Forums → WEPR → Abortion

Would this mean that those who are not minors that get abortion for non-medical reasons don't actually have a reason?

Foetuses get aborted all the time for medical reasons; and sometimes in much later stages of development then is legal from the decision standpoint. Sometimes it's just too much risk to the mother, and if a woman isn't that set on having a child to the point where it's going to risk her life to try and deliver the kid, then I'd say it's her choice seeing as it's her life that hangs in the balance as well.

As for the non medical reasons, financial woes & the physical disability that comes with being pregnant is an issue. What if you're a woman & professional athlete, and don't want to put your career on hold because there's a parasite slowing you down? Or a single mother who already has a kid & can't take the time off of work and can't arrange expensive day care to look after her child? There isn't any kind of limit to the number of reasons a woman would want an abortion, and ultimately, it's her choice.

There isn't any kind of limit to the number of reasons a woman would want an abortion, and ultimately, it's her choice.

I agree from a liberal standpoint. Pro life lobbyists seem to regard the mother as an empty vessel, thinking only of the rights of the unborn. For there to be gender equality with regards to civil rights, a woman should ultimately be able to have the right to choose what she wants to do with her body. To the point that the foeutus is a separate entity is hogwash. A foetus cannot exist independantly of the mother, it is connected to the placenta and the umbilical cord and its health is dependant on the health of the mother. Therefore why should the rights of the mother be superceded by those of a foetus?

Foetuses get aborted all the time for medical reasons; and sometimes in much later stages of development then is legal from the decision standpoint.

I was asking Alt's opinion about an issue, I wasn't making a sarcsatic remark.

Sometimes it's just too much risk to the mother, and if a woman isn't that set on having a child to the point where it's going to risk her life to try and deliver the kid, then I'd say it's her choice seeing as it's her life that hangs in the balance as well.

Absolutely. I am behind abortions for medical reasons.

As for the non medical reasons, financial woes & the physical disability that comes with being pregnant is an issue. What if you're a woman & professional athlete, and don't want to put your career on hold because there's a parasite slowing you down? Or a single mother who already has a kid & can't take the time off of work and can't arrange expensive day care to look after her child?

I'm sorry, but I don't think we can make that judgement call unless we have no choice. If it is going to permanently harm the mother's body, then by all means, she is entitled to do as she chooses. But if it's about career, we need to remember we're toying with someone's life. Even if they haven't been born yet, they will be unique when they exit the womb, and we shouldn't rob the world of a unique individual unless they endanger another.

Therefore why should the rights of the mother be superceded by those of a foetus?

They should when it doesn't involve the mother's health, because she won't do any permanent damage to herself if she gives birth. We all existed completely dependent on our mothers, and we've grown (or evolved, if you prefer) into very independent and unique people. It doesn't lessen the cruelty of the act because it is done before we can see the child or because the child has not evolved yet.

Pro life lobbyists seem to regard the mother as an empty vessel, thinking only of the rights of the unborn.

We need to consider both their rights, not one or the other. And everyone's right to live supersides other rights. If the mother's health is at risk, then we can go with the more evolved human, the one we can see, the one who has a choice.

Is there a way for the doctor to know if it will cause hormonal imbalances?

Yes.
--------

They should when it doesn't involve the mother's health, because she won't do any permanent damage to herself if she gives birth.

This statement implies that you think that unborn babies are more valuable and should have moire rights than a fully grown human.

--------

we're toying with someone's life

Exactly. The mother's life. The fetus is not a separate entity from the mother; the fetus is part of the mother, and she should be able to choose what to do with her own body.

Yes.

Okay, then those particular women in jeopardy of getting psychologically impaired should be categorized under "health problems".

This statement implies that you think that unborn babies are more valuable and should have moire rights than a fully grown human.

