearly stated in the 4th, 5th, or 14th Amendments.
Absolutely against. Embryo is an early human being, and as a human being, it deserves the right to life. And since when does someone's right to life depend upon someone else wanting them? Babies never choose to die. This is not woman's body that is killed during the abortion procedure - this "my body" demagogy is a complete failure.
Contraception is the ideal, but abortion is better than an unwanted child. An embryo does not have human rights, & a woman does have rights over her own body & its contents.
For me, the question is not about the decision itself, but who the decision rests with. When the medical proceedure exists, I cannot accept the state telling a woman she has no access to it: The decision must rest with the woman and not the state. Saying this, I very much dislike the idea of it, and would encourage any friend to keep her child, accidental or not. If I got a girl pregnant, I would want her to keep it, not abort it.
Here in Ireland it is still illegal, which I personally find to be a disgusting state of affairs. It is always the right of the woman to decide, and popular morality and even democratic decision should have no role whatsoever to play. Religion can fraggle right off. Those who are against it will chose no to do it, but should not be allowed any position to impose their view on others. Until the child is born it is not an independent human being, but a dependent - the host calls the shots, whether her decision is palatable to you or not.
I am one of those who believes the right to life is inviolate, and yes, I consider a fetus's potential for life something that needs to be protecting. To head off any cries of hypocrisy, yes I strongly oppose the death penalty, euthanasia, and anything else that violates the right to life. I believe it is THE fundamental human right, and just because a fetus cannot exist outside the womb yet is not a valid argument in my opinion. All this being said, if the mother's health or life is in jeopardy, of course her life has to be first concern. However, abortion should be a last resort, not something for the convenience of career or financial reasons. And yes, I am a strong supporter of low-income mothers, and believe that if they respected the right to life of their children and didn't abort them, then they need to be helped by society.
For me the debate on abortion highlights that there is no white line between "life" and "not-life" - these are legal and social distinctions, not biological. On personal ethical grounds I'll admit I'm not entirely comfortable with using the moment of birth as the cut-off point for humans, but simply put, nobody can give me a clear enough alternative that makes intuitive sense. For that reason I think abortions are justifiable in principle. On a secondary, practical level, laws that are created to regulate abortions usually have many ill-effects on women in particular, and reinforce their status as a marginalised group. For that reason I don't believe abortion should be a criminal offense.
The ability to make decisions is what grants a person human rights and freedoms. Women have the capacity and sentience to make decisions. Fetuses do not. Case closed.
Also, it surprises me that there are so many pro-lifers who say that a fetus deserves personhood and all the human rights that the born enjoy, yet don't think about the full implications of their beliefs. If the fetus has rights that must be protected, that means it is lawful for the state to intervene to protect the fetus from any sort of harm. Let's look at some of the implications this has:
- If fetuses are legally considered people, and "murder" is defined as the premeditated killing of a person, then abortion doctors are murderers.
- Likewise, women who seek abortions would be no different from any person who hired an assassin.
- There are various medications, such as antidepressants, that are known to increase the risk of defects in a developing fetus. Because a fetus cannot give consent, concern for its rights takes precedence, and therefore the state must prevent a woman from using prescription medication if it increases the chance of harming the fetus.
- Doesn't it seem to you that you stop too short in search for the truth? --Idiot number 59 (talk) 08:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe that the aborted foetus most commonly lacks a soul, and hence abortion is morally permissible. At what point in foetal development does ensoulment occur? It is not controlled by biological factors, but by whether the foetus has been incorporated into the web of love which ensouls all humanity. If the mother (or parents) love the foetus, look forward to its birth, etc., that will ensoul it; if they do not feel such feelings of love for it, it will not be ensouled. In very many cases of abortion, the abortion is chosen because the mother lacks attachment to the foetus, and hence the foetus is not ensouled, and it is not wrongful to kill it.
In a minority of cases of abortion, the mother (or parents) may earnestly desire the child to be born, and love the child, yet be driven by certain concerns (e.g. abnormalities) to nonetheless abort the foetus. Those cases I think can be likened to euthanasia, which I believe to be permissible, thus in those cases, although the foetus may have a soul, killing it is permissible in spite of it having a soul.
If the foetus has a soul, then any abortion of it will produce a parallel universe in which it is not aborted (e.g., if abnormalities result in a decision to abort, then that will create a parallel universe in which the abnormalities were absent). Whereas, if the foetus lacks a soul, no such universe creation takes place.
- This is the most stupid thing I've ever heard. --Idiot number 59 (talk) 10:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your detailed, incisive, eloquent response. Your refutation is profound, and very convincing. (((Zack Martin)))™ 00:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Obviously abortion should be avoided at all costs but in cases like rape and incest (or to save the mother's life) an abortion should be legal. I'm no expert on pregnancy and fetal development but late-term abortions should not be legal. By the end of the first trimester a woman should know she's pregnant and whether or not she thinks an abortion is best. Abortions after about that stage shouldn't be legal.
