Abortion....why?

Michael Hirst

New member
May 18, 2011
552
0
0
The general misconception by pro-lifers is that they think Pro-choicers LIKE abortion, I don't think anyone does really but pro-choice is just in favour of a woman being in control of her own life and possibly having to resort to something as extreme as aboriton if she can't handle bringing a child into the world.

I'm firmly pro choice but would like to see adoption become a more suitable alternative to termination. However quality of life soon comes into that debate as well, since we all know that care homes for children are not perfect and some are just plain bad places to grow up. The number of foster carers and families adopting could never meet the demands for every abandoned child. Is it therefore fairer to have an abortion before a miserable life begins? I have no idea and I'm kinda glad I'm not in the position of having to make that choice, but to not have it at all would feel very oppressive.
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Chemical Alia said:
Whoa, wait up. To assume I haven't like that is massively jumping to conclusions. And to say it's always a tough, scary, or sad decision based on yours alone is not right at all. Everyone is different.
**checks your profile**

Oh, sorry - I thought you were male. My fault - I didn't check your profile before I wrote that. I was totally not in the right about what I said there.

Still, how could it not be scary? It's surgery. There's a chance of death. That is always scary.
 

Darren716

New member
Jul 7, 2011
784
0
0
Im againt abortions because there are plenty of ways to get rid of a kid you dont want once their born like putting them up for adobtion, that way you could held out someone who cant have kids
 

Chemical Alia

New member
Feb 1, 2011
1,658
0
0
Bara_no_Hime said:
Chemical Alia said:
Whoa, wait up. To assume I haven't like that is massively jumping to conclusions. And to say it's always a tough, scary, or sad decision based on yours alone is not right at all. Everyone is different.
**checks your profile**

Oh, sorry - I thought you were male. My fault - I didn't check your profile before I wrote that. I was totally not in the right about what I said there.

Still, how could it not be scary? It's surgery. There's a chance of death. That is always scary.
That's okay, I thought you might have figured I was a dude by default. Of course there's always some risks with a medical procedure, but I don't go into wrist surgery fearing for my life. Even if medication and early-term surgical abortions (which are considered the safest) carry risks, so does pregnancy and childbirth itself.
 

WaderiAAA

Derp Master
Aug 11, 2009
869
0
0
Guardian of Nekops said:
I mean, sure, sperm never touched egg, so that permutation of human life never got started. But that is just as much your choice as abortion is... the question is, when is it a life? When does it ascend from the level of being a mere industrial accident, as it were, to being the kid who could be President one day?
I believe life is when something grows and requires nurishment. Living things are divided into plants, animals and humans. Generally, the life of a human is considered sacret, an animals life isn't, but you should not cause it pain while with plants you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't hurt humans and animals).

If you look at it that way, a fetus is a form of life.

Like I said in a different post, I'm not quite decided on the topic myself, because it is really hard to define.

I don't agree with the argument "then what about sperm and eggs." It is like the difference between wrecking an unfinished house and not turning the materials into a house in the first place. The former is vandalism, the second isn't.
 

aei_haruko

New member
Jun 12, 2011
282
0
0
Ieyke said:
aei_haruko said:
It's wrong to kill a life out of " conviniance". Sometimes we kill out of mercy, or out of self preservation, but killing because somebody exists is quite frankly absurd to me.
What makes you think it ISN'T mercy?

And i think it's not cruel i a " we want you to feel paaaaain" way, but rather in a " you will never know what it is like to feel love, or to breathe air on your own, or to see anything" That to me is one of the utmost cruel things to do to somebody, not make them feel pain, but have them never feel a thing.
Logical nonsense. You can't deprive someone of something they can't experience. This is basically like not turning on a light so a blind guy can find his way through a cluttered room. They can't see it anyways, so it makes not a single bit of difference to them. You might for some reason find it unpleasant, but calling it "cruel" is simply invalid. "Cruel" implies the blind man/fetus would have a negative experience because of it, which simply isn't the case.

" how would you feel if you werent allowed to exist" loking at it retrosepcitvely of course. if your chance at life was taken away, wouldnt it be a bad thing?
No. I wouldn't exist, and therefore couldn't care.

