Abortion

Let`s start an internet flamewar. Because I doubt there are any pro-life
people on this website, I ask you the following:

How can a woman want to eventually become pregnant and carry the fetus to
term yet when she gets pregnant now have an abortion and not see the
contradiction? How is one fetus deserving of life and the other not? It seems
to me a real feminist wouldn't want her body being "used" by a fetus ever and
wouldn't want to become pregnant.

If these pro-choice women want to become pregnant now they should get their
tubes tied AND use hormonal birth control, a barrier method w/ spermacide, and a condom everytime they have sex. If they ever want to become a parent they should adopt.

In case there are any pro-life people, I ask the following:

30% of all fertilized zygotes die or are spontatneously aborted before or slightly after implantation in the uterus.
20% of all properly implanted zygotes end up as miscarriages.
50% of all fertilized zygotes don't make it. If life begins at fertilization then god kills half of all of humanity for no reason.

>>Let`s start an internet flamewar.

Let's not, and say we did.  Isn't the signal-to-noise ratio around here low enough for you yet?

A fetus does not have any rights.  It is not a living being, but instead a growth similar (certainly biologically, though perhaps not socially) to either a viral infection or a cancer.  As such, I see no problem cutting it out or otherwise removing it, until natural childbirth would set in, at which point it would become an independant, living being. 

Pro-life activists are pretty funny, if you ask me.  It's one thing to say that they themselves would never have an abortion, or even that they think it's wrong, but don't try to inject their morals into other people.  But these pro-life activists really get me.  I wont touch the absurd religious reasons, but let's take a quick look at the practical perspective. 

Save a fetus, because it's a person, too.  BS, but even if so, why not help EXISTING people instead?  Why force a kid into the world that doesn't want it, and then ignore all the other people who already are suffering?

It's such a horrible thing to prevent a fetus from being born.  Oh?  It's not as important as, say, stopping the pollution that will put hundreds of cities UNDERWATER in a few decades?  Or the crimes commited each day by murderers, rapists, pickpockets, and arsonists?  Will a fetus stop your house from burning?  No, maybe you should have tried to help that FIREMAN instead.  Can a fetus perform open heart surgery on you?  Maybe you should have helped the DOCTOR instead.

Put yet another damn mouth to feed on the planet?  Why should I have to suffer because somebody didn't want some bimbo who couldn't keep her legs together to get rid of something NOBODY WANT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Here's my proposal.  If anybody really thinks abortion is a bad thing, THEY can go ahead and take care of the resulting human larva.  People who get abortions (it's not a nice thing, we all know that, but it's often by far the lesser of two evils) will have to carry the burden of their decision for the rest of their lives.  It's easy to say "don't do that, it's wrong!"  Now some pro-lifers are genuinely concerned and have fair enough reasons.  But the vast majority, if they had to carry the responsibilty of the choice of having or not having an abortion would turn right around and shut up.

>>4
Actually, a fetus is a living being.  The word even comes from a Latin word meaning 'baby' or 'young one.'  It has the genetic code of a human being, it's own heartbeat & brainwaves.

I was born via C-section, a most un-natural way.  According to your reasoning, I'm not really a person, since I was not born via "natural childbirth."

Also, where does this leave premature  babies?  They are most certainly not "independant, living being[s]"  They rely on an incubator to act as a sort of makeshift womb until such time that they can sustain their own lives.  According to your reasoning, there would be nothing wrong with a mother waltzing into the premie ward & chopping up her baby & sucking out of the incubator with a hose if she decided she really didn't want it afterall.  Heck, even a normal, healthy, naturally-born baby really isn't "an independent, living being."  How many babies would survive on their own if not fed & cared for by someone else?

As for all this "what about other problems" stuff, that's pretty poor arguing.  It's just a way of avoiding the argument.  Sure, there are lots of other problems in the world, but the existance of those other problems is neither an argument for not against anything.