- I really MUST disagree with you on the "woman should know by the end of the first trimester" hypothesis you have, as I have first-hand (call it anecdotal, but to me quite empirical) knowledge of the opposite. Our youngest son was born at what the doctors decided was about 26 weeks of gestation, and up until the week before that, I was unaware of anything unusual, including the possibility of pregnancy.
- At this point, people always ask HOW?!? Simple. I was having the same irregular menses I had been having for years (I worked in a very physically demanding job, and doctors had told me that was why), and it was through the winter/early spring, when I always gained about 10 pounds before losing it later in the spring (I liked to bake and make candies too much when it was cool, LOL!). I had made an appointment to check on abdominal pains and cramps, which would have occurred 2 days after the child decided to show up and surprise us. Of course, as I had a previous child, once the actual labor hit, I KNEW what all my previous symptoms were. But not before.
- You would likely run across my situation and ones similar all through medical literature and studies, pretty much everywhere you might look. Especially with women who are overweight, it happens much more than one might expect. Now these, of course, would definitely be considered empirical. ;) However, you have already admitted to having no real knowledge of pregnancy or fetal development, so I really don't accept that you have a right to force someone to give birth. 😉
- Does that affect MY views on abortion? Meh, a bit. I am slightly more likely to mention for the record how early a fetus is viable than I was before that. However, I refuse to support laws that tell another human being what they can and cannot do with their own body or anything which is literally a parasite to it. We women have fought long and hard to even come close to being treated equally to men, and forcing a woman to give birth simply because her birth control failed, and ruin any chance she would have to advance in her career of choice as an equal to a male? Not even no. More like Hell, no! We are NOT second class citizens who do not have full bodily autonomy. Don't like it? Frankly, my dear, I don't give a darn. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC) mabnightowl
While generally disapproving personally of abortions, I believe it is not the government's job to regulate what a woman does with her body, and that includes abortion.
I define human life as being equivalent to human consciousness. Life does, in fact, begin at conception, but I wouldn't consider a zygote to be a human life. Rather conveniently, consciousness (beyond simple motor reflex) arises around the same time as viability, at about 24-28 weeks. After this cut-off point, abortion should only be performed in cases where the health of the mother or fetus is compromised. Before it, abortion should be unrestricted as an unconscious embryo/fetus is not a person.
I agree with the king of Babylon wholeheartedly. Technically speaking, life begins at conception, but the zygote isn't sentient, and wouldn't care at all if it is aborted. The baby only gains consciousness 24-28 weeks after conception, and is viable around the same time. Therefore, abortion should be legal if the woman wants up to the twenty-fourth week from conception under most circumstances. If the woman has the fetus due to rape, or if the woman's life is in danger, then the abortion should be legal any time before birth, as one life lost would be better than two lost. The fetus is not a person until it gains consciousness. To sum up,
Abortion should be allowed whenever the woman wants up until 24 weeks after conception. Abortion should be allowed if the woman was raped or her life is in danger until birth.
It's my opinion that the second trimester is the good cutoff. I'm not one for abandoning the birth as if you screw up you should deal with the consequences, but I find that an abortion at a clinic is far safer than the alternatives. To summarize, I'm opposed to it on a micro level but I know that it does much better on a macro level at keeping death rates of mothers down. Other rules such as after rape or if the mother is in danger of course apply, I agree. It's a necessity at that point.
I think that since Day 23 is a big day for the embryo (look up "23 days" in any text on embryology), that that day is the day it turns from a lump of cells to an actual being.
Anonymous User Doctor_Clown (who can't be arsed to register)
In cases of nonconsensual sex that lead to conception, abortion is very nearly a necessary step in preventing further psychological trauma. With consensual sex, it comes down to "how much idiocy went into this embryo?" If you were on the pill, your boyfriend/husband/lover was using a condom and spermicidal foam, and you were both told by your respective doctors that you were sterile/infertile, and it was the opposite side of the month from your 'special week,' and somehow all that fails and you still get pregnant, I think that you should have the option of abortion once you find out, within a reasonable time period after you discover this. If, on the other hand, you have unprotected sex every day of the week during your period and you have something growing from your potato patch after all that, it's your own darned fault and you can take responsibility for your own idiocy.
First of all clarify that calling the prohibitionist position "pro-life" or "anti-abortion" is intelectually dishonest. We all agree that we should do all we can to reduce abortion, and that it is at best a very nasty thing and might cause psychological damage to the mother. We are all "anti-abortion" and "pro-life", so I guess I'll call the "anti-choice" position "prohibitionism" instead. Calling the antiprohibitionist position "abortism" is equally espurious for the same reasons.
The main difference between prohibitionism and antiprohibitionism is that the former means attacking the symptoms, and the latter focuses on trying to attack the cause. One fights abortion by forcing women with unwanted pregnancies to carry them to term, the other fights abortion by fighting unwanted pregnancies. One is a well-intentioned attempt to prevent abortion (which ends up having the opposite efect) while the other actually tries to find a solution to the problem.
