Abortion

[Russell]

Ok, having just left the pro-life society debate on abortion at college, I thought I'd see what you lovely people had to say Do you think abortion is correct? Who's rights are more important the mothers or the childs? Should babies with serious medical conditions that will ruin their life be aborted? How much say should the father have? Should the father have to pay benifit support payments if from the beginning he wanted the woman to have an abortion and she refused?

 

[Silhouette]

Although there are often very complex issues involved, I think as a rule of thumb, it's ultimately the woman's choice.

 

[Russell]

I disagree, I think it should be more equaly the woman and mans choice. For example with the child support benifit payment idea, I don't think thats fair on the man for that to happen, just cos the woman wanted to keep the baby. I think if she wanted to keep it and he didn't she should take responsibility or not have it at all. Obviously the womans choice has more wieght as she's the one whos gonna have it, but I don't think the mans opinion is taken seriously enough at the moment

 

[_Transparent_]

i think the simpsons put it best, abortions for some, and miniture american flags for others. but yeah it should be a joint descision with the man and woman.

 

[Mr. Black]

i think the womans opinion is far more important to be fair, after all if she wants the baby and the man doesn't, theres nothing he can do short of murder, or throwing her down a flight of stairs, where as if the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, again there is nothing he can do as it is the woman who physically has the baby...sure you can invlove the man all you want, but when it comes down to the actual desicion the man's opinion counts for little as the woman can over-rule it anyway, he might as well support her discission rather than cause differculties by argueing with her...

as for the man not having to take responsibility if he wants the baby aborted but the woman decides to keep it, i think this is alot more complicated...for example you could have a one night stand with a girl, get her pregnant and not plan on seeing her ever again, just saying you want her to have an abortion is a fairly easy way to get out of your responsibilities, esp. if your not in a relationship with the girl and so do not have handle any of the consequences of the abortion...if a man gets a girl pregnant through carelessness when it comes to preventing pregnancy (e.g. having unprotected sex) i think it is a bit much to expect the girl to have an abortion just so you don't have to pay the bills, afterall it is easy for a man to say 'have an abortion' but a lot harder for the girl who actually has to have one...if the pregnancy is accidential, in that it is caused by the failure of whatever method of contrception was used, then i think that the man shouldn't have to take responsibility (the company who made the product should)...this is just my view on the moral side of it, in terms of practicality it is clearly more complicated than this, as how whould you prove you used contriception, and used it correctly? (if a condom split would you have to take pictures of it, or keep it in your fridge until you found out if your girlfriends pregnant or not, so you could sue durex?)...it would probably lead to some quite amusing law suites, but the big companies would probably win most of them as they can afford better lawers...

 

[MetalManCPA]

I am a pro-choice person : though I've always looked at the medical perspective of this. If it is "dangerous" for a women to abort past six months, I have no objections of a law against abortions past a point of time (because you would have to be pretty moronic to not know you were actually pregnant at that point).

The choice should be mutual, but since the laws usually are maternal based, and men (me being one) can be real idiots, I think the choice (in most cases) should ultimately be the womens. We could argue for a long time as to different instances where this isn't true, but I only make this a general statement.

My "arguement" against pro-life is this: my naive? point of view is that I consider the % to be higher that an unwanted baby has many negative effects on society, and many of these kids have horendous upbringings (again, a general statement). Is abortion a humans way of order, like certain mammals eating their young? - I think so. And whether it was an idiotic night of sex without thinking that created the potential baby doesn't effect the abortion decision - because it is still that potential baby's life that is at stake.

 

[Opet]

Nicely said, metalmancpa.

I was going to say that. Really. I was. I think if a women gets pregnant without using any protection...well, she's only hurting herself. SHE'S the one that's going to either go through 9 months of pregnancy, LABOR! and then raise the child OR go through an abortion. And considering what metalmancpa said about how most unwanted babies have negative effects on society AND many are brought up without sufficient care. If a man wants a women to have a baby and the women doesn't, well come on! It's not like the women can say, "OK, lets switch bodies and I'll go buy a new one and you can have the baby. OK?" No. But if a women does know she's pregnant, I do think that the guy should be told no matter what. I know some think that's dumb because if she doesn't want to keep it and he does, it'll only make him feel terrible. Still, I think if he ever found out that you were and had an abortion and you didn't talk to him at all??? That, I think, is 10x worse.

