I am a staunch opponent of abortion, it being the murder of an unborn baby; so I challenge whoever supports it, to debate with me how it can possibly be right.
-A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body, even when in her mother's womb.
-Abortion is discrimation in the worst form, because it murders a child who came "at an inconvenient time."
Would you please expound on the alternative option you claimed to exist?
Very simple. There is no afterlife. Or there is an afterlife of eternal peace. No ****ation, but no bliss either.
There might also be an afterlife but not quite like the one defined in Christianity
Another option beyond all those is to go to Heaven despite abortion, since it is up to your God to do the final judgement.
I never claimed otherwise.
Yet you did say "it's a chance to prove ourselves for what we are" correct? Clearly proof of what makes us the people we are is not solely dependent on that. And in the case of Christianity, God surely knows that better than anyone.
You also claimed "I care about everyone and nobody should go to hell." Implying that those who do not heed to the doctrine that abortion is murder will go to hell, when clearly, that is not the case. Do not pretend you never claimed otherwise, as such, because you did, right there.
It's a shame that this is a debate at all, pro-life vs pro-choice. Rather than worrying about whether or not we should be criminalizing or legalizing abortion, we should be attempting to create a world, a society that does not require abortion. After all, why do people have abortions to begin with? They feel as though perhaps they are not good enough for their children, they can not afford a child, they were sexually assaulted and so forth. If only our world was one in which we removed the stigma around having 'illegitimate' children and instead focused on support, resources and education. It's a shame we don't focus on removing pejorative views on giving away children that cannot be supported or that was begotten from a sexual assault.
@Yogurt_Thrower Abortion goes beyond social stigma, though. Consider medical complications where the life of the mother is at risk, for example. Or even if it isn't at risk, but the foetus suffers from malformations that will mean an early death for it after birth.
As for the case of sexual assault, you should give it some more thought. A woman that is pregnant after being forced is pregnant against her will. In this case resorting to abortion has nothing to do with social stigma. You need to take into account that pregnancy is long, often painful, and deeply and irreversibly affects your life. You cannot ask a person to endure that against their will.
I do agree with you that support/information and education are critically important, as it will reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies (plenty of evidence for that). But abortion will continue to be of use in those cases where it still happens. If you want to avoid that, you need to eradicate poverty and sexual violence entirely. Good luck with that
About malformations that make the newborn non-viable, you could drastically reduce it from occurring, too. The issue here is that it would require wide-spread early screening, or even controlled artificial insemination. All of those techniques carry their heavy load of complicated ethical questions, as you probably know.
@HahiHa how certain are you of that? As far as legal abortions go, in Canada, 17'625, of 23,651, occur between 13-16 weeks of gestational age or earlier. With 23'060, of 23'561, abortions occurring with no signs of complications (arcc-cdac - 2015). It seems to me that these numbers indicate that many abortions are decided before any signs of complications arise, let alone life threatening or malformation threatening. I want to again stress that the 501 abortions with signs of complications do not indicate that they are either life threatening or threatening of malformations.
For the sexual assault, I would ask you to give it some more thought as well. How sure are you that abortion isn't the result of the stigma of having a '*******' child, that it isn't the shame of having a child from sexual assault - the shame of what people will think? Are you actually certain that many of these cases are on account of the physical toll that pregnancies have on women? And not on account of hardships (psychological, economical and otherwise that are not physical). I tend to believe it is on account of the non-physical affects on life; the affects that could be fixed with greater supports, education and resources - that could also be better fixed if we removed the stigma associated with giving away children begotten from accidents, contraceptives failing and or sexual assault.
Of course there is no real way of knowing save for surveys and interviews with people having abortions arising from sexual assault, and maybe I'm too optimistic that the reasons are for the non-physical reasons and maybe I'm too optimistic of what these resources and supports would result in, but alas there you have it.
Further, according to an abstract from NCBI half of women, from the US, having abortions, said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems, and 2/3rds said they could not afford a child (these are cited reasons, amongst others for not wanting a child).
I do accept that there are exceptions where malformations, life-threatening complications and the arduous natures of pregnancies are reasons for some abortions, but I do believe they are by far the exceptions.
