Should the government stop abortions?

[Chrissi]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Congratulations to the anti-abortion users for neglecting the most important aspect of all abortions.

Rape babies.

Why do you think women had abortions in the first place? Surely you don't think every woman out there who wants an abortion made a mistake with her boyfriend and wants to cover it up, right?

They also missed on the fact that it takes two people to make a baby. All of the blame in those posts is placed on the woman - she has to pay the consequences for HER actions. What about the guy? Does he have to pay for his actions? In non-rape cases, the woman and man had as much a role to play as the other in the whole situation.

What is the man's responsibility?

[stretchypanda]

The problem with setting a gestational age limit is that sometimes severe defects (such as anencephaly) cannot be detected prior to the second or even third trimester of a pregnancy. Abortions beyond this period are what the religious right have termed "partial-birth abortions", and they have been made out to be the most horrible act a human being can commit against another -- that mothers just up and decide toward the end of their pregnancies they no longer want their baby, and that is just not the case.

I recently read an article that sort of got me to change my thinking on the whole abortion issue. Couples who found out their child would be born with such horrible defects that not only would they only live very briefly, but those brief moments would be filled with intense physical suffering for the child, so they decided to terminate their pregnancies. This isn't like, "Oh, my child is going to have Downs, betr go kil him." It's a decision no parent wants to imagine facing -- do I carry my baby to term just to watch him suffer and die in my arms thirty minutes later, or do I save him that tremendous pain and live with the knowledge that I was effectively responsible for his death?

Originally Posted by Chrissi

They also missed on the fact that it takes two people to make a baby. All of the blame in those posts is placed on the woman - she has to pay the consequences for HER actions. What about the guy? Does he have to pay for his actions? In non-rape cases, the woman and man had as much a role to play as the other in the whole situation.

What is the man's responsibility?

thx u.

[MalReynolds]

Originally Posted by stretchypanda

thx u.

He gets no choice in the matter of whether the baby is aborted or not, and if it is, he has to pay child suport. Well hey there, male responsibility.

[Catastrophe75]

Originally Posted by Chrissi

They also missed on the fact that it takes two people to make a baby. All of the blame in those posts is placed on the woman - she has to pay the consequences for HER actions. What about the guy? Does he have to pay for his actions? In non-rape cases, the woman and man had as much a role to play as the other in the whole situation.

What is the man's responsibility?

This is generally because a mans feelings are generally not considered. However i'm a completely for equal responsiblity but generally a lot of the time there are double standards. You expect men to have more responsiblity but when it suits a woman in certain cases she'd have the man have no say, and go ahead with it anyway.

It's an imperfect system a woman can have an abortion without a mans consent, how is this right? yet I have can live with the way it is because there are many men who say they'll commit to the child then **** off. Generally the lowest form of men on the planet. However if I were in the situation where I got a girl pregnant fully committed to help raise that child but she wanted an abortion, I feel that's slightly hitting the boundraies of double standards.

[OrganisM]

Jesus, this subject's been overdone and all the things I've seen posted are completely stale arguments. I'll just drop my two cents and be out.

It is the mother who will have to give birth to the child, so it should be her choice. It has been proven many times that the baby cannot even detect pain until after the end of the first trimester.

I despise Christianity's stranglehold over the US, and see it as a purveyor of ignorance and fear, just like all organized religions. Sorry, blindly devoted pseudo-intellectuals, your reign is over soon.

Let me regurgitate the issue of rape: A woman is badly humiliated, violated, destroyed, and left with her shattered mind to rot, and you're going to make her give birth to the spawn of the man that willfully broke her and infested her? The baby is not born yet, so don't make the poor woman give birth to, care for, and raise the child of the man who raped her.