Now to the abortion debate itself. Where does the human person begin? It seems there are people who claim that the definition of when life begins is impossible. Well, that's not true: we DO indeed know when and how the part of us that makes us a conscious, sentient individual develops. According to my sources the earliest a fetus has ever been known to show higher brain functions (as determined by scans of fetal brain activity) is around 26 weeks; but I'm not an expert, and if presented with a good case I might admit what we call "sentience" and "consciousness" starts with a different development, perhaps a month or two before said higher brain functions.
Would making abortions illegal be a solution to the problem, or would it be an even larger problem itself? Both evidence and experience tell us that only the latter is true, thus the question is not whether abortion should be protected by law (answer: YES.) but rather in which cases and/or periods should it be.
A few facts:
- An embryo or fetus before certain known points of its development is most emphatically not a human person at all.
- A fetus after certain other points of its development is a perfectly human baby.
- Nowadays the medical risks of having an abortion are negligible.
- Interesting anechdote: acording to early 1990s data, a woman having an abortion is twenty times less likely to die than a woman that carries a pregnancy to term.
- Similarly, long-term psychological effects of abortion (or miscarriage) are minimal in basically healthy women, as long as her relatives are not a bunch of fundamentalist assholes.
- There are still several reasons, both ethical and practical, why abortion is an undesirable result and should be prevented when possible, specially for late-pregnancy ones.
My personal opinion? An abortion is nasty stuff; so are unwanted pregnancies. To me this is a matter of a "lesser of two bads" dillema; I think we should fight the latter to reduce them to a minimum, for which sex education is a must. For those that fail or were forced, legal early abortion (the one that is less risky for the mother and NEVER EVER kills a baby because there is no baby to kill) should always be one of the possible options. Even though it is never a good option, sometimes a bad option can still be the best option. As for what qualifies as "early abortion" for that purpose, I'd say that as long as the fetus is not yet a person it is ethically safe to perform one. Since the development of sentience is not exactly a boolean state there is not so much a "line" to cross but more of a rectangular area; therefore any law regarding abortion would need that experts agree on a arbitrary safe deadline before which we know with enough certainty that the fetus is not developed enough (btw, does anybody know if there is already such consensus?). For pregnancies beyond that point I would only allow abortion on special justified cases (again, lesser of two bads) such as the oft-mentioned "serious danger for the mother's health" -e.g. hyperemesis gravidarum on a diabetic woman- and perhaps some types of severe disabilities (kind of an early euthanasia).
To fight unwanted pregnancies, first of all should be education and (then) contraception. If regular contraception fails, then day-after emergency contraception. If that fails too, I'd suggest carrying to term and giving in adoption. If that's not an option for any reason, then early abortion.
Vaya rollo les he soltao.
The pro-life movement offends me in four distinct ways.
- The idea that fetuses are people offends me from a neurobiological standpoint. I'm liberal-minded enough to extend partial or even full rights of sentients to creatures like dolphins or higher apes if sapience cannot be proven to be a unique property of human beings and/or a binary statement (and I don't think that it is), but that position is based on neurobiology or whatever we will call it when non-biological intelligences come to the fore. There's no way you can justify fetuses having personhood except with a religious viewpoint, because any secular viewpoint ends up regressing to the worship of empty symbols or admitting that dreams and viruses have the rights of fetuses. Being pro-life is no different than being pro-magical thinking and anti-science.
- It offends me from a standpoint of human rights. You have the complete ownership of your organs. No one has the right to use them without consent except in the most dire of situations. And I am talking in a 'fate of the million-strong state is at stake' (which makes me realize things like conscription and quarantine are necessary evils) not in a 'this one or even hundred people will die without your specific organs'. If you don't own your organs and labor you don't own anything. Being pro-life is no different than being pro-kidney theft and pro-slavery.
- From a utilitarian viewpoint, banning abortion increases the overall level of misery in human society and makes civilization less fit. It puts women at risk, increases the number of unwanted children, costs additional medical and political resources, and/or isolates and alienates the best and brightest of our society. And for what? It's not like humanity is going to run out of children anytime soon. If we were down to the last 20,000 people on Earth then you could make a utilitarian argument for being pro-life, but at our current state? With millions and millions of unwanted children growing up in poverty? Being pro-life is no different than being anti-humanity.
- And yet the biggest reason why pro-life offends me is because contradictions abound in the movement. And I don't mean as-applied contradictions like most pro-lifers also supporting measures like capital punishment and torture (as I have known a few bleeding heart vegan, pro-welfare, anti-war pro-lifers -- which just makes the contradiction stand out more) but basic contradictions like deciding to allow it in the case of rape or incest. Or not pushing for full criminal investigations for every miscarriage. Or just doing something as simple as giving us a jail sentence for women who seek it. It's just plain not coherent and the fact that it is a serious movement that people are willing to die for offends me. I don't know whether it's because it's not a well thought-out moral stance or whether pro-lifers realize how insanely evil the logical conclusion of their stances would be and are hiding it to not look like cocks to the first group and pro-choicers. But I don't give a shit. Being pro-life is being pro-Fish Malk or pro-Looking Glass.