I suppose what I mean to say is this: rather than spending our energy arguing and debating the pros and cons of pro-life or pro-choice there should instead be equally engaged dialogues on supports, resources and ways to further education. Of course you would still permit abortions, but I do not think they would be nearly as prominent as you believe.
Oh, don't get me wrong, "non-physical" factors have quite an impact especially in the cases you mentioned - accidents or relationship issues, for instance. That's probably why in countries that legalize abortion, abortion procedures (as far as I know) include a discussion with professionals beforehand to sort out the issues and possible solutions, including all the information they need to make the decision. That already - again, as far as I know - contributes to reducing the number of abortions actually carried through.
It's just that you seemed to say that women should "simply" carry the child to terms even if they didn't want it, and give it away afterwards. That's mostly why I mentioned the physical hardships, and the irreversible effects including (though not explicitly mentioned before) economic/social impacts like losing your job or even your career chances due to the pregnancy.
It also would mean more children landing in orphanages or similar places, and last I heard those are already crowded as it is. Not only that, there's also the perspective of the child itself; is it really ethically unproblematic to give birth to a child just to give it away, knowing it will have to live with it?
Basically what I meant to say is, 1) it's not that easy, and 2) the choice should ultimately always be left to the woman. All we can do is provide support and information.
How sure are you that abortion isn't the result of the stigma of having a '*******' child, that it isn't the shame of having a child from sexual assault - the shame of what people will think?
In my opinion the shame of what people might think is negligible compared to having to carry the result of an already traumatizing event around for nine months. It is an unnecessary physical and psychological burden in addition to the physical and psychological burden of the assault, is certainly not helpful for overcoming the trauma at all, and as already mentioned I don't think it does most children any good either.
As far as legal abortions go, in Canada, 17'625, of 23,651, occur between 13-16 weeks of gestational age or earlier. With 23'060, of 23'561, abortions occurring with no signs of complications (arcc-cdac - 2015).
So?
Are you actually certain that many of these cases are on account of the physical toll that pregnancies have on women?
Did he say that they are? No.
And not on account of hardships (psychological, economical and otherwise that are not physical).
Did he say that they aren't? Very much the opposite.
that could also be better fixed if we removed the stigma associated with giving away children begotten from accidents, contraceptives failing and or sexual assault.
And what stigma is that, exactly? I don't believe I've heard of any notable opposition to the process of adoption since the death of the eugenics movement.
Further, according to an abstract from NCBI half of women, from the US, having abortions, said they did not want to be a single parent or had relationship problems, and 2/3rds said they could not afford a child (these are cited reasons, amongst others for not wanting a child).
1. In regards to the first and last 'so': From what I understood, HahiHa believed that complications, malformations and the physical hardships of sexual assault were large contributing factors leading to abortions. The statistics show otherwise. Relative to the total amount of abortions, few are a result of complications/fear of malformations and fewer yet would place any of these factors as a sole cause of said abortions. Thus, why do they occur? Not to beat a dead horse, but it is my hypothesis that it is the lack of resources, supports and educations with a combination of stigma. Everything points to this.
2.
As for the case of sexual assault, you should give it some more thought. A woman that is pregnant after being forced is pregnant against her will. In this case resorting to abortion has nothing to do with social stigma. You need to take into account that pregnancy is long, often painful, and deeply and irreversibly affects your life.
He strongly implied that the reasons for abortion are physical in nature, in sexual assaults. At least this is how I perceived it. You know, on account of him stating 1) it has nothing to do with stigma, and 2) referring to the duration and pain of pregnancies (both physical in nature). I do admit I may have misconstrued it, wouldn't be the first time in my life I've misconstrued something :P
3. So... I'm right then.
4. If there were no stigma 3/4 of women giving away their baby wouldn't say it's because the baby would interfere with work, 2/3 wouldn't say they can not afford a child and half would not say they did not want to be a single parent/had relationship issues. If there's no stigma why not send these babies away for adoption? Of course the arguments could be that simply being pregnant and the strains of pregnancy might impact work and that pregnancy related costs might be worrisome, but I doubt that is what these women are referring too. I don't see those reasons as being the most highlighted and being the greatest causes of abortion, reading the NCBI link. It's a deeply ingrained and deeply entrenched stigma. Many people see women as their mothers and sisters, as nurturing figures and it's clearly impacting why abortions and why women have abortions so early and why they do not give away kids for abortion - which would inevitably lead to neighbours and friends likely questioning them on what happened to the baby. You can of course present other reasons for these stated reasons, but often the simplest answer is the right one. And here that answer is clear: stigma, resources and education.
