Abortion: What's your opinion?

[Mace MacLeod]

***just an FYI Jason Skywalker, there is a forum in LF dedicated to the art of serious and potentially controversial discussions.***

 

http://www.lucasforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=445

 

The Senate Chambers have seen many abortion debates which are worth looking at for your edification. No offense intended; they need fresh opinions in there anyway. The arguments have all gotten very...same-y. What you get when only about ten people go there regularly.

 

And abortion is just one of those topics I personally refuse to touch.

[Samnmax221]

I'm pretty sure we've discussed this before, in fact I know we have. Anywho, I have a deep belief in personal rights and abortion happens to be one of them. Not sure how I play it if I accidentally (and it would be an accident) knocked up a chick, but being that there are precautions in place I hopefully won't have to deal with it.

[MTV2]

there is too many of these threads around. this has asked liked 5 times already.

 

I think it's the womans choice what she wants to do.

[Aurora Starfire]

Scar, whatever they will be scarred; abortion carries a horrible price for a woman, but so would 9 months just to have a child adopted or the life sentance that would be bring up a child who would remind you of the worst day of your life. Why don't you have some compassion and allow a person who is a victim of in my opinion the worst crime around the opportunity to make their own choice.

 

That is why I suggested adoption as a compassionate, life-giving alternative to abortion. 9 months is not too much to ask, in my opinion, if the alternative is cruelly mutilating and murdering an infant. I feel nothing but compassion and sorrow that those women have been physically and psychologically harmed, but the damage is further compounded by abortion.

 

If you wish to advice them not to do it, do so. But the world is an awful place because people have their beliefs and try to force them onto others.

 

So, if the mother of a 13-year-old son decides to kill him (for whatever reason), she should have the right to kill him, and we mustn't try to force our beliefs onto her? Please, that just isn't going to fly.

[jonathan7]

So, if the mother of a 13-year-old son decides to kill him (for whatever reason), she should have the right to kill him, and we mustn't try to force our beliefs onto her? Please, that just isn't going to fly.

 

You then stray into the debate of when life begins. Out of interest why do you believe human life to be so sacred?

[Emperor Devon]

This thread needs a good dosage of liberalism!

 

I myself am pro-choice to the extreme. If a woman wants to stop her preganacy, that's none of our business. Likewise, if she chooses not to, that still isn't.

 

Some reasons...

 

(1. Illegal abortions. You can ban abortion, but is that honestly going to stop people from having them? For some it will, but not all. This will only lead to illegal ones, that will be performed in less reputable hospitals (ones that are okay with breaking the law) that tend to use low-quality means of performing the abortions, which can often be a risk to the mother (and the fetus - they may only partially work). Some countries in the world have currently banned abortion under all circumstances (Chile, for instance). Pregnant women there who just don't want a kid often get their abortions done illegally (and less safely) or go to another country to do it if they able. Such a law is not entirely enforceable, and will only harm those who break it (which they have reason to - they're not all criminals).

 

(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom. This statement would probably shock conservative old Republicans, but it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her body. In fact, abortion laws remind me a bit of George Orwell's 1984. It's a rather scary thought that the government should have the right to tell people what to do with their bodies, no?

 

(3. What pregnancies have women go through. I've yet to see this mentioned, but pregnancies include a large amount of weight gained, (which can't always be worked off) morning sickness, cravings for certain foods (which may not always be healthy), having to eat more often, oftentimes kicking coming from inside the torso. This lasts for about nine months, and that's not even mentioning the actual part of giving birth (I don't think there'll be any moms who'll tell you that feels pleasant). And that's excluding the inability to do certain activities, and having to give up alcohal and other foods/drinks that are harmful for babies. It's a bit much to ask a good amount of people to put up with that and possibly have long-term symptoms (such as weight gained). It would be pretty awful for the government to make you go through all that, no?