It is utter wishful thinking that by making abortion illegal society can stop women from having abortions, it won't it will just drive them into the arms of backstreet abortion clinics, quackery, made up and "traditonal lore" that existed before legal abortions were available. One of the few concessions that pro-lifers would make with regards to abortion is if the life of the mother is at stake, andthe life of a girl who out of desperation resorts to a knitting needle abortion is at risk. Hopefully, other than go see a doctor, teenage girls in the west no longer and never will again have to trade tips on what to do if they have an unwanted pregnancy- I particularly remember being told that drinking as much tonic water as possible would work as the quinine in it will induce a misscarriage.
I'm actually anti-abortion. But not in the same sense (by any stretch of the imagination) as people who identify as supposedly "pro-life" - and certainly not for the same reasons. Ideally, I'd like to see a world where there are no abortions (emphasis on the "ideally", but I'll get to that). They can be - well, they are - a traumatic experience for a pregnant woman, and often the most difficult decision to make in someone's entire life. It's an experience that never leaves you, and an experience that some people may grow to regret that can't be undone. Events leading up to an abortion can be equally difficult. In short, it's something that I would wish on no one. But I do not believe an embryo has the same "right to life" as a fully grown and conscious person. Such a position is an absurdity, reducing the life of an actual person to a mere object with the sole function of breeding more humans. To be anti-abortion because you treat a ball of cells with greater respect than a conscious and living being is a over-simplified, and frankly disgusting, approach to the entire subject of life, pregnancy and abortion.
But... as much as I don't wish the experience of an abortion on anyone, my position to never force pregnancy and a child on someone who doesn't want it, or simply can't deal with it, takes precedent. Therefore, I am pro contraception; because not only does that make sense but we can prove it with statistics. I am pro easy and early access to abortion; because this isn't something that needs to hang over someone for weeks on end. I am pro non-judgemental advice; based on fact and positive support rather than derision. I am pro adoption being made a viable process. I am pro as much support for mothers-to-be as we can possibly have. I am pro people having children when they are ready and capable, and not being forced into it by some quasi-religious dogma that would make a fertilised egg more important than someone with a functioning brain and feelings because of it.
People who identify as "pro-life" don't do so out of a respect for life. Few of their arguments have any grounding in biology to help them identify "life", even fewer continue their alleged "respect" for life once a child is born. They identify as such just to fetishize their political position - treating "no abortions" as a mantra to be obeyed in letter, rather than spirit. "Zero abortions ever" might never be obtainable, I don't know. But I do know with almost absolutely certainty that it's something we could never achieve, or get anywhere near, it just by banning it and stigmatising it. We can simply demonstrate that not to be the case. To sign a law that condemns desperate people to back-alley operations with bleach and coat hangers is not the way - and that's all that the average "pro-lifer" advocates.
It's simple: abortion is a right of women. If you oppose it, you are a sexist pig. It is no different than the right to vote or to drive. Anyone questioning the right of women to vote would be recognized as a sexist pig. This is no different. Incitement of anti abortion propaganda is Volksverhetzung. It is hate speech no different than saying Black people should be segregated. My first reaction is to want anti-woman supporters to be sent with all racist and neo Nazi bigots to concentration camps, though I realize this is barbaric and inconsistent with liberal democracy. Anti woman activists who oppose abortion are still sexist bigots and I won't pretend that they aren't. We shouldn't delude ourselves.
Not my body? Not my choice, then. I won't tell other people what to do with their bodies, and I wish they'd extend that same courtesy to everyone else. Yes, a pipe dream, I know.
I don't personally think abortion should be used as a get out clause for careless behavior(rape and incest etc is separate, of course). However, I derive my pro-choice stance from the understanding that it is very easy for someone to think that they know how they would choose to act in a situation they have never found themselves in, and they have no actual clue what they would do. Therefore, I don't think anyone should have the right to deny the option to anyone else. This doesn't even cover that the anti-abortion crowd are the ones firebombing clinics and murdering doctors, which indicates a warped definition of the sanctity of life if nothing else.
There is no situation outside of pregnancy where it is argued that you must give up control of your own body to keep another person alive. For example, you cannot be forced to donate a kidney to someone dying of renal failure. To make this scenario a little more relevant to abortion, even if you caused their illness by stabbing them in the kidneys, I seriously doubt any judge would rule that one of your own kidneys can be harvested against your will, even if you did happen to be a match for the victim. So either a woman is not legally obligated to continue a pregnancy (essentially "donating" her uterus to the fetus as a life support measure), or the above standard has to be changed. Personally, I'd go with the former.