@HahiHa it's too bad the discussions and assistance does not go further really. To remove the causes leading to why women want abortions. You of course can not remove them all and I do 100% agree that in cases regarding complications/malformations and even in some sexual assaults abortions will always be common. Nor do I mean to suggest to remove the option, only that the I think the option would be rarely used if society/the govt got off their ***** and assisted in the way I believe they should. The only suggestion intended was that the dialogues, such as in this thread, which are adversarial in nature and does not focus on women, as I think they should - that being removing the causations of abortion - do not really help. These discussions probably only further entrench people into their world view.
In my opinion the shame of what people might think is negligible compared to having to carry the result of an already traumatizing event around for nine months. It is an unnecessary physical and psychological burden in addition to the physical and psychological burden of the assault, is certainly not helpful for overcoming the trauma at all, and as already mentioned I don't think it does most children any good either.
Could be. Definitely in some cases, but I genuinely think that it isn't primarily because of those reasons. I could definitely be wrong though.
1. In regards to the first and last 'so': From what I understood, HahiHa believed that complications, malformations and the physical hardships of sexual assault were large contributing factors leading to abortions. The statistics show otherwise.
All I said is that it happens and needs to be taken into account. I believe that, except in the case of pregnancies resulting from sexual assault, I made no statement about how frequent it is.
All of this suggests that the questions and dialogue around abortion should not be to criminalize or even to legalize, but instead on how to further help women needing this to begin with.
For that you need a dialogue, as you pointed out. However, there can be no open dialogue as long as abortion, and thus all the official professional help and counsel revolving around the abortion process, isn't legal. Having an official option practically eradicates deaths due to improper abortion conditions/techniques usually seen in countries that criminalize it. So yes, I do believe that legalizing it is an important part of it all.
Nor do I mean to suggest to remove the option, only that the I think the option would be rarely used if society/the govt got off their ***** and assisted in the way I believe they should.
I pretty much agree with this.
There is one aspect I haven't mentioned yet, though. In our previous debate with Ntech, me and some others have basically argued that abortion is not murder. So if we assume it's fine, what reasons would we have to try to reduce it? I 100% agree that it is very important to provide a solid education, information and support to everyone. But the goal of such measures should be to enable women to make an informed choice; not to explicitly try to reduce the number of abortions.
As a more concise summary of my viewpoint: These kinds of debate - in general - rather miss the point. In my opinion the focus should be to ameliorate conditions leading to abortion; I think by now it is obvious which conditions I refer to. Nonetheless, I do not advocate legalizing abortion at all, I only mean to say that I do not believe it would be quite so ubiquitous if we focused on bettering the living conditions of those impoverished, single, unmarried and uneducated - I define 'educated', here, as possessing higher levels of formal education, though that is obviously not the only kind of intelligence possible. As well, providing education to society to reduce stigma around illegitimate and single parents would do wonders as well.
4. If there were no stigma 3/4 of women giving away their baby wouldn't say it's because the baby would interfere with work, 2/3 wouldn't say they can not afford a child and half would not say they did not want to be a single parent/had relationship issues.
Raising a child is a lot of work, and most jobs that I know of don't allow employees to do so in the workplace. Raising a child is often costly, and impoverished people who can barely afford to support themselves aren't going to be able to properly care for one. Raising a child can be difficult for one person to manage unassisted, particularly if they are impoverished and/or working full-time. This is not stigma, this is a fact of reality.
If there's no stigma why not send these babies away for adoption?
Because of the exact reasons that were already stated: Pregnancy is a long, arduous, painful process that can result in losing a job or job opportunity, medical complications and associated health risks, and ethical concerns over the resultant child.
Which is all I mean to state: that instead of arguing back and forth on to legalize or not to, it would be better to discuss ways to prevent abortions rather than simply asking if it should be legal or not.