 

(4. The old 'human life' argument. Quite frankly, it's not a person for the majority of the pregnancy. Although it may be several days before birth, who honestly would have an abortion at such a late time. The idea that an egg with sperm smeared over it is actually a human is absurd. It has no mind, and is incapable of thought. Claiming abortion should be illegal in order to save lives is akin to passing a law against kicking rocks IMO.

 

(5. The child. Adoption doesn't always and can't always happen - it's not the 'solve all problems' solution most people think it is. It can be quite traumatizing for the mother to give her new child away, but be only a burden if she keeps it (financial difficulties, not ready to raise a kid, etc). A child's life is rarely pleasant when its parent never wanted to have it or don't know how to take care of it. I knew of a kid who was only born because his mom made a mistake. His life sucked, and he ended up committing suicide.

 

(6. Involuntary impregnation. No, this isn't just rape (though that in itself is a major reason to allow abortion). What about random disasters like condom failures? What about peer pressure to have sex, or being drunk? Some of those factors are beyond individual control (like condom failures - there were a few people at my high school that happened to). The idea someone should have to give birth due to circumstances she can't change is ridiculous.

 

(7. Allowing abortion doesn't mean it always has to be used in the case of rape/condom failure/whatever. Most people forget that. If someone woman gets impregnated and decides to have the kid because she's not pro-choice, that's her choice. She doesn't have to have one. However, making it a requirement that every woman be unable to is rather much.

 

And that's not even mentioning how most people here are guys, and teens to boot.

 

My two cents, as always!

[SITHSLAYER133]

IMO its the mothers choice

 

and if she says yes i do want it then she can have it

[SithRevan]

I don't think once your are pregnant you should be able to have an abortion unless it is the result of a rape or the baby is ill and will likely die after birth. My motto on this subject is if you make the bed lay in it because if you did the deed it is your responsibility to bring the child into the world, care for it, and raise it. Those are just my opinions on the subject though.

[Totenkopf]

If the child is merely an extension of the mother, like say her arm or kidney or lung, then no man should ever have to support a child he doesn't want. Afterall, it's her body, not his.

[Sabretooth]

The one argument that always comes against Abortion is, murder of the baby. I ask this question, if the baby is not legally born, and is still part of the mother's body, how is it possibly to kill the baby by abortion. In my opinion, people should be given full right to abortion, as long as it is carried out legally.

[Jae Onasi]

A Momerator note: This is a challenging subject to discuss and can get flamey if we all allow our emotions to overwhelm our courtesy for each other. Please remember to double-check your posts on this topic to make sure you're not coming across in an offensive manner.

 

Still, I think It's kind of useless to discuss this as we are all male. Moral lectures are one thing but It's about the woman and the child.

 

No one here knows what kind of feelings you have when being pregnant and being a mother.

 

Not all of us are male here.

And yes, I do know what it's like to be pregnant and be a mother, having two of my own. So, I have a little something to say on this.

 

@jonathan7--life begins at conception. Granted the baby cannot live out of the womb for another 21-ish weeks at the very minimum, but this baby still has a separate life with his or her own genetic structure and functioning cell life.

 

I felt my babies move long before they could live outside the womb. It was an amazing moment both times. They both did different things in the womb. My daughter was more active, my son had hiccups every day for about 4 weeks before he was born.

 

The repeated assumption here is that because a woman has been sexually assaulted, that she's automatically going to hate the baby. That's not necessarily the case. The baby is a separate person. It is possible, and very likely, to love the baby even if that baby was the result of a terrible experience. When I look at our children, I don't see them as the product of a great night with Jimbo. I see them as separate little people with their own lives, their own personalities, and their own unique and special ways they are a part of our lives and our family.

