What's your position on abortion? And why?

[secrets0stolen]

Inspired by a few conversations with James.

[James81]

It can be a necessary evil (don't get too hung up on that word evil, I'm just using the expression loosely). That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

My main issue is that people are unwilling to call it what it is: killing a potential baby. And my issues with the prochoice side have always surrounded that, but in every discussion I've had about it, they try to make it about a womans rights issue, which it is, but it is ALSO a baby's rights issue too. I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by James81

And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

It looks like you have distinguished The TruthTM.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Angela

It looks like you have distinguished The TruthTM.

You may be right.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

Tha's interesting ; how do you define this perfect world that completely removes a need for abortion?

[James81]

A world where orphanages were not overfilled as they are and a world in which there are great parents lining up to adopt children and a world which could extract a fetus early in the pregnancy and keep it alive without the need for a womb.

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

You think that carrying and giving birth to a child doesn't 'wreak havoc' on the mothers body?

[James81]

Originally Posted by elucidate

You think that carrying and giving birth to a child doesn't 'wreak havoc' on the mothers body?

I think you misunderstood. I said extract the fetus before it wreaks havoc on the body if the mother.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

A world where orphanages were not overfilled as they are and a world in which there are great parents lining up to adopt children and a world which could extract a fetus early in the pregnancy and keep it alive without the need for a womb.

In short, a world where the woman gets her choice to not have to wreak havoc on her body for a child that she doesn't want to keep without having to kill the child or put it in an orphanage where it had no primary caregiver.

Interesting, I took "perfect world" as a world with no rape, and fail safe contraception of universal availability for consensual sex.

[Elrond]

Do Human Rights start at conception?

Do Human Rights start at conception?

Originally Posted by Elrond

We can ponder our whole lives when an zygote/embryo/fetus develops an awareness/consciousness, or when a spirit possesses it.

However, there is one thing that gives the platform for your personality, your abilities, and indeed everything that makes you more than a mere cluster of cells: cognitive ability. It can also be fair to guess that consciousness springs forth from cognitive brain functions, moreso than any other part of a human. "I think, therefor I am." It can be argued that before the fetus/embyro/whatever has developed cognitive functions, it is just an organ that is dependent on the womans body, and therefor a part of the womans body, not a separate entity.

If a person becomes braindead, "it" doesn't have the rights of a cognitive person. The rights to take medical decisision on behalf of the cognitively deceased person is passed on and those with that responsibility can pull the plug if they so decide. You could say that it is because it is impossible for the braindead person to have any further say in the matter, but I would challenge you to find someone that thinks that ending the life of that person isn't the most reasonable decision to make. The person is gone.

Originally Posted by Elrond

There is no concrete right or wrong in this, but there are "benchmarks" that are more reasonable than others. I would say that the fetus can be considered to be a human when it starts to develop cognition, as this is what makes us more than a cluster of cells. It is what makes our personality and it is reasonable to assume that this is a likely point at which awareness springs forth. At least it seems more likely than that consciousness is linked to bodily functions like breathing and heartbeat. I am not sure of this, but I think that cognition precedes the ability to independently breath (developed lungs).

Though the point at which cognitive abilities are developed seems like a reasonable benchmark to me, i won't say that this makes it a human in the full sense, in that it has all the rights of a human outside of the womb. There are also the womans rights one must consider. It seems logical that the rights of the fetus grows as it becomes more developed. So the rights of the fetus vs. the rights of the woman could be a tipping scale, and their rights would at some point be very close to each other. Though the woman will probably have more rights, since a pregnancy should be able to be terminated if it becomes a danger to the woman, though I'm moving into the gray areas of ethics now...

I won't propose any set week, since I haven't been able to find out when this development happens. But I do not think it happens before it becomes a fetus.

Cognitio, ergo sum, there you have it. Unless there are any objections or anyone who writes more pretentiously than me, I will consider this matter solved ones and for all and to be used for any future reference on this subject, kthnx goodnight.

Period.

