Abortion Issues - Mega Thread [MERGED]

[ballz]

My two cents:

Abortions should be safe, available and rare.

Giving people resources to avoid the requirement to seek an abortion should be the first LoO - information on reproduction and availability of contraceptive systems (meds, devices etc).

Agreed... but in the US the GOP who are pretty much all against abortions are also against contraception, and even more are against paying for someone else's contraception.

 

[Kirkhill]

:goodpost:

Is it possible to obviate the need for abortions by better supporting the mothers?

It is not as if we don't have the need for more Canadians.  Nor is the problem a lack of resources to support both the mothers and the children.

Is there any need to stigmatize an unwed mother who is pregnant?  Is there no way to support a young woman in her career aspirations even if she has become pregnant?

Why do women feel they have to have abortions?  Are there really no other alternatives?

And I'm not being the devil's advocate here I really want to know.

Some years ago I had a conversation with my daughter and let her know that no matter what happened she would never have to worry about making that decision.  Her mother and father would support her and her child no matter what.  Abortion should not be necessary.

And having said that, if she chose to have an abortion, she would still be our daughter and have our support.

 

[PMedMoe]

Why do women feel they have to have abortions?  Are there really no other alternatives?

I can think of several reasons:

Medical problems

Rape and/or incest

Age (whether too young or too old)

Mental status

Emotional state

As you can see, the reasons vary as much as people do.  I don't agree with abortion as a contraceptive, however, if a woman is using birth control and also uses a condom (practice safe sex!) and still gets pregnant (yes, rare, I know), obviously, she did not intend to get pregnant and should have the right to terminate the pregnancy if she so wishes.  I (personally) think abortions should be done as soon as possible and do not agree (again personally) with late term abortions.

In some cases, the woman is just not ready, whether it is emotionally, financially or mentally.

Agree on your other points for support.

Agreed... but in the US the GOP who are pretty much all against abortions are also against contraception, and even more are against paying for someone else's contraception.

I wonder what their stance is on a tubal ligation or a hysterectomy?

 

[NSDreamer]

OK, so for you - that's your religious view and logical process. Don't have an abortion. Quite simple really. I can't make you have one either.

So, if it's not my religious view nor logical conclusion, why make me follow yours?

You can can call me illogical, uneducated, what the heck you wish, but last time I checked, you weren't God nor the boss of me, my body, my decisions.

I'll respect you logic (opinion!), religion and physical being ... please respect mine. What's the problem with that?

See, you're making an arguement without accepting his premise. If he believes his premise is correct-> Fetus/Embryo etc does represent a VALID human person. Then in his view that person should be entitled to the same rights as any other person via their charter rights.  IE 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.

If you accept his premise it, the arguement isn't that it's the woman's right to have the abortion, but that instead it's state sanctioned murder of an individual. On this basis, and accepting this premise, it's easily agreeable that abortion would be wrong.

The debate, in my mind, is where you define that that embryo becomes a person. Is it at conception?

 

[Kirkhill]

I can think of several reasons:

Medical problems

Rape and/or incest

Age (whether too young or too old)

Mental status

Emotional state

Moe: I can accept most of your caveats most of the time but even there, there is room to quibble over details - case dependent.

I will clearly state that if it comes to a toss up between sacrificing the daughter I know and the grandchild I haven't met then I would encourage my daughter to sacrifice her child and my grandchild.

 

[PMedMoe]

Moe: I can accept most of your caveats most of the time but even there, there is room to quibble over details - case dependent.

Yes, that is true.

I will clearly state that if it comes to a toss up between sacrificing the daughter I know and the grandchild I haven't met then I would encourage my daughter to sacrifice her child and my grandchild.

Having a daughter as well, I agree with you on this one.  :nod:

 

[cupper]

Of late, the GOP is backing away from their attempts to curtail women's health care (abortion, contraception, Planned Parenthood funding). They seem to be reading the tea leaves after the party, and don't like the backlash they are getting.