There's also the fact to consider that the fetus at the stage most abortions occur is essentially brain-dead. It has no thoughts, feelings or emotions (despite what a few deluded people would like to believe). It has no memories, opinions or anything else that we typically think of as a part of being a person, and it has never had any of these things. If the abortion is carried out (or the mother miscarries, something that happens all the time in early pregnancy, usually without the woman being aware that she was ever pregnant), it will never have any of these things. Therefore I would argue that a fetus younger than 24 weeks, while undeniably a human life (i.e. it is alive and a member of the species Homo sapiens), is not a person so much as a potential person. That's my own opinion, though, since the legal definition of "personhood" in most places is extremely vague (and with good reason).
It probably goes without saying that I also think abortion should be legal at any stage of pregnancy if the pregnancy threatens the mother's life. If the baby can be born (via C-section or induced labor) without further endangering the mother and if it has a fighting chance of living outside the womb, every reasonable effort should be made to keep it alive, but under no circumstances should be the mother be obligated to carry it. "Late-term abortions" are pretty much a nonissue anyway; if the fetus still exists past 24 weeks, that's a pretty good indicator that the woman intends to give birth to it. Nobody stays pregnant for seven months before suddenly deciding they don't really want a baby after all, and if someone is stupid enough to do that, they frankly deserve what they get.
I definitely am pro-choice. I view abortion as justified. If people have no desire to raise children then the choice belongs to them. To deny them that ability is effectively putting a monopoly on their bodies.
Plus adoption centers are full enough already. I don't see how taking the advice of pro-lifers that going through nine months of hell rather than getting an abortion all to just to toss another few unwanted in there isn't as dumb, if not illogical, than deliberately working hard to make a good meal and then immediately tossing it in the garbage bin.
Looking at the world as it is at the moment, I can emphasize with those who'd rather abort. The planet's getting worse, societies are falling apart and people still think the Karadashians are the most relevant people ever. Hardly the kind of world I think people should be bringing new people to at the moment. We definitely should be better fixing the world first before even considering it a good idea to make new people. As Bill Hicks said "How about have a neat world for kids to come to?"
Also, how many people are we up to now? 7 billion? I think we have plenty of people already here to start fixing things. We can safely lay off a lot on the whole "making new babies" thing for a bit and start making things a little better because we're evolved enough to do that. Plus it'll give us time especially to figure out this whole "finite planet" thing that overpopulation deniers are still having problems understanding.
That and the whole concept of cause and effect works.
Personalty, I am pro-life. I feel that there are many better ways to handle an unwanted pregnancy. I am, however, a supporter of 100% full abortion rights for women, for a few reasons.
One, I am a man (duh). As such I do not have any perspective on the woman's side of the issue, and to force them because of MY various hangups and idiosyncrasies would be arrogant, and quite counter to my strong belief in supreme freedom and Civil Liberties.
Second, outlawing it isn't going to get rid of it. It will just drive it underground, into the hands of unquality, greedy, and quite frankly psychotic back-alley "Doctors" where women WILL die. Alot of them. That is completely unacceptable in my mind. Besides, as history outlawing something only ever seems to make it worse. (IE, prohibition leading to MORE alcohol consumption, and said consumption being little more then poison that someone MIGHT have weaken to the point that it won't kill you on the spot.)
I am pro-choice. I have no right to tell a woman what to do with her uterus (or, really, any other part of her body for that matter) and the state has no right to do so on my behalf. I think elective abortion should be widely and easily available to anybody who wants or needs it.
That said, I do think every abortion is regrettable. Abortion is not something that is done on a whim, it is a serious medical procedure done for serious reasons. Abortion is typically chosen either by somebody who wanted the pregnancy but discovered that it was medically dangerous (a tragic situation that may or may have been preventable) or somebody who, for whatever reason, find themselves pregnant without wanting to be (a tragic situation that is almost entirely preventable). In a perfect world, the rate of unwanted pregnancy would be at or near zero. Many, if not most, unwanted pregnancies often represent a failure of societal responsibility rather than a failure of personal responsibility. If a person is not provided with adequate access to contraception, sex education, protection from criminality or proper medical care before or during pregnancy, the responsibility for the results belongs in part to all of us for not upholding our end of the societal bargain.
Of course, there are situations where it is not preventable, or is the result of bad luck or personal irresponsibility. These do not change the necessity or the regrettably of the procedure. In the end, our focus should be on empathy for those who have made their choice and on trying to prevent the need for that choice as much as possible.