 

I'm not a big fan of abortion for multiple reasons. I couldn't do it myself for religious reasons. I understand others aren't going to share that same faith, and so I can deal with the existence of legalized abortion, though I don't like it much and it's very difficult for me to resolve that. However, in our zeal to protect the rights of women, we're doing a bad job of educating these same women about the negative effects of abortion in their lives. Obviously the most negative is the death of the baby, but there are also some negative effects on the woman, too. Abortion, while generally quite safe, is not a benign procedure. While very rare, women have died during the abortion itself or have died of complications later. It can have lasting negative effects on future fertility. It frequently has emotional effects--women often feel guilt over aborting their babies, among a number of other feelings.

 

I understand that there are some concerns about mother's health issues, but there are very few health conditions that require actual abortion, rather than early delivery of the baby. Most of the life-threatening pregnancy conditions affect the mother in the last trimester when the baby has a good chance of surviving.

 

(3. What pregnancies have women go through. I've yet to see this mentioned, but pregnancies include a large amount of weight gained, (which can't always be worked off) morning sickness, cravings for certain foods (which may not always be healthy), having to eat more often, oftentimes kicking coming from inside the torso. This lasts for about nine months, and that's not even mentioning the actual part of giving birth (I don't think there'll be any moms who'll tell you that feels pleasant). And that's excluding the inability to do certain activities, and having to give up alcohal and other foods/drinks that are harmful for babies. It's a bit much to ask a good amount of people to put up with that and possibly have long-term symptoms (such as weight gained). It would be pretty awful for the government to make you go through all that, no?

 

(said in the nicest way....) *Jae falls out of bed laughing*

Giving up alcohol or smoking or drug abuse is bad? I should abort a baby because I might crave fresh pineapple and scrambled eggs (most cravings are generally for healthy things, actually--mine all were)? I should justify abortion because a tiny baby weighing less than 8 pounds presses his or her foot up against the inside of my ribcage for a few seconds? How hard do you think an infant can kick? Press one finger into your abdomen a little bit. That's how hard a baby's kick feels. It doesn't hurt at all, and for most of those 9 months it feels a lot like gas moving around, to be honest.

 

While I agree that passing a watermelon through a straw, or trying to pass one if a woman ends up with a c-section, was not my idea of a good time, there are plenty of pain-relieving options that make it much less painful. Abortion is not pain free either--the cramps from that are very painful, and if one is having a late-term abortion, the experience is the exact same as giving birth--they just happen to kill the baby before it's delivered.

 

If I justify aborting a fetus because it makes me puke, does that give me the right to kill my kids because when they throw up the smell also makes me puke?

 

This does not take into account some of the health benefits of pregnancy/childbearing. Breast cancer risk decreases 7% for every birth and 4% for every year a woman breastfeeds. In one study, researchers found that women who had given birth once were 60% less likely to develop ovarian cancer than women who had not given birth, and they also found the overall risk of ovarian cancer droped 22% for each pregnancy. Ovarian cancer is a particularly deadly cancer, and dropping my risk nearly 50% is a big deal for me.

 

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby.

 

Those of us who are uncomfortable or opposed to abortion should do something constructive about that--there are plenty of crisis pregnancy centers that could use volunteer help or supplies, and mothers who could use mentoring and support for going through with the pregnancy and either keeping the baby or giving the child up for adoption.

[Emperor Devon]

@jonathan7--life begins at conception.

 

That's difficult to say. There's no denying the line is quite blurry - a baby one week before birth is more of a person than sperm that made contact with an egg three seconds ago. But what about if it's going to make contact with the egg in three minutes? In three hours? There's no clear line for when life begins. (Not that it matters much, IMO)

 

I couldn't do it myself for religious reasons. I understand others aren't going to share that same faith, and so I can deal with the existence of legalized abortion, though I don't like it much and it's very difficult for me to resolve that.

 

Your personal views are your personal views. It's quite respectable when one does not attempt to force them upon others - you look to be the only pro-life person here who doesn't want to make it illegal. That's quite laudable of you.

 

Obviously the most negative is the death of the baby, but there are also some negative effects on the woman, too. Abortion, while generally quite safe, is not a benign procedure.

 

Of course it isn't. By all accounts it looks quite painful, but whether they have the kid or not is their business.