No, it implies that when the mother has no need to abort, the fetus should have the right to life. Here's an analogy, a little weird but hopefully makes sense.
Let us assume we want to carry out the death penalty on a criminal. If he escapes, he might hurt others, and since he is going to hurt the innocent, he's not as valuable as the innocent. But should we kill him if he poses no threat? If he escapes, and we have a chance to kill him, sure, we could. But if we let him live, it may cost extra money to detain him, but we saved his life.
A weird analogy, I know, but hopefully this makes the comparison that the right not to bear children does not mean much when someone pregnant unless her health is in jeopardy.

Exactly. The mother's life. The fetus is not a separate entity from the mother; the fetus is part of the mother, and she should be able to choose what to do with her own body.

We all started out this way, and we should wait to see what unique qualities this soon-to-be seperate entity has to offer the world. And I may point out that unsafe sex was the choice what to do with her body.
I like your new armartar, by the way

I was asking Alt's opinion about an issue, I wasn't making a sarcsatic remark.

I wasn't saying you were; I just thought if I was going to chime in on reasons for abortion I should cover both the medical & non-medical.

There is one thing you should note - all women who get pregnant put themselves at potential risk, even if they have no current health problems, and some die during pregnancy or during child birth with no forseeable complication.

If it is going to permanently harm the mother's body, then by all means, she is entitled to do as she chooses.

It's easy to agree when there are absolutes involved, such as if the baby definitely poses a threat to the mother's health, but the problem is that the world is chaotic and unexpected at times. I can't judge a woman for not wanting to 'risk' her own life, even if it's only a potential risk, and not a definite risk. There could be complications that prevent the athlete from ever competing again. In the case of the career - "toying with someone's life" it's not a 'someone'. they don't have self-awareness, there's no self-identity or consciousness; they're not even as intelligent as a small dog.

The problem with putting the foetus and woman on equal grounds in terms of their rights to exist is that they are not equal creatures.


While I'm not a fan of the death row inmate analogy, it should be modified to make it a little more accurate...

Every time an inmate gets put on death row, a woman has to be chosen to be forced to look after them for the entire prison term, whether she wants to or not.

My response glitched and got deleted. . .crap.
---------------
The fetus is not a human. Therefore, the right to life doesn't apply to them.
----------

No, it implies that when the mother has no need to abort, the fetus should have the right to life. Here's an analogy, a little weird but hopefully makes sense.

That is going back to the 'women are vessels for children' standpoint. It is cruel and insensitive to think that a woman should have ti go through such deep physical pain and emotional stress and risk just because they don't need to abort. You seem to think that childbirth is a cakewalk. It is not.
-----------

We all started out this way, and we should wait to see what unique qualities this soon-to-be seperate entity has to offer the world.

That argument could go both ways. Most of the birth-control or inconvenience reasons are due to bad living conditions or financial conditions, and there is a better chance of that baby becoming a gangster or a psychopath then there would be of that baby becoming a valuable person. It reciprocates. That aborted fetus has an equal chance of being a warlord, a dictator, or a drug lord as a good person.
----------

And I may point out that unsafe sex was the choice what to do with her body.

So is the abortion.

Every time an inmate gets put on death row, a woman has to be chosen to be forced to look after them for the entire prison term, whether she wants to or not.

Or look for parents for the inmate. My point was life or death, anyway.

The fetus is not a human. Therefore, the right to life doesn't apply to them.

Why do you believe that? What proof is there that the fetus is not human? I believe the mother's right to life overrides the fetus's right to life, but without proof that the fetus is unaware and unalive, we can't really let the mother's right to convenience override the fetus's right to life.

That aborted fetus has an equal chance of being a warlord, a dictator, or a drug lord as a good person.

We can't judge someone before they have done anything. Let's say statistics showed that 95% of inmates up for the death penalty would escape and commit crimes. Do we then have the right to kill them just because they are likely to escape?

So is the abortion.