Like To be honest, if i were simply looked at as a burden, for having done nothing more than existing, i would be furious. It's just looking callously at a person and turning them into a bothersome object, the general though of somebody being a berden, that must be destroyed because their existence isnt convinient, just... it horrifys me
And if at such a time where you don't even realize you so much as exist, and you don't know anyone, and you're not fond of anything, and you don't know happiness, or love, or home, or family....it was judged that all of your experiences of life would be an excruciating burden TO YOU, and your life was therefore ended before you even have the ability to feel loss, sadness, anger, etc...is that not mercy?
You've literally lost nothing, and avoided gaining nothing but misery.
It's not mercy. though. It's not mercy to deprive somebodys existence because it is not your life. Many pro choice people say " it's not your body" to that I say " it's not your life" just because life sometimes sucks isnt a reason to kill. If you couldnt have anything because somebody took everything from you, it's plain wrong, heck, you couldnt even have done anything other than existed. I dont get how people say" well, not letting somebody live is merciful" How is that merciful? How is it merciful to not let somebody experiance anything? how is it mericiful to never have had the chance to ever live on your own? and a fetus CAn experiance life. it IS alive ( I had posted the how a fetus is a life arguement earlier) it just cant live life to it's fullest.
and how do we KNOW your life will e a burden to yourself? we CAN'T know that. There is no way anybody can know for certain what happens in the future. every single choice we make can have so many outcomes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to know. and i wont let anybody make the decision about what I make my life into without so much as knowing who I am. And likewise, so many people say " I'm suffering" even I do it sometimes. I really need to stop doing that, and i do try to see the bright side of life. But if you want to see real suffering, go to africa, or hnduras, where people areso impoverished, or go and see the hmeless who are sick. But dont tell me " it'd just live a sad life anyway" because NOBODY can make that choice, because happiness is something each person finds for themselves, and you have no right to end another persons life on something that you cant even know
 

BOOM headshot65

New member
Jul 7, 2011
939
0
0
Well, for me, As a (somewhat) christian, I think that the reason for being so against abortion is the "ALL life is sacred." argument.

That said, I am pro-Life;With exceptions, those being the same for most people I am sure. Rape, Incest, or if the mothers life is in danger. It makes me mad, presonally that that only accounts for 20% of abortions today (give or take what you will). The rest use it as some kind of selfish birth control.
 

Saxnot

New member
Mar 1, 2010
212
0
0
direkiller said:
Yes because we hold people to what happened 600 years ago
or group 70% of people in the world together with fanatics

I don't know how long ago this was but there was the woman asking questions after a lecture/debate with scars all over her body on the TV talking about abortion. Turns out her mother wanted an abortion. A mistake happened during the procedure and she was deviled but with disfiguring scars. She asked the pro-choice person if its about choice then where was mine. He did not have an answer to it.

You see it as an option for the woman.
They see it as denying the fundamental right of that child to live.
[/quote]

that example has nothing whatsoever to do with the fundamental question of abortion.
Nobody in their right mind will argue that this was a good application of the pro - choice princple.
there will always be extremes, and people forced into having or not having the child, regardless of the law.
in either case this kind of outside pressure on such a fundamentally personal question is reprehensible
 

Blow_Pop

Supreme Evil Overlord
Jan 21, 2009
4,865
0
0
Reaper195 said:
There are many out there that believe the instant a woman becomes pregnant (I.E. the first few days), that the future-child is alive and that an abortion is murder. Personally, I find this view fucking stupid, because most people that believe this are not vegans and seem to have no problem eating meat. Until about the eighth or so month, the foetus is more or less a circulatory and nervous system with no cognitive thought.

And like a fair few, and the OP, I am fully behind a persons free will of choice. Because really, if your daughter was raped and fell the preggers, would you have no problem with the prospect of her giving birth to an assholes baby? Would you feel no problem to your daughter having a child, and being constantly reminded that she was raped instead of moving on?

(I'm not trivialising rape, I'm simply not making it the main point)
or even going farther on that thought if having the baby meant that the mother would die?