Several states have either killed or sent back for more consideration various pieces of legislation which address abortion rights, coverage of women's health, etc.

Even Arizona legislators are reconsidering the whole lie to your patient or go to jail bill (wonder why?).

 

[armyvern]

Sorry TV, I know you can speak for yourself...

Because from his point of view, abortion is murdering another human being. You wouldn't expect your argument, "I don't believe murder is wrong, so don't force your belief that it's wrong on me by making a law against it and putting me in jail if I murder someone," to hold weight.

Christopher Hitchens, one of the most proud atheists to ever live, was also against abortion for the same reasons. It sure wasn't because he was brainwashed by religion to think so.

And also to provide full disclosure, I'm an agnostic rationalist and I'm pro-choice and pro-contraception.

No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.

1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.

2) There are quite seperate laws dealing with later-term abortion etc that are applied in later stages of pregnancy exactly because scientific fact shows that a woman's natural labour at those stages would result the birth of a viable lifeform who may be capable of breathing (ie "living") outside of the womb.

3) My logic therefore follows, based upon scientific fact, that a woman who has an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not terminating a viable lifeform at that point.

4) My logic also therefore follows that the arguement that she "is" indeed terminating (or as rapid pro-lifers would state: "murdering") a "child's life" at this point of the pregnancy is not based upon scientific fact, but rather morals - very often religious based morals.

5) If she had a miscarriage at this point in time would she be a murderer (because there has not ever been a child in the world who has survived for a single breath born at this point of the pregnancy)? No. Did she naturally go into labour? No. So then, why does logic for some people hold that if she makes the choice to terminate rather than "gawd or nature" that she must be a murderer?

Gawd isn't part of the equation unless one allows him to be (and that is a personal choice / religious viewpoint). That leaves her "going against nature" <--- and science has shown that nature has yet to produce a single viable human lifeform that is capable of "living" on it's own at this point in time to date.


And, let's be clear: I would never have an abortion (that is my moral choice) and have had 5 miscarriages in my attempts to have my two wonderful children. But, for me, (I'm an athiest) gawd is not part of the equation (and everyone else claims it's not part of their logical reasoning either) so we can take it off the table. Only "nature" then comes into play and, my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform", because in the first trimester, that is exactly what she would be aborting.

 

[ballz]

No because I also come to my conclusion basis on logic and science - exactly as he has said he's done.

1) It is a scientific fact that in the first trimester of pregnancy, a foetus is not developed enough to live should the mother go into labour. At this stage, it is simply not a viable lifeform capable of living and breathing outside of the womb. Find me one case where a foetus 'born' (miscarried) in this trimester has survived to take a single breath.

2) There are quite seperate laws dealing with later-term abortion etc that are applied in later stages of pregnancy exactly because scientific fact shows that a woman's natural labour at those stages would result the birth of a viable lifeform who may be capable of breathing (ie "living") outside of the womb.

3) My logic therefore follows, based upon scientific fact, that a woman who has an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy is not terminating a viable lifeform at that point.

4) My logic also therefore follows that the arguement that she "is" indeed terminating (or as rapid pro-lifers would state: "murdering") a "child's life" at this point of the pregnancy is not based upon scientific fact, but rather morals - very often religious based morals.

5) If she had a miscarriage at this point in time would she be a murderer (because there has not ever been a child in the world who has survived for a single breath born at this point of the pregnancy)? No. Did she naturally go into labour? No. So then, why does logic for some people hold that if she makes the choice to terminate rather than "gawd or nature" that she must be a murderer?

Gawd isn't part of the equation unless one allows him to be (and that is a personal choice / religious viewpoint). That leaves her "going against nature" <--- and science has shown that nature has yet to produce a single viable human lifeform that is capable of "living" on it's own at this point in time to date.