[aelle]

A last point before I let others speak: I find the way the debate is framed in the US particularly unhelpful. I know people who are both pro-abortion AND anti-choice - people, for example, who emit judgement on who should and shouldn't have babies. You've probably heard them, trash talking "welfare queens" who are having another baby "just to milk the system", or arguing that so-and-so should not keep her child because she's too poor/the father is not around/she is not mentally stable/she is in an open relationship/etc. Being pro-conscious-choice, to me, means embracing the entirety of its definition, which goes well beyond the question of the legality of abortion.

[James81]

Originally Posted by aelle

A last point before I let others speak: I find the way the debate is framed in the US particularly unhelpful. I know people who are both pro-abortion AND anti-choice - people, for example, who emit judgement on who should and shouldn't have babies. You've probably heard them, trash talking "welfare queens" who are having another baby "just to milk the system", or arguing that so-and-so should not keep her child because she's too poor/the father is not around/she is not mentally stable/she is in an open relationship/etc. Being pro-conscious-choice, to me, means embracing the entirety of its definition, which goes well beyond the question of the legality of abortion.

I agree with your assessment that the way the debate is structured almost ensures that it remains a debate where people debate at each other without even understanding their respective positions on it.

[Angela]

I think babies should have the rights of a person, and that an embryo is not a baby. A woman's right to choose whether to carry it to term trumps the embryo's and anyone else's. I'm glad that every state in the US agrees. Period.

[sorter]

Originally Posted by Angela

I think babies should have the rights of a person, and that an embryo is not a baby. A woman's right to choose whether to carry it to term trumps the embryo's and anyone else's. I'm glad that every state in the US agrees. Period.

How 'bout if the father wants the baby?
He'll pay all medical bills plus $20,000.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring the birth of the baby in that case?
.

[ssandra]

Originally Posted by t4488

But it has it's own unique human DNA. It is not a growth that is part of the mom.

I disagree.

I don't think that just because it has unique human DNA, it should be considered a person already. I believe that comes later.

[secrets0stolen]

Originally Posted by James81

It can be a necessary evil (don't get too hung up on that word evil, I'm just using the expression loosely). That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

I agree, I think. Everyone's definition of perfect world is a little different.

My main issue is that people are unwilling to call it what it is: killing a potential baby.

In my experience many people will admit that, although what people will say isn't really that important. Ejaculation and menstruation also kill potential babies, the issue is always about where we draw the line.

And my issues with the prochoice side have always surrounded that, but in every discussion I've had about it, they try to make it about a womans rights issue, which it is, but it is ALSO a baby's rights issue too. I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

It is a human and it is alive. I know it's very common to not make a distinction, but their is one. Human DNA = human. Legal rights and specific ethical obligations = person. So, the question seems to be, where do you draw the line, and why?

[James81]

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by James81

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

It's actually illegal to have them beyond the four month mark...in Australia anyway. Not sure about anywhere else?

[aelle]

Originally Posted by James81

I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

I think this is arguable, actually. A zygote can split and create twins who will without doubt become two different people. At the very least, the idea that a fertilized egg is a person is false.

Originally Posted by James81

My personal line would be at the three month mark for most abortions. There's no reason to be having them beyond that point except for the cases which involve health complications that threaten the health of the mother.

This is pretty much what happens today, though, especially if you include 'mental health' in 'health complications'. France actually makes a legal distinction between "voluntary pregnancy interruption" which is legal without justifications until week 14, and "medical pregnancy interruption" which is legal until birth, but requires an involed discussion and the consent of the whole medical team.

Originally Posted by secrets0stolen

Interesting, I took "perfect world" as a world with no rape, and fail safe contraception of universal availability for consensual sex.

My perfect world would have all these things regardless of the abortion issue, but still, many aborted pregnancies were actually fully desired and planned. You're still left with all the possible health complications of both the child and the mother.

[votoshka]

Originally Posted by James81

It can be a necessary evil (don't get too hung up on that word evil, I'm just using the expression loosely). That is, given the way our society is right now, I can see why it's necessary. In a perfect world, it would be unnecessary.