I don't believe in abortion for people who just were irresponsible and stupid and didn't use protection but in cases of rape, incest, or in which it is the mother or the baby dying I fully support it. I mean seriously if all else fails and you're just a stupid twat and don't use protection give the thing up for adoption. I had the argument with one of my pro-life friends and we agreed to disagree on the topic. yes some of them go as far as to say even a child of rape should be born because it is a gift. cause seriously who cares if the mother is traumatised from it right?(/sarcasm) and you know a baby growing up without a mum is just fine even if she has other children because you know single parent families are always a smashing idea.(/sarcasm again)

I just tell people I'm pro choice because ultimately it is up to both the mother and the father to come to a mutual agreement over whether or not to keep the kid. I do not agree that the father should be taken out of the picture for that.

Religion teaches that abortion is murder and murder is wrong. Now this fact (that abortion is murder) is not in the bible. I've read it enough times that I know it isn't. But it is what is taught. I grew up in both a Roman Catholic Church and a Christian church(just depends on what period of my life you are referring to) and can tell you that is what I was taught. And with that, that is all I will say on the topic.
 

ImSuperCerealGaiz

New member
Aug 30, 2011
4
0
0
1/4 of all conceptions miscarry, most of which occur so early in the "pregnancy" that it simply appears as the woman's monthly. Usually because the set of genes it received from both parents made it unable to survive, but there are more reasons than is reasonable to list. How is that any different from an abortion?
 

Bara_no_Hime

New member
Sep 15, 2010
3,646
0
0
Chemical Alia said:
That's okay, I thought you might have figured I was a dude by default. Of course there's always some risks with a medical procedure, but I don't go into wrist surgery fearing for my life. Even if medication and early-term surgical abortions (which are considered the safest) carry risks, so does pregnancy and childbirth itself.
I was thinking specifically of suction curettage and the other various surgical methods.

And yes, certainly pregnancy carries risks. Which is, of course, one of the many reasons I'm very pro-choice.
 

Saxnot

New member
Mar 1, 2010
212
0
0
aei_haruko said:
It's not mercy. though. It's not mercy to deprive somebodys existence because it is not your life. Many pro choice people say " it's not your body" to that I say " it's not your life" just because life sometimes sucks isnt a reason to kill. If you couldnt have anything because somebody took everything from you, it's plain wrong, heck, you couldnt even have done anything other than existed. I dont get how people say" well, not letting somebody live is merciful" How is that merciful? How is it merciful to not let somebody experiance anything? how is it mericiful to never have had the chance to ever live on your own? and a fetus CAn experiance life. it IS alive ( I had posted the how a fetus is a life arguement earlier) it just cant live life to it's fullest.
and how do we KNOW your life will e a burden to yourself? we CAN'T know that. There is no way anybody can know for certain what happens in the future. every single choice we make can have so many outcomes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to know. and i wont let anybody make the decision about what I make my life into without so much as knowing who I am. And likewise, so many people say " I'm suffering" even I do it sometimes. I really need to stop doing that, and i do try to see the bright side of life. But if you want to see real suffering, go to africa, or hnduras, where people areso impoverished, or go and see the hmeless who are sick. But dont tell me " it'd just live a sad life anyway" because NOBODY can make that choice, because happiness is something each person finds for themselves, and you have no right to end another persons life on something that you cant even know
well, let me turn that argument around on you. if you can't know whether the life of the child will be happy or unhappy, shouldn't the party that we CAN be reasonably sure of as the criterium?

for example, take a teenaged girl that gets pregnant because of a ripped condom. she's quite bright and has thought about it extensively. she is certain she does not want to keep the child, and that she would not be able to raise it properly at her age. she does not want to put it up for adoption either, because she feels she would be doing wrong by the child if she 'abandoned' it. (with the possibility it never finds a foster home)

in this scenario, would you not agree that we can be certain as possible that the mother would be happier aborting the child than keeping it?

if the quality of life and happiness of the unborn are unknowable, should be not base our judgement on what IS knowable?
it seems to me that the potential for happiness does not altogether weigh up against the certainty of unhappiness.
 