I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.

my morals tell me that I have no right to tell her that she can not terminate "a scientifically non viable lifeform"

This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM.

If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening?

If every time I watched South Park some kid in Africa died, but I didn't believe you when you told me watching South Park was killing kids in Africa, and said "Piss off with your nonsense Vern, I'm not harming anyone"... would you not feel morally obligated to try to stop me from watching South Park???

If your answer is yes, then you would be doing the same thing that pro-lifers are doing.

 

[exabedtech]

Religion rules US politics.  In a nation at war, gripped by recession and burning through a trillion dollars more a year than it has, take a look at what sort of topics are discussed in the GOP race or US politics in general.

Regardless of where you stand on the abortion issue, the fact is that the drive in US for/against IS a religious thing.  If it were based on anything else, it would have been resolved decades ago.

I'm so very thankful that we haven't followed them down that road...  Lets keep it that way.

 

[armyvern]

I guess you ignored the part where I said I am an agnostic rationalist and pro-choice or you wouldn't have written all this out for me to read. I have already agreed to it all.

No, I wrote all that because you spoke to "TV considers this to be murder" (a word he never utilized). He stated that he utilized logic. I quoted you as you brought the word "murder" into it (under TVs name) while quoting my post about "logic". I therefore laid out why I do not consider this "to be murder" and further spoke to the "logic" I used to come up with my original response to TV.

This is the only part you wrote that is relevant to your question about why someone who is pro-life wants to impose laws against pro-choice people. Their morals tell them that you have no right to kill another human being, and therefore they *do* have the right to intervene. The fact that you don't think it's murder is IRRELEVANT to THEM.

If you thought *insert random act here* was murder, would you not then be morally obligated to try and prevent it from happening?

If every time I watched South Park some kid in Africa died, but I didn't believe you when you told me watching South Park was killing kids in Africa, and said "Piss off with your nonsense Vern, I'm not harming anyone"... would you not feel morally obligated to try to stop me from watching South Park???

If your answer is yes, then you would be doing the same thing that pro-lifers are doing.

It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.

The law allows for early term abortions, and treats late-term abortions quite differently in law and circumstance, exactly because of life viability. The law does not consider early-term abortions to be murder based upon that science. They may, but that is their choice based upon personal morality (and, quite often religion). Obviously my morality says differently.

Currently, the law agrees.

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.

 

[ballz]

It is not irrelevant to the discussion. They have used their logic to determine that it is "murder", I have simply stated my logic to say why I believe it is not. Just as my logic may be irrelevant to them, theirs is irrelevant to me.

It is completely irrelevant to your question "why do they think it's okay to push it on other people." How both parties came to the conclusion they did is irrelevant. The point is, some people feel it's murder, and therefore they have to stop it. Our logic tells us "no harm, no foul," much like someone chewing tobacco in their own home, so we don't care.

There's a big difference, as a result of the conclusions pro-lifers and pro-choice have come to, in what action they feel the are morally obligated to do.

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.

No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:

I assumed you asked because you wanted to understand where the pro-lifers were coming from in thinking that it was okay to legislate against abortion, and as a pro-choice person that thinks the pro-lifers have a point and are justified in trying to push it on people, that maybe I'd be a good person to try and shed some light on it.

I think I assumed wrong, I think you meant for it to be rhetorical, and that you just meant to get your point across that you don't think they should push their beliefs on people. That's fine I guess, I will stop this circus. :argument:

 

[armyvern]

...
No, it wasn't irrelevant drivel, I was trying to get you to stand in a pro-lifers shoes for a second, which you haven't done because you took the example so literally. :facepalm:
...

Keep slapping yourself.

My entire response to your silly question was:

As to the part in yellow (which is actually your own brand of completely irrelevant drivel), my answer would be an unequivocal, "No, South Park is a cartoon and you watching television in the first world did not cause their deaths." Factually speaking, X number of children in Africa actually did die while I typed this ... actual living, breathing, children. Is that my fault? No.