Now for the socio-economic regurgitation: Let's say two teens have stupid, careless, unprotected sex, and the girl is impregnated. Let's also assume that they don't have infinite stores of money and a house of their own at age 16. Let's even assume they're in a the poorest area of the poorest country and can hardly afford to take care of themselves. You're willfully going to subject the kid to a broken childhood and possible starvation? It's a sad old story. Who says the kid who was an accident when his parents were 16 wouldn't have joined the gangs of 1990's LA as a source of belonging and protection? There are so many diverse examples, and not in any single one of them do I find it alright to let the child be born and put the parents' stupidity upon the child. The child could suffer far more through its life, and won't know the difference until it's born and raised.

If you make all abortions illegal, you won't stop them. You'll just make them the unsanitary illegal abortions that have gone on before, and those are far worse than anything clean and legal. Don't take abortions out of the hospitals and put them into the hands of unexperienced pseudo-doctors when the baby's in the third trimester.

Maybe it's just me, but abortions are often times the most human thing to do. Saying "oh, but you extinguish precious life!" is like me calling whichever of you has ever stepped on an ant and extinguished its life a murderer. And it's really not fair to place an arbitrary importance on a human fetus, especially since it's not really much of a human until it's born. It's no more alive than an ant or a c0ckroach, even though we've been taught that if it doesn't have two eyes, a nose, a mouth, and isn't extraordinarily cute, it's okay to kill it.

To all of you who take antibiotics when sick: You kill millions of bacteria! You bacteria-murdering heartless freaks!!


And another thing, slipstrike, what right do you have to determine what one's place in society is, and whether they're useful to it? What does society care for the impoverished and unwanted baby anyways?

When the baby's born unwanted, that REALLY helps its development. I'm sure the baby will grow up to be a mentally healthy, happy, contributing member of society, just the way you'd like it.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by OrganisM

It is the mother who will have to give birth to the child, so it should be her choice.

This is generally because a mans feelings are generally not considered. However i'm a completely for equal responsiblity but generally a lot of the time there are double standards. You expect men to have more responsiblity but when it suits a woman in certain cases she'd have the man have no say, and go ahead with it anyway.

They also missed on the fact that it takes two people to make a baby. All of the blame in those posts is placed on the woman - she has to pay the consequences for HER actions

Isn't it kind of funny how if the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep the baby, that the woman can just go have an abortion without him, but if the man doesn't want the baby and the woman does, not only can the women just ignore him and keep the baby, she can still demand that he pay support.

That's where the doubestandard is. Either the man and woman have equal responsability or they don't. If they have equal responsability, then the man should have an -equal- say in whether the baby is kept. If they don't have equal responsability, then unfortunately, if the man doesn't want the kid, they should in my opinion be perfectly allowed to have no part of it.

I mean, it's a jackass thing to do, and you hope that people are being responsable enough to not just have sex willy-nilly with random people, but lets not kid ourselves.

I just don't think it is necessarily fair that two people can get together one night after the bar, and just because the woman decides she wants to keep the kid, suddenly have the right to demand the same from the man.

This story here http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html Actually kinda highlights the attitude I find so reprehensible.

[OrganisM]

Originally Posted by devonin

Isn't it kind of funny how if the woman wants an abortion and the man wants to keep the baby, that the woman can just go have an abortion without him, but if the man doesn't want the baby and the woman does, not only can the women just ignore him and keep the baby, she can still demand that he pay support.

That's where the doubestandard is. Either the man and woman have equal responsability or they don't. If they have equal responsability, then the man should have an -equal- say in whether the baby is kept. If they don't have equal responsability, then unfortunately, if the man doesn't want the kid, they should in my opinion be perfectly allowed to have no part of it.

I mean, it's a jackass thing to do, and you hope that people are being responsable enough to not just have sex willy-nilly with random people, but lets not kid ourselves.

I just don't think it is necessarily fair that two people can get together one night after the bar, and just because the woman decides she wants to keep the kid, suddenly have the right to demand the same from the man.

This story here http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html Actually kinda highlights the attitude I find so reprehensible.

Wow, right in front of my face and I couldn't see it. I'd quite forgotten about that one.

By mother's choice, I meant in terms of rape, where the father has abandoned the child and therefore really shouldn't have any say.