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by Mr. Black
i think the womans opinion is far more important to be fair, after all if she wants the baby and the man doesn't, theres nothing he can do short of murder, or throwing her down a flight of stairs, where as if the woman doesn't want the baby and the man does, again there is nothing he can do as it is the woman who physically has the baby...sure you can invlove the man all you want, but when it comes down to the actual desicion the man's opinion counts for little as the woman can over-rule it anyway, he might as well support her discission rather than cause differculties by argueing with her..

I agree, but many women want the best of both worlds in this matter I feel. If he doesn't have that much of a say in the matter (which I think he should) then he should not be held responsible and made to pay for the childs upbringing if he didn't want it or doesn't want to. Or thats what I think, but I'm probably boased as I'm a male

as for the man not having to take responsibility if he wants the baby aborted but the woman decides to keep it, i think this is alot more complicated...for example you could have a one night stand with a girl, get her pregnant and not plan on seeing her ever again, just saying you want her to have an abortion is a fairly easy way to get out of your responsibilities, esp. if your not in a relationship with the girl and so do not have handle any of the consequences of the abortion...

I wasn't thinking in this situation, and I agree, the man should be held more responsible in this situation, I was thinking more along the lines of in a stable relationship, where both parties had been together for a long time and they HAD used protection (taking into account condoms are only 84% effective in the average couple)

if a man gets a girl pregnant through carelessness when it comes to preventing pregnancy (e.g. having unprotected sex) i think it is a bit much to expect the girl to have an abortion just so you don't have to pay the bills, afterall it is easy for a man to say 'have an abortion' but a lot harder for the girl who actually has to have one...

I couldn't agree more, it must be hell for the woman and that wasn't really the situation I was getting at (see above )

if the pregnancy is accidential, in that it is caused by the failure of whatever method of contrception was used, then i think that the man shouldn't have to take responsibility (the company who made the product should)...this is just my view on the moral side of it, in terms of practicality it is clearly more complicated than this, as how whould you prove you used contriception, and used it correctly? (if a condom split would you have to take pictures of it, or keep it in your fridge until you found out if your girlfriends pregnant or not, so you could sue durex?)...it would probably lead to some quite amusing law suites, but the big companies would probably win most of them as they can afford better lawers...

Exactly, if you were being careful, I don't see y the man should be held responsible for the pregnancy, which I find they usually are. Its always percieved as the man's fault, and just like it "takes 2 to tango", as people always say, i think it should take two to deal with the consequences, not just blame the man and then not let him have a say in whether they should keep the baby.

I'll read the next 2 posts after dinner

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by Opet
I was going to say that. Really. I was. I think if a women gets pregnant without using any protection...well, she's only hurting herself. SHE'S the one that's going to either go through 9 months of pregnancy, LABOR! and then raise the child OR go through an abortion. And considering what metalmancpa said about how most unwanted babies have negative effects on society AND many are brought up without sufficient care. If a man wants a women to have a baby and the women doesn't, well come on! It's not like the women can say, "OK, lets switch bodies and I'll go buy a new one and you can have the baby. OK?"

This annoys me slightly. Yes its her that goes through all the pain etc. but no1 ever even bothers to think about the man. Can you imagine how much it would hurt to know you could have had a child and they were killed because the mother didn't want it? Quite a lot, probably nowhere near as much as labour, but still I just think the mans views should be taken more seriously - if the woman was forced to have an abortion there would be a huge upcry and controversy if people found out, not a man. Its just these extreme double standards that I don't think are fair

But if a women does know she's pregnant, I do think that the guy should be told no matter what. I know some think that's dumb because if she doesn't want to keep it and he does, it'll only make him feel terrible. Still, I think if he ever found out that you were and had an abortion and you didn't talk to him at all??? That, I think, is 10x worse.

But if the man has no effect then whats the point? It will cause pain, and surely in certain situations ignorance is bliss? Personally, I think I would prefer to be told tho

 

[Obyeybyeogone]

I have nothing against abortion, I don't think a fetus is a person, sure it has the potential to be a person but so do all the sperm that don't make it. A fetus doesn't have a developed mind or anything.