My point was that she already had a choice not to be pregnant, and unless she is going to die, she shouldn't be allowed to go back on it once she can see the effects that it causes. We don't know if the fetus is alive. What if suddenly one day we found out that the fetus was completely aware of its environment, and simply could not communicate back? Now, IF the mother is in danger, we can afford to choose her life over possibly life. However, to choose convenience over possibly life doesn't make much sense. THere are too many unknowns to make a definite right or wrong for all abortions.

Forgot to add this.

You seem to think that childbirth is a cakewalk. It is not.

No, I know it's not a cakewalk, but the mother put herself in this position by practicing unsafe sex. The fetus did absolutely nothing wrong, and should not be exterminated just because the mother made a mistake.

Why do you believe that?

The fetus does not have a fully developed brain.
-----------

We can't judge someone before they have done anything.

I call hypocrisy on this statement. You say that we shouldn't judge them, but we can't abort the child because the child will have unique qualities to offer the world? That's judging the fetus just as much as saying that because it would be born into the bracket where crime is most frequent, then there is a good chance that the fetus would end up a criminal.
-----------

she shouldn't be allowed to go back on it once she can see the effects that it causes.

My point is that the mother inevitably will have some sort of health problem, be it mental or physical, along with the potential risk of childbirth.
---------

We don't know if the fetus is alive. What if suddenly one day we found out that the fetus was completely aware of its environment, and simply could not communicate back? Now, IF the mother is in danger, we can afford to choose her life over possibly life. However, to choose convenience over possibly life doesn't make much sense. THere are too many unknowns to make a definite right or wrong for all abortions.

WE DO know. Sentience is a product of brain activity, and for that there has to be a respiratory system supplying the brain with oxygen. The fetus has neither of these. Therefore, the fetus is not sentient.
-----------

but the mother put herself in this position by practicing unsafe sex.

That is such a huge assumption and generalization that I don't know where to start.
-----------

The fetus did absolutely nothing wrong, and should not be exterminated just because the mother made a mistake.

How is it a punishment towards the fetus? It has no registration of it's existence, and so would not know if it is aborted. It would have no punishment brought upon it. My point is that abortion does not actually hurt the fetus, and it helps a human being, so why should it not be a choice? This also implies the 'women are vessels for children' standpoint. Consider the mother's life for once, instead of just the fetus's rights.

The fetus does not have a fully developed brain.

Should we then euthanize people with mental problems? This doesn't prove that the fetus is unaware, or can't feel anything.

I call hypocrisy on this statement. You say that we shouldn't judge them, but we can't abort the child because the child will have unique qualities to offer the world? That's judging the fetus just as much as saying that because it would be born into the bracket where crime is most frequent, then there is a good chance that the fetus would end up a criminal.

I said MIGHT. Don't you think of every born child as precious and innocent? Innocent until proven guilty, and as they can't possibly be proven guilty of anything, they are innocent.

WE DO know. Sentience is a product of brain activity, and for that there has to be a respiratory system supplying the brain with oxygen. The fetus has neither of these. Therefore, the fetus is not sentient.

I said alive, sentience is human intelligence, of course it doesn't have intelligence. If you intend to wipe the planet clean of all the unsentient beings because they may pose a threat, let's get started with endangered animals.

That is such a huge assumption and generalization that I don't know where to start.

If you really need me to say *except in rape*, fine. Rape victims, get abortions. If you mean from failed condoms or birth control, that generally only happens if you use it wrong, and if people are so horny they don't have time to figure out how to work a condom...

How is it a punishment towards the fetus? It has no registration of it's existence, and so would not know if it is aborted. It would have no punishment brought upon it. My point is that abortion does not actually hurt the fetus, and it helps a human being, so why should it not be a choice? This also implies the 'women are vessels for children' standpoint. Consider the mother's life for once, instead of just the fetus's rights.

