Abortion Topic

[Andrew]

So, there was a topic and there was a comment about abortion.

Where does TPM stand?

I personally support a woman's right to choose.

Abortion is "illegal" in my state, however the government gives contact details to clinics for women. They don't want to change the law which would in turn upset the voting population.

I believe in some circumstances that abortion is the right thing to do in the way of:

- Sexual attack
- Obvious deformation/medical problems which would result in a child being born who would suffer.
- The health of the mother (Physical/mental)
- Circumstances in which the child would not be looked after, simply because foster care has h an awful history which isn't improving in the slightest.

EDIT - TO PREVENT THIS BECOMING A TOPIC WE WOULD WISH TO ABORT YOU ARE ALLOWED 1 QUOTE WHEN REPLYING Yes, one. Anyone breaking this rule will receive a warning.

Heald's Ninja Edit - This rule doesn't apply to admins, supermods or Misc Mods. All other members and non-Misc mods are only allowed one quote per reply. If there is more than one, I will delete the entire post, no questions asked.

[Jeff]

This is one of the few issues that I'm fairly passionate about. My view is pretty simple, and it's that the right to life applies to everyone, no matter which side of the womb they lie.

[shazza]

I argue that if the circumstances surrounding the impregnation were adverse (such as what you listed above, Andrew), then yes abortion might be the right thing.

Otherwise, no. It's not and I'd define myself as pro-life. If a woman decided to have an abortion based on her career prospects, "it's not the right time" or she simply finds it too struggling than she should have thought of that prior.

[mr_pikachu]

Hooray, more Misc controversy!

Okay, I'll start by concurring with concerns about the health of the mother and, perhaps, a sexual attack. Reasons for the former are obvious. The latter, well, I'm not sure I totally agree, but I can definitely see that point of view.

However, I can't readily concur with "medical problems." I personally know multiple people who could easily be considered deformed and such. They're some of the most amazing people I know. One of them is currently attending college on a full sports scholarship, in fact, despite being short an arm. I don't think you can really draw a clear line on medical issues that would prevent a child from having a successful life. Oftentimes, they're stronger for overcoming such great adversity, so how can we say what can and cannot be overcome?

I outright disagree with writing off kids because the parents suck, though. Aborting them could be equated with shooting a child whose parents died. I doubt anyone here would advocate that, but it's essentially the same thing, just at a later stage in life. If there's not a catastrophic problem with the child him/herself, and the parent's in no grave danger, I see no reason why the kid doesn't deserve a chance in foster care. If nothing else, 60 years of independence might make up for the first 18 years of temporary parenting.

The tricky thing about abortion, though, is that once you allow for one exception you instantly open the floodgates for all the rest. That's what makes it so difficult to debate. I certainly agree with it if the mother would die otherwise, but I figure that if the problem is that the parents can't take care of the child, we shouldn't kill a baby because his/her parents couldn't keep it in their pants. As soon as you legislate to permit the first abortion, though, the second becomes fair game. It sets a massively ambiguous precedent.

(Yes, I understand the irony of saying we can't kill a baby because his/her parents were stupid enough to conceive it. I'm against recklessly creating life like that, but I also can't stand the thought of destroying it after the fact for that reason alone.)


EDIT: shazza's view pretty much correlates with mine, actually, although his post was much more concise.

[Heald]

EDIT - TO PREVENT THIS BECOMING A TOPIC WE WOULD WISH TO ABORT YOU ARE ALLOWED 1 QUOTE WHEN REPLYING Yes, one. Anyone breaking this rule will receive a warning. Any arguments, Misc mods?

Yes, but with one addendum: this rule doesn't apply to admins, supermods or Misc Mods. All other members and non-Misc mods are only allowed one quote per reply. If there is more than one, I will delete the entire post.

As for the topic itself, I'm all for killing babies. It's allowing women to make a decision that I have a problem with.

[PancaKe]

Oopsies.




I think its quite sad that just because a child isn't born, it apparently isn't alive, which means its quite okay to dispose of. Have you ever seen a baby at 24 weeks? Yet, we can still kill it.