faceless chick

New member
Sep 19, 2009
560
0
0
Matthew Geskey said:
It because of tradition. No one got abortions for the first couple thousand years of human history. And there are actually people who think that the best choice is the most popular one. Most of those people are Christians.
people keep saying this, and it's completely wrong. humans have been having abortions for thousands of years before Jesus was born. pretty much the moment the first woman decided she didn't want to have a baby, that's when the first abortion happened.

in ancient times there were more "natural" remedies, used by old ladies or shamanas, but they were abortions nonetheless and most of the time they worked well.

so this whole "abortion is new" is a bunch of shit.

something else. i made a similar topic a while ago because i find this whole abortion debate to be ridiculous.

as a woman, i can't understand for the life of me why women go "boo-hoo, i'm pregnant! my life is over, what am i gonna do?" ..abort, that's what you stupid cow! it's not hard!

"but, boo-hoo, it's a HUMAN BEING, IT'S UNETHICAL!"...so it's more ethical to throw it in the dumpster or leave it in an orphanage to live a crappy life?

i don't understand these women. are you fucking retarded? if you DON'T want the child, don't have him! very simple. if you're going to make it's life miserable or kill him after birth, it's a lot worse.

jesus..in communist times, abortion was illegal and women were going to unlicensed doctors who had risky surgery. women were so desperate to get rid of unwanted babies, many of them DIED trying to abort. and NOW, when abortion is perfectly legal, practiced everywhere, CHEAP, contraception is extremely cheap and available AND this isn't a bible thumping country with pro-life activists or abortion stigma, women DON'T WANT to get abortions.EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T WANT CHILDREN OR CONTRACEPTIVES EITHER.

AM I LIVING ON THE MOON????
 

aei_haruko

New member
Jun 12, 2011
282
0
0
Saxnot said:
aei_haruko said:
Ieyke said:
It's not mercy. though. It's not mercy to deprive somebodys existence because it is not your life. Many pro choice people say " it's not your body" to that I say " it's not your life" just because life sometimes sucks isnt a reason to kill. If you couldnt have anything because somebody took everything from you, it's plain wrong, heck, you couldnt even have done anything other than existed. I dont get how people say" well, not letting somebody live is merciful" How is that merciful? How is it merciful to not let somebody experiance anything? how is it mericiful to never have had the chance to ever live on your own? and a fetus CAn experiance life. it IS alive ( I had posted the how a fetus is a life arguement earlier) it just cant live life to it's fullest.
and how do we KNOW your life will e a burden to yourself? we CAN'T know that. There is no way anybody can know for certain what happens in the future. every single choice we make can have so many outcomes, it is IMPOSSIBLE to be able to know. and i wont let anybody make the decision about what I make my life into without so much as knowing who I am. And likewise, so many people say " I'm suffering" even I do it sometimes. I really need to stop doing that, and i do try to see the bright side of life. But if you want to see real suffering, go to africa, or hnduras, where people areso impoverished, or go and see the hmeless who are sick. But dont tell me " it'd just live a sad life anyway" because NOBODY can make that choice, because happiness is something each person finds for themselves, and you have no right to end another persons life on something that you cant even know
well, let me turn that argument around on you. if you can't know whether the life of the child will be happy or unhappy, shouldn't the party that we CAN be reasonably sure of as the criterium?

for example, take a teenaged girl that gets pregnant because of a ripped condom. she's quite bright and has thought about it extensively. she is certain she does not want to keep the child, and that she would not be able to raise it properly at her age. she does not want to put it up for adoption either, because she feels she would be doing wrong by the child if she 'abandoned' it. (with the possibility it never finds a foster home)

in this scenario, would you not agree that we can be certain as possible that the mother would be happier aborting the child than keeping it?

