Abortion

[esskreemr]

This is a moral issue that I have wrestled with for quite some time. It's hard not to buy into the tracks of thoughts that become firmly entrenched in our culture. On one-side we have the "Pro-lifers" who believe that the rights of the fetus must be upheld, many hold that life begins at conception and so aborting the fetus is in fact an act of murder. On the other side the "Pro-choice", so named because they believe that a women's reproductive rights should be held first and foremost.

Let me preface this with an acknowlegement that this is a difficult, multi-faceted issue with many sides even within the general camps themselves. As such, what I'm typing are extreme generalizations that sum up what I feel each camp is championing and that there are a myriad of other factors that weigh heavily on people's decision to refer to themselves as Pro-choice or Pro-life.

It is in this multifaceted delimma that my moral connundrum begins.

I cannot call myself Pro-life because though it is true that life begins at conception (everything must have a beginning), I don't believe that the clumps of tissue can be referred to as human. This may sound like a cold, scientific view of life, but just because something has a "potential" to mature into a full human, doesn't necessarily mean it will. There are some pro-lifers that believe that life begins preconception and that sperm and egg cells should be "protected". However, destroying a fetus that is developed to me is wrong. I honestly feel that, unless the Mother's life is at risk, third trimester abortions are wrong and should be banned. Isn't 6 months enough time to decide? At this point, the fetus should be protected. If it is an unwanted pregnancy, there are adoption options available.

I cannot call myself Pro-choice because I don't believe that abortion should be allowed, unless the mother's life is in jeopardy, after a certain period of time. I'm sure the "cut-off" period could, in and of itself, be a hot topic of debate but I feel a reasonable comprimise would be a medical indication of organ development and brain activity. Should we really consider 4 cells to be a living human with full rights that override the rights of the woman's body? How about 16, 32, 64? At this point, I'm not sure what the cut off point should be, I'd have to do some research first. but I suspect somewhere during the second trimester SHOULD be sufficient.

So do I call myself Pro-choice or Pro-life or just muddle through without joining a side? Most of the people that I have spoked to who agree with abortion remaining legal seem to hold the idea that there is a "cut-off" point for when the lump of tissue "becomes" human. Most of the Pro-lifers seem to feel that if the egg is fertilized, the resultant human life should be protected. How far from the tree that you have grown from do you fall. How about you posters from other countries? What are the current lines of thought in your respective countries?

So with this, I would say I lean towards pro-choice. Reproductive rights are a whole 'nother ball of wax, but feel free to bring up contraception, fertility,The Bible, FemiNazism, Stem Cell research or whatever you need to support your argument.

[noodle]

i would call you pro choice. or, a moderate pro choice-er, or whatever.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Thanks, you just let the cat out of the bag. I am pro life, but I support a womans right to choose in some situations, but not all.

[D+F+P=Hadouken!]

Also, on a different note, I dont believe that any male, myself included, should have any opinion on this. Its between a woman and her baby, and they are the only ones that should have any say so whatsoever. Opinions from guys on the subject of abortion is are just pointless.

[telkanuru]

The main problem is defining when the fetus becomes 'human', because once it does, to kill it would be murder. The instant when sperm and egg meet, the fusion cannot be considered human. It bears no traits of that category yet. I would instead refer to this as a "potential human". And obviously one cannot classify a human as a being who is self-reliant, because one is incapable of sustaining oneself for a good time after birth (indeed, perhaps one is never truely self sufficient). Sentience also is not a measure, because there is no way to tell that. In short, there is no exact instant you can put your finger on and say "life begins here", so there is no way to say "here, it's murder, here, it's OK".

This presents a problem. Moreover, even if you do manage to determine when something becomes alive, you still have a judgement to make, ie. the value of quality of life, the relative values of a life, etc.

