As most of you can tell, im a liberal, probably like most members on this site. Being liberal im also pro-choice, no man nor woman should tell another woman what she can or cannot do to her body aslong as it hurts no one else physically.. Now we can all agree le being pregnant the child inside of you has no concious, but I still think there should be regulations, something on the linee of the abortion must be taken place before the 5th month or something along those lines..
I find it very hilarious that christians hate abortions, yet "god" creates so many misscarriages..
Ill leave with something to think a out, and leave your opinions below :)
"The same people who think abstinence is the only birth control, also believe a virgin gave birth" xD
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Ah, the contraversy to end all controversy. But if it wasn't for the afformentioned christians, it wouldn't be a controversy.
No woman should be enslaved to her reproductive organs. Maybe the pending forms of male contraception may help.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/09/future-contraception_n_6436848....
The ultimate wedge issue.
I really don't think the division between human and non human is exiting a mother's body. Most would agree that aborting a fetus as the mother is giving birth is unethical. How far back do we go before it's fine to terminate the fetus?
There are some folks that make the notion of retroactive abortion very enticing.
I do not think most would agree that aborting a fetus, which is NOT alive is unethical, but each their own, and thats why i am pro-choice, if your beliefs and ethics say dont abort then you can choose not to, but if your ethics are not against it you should be able to.
speaking biologically, what makes you believe a fetus isn't alive? All fetuses or specific fetuses
"Women are not baby-making factories."
Lol
Technically they are the current baby making factory just like men are the sperm making factory.
I honestly am undecided on this issue.
I have mixed feelings about it.
On one hand you have to look at collective suffering and morality pushes me to think that one must opt for less collective suffering thus I think that the less suffering the better.
+1 for abortion.
On the other hand at which point are we going to let our collective suffering limitations dictate what we do?
If you go to a hospital and the doctor takes all your body parts to save 5 people but kills you, does it excuse it?
Is it OK to end 1 life to save more lives?
I think not.
-1 for abortion.
Does the fetus being conscious make any difference when ending his life?
I think not.
-1 for abortion
Does the risk of life to the mother grant her the choice for abortion?
I think it does.
+1 for abortion
If I was the fetus would I want a choice to live even if it meant other people to suffer in some way?
Do I get the opportunity to make that choice myself without people taking that from me?
I think I would deserve that choice even if I was not mature enough to handle it.
I feel that denying the choice to people is wrong even if they are incapable of making it.
-1 for abortion
As you can see, it is not an easy choice to make.
And the +-1's are not of equal strength but showing in which direction they point.
I still haven't decided yet.
According to many sources, in the U.S., the vast majority of legal abortions (~90%), are done in the first trimester. That's a gestational period of 12 weeks or less. Despite that a fetus at that stage is nowhere near viable, there are people who consider it a person. IMO, a non-viable mass of cells is no more a person than a skin cell is. Although both have the potential to become a human, neither is.
That 77% of anti-abortion leaders are male is telling. More interesting to me is that 100% of them will never be faced with being pregnant when they don't want to be. I wonder how many cases of the high percentage of males who vociferously condem abortion is indicative of the Madonna/Whore complex.
I also dislike the term "pro-life"...I agree with Emyra, it is also my impression that most people who call themselves that are, in actuality only pro-birth. I prefer to call them anti-choice.
There is substantial data that indicate that when women have complete control over their own reproduction, pretty much everything gets better...from an increased standard of living to a reduction in crime.
If I were to wrap up my opinion about abortion (and a number of other things) in a nutshell, it would be, "keep your laws or your religion out of my (or any other woman's) body.
Love the amazing replies, yes fetuses are alive, but they are not human.. Just like skin cells are alive, but have no thoughts would "pro-lifers" be against killing skin cells? End of the day someone has to voice a choice for the fetus that cannot, and who better than the person keeping the fetus alive.
New question for you guys, if you were to find out your child would have a life threatning life condition while being a fetus, would you abort and try again? I would, many would find that immoral, but why bring a child when it wont be happy or live to his or he full potential. Thoughts?
"Love the amazing replies, yes fetuses are alive, but they are not human.. Just like skin cells are alive, but have no thoughts would "pro-lifers" be against killing skin cells?"
skin cells do not have the chance of having their own conscience, you have to compare like with like.
"who better than the person keeping the fetus alive"
This point is not valid either, in fact there are laws against parents who kill their children even if they are the ones keeping them alive.
"New question for you guys, if you were to find out your child would have a life threatening life condition while being a fetus, would you abort and try again?"
Is "life threatening" for the mother or the fetus itself?
"I would, many would find that immoral, but why bring a child when it wont be happy or live to his or he full potential. Thoughts?"
If it was life threatening and you managed to "bring a child" then it is not in danger anymore.
"when it wont be happy or live to his or he full potential."
You should let the child make that choice.
Personally if I was disabled and a huge burden on my parents, I would find something to live for, even breathing is enough in some cases. If I cannot then I think i should be entitled to make the choice to end my suffering and die.
I don't think my parents should take that choice from me.
You have to remember that our abilities are a perspective we have, there might be things we cannot perceive and they can.