 

Giving up alcohol or smoking or drug abuse is bad? I should abort a baby because I might crave fresh pineapple and scrambled eggs (most cravings are generally for healthy things, actually--mine all were)? I should justify abortion because a tiny baby weighing less than 8 pounds presses his or her foot up against the inside of my ribcage for a few seconds?

 

If a woman wants to abort a baby for those reasons, great! It's her choice - certainly not the one of elected officials who are total strangers to her.

 

Besides, petty tyranny is the worst form of it in some respects.

 

While I agree that passing a watermelon through a straw, or trying to pass one if a woman ends up with a c-section, was not my idea of a good time, there are plenty of pain-relieving options that make it much less painful.

 

Though from all accounts, not entirely painless. Either way the government has no right to decide whether people should go through that or not.

 

If I justify aborting a fetus because it makes me puke, does that give me the right to kill my kids because when they throw up the smell also makes me puke?

 

Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's your choice as to what clothes to wear, whether to get tattoos, to gain weight, lose weight, etc. Since the baby is another part of the woman's body at that time, then yes, she can. Since your kids are separate individuals (and obviously not part of your body), that does not give such a right.

 

This does not take into account some of the health benefits of pregnancy/childbearing. {snip}

 

And also the trauma that may come with giving the child away, or the thousands of dollars that comes with raising one. Kids aren't cheap.

 

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby.

 

No, they're not. The justification is that it's the woman's choice - and it those are her reasons, good for her.

 

Besides, that's only one part (and not the best of) my justifications.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

I'd rather have legalized abortion than the forms it has taken throughout history: women throwing themselves down stairs, amateur home abortions that resulted in the death or injury of the woman most of the time.

 

In addition to that, I just don't think it's any of my business - my chances of getting pregnant are slim (WHAT HAS SCIENCE DONE?!) to nil.

[Aurora Starfire]

Thank you, Jae!! Life does begin at conception, and it's good to hear from a mother about the subject (you people listen to Jae, now. She knows what she's talking about)

 

You then stray into the debate of when life begins. Out of interest why do you believe human life to be so sacred?

 

First of all, I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that God knows and loves each human being, and endows them with an immortal soul at the moment of conception. Therefore, at the moment conception occurs, that "an egg with sperm smeared over it" is not any such thing, but is, in fact, a human being, with all the rights and privileges which any of you have. This includes the right to live. I think all of you, being alive and outside of your mothers' wombs, would prefer to retain that right, am I correct?

Second of all, I am the eldest of five girls. I have experienced my mother go through pregnancy and labor one time () and witnessed her go through pregnancy and labor four times beyond that. I have felt my little sisters' feet kick inside her womb, and watched them grow from conception, to infancy, into the intelligent, loving people they are today. And they were ALIVE. They were HUMAN. And have been, and still are. I have seen the truth of life at the moment of conception; I've been there, heck, I've been IT, and anyone who holds that a fetus is "merely an extension of the mother" has probably not been around an infant, or a pregnant mother, very much. Do your kidneys have a heartbeat? can they have hiccups? can they move their arms and legs? No, because they are parts of your body. An infant in the womb does all of those things. To say that a fetus is "merely an extension of the mother" is to say that one of a pair of conjoined twins is "merely an extension of the other". Just because they are linked, doesn't mean they are not at the same time separate, living, human beings.

Would you kill a ten-day-old baby? No, I thought not. Then why would you kill a ten-week-old infant fetus? A fetus who could one day be your little brother, or sister, or best friend, or son-in-law?

 

Individuals have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies. It's your choice as to what clothes to wear, whether to get tattoos, to gain weight, lose weight, etc. Since the baby is another part of the woman's body at that time, then yes, she can. Since your kids are separate individuals (and obviously not part of your body), that does not give such a right.