However, there's one problem: Where do you draw the line? I can't think that it's right for the father to force the mother to keep the baby, or that the mother can keep it against the father's will. What do you do?

[devonin]

However, there's one problem: Where do you draw the line? I can't think that it's right for the father to force the mother to keep the baby, or that the mother can keep it against the father's will. What do you do?

If it is equally their responsibility, they should come to some equable agreement. I mean...I'm against the concept that the woman could be forced to carry to term against her will. If the man wants a child so badly and the woman doesn't, adoption, becoming a foster parent, or perhaps just understanding that your partner doesn't want a child, and maybe its time to find a new partner are perfectly valid options.

My issue is more when the woman is refusing to even consider that the man has any say at all in the situation, but will still insist that 50% of the (funny how it's always financial) responsibility of raising the kid is his, but 0% in of the responsibility in deciding to keep it.

[ChaosMaster1]

It should be up to the woman to decide about abortion, they should not stop it.

(oh and i like frankie's avi =P)

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by Squeek

Guido, I want to meet these people who think aborting even rape babies is wrong. I doubt any of them are women.

::waves hand:: You know at least one. And I guarantee you that there are women who think the same way. Valuing the sanctity of life is not gender-specific.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[seltivo]

I just thought I'd say this to all you antiabortion people:
if you accidentally get pregnant, go ahead and keep the baby, but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love. if you think ending the life of a fetus is wrong, y don't you think ruining the girls life just to have another little kid (like the planet isn't populated enough as it is...) is ok?

[Penguinsamurai64]

I think that the government shouldn't have the right to control what a person does with their body. It may not be the "right" thing to do in some situations, but I think it's their decision, not something we should be making laws about. That's my current opinion on it, if anyone wants to try to convince me of something else, go ahead, it's your opinion.

[vvav]

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

p.s. Why do supposedly pro-life people bomb abortion clinics? That make sense to anyone else?

[AOL_blows911]

I personaly am pro choice. Very conditional pro choice, however, but pro choice none the less. My beliefes have already been brought up in this thread. Children aborted before they can feel pain cause me absolutely no problems. Yes, the people were either stupid (oops >.>) or very unlucky (as in the case of rape-babies).

I've seen a lot of pro life people (mostly religious types, but others as well) heatedly saying that as soon as the sperm and egg meet, it is a baby and should be treated as human life. To me, that makes no sense. Yes, it has the potential to be life, but it is nothing more then a single cell, or , even several weeks later, a cluster of cells no smarter than a drop of blood. If you wiped up a drop of blood, would it be putting out life? Those cells would have created more cells, does that entitle them to a future? If the child would grow up in a poor home, such as not being wanted or being mistreated/neglected, then I think an abortion to save them from that furture is agreeable. Also, I heard it mentioned before (in this thread) of a couple who had a late (third trimester? I forget) abortion to save their child terrible pain and a certain early death. While this goes against what I said earlier, I find this to be completely moral and ethical. Killing/abborting an unborn, yet almost fully developed, child quickly rather than letting it suffer is completely justified.

I have also heard the same crowd mention "The child could grow up to be important to humanity. How can you deny it a future?" In short, the whole 'it could be great and your hurting us all' argument. This, to me, also holds no water. Yes, the child could the next Washington, Churchill, or De Vinci, but it could also end up being the next Hitler or Stalin. Who is to say that the child won't be a murderer, theif, or rapist rather than a priest, artist, or world leader? It makes no sense to me.

Last thing, http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html made me laugh, even though I felt a little sorry for the girl. She's definatly low to try and do that, but she's still stuck with the child. And the way the man handled it was fantastic.

[stretchypanda]

Originally Posted by seltivo

I just thought I'd say this to all you antiabortion people:
if you accidentally get pregnant, go ahead and keep the baby, but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love. if you think ending the life of a fetus is wrong, y don't you think ruining the girls life just to have another little kid (like the planet isn't populated enough as it is...) is ok?

