|
| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Abortion; Is it really that bad? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 4 2008, 02:30 PM (3,552 Views) | |
| Deleted User | Jan 4 2008, 02:30 PM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
I decided to start this topic because recently I had to write an unbiased report on the topic. After doing plenty of research on abortion I wanted to know other people's opinions on this issue. |
 
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 4 2008, 02:36 PM Post #2 |
|
Deleted User
|
I am pro-choice when it pertains to abortion. I know that some women know that they are unable to care for a child and although I wouldn't have an abortion myself I believe that women should have a choice on the path that their life will take. With adoption I believe that there isn't really a guarantee that the child will be in a stable home. Why birth a child into a world where it is possible that they will endure a lot of pain? |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 4 2008, 04:59 PM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
It is the prospective mother's choice. Should she feel she cannot cope with a child, and does not want to go through childbirth, it is a valid choice. However, should said woman be in a relationship at the time, I would expect her to consult her partner before making the decision. |
|
|
|
| redmage | Jan 4 2008, 08:00 PM Post #4 |
I can haz member title?
|
I, personally, am VERY pro-life. In my mind, there's not much difference between having an abortion and leaving your baby in a dumpster, and I believe that, with the exception of an serious threat to the mother's life and rape (though I'd still consider it extremely immoral), the doctor who performs the abortion and the mother should both be prosecuted as co-conspirators for murder. Edit: I just realized I was slightly unclear in this paragraph. I meant to say that I'd consider it immoral to have an abortion in the case of rape. If the mother's life is at risk, then I can't blame her for for having an abortion. Of course, the Supreme Court, being the arrogant and pompous "justices" they are, took it upon themselves to write the law for abortion. I have still yet to figure out where in the Constitution it says women have the right to an abortion; I've read it time and time again and just can't find it. Hell, even "Roe" is pro-life. My biggest fear though, is that eventually as science improves, women will be allowed to select the child they want and abort all those they don't want. Retarded child? Abort it. Autistic child? Abort it. Handicapped child? Abort it. Freckled? Need glasses? Brown hair? Too short? Too tall? Abort it. I just hope that eventually, the lawmaking powers will be put back into the lawmakers hands (I know, such a radical idea), and abortion will once again be a criminal offense. Or better yet, we write the Right to Life into our constitution, like Ireland did. And don't even get me started on partial birth abortions... |
 |
|
| joeljjison | Jan 4 2008, 10:50 PM Post #5 |
|
Its such a complex debate, and I'm not sure if there really is a right answer. I do to some extent agree with abortion, but thats based on a borderline euthanasia style logic that its to save the aborted the trouble. I would say that its unfair to base a law on something that not everybody believes in, but it'd be foolish to say the abortion issue is that simple. "With adoption I believe that there isn't really a guarantee that the child will be in a stable home." Nor with birth! That wasn't what i was getting at though in my argument against abortion... more the fact of being unwanted hanging over you forever, and the chance of finding it out, even it was kept hidden from you. I have to admit though, I'm being swayed a little to be anti abortion, by my own thoughts. Still, they contradict themselves, so now I'm more sitting in the middle than pro abortion. "Why birth a child into a world where it is possible that they will endure a lot of pain?"' There is that, but this is true for any child, even if their parents did want them at the time. If your murdered them when they were 3, because you changed your mind, it would be murder. It doesn't feel right though not to give them the chance, once you've set things in motion.. they're life could turn out good. On the other hand , it could turn out bad. I don't think we are G-d... but I don't think i want to have children. I'd feel so guilty if their life was anything but perfect. As someone who often regrets his own existence, the idea of making someone else exist is horrible. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 4 2008, 11:20 PM Post #6 |
|
Deleted User
|
it depends on the situation..i mean if the mother didn't really ment to have a child then even if they don't abort the child and raise him/her..they might have like child abuse or whatever cause they just didn't want a child but doesn't want to abort either...well..i guess it is her responsibility that she wasn't protected. |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 5 2008, 02:28 AM Post #7 |
|
Deleted User
|
My ideas were sort of detached...sorry. The reason why I mention adoption is because most of the time people who are pro-life only suggest adoption, not really guaranteeing the child's well-being. While doing some research I stumbled across the National Right to Life (NRLC) website. There they spent a lot of the time bashing the ideas of being pro-choice without really doing anything to reassure the mother that she'll be o.k. by going through her pregnancy. Not to mention the fact that they "don't have a position on issues such as contraception, sex education..." Contraception is the first step to preventing abortion if not abstinence itself. But I digress...basically all I'm saying is if abortion is to be illegal then there should be more support for the mother (and not just monetary support). |
|
|
|
| redmage | Jan 5 2008, 08:37 PM Post #8 |
|
I can haz member title?