My main issue is that people are unwilling to call it what it is: killing a potential baby. And my issues with the prochoice side have always surrounded that, but in every discussion I've had about it, they try to make it about a womans rights issue, which it is, but it is ALSO a baby's rights issue too. I don't believe in the arguements that say it's not a person or that it's not alive. And that is not up for debate IMO. It is a person and it is alive. Period.

I agree James!

I do understand that there are times when abortion seems like the best choice, and I don't condemn other women for the decision to have an abortion. I know that not everyone feels the way I do, and thus have to make their own decisions and form their own belief systems.

However, I DO believe in calling a spade a spade... and in doing so, calling abortion what it is. It IS killing a potential human being. I also don't agree with the arguments that say it isn't a human yet or it isn't yet alive or whatever... if left alone, it will be a human being in a relatively short amount of time!

I also don't see it as a women's rights issue. I'm all for women's rights, but that doesn't mean I'm against unborn baby rights!

Ohh... and I also certainly don't believe in banning or criminalizing abortion! I'm was horrified when I read of some girl from Queensland who was up on some charges, cause she'd gone across the border into NSW to have an abortion. I can't believe this stuff still occurs... I didn't even realise it wasn't legal in Queensland to have an abortion! So, while on one side I'm against abortion personally... I'm horrified to read of cases where women are actually punished for choosing to have abortions!

[Cado]

Originally Posted by votoshka

However, I DO believe in calling a spade a spade... and in doing so, calling abortion what it is. It IS killing a potential human being. I also don't agree with the arguments that say it isn't a human yet or it isn't yet alive or whatever... if left alone, it will be a human being in a relatively short amount of time!

It's all semantics. Is it a potential human life? Yes. Are we agreed there are some circumstances wherein it's better to keep it from being born? Yep. Whatever you call it the outcome is the same.

I'm never going to see a lump of cells as a life in the sense we're talking about. You can call it like you see it but I'm just gonna do the same thing. Looking at it one way or the other does nothing to lessen the weight of the decision nor does it eliminate the circumstances which make it preferable compared to birthing a full-blown kid.

Do some people bs themselves with this line of thinking? Sure, we all do it with some things. It's how we cope. However, saying a fetus is not a person prior to a certain point is not bs in itself. You can disagree with the reasoning but there's a basis for it and it exists in the gray.

If you guys are arguing that we shouldn't let ourselves become desensitized then yeah, nobody's gonna argue that. It's just that getting this picky over word choices isn't going to further the debate.

[ZephyrusX]

Originally Posted by votoshka

I also don't see it as a women's rights issue. I'm all for women's rights, but that doesn't mean I'm against unborn baby rights!

I think abortion becomes a women rights issue when pro-lifers eliminate the right to abortion as doing so relocates the harm done onto the woman (i.e back alley abortions). Why do women have to lose the freedom to control their bodies and their lives in order to protect baby rights? It doesn’t seem necessary in my mind. Many of the policies that would actually reduce abortion (I.e teaching the effective use of contraception) would also help women take ownership of their bodies, sexuality, and ultimately, their lives. I don’t think ‘baby rights’ and ‘women rights’ have to be in opposition to each other necessarily.

[Elrond]

Originally Posted by rei

Oh, and I would also say, I think in certain situations it might be nice if there were regulations related to the would-be father. However that's also a sticky line. What if he raped his wife and she's gearing up to leave him after years of abuse (but he's also been skilled at the abuse so no evidence exists, making it invisible as a crime to law enforcement)? What if he is a misogynist who doesn't believe she is fully human so she is incapable of making such a decision?

What if she had a valium addiction that she managed to keep hidden from the authorities or whatever, what if she intended to use most of the child support payments from him on herself, what if she doesn't believe that he is fully human, what if she doesn't have the will to raise the child and instead leaves them both after some time, what if ...

Tell me how your examples aren't something that can be said about absolutely any law, and any type of person.