Why can't we teach the fourteen-year-old girl how NOT to get pregnant? No one is saying the pregnant woman has to keep the child. Hell, she could even voluntarily have a C-Section and not have to worry about stretching out her precious little vagina. The issue I take against abortion is that, in most cases, the act of creating a child is one committed by two willing and self-aware people. To me, if you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby), you do not have any business having sex. I know it's not that simple when you factor in that most school systems don't allow legit sex education and that teenagers are ****ing idiots (oh, I'm sorry -- hormonal), but that's really what it boils down to, and we need to teach our kids that. "If you are going to have sex, you had damn well be prepared to face the consequences. If you are not prepared to face the consequences, here are some preventive measures you can follow, but they don't always work and you can still contract a disease or get pregnant."

Originally Posted by vvav

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

p.s. Why do supposedly pro-life people bomb abortion clinics? That make sense to anyone else?

Nowhere in my bible does it say not to abort babies. You're basically regurgitating what a good number of people before you have said, only you decided to put a malicious spin on your words, and that's ridiculously unnecessary.

[Relambrien]

Well, I'm pro-choice, and the reasons why have already been stated (no pain in first trimester, etc.). I just have this to add to the discussion:

To those of you who say the baby could grow up and make a difference in the world, think about this. Yes, he could be another Einstein. He could also be another Hitler, another Mussolini, or another George W. Bush (laugh. That one's supposed to be funny. Haha.). Besides, why would you want another Einstein anyway? He was one of the main reasons the atomic bomb could be developed. Why would you want another one of him, considering he could probably make a single bomb that would destroy the entire world by now?

[vvav]

Originally Posted by stretchypanda

Nowhere in my bible does it say not to abort babies. You're basically regurgitating what a good number of people before you have said, only you decided to put a malicious spin on your words, and that's ridiculously unnecessary.

It doesn't say not to abort babies, and yet 99% of the radical anti-abortion people are highly religious. That rant was less aimed at the typical people who have a moderate view on abortion and more aimed at the people earlier in the thread that basically said, "no abortions unless it's rape or could kill the mother."

[MalReynolds]

Originally Posted by stretchypanda

Why can't we teach the fourteen-year-old girl how NOT to get pregnant? No one is saying the pregnant woman has to keep the child. Hell, she could even voluntarily have a C-Section and not have to worry about stretching out her precious little vagina. The issue I take against abortion is that, in most cases, the act of creating a child is one committed by two willing and self-aware people. To me, if you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby), you do not have any business having sex. I know it's not that simple when you factor in that most school systems don't allow legit sex education and that teenagers are ****ing idiots (oh, I'm sorry -- hormonal), but that's really what it boils down to, and we need to teach our kids that. "If you are going to have sex, you had damn well be prepared to face the consequences. If you are not prepared to face the consequences, here are some preventive measures you can follow, but they don't always work and you can still contract a disease or get pregnant."

The only problem I see with FORCING the mother to keep the baby is the potential problems it can cause for the mother's health. Back problems, breast problems, post-partem depression, even the cost of carrying a baby for 9 months, including the cost of the surgery. Not every girl is more worried about a smiley faced cervix. There are complications with pregnancy.

If you cannot deal with the results of sex (a baby) then you do not have business having sex.

Well, sure. Own a dog first. If you kill that, you probably shouldn't have sex.

There are far worse things that can happen to a baby and a mother than the mother getting an abortion.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by AOL_blows911

I've seen a lot of pro life people (mostly religious types, but others as well) heatedly saying that as soon as the sperm and egg meet, it is a baby and should be treated as human life.

Right. That's because it is life. It is a living, unique being.

Yes, it has the potential to be life

Nono. There's no potential about it. It is life.

but it is nothing more then a single cell, or , even several weeks later, a cluster of cells no smarter than a drop of blood.