Furthermore, it's wrong to say that some pople are simply more important than others, fetuses or otherwise.  A fetus won't stop my house from burning or perform open-heart surgery, but, chances are, neither will you.  Nor will my roommate.  Or my grandmother.  Or that kid down the street.  Placing some people's lives above others is a very slippery slope.  Let's say a janitor walks into the ER with some sort of life-threatening emergency, according to your reasoning, the staff should deny him treatment & save the resources in case a fireman or doctor comes in needing help.

>>2
So what?  Life can end due to natural causes; no one has ever denied that.  But there's a big difference between dying of natural causes and being killed by another person.

Personally, I think that regardless of the morals or reasoning involved, if a woman is a legal adult, she may choose to abort her fetus regardless of the reasoning. It is not a matter to be taken lightly, but regardless should be available, and the decision of the woman should be respected (she should not be hassled by any activist groups, etc).

>>7
Morals or reasoning should not be so easily ignored.  If this was just some ordinary elective surgey, I would agree.  But this is a case of life vs. death.  No one, man or woman, should have the right to take another life.

pro-choicers, pls answer >>1

For those who say abortion is fine, do you also agree that it is a logical and consistant action for a woman to today abort her fetus but in the future carry a fetus to term?

Would this woman have any right to be upset if a person punches her in the gut killing a fetus that she wanted to keep? (mad just for killing the fetus, not for punching her)

If you agree, then I suppose your viewpoint is the fetus "belongs" to the mother. Say I owned a plasma TV, I could smash it if I wanted, but then don't parents basically own their young children that are incapable of caring for themselves? Whats the difference between killing a newborn and a fetus? Both are fully dependent and not really sentient.

So say we make abortion illegal, because a fetus is a life.  What happens if a woman that is pregnant would be risking her life by going to term with the fetus?  What if the fetus has a very good chance to survive the birth even if the mother does not?  Should abortion be allowed?  The way I see it, if the fetus is a life, then a life is a life, the mother has no more right to life than the fetus so if using this logic, then the mother should under no circumstance be allowed to have an abortion, even if her death is assured, even if the there is only a slim chance the fetus will survive the birth.

I'm 100% pro-choice under any circumstance btw.

>>10
I think this would fall under self defense.  Even murder can be justified if it's in self defense.  Anyone has the right to defend his or her own life.  And if that's the ONLY way to do it, then it's sad, but it has to be done.  But that's not really an argument to say that ALL abortion should be okay.

>>9
Yes, of course.  Just because having a child now would be a bad idea, there is no particular reason in the future having a child would still be a bad thing.  Of course, abortion should by no means be a means to make up for a lack of safe-sex and birth control. 

Should she be upset if somebody cuts off her hair, presuming it's not a hair stylist?  Of course!  It's her body, and her right to do with it as she pleases.  Pro-choicers realize the importance and value of a fetus, contrary to the pro-life common beliefs.  That's actually the whole point.  It's HER decision, and NO ONE else's, on what she can or cannot do with her fetus.

And yes, a fetus belongs to the mother as much as, say, your thumb belongs to you.

>>5
Well, you've touched on the cetral issue between pro-choice and pro-life.  Neither side agrees on definitions, so it's hard to even talk about it.  But to get right to the point:

In the case of unnatural methods of childbirth, the mother's body has decided it's time for the baby to be born.  It's time for the baby to come out, one way or another.  The specific method isn't the issue.  I'll get to the issue of medical premature birth in a moment.

The point is, a fetus is not a physioligically independant being.  It is absolutely dependant on the host mother to provide ALL of its needs.  Neither the mother nor the fetus has any choice in the matter.  Once it is born, the mother can be replaced by any number of other persons.  More importantly, it is not physioligically dependant on the mother.  Assuming a healthy birth, it has it's own respiratory system, digestive tract, and so forth.  No being has a right to exist inside another being, it is there by permission.  And, as such, that permission can be revoked at any time at the sole discression of the host.

Now, what about viable fetuses?  Do they have a right to live?  Well, if you ask me, no.  But there would be a simple way to find out.  Induce birth medically, and see how it fairs on it's own.  Chances are, it will die, and it's certainly unethical to create life merely to subject it to pain for the entirety of it's short existance. 

