I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
I found a very interesting way of looking at abortion the other day while on Facebook...
It goes like this:
" The fetus is causing direct, physical harm to a woman, and she has the right to separate herself from anyone or anything which is causing her direct physical harm, EVEN if that person or object cannot continue to exist without her. If I require your lung to live, I cannot simply take it on the grounds that my "right to life" trumps your rights to self-defense. If I make some attempt to use your lung against your will, you are within all legal and moral right to remove yourself from me, EVEN THOUGH it means my death -- not my lung, not my choice. By the EXACT same token, no fetus is entitled to a uterus belonging to someone. If the fetus IS human, then it STILL has no right to use the woman's uterus against her will, making the debate STILL pointless. So whether or not it is human, it has NO RIGHT to stay inside the uterus if the woman who OWNS her own uterus wants to be removed from the fetus. She cannot be deprived of that right, as it is the first tenet of ALL self-defense. To deny women the right to defend herself against unwanted harm being done to her body, then you subjectively value women less than a fetus and award all fetuses the right to an organ belonging to another human being -- a right which NO other form of human enjoys. This is impossible on two measures: sexism and ageism. Only women have uteri, therefore allowance of the use of a uterus against its owner's wishes is sexist; the rule would therefore have to be expanded to something non-discriminatory, such as "organs." The ageism is showing favoritism towards those who are less than 0 minutes past birth, which is reverse-discrimination, and also illegal; therefore the age limit would have to be expanded -- say, all people who have a specific physical need to live. Now all people are equally represented -- and organ donation becomes compulsory based on the need of another individual in order to live. That is the only legal result from illegalization of abortion."
Anything is not considered "alive" until it comes out of the womb. If abortion is illegal, then that is another family signing up for their welfare check, another family that I have to take care of because they are too lazy to find jobs and they were dumbasses.
If abortion is illegal, then that is another family signing up for their welfare check, another family that I have to take care of because they are too lazy to find jobs and they were *******es.
Wow. You assume all woman who have had to consider abortion are crack whores on welfare and that everyone on welfare is just some lazy jerk. Wrong on both accounts. I have known both type of people. A woman who had an abortion. And another on welfare because she lost her job and unemployment pays **** and even finding work as a registered nurse is hard with the economy being what it is. Stereotypes hurt everyone. The people who are accused of being one and the people who make the misnomer.
mothers decision... I hate it when strict catholics get there panties in a bunch everytime a rape victim aborts there baby.... If children could have babies, priests would be going for abortions... lol. u kinda gotta understand what happened a whille ago to understand that joke.
It is etierly the mothers decision, if the child could end up not being loved an cared for wouldnt it be better to abort before it is an actual baby? the emotional pain it could endure would be far worse then dieing painlessly in my mind anyway. And wouldnt foster parents be making more of a difference by adopting kids that arent just babies? Like toddlers, young kids, preteens etc? they deserve homes too.
I agree with nonconformist and Raistlin847; A child that is the product of rape or just can't be taken care of(an accident I guess) may be better off not ever enduring the pain and hardships. If there's just no way for that child to grow up a little happy, then I think it's the mother's full power to just keep it from happening. What I do not agree with is ignorant teens and such getting pregnant and getting abortion and then going off and doing it again. Abortion is not a pregnancy-protection, or some thing to get rid of your baby because you can't keep yourself under control. It's just wrong when I hear about people doing that.
Fortunately, RptorExx, while there are those out there that use abortion as birth control, they are statistically a smaller group (relative to the total number of women who have abortions for any reason at all I mean). Put another way, that particular problem is not as widespread as some groups would like people to believe.
I am very, very pro-choice when it comes to legislation, though I have never and likely would never have an abortion myself. But one thing I will agree with many a moderate pro-lifer on; fewer abortions happening at all would be ideal. Which is why scientifically based sexual education is so important. The more people realize what is out there in terms of protection and information about their own bodies, the less often abortion and unwanted pregnancies in general will happen.
I tried so hard to remember that word, and all I got was pregnancy-protection o_o
Yes while Abortion is a good thing, sort of if you think about the reasons that majority uses it for, it is still a controversy for religious groups, which I don't know why they'd rather have a suffering child than a child not to suffer at all, but I guess that's why the word opinion was invented
With understanding and reverence for life, we deplore the loss of life associated with warfare. The data is appalling. In WWI, more than 8 million military fatalities occurred. In WWII, more than 22 million service men and women died. Together, these two wars, covering portions of 14 years, cost the lives of at least 30 million soldiers worldwide. That figure doesn't include the millions of civilian casualties. This data, however, is dwarfed by the toll of another war that claims casualties annually than did WWI and WWII combined. Worldwide reports indicate that more than 40 million abortions are performed each year. This war called abortion is a war on the defenseless and the voiceless. It's a war on the unborn. This war is being waged globally. Ironically, civilized societies that have generally placed safeguards on human life have now passed laws that sanction this practice. John Calvin, a sixteenth-century reformer, wrote; "If it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field,... it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light." Man-made rules have now legalized that which has been forbidden by God from the dawn of time! Human reasoning has twisted and transformed absolute truth in sound-bite slogans that promote a practice that is consummately wrong.
Concern for the health of the mother is a vital one. But circumstances in which the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save the life of the mother are very rare, particularly where modern medical care is available. Another concern applies to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. This tragedy is compounded because an innocent woman's freedom of choice was denied. In these circumstances, abortion is sometimes considered advisable to preserve the physical and mental health of the mother. Abortions for these reasons are also rare. Adoption is a better option for these instances. Some argue for abortions because of fear that a child may have a congenital malformation. Surely the harmful effects of certain infectious or toxic agents in the first trimester of pregnancy are real, but caution is needed in considering the termination of a pregnancy. Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities. Furthermore, the outcome may not be as serious as postulated.