Unless it's by way of preventing unwanted pregnancies, there is no logical need to prevent abortion from happening.
What about the social stigma around parents/women who choose to abort?
Probably another symptom of the problems around why abortions occur to begin with. By correcting for the root cause of such social ailments you would remove, in large I believe, stigma such as this. Regardless, this stigma is not okay either; that's definitely not what I am trying to imply or indicate and such stigma should obviously be addressed. You could easily address them, I believe, by better educating the masses and tackling ubiquitous fallacies and misinformation, however, there is apparently not an impetus to do this (sadly). In fact, you could argue that certain US politicians actively encourage and proliferate misinformation.
Raising a child is a lot of work, and most jobs that I know of don't allow employees to do so in the workplace. Raising a child is often costly, and impoverished people who can barely afford to support themselves aren't going to be able to properly care for one. Raising a child can be difficult for one person to manage unassisted, particularly if they are impoverished and/or working full-time. This is not stigma, this is a fact of reality.
You seem to be missing my point. We have the resources and knowledge to make it a lot less expensive, stressful and otherwise arduous. Govts could provide better child-care if they wished. It need not be a concern. However, it seems prevalent in the US and Canada that it is (mostly) the burden of the parents to rear their children. I am also arguing that the stress, that the fear of losing jobs, and that the problems surrounding the expenses can be ameliorated and fixed, if society were to really try.
Because of the exact reasons that were already stated: Pregnancy is a long, arduous, painful process that can result in losing a job or job opportunity, medical complications and associated health risks, and ethical concerns over the resultant child.
A few things
1) We already know that the pregnancy itself is not a big factor for abortions (see article abstract for commonly listed reasons).
2) If provided with the right supports and resources it would be a lot less arduous.
3) With proper regulation and enforcement you can protect jobs and job opportunities.
4) As previously mentioned, medical complications and associated health risks are relatively minor and rare (especially as society develops and medicine improves).
5) It's more ethical to prevent the resultant child from being born rather than to adopt them away, because of these ethical concerns? As well, you can make these institutions that take care of adopted children 'better' and you can address these concerns through education.
Welp, such is my belief anyhow. We have the resources and we have the knowledge on how to better society, especially in this regard, but rather we choose not to. By we I don't mean literally everyone, but instead the ignorant, the politicians who ignore the facts and businesses who lobby for their own profits rather than 'the good' of society.
Unless it's by way of preventing unwanted pregnancies, there is no logical need to prevent abortion from happening.
Besides for making society a less stressful, a less adversarial, a less impoverished and an overall more pleasant place of course. That is, because to prevent abortion from happening - in large and not completely - it would do this. Fixing the problems leading to abortion would do this.
We have the resources and knowledge to make it a lot less expensive, stressful and otherwise arduous. Govts could provide better child-care if they wished. It need not be a concern. However, it seems prevalent in the US and Canada that it is (mostly) the burden of the parents to rear their children. I am also arguing that the stress, that the fear of losing jobs, and that the problems surrounding the expenses can be ameliorated and fixed, if society were to really try.
As with climate change, poverty, pollution, addiction, deforestation, poaching, domestic violence, gang violence, lead paint, genocide, viral epidemics, and flushable wipes, the underlying problem is that society will never really try.
1) We already know that the pregnancy itself is not a big factor for abortions (see article abstract for commonly listed reasons).
So?
2) If provided with the right supports and resources it would be a lot less arduous.
(see previous response)
3) With proper regulation and enforcement you can protect jobs and job opportunities.
And with fairy dust you can fly without the aid of wind or propellants, but I'm still going to insist on the parachute.
4) As previously mentioned, medical complications and associated health risks are relatively minor and rare (especially as society develops and medicine improves).
As stated earlier: So?
5) It's more ethical to prevent the resultant child [sic.] from being born rather than to adopt them away, because of these ethical concerns?
As should be obvious.
Besides for making society a less stressful, a less adversarial, a less impoverished and an overall more pleasant place of course. That is, because to prevent abortion from happening - in large and not completely - it would do this. Fixing the problems leading to abortion would do this.
Like I said, unless it's by way of preventing unwanted pregnancies, there is no logical need to prevent abortion from happening.