if the quality of life and happiness of the unborn are unknowable, should be not base our judgement on what IS knowable?
it seems to me that the potential for happiness does not altogether weigh up against the certainty of unhappiness.
allright, so let me just make sure I get the cru of your scenario: a bright teenage girl has sex, condom breaks, doesnt want to keep the child, but doesnt want to abandon it?
How can she not want to keep the child, but on the converse not want to abandon it? Those 2 things are contradictory. Plus, how is it abandoning a child anyway on the other matter? many kids are taken away from their homes all the time because they live with abusive parents, and many of them find good families who can raise their child. In this scenario, I cant ay it for certain because we dont know that, maybe the foster system would be great for her child, maybe the community would be insired that she raises her child, and maybe they would help out, maybe the kid might actually be brilliant and help change the world. We can be reasonably sure that it might be diffucult, or thatit might be hard to see, but yetI still think that we would have no right to take a human life simply because it is a conviniant thing to do, beause if we break it down, how many of our lives are " conviniant". If we lived in a world where your only value on life was measured with only mathemaic value on life, and where we are killed simply for conviniance, then we're nothing more than a natural rescourse, and object. Because when a toy isnt conviniant, we throw it out, when a dog is inconviniant ( in the play of mice and men) we shoot it. I fear we are heading that way with humanity, if a lover is getting inconviniant, we break up, if a child is inconviniant, we kill it. I dont want to see human being made into a cheap type of object, beecause No matter how bad we can be sometimes, I still know that human beings have some type of value that isnt spiritual or intellectual, I just dont know what it is or where it comes from
 

Saxnot

New member
Mar 1, 2010
212
0
0
aprilmarie said:
I don't believe in abortion for people who just were irresponsible and stupid and didn't use protection but in cases of rape, incest, or in which it is the mother or the baby dying I fully support it. I mean seriously if all else fails and you're just a stupid twat and don't use protection give the thing up for adoption.
doesn't this seem somewhat... harsh to you?

'you didn't use protection, so now you're just going to have to go trough a 9 - month pregnancy culminating in a multiple - hour agony of birth. it'll suck, but at least you'll have learned your lesson about taking the pill'

and keep in mind, there might be serious social consequences too. in some groups, being pregnant and single makes you 'damaged goods'. this could mean that, because you were stupid about sex once, all your friends leave you and nobody you know would be willing to marry you.

would you really convict someone to all the pain and discomfort that goes with a pregnancy and a lifetime of loneliness, just because they didn't use protection?

of course, this usually isn't the case, but these things do happen. and if you forbid abortion outside of rape, saving the mother or similar circumstances, you will be affecting these people too.

I'll agree with you that abortion is used by some people as another contraceptive and that this should be stopped, but punishing people this harshly seems inhumane to me.
 

Phasmal

Sailor Jupiter Woman
Jun 10, 2011
3,676
0
0
Saxnot said:
aprilmarie said:
I don't believe in abortion for people who just were irresponsible and stupid and didn't use protection but in cases of rape, incest, or in which it is the mother or the baby dying I fully support it. I mean seriously if all else fails and you're just a stupid twat and don't use protection give the thing up for adoption.
I'll agree with you that abortion is used by some people as another contraceptive and that this should be stopped, but punishing people this harshly seems inhumane to me.
Does anyone actually KNOW anyone who `uses it as birth control`? That phrase gets thrown around as if women think of abortions as casually as a spa treatment. They dont.

The only person I knew who had an abortion had to because she was going to die otherwise. That didn't stop protesters shouting `Why dont you love your baby?` and `Give it up for adoption!` at her. It was way more stressful for her than it needed to be.

IMO: If you dont have a uterus, its likely not ever going to be primarily your decision. So stop trying to tell women what to do with their own freaking bodies.

EDIT: http://jezebel.com/5856197/america-without-abortion-would-be-a-horrorshow this link is relevant.
 

Guardian of Nekops

New member
May 25, 2011
252
0
0
WaderiAAA said:
I believe life is when something grows and requires nurishment. Living things are divided into plants, animals and humans. Generally, the life of a human is considered sacret, an animals life isn't, but you should not cause it pain while with plants you can do whatever you want (as long as it doesn't hurt humans and animals).

If you look at it that way, a fetus is a form of life.
Yes. So are tapeworms, and those consume a lot less.