Relatively few abortions are performed for the circumstances to which have been referred. Most abortions are performed on demand to deal with unwanted pregnancies. These abortions are simply a form a birth control. Elective abortion has been legalized in many countries on the premise that a woman is free to choose what she does with her own body. To an extent this is true for each of us, male or female. We are free to think. We are free to plan. And we are free to do. But once an action has been taken, we are never free from its consequences. to understand this concept more clearly, we can learn from the astronaut. Anytime during selection or preparation, he or she is free to withdraw from the program. But once the spacecraft has lifted off, the astronaut is bound to the consequences of the previous choice to make to journey. So it is with people to choose to embark on a journey that leads to parent-hood. They have freedom of choice- to begin or not to begin that course. When conception does occur, that choice has already been made. Yes, a woman is free to choose what she will do with her body. Whether her choice leads to an astronaut's mission, or to a baby, her choice to begin the journey binds her to the consequences of the choice. She cannot "unchoose". When the controversies about abortion are debated, "individual right of choice" is invoked as though it were the one supreme virtue. That could only be true if but one person were involved. The rights of any one individual don't allow the rights of another individual to be abused. In or out of marriage, abortion is not solely and individual matter. Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts. A woman's choice for her own body doesn't include the right deprive her baby of life- and a lifetime of choices that her child will make.
Terminating the life of a developing baby involves two individuals with separate bodies, brains, and hearts.
A month old clump of cells is not a baby. It's a clump of cells. A blob of goo can not live outside the womb or even live for that matter because it's not alive. No one has the right or ability to force a woman to be an incubator pure and simple. Which is exactly what people want to do. In the case of rape, a woman would be forced to be constantly reminded about the assault for nearly ten months. Can anyone really imagine what that would be like?
While it's a fetus it's nothing more then parasite, feeding off its host. Similar to a tapeworm. It's not really that romantic when you really sit down and think about it. It's not a individual. If it can not survive with the host to feed off of, then it's not really alive.
Life has great value for all, including those born with disabilities. Furthermore, the outcome may not be as serious as postulated.
I once watched something that really stuck with me. A man born with a disease that caused his skin to come off and leave his muscles exposed. They showed his tremendous pain and suffering. He looked at the camera and stated that he wished his mother had aborted him. His mother agreed with him and even stated that had she known about what shit his would have been, she would have had an abortion. Because she loved him and his pain was so intense that he actually wished for death. It was a very sad documentary about a sad life.
But of course there are more kids born with horrible horrible things and it actually seems more selfish then anything to bring them into a world of suffering just because we as humans feel this intrinsic need to classify all human life as exceptional. Especially as able-bodied people it's easy to say "the outcome may not be as serious as postulated" but I have to wonder if some people with the worst disabilities ever just think they might have been better off dead.
Personally, my stance on abortion is summed up by what Bill Clinton once said; keep it safe, legal, and rare.
I'm going to post this, again, in response to Snakebite's post...
The fetus is causing direct, physical harm to a woman, and she has the right to separate herself from anyone or anything which is causing her direct physical harm, EVEN if that person or object cannot continue to exist without her. If I require your lung to live, I cannot simply take it on the grounds that my "right to life" trumps your rights to self-defense. If I make some attempt to use your lung against your will, you are within all legal and moral right to remove yourself from me, EVEN THOUGH it means my death -- not my lung, not my choice. By the EXACT same token, no fetus is entitled to a uterus belonging to someone. If the fetus IS human, then it STILL has no right to use the woman's uterus against her will, making the debate STILL pointless. So whether or not it is human, it has NO RIGHT to stay inside the uterus if the woman who OWNS her own uterus wants to be removed from the fetus. She cannot be deprived of that right, as it is the first tenet of ALL self-defense. To deny women the right to defend herself against unwanted harm being done to her body, then you subjectively value women less than a fetus and award all fetuses the right to an organ belonging to another human being -- a right which NO other form of human enjoys. This is impossible on two measures: sexism and ageism. Only women have uteri, therefore allowance of the use of a uterus against its owner's wishes is sexist; the rule would therefore have to be expanded to something non-discriminatory, such as "organs." The ageism is showing favoritism towards those who are less than 0 minutes past birth, which is reverse-discrimination, and also illegal; therefore the age limit would have to be expanded -- say, all people who have a specific physical need to live. Now all people are equally represented -- and organ donation becomes compulsory based on the need of another individual in order to live. That is the only legal result from illegalization of abortion.
If the fetus IS human, then it STILL has no right to use the woman's uterus against her will, making the debate STILL pointless. So whether or not it is human, it has NO RIGHT to stay inside the uterus if the woman who OWNS her own uterus wants to be removed from the fetus. She cannot be deprived of that right, as it is the first tenet of ALL self-defense.
You're saying that knowingly having sex and getting pregnant is the baby's fault! IT'S NOT! That baby was the consequence of having unprotected sex! IF you don't want the risk of having children, then don't have the sex! A woman's body is built to bore offspring, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM! Having that child isn't infringing on the woman's rights, nor is it seriously injuring the mother. If you would read my post closely, you would see that I agree IF an abortion is TRULY NECESSARY, and not just a form of birth control, then go ahead with it! BUT adoption is still a better option.