It's my opinion that if the child is actually delivered (or very close ex. 9th month), one has had long enough to weigh the consequences, and the only cause for abortion is in the case of complications that would endanger the mother's life. However, before this, the only reason I could see to prohibit an abortion is religion, and we are all well aware of the separation of chuch and state and the fact that "novus ordo seclorum" is printed on the back of the dollar bill. So, essentially, I'm pro-choice.

Additional notation- I find the "pro-life" annoying. I am likewise "pro-life". That is, I am anti-death. Dying is not on my list of things to do. Anti-abortion, fine, but I think "pro-life" lends bias to any discussion, however subconciously.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Also, on a different note, I dont believe that any male, myself included, should have any opinion on this. Its between a woman and her baby, and they are the only ones that should have any say so whatsoever. Opinions from guys on the subject of abortion is are just pointless.

A couple of points:

I am for a woman's right to choose.
I feel that late abortions are murder.
I also disagree heavily with the above statement. Creating a life is a two person deal. Laws also dictate that raising said child requires money from the father.

I fully believe that if the father is present and of age, they should have a say in the issue. Maybe not that an abortion should take place, but what, if any invovlement (financial and emotional) they plan. In effect, they could give up rights or take full responsibilty..

I say this because I've seen too many times the guy involved not believing in abortion, and distraught that their child is being, so they feel, murdered. The child is just as much the father's as it is the mother's.

[kalivor]

You're pro-choice. The people who show up on the news, the spokespeople, etc ... they're in the extreme. Most people recognise that the truth lies somewhere in between ...

Sperm meets egg = not a human.
[Stuff in middle]
Baby is about to come out = human being.

The argument ought to be about where in the middle the change occurs -- or, more conservatively, at what point are we fairly sure that this change hasn't occurred, and under what circumstances should abortion be allowed after that point.

Of course, reasonable debate is impossible between the two camps. To allow the other side to make an uncontested point, no matter how trivial and obvious, would be the end of the world for either side.

And a final point: Abortion is not murder.

Murder requires proof to be submitted in a court of law, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that murder (taking the life of another human being) did indeed take place. Leaving aside the difficulty of actually finding an unbiased jurist (nevermind jury) for this kind of case, I can't imagine such proof being offered. Though I suppose a government could change the definition to date from conception ... but that would be a policy nightmare -- should there be conception certificates? Can someone get citizenship from being conceived in the country, rather than being born there or having citizens who are parents? What if they were born in the country, but conceived outside of it? Is the drinking age 21 years from birth or conception? What does "years old" mean? etc, etc, etc ... trying to plan for all the consequences of such an act might take up more time than an administration has before the next election ...

[gojujay]

Opinions from guys aren't pointless unless we move to a totally matriarch society. As long as men are allowed to serve in public office, their opinions will matter.

The question of abortion will never be answered until this country has a legal definition of when life begins. I suppose that as a question of law, life (as relates to pregnancy) begins when the woman decides to take the pregnancy to term. Questions that arise, what happens when the woman is unaware of her condition, and what happens when a woman is unable to make her choice known?

As a legal issue I am pro-choice. As a moral issue, I can only say that I believe life to begin when a fetus could survive without the mother. Thanks to modern medicine, this "window" is increasing, however I do not believe that we will ever have the technology to replace a womb.

As to whether you should call yourself pro-life or pro-choice, I give you a pithy answer; why do you feel the need for a label? They limit you and allow others to pigeon-hole you. Smarmy, I know but I warned you

The fallout from this topic should be interesting. Should never have banned asbestos...

[gojujay]

Originally Posted by achilleus

I fully believe that if the father is present and of age, they should have a say in the issue. Maybe not that an abortion should take place, but what, if any invovlement (financial and emotional) they plan. In effect, they could give up rights or take full responsibilty..

Don't they make that decision when they have sex? (Contraceptives can and do fail)

Originally Posted by achilleus

I say this because I've seen too many times the guy involved not believing in abortion, and distraught that their child is being, so they feel, murdered. The child is just as much the father's as it is the mother's.

