My take on abortion...

[Frontier]

I don't really fall into the Pro-Life category, but I'm definitely not Pro-Choice. I think an abortion is perfectly understandable in certain situations, such as rape or if birthing the baby will kill the mother. But I don't think a woman should be able to have an abortion just because she wasn't careful enough to use protection. If you don't want to get pregnant, either 1) practice abstinence until you feel you're ready to have a baby, or 2) use protection!
This goes for teenagers, too.

Also, if the woman knows she won't be able to take care of the baby, she could have the baby, then put it up for adoption!

Why kill an unborn baby when you can put it up for adoption instead?

...and that's my two cents.

 

[rivrrat]

I don't really fall into the Pro-Life category, but I'm definitely not Pro-Choice. I think an abortion is perfectly understandable in certain situations, such as rape or if birthing the baby will kill the mother. But I don't think a woman should be able to have an abortion just because she wasn't careful enough to use protection. If you don't want to get pregnant, either 1) practice abstinence until you feel you're ready to have a baby, or 2) use protection!
This goes for teenagers, too.

Also, if the woman knows she won't be able to take care of the baby, she could have the baby, then put it up for adoption!

Why kill an unborn baby when you can put it up for adoption instead?

...and that's my two cents.

1) Half of all abortions are pregancies as a result of birth control failure
2) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too financially damaging to the woman
3) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too physically damaging to the woman
4) Why should a woman allow a foreign organism to live in her body against her will?
5) Giving a child up for a adoption can be, and generally is, an extremely emotionally difficult and damaging choice for a woman
6) If you're okay with abortion in the case of rape, then you should have no issue with it for any reason. A dead fetus is a dead fetus, regardless of how it was conceived. Therefore, if your position is one of rape exceptions, it would seem that your position hinges solely on punishing the woman as opposed to saving the live of an "innocent baby". (note: said "innocent baby" exists regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception)

 

[Orion]

rivrrat, I wish I could just be to the point like you are.

 

[Frontier]

1) Half of all abortions are pregancies as a result of birth control failure
2) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too financially damaging to the woman
3) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too physically damaging to the woman
4) Why should a woman allow a foreign organism to live in her body against her will?
5) Giving a child up for a adoption can be, and generally is, an extremely emotionally difficult and damaging choice for a woman
6) If you're okay with abortion in the case of rape, then you should have no issue with it for any reason. A dead fetus is a dead fetus, regardless of how it was conceived. Therefore, if your position is one of rape exceptions, it would seem that your position hinges solely on punishing the woman as opposed to saving the live of an "innocent baby". (note: said "innocent baby" exists regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception)

You pose a good argument. Well, here we go with my rebuttle:
1) Again, if the woman isn't ready to face the consequences of having sex, then she shouldn't be having sex. (Yes, I do understand that it's possible for birth control and condoms to fail.)
2) An abortion still costs money, just not as much as having the baby.
3) Well, if she knew getting pregnant would be damaging to her, then she shouldn't have put herself in a situation where she could've gotten pregnant. If she didn't know, then this would be one of those situations where an abortion would be justified, in my opinion.
4) It's not a foreign organism. It's a part of her. Her own egg joined with a man's sperm to create that fetus. And it would only be against her will if she was raped or the birth control/condom failed.
5) Aborting the baby could cause just as much emotional stress as adoption would.
6) I don't have an argument on that. I have to think about that one. But I can say that I'm not trying to say that the women should be punished. That's not what I believe in at all.

 

[Orion]

1) Again, if the woman isn't ready to face the consequences of having sex, then she shouldn't be having sex. (Yes, I do understand that it's possible for birth control and condoms to fail.)

We have sexual freedom in this society and it's not up to you to decide what goes on in people's bedrooms. If they want to have sex that is their business.

2) An abortion still costs money, just not as much as having the baby.

An abortion is far cheaper than the lifetime costs associated with raising a child.

3) Well, if she knew getting pregnant would be damaging to her, then she shouldn't have put herself in a situation where she could've gotten pregnant. If she didn't know, then this would be one of those situations where an abortion would be justified, in my opinion.

This is contrary to human nature and not relevant to the discussion. Women ovulate 2 days out of the month. They have a 2 day window for fertility, yet are capable of sex any other day. Sex has a social function and is not just reproductive. Again, it's not your right to punish women for having sex and it never will be.

4) It's not a foreign organism. It's a part of her. Her own egg joined with a man's sperm to create that fetus. And it would only be against her will if she was raped or the birth control/condom failed.

It's not part of her. To be part of her it would have to be an exact copy of her DNA. It isn't. It's a non-native organism developing within her that is uniquely different than mother and father. It cannot take her bodily resources without her permission.

5) Aborting the baby could cause just as much emotional stress as adoption would.