The circumstances Andrew mentioned are tough, and it's not pretty to see kids born as a result of those things, or too parents who are incapable of raising them. But surely there is a better option than death? We wouldn't kill a two year old living in those circumstances. Why should it be any different for a baby not yet outside the womb?

Yeah... my opinion. :]

[Roy Karrde]

See I am a weird freaky Conservative who looks at the Abortion Option and says "Who cares?" We have a lot more important things in this country to worry about than if a 17 year old gets knocked up after a night of binge drinking and decides she doesn't want to spend the next 9 months having to scoot her chair further away from the desk.

That being said the Conservative in me does say that any legalized Abortion needs to be brought about the proper way. Meaning the over turning of Roe V Wade and passing legislation through Congress or the States. Preferably the states.

The only time I have ever gotten to care about Abortion is when the baby is already outside of the womb due to a botched Abortion, and the doctors do not apply care to kill the baby. At that point the child has gone beyond being a embryo and is now a living breathing human being which is entitled to all of the rights that applies.

Beyond that, I am a guy, it does not affect me, I choose the right to maintain the option of I do not care, until I either grow a Vagina or my Wife/Girlfriend decides to get a Abortion.

[Andrew]

I am replying to Mr Pikachu's post.

In reply to medical issues. Obviously deformities, ie 3 heads, down syndrome etc. Something that would not allow them to operate in general society independently. So something that would not allow them to ever lead an independent life. The other flipside is if they are born with a terminal condition which would mean they would live a short life filled with immense pain and suffering.

EDIT - Also, Heald, those terms sounds fantastic. Feel free to edit it into the OP.

[Heald]

That being said the Conservative in me does say that any legalized Abortion needs to be brought about the proper way. Meaning the over turning of Roe V Wade and passing legislation through Congress or the States. Preferably the states.

I don't know what you have against legal precedent, as it is a perfectly legal and useful way of clarifying the law. In the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, the amount of time, money and red tape that it would take in order to get some sort of abortion legislation through all 50 states would be astronomical. The bureacracy involved would be incredibly costly and there is really no point. Besides, if some states banned it and some states allowed it, then people would just cross state borders if they wanted abortion so badly.

However, I do stand on the same ground as you in terms of my view on abortion: it doesn't affect me enough to care. If my girlfriend or sister or someone was considering abortion, I would probably have an opinion on it, but every case needs to be handled individually. That said, I am not in favour of either a blanket ban or opening the flood-gates. What we have in the UK works and I wouldn't mind keeping it that way.

[mr_pikachu]

Andrew: I don't disagree with your assessment on catastrophic medical issues (with the possible exceptions of certain deformities and down syndrome). Again, though, the difficult thing is defining what illnesses would cause an inevitable death/etc. and which ones might not. Where do we draw the line? Eleven fingers? Bound legs? A missing arm? One lung? No liver?

You could also get into trouble with the diagnosis step. How easily could a doctor be pressured into giving an unclear diagnosis solely to allow termination? Based on what I've seen from doctors in my own experiences, not only are they wrong far more frequently than they should be, but they're also pretty susceptible to biases - seeing what they want to see. I would guess that it's a lot more difficult to diagnose a patient who is still in the womb, too. Permitting abortions based on pre-birth diagnoses would create far too many gray areas for my tastes.

[Roy Karrde]

I don't know what you have against legal precedent, as it is a perfectly legal and useful way of clarifying the law. In the unlikely event that Roe v Wade is overturned, the amount of time, money and red tape that it would take in order to get some sort of abortion legislation through all 50 states would be astronomical. The bureacracy involved would be incredibly costly and there is really no point. Besides, if some states banned it and some states allowed it, then people would just cross state borders if they wanted abortion so badly.

See what you miss is that there is a major point to it. Because of Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court enacting legislation by bypassing the legislature, we have only fed this debate by allowing a law to be enacted with out any real proper debate happening. Yeah it would be costly, but it would also go a long way to settle the debate in the United States.

And remember Legal Precedent is all fun and games until a law is created by judges that you disagree with.

[Andrew]

Mr P - If you knew you were going to bring a sick child into the world, who did not have a long time to live or aborting the pregnancy... which would you choose? I would not choose to bring a child into the world who would be very ill.

