Abortion

[Minimalist]

Not wanting the child is not a crime, ending its life is or at least should be. There is also a feminist argument to be made in favour of banning abortion by the way. Namely that women are often forced into having abortions by third parties, mainly men.

And...WHY? I imagine you've given this some thought, so why should it be?

Funny you use that example - I know someone who had that scenario happen to them. They wouldn't be against abortion though. That's just (emotional) abuse - nothing to do with the act itself.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

@Carolina Red I'm not quite following your line of argument. If one is a natural process then we can do nothing about it. Why does this mean we should pursue "Plan B" if that process doesn't happen? It's like saying "Don't be a vegetarian, you swallow plenty of flies anyway in your sleep. Natural killer that you are."

 

[Pagh Wraith]

What happens to the unwanted babies? Are you going to force them to keep the child too?

Of course not. What does this have to with the issue at hand? I realise that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here and I'm happy to explain my position to the best of my abilities but some points being made are really silly.

 

[Minimalist]

Of course not. What does this have to with the issue at hand? I realise that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here and I'm happy to explain my position to the best of my abilities but some points being made are really silly.

You're making no sense at all and refusing to explain where your belief comes from.

 

[Rado_N]

Of course not. What does this have to with the issue at hand? I realise that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here and I'm happy to explain my position to the best of my abilities but some points being made are really silly.

How's it silly? You're advocating forcing women to have children because you claim to be thinking about the "children" (at the time of the procedure), but you're giving no though to what actually lies ahead for them.

 

[George Owen]

Of course not. What does this have to with the issue at hand? I realise that I'm ploughing a lonely furrow here and I'm happy to explain my position to the best of my abilities but some points being made are really silly.

What type of life do you think an unwanted baby, from poor background, will have?

Forcing anyone to be borne into shit conditions is torture.

 

[Charlie Foley]

@Carolina Red I'm not quite following your line of argument. If one is a natural process then we can do nothing about it. Why does this mean we should pursue "Plan B" if that process doesn't happen? It's like saying "Don't be a vegetarian, you swallow plenty of flies anyway in your sleep. Natural killer that you are."

Swallowing would solve a lot of issues yeah

 

[Carolina Red]

@Carolina Red I'm not quite following your line of argument. If one is natural process then we can do nothing about it. Why does this mean we should pursue "Plan B" if that process doesn't happen? It's like saying "Don't be a vegetarian, you swallow plenty of flies anyway in your sleep. Natural killer that you are."

My line of argument is that your view of life argues against itself.

You don’t want to ban Plan B, but do want to ban abortions performed later in a pregnancy.

That falls apart once you acknowledge that you believe life begins at conception.

If that is your belief, then Plan B is the same as any abortion. You’re contradicting yourself by saying you “aren’t out to ban it”.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

How's it silly? You're advocating forcing women to have children because you claim to be thinking about the "children" (at the time of the procedure), but you're giving no though to what actually lies ahead for them.

It is silly. We are debating whether killing a human fetus is acceptable or not. Which is a fundamental question akin to whether we should execute criminals (which I find abhorrent as well). Not whether the child should later go to foster parents or a protectory. I mean come on.

 

[ChaddyP]

Is there a point at which abortion shouldnt be carried out ? im not talking about whatevr law the US has implimented. Im speaking from a personal point. Is there a cut off point or should a woman be able to choose at any point she would like to have a child? Can she choose if the child has already been born? what factors do you considerin choosing a cut off time if any?

 

[Rado_N]

It is silly. We are debating whether killing a human fetus is acceptable or not. Which is a fundamental question akin to whether we should execute criminals (which I find abhorrent as well). Not whether the child should later go to foster parents or a protectory. I mean come on.

At the point it happens it's not a human life.

You're still advocating for forcing a women to go through with a pregnancy and give birth to a child she doesn't want. Do you just wash your hands of the issue at that point and call it tough shit to all involved?

 

[Minimalist]

It is silly. We are debating whether killing a human fetus is acceptable or not. Which is a fundamental question akin to whether we should execute criminals (which I find abhorrent as well). Not whether the child should later go to foster parents or a protectory. I mean come on.

That's not at all why we don't execute criminals.

Either you're deliberately avoiding specifics now or you haven't properly thought about all this.

 

[Adisa]

I swear the anti-abortion brigade are more worried about unborn fetuses than Kids living and breathing.

 

[Minimalist]

I swear the anti-abortion brigade are more worried about unborn featuses than Kids living and breathing.

Yup. Once they're born - fcuk them. Pro-birth as others have said - not pro-life at all.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

That's not at all why we don't execute criminals.

Either you're deliberately avoiding specifics now or you haven't properly thought about all this.