|
I mentioned above that "Roe" was pro-life; I figure I should back up my claim. "It was my pseudonym, Jane Roe, which had been used to create the "right" to abortion out of legal thin air. But Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee never told me that what I was signing would allow women to come up to me 15, 20 years later and say, "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." Sarah never mentioned women using abortions as a form of birth control. We talked about truly desperate and needy women, not women already wearing maternity clothes."- Norma McCorvey aka "Roe". "I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby! I felt "crushed" under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about 'products of conception.' It wasn't about 'missed periods.' It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion--at any point--was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear." - Norma McCorvey aka "Roe" I should also point out that neither "Roe" nor her counterpart "Doe" (of a lesser known abortion ruling on the same day) actually had the abortion, and both have denied that they ever intended to have one. Of course, under the Unborn Vicitms of Violence Act of 2004, anyone who harms or kills an unborn child can be held just as responsible as he or she would had that child been born. The only exception made is abortion. So... this means that a fetus has a life, and it's against the law to take that life... ... ... but abortions are legal? If a fetus has no life (which Roe v. Wade implies, else that fetus would have a constitutional right to that life) then how can anyone be punished for having taken what the victim does not have? Fortunately, the law protects that fetus's right to life, but sadly that protection does not extend to abortion. As for reassuring the mother that she'll be okay, well, that's generally unnecesary as the vast majority of pregnancies result in no long term problems. Even in Sub-Saharan Africa, less than 1% of all child births result in the death of the mother. In the United States, it's less than 0.01%. If absolutely nothing is done to protect the health of the mother, it's about 1%. The rise in C-sections today (you can thank Mr. Edwards for that, by the way), while largely unnecessary, means a large number of injuries are prevented as well. Regardless, injuries are rare among mothers and babies with good health. Injuries generally happen in mothers who are excessively young (younger than 16) or excessively old (over 40). Emotional stress is too largely defined and difficult to measure to consider it a real criteria for allowing abortions. Arguably, fathers could experience more emotional stress than the mother, even without having given birth to a child. The reason the National Right to Life Committe doesn't have an official stance on contraception/sex education is because of the Roman Catholic stance on it. Roman Catholicism is opposed to contraception and in favor of abstinance only sex education, while most non-Catholics have no problem with contraception and there is considerable debate on whether abstinance only sex education is effective. If they'd take a position on either, they'd lose a large amount of support, either among Catholics or non-Catholics. It's a polical move rather than an ideological one; they'd rather not lose support for their cause over a separate issue that they are not advocating. As far as support goes, I'm not entirely sure what you're talking about. The state can't support single mothers in any way other than with money, and I don't even think the state should support single mothers financially. If she's collecting childsupport from her husband then that's one thing, (I do have a few issues with that, but it's more the way it's handled than anything else) but my tax dollars shouldn't be going to pay for some woman who got her self knocked up. I have the same reservations with welfare and unemployment compensation. Given, there are some people who have legitimate reasons they need them, but a large number, perhaps most, don't, and I end up footing the bill for some inner city family that just doesn't want to work. If a single mother can qualify for welfare, and really needs it, then fine, but we don't need another fund paying for every high school and college girl who gets knocked up. Of course, the obvious solution is just not to get pregnant, which is really very easy. You have to have sex to have a baby, and if you don't want a baby you probably shouldn't have sex. Condoms and birth control pills are extremely effective, and you're chances of getting pregnant are slim to none if you use both. Even just a condom is very effective if you use it correctly. The problem is that most people don't use it consistantly. I garuntee you, if abortions were made illegal, more people would use contraceptives, or just say no. Teen pregnancies would drop, and so would teen's who actually have babies (as a very large number who plan on getting an abortion don't). Given, back-alley abortions would be more common, but legalizing something that, quite frankly, ought to be illegal isn't the solution. I should also point out that the divide between men and women in terms of support for abortion isn't as wide as most people might think, and some polls show that women are actually more against abortion than men. It kind of dismisses the issue as a women's rights issue if most women are against it. |