Suppose your friend who lives next door tried to cut off his head. Wouldn't you stop him from doing it? Even though he wanted to do it? In your line of reasoning, you would have no right to stop him from cutting off his own head, because "it's his body, and he can do whatever he wants to it." If you allow the line of abortion to be crossed using this excuse, where will it end? By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.

 

(1. Illegal abortions. You can ban abortion, but is that honestly going to stop people from having them? For some it will, but not all. This will only lead to illegal ones, that will be performed in less reputable hospitals (ones that are okay with breaking the law) that tend to use low-quality means of performing the abortions, which can often be a risk to the mother (and the fetus - they may only partially work). Some countries in the world have currently banned abortion under all circumstances (Chile, for instance). Pregnant women there who just don't want a kid often get their abortions done illegally (and less safely) or go to another country to do it if they able. Such a law is not entirely enforceable, and will only harm those who break it (which they have reason to - they're not all criminals).

 

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"? I'm sorry, but that argument simply will not hold water.

 

(2. To fall back to an old argument, personal freedom. This statement would probably shock conservative old Republicans, but it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby.

 

Ok, you just said "it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby", am I right? By this statement you mean that a pregnant woman can do whatever she wants with her baby, and we shouldn't interfere. Well, what's the difference between a baby a week before birth, and a baby a week after birth? There is no difference.

Look at a seed. You plant it in the soil, and water it, and a tiny plant emerges from the seed. It hasn't even poked its head up out of the soil yet, but is it any less a plant? Of course it's a plant. You'd laugh at me if I said it wasn't a plant. And if I dug up the tiny plant, and chopped it up, and threw it away, I would have killed it. But it was still a plant. And that's what you're doing with abortion. You have dug up a tiny human being, and killed it. But just because it hasn't emerged from the womb does not make it any less a human being.

[ET Warrior]

life begins at conception.

Heck, life begins before conception. Sperm and Egg cells are certainly not dead cells. Of course, for some reason not as many people are very upset about women menstruating and destroying what had the potential to become a human being.

 

However, in our zeal to protect the rights of women, we're doing a bad job of educating these same women about the negative effects of abortion in their lives.

We're in agreement here, though I differ in who is most at fault. Honestly, if the anti-choice crowd would put more effort into providing information, counseling, and help for pregnant women, as opposed to making their giant billboards of abortions and screaming baby killer at everyone, they might actually help reduce the number of abortions, as opposed to accomplishing nothing.

 

It frequently has emotional effects--women often feel guilt over aborting their babies, among a number of other feelings.

There are an awful lot of emotional effects of carrying a baby to term, let alone turning around and giving that child up for adoption. postpartum depression is a serious matter, in addition to the laundry list of potential medical complications that nine months of pregnancy and child birth can produce. Even if not life-threatening, they are still severe.

 

Morning sickness, cravings, and temporary weight gain are really bad justifications for the destruction of a baby.

Use of the term "baby" is a common tactic of the anti-choice group, babies bring to mind pictures of adorable infants, as opposed to a messy conglomeration of cells or slimy alien looking things that exist at the time of most abortions.

 

I shall present a scenario, let me know what you think of it. This is not my work, I borrow from Judith Jarvis Thomson.

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

 

By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.

Ah, my old friend, the slippery slope argument. I do love it when that one comes up.

 

there is always the option of putting the child up for adoption. child.

There are plenty of children who are already born, and living terrible lives who would love for somebody to adopt them. Do we really need to add to the problem? Courtesy of Human Rights Watch:

Throughout the world an unknown number of children, most likely in the millions, are kept in orphanages and other non-penal institutions. Many of these children are kept in grossly substandard facilities and provided with inhumane care; some are left to die. Ironically, those responsible for nurturing and providing for the children they take into their care often physically and sexually abuse the children, and subject them to other cruel and degrading treatment.

 

if you did the deed it is your responsibility to bring the child into the world, care for it, and raise it.