Not really. Once the baby is born you've seen it and formed an attachment to it. There are plenty of studies which confirm that natural delivery enduces bonding between mother and child. Adoption is far more traumatic at that point than abortion could ever be. Mind you, I can't speak for all women. Maybe abortion is traumatic for some.

6) I don't have an argument on that. I have to think about that one. But I can say that I'm not trying to say that the women should be punished. That's not what I believe in at all.

Saying that a woman should have thought twice about having sex and maybe she wouldn't be pregnant does not address human nature or the fact that the woman is pregnant now and the "should have" factors are irrelevant. It's essentially waving your finger at her and saying, "You should have known better."

In the year 2010 women have empowered rights to choose and it's no ones place to determine their consequences for them as it pertains to abortion or the lifeform inside of them. Roe v Wade sided with privacy, which means it's none of your damn business how a woman relates to her pregnancy or what she decides to do about it. All of the questions, whether they be spiritual, material, philosophical, or psychological, are up to HER to answer and not you.

 

[OKgrannie]

You pose a good argument. Well, here we go with my rebuttle:
1) Again, if the woman isn't ready to face the consequences of having sex, then she shouldn't be having sex. (Yes, I do understand that it's possible for birth control and condoms to fail.)
2) An abortion still costs money, just not as much as having the baby.
3) Well, if she knew getting pregnant would be damaging to her, then she shouldn't have put herself in a situation where she could've gotten pregnant. If she didn't know, then this would be one of those situations where an abortion would be justified, in my opinion.
4) It's not a foreign organism. It's a part of her. Her own egg joined with a man's sperm to create that fetus. And it would only be against her will if she was raped or the birth control/condom failed.
5) Aborting the baby could cause just as much emotional stress as adoption would.
6) I don't have an argument on that. I have to think about that one. But I can say that I'm not trying to say that the women should be punished. That's not what I believe in at all.

Saying "she shouldn't be having sex" or "she shouldn't have put herself in that situation" just reveals to the whole world that you DO think the women should be punished..for choosing to have sex. Of course if she was raped and therefore didn't enjoy the sex, abortion is OK. You are saying that the pregnancy is her fault, so she must complete it as punishment.

 

[mac]

Saying "she shouldn't be having sex" or "she shouldn't have put herself in that situation" just reveals to the whole world that you DO think the women should be punished..for choosing to have sex. Of course if she was raped and therefore didn't enjoy the sex, abortion is OK. You are saying that the pregnancy is her fault, so she must complete it as punishment.

And you seem to completely ignore that rights and responsibility go hand in hand, but rather demonize anyone that acknowledges a need for some basic level of responsibility.

 

[OKgrannie]

And you seem to completely ignore that rights and responsibility go hand in hand, but rather demonize anyone that acknowledges a need for some basic level of responsibility.

And you seem to ignore that an unplanned pregnancy can occur even though the woman is responsible. You also seem to ignore that abortion itself can be the most responsible choice.

 

[mac]

And you seem to ignore that an unplanned pregnancy can occur even though the woman is responsible. You also seem to ignore that abortion itself can be the most responsible choice.

I don't ignore that at all, and have never indicated that I have, other than to disagree entirely that abortion is a responsible choice, rather than the "easy" choice.

 

[prometeus]

I don't ignore that at all, and have never indicated that I have, other than to disagree entirely that abortion is a responsible choice, rather than the "easy" choice.

Are easy and responsible mutually exclusive? Besides, abortion is not easy at all.

 

[mac]

Are easy and responsible mutually exclusive? Besides, abortion is not easy at all.

I think in the case of abortion, they most certainly are mutually exclusive. Calling avoiding the impact to one's quality of life responsible is anything but.

 

[prometeus]

I think in the case of abortion, they most certainly are mutually exclusive. Calling avoiding the impact to one's quality of life responsible is anything but.

But everything man has done was to improve the quality of life, from cave dwelling to discovering new lands and killing the inhabitants so that bigger and better homes can be built on the land, from exploiting fellow man to increase one's holdings, to denying critical care to maximize profits. It is ALL for convenience and a DESIRED impact on one's life. To suddenly deny that, for one reason only is disingenuous. Sure I will agree that we should strive for better respect and love and all that, but why start with infringing on liberties?

 

[BDBoop]

Do you have a daughter?

And you seem to completely ignore that rights and responsibility go hand in hand, but rather demonize anyone that acknowledges a need for some basic level of responsibility.

 

[mac]

But everything man has done was to improve the quality of life, from cave dwelling to discovering new lands and killing the inhabitants so that bigger and better homes can be built on the land, from exploiting fellow man to increase one's holdings, to denying critical care to maximize profits. It is ALL for convenience and a DESIRED impact on one's life. To suddenly deny that, for one reason only is disingenuous. Sure I will agree that we should strive for better respect and love and all that, but why start with infringing on liberties?