It is also a question of whether we have the right to kill another human being. And my answer to that is no unless our lives are being threatened. And yes, that means forcing a woman to give birth to a child she may not want (to answer the other post above).

 

[Rado_N]

It is also a question of whether we have the right to kill another human being. And my answer to that is no unless our lives are being threatened. And yes, that means forcing a woman to give birth to a child she may not want (to answer the other post above).

You can never honestly claim to be pro women's rights.

 

[Adisa]

Is there a point at which abortion shouldnt be carried out ? im not talking about whatevr law the US has implimented. Im speaking from a personal point. Is there a cut off point or should a woman be able to choose at any point she would like to have a child? Can she choose if the child has already been born? what factors do you considerin choosing a cut off time if any?

Personally I feel a reasonable cut off point can be at the point a fetus can live on its own. However that can be excluded when the mother's life is at risk or the child is seen to have a serious defect.
It must be said through, hardly any woman aborts a baby at that point. The vast majority of women want to abort as early as possible.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

I swear the anti-abortion brigade are more worried about unborn featuses than Kids living and breathing.

Utter generalising nonsense and you know it. Not everyone opposing abortion is a right-wing religious idiot and you know it. There is a lot to be said for an anti-abortion movement that is less religious and more progressive and focuses on human rights, science and even feminism.

 

[Minimalist]

It is also a question of whether we have the right to kill another human being. And my answer to that is no unless our lives are being threatened. And yes, that means forcing a woman to give birth to a child she may not want (to answer the other post above).

That's what is truly repulsive. For both the mother and the child.

Frankly I'll assume you're religious at this point. Otherwise you must struggle to live each and everyday with the amount of horrible death going on every second.

 

[Pexbo]

It is silly. We are debating whether killing a human fetus is acceptable or not. Which is a fundamental question akin to whether we should execute criminals (which I find abhorrent as well). Not whether the child should later go to foster parents or a protectory. I mean come on.

It's just a bunch of cells, whats the problem?

 

[Adisa]

Utter generalising nonsense and you know it. Not everyone opposing abortion is a right-wing religious idiot and you know it. There is a lot to be said for an anti-abortion movement that is less religious and more progressive and focuses on human rights, science and even feminism.

It is against human rights to force a woman to carry a pregnancy.

 

[van der star]

It is also a question of whether we have the right to kill another human being. And my answer to that is no unless our lives are being threatened. And yes, that means forcing a woman to give birth to a child she may not want (to answer the other post above).

You don't get to decide when a foetus becomes viable. Scientists and doctors have been debating this for decades and even they can't come to a common conclusion. Calling a bloody zygote a human being is just plain daft.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

Scientists and doctors have been debating this for decades and even they can't come to a common conclusion.

And how is that not an argument in favour of my position?

 

[Frasbul]

@Pagh Wraith I don't agree with you and I am pro-choice, but you are one of the only people I have ever encountered who are pro-life that aren't complete idiots.

Your arguments are valid, abortion is indeed not to be taken lightly from an ethical standpoint. It is life (and no one can dispute that) that is destroyed after all.
However, you have to consider all arguments. To me - at the end of the day - the women's rights prevail.

I am a big fan of the German laws on the topic. Simplified we basically forbid abortion (thereby respecting the life of the unborn), but don't prosecute prosecute women who abort during the first 12 weeks.

 

[Rado_N]

Utter generalising nonsense and you know it. Not everyone opposing abortion is a right-wing religious idiot and you know it. There is a lot to be said for an anti-abortion movement that is less religious and more progressive and focuses on human rights, science and even feminism.

It's frankly staggering that you talk about human rights and feminism whilst opposing a woman's right to chose what happens with her own body and advocating forcing childbirth.

Also the point you quoted is not nonsense at all, it's entirely accurate, you don't give a shit about the child after its born.

 

[Carolina Red]

And how is that not an argument in favour of my position?

Because your position has been that “life” begins at conception.

 

[Pagh Wraith]

you don't give a shit about the child after its born.

Based on what? That is simply not true.

What about poor mothers that willingly carry a baby to term knowing the child will be born into a poor family? Shall we force them to have abortions because chances are the kid is going to struggle later on? I know you are going to argue that they least should have the choice but you have to consider that the yet-to-be-born child doesn't have a choice in this case either. It will most likely live a life in poverty. Again, this is an issue certainly connected to the issue but it has no bearing on the debate whether ending a human life is okay or not.