As it is not my fault, is there any ethical and moral obligation to do anything about it? No. Could/should/do I do anything about that? Yes. Am I going to insist to others that they need to send their 30 bucks a month in to prevent death over there? No.

You want to bring starving children in Africa into a discussion about abortion? Then here you go; here's where I say we start fixing this 100% preventable problem at:

Is there something morally existent that a certain entity that keeps preaching to those particular persons that they should not use birth control, should continue having children that can not be supported or fed, that they should go forth and multiply (so sayeth the Lord) as that is God's will, could do about it? You're damn right there is. And when their own morality sees the richest entity in the world step up, feed, financially support, and rear those children that their religious reasonings have caused to be created and be born into that place - you'll see me stepping up to do my bit to attempt to correct that situation that is 100% preventable. When they start supporting the right-to-live of actual already-born human beings (not just those on death row  :) and preventing all those needless deaths in Africa caused by blind adherence to religious doctrine based morals, then they can start on the unborn.

That is not just a matter of childbirth either, it is a matter of health. Aids is also rampant in this area, yet some -claiming superior morality- do insist upon their subjects that practicing safe sex is a mortal sin itself (Note, TV has already stated he is not in this category). And yet, they have spoken out about practicing safe sex too as it would also prevent birth and thus be a sin. How moral and ethical is that?

The question is rhetorical and I do not actually want an answer from you. Morals are one thing, but if one wants to start tossing religion into the matter it becomes very, very different. There are ethical based morals and religious based morals.

I am quite sure this post is sure to draw wrath, I really don't care. The Pope wants all those children to be born, then allow him to ante up the funds and resources to support them. THAT would be the ethical thing to do if one wanted to claim superior "morality".

 

[canada94]

I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL

 

[armyvern]

I wanna say my opinion but I am afraid I'd be eaten alive LOL

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cannibal.  ;D

I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on whatever matters.

 

[canada94]

Contrary to popular belief, I am not a cannibal.  ;D

I hold no grudges against others just because we should have differing opinions on whatever matters.

Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!

 

[armyvern]

Hehe I'm just trying to lighten the mood, abortion is a very touchy issue for some people!

It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.

 

[canada94]

It is indeed; that touchiness is certainly not limited to one side of the fence either.

Very true! Both sides are quite true to their beliefs.. when me and my sister debate the issue it is all out war haha

 

[Remius]

Interesting stuff.

I think that ultimately when you allow someone to choose, you aren't forcing anyone to do something.  They choose to do it based on their own convictions.

I wonder how the pro-lifers would feel if the state said that people under the age of 18 must abort. What I'm getting at is that that is how some pro-choicers feel they are being treated by some governments that are anti abortion.

I'll keep my personal opinion to myself but it helps to look at both sides of the coin.

 

[Jed]

.... By your argument, given how many fertilized embryos fail to implant, I've seen a tongue-in-cheek argument made that god is the greatest abortionist of all. However, I also could rack that up on this board of dumb things. The reality is that while the definition of life may well be debated, but the law of the land in most cases makes clear that it's birth. I don't think any woman can (let alone should) be forced to carry a pregnancy to term that for any reason whatsoever she does not want. It's that simple. If there's no access to legal, safe abortion, then women will seek solutions elsewhere, regardless of the potential costs. It's really that simple. I hope that these laws blow up in the faces of those who pushed them.

So, you feel that the law of the land supports that all the fetuses that are in the premature baby time frame are not human beings and therefore have no rights that are applied to all other members of the human race?

I don't think that is the case.

In the intersest of full disclosure, I personally agree with TV's opinion on the this issue. I am an RC by birth and upbringing, but am not a practising RC.  Having an adopted child of my own, I am very glad the birth mother made the personal sacrifice to give birth to my son. She is also very glad some 27 years later as she did not have any children later and she appreciates her decision every day.