 

[MetalManCPA]

Originally posted by godisanathiest


This annoys me slightly. Yes its her that goes through all the pain etc. but no1 ever even bothers to think about the man. Can you imagine how much it would hurt to know you could have had a child and they were killed because the mother didn't want it? Quite a lot, probably nowhere near as much as labour, but still I just think the mans views should be taken more seriously - if the woman was forced to have an abortion there would be a huge upcry and controversy if people found out, not a man. Its just these extreme double standards that I don't think are fair

I do agree that the "carrier" of the baby isn't the defining reason in the abortion decision. Obviously, each instance has it's own individualilty. The social/economic ramifications of child rearing are where the decision needs to be based.

As I stated before, if BOTH parties want or don't want the baby, the decision is "simple". But if there is a difference of opinion, the question really is the basis for this difference. In any case, there needs to be a solid social and economic foundation surrounding the potential newborn. I've personally seen the effects of these not being in place - the child has had a fractured family upbringing in an economically weak environment. This forces the child to cope/adapt on his/her own, which my experience in seeing and reading about this is not good, because a child is too immature to see the future effects of decisions made today. [ie:finding a wrong group of friends]. Also, parents in an unstable environment don't have the ability to properly guide their children down the proper social and educational path - more failure in school which can lead to problems in adolescence.

I could go on forever, but this is a tough issue, and there are many factors that need to be considered. I just think the pro-life stance totally takes away the potential for a reasonable decision to be made which effects the future of a lot of people (as opposed to taking a stance that a fetus is "alive" from the date of conception).

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by metalmancpa
I do agree that the "carrier" of the baby isn't the defining reason in the abortion decision. Obviously, each instance has it's own individualilty. The social/economic ramifications of child rearing are where the decision needs to be based.

Quite true, there will always be difficult and unusual cases, hopefully most of them are "easily" solved.

As I stated before, if BOTH parties want or don't want the baby, the decision is "simple". But if there is a difference of opinion, the question really is the basis for this difference

Yeah, I suppose debating it without specific cases does seem a bit futile :s

In any case, there needs to be a solid social and economic foundation surrounding the potential newborn. I've personally seen the effects of these not being in place - the child has had a fractured family upbringing in an economically weak environment. This forces the child to cope/adapt on his/her own, which my experience in seeing and reading about this is not good, because a child is too immature to see the future effects of decisions made today. [ie:finding a wrong group of friends]. Also, parents in an unstable environment don't have the ability to properly guide their children down the proper social and educational path - more failure in school which can lead to problems in adolescence

I've seen this before as well, a reason I fully support abortion if the mother decides this

I could go on forever, but this is a tough issue, and there are many factors that need to be considered. I just think the pro-life stance totally takes away the potential for a reasonable decision to be made which effects the future of a lot of people (as opposed to taking a stance that a fetus is "alive" from the date of conception).

Yub, it disgusts me that people stand outside abortion clinics telling the people going in how wrong they are etc., that majorly pisses me off. In fact so does the pro life society at college, but at least I can do something about that!

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

Well when it comes to whether abortion is acceptable or not acceptable, it is really a matter of whether you are a of the opinion that human life is valueable. If you believe that a human life is exchangeable for any other entity's life, of course you don't care who does or doesn't have an abortion. If you do hold human life valueable, where is the line between when human life starts and when there is only "potential" drawn?

originally posted by Oyo

I have nothing against abortion, I don't think a fetus is a person, sure it has the potential to be a person but so do all the sperm that don't make it. A fetus doesn't have a developed mind or anything.

Well neither does a child who is just born. They have little capacity for thought, can learn some body language, and scream when they are in discomfort, along with a couple of other traits. They can't even speak until about a year later. The human mind never fully developes until he is an adult. So are children expendable? There are those who say it begins when the child is born, and those who say it begins when the sperm and egg meet. I am of the latter opinion, because that is when it is no longer part of the man, or part of the woman (a sperm or and egg, respectively), and it begins to act of it's own accord. Granted the environment of a uterus is necessary, but we depend upon things too, don't we?

Originally posted by metalmancpa

my naive? point of view is that I consider the % to be higher that an unwanted baby has many negative effects on society

I think that abortion shows an important deterioration in the value of human life also. Even if it is not agreed upon that a fetus is even a human yet, it has an obvious implication toward further disposal of the unnecessary people, those who don't contribute to society, (elderly, druggies, criminals, etc.). If measures are, in fact, taken even further toward that end, then we truly have something to worry about.