You're just a cluster of cells right now, too. Just a bigger one. You know that line which you drew about when it's okay to have an abortion and when it's not? One day before, it's just a cluster of cells. One day after, it's just a cluster of cells. One has certain chemical reactions and receptors, but is that where you draw the line of life? Our bodies frequently develop many new processes and functions throughout our lives. Just look at puberty.

If you wiped up a drop of blood, would it be putting out life? Those cells would have created more cells, does that entitle them to a future?

Blood cells are not living entities since they are not individually metabolic. You don't take one brick out of a structure and call the brick a house.

Originally Posted by vvav

Simply put: You damn religious freaks need to quit imposing your religion and your "oh my god it's A PERSON!" type of screwy morals on us. If you look at it from a religious point of view I can understand you not wanting an abortion and that's fine. You can keep your child if you want. But quit trying to force people who don't have the same beliefs as you not to have an abortion, just because YOUR religion says it's wrong.

Before you go spewing any more of your antireligious vitriol around here in violation of the rules here, I'd like you to point out one instance where I mentioned religion. Just one. Go ahead; I'm waiting.

I don't know if you've read the title of the thread or not (it seems you haven't), but this is a discussion on FEDERAL LAW, not religious views. People are more than welcome to support their choices with a religious basis here, and you don't get to say anything about it. Welcome to America, where we have the right to have religion-based opinions. Welcome to FFR, too, where you don't have the right to derail a thread, though, just because you want to go on an anti-religion tirade.

I'm still waiting for you to show me where I mentioned it, though.

Originally Posted by MalReynolds

The only problem I see with FORCING the mother to keep the baby is the potential problems it can cause for the mother's health.

And the only problem I have with that argument is that it values the convenience of the mother over the life of the child. I don't know about everyone else, but I'll gladly take backaches and depression over death any day.

Originally Posted by seltivo

but don't take the choice away from the fourteen year old who was to quit school to try to find a job to support for a child she doesn't even love.

Wow... WOW. Way to claim that children of rape CANNOT and/or WILL NOT be loved by their mothers, who carried them for nine months and gave birth to them. No, it's impossible for a mother to love her child just because the child's father is a bastard.

I'm not at all saying that every woman does, but come on, you're being ridiculous.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Judith Jarvis Thomson provided one of the most striking and effective thought experiments in the moral realm. Her example is aimed at a popular anti-abortion argument that goes something like this: The fetus is an innocent person with a right to life. Abortion results in the death of a fetus. Therefore, abortion is morally wrong. In her thought experiment we are asked to imagine a famous violinist falling into a coma. The society of music lovers determines from medical records that you and you alone can save the violinist's life by being hooked up to him for nine months. The music lovers break into your home while you are asleep and hook the unconscious (and unknowing, hence innocent) violinist to you. You may want to unhook him, but you are then faced with this argument put forward by the music lovers: The violinist is an innocent person with a right to life. Unhooking him will result in his death. Therefore, unhooking him is morally wrong.
However, the argument does not seem convincing in this case. You would be very generous to remain attached and in bed for nine months, but you are not morally obliged to do so. The parallel with the abortion case is evident. The thought experiment is effective in distinguishing two concepts that had previously been run together: “right to life” and “right to what is needed to sustain life.” The fetus and the violinist may each have the former, but it is not evident that either has the latter. The upshot is that even if the fetus has a right to life (which Thompson does not believe but allows for the sake of the argument), it may still be morally permissible to abort.

To be fair, this analogy only holds -directly- if the woman made no choice at all towards getting pregnant (Ie. It only applies in a reasonable way to instances of rape, where the woman didn't choose to engage in an activity that had as a consequence pregnancy) but it does still tell us something valuable about our mentality in all cases with respect to abortion.

The only reason there is any debate at all on the subject is the idea that the fetus in the mother is a self-aware, intelligent life that has an equal moral value as the mother. But I really don't think there is any particular scientific or medical evidence to support that conclusion, and for something as important as a woman's rights to control her own life and body, "It just seems wrong" as a purely emotional conclusion doesn't, and shouldn't cut it.