|
|
|
| Petra_stone_girl | Jan 6 2008, 03:17 AM Post #9 |
His little one
|
i have been arugued out on this subject so i think i'll just lurk and pop in every now and then but mostly lurk my stand: Pro-choice but only for those pregnancies that endanger the mothers life, those in which the fetus has an immediatly fatal disease and rape cases. no if ands or buts about it. but im the same as redmage "dont even get me started on partial birth abortions" those are just *shakes head and runs before a rant builds up* |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 6 2008, 07:20 AM Post #10 |
|
Deleted User
|
There is no way that I can phrase any sentence that can make abortion sound like a good thing. It isn't a good thing but if woman is willing to go through both physical and emotional pain it should be her choice to do so. If she feels as though she'll be an inadequate mother it's her choice to prevent that. Just like you have the choice to start doing drugs, or you have a choice to smoke, or drink, or do anything that is harmful to yourself it is a choice. And just like in those situation you yourself may not be the only one involved but its your choice to do it or not. The key to this is prevention. Contraceptives are not illegal, condoms are not illegal, spermicides are not illegal. Put those to good use and if those fail then you are meant to have that child hands down!! |
|
|
|
| redmage | Jan 6 2008, 07:33 AM Post #11 |
|
I can haz member title?
|
First off, it depends on what drugs you're doing, but it seems that the one's you're referring to would be illegal, so that's not really your choice. Also, I should note that I also personally believe that smoking ought to be illegal (despite, or perhapds because of, the fact that my father smokes). However, the one thing constant in all three of those is that the majority of damage done, or arguably all of the damage done, is to the person doing it. If a person wants to drink and ruin his liver then I don't see how that harms anyone else. An abortion on the other hand doesn't harm the mother at all, but it kills the fetus. If someone died every time someone else took a sip of beer, how long do you think it'd be before alcohol was illegal? |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 6 2008, 08:56 AM Post #12 |
|
Deleted User
|
I was trying to stretch the significance of "choice". All I'm saying is that people should have a choice. Based on that choice they should face the consequences--good or bad. To say that the women don't experience pain by going through the abortion procedure is incorrect. They have many possible health risks and not to mention the emotional pain that they must endure. If I chose to end my unborn child's life I know that there will be mental scars left on me that I will have to deal with for the rest of my life. Abortion isn't something to take lightly if a potential mother is ready to go through something as heavy as this by all means allow it. I do understand where everyone is coming because when it comes down to it all the controversy is based off the unborn fetus. I fear for the child birthed by a woman that doesn't want him or her in the first place. To feel that type of neglect and rejection is something that isn't worth living with for the rest of their lives. I don't really understand the feeling of being unwanted but I know for a fact that it isn't something that I personally would have wanted to experience. But how would you evaluate a woman to say if they're adequate to be motherly or not and once evaluated how do you prevent mothers from giving birth to children? If we are able to answer these questions we can virtually stop the issues of abortion, can't we? Because if we stop abortion we can now guarantee the mental and physical safety of these children, right? I don't know maybe the way I think is faulty because I think that allowing women to choose when they are ready for children instead of birthing unwanted children is better. I still believe the first step is prevention though... |
|
|
|
| redmage | Jan 6 2008, 08:05 PM Post #13 |
|
I can haz member title?