When it comes to, "serious medical conditions that will ruin a baby's life", whether the baby's life will actually be ruined is a matter of speculation. The blind man is generally considered handicapped, but if you ask a person who was born blind, I don't think they will consider it so, and they enjoy life as much as any of us. Babies born addicted to drugs have been proven to be able to recover for the most part. As an analogy for this, I would rather live missing a leg than get killed because I didn't have it. Basically, it is ideal that the baby should decide whether it's life will go to all hell because of it, but it can't, so we are stuck with making guesses. Guesses aren't very reliable, so I believe they should be let to live. Everyone deserves a chance.

In the case of rape: this is a very blurry subject indeed. On the one hand, it is not the girl's fault she ever got pregnant, (the stereotype defense of a pro-life person is "it's your fault deal with it"), so she shouldn't be forced to put up with the 9 months of pregnancy, unles she decideds she wants the baby. On the other hand, I still believe in no abortion in any case, so it could just be a matter of tough luck, (I know that sounds calloused, but maybe it is).

The mother's and child's rights are equally important. If the mother decides to kill the baby to save her life, it puts nothing on her, except selfishness. Many mothers would give their lives for the child, though, and usually the ones who wouldn't are the ones who didn't want the baby in thefirst place...how convenient.

As for the say of the father, and the child support thing; I think these are moot points considering my stance.

 

[Obyeybyeogone]

This probably sounds mean or immorale, but I don't think a very young baby dying is that bad, I'm sure if it were someone's child I knew or my own it would... but It's not the same as someone who has been around a few years. I'm not saying it's okay to kill young babies, I'm just pointing out that it's not like I view an unborn fetus and a born baby as that radically different. But just the fact that you have interacted and named a born baby makes killing it seem so wrong, I am just backing up what I said earlier.

O, and MorningRise, I have no HD space and I had to uninstall AOL, I need to get AIM so I can talk to you again, sorry.

 

[TyrantOfFlames]

I see what you mean, Oyo, and it does make alot more sense in conjunction with your previous statement...but I certainly hope not many others view it that way. Granted the child has only been alive a short while, and the parents only love it because it is theirs, not because of who the person is, (which no one knows yet), but if no one cares if children die, killing may get out of hand.

 

[Russell]

Originally posted by TyrantOfFlames
When it comes to, "serious medical conditions that will ruin a baby's life", whether the baby's life will actually be ruined is a matter of speculation. The blind man is generally considered handicapped, but if you ask a person who was born blind, I don't think they will consider it so, and they enjoy life as much as any of us. Babies born addicted to drugs have been proven to be able to recover for the most part. As an analogy for this, I would rather live missing a leg than get killed because I didn't have it. Basically, it is ideal that the baby should decide whether it's life will go to all hell because of it, but it can't, so we are stuck with making guesses. Guesses aren't very reliable, so I believe they should be let to live. Everyone deserves a chance.

I'm talking about extreme genetic medical conditions here, that they weill definitely die from within the 1st hours/days

 

[HoserHellspawn]

As said before, I'm totally pro-choice, and this applies to a lot more than abortion.

TyrantOfFlames has some strong, valid, and well-explained reasons for feeling morally against abortion and I feel by all means has the right not to partake should circumstances arrive, much like vegetarians won't eat meat. However, because some vegetarians exist doesn't mean everyone else should have to follow. Call this a silly analogy, but it's how I feel. Of course, many anti-abortionist view this then as murder and feel morally obliged to stop it, which makes sense, although I can't say I can condone their tactics.

My moral compass tells me that people make mistakes and a fetus is not a consious being. It will never know it was killed and was therefore never wronged, assuming we can put aside all religious notions pertaining to it's "soul".

Given the option of raising a drug-addicted child on welfare, endlessly trapping the parent (and therefore child) into a life of near poverty, or removing that particular piece of biology until a time when it can lead a life where it has more chance of a positive existence, I would feel wrong taking the latter option away from anyone. Presumably, yes, if we lived in a Utopian society drugs and poverty would not exist and therefore not be factors, but in a Utopian society this whole argument would be moot anyways - we must deal with the present.

Incidentally, I have no such belief that life is sacred, in case anyone is wondering.