But, I will grant, some time before actual birth, the fetus could be viable.  So as far as policy goes -- and this is a comprimise, I would allow abortions up until the water breaks -- I would think it's fair to say that abortions are permissible up to the seventh month of pregnancy.  Anybody who's pregnant for seven months and hasn't figured out they need an abortion only has themselves to blame.

>>12
A human's rights end where another's begin.  It sounds nice to say, oh, a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body.  But when other people are involved, such as the unborn child, it's no longer true.  I have the right to do whatever I want with my body, say, my fist.  But I do not have the right to use my fist to harm other people.

A fetus is a human.  It's not a monkey, or a cat, or a toaster, or anything else.  It's simply a term for a stage in human development, like infant, toddler, adolescent, etc.  When you start saying that humans BELONG to other humans, that's very dangersous.  I remember learning about a time when certain people 'belonged' to other people.

>>13
Let's say I invite you to join me on my boat for a cruise on Lake Michigan.  I've given you permission to be on my boat, and I am your host.  But, a while into the cruise, I change my mind, and choose to revoke my permission.  I throw you overboard. We are too far from shore for me to realistically expect you to swim back, and Lake Michigan is cold, so you'll likely die from hypothermia or something anyhow.  But, hey, it's my boat, right?  Does this sound right to you?

>>14
Again, this is the disagreement of terms used.  Anti-abortionists feel that a fetus is a person.  It is not.  A person is a physically and physiologically distinct being.  A fetus is neither of these things.  A fetus is intrinsically dependant on the mother.  A baby is not.  That's what the difference is.  If you have any arguements as to why a fetus should be considered a human being, feel free to share them.  However, arguements based on religion, morals, or feelings carry little to no weight, and aren't worth the time to type out.

As for the boat examle, by inviting somebody onto your boat, you are assuming responsibility for them.  So doesn't the mother responsible to the fetus?  Yes, and in many cases (and it's only for her to decide) an abortion is the responsible answer.  It all comes down to one thing.  A fetus has no rights.  It is not an independant being.  Prohibiting abortions if anything is taking away fundamental human rights, not granting them.

>>14
Again, this is the disagreement of terms used.  Anti-abortionists feel that a fetus is a person.  It is not.  A person is a physically and physiologically distinct being.  A fetus is neither of these things.  A fetus is intrinsically dependant on the mother.  A baby is not.  That's what the difference is.  If you have any arguements as to why a fetus should be considered a human being, feel free to share them.  However, arguements based on religion, morals, or feelings carry little to no weight, and aren't worth the time to type out.

As for the boat examle, by inviting somebody onto your boat, you are assuming responsibility for them.  So doesn't the mother responsible to the fetus?  Yes, and in many cases (and it's only for her to decide) an abortion is the responsible answer.  It all comes down to one thing.  A fetus has no rights.  It is not an independant being.  Prohibiting abortions if anything is taking away fundamental human rights, not granting them.

>>14
I think that boat analogy needs a little more accuracy. As it stands it would work if the mother first wanted to have a baby and then suddenly decided that it's not cool and hip and wants to have an abortion. Unfortunately we're usually talking about babies that were unwanted to begin with. I think more correct would be something along the lines of: If a person snuck onboard your boat and stayed hidden and you discovered him not until you were so far from land that he wouldn't be able to swim his way back to the shore, would you throw him overboard?

Most people would of course answer negatively, but it's kind of irrelevant for the reason already pointed out: disagreement of terms.

I agree with reply number 15, as long as it cannot be proven without doubt that the fetus is aware and that it can survive as a singular beeing (which it cant), it is not human. It is simply a hump of cells (to be crude) that may (if everything works out) one day be a human. Untill that day, it is not. Meaning, it has no rights (again, to put it in a crude way).

The way i see it is, its better to remove the fetus (note: this does not yet have a sence of awareness, it is as much aware as the couple of billion germs that you kill with even breathing) than to possibly ruin the lives of several people (including that of the fetus).