It's not the choice between killing a human and letting one live... it's the choice between ending a human life and letting that human life consume you. For nine months, at minimum. The difference is that, if you just stopped caring and working at it (like everybody does every day when they don't ship all their excess money off to Africa, so it doesn't make you a more horrible person than most) that little life would die.

Nine months of pregnancy is no picnic, or so I've heard... you have to eat twice as much, rest twice as much, refrain from dangerous and strenuous activities and low-quality nutrition that may well be how you're feeding even yourself up to this point... and that's assuming that you can trust the system to care for the child enough to give it up after nine months. Not everyone feels that they can. Hell, not everybody feels like the system would take care of them long enough for both them and the child to survive. If you don't have a formal job, or are self employed, or living with your parents, then all those neat programs that don't let your job fire you because you're pregnant don't really help much.

WaderiAAA said:
I don't agree with the argument "then what about sperm and eggs." It is like the difference between wrecking an unfinished house and not turning the materials into a house in the first place. The former is vandalism, the second isn't.
Well, but if two boards and a nail fall down and end up stuck together, are you then obligated to finish the entire house? Because as stated before, the work of creating a new life is far from done at conception. It may be automatic, but it is still a lot of work... work that can be hazardous to you in a dozen different ways. If you believe in birth control at all, then you need to consider what to do when it fails. And if your answer is that the only people who should have sex, no matter how safe, are those who can afford to bring a child to term in good health, well, I guess that's the conclusion you come to.

And if it's YOUR house, you can do whatever you want to it. If finishing it is going to bankrupt you, no law says you have to pour the last of your resources into it... that would be insane. Now granted, human life is far more sacred than a house, but so is the life that's being sacrificed to create it.
 

Saxnot

New member
Mar 1, 2010
212
0
0
aei_haruko said:
allright, so let me just make sure I get the cru of your scenario: a bright teenage girl has sex, condom breaks, doesnt want to keep the child, but doesnt want to abandon it?
How can she not want to keep the child, but on the converse not want to abandon it? Those 2 things are contradictory.
i mean that the mother doesn't want the baby, and doesn't feel like she could raise it.

on the other hand, she feels that it would be irresponsible of herself to give it up for adoption, with the possibility that it's life will consist of living in an orphanage for years, or being bounced from foster family to foster family. it might be that the child grows up happy, but she won't take that chance.

she feels, in sum, that it would be best for herself and the baby if it were never born.

aei_haruko said:
Plus, how is it abandoning a child anyway on the other matter? many kids are taken away from their homes all the time because they live with abusive parents, and many of them find good families who can raise their child. In this scenario, I cant ay it for certain because we dont know that, maybe the foster system would be great for her child, maybe the community would be insired that she raises her child, and maybe they would help out, maybe the kid might actually be brilliant and help change the world. We can be reasonably sure that it might be diffucult, or thatit might be hard to see, but yetI still think that we would have no right to take a human life simply because it is a conviniant thing to do, beause if we break it down, how many of our lives are " conviniant". If we lived in a world where your only value on life was measured with only mathemaic value on life, and where we are killed simply for conviniance, then we're nothing more than a natural rescourse, and object. Because when a toy isnt conviniant, we throw it out, when a dog is inconviniant ( in the play of mice and men) we shoot it. I fear we are heading that way with humanity, if a lover is getting inconviniant, we break up, if a child is inconviniant, we kill it. I dont want to see human being made into a cheap type of object, beecause No matter how bad we can be sometimes, I still know that human beings have some type of value that isnt spiritual or intellectual, I just dont know what it is or where it comes from

i dont mean to say that the abortion should happen because it's 'convenient'. i mean to say that, as the happiness or unhappiness of the child are almost impossible to predict, it would be best to focus on the things we can be certain of. in this case, that the mother would be happier if the child were aborted.

of course, this doesn't give a blank slate for people to just use an abortion as a contraceptive. these people do exist, but i would say the best way to deal with them is to send them to a psychiatrist, or make the seriousness of abortion clear in some other way. not by tying them down to a nine - month unwanted pregnancy with no assurances that they'll learn.