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people who get robbed deserve it? I mean, we are all aware that there are such things as burglars out there, and these burglars tend to burgle. And so, by purchasing nice things and putting them in a house you made a decision to present a burgling risk. In fact, you don't even have steel bars on your windows and a security alarm system to prevent this burglarizing. And if you perhaps wake up in the middle of the night and catch this burglar in the act, do you not have the right to call the police, or at least chase them away with a bat? What if that burglar needed to sell that TV to pay for their next meal? What if they starve to death because you wanted to protect your things (which, by the way, you failed to take adequate measures to protect)?

[Diego Varen]

Abortion is even worse when your pregnant for several months and have the abortion then. By then, the foetus will have grown inside the womb. Also Jae, thanks for your post. It is helpful to have it discussed by someone familiar with pregnancy, etc.

[Emperor Devon]

(you people listen to Jae, now. She knows what she's talking about)

 

Remember, she's only one side of the fence.

 

First of all, I am a Roman Catholic. I believe that God knows and loves each human being, and endows them with an immortal soul at the moment of conception. Therefore, at the moment conception occurs, that "an egg with sperm smeared over it" is not any such thing, but is, in fact, a human being, with all the rights and privileges which any of you have.

 

Your living, human being.

 

Aurora, whether you believe in God and the principles commonly associated with that is your business. Even as an atheist, I have no qualms over it. However, doesn't it seem a bit much that you wish to force these views upon millions of people, of whom many of which (myself included) disagree?

 

Then why would you kill a ten-week-old infant fetus? A fetus who could one day be your little brother, or sister, or best friend, or son-in-law?

 

Hitler's mother tried to perform an abortion on herself.

 

In your line of reasoning, you would have no right to stop him from cutting off his own head, because "it's his body, and he can do whatever he wants to it."

 

An invalid argument... This is an actual person we are talking about, whose death would affect others. Not a mindless cluster of cells.

 

If you allow the line of abortion to be crossed using this excuse, where will it end?

 

That question is far more suitable towards pro-life arguments... If the government starts telling people how to deal with pregnancies, where does that end? It's an eyebrow-raising idea when one thinks about it.

 

By legalizing abortion, you are only a step away from legalizing the murder of human beings outside of the womb.

 

'Human beings' being the key term there...

 

Manslaughter is illegal, and yet people still do it. Does that mean we should make it legal, so that people can do it more "safely"?

 

The correct term in such an instance is 'criminal homicide'. And don't be silly. That's an oxymoron.

 

Quite frankly, some women just won't want to (and haven't wanted to) have kids. Their only solution in this instance will be to go the less than reputable hospitals, or to perform the abortion themselves. (That can be done by clubbing themselves in the torso with blunt objects)

 

Remember, the reason there are even laws in the first place is to keep people safe. You don't need to know much about the human anatomy to tell that's generally an unhealthy thing to do.

 

I'm sorry, but that argument simply will not hold water.

 

Depends how many months it's been carrying weight. [/Terrible pun]

 

Ok, you just said "it's really none of our business what a pregnant woman chooses to do with her baby", am I right?

 

Thanks for catching that - I've not been getting enough sleep as of recently. Blasted typos...

 

Of course it's a plant. You'd laugh at me if I said it wasn't a plant.

 

I'd laugh at you if you said it was comparable to a human.

 

You have dug up a tiny human being, and killed it. But just because it hasn't emerged from the womb does not make it any less a human being.

 

Things aren't so black and white... When is it a human being? When abortion is impossible without killing it? It has a brain, bones, organs and muscles then. What about several weeks before pregnancy? It's kicking then. What about in the first few months? It looks like baby crudely made out of play-doh, and isn't quite as intelligent. What about when sperm just makes contact with the egg? It doesn't even have a brain then. Or what about when it's about to?

 

No one can honestly say when life begins. The fact that it's not my business as to a pregnant woman's views on that, however, is indisputable.