If the mother doesnt want the fetus, its means she doesnt want it (duh :)), then that means that either the child will grow up in a orphanage and most likely have a very small chance of happyness in its life, or the child could still end up with its mother and/or father, who didnt want it. This means that the fetus again be limited in its chance of happyness.
Either cases it would also mean that the parents also could be marked for life, possibly ruining their shot at becomming something in life too.

And for what? So that certain religious people, who they have never met, can sleep easier at night?

Hey, but then again, what do i know, right?

Fortunatly for the rights of all those men and women, our law states that you can have an abortion up to the fifth or sixth month.

>>17
But fetuses don't just sneak into women's wombs.  They are created there by a decison on the part of two people (except in cases of rape).  Pregnancy doesn't just happen.  Like it or not, a woman is, in effect, allowing the fetus in by choosing to have sex.  (Again, rape is a separate issue altogother.)

>>18
If it's the happiness of the fetus you're worried about, perhaps you should consider another A word, adoption.  The whole "well, you won't be happy anyhow, so I'll just kill you now & save you the trouble" argument disturbs me.  There is no shortage of people who want babies but can't have them.  In fact, people go through all sorts of time, trouble, & money to get their hands on a baby.  As such, very few newborns go unadapoted.  The children who do end up growing up in the foster care system were either born with some disease or defect, or were more likely orphaned some time later in their life (parents dying, taken away due to abuse, etc).

And what do "religious people" have to do with this?  Yes, there are a lot of people who use that as their sole argument against abortion, but that's bad arguing, & I haven't seen much of that here.  Whether or not a fetus is a person can be argued entirely on a scientific basis (does it feel pain, does it have consciousness, etc).  Being religious is by no means a prerequisite for caring about life.

>>19 Whether or not a fetus is a person can be argued entirely on a scientific basis

Yes, exactly, and it's a fairly distinct "no, it's not."  Hence, it has no right, and killing it is no more problematic than removing a cancer or killing bacteria.

>>20
Who says?  Cancer or bacteria do not have their own heartbeat, their own brainwaves.  They do not feel or react to pain.  Cancer or bacteria will not grow into a baby.  Only a fetus can do that.

>>19

Modern medicine can care for fairly premature babies and one day probably grow a zygote into a full term fetus outside of a woman's body. You can't grow a tumor or bacteria into a sentient lifeform. Thats a pretty weak argument.

What I find annoying is that pro-choice people don't want to reduce the number of abortions happening. They see it as a form of birth control. On the other end the pro-life people are usually the type that supports "abstinance only" sex ed. Sure its 100% effective, but unless you get the media and society at large on the same page you won't change kids minds.

People in europe have as much or more premerital sex as americans, but the abortion rates there are much less. Why isn't reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies a goal everyone can agree on?

>>22

Abstinance only education 100% effective?  You probably meant abstinance itself, cause yeah, that's 100% effective, but the education side of it is practically 0% effective.  People are going to have sex regardless, so they may as well know what they're getting into.  That will definitly keep the number of abortions down.

I don't know of any pro-choice advocates that think that abortion should be used as a form of birth control.  It's definitly a serious issue, and it's not like pro-choice advocates don't understand the importance of a potential human being.  It's just that that is all it is, a potential.  By removing the choice of abortion, the rights of a potential human being are given more weight than a real human being.

>>21
So what if it has a heartbeat and brainwaves?  That alone hardly makes it an individual.  Does a fetus feel pain?  Sure, but again, so what?  Most parts of the human body feel pain, it's not surprising that the fetus, a part of the mother's body, would feel pain too.  Many pain impulses don't go to our brains, but the spinal cord instead; you can't argue that just because feelings go to the fetal brain it's a human being.

Pain itself is a physiological response.  A reaction.  As humans, we associate negative feelings with it, but in the end, it's just nerve impulses traveling around.  Same thing with brainwaves in general.  They're physiological patterns, but nothing particularly more.  As long as the host and fetus are connected, they're one entity, not two.