I'll propose a "law"... The woman may have all the rights to abort or keep it, and the man has the right to withdraw from any responsibility, including paying child support. If he chooses to withdraw from all responsibility, he may never be involved with the childs life ever again, unless the woman permits it. There might be some child support, maybe for the infant years or something.
I can think of some arguments that can be raised against it, and maybe there are no viable choices other than the woman having all reproductive choice and the man none, for the childs well-being, but I'll just leave it like this for now.

[Elrond]

YouTube - Very Funny Stand up Comedy from Chris Rock about Abortions

[aelle]

I have never had one. I hope I never will.
But if I assessed that all things considered, life for myself and the potential child would be significantly worse should he be born, I might get one.

Legally I am in favor of letting women make this choice with the support of qualified professionals.

This is not strictly about abortion but I'll bring it up because it's contingent to my opinion: I do not think that as long as the kid is in the womb, anything goes, and when he's outside it's evil, evil murder. I am favorable to late abortions being decided between the parents and the medical team (which is de facto what happens, late abortions for convenience purposes are pretty much a myth), in the same way pulling the plug on a non viable born baby is decided in a team (it's not or badly legislated, but it's done, and I wish it had a legal framework too.)

[tinydancer]

Originally Posted by aelle

But if I assessed that all things considered, life for myself and the potential child would be significantly worse should he be born, I might get one.

I'm pro abortion in context, and aelle's comment rings true for me. I would want the best for any child i give birth to. If i can't provide that i would not continue with the pregnancy. For example if i fell pregnant in my current situation, that is, no partner, not studying/working, and living at home i would abort.

Abortions after 3 months in my opinion would have to have a very good reason (medical issues for mother/child obviously)

[spacecadetglow]

Pro-choice 100%. It has never made sense to me to legislate away someone else's choice. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself and don't have an abortion if you oppose, but your personal beliefs have nothing to do with my body and my fetus.

I'd say it's both a women's rights and a human rights issue. Secrets is right, the debate seems to usually gravitate towards where we draw the line. There are the fundamentalist nutters who oppose stem cell research and won't use birth control... yeah no. I think having a cutoff point is an okay compromise, but it should be a flexible thing in case there are complications involving the woman's life.

[aelle]

Originally Posted by spacecadetglow

Pro-choice 100%. It has never made sense to me to legislate away someone else's choice. Keep your personal beliefs to yourself and don't have an abortion if you oppose, but your personal beliefs have nothing to do with my body and my fetus.

I'd say it's both a women's rights and a human rights issue. Secrets is right, the debate seems to usually gravitate towards where we draw the line. There are the fundamentalist nutters who oppose stem cell research and won't use birth control... yeah no. I think having a cutoff point is an okay compromise, but it should be a flexible thing in case there are complications involving the woman's life.

Actually, I see it more in terms of a continuous curve rather than a cutoff point - and that curve goes way beyond birth. To me, before there is sentience and the possibility of pain, any choices are valid. When you have full sentience, you get to make your own choices. Between the two, it's a tradeoff between your interests and the interests of your caretaker that's very situation-dependent - and most women do weigh both parties' interests before deciding whether to continue a pregnancy or not.

Originally Posted by ssandra

When do you believe it is a person? From the second of conception? If that is true, how do you feel about the morning after pil?

The morning-after pill prevents conception

[Andrew Brunelle]

It could be murder, but not really. The unborn is exactly that, unborn. Most of the time, abortions are performed when the fetus is very, very small. Or even microscopic. It's hard to draw the line, and many of us would rather just say that life begins at conception, mostly because they hate grey areas. How come when somebody has a miscarriage there's no funeral? How come when you ask a pregnant lady how many children she has, it's something like two and one on the way instead of three children?

It comes down to a woman's choice, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Although I think men should also have some kind of rights as well, that is not the case today. Either way, it's not up to me to decide.

[Moriarty]

While we still have one element of free choice, then i feel we also have the right to decide about bringing a life into this world. How can we judge others decisions while not knowing their reasons behind such a choice? Who gives anyone the right to judge such an important thing as this?

There are always plenty of do-gooders in this world who are quick to judge others without ever having gone through such hardship themselves. I say, let it rest and allow the individual to decide. Oh and btw..greatfully, ive never had to make this choice.