 

[OnlyTwoDaSilvas]

Illegal abortion is an ineffective deterrent. Women who live somewhere where it is illegal and have made up their mind about getting an abortion will seek illegitimate alternatives via unsafe procedures from private practitioners, often overseas on the cheap, which poses a major risk to the safety and the health of the woman. There has to be a safe and healthy option for all women, whether you agree with it or not. If you are pro life, surely you have to be considerate to the health and wellbeing of the woman involved just as much, if not more so, than the unborn glob of cells.

It's a procedure that should be given a great deal of consideration and used as a last resort. But bottom line, there is something incredibly crass about men dictating what all women shouldn't be allowed to do with their own bodies. Their womb, their rules.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

It clearly does. But I wouldn't even use that as an argument for banning abortion. We kill plenty of other life on this planet all the time after all.

When is conception?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Shall we force them to have abortions

Forced births, forced abortions, it's all about force with you folks.

I've only joined the thread now, has this person been on about "abortion on demand" or "abortion as contraception" yet? Only a matter of time.

 

[ChaddyP]

Personally I feel a reasonable cut off point can be at the point a fetus can live on its own. However that can be excluded when the mother's life is at risk or the child is seen to have a serious defect.
It must be said through, hardly any woman aborts a baby at that point. The vast majority of women want to abort as early as possible.

yeh but if you now mandate a cut off point arent you now saying the woman no longer has her right of choice . are you now saying well you have a choice but only up to this point and then u have no choice . If the argument is the woman has a right of choice why isnt it given a broad spectrum why does the state all of a sudden have a right and interest in the child.


with advances in modern medicne a child can survive after 23 weeks so its very touch and go

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

It is about the protection of human life

And the mother is just a physical vessel who doesn't have any say in the process?

The only person who has anything of stake is the mother, who has to suffer physically and emotionally, so that a bunch of strangers can sleep peacefully.

Utter load of nonsense.

 

[Rado_N]

Based on what? That is simply not true.

What about poor mothers that willingly carry a baby to term knowing the child will be born into a poor family? Shall we force them to have abortions because chances are the kid is going to struggle later on? I know you are going to argue that they least should have the choice but you have to consider that the yet-to-be-born child doesn't have a choice in this case either. It will most likely live a life in poverty. Again, this is an issue certainly connected to the issue but it has no bearing on the debate whether ending a human life is okay or not.

You said it yourself, they have that choice. They also want the baby which the bigger issue, not poverty. No child should be born to parents who don't want it.

Why do you keep editing people's posts before replying to them? Cutting out the facts you don't like doesn't make them go away.

 

[harshad]

And how is that not an argument in favour of my position?

It isn't

 

[oneniltothearsenal]

Is there a point at which abortion shouldnt be carried out ? im not talking about whatevr law the US has implimented. Im speaking from a personal point. Is there a cut off point or should a woman be able to choose at any point she would like to have a child? Can she choose if the child has already been born? what factors do you considerin choosing a cut off time if any?

This is an interesting question. In an ideal world, this would always get sorted before the child is born. But in the real world, the whole "leaving the baby at the church" does happen.
I think in general churches tend to allow babies left at the doorstep no questions asked because the belief tends to be that if someone is that convinced they don't want to raise a child, its probably better in the long run for the child to be left at the church so they don't develop an inevitably disappointing bond with a parent that didn't want them.

I think if someone can hold their child in their arms and conclude they really don't want that child and don't care about raising it, its probably better if there is some mechanism to allow that child to find its way into a loving family rather than force someone to be a parent that realizes they cannot be a good parent. Its definitely not ideal or a perfect world scenario but its probably better for the child. I think generally its accept for the first few months of the child's life but I don't think its okay to leave a 5 year old at a church doorstep (although that probably happens sometimes unfortunately).

 

[unchanged_lineup]

with advances in modern medicne a child can survive after 23 weeks so its very touch and go

Statements like this need to be very carefully qualified. The survival rate is 10-35% and the chances of serious complications are very high.

 

[Eckers99]

I addressed rape and health risks earlier. If the fetus is a threat to the mother then abortion can be justified as an act of self-defence. We are talking about cases of simply not wanting the child.

People who don't want children are more likely to end up being shit parents. Shit parents produce shit people who end up being shit parents.

 

[Edgar Allan Pillow]

As long as the baby is in the womb, mother's rights and choices overrule the fetus/child.

 

[Duafc]

I swear the anti-abortion brigade are more worried about unborn fetuses than Kids living and breathing.

Yep.

It’s just like Christians who have such an issue with homosexuality, gripping so tightly to certain lines and verses of the bible whilst giving zero credence to about 80% of the rest of it.

Startling lack of objectivity and so clearly just creating arguments to support your own prejudice.

 

[SirAF]

I’d the interested to know the OP’s age and views on religion.. Being anti-abortion is utter hokum.