To avoid using loaded terms, I am pro-abortion. It should be no-ones choice about what a woman does with her body. The fetus doesn't feel pain until 7 months, so up until that point, there is no reason to ban abortion.Bazer63 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I am not only pro-choice but generally in favor of abortion. I simply do not care about when "life begins". Given what life is, abortion is always going to be an act of mercy. As long as people must consume limited resources to survive, abortion will be an act of mercy. As long as people must work to live, abortion will be an act of mercy. As long as people reproduce sexually, abortion will be an act of mercy. As long as people are subject to pain, illness, and death, abortion will be an act of mercy. Because the fewer people there are, the more resources per person, any act that reduces the human biomass is a net gain for the rest of us. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we're supposed to respond to peoples statements here, since it's just a statement of belief page, but that's some just dumped by middle school girlfriend level nihilism there. I mean, you're actually articulating a literally anti-life argument. Ikanreed (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I am entirely pro-choice, but thoroughly afraid of the "debate" since, in my experience, it quickly devolves into unresolvable battles over assumptions. Plus, like eating meat, I support abortion, but it makes me squeamish (likely from discussion with an ex about POC, a term I will not define). I can't imagine what would go into the actual decision (I have a Y-chromosome) and, thus, am not qualified to do anything but support a choice made by actual women, actually at the point of deciding. That said, I'm all for making abortion rare, not through regulation/prohibition, but through effective education, prevention, and birth control in order to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Make abortion legal, safe, very available, and increasingly rare.
Every single abortion that happens means that something has gone badly wrong somewhere. And in my ideal world there would be no abortions. There would also be no limb amputations, no dialysis, no heart surgery, and a lack of most other major medical procedures. Abortion is sometimes the least bad option - and freely accessible contraception and a welfare state are the best two ways of minimising the times when it is the least bad option across the society. Tackle the demand. And individual abortions aren't my decision. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I personally do not approve of abortions, because of my own way of looking at things, and in my world there wouldnt be pregnancies that would need would lead to the need for abortions. however I don't see my own views as something i need to force on somebody else (unless its about spreading equality, then i do) so i'm ok with allowing them to happen if that';s what somebody wants to do, but would prefer we tackle the causes of unwanted pregnancy then just go "abortions easily available and thats it". --Miekal 17:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I find the question of when life begins a red herring. Even a cursory examination of human behavior shows we don't even remotely value living things. Bacteria genocided with anti-biotics, pests killed for a minor decrease in stress/increase in profit, hundreds to thousands of living plants/animals/fungi eaten for food every year. Valuing human life is different. We're essentially respecting each others sentience/sapience. The de facto legal understanding of a progressive gain of rights from fertilization to childhood to adulthood as you gain the ability to empathize, understand, and communicate is extraordinarily reasonable. And right to life coming sooner than various rights to self-determination is reasonable. Granting it before even the barest sense of cognition is present is going too far. I expect a human fetus to have less rights than a pet dog. Ikanreed (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fond of abortion except in cases of danger for the woman's life, but I also think, that it's no-one's business but the woman's in question, what she does with her body. Neither the state, nor anyone else should infringe upon this right of self-determination, no matter, what various kinds of religious and non-religious nutcases are blabbering and medical insurance companies should offer these kind of services to women, who can't afford it themselves (e.g. Planned Parenthood, they seem to do their job well and yes, I know, that they do not only provide abortions, but a whole laundry list of very useful medical services to women and men), cause anything else will give rise to the back-alley abortionists of the bad old times.--Arisboch (talk) 14:47, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see it primarily as a property rights issue. Women own their bodies, including their uteruses(uteri?). From biology, we know that the fetus does not prioritize the mother's survival in its drive to be born. If it's conscionable for the fetus to kill the mother, it should be acceptable for the woman, who has been owning that "real estate" for much longer than the fetus has been squatting, to "evict" that unwanted "tenant". It's also sensible from a public health standpoint; as many have stated, abortions will happen, it's only a question of where and how. The Freakonomics analysis tying declining crime to legal abortion, while a bit hand-wavey, is nonetheless thought provoking. Another thought provoking piece is "Better Never To Have Been Born" by David Benatar.
It's an extremely surreal thing for me to think about. There's one part of me that thinks, "How in the hell could this have become a household argument? Are we really talking about allowing something like this?" and another part of me that realizes, we live in such a cruel world that sometimes limits the options of an individual in the most serious of situations. I personally am against abortion, but not on any grounds that the "pro-life" movement stands on. Most pro-life people are also pro-torture, pro-war, climate change denialists (instead of doing something to save the environment which would actually sustain life, they deny any such threat exists), and they tend to think animal rights is a joke. Not to mention most pro-life people are conservatives who oppose marriage equality and
believe in a theocracy believe America is a Christian nation. They base a lot of their views regarding abortion on religious and pseudoscientific nonsense. I really don't want to associate myself with these people, so I do not call myself pro-life.
I think "anti-abortion but pro-choice" is a better description that fits me. There are no pro-choice people out there who like abortion, or think abortion is a good thing. The pro-choice view generally is, "It really sucks this has to happen, but we can't deny a woman of this." Basically, we're all anti-abortion, some of us just acknowledge there are situations in which our personal opinions on the legality of this are irrelevant.