Also, in regards to persons with down syndrome. They cannot function in society independently. I have known a family with a down syndrome child and they are extremely worried for his well being once they pass on. They don't have enough money in order to have a full time carer for him once they die and will likely have him sent to an institution to see out his days. This is the case with a lot of families, they cannot support these children because if they can see through the financial side, the emotional burden is also incredibly stressful.

They can detect children with down syndrome early within a pregnancy, and again, if I had a choice, I would not like a child suffering from down syndrome to be subjected to a life where they could not live independently.

Heald, may I ask what the UK policy is?

[Heald]

See what you miss is that there is a major point to it. Because of Roe V Wade and the Supreme Court enacting legislation by bypassing the legislature, we have only fed this debate by allowing a law to be enacted with out any real proper debate happening. Yeah it would be costly, but it would also go a long way to settle the debate in the United States.

And remember Legal Precedent is all fun and games until a law is created by judges that you disagree with.

I didn't miss it, I just don't think it's an issue. You always make this mistake: The Supreme Court never made any legislation, all they did was interpret the constitution, which is already legislation. That is what their job is. If they weren't allowed to interpret the constitution, then they would have no job. It is exactly the same reason why so many gun control laws are shot down, why so many censorship laws are shot down, etc. Besides, many states do have legislation in one way or another regarding abortion. What they aren't allowed to do is outright ban abortion, as that is unconstitutional.

Also, Andrew, as far as I know, it's something like 12 or 24 weeks with the approval of 2 doctors, or something like that, but up until birth in extreme cases (e.g. heart condition that would kill the mother before the conclusion of the pregnancy if the child is not aborted). Go look it up if you're interested.

[mr_pikachu]

Andrew: My only issue is simply determining what illnesses are insurmountable, a decision I really wouldn't trust anyone (myself included) to make for legislative purposes. Individual cases differ so heavily that you'd have an extremely hard time opening a medical book and going through it, saying "abort that" and "give that kid a chance."

From what little reading I've done (again, I'm certainly not arrogant enough to claim I'm qualified here), Down Syndrome also seems somewhat variable. Some children are moderately retarded, while others are actually very close to the normal range. Physical deformities also vary widely.

In the end, where do you draw the line, and how can you be sure the line won't be moved later by politicians with an agenda? The world complicates simple decisions... it's a frustrating issue.

[Katie]

This is one of the issues that I find most interesting, because both sides can't even agree on what's being argued over: the right of the fetus or the woman?

I personally do not put a limit on circumstances. Rape, incest, health of the mother, health of the child, not emotionally ready, not financially ready, father left the picture, between jobs and doesn't want to go to interviews pregnant, ANYTHING. A condom preventing a person and an early-term abortion preventing a person are about equal in my eyes.

I don't really see it as "when does life begin" because all cells are alive, but more as when does what's alive really become a "being". I don't believe that simply a merger of 2 cells is a human, even if it may grow into one. I don't really know at what stage I'd consider it morally wrong to abort. There's not going to be a defining instant when that happens, since by nature it has to be one big sliding scale, and therefor a law would not be able to reflect what I see as right and wrong. Therefor I believe it should be up to only those involved, the mother and doctor, and father where appropriate.

If it were ever made illegal except for rape, I shudder to think how many innocent men would be convicted because a dishonest scared woman didn't want to go through a pregnancy. Or how many women would be forced to carry that reminder if the guy got off. Or what about the backalley or DIY methods? And what about responsible married couples not ready for/wanting a child, condoms break and the pill fails. If they want to be truly responsible, they won't have sex until they're ready for a kid? What if they never want kids? There are SO many reasons abortion should not be illegal. Pro-choice forces no views on anyone. Pro-life does.


I'm all for it being performed less often, but that would depend on better technology for birth controls and a complete revamp of the country's idea of sex ed.

[Gavin Luper]

I feel that I am against abortion. The grey areas that come up for me are the same as for other people: if the woman has conceived a child from a rape, or if carrying the baby would seriously endanger the mother's life. I think those cases need to be given some case-by-case thought.