[SithRevan]

Just out of curiosity, do you believe that people who get robbed deserve it? I mean, we are all aware that there are such things as burglars out there, and these burglars tend to burgle. And so, by purchasing nice things and putting them in a house you made a decision to present a burgling risk. In fact, you don't even have steel bars on your windows and a security alarm system to prevent this burglarizing. And if you perhaps wake up in the middle of the night and catch this burglar in the act, do you not have the right to call the police, or at least chase them away with a bat? What if that burglar needed to sell that TV to pay for their next meal? What if they starve to death because you wanted to protect your things (which, by the way, you failed to take adequate measures to protect)?

Somebody steeling things and somebody steeling a life are two very different things. I know in the case of somebody steeling something you would definatly have the right to defend your home, yourself and your family. Now in the case of abortion you have women who have consented to sexual interactment with a partner without using safe sex procedures (and in some cases with safe sex procedures) that get pregnant and do not want the baby so they get an abortion which I think is wrong. If you did not want to have a baby you should not have done it or if you still wanted to have sex you should have used the pill and a condom to give you at least some sort of protection.

 

Also, in the case of somebody burglurizing a house to sell the things they get for money to feed themselves and thier families I could understand. I am not saying I would not be mad at the person if I caught them but I would at least give them some food or money so they could feed themselves.

[Emperor Devon]

If you did not want to have a baby you should not have done it or if you still wanted to have sex you should have used the pill and a condom to give you at least some sort of protection.

 

If you've read any of posts, there's a part about condom failures in them. They don't always work (there were people at my high school that happened to). And that's not even mentioning how sex can feel better without a condom.

 

but I would at least give them some food or money so they could feed themselves.

 

The best response in such an instance would be to alert the police and have the criminals hauled of for breaking the law. If stealing things is responded to by a reward, why on Earth should they stop? Leeches don't stop sucking blood when they hit a large vein. The same applies to such criminals.

 

Such a principle is entirely unethical. Looting, robbery, taking that which has not been earned and rewarding it is a betrayal of the human spirit, quite frankly. The best response would be for the government to help get them back on their feet so they can actually earn their next meals. If they continue to steal things, then they should naturally be put behind bars.

 

One must also consider the nature of people who resort to burglarly. Does someone who survives by leeching off and stealing from others really deserve any help in return for that?

[Darth InSidious]

Some small points in answer, I hope, at least in part, to some of the points raised:

 

1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Effect

 

2) In Britain pre-the 1967-ish act legalising abortion, almost all 'backstreet' abortions were performed in Harley Street surgeries (Harley Street, BTW, being where all the most expensive private surgeries tend to be...)

 

3) To say that the bonded sperm and egg do not constitute a person is to be 4-dimensionally narrow-minded in the extreme.

 

4) Judith Jarvis Thompson makes out that a baby is an unwanted, un-asked-for, unhelpful burden thrust upon the mother. Not true. 99.9% of the time, the woman CHOOSES to have sex, and should take responsibility for her own actions, IMO. Also, JJT is notoriously anti-male.

 

5) Almost all rape-induced pregnancies end in miscarriage.

 

6) If I choose you are annoying me, does that give me a right to crush your skull and then hoover you up?

 

7) NONE of us can live independently. We are in a symbiotic relationship with the environment around us, believe it or not. I'd be extremely surprised if any of you could survive in a vacuum beyond about 30 seconds.

 

Well, that's all I've got to say for now...FHL, everyone.

[Jae Onasi]

Here's an interesting twist on this argument. Does the government have the right to force you to have abortion?

 

China does to control overpopulation.

 

Also, I heard, but have not confirmed so I may be wrong, that the UK is considering a bill that would require termination of all pregnancies where the fetus is diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I'll have to find more about that, so if you hate that idea, don't go bashing the UK just yet.

[HerbieZ]

Also, I heard, but have not confirmed so I may be wrong, that the UK is considering a bill that would require termination of all pregnancies where the fetus is diagnosed with Down's syndrome. I'll have to find more about that, so if you hate that idea, don't go bashing the UK just yet.

 

Negatory. It's not and should never be an option here.