A good argument for knowing with whom you are mating. Sometimes marriage solves this...

[Craig]

There was an interesting article in, of all things, USA Today on Wednesday discussing the change in number of abortions from 1990's up to 2000 and 2001 on. I don't have the figures in front of me, but the conclusions were interesting and pointed to the overall economic influences that overshadow the decision for many.

If you're interested in a wholistic approach to the issue, it makes for an interesting read.

Craig

[Soldier]

One way I look at it: There are thousands of couples in the United States who wait in long lines for that normal, healthy American baby to adopt. If you don't want the kid, fine. But why deny them the child, as well?

I think that abortion should be illegal excepting cases or rape (in which case it should still be as early as possible) and significant danger to the mother's life. If nothing else, I view this as a simple matter of taking responsibility for one's own actions, and not just washing your hands of a difficult matter.

[achilleus]

Originally Posted by gojujay

Don't they make that decision when they have sex? (Contraceptives can and do fail)

Sounds like a reason to ban abortion as well.

Originally Posted by gojujay

A good argument for knowing with whom you are mating. Sometimes marriage solves this...

Marriage doesn't always solve this. I've seen many couples fighting over if they want another child. Not to mention that sometimes pregnancy is not planned. For example, two college kids, contraceptive fails. The girl wants an abortion since she's not ready. The boy, is. Add in that the boy doesn't believes abortion is murder. It's his child too, not just hers.

[Black Jeebus]

On the one hand I believe that an abortion is a choice that the parents (the father has as much stake in the child as the mother) have to make. I would not take away the ability to make that choice legally, but if I was ever going to have a child with a woman and she opted for abortion... I probably couldn't have a relationship of any sort with that woman afterwards.

[Moonitic]

Two things, then I refuse to speak of this ugly topic anymore: In Latin, "fetus" means "offspring." If two (yes, TWO) humans produce an offspring, then that offspring is, indeed, human. In an attempt to reduce a child to "mere clumps of tissue" by using the word fetus, one actually qualifies him or her as a human.

Number two: People will get very angry about this, but it needs to be said. Shouldn't a woman (& man...because it takes egg AND sperm to create those "tissues") make the choice prior to having sex? In this day & age, even little children know what can happen when a penis goes into a vagina. A baby could be produced. It's not rocket science. It's very elementary. Perhaps if a woman is that worried about her choice, maybe she should be responsible before having sex. She can go to her doctor & speak to him/her about protection. Or, she could realize that we aren't mindless sex machines, regardless of what the media tries to tell us, & hold off until the time is more appropriate for her to raise a possible child. If a girl "isn't ready" for a baby, maybe she's not ready for sex. It's not just hot, steamy bodies bumping & grinding. There is an emotional connection that is made. People try to slam dunk that out of their minds at times. Far too many young people are unprepared to deal with that fact, & are greatly hurt after their first time because of it. Even some adults aren't, because they obviously have unhealthy attitudes toward sex.

Education is the key in cases like this. People really need to know how a baby develops. They need to know all that an unborn child can do in the womb. Here's a short list: cry, hear, feel pain, hiccup, kick, breathe (not air, but they do practice), respond to outside stimuli. They need to know the process from start to finish. They need to know that the "easy way out" isn't so easy. Some girls have so many abortions that they are unable to carry children down the road because of the "quick fix." They view the procedure as birth control, & that's just sad.

I am pro-life. Obviously, the child must be ALIVE if someone decided to call it "pro-LIFE." As a mother of two myself, I can assure anyone that an unborn child IS alive. My ribs stilll haven't healed from the last kickboxer who dwelled within my womb. I also believe that it's not just a woman's choice in the matter. Her body & a man's body came together one night & conceived a child. Sperm that belonged to him went into creating that child. His DNA is in those cells. He's just as responsiblem whether she likes it or not.

It's about time people started thinking...before the fact, not after.