And for the record, I'm not anti-abortion because of my religion (or lack thereof), and I don't believe stupid things like "abortion causes breast cancer", or "abortion is a black genocide", or whatever else they say. I also don't say the usual "life begins at conception". My view is that life begins when brain function begins (I believe that is the idea), but I and all of us were once in those prenatal stages, and we were born and became whatever we are today (whatever that may be, we are still all human).
At the one hand, I very much dislike the idea of abortion under all circumstances except danger to the mother's life or psyche, but I also think, that only the woman in question should have any say what she does with her body, which includes deciding, whether she should carry a baby to term or not and medical insurances should provide these kinda services to the women, so that we don't go back to the dark times of the back-alley quacks (they should be fraggling MADE to provide it, no matter, what religion the owners of this insurance company have. Your religion doesn't allow that? TOO BAD, get over it or get the motherfraggle off the medical insurance market). If a women has no medical insurance (which is a goddarn scandal in a First World Country in the 21th century), than organization like, say, Planned Parenthood should provide it. The state should not obstruct that right in any way or shape (e.g. like the Repulitards try to do it in many states).--Kugelschreiber (talk) 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- This may venture too much in sci-fi county, but seeing what medical science does achieve e.g. for preemies, someday the day will come, when artificial wombs and ectogenesis will move from the realm of sci-fi to the realm of reality and abortion will be simply obsolete. When a woman doesn't want or can't carry a fetus to term, she will just go to a hospital, let the doctors remove it, put it into an artificial womb and later to an foster family.--Kugelschreiber (talk) (mail) (block) 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC) 20:16, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I have my own position, which I call pro-death. I believe all abortions should be mandatory, and funded on an industrial scale. Every living being should have abortions, and the remains should be collected, mashed and sold as Helf Drink. Helf Drink will be a mandatory part of children's diets. To counter the unpleasant taste of Helf Drink, Children will be distracted by readings from the Kurran. Anyone who complains will be forced to produce Helf Drink. There will be a way to extract Helf Drink from anyone. Drink Helf Drink. Helf Drink was made for you. Keter (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
- Does it contain all the nutrients a human body needs? StickySock (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Using my sock because I don't want my own position on this out there since it is borderline sociopathic... Basically, I'm a ruthless consequentialist. That is, morality is determined almost exclusively by the end result. Is abortion right or wrong? Wrong question; it should be "does this abortion make the world better or worse?". And often times, the answer is "better". Freakanomics was right; the decline in the crime rate in the US began EXACTLY 18 years after Roe v Wade. So it turns out that maybe society is better off without single moms struggling to raise kids without the deadbeat dad around, where families don't have to raid their three kids' college funds because they had a fourth unintentionally, where families aren't forced to go through the heartbreak (and HUGE expense) of raising a retarded child. Yes yes, life is precious, but maintain that sanctity on YOUR dime, not mine. The pro choicers go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify abortion (I myself came up with a "homeless guy in your house that won't leave without being shot" argument), but the reality is it's still killing a life. But we can't just say "all life is precious", rather, "does this additional life increase the value of everyone else on average?". Because if your existence harms others, even if you gain more than others lose, the world would be a better place if you were never born. StickySock (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
I tend to analyze things based on a case-by-case basis, but in the case of abortion the law gets involved for whatever reason. The real question here is: should the government punish people who get/perform abortions? This question depends on a number of factors which I will not fully explore here. As a society, we banned murder because we generally have a genetic revulsion towards members of the species dying out. However, we permit murder in some cases because it is helpful to the survival of the species. Take Hitler for example: most people would gladly have him aborted if they could, because it's a net benefit to the species.
So according to my moral compass (Utilitarianism), my opinion of abortion is only influenced by whether it's useful in each particular circumstance. I'm ok with all abortion before childbirth. The legal alternative would mean fining or jailing people, which I tend to disagree with. The only real circumstance in which I would agree with punishing an abortion provider is if their actions constituted a net detriment to society, and punishing them would create a net benefit. This is very rarely the case.
First and foremost, I know this is a hard and thorny issue, but I support abortion in cases of violation, dangers for the woman and/or fetus, and similar cases. For others, not -at most abortion before the fetus can feel (emphasis on this)-, but extensive family planning instead in order to avoid bringing more children -the world cannot hold more people, nor this society deserves it.-
However, I repeat this is a very complicated issue and also think that women, who after all are the ones who know what is to be pregnant and everything that surrounds it, should have the ultimate word or at the very least more freedom to choose. --Panzerfaust (talk) 10:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
I am quite aware of the complicated matters surrounding abortion from a moral and legal perspective, with either the woman or unborn being disregarded among both sides of the debate. For cases where there is incest, rape, or the mother's health being at risk, I can condone abortion being performed. But anything outside of those circumstances, I honestly can't think of a stance to take up on the matter since it it is a very controversial issue that involves whether or not to recognize personhood for the fetus, the woman's right to do with her body as she wishes, and the government stepping in to enforce laws on the matter. — Unsigned, by: 126.96.36.199 / talk / contribs
As a man, my views about what women want to do with their bodies is completely irrelevant. The only time I believe I should have any say in the matter is when the baby is mine, and EVEN THEN, who am I to tell anyone what to do or not do with their body? The final decision is hers. Asaac Isimov (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
- This, I think, is a poorly considered, but very common sentiment. The entire body of laws in most countries are restrictions on behavior that some people(most people in democracies) consider to be reasonable impositions. I'm sure women appreciate the sentiment and respect for their individual choice, but I think it's a dodge of the fundamental question the "abortion issue" poses.