[ET Warrior]

4) Judith Jarvis Thompson makes out that a baby is an unwanted, un-asked-for, unhelpful burden thrust upon the mother. Not true. 99.9% of the time, the woman CHOOSES to have sex, and should take responsibility for her own actions, IMO. Also, JJT is notoriously anti-male.

You made up that percentage. If you didn't, I'd appreciate you cite a source to lend you some credibility, or I'll just ignore that number outright. Also, you seem to have ignored my statements about burglars, or perhaps I wasn't clear. You CHOOSE to own things that burglars might want to steal, so shouldn't YOU ALONE have to suffer the consequences of your choice to own those things? If you chase them out of your home you might be dooming them to die, and isn't all human life necessary to protect? Furthermore, just because a woman CHOOSES to have sex does NOT mean that a pregnancy is not an unwanted, un-asked for, unhelpful burden that will be thrust upon the mother.

 

Oh, and at what point did somebody being "anti-male" invalidate any opinions that they hold about things?

 

5) Almost all rape-induced pregnancies end in miscarriage.

Once again, you're throwing out "statistics", but I'll ignore it unless you can provide some kind of source to back up your claims.

 

6) If I choose you are annoying me, does that give me a right to crush your skull and then hoover you up?

Non-sequitur. This is not even remotely analogous to the current discussion.

 

I'd be extremely surprised if any of you could survive in a vacuum beyond about 30 seconds.

Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion). You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic. A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.

 

Here's an interesting twist on this argument. Does the government have the right to force you to have abortion?

No. That's every bit as terrible as the government having the right to tell you that you cannot have an abortion.

[JasraLantill]

@Jae--I work in the NHS, and I haven't heard about any plans 'requiring' potential mothers to abort Down's syndrome foetuses. But there has been talk about 'allowing' NHS abortions when severe birth defects are detected in the last trimester, as well as a discussion about withholding life support for infants born too premature or with such substantial disabilities to have any substantial hope of ever living without permanent medical life-support assistance. This, of course, has sparked quite a stir among a lot of organisations for people with disablities, so I doubt that any kind of official 'law' will be passed anytime soon, one way or the other.

 

I don't normally get into these types of discussions, mostly because I figure that the 'abortion yes/no question' is one of those where the answers are always going to be pretty much based on the beliefs and/or morals of the person being asked. Opinions can be swayed fairly easily through debate, but trying to change someone's belief system is much, much more difficult.

 

I wouldn't consider myself strictly 'pro-choice' or 'pro-life'. The issue has far too many emotional, social, and medical aspects attached to it to have one simple solution for everyone.

 

Suppose my two cents to this discussion would be this: an abortion, whether illegal or legal, first trimester or last, for causes of circumstance or not, is a difficult decision for any woman to make, regardless of who is screaming on their respective podiums that it is wrong/right, moral/immoral, legal/illegal, etc., etc., etc... Thankfully, I don't live in China but in a 'free' society, where I believe it is a decision that should be made between the woman and her doctor, with the advice and support of her family, friends, and/or spiritual advisors, in accordance with legal guidelines, as applicable to her location.

 

((And is it just me, or does it seem like there are a disproportionate number of those who shout the loudest about this issue (not just here on LF, but just in general) who are male and thus shouldn't ever have to worry in the first place whether or not they would abort?))

[Jae Onasi]

Again...non-sequitur, (Though none of us could live less than 1 second in a vacuum, it still has no bearing on this discussion). You've particularly mis-labeled the relationship between fetus and mother. It is most certainly not symbiotic, but parasitic. A growing fetus provides no tangible benefits for mother. They make them sick, they steal nutrients from them, use their blood, etc.

 

See post above for stats: pregnancy/nursing a child reduce risks of breast and ovarian cancer. The mother does get a benefit. We also get rid of periods and PMS for 9 months and sometimes longer since breastfeeding tends to suppress the menstrual cycle. Some of us think that's a great benefit.