Throughout the process you describe, we as a species have been continuously evolving socially. When enlightenment sheds new views on past actions of our species we endeavor to eliminate that activity.

To allow an inhumane act to continue based solely on our species past inhumanities is foolhardy, at best.

 

[mac]

Do you have a daughter?

Yes, I do. Two, and two sons.

 

[prometeus]

Throughout the process you describe, we as a species have been continuously evolving socially. When enlightenment sheds new views on past actions of our species we endeavor to eliminate that activity.

To allow an inhumane act to continue based solely on our species past inhumanities is foolhardy, at best.

I agree, but we ARE what we ARE and from certain perspectives have not changed a bit.
Ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?
That of course should not preclude us from trying...

 

[mac]

I agree, but we ARE what we ARE and from certain perspectives have not changed a bit.
Ever hear the story of the scorpion and the frog?
That of course should not preclude us from trying...

We certainly are not what we were 2000 or 10000 years ago. We are even physically different than our ancestors as early as that. We live longer, we're larger, and we're smarter. We are certainly more cognizant of the impact of our actions.

 

[BDBoop]

How old are your girls?

Yes, I do. Two, and two sons.

 

[mac]

How old are your girls?

14 and 10, and yes I'm prepared for the next question so go ahead and ask it.

 

[BDBoop]

I can't, they are far too young.

14 and 10, and yes I'm prepared for the next question so go ahead and ask it.

 

[mac]

I can't, they are far too young.

Then you might as well make it hypothetical. One day they will be old enough too.....far to soon, I'm afraid.

my boys are 11 and 3 by the way.

 

[rivrrat]

You pose a good argument. Well, here we go with my rebuttle:
1) Again, if the woman isn't ready to face the consequences of having sex, then she shouldn't be having sex. (Yes, I do understand that it's possible for birth control and condoms to fail.)

A woman having an abortion IS facing the consequences of having sex.

2) An abortion still costs money, just not as much as having the baby.

Not anywhere NEAR as much. The cost of an abortion is a drop in the bucket in comparsion. Not to mention that the pregnancy may prevent her from working her job too.

3) Well, if she knew getting pregnant would be damaging to her, then she shouldn't have put herself in a situation where she could've gotten pregnant. If she didn't know, then this would be one of those situations where an abortion would be justified, in my opinion.

The things that "normally" happen to a woman's body during pregnancy damage it. Irreparably, in most cases.

4) It's not a foreign organism. It's a part of her. Her own egg joined with a man's sperm to create that fetus. And it would only be against her will if she was raped or the birth control/condom failed.

If it is a part of her, then this is a non-issue. I can have my finger cut off, legally. It's a part of me. And it's against her will if she doesn't want it there, no matter HOW it got there.

5) Aborting the baby could cause just as much emotional stress as adoption would.

Highly unlikely. Adoption is far, far more traumatic.

6) I don't have an argument on that. I have to think about that one. But I can say that I'm not trying to say that the women should be punished. That's not what I believe in at all.

But you ARE saying that women should be punished for daring to have sex. If you examine your argument carefully, you will see that. The only logically consistent argument against abortion does not allow for rape exceptions. If you allow for rape exceptions, then the basis of your argument is NOT saving some 'innocent life'.

 

[BDBoop]

No, I just wondered what their perception of this subject is, as young adults. My daughter is 29.

Then you might as well make it hypothetical. One day they will be old enough too.....far to soon, I'm afraid.

my boys are 11 and 3 by the way.

 

[MaggieD]

1) Half of all abortions are pregancies as a result of birth control failure
2) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too financially damaging to the woman
3) Sometimes the pregnancy alone would be too physically damaging to the woman
4) Why should a woman allow a foreign organism to live in her body against her will?
5) Giving a child up for a adoption can be, and generally is, an extremely emotionally difficult and damaging choice for a woman
6) If you're okay with abortion in the case of rape, then you should have no issue with it for any reason. A dead fetus is a dead fetus, regardless of how it was conceived. Therefore, if your position is one of rape exceptions, it would seem that your position hinges solely on punishing the woman as opposed to saving the live of an "innocent baby". (note: said "innocent baby" exists regardless of the circumstances surrounding its conception)

1) I'd like to see a link on that. I believe it is a misleading figure. Even if it's exactly true as presented (which it isn't), that still leaves 650,000 abortions being done for reasons other than birth control failure.
2) Then don't get pregnant.
3) Then don't get pregnant.
4) A fetus is not a foreign organism. If it were a foreign organism, the body's immune system would destroy it.
5) Too bad, so sad.
6) Faulty logic. (Nobody believe in murder. Tens of millions believe in the death penalty.)

 

[Josie]

I can't, they are far too young.

Far too young for what?