[Moonitic]

Originally Posted by kalivor

And a final point: Abortion is not murder.

Murder requires proof to be submitted in a court of law, which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that murder (taking the life of another human being) did indeed take place. Leaving aside the difficulty of actually finding an unbiased jurist (nevermind jury) for this kind of case, I can't imagine such proof being offered. Though I suppose a government could change the definition to date from conception ... but that would be a policy nightmare -- should there be conception certificates? Can someone get citizenship from being conceived in the country, rather than being born there or having citizens who are parents? What if they were born in the country, but conceived outside of it? Is the drinking age 21 years from birth or conception? What does "years old" mean? etc, etc, etc ... trying to plan for all the consequences of such an act might take up more time than an administration has before the next election ...

I wasn't going to reply again, but I missed this little nugget of misinformation.

The aborted fetus in a receptical isn't proof of murder, eh? The crushed skull of an infant half delivered, then his brain sucked out before being pulled from the "egg donor's" body (she's no mother) isn't proof? Interesting. I'd say that's pretty tangible evidence. AND there's a motive, or more. Hmm...

Methinks someone needs to study the subject a little more.

[Gav]

I know that Craig has already chimed in on this however I am going to go ahead and say this:

I will be watching this thread. I already see some issues and thoughts being raised here that I dislike. No names as it has not spiralled out fo control. First major flame exhange I see and this thread is deleated.

This is a Fencing forum. Discuss day to day politics. This topic is a hot potato and attempts to discuss it are fraught. It is my belief that this topic is one that is harmful to this board, it brings the worst out in both parties.

So consider yourselves warned...

I leave yourself with this thoughL; There is only one way to spell fanatic.

[Phoenix]

I used to say that only in cases of rape or sickness should a baby be aborted if the mother wants. But I have been thinking about the situations that can not possibly be thought of that a women would want an abortion. so my main theory is it depends on the situation whether I think abortion is sinful or not. But I defently don't think abortion is a birth control. It is not a piece of cake to have an abortion. There has to be some emotional tie (I think) to what is happening.

Just my opinion on the matter

[Moonitic]

Originally Posted by Phoenix

I used to say that only in cases of rape or sickness should a baby be aborted if the mother wants. But I have been thinking about the situations that can not possibly be thought of that a women would want an abortion. so my main theory is it depends on the situation whether I think abortion is sinful or not. But I defently don't think abortion is a birth control. It is not a piece of cake to have an abortion. There has to be some emotional tie (I think) to what is happening.

Just my opinion on the matter

Sadly, the sister of one of my friends has used abortion as birth control...& sees no reason to stop. She doesn't understand what it could do to her body, because she doesn't seem to care. I can see doing it once, maybe twice...but over & over again (I think the girl just recently had number 6, if not higher). That's a clear problem & abortion is merely a symptom. Digging deeper, it's happening more often than people would realize. Thankfully, Phoenix, you don't see it that way. Those who do, however, need counseling to get to the root of the problem.

Religion, etc. aside, I know that I pay $15 co-pay every time I go to any of my doctors. "Friend's sister," if she had to pay the same co-pay, would already be at $90 for every office visit (assuming the procedure is covered by her insurance, if not, it's a HECK of a lot more) that she's had. And if she's had complications? More money. Protection is cheaper. Getting a hobby other than sex is much cheaper than that. This girl, & others like her, is wasting her money where it could be spent much better elsewhere. And if someday she wants kids but has trouble because of all of the abortions? Wow...that's going to be a LOT more money.

[Rogue]

Originally Posted by D+F+P=Hadouken!

Also, on a different note, I dont believe that any male, myself included, should have any opinion on this. Its between a woman and her baby, and they are the only ones that should have any say so whatsoever. Opinions from guys on the subject of abortion is are just pointless.

While it is pointless to continue the debate on abortion ( no minds will be changed from argument), I will say the man has a right if it is his child, fetus, half his cells... in question.