You should check the studies conducted on savants:
"The most dramatic examples of savant syndrome occur in individuals who score very low on IQ tests, while demonstrating exceptional skills or brilliance in specific areas, such as rapid calculation, art, memory, or musical ability."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savant_syndrome
An interesting perspective...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
And some more of the same...
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
Humanity has no purpose whatsoever rendering all arguments for it's continued existence moot. Atheism defines a person who knows his life carries no value to anyone, ergo no one has value to him. If a woman wants to off her fetus no atheist should care. If anyone wants to off anyone, no atheist should care. By embracing atheism we acknowledge our worthlessness. It's for that very reason theism is alive and well. But, then there's that instinct to survive so all bets are off.
I find this thread ironic.
I do not acknowledge myself useless, just insignificant, i wont have forever to live but i will have fun while i do.. Your definition of atheism was horrible, its the lack of belief in a deity, its not that hard to understand.. And just because im an atheist does not mean i cant voice an opinion about birth, im pro-choice, im not telling a woman what to do her with her body, im on the side for she can make her own mind.. The comment you made felt like a troll comment.. :/
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist
Perhaps not trollish, just nihilistic.
"Humanity has no purpose whatsoever rendering all arguments for it's continued existence moot."
In a way you are right but maybe we have not yet discovered a purpose for existing.
EG:(we living in a Matrix)
"Atheism defines a person who knows his life carries no value to anyone, "
Atheism is just lack of belief, it says nothing about the character of a person. The default position.
"ergo no one has value to him."
Not really, value is relative, I find value in my critique, I truly think that criticism is the way forward.
If I help in that, I can contribute for a better future.
"By embracing atheism we acknowledge our worthlessness."
In a way we are acknowledging that we are less worth then we would be if there was some divine plan for us.
I can see what you are implying but seems not worded correctly.
Though I do not agree with that, it is a valid point.
I think though that once you acknowledge that you are on your own, you gain the power of responsibility for your actions.
Now your actions will be done because of who you are, not for what you believe.
Eg: you give charity because you truly care rather then because you believe charity is a good thing.
Some people do not distinguish the difference that caring could be to not give charity in some situations, since it might make the situation worse, while if you believe that charity is good you do it anyway.
The power is given back to the individual when he lacks belief that rules by superman can dictate morality.
" If anyone wants to off anyone, no atheist should care."
Yea that is indeed correct.
An atheist should not but none is JUST an atheist is it?
(Except a fetus or a newborn baby)
"It's for that very reason theism is alive and well. "
The false sens of purpose does indeed attract the sheep. I agree.
"But, then there's that instinct to survive so all bets are off."
Survive and reproduce, could that instinct be considered a purpose too?
I've gone back and forth on this issue between hardline left "abortion to term", to the other end "abortion is murder", to and fro again and again, and then my sister had a baby and I became an uncle for the first time, matured a little, and now I've come back into the middle ground somewhere. Abortion is certainly necessary in a society; if a woman is raped or a child is 100% going to be born with some awful life-threatening condition that impacts its ability to not live a horrendous life of pain and torment, or if there's a chance the mother may die, then yea, abortion is a necessary option for her. However, at the same time, when an adult woman 8 months into a pregnancy, after her baby has conscious thoughts, has been able to form its own taste in music by listening to her's and has every chance of being healthy and alive, decides that she's going to have an abortion, she should not be allowed to undergo the procedure, nor should any doctor get away with performing it. Prison is made for such people, although adoption is obviously the better choice. And I think most people, even the most radical among us, would tend to agree with that (unless you're one of those wingnuts who thinks killing a healthy, alive, born baby, or a baby who could be born and who has almost a 100% chance of suvival, is morally justifiable. And in that case, you deserve to be taken even less seriously than the bible-bashers ought to be).
Abortion of a healthy child (though I'd prefer it didn't happen at all in a perfect world) should really be allowed up to about the point a baby's nervous system is developed enough for a response to stimuli (20 weeks at most, and really only under specific conditions, like being an underage or psychologically immature woman, in cases of sexual abuse, in cases where the child is going to have a debilitating condition, Beyond that, I'm afraid for me it's a case of coulda, woulda, shoulda, because the option to give a child up for adoption is still (and always is) there and yes, of course in countries like the USA there's the question of financial emburdenment due to the nature of the US's health system (vote Bernie), so I can kind of understand why the feminists in America are pushing for total reproductive "freedom" for women, however the moral issue remains regardless. I've concluded that it's better to enable two humans to live (baby and mother), than to kill one of them, after it can feel pain and has the instinctual desire to cling to life, all because mommy or daddy were idiots. Really, the abortion laws that currently exist in the UK (abortion up to 26 weeks, that's 6 months!) are more than fair imo, in fact I'd say they're about 6 weeks too far, especially when more than 80% of babies born at that age survive. Obviously in America there's the question of a free-at-contact health service, which muddies the water. Nobody should be paying $50k for a week in a hospital bed.