>>22
Interseting point.  It seems the anti-abortionists will scream and hollar about taking care of a fetus, but once it's born, often into welfare or other suboptimal conditions, they'll do very little to care for it.  Abortion should be a right because it's the mother that would have to care for the child.  I'll take anti-abortionists seriously once they come forward and say they'll take responsibility for the resulting baby.  It's easy to tell somebody to carry to term when you don't have to bear the consequences yourself. 

>>19
Pregnancy can happen accidentally for a variety of reasons. Intoxication and being a dumb and naive teenager are two that spring to mind. Sure the fetus did not sneak into the womb, but neither was it explicitly and conciously invited there as your example implied.

Also decision to have sex is not a decision to have a baby.

>>25

evasion of personal responsibility?

>>26
Does it have to be punished so severely?

>>27
Actions have consequences. Welcome to the real world.

>>26
Having an abortion is taking responsibility for the pregnancy.  It has to be dealt with is some way, and if the mother feels it's the best choice to abort it, it's her decision to make.

>>28
Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy, and pregnancy can lead to an abortion.  Nobody takes abortion more seriously than the woman who is about to have one.  We have the ability to make those consequences much less negative.  Pro-choice advocates understand the real world better than anti-abortionists who try to paint it black and white, ignoring that having a baby can be a very bad thing, too.

People who say they are "pro-life" are not. They're generally only "pro-birth". That is, they want to make sure that every pregnant woman has her baby no matter what, but don't give a shit after the baby is born.

I think abortion is a necessary evil. I don't advocate it, but I realize it isn't my choice to make whether someone has an abortion or not. Moral responsibility cannot be taught by force.

>>23
A friend of mine (a nurse) once told me of a woman she had met. This woman had (at the time) had 5 abortions (and has probably had more since), she claimed that getting an abortion was easier than the use of other forms of birth control. She also went on to say that the decision to do such a thing gets easier every time you do it.

This way of thinking is NOT uncommon

>>32
It's too bad people use abortion as a form of birth control, but as with every right, people will abuse it.  Free speech is abused daily, though nobody would claim it should be done away with because it's used in poor judgement. 

Here's an idea: instead of teaching abstinance-only, try actually educating students in SexEd about sex, love, and pregnancy, and maybe they'll start making better decisions.

I agree with >>29 and >>33. I also feel that parents of teenagers should be responsible and let them know about the consenquences of unprotected sex.

I am pro-abortion, and anti-life. I think that we should have mandated baby killing. Every firstborn can be kept, but all others are put to death in monthly, in public ceremonies.

>>2 So we should add to the problem...why?

>>36
Because having another child in the world is not a good idea in many cases.  But the point is that just because there is a fertalized egg doesn't mean it will become a child.  Abortions are a natural thing.

Question, doesn't the would-be father's opinion count?
I'm Pro-Choice because even though I don't like abortions,
it's not my place to tell other people what to do. It's their child. The problem with adoption and the like is 1)government money is involved 2)the kids are abused and screwed for life.
In many cases abortion would prevent the would-be child from
living an abusive life. Although both sides of the argument
have blind people who are too dumb to even hear the other side,
I find that most are in the Pro-Life category. Most of what the say is half-baked BS and most should be brutally killed along with the useless "Christian" groups that fight for BS reasons.
Just my half a cent.
oh, and BTW, a fetus is a living thing. It is NOT a person.
It is NOT aware. A newborn is PARTIALLY aware. So in fact an unborn child is a parasite with the POTENTIAL of becoming a person. Killing it is like getting rid of a tapeworm. Although a tapeworm can't get child support after 9 months. :D

>>37
I am also a dude who is pro-abortion and anti-life. I seriously think they should give the death penalty to attempted suicide to end their misery in a cruel fashion AND to prevent others from attempting suicide. :)

>>37
I am also a dude who is pro-abortion and anti-life. I seriously think they should give the death penalty to attempted suicide to end their misery in a cruel fashion AND to prevent others from attempting suicide. :)