But, for a woman who gets pregnant and just decides "you know what, this is so not what I need right now" ... I dunno, I just don't find that particularly good grounds for killing a foetus. Having said that, if I were a woman and got drunk and unfortunately had sex with a stranger, and got knocked up as a consequence, how would I feel? I have no idea - it would be life-altering and scary. So I think maybe I can see why that would seem like an option at the time to some women, and maybe it's none of my business, but even that doesn't seem to make it morally OK.

I really don't think it's OK to say "yeah, just kill the ones that look like they might be deformed". I think that starts to edge into the field of eugenics: in other words, let's breed out the "bad" stuff in humans so that only the nice, healthy, able-to-fully-contribute-to-society ones live. Firstly, an in-utero diagnosis could be way off, as Brian said. My nephew was born with hypoplastic left heart syndrome, ie. he basically has half a heart, and he has a severe scoliosis too. Things didn't look great for him at first, but he's just turned six years old and it looks like the prognosis might be improving. What he's been through has caused a great deal of stress and suffering to a lot of people. What would have been the right thing to do if these conditions had been identified in the womb? To be honest, I don't think I have an answer for that.

But, more generally, I think mr_pikachu's example serves me better, that of the one-armed sportsman. He have seemed "deformed" in the womb, but how he has turned out is wonderful. Moreover, it is seriously NOT our role as humans to judge whether or not someone should live based on whether we deem their contibution to society as "valuable" or not.

And if we do that, where do we stop? Which conditions are so severe that they automatically necessitate the abortion of a foetus? Just terminal illnesses? Maybe less severe things like moderate deformities or down syndrome? If we made those legal, I bet my arse that a good lawyer would be able to argue that just about anything is grounds for abortion.

I'll use this example for argument's sake, and I'm not saying I believe in the argument per se, but rather, I believe that the argument might potentially stand up in court, and that's what makes it relevant: what if scientists were to find a gene that could (apparently) indicate the sexual preference of a person before they were born? A lot of creeds around the world have homosexuality criminalised still; some places have it punishable by death. So abortion would be fine in that case, for those countries, right? What about in, say, developed, Western countries? Stats show higher rates of depression, suicide and other issues in gay people: does that make it the parent's responsibility to preclude their gay son or daughter's potential suffering by killing them before they're born? Hell, mightn't it make them negligent parents if they knowingly ALLOW their gay, or deformed, or whatever, child to be born?

If we allow abortion on the grounds that potential "undesirable aspects within a foetus" might cause future suffering, we enter the ethical mire of eugenics and open ourselves up to huge legal rammifications.

I'm not saying that abortion should necessarily be outlawed all the time - there are those grey areas I mentioned - but for it to be argued on the grounds of deformity/harm minimisation would make me very wary.

[Clark]

Katie: If they never want kids, they should consider getting tubes tied or vasectomy. If they aren't willing to go that far, are they responsible enough for a relationship or child.

Abortion definitely should not be illegal. If so, some certain usage should not be applied (rape, etc. what others mentioned). If both sides are in agreement on aborting it, theres no reason to stop it.

As far as I'm concerned, if people are lacking the mental capacity for birth control when they are not in the market for pregnancy; they should have no choice but abortion. The US and other countries are being overpopulated by low class families with several children they cannot support. These kinds of people are sucking out our taxes into welfare because they are lazy, lowly beings. The government needs to start pushing for easier access to birth control, and funding interventions to stop mass breeding of the lower class.

[MToolen]

As usual, education does creep its way into these conversations. At the heart of the issue, I go with the extenuating circumstances argument. And it seems to me like we're talking about getting pregnant as an ugly, vile thing. Granted, the situations with which some get pregnant and would want to have an abortion are just bad, are just plain stupid. But I believe pregnancy in and of itself is a beautiful thing. Just saying.

I guess I mentioned education. Sex education, done the right way, could stop many unwanted pregnancies without abortions. I personally don't know what that right way is, but one that readily (and maybe discreetly) offers birth control could be of great gain.