The fetus doesn't get a life, that's how it's a punishment. Maybe you wouldn't be sad not to register your existence, but you wouldn't have it. You would be and mean completely nothing. Think about that. Don't just say *I wouldn't be aware, so I wouldn't care*. Your life means something, and every life will come to mean something.
Consider the fetus's life for once, instead of the mother's rights. I consider the mother's life, not her convenience. The fetus's only right is the right to live, so rights is life. You're just toying with words. Not trying to be rude or anything, we're both just looking at it from two different perspectives. I see yours, you see mine, yet we hold different opinions. But your arguments have probably been the most valid I've seen, so it must be up to the viewers to find their opinions. Anyway, respond if you feel like it, I'm leaving for a few hours. See you later and again, hope I wasn't rude.

Should we then euthanize people with mental problems? This doesn't prove that the fetus is unaware, or can't feel anything

Different sort of development. I mean that their brains are not complete yet.
---------

I said MIGHT. Don't you think of every born child as precious and innocent? Innocent until proven guilty, and as they can't possibly be proven guilty of anything, they are innocent.

And I did too. I said that there was a chance.
-------------

If you really need me to say *except in *****, fine. **** victims, get abortions. If you mean from failed condoms or birth control, that generally only happens if you use it wrong, and if people are so horny they don't have time to figure out how to work a condom...

But it's not just that. People shouldn't be punished for failure of birth control at all! You're just making excuses. Horniness should not be punished. Besides, what if the person is on drugs and isn't thinking right? There are so many situations that contradict the original statement that I don't know where to start.
-------------

I said alive, sentience is human intelligence, of course it doesn't have intelligence. If you intend to wipe the planet clean of all the unsentient beings because they may pose a threat, let's get started with endangered animals.

Do you feel the same way with fetuses as you do with mice? The fetus shouldn't get special treatment because it may develop into a human. If abortion becomes illegal, then so should mouse traps.

---------

The fetus doesn't get a life, that's how it's a punishment.

Punishment:
suffering, pain, or loss that serves as retribution

By the definition, there is no suffering, pain, or loss that the fetus is conscious of, so it isn't a punishment.
--------------

Consider the fetus's life for once, instead of the mother's rights

I wholeheartedly considered both before deciding my view. I don't consider abortion something to be taken lightly; and it isn't like every minor problem will warrant an abortion. The 'inconveniences' or 'financial reasons' are not minor; they would have to be VERY major to warrant an abortion.
---------------

You're just toying with words.

How so? You are too.
------------

hope I wasn't rude.

You've been fairly polite. However ,I don't understand the 'toying with words' remark, where it came from, or what it is in response to.

I dont agree with abortion,its like killing a human being,besides the person who had abortion will never be the same again,and so many other people want to have children but cant.

I won't bother refuting that statement. There have already been hundreds of valid refutations thus far to almost every part of that statement.

Hey Alt, just a few clarrifications on what I was saying.

Horniness should not be punished.

No, I was only saying that if they can't hold off for five seconds to figure out how a condom works.

The fetus shouldn't get special treatment because it may develop into a human.

It WILL if it isn't aborted, not MAY. Anyway, I was making the comparison because I've noticed a lot of pro-choicers (that I've encountered at school, not on AG) seem to care far too much for animals to an extent where it becomes abnormal.

Consider the mother's life for once, instead of just the fetus's rights.

I meant by replacing life with rights when I said *toying with words*. It was a little uncalled for, everybody does. I was just trying to respond while this guy was explaining how our house's new DVR worked, so my attention to politeness was divided. Sorry for that.
Anyway, as I said, I've said about all I can say, and as long as we don't say 100% one way or the other, I think we somewhat agree. We've reached an impasse, but feel free to educate others. See you later

It WILL if it isn't aborted, not MAY.

There are a slew of developmental issues beyond the fetal stage that could cause death for the baby and possibly the mother. . . .
-----------

No, I was only saying that if they can't hold off for five seconds to figure out how a condom works.

The problem is usually with a faulty condom, not an impatient pair of people.
-----------
We have reached a bit of an impasse. It was a good debate, for sure