|
I never said it was painless; I merely said it doesn't harm the woman. By harm, I mean lasting damage, not simply pain. The risk of death is 1 in every 2,500. Serious complications, unless the pregnancy is really far along, are rare. Emotional harm is, as I've said earlier, far too sketchy to use as any real criteria. I'm not one to put much faith in Post-abortion Syndrome. As much as I believe an abortion could hurt the mother emotionally, I also believe it's irrelevant. Then again, I could compare abortion to infanticide. (I don't see much difference between the two anyway.) If a mother were to kill her infant child, no doubt she would suffer emotionally, but I don't think that's going to earn her much sympathy from a jury. Whether or not the child is wanted is irrelevant. Going from the argument that it's okay to abort an unwanted fetus because his/her life wouldn't be worth living anyway also logically implies that it's okay to kill an infant that is unwanted... or a toddler... or a teenager.... The fact is that you can't gauruntee the "mental and physical safety" of any child. A planned pregnancy cannot ensure a child's safety, and unwanted one does don't condemn the child to suffering. If a child has any chance at all of a happy and successful life, then doesn't that child have a right to persue that life? Wasn't America founded on the idea of the right to persue happiness? Now, I suppose I am pro-choice too. I do believe that women (and men, by extension) have a right to decide when they want to have a child. I just believe that the decision has to be made 9 months in advance. That's why I believe that a women should be allowed to terminate a pregnancy if it's the result of rape. I believe it would extremely immoral for a woman to kill a child in that circumstance, but because she wasn't given a choice, I don't believe the state should be allowed to dictate what she should do. Note that I don't include incest as a reason to have an abortion. I will agree that the first step is prevention. However, if you offer another alternative, plenty of people are going to take the much easier alternative, even if it takes an innocent life. Actually, one of the reasons I will not support a Democrat for president while the Senate is controlled by Democrats is because of abortion. I either want a Republican president who'll appoint a justice to reverse Roe v. Wade (at least then the laws will be in the lawmakers hands), or a Republican Senate who'll reject a pro-choice justice. Though as close as the House (218 pro-choice v. 217 pro-life) and Senate (51 pro-choice v. 49 pro-life) are on abortion, it might not entirely matter which party is in control. And if there's any credibility to the Roe effect, then it might not be long before Roe v. Wade is overturned. |
|
|
|
| Petra_stone_girl | Jan 6 2008, 08:08 PM Post #14 |
|
His little one
|
i just wanted to pop in for a sec. Ten-chan: some of what u say "...not to mention the emotional pain that they must endure." well i just wanted to point something out. Our world today isnot a very moral world. for one woman to have an abortion it may be very scarring emotionally but to others they just dont care. there are some women out there who just dont care if they are killing their child. it doesnt fase them at all. i just noticed it in redmage's "Roe" quote also, ' "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six abortions. Without you, it wouldn't have been possible." ' not saying anything about those peoples character, their feelings or whatever just... there are some people who have abortions just so they dont have to care for a child |
|
|
|
| Deleted User | Jan 6 2008, 09:02 PM Post #15 |
|
Deleted User
|
You're right Petra, some women go on living their lives as though the didn't just kill a life growing inside of them. "Thank you for allowing me to have my five or six aboritons"--I don't agree with women using abortion as some sort of "birth control". And if every women who had an abortion had for that reason then abortion should be illegal. Having multiple abortions should be illegal and having an abortion without good reason should also be illegal. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
 |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Extended Discussions/Debates · Next Topic » |
9:18 PM May 24