- Laws regulating mandatory temporary commitment of individuals attempting suicide to psychiatric care are similar in that they intercede against autonomy fill a similar intellectual space. Do you perceive these laws the same way? ikanreed You probably didn't deserve that 03:07, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with many of the users who have weighed in, especially Armondikov. As much as abortion is a complex and troubling issue, I believe that the moral dilemma surrounding it must be left to the woman and her doctor. It is not anyone else's prerogative to decide whether a woman keeps her pregnancy. Besides, there is evidence that anti-abortion laws do nothing to lower abortion rates: all they do is cause huge amounts of distress, and compel some desperate women to resort to dangerous methods such as coat-hangers and dodgy back-alley operations etc. It has been mentioned already by WilhelmJunker and others that some pro-life demographics, especially on the religious right, are staunchly opposed to the things that would help lower abortion rates more than any law: promotion of contraception & birth control, sex education (NOT the abstinence-only kind) etc. Anyone who opposes those things has absolutely no right to talk about abortion.
I support abortion before the third term in cases of rape, accidental pregnancy (if birth control methods are being used, if not, it's your problem), incest, and all other usual exceptions. Stem cell research should also be legal for aborted and miscarried fetuses. LynnR (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
I harbor a lot of resentment for the anti-abortion movement but I do understand the core concerns, which is the idea of terminating potential human life. Human life is valuable. Babies are cute. I was gifted with human life and I'm generally content with my life and plan to live to my fullest. But the anti-abortion movement often fails to consider the whole picture. To me, the debate on when new human life begins is, while complicated and has no easy answers, is only part of the equation, but it's the most debated component I believe. While I'm pro-abortion, I feel the arguments that women have a right to "choose" is, in my opinion, not going to win anyone over, it doesn't convince me in of itself, and it's not a particularly interesting argument. I, however, find the idea that my humanity isn't linked to some female sexual function (reproduction) appealing (after enduring repeated sexual objectificatoin of women, reading about historical societal expectations of women, reading parts of the Bible that makes me cringe) and I believe this is abortion at the core, but I also believe that's only my worldview, so even that argument, I don't think is going to convince anyone.
The biggest reason I support abortion is that, in a reality where sex is desired, birth control and protected sex do not guarantee prevention of pregnancy, women absolutely need abortions to retain control of their lives and they should have ample time and resources to devote giving lives that deserve ample time and resource, which abortions encourage. Pregnancy is no easy matter. It's extremely unpleasant. Body parts get damaged. It can kill. Completing a pregnancy is a whole nother matter. Raising a child is the biggest change in your life and it can and will impact your plans for the future to the point it is a sacrifice and a detriment. Even if one does not engage in protected sex, I find the argument that a child's life should be a punishment undermines the message that life should be valued (rather than treated as if it's some cancer), but it's a common argument by the anti-abortion movement.
I also support abortions from a life standpoint. I view abortions as opportunities. Obviously, women will have opportunities for their career or whatsoever, but this is also an opportunity for the child. If a women decides to give birth after an abortion, I believe the anti-abortion opponents should celebrate because this is a new unique individual that has been brought to the world especially by someone who now feels ready to have a child. And I like to think that if my mom didn't get an abortion or if she didn't miscarry, she wouldn't even have me or my sister. Life is like that, stuff just happens. Abortions should be like this too. So, again, abortions aren't necessarily killed babies, they can be delays. After all, most women have an abortion because they're not ready.
I do think countless anti-abortion proponents condemn terrorism activities, but it will make me happy if they can also work with pro-abortion like me in order to supply women with accurate information (this means condemning crisis pregnancy centers, rejecting the abortion-breast cancer link, rejecting the abortion-mental health problems link), support only the highest quality care, support affordable care, do not criminalize miscarriages, have sympathy for women that try to induce abortions, and also support families such as CHIP, food stamps, and so on. They should support contraceptive coverage so we don't have to deal with abortions to begin with. It's very unfortunate that many anti-abortion activists I read about absolutely do not support it and hold many other unsavory beliefs but I hope we can work with more moderate ones and try to support life by supporting struggling mothers, fathers, and children.
|Abortion articles on RationalWiki|
|Abortion - Fetus/Fœtus - Gonzales v. Carhart - Nuremberg Files - Planned Parenthood - Pro-life - Pro-choice - Roe v. Wade - Schlafly, breast cancer and abortion - The Silent Scream - Barnett Slepian|