[Asilynne]

Id have to say that this is one of the things Im very passionate about too, while a lot of topics could go either way for me this one I have a strong view on. If I asked a group of people "Do you think ending a heartbeat means you are ending a life" just about everyone would say yes, even people who consider themselves pro-choice. But what most people dont know is that a baby's heart starts beating only one week after CONCEPTION. That means only a week after you do the deed and the egg is fertilized a babys heart is developed enough to beat. (Sure, this beating heart is very very small and is really only a few cells big, but it is beating.) Most women dont even know their pregnant one week after conception, so by the time they know they are and want the abortion the baby is already biologically alive. So unless they get the abortion less than a week after conception (which is very doubtful) then the baby's heart has already begun to beat. I just cant condone the taking of any human life, no matter what circumstance it is (and yes even though I am generally conservative this means I dont like the death penalty either, IMO I think dying is too easy and not much of a punishment in the long run). I am however in favor of educating kids on safe sex and preventing unwanted pregnancies from ever happening, because I figure a child shouldnt suffer just for its parents being irresponsible in creating it. As for abortions in the case of deformities, if the child is alowed to be born and grow up, yes, they may have a hard life. But better to have a hard life, and be able to experience the world for yourself than never to be born at all and not have a choice at life. Its in the constitution that every american has the right to "LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Abortion in this way is unconstitutional. I dont believe anyone has the right to decide whether or not someone else has a right to live, but thats just my opinion >.>

[Heald]

I think efforts to say when the cut-off period should be is largely ceremonial. Specifics such as when the heart starts to beat, when they can think, when they can breathe etc. all amount to the same thing: ending a potential life. The only real cut-off period that should matter is when the child is developed enough to stand a realistic chance of surviving outside the womb, since that actually has a point to it.

Also, about safe-sex education, pic-related:

[MToolen]

Just as a clarification, Asi, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, a document separate from the Constitution and law in general. Though it still is a nice sentiment and a good point.

[Asilynne]

Just as a clarification, Asi, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence, a document separate from the Constitution and law in general. Though it still is a nice sentiment and a good point.

Whateva!!! XD I never claimed to know a lot about government rofl but ty for correcting me XD
But yeah you at least see where I was going with it. What I mean is I dont think a person should decide if another person should live or die. Like, sure its "the mothers body and she should be able to do what she wants with it" >.> but its the childs life and she shouldnt be able to decide whether it gets to live or not.
And yeah if someone never wants kids, get fixed, it doesnt hurt you really, and with girls its reversable. Not making unwanted babies helps the overpopulation thing too, kill two birds with one stone lol

[Jeff]

And "Life, liberty, and property" is in the 14th amendment to the Constitution.

[Andrew]

For those of us not in America?

[Asilynne]

For those of us not in America?

Well if your country doesnt guaruntee a right to life then Idk how to help you there :<
In that case I would think its still against the law to kill someone, and whether a mother kills thier baby in the womb or the man or woman it would become 30 years later I still think they are both killing someone, doesnt matter how old they are at the time. lol

[MToolen]

The text in question, for those of you playing at home:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;" -14th Amendment, U.S. Constitution, sec. 1, sentence 2, subsentence 2.

This is why we have judges, deciding what the terms "person," "life," and "due process of law" are. Interpretations of these could be (and are) all over the place.

And it's not that people don't want to have kids ever. Personally, I am excited about having kids- when I get married. Thus, at 19, I'd appreciate not getting a vasectomy.

[Asilynne]

The text in question, for those of you playing at home:

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

This is why we have judges, deciding what the terms "person," "life," and "due process of law" are. Interpretations of these could be (and are) all over the place.

And it's not that people don't want to have kids ever. Personally, I am excited about having kids- when I get married. Thus, at 19, I'd appreciate not getting a vasectomy.

Its kinda sad how our forefathers wrote all this shit out thinking that it was all clear and obvious probably because they couldnt imagine a world that questions when a person becomes a person or when "life" begins :< Back then things were more simple and clear cut, not like now where theres loopholes to everything and "ifs" and "buts" and "maybes" :/ I wouldnt be surprised if some bad mother killed her like 2-6 year old child and could afford a really good lawyer and built a case on how it wasnt "murder" per say, she was just having her abortion a little late. If someone could sue McDonalds because their coffee was too hot and win I wouldnt be surprised if that person won too lol *sigh* -.-()

[mr_pikachu]

Asilynne: Just a correction... the Constitution and similar early documents weren't supposed to be legislation. Their primary purpose was to provide a framework on which future legislators could build a legal system. There's a reason they were vague and open to further development.