Aside from the more moral-focused and/or contraceptive argument, there's also the question of male-female equality. If a woman can abort her child up to 26 weeks or can give her child up for adoption at any point (both without the consent of the father), then why can't the father relinquish all parental responsibility (financial or otherwise) and end up effectively in the same position as any woman who chooses to turn her back on her pregnancy through abortion or adoption? If we're not going to force women to be parents (which we don't, for women always have the adoptive choice, and at least here can get abortions up to 6 months into the pregnancy -- more than enough time to decide whether to keep the baby or not) then it's only fair that we don't force men to be parents, financially or otherwise.
Abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and everyone else should just stay out of it. My robust opinion. It is a medical condition and therefor should be treated as such.
IN response to mykckob04, you said: "Abortion is between a woman and her doctor, and everyone else should just stay out of it. My robust opinion. It is a medical condition and therefore should be treated as such."
-- I wouldn't say abortion is a "medical condition", in fact I wouldn't even say that pregnancy is a "medical condition". But if that's your opinion, do you count it valid even when the "foetus" (or: "medical condition") that has been growing, has grown to the point that it: looks like a healthy baby; feels like a healthy baby; reacts to pain like a healthy baby; and could survive outside the womb like a healthy baby?
If the answer to that question is yes, well, then I find that extremely disturbing. I can't personally think of any doctors I know who, when presented with a request for a "termination" in such circumstances, would oblige. I don't even know many who could ethically consider such a thing a "termination". Most would count it as murder. It would take a cold hearted b*****d to perform that procedure.
EDIT: Previous comments in regards to animal abuse have been deleted. Admittedly, the comparisons drawn were very poor on my part. Also removed comments RE. specifics of abortion procedures. They were initially meant as exaggeration, but in hindsight were misleading and easily misinterpreted.
It's not MY opinion flawed or otherwise. It is the decision (opinion) of the SCOTUS. I didn't admit any flaw at all. That is just you demeaning therefore lying. You obviously don't know how abortions are performed and your mischaractization of that procedure is not only misguided but also misleading.
Your further misleading statements comparing abortion ( a legal medical procedure) to animal cruelty is by all intensive purposes a lie about the issue. they aren't comparable at all.
If you want to debate then debate, but don't lie, make false accusations and comparisons that aren't comparable.
The SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in the UK or anywhere else in the world, and I'm sorry that I have to point this out, but abortion is not purely an American issue.
As for abortion procedure, I know perfectly well how they are performed, though my admittedly simplistic descriptions obviously didn't relay that. But to clarify, any pregnancy over about 15 weeks will usually demand, due to the physical size of the child, that abortion is carried out either via dilation and suction, two-stage vaginal surgery, medically induced labour or cesarean. Some of those can be rather gruesome. But that's not the point. The general point being that very late stage abortions, specifically those after 23 weeks -- the point where survival odds increase dramatically -- are effectively ending the life of a fairly possibly or likely viable child, and removing said child from the womb somehow, usually but not always in that order.
Killing a child through self-induced miscarriage or backstreet abortion is illegal and is penalized. Why is it penalized? Because such societies which penalize it have decided that committing that act is morally unacceptable. The law against such actions is in this case built to reflect the moral offensiveness of the actions in question, and it ought to be built so in my opinion. We build moralities around social needs that arise from empathetic considerations, and these moralities sometimes (not always) manifest in consenses which are enforced to protect the interdependent symbiosis of our societies. Yet the law doesn't ascribe the same unacceptability to the act if performed in a medical setting.
A person could go on in that vein to argue about the semantics of what constitutes "abortion" or "infanticide" in legal terms all day long, but whether killing a fairly possible or likely viable child inside or outside a medical setting is or isn't currently punishable by law doesn't suggest whether either action is morally acceptable or not. Ought is not the same as is, and legality is not always tantamount to morality.
But it just so happens the law (at least here where I live) seems to agree with the idea that after a certain point, it's just murder.
Abortion is legal in the UK last time I checked. Up to 24 months. So you can rant all you want but it IS a medical condition, no matter what you say. That isn't my opinion. It is the consensus of the entire medical community worldwide.
Although I largely agree with you, I have to point out that having a 24 months pregnancy is really stretching it, even for elephants... :)
You shouldn't degrade yourself by conflating abortion and "intact dilation and extraction". That is something political hacks do.
So many debates fall apart due to ill defined terms such as "alive".
A baby, 40 weeks , due tomorrow, who pokes back when you poke......who says that is not life?
A cluster of cells, a blastocyst, that fails to implant due to an IUD.....who says that is a human?
So, the tails of the bell curve above are easy for most (not all) to agree upon.
Society's responsibility is to legislatively pick a gestational age, upon which there will never be a consensus, that becomes the cutoff be it 8, 12, 20, 24 weeks.
The convention for most civilized societies is the "able to live outside the uterus" line, currently about 23-24 weeks.
Me???
I'd much prefer to work toward preventing the unplanned pregnancy in the first place.
I'm flummoxed by how many seemingly intelligent human still oppose cheap, free availability of contraception!!!
Oi, why'd this pop up again. I'm not seein' anything new.
SB seems to have deleted something.
Yep I thought that was the case but wasn't sure.
Avast, it be confuzin' takin' care o' two forums now. Aye, I think ll' turn n' fer the night.