[Heald]

Its kinda sad how our forefathers wrote all this shit out thinking that it was all clear and obvious probably because they couldnt imagine a world that questions when a person becomes a person or when "life" begins :< Back then things were more simple and clear cut, not like now where theres loopholes to everything and "ifs" and "buts" and "maybes" :/ I wouldnt be surprised if some bad mother killed her like 2-6 year old child and could afford a really good lawyer and built a case on how it wasnt "murder" per say, she was just having her abortion a little late. If someone could sue McDonalds because their coffee was too hot and win I wouldnt be surprised if that person won too lol *sigh* -.-()

Hence, why you idiots should stop holding the Constitution in such high regard and scrap it altogether. Seriously, how the hell is a 200-year old document meant to be relevant in today's society? It's impossible. Hell, most laws are outdated within 50 years time and laws are quite specific. The constitution, being the mother of all ambiguity, is completely irrelevant. The right to bear arms? Meant to stop the British oppressors and establishments like them from rising up. Third amendment? Practically irrelevant. Sixth Amendment? Not even adhered to e.g. Gitmo. 8th Amendment? USA still practices torture. I could go on. Scrap it.

[Crystal Mew]

ok personally, I am against abortion. I think that even if I got raped and got pregnant, I couldn't bear to have an abortion. If I got pregnant before I was ready...I'd probably put the baby up for adoption, or if I was more stable I guess just raise it like all the other single mothers out there. (I'm not aiming for that option)

So...if I ever make a mistake and get pregnant, I'll deal with it and decide what to do after its born. (before marriage, after marriage I'll want kids)

I'm all for better sex education and better contraceptives though!

[MToolen]

Heald, many in the US adhere to the Constitution blindly in a sense of patriotism. While the ideal response to having one's eyes opened to the truth of your statement is an embracing of a better law, the most common one is going to be a knee-jerk reaction, such as "Yer a Kommunist" or "I'll cling to my guns and religion." Sadly enough, some in my neck of the woods view the latter as a badge of honor.

[Heald]

Heald, many in the US adhere to the Constitution blindly in a sense of patriotism. While the ideal response to having one's eyes opened to the truth of your statement is an embracing of a better law, the most common one is going to be a knee-jerk reaction, such as "Yer a Kommunist" or "I'll cling to my guns and religion." Sadly enough, some in my neck of the woods view the latter as a badge of honor.

I know this to be true. It astounds me how so many people can blindly throw their faith behind a text that I doubt these same people have even read. The ignorance of some people amazes me.

[Asilynne]

Im so sorry I ever mentioned anything to do with US Constitution/laws/bill of rights/ declaration of independance etc etc etc >.> I didnt mean for it to turn into a debate on how this country should be run or what laws are antiquated, I just meant to point out that this country was founded on the ideal that everyone has a right to life and freedom. So, um, yeah :> lets save the gov lesson for another topic, heres your chance to make another debate thread Andrew XDD

[Blademaster]

I voted for the comedy option.

[Asilynne]

A cool link with pictures so cute :>

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/f...velopment.html

[Zak]

Anyone remember the harlequin fetus thread here?

All I know is, anyone who has THAT, it should be illegal to not abort them.

[Blademaster]

Anyone remember the harlequin fetus thread here?

All I know is, anyone who has THAT, it should be illegal to not abort them.

Amen to that. This is disturbing even by Internet standards.

[RedStarWarrior]

COMEDY OPTION fails as a comedy option. I think abortion should be alright before the third trimester in any circumstance.

[PancaKe]

Amen to that. This is disturbing even by Internet standards.

I am never ever clicking one of your links again.


T_T

[MToolen]

Nice job, Blademaster. You made her eyes turn into capital T's. Not to mention introducing me to ED.

I'd try and get the topic back on topic but I'm tired and lazy.