Abortion

wow this thread is really one sided.

I personally feel abortion in most cases is wrong. The only time an abortion would be acceptable would be if the mother's life is endangered, other than that I believe it's wrong. Religious views aside, from a scientific point of view, life begins at fertilization, when that haploid sperm cell fertilizes that ovum that resulting zygote is a living organism. Whether or not that zygote has a "soul" or not is irrelevant, it's alive, and left to nature that zygote would eventually mature into (in this case) a cute little baby. The question to when that zygote turns into a "human" always seemed retarded to me, ITS ALWAYS A HUMAN, I mean its a human sperm cell fertilizing a human egg cell...so... human sperm cell + human egg cell = human zygote. Its like saying I'm a vegetarian so i don't eat chickens, but i do eat eggs because eggs aren't chickens. Likewise, the argument about women should be able to do anything with their bodies doesn't sit to well with me either, by that logic prostitution should be legal as well, and so should all forms of narcotics. I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I'm happy as hell that my mother didn't get an abortion even though she had every reason to. Seriously has anyone every held a newborn baby in their arms? That little ball of cuteness is by far the most magnificent thing in the world.

I'm in favor of it, and I think it should be legalized - and if already legal, be implemented by medical professionals without excuses.

So you think women should be forced to have a child even though they did not actively take part in creating the child, meaning when women are raped?

You think women should be forced to have a child even though the embryo and/or fetus is already dead?

You think we should force all of the pressures, challenges and limitations having a child brings on to women? Once you have unprotected sex that results into pregnancy, women don't have any rights to their own body?




A single sperm cell on its own is a living organism the same way a zygote is, should we protect sperm cell as vigorously as you want us to protect the zygote, meaning should we make it illegal to masturbate?

Although a zygote is a living organism and if taken care well enough it will become a human baby, it won't survive with out the mother carrying it in the womb. There for saying that women do not have any say on the matter whether they have to carry it in their belly for 9 months is ridicules in my view.

Also i cannot understand how people equate all supposed human rights that a born human baby has on to a zygote/embryo/fetus. Yes, given time and proper care, it will become a human being, but to say that a 5 gram collection or less of cells has better rights than a grown adult human being does, doesn't make any sense.





But to say that eggs and chickens are equally the same, simply isn't true.




Yes, absolutely prostitution should be legal, what kind of logic it is to say that what you can perfectly well give free to almost anybody you want, you are not allowed to sell?

And also yes, absolutely all forms of narcotics should be legal too, because if you do not have the liberty to use a substance for your own purpose (as long as it doesn't harm others), you essentially don't have the right to control your own body, meaning society forces and/or tells you what you can and cannot do with your own body. Country that does that isn't free, and people who want society to control themselves ultimately invites more tyranny.




I think we all are grateful that our mothers didn't abort us, that should go without saying.

Here in my country, it's illegal. Mostly because of the religious standing of most of my fellow countrymen. (Mostly Catholic) I believe that if you allow that child to grow up everyday and be despised and abused, claiming that he was a mistake and if the parents took it out on the child...it ain't a pretty picture but on the other hand it could go the other way around. I would like it to be legal, only if the country fixes certain things first, like the lack of proper education at a low cost, unemployment problems and health issues, it would at least lessen the problems that most parents go through.

Also it would help if people were educated more about these topics (not treating it as taboo) or if a certain process (like consulting doctors, going into therapy...etc.) that would help people make educated decisions before aborting the child. It's a pretty serious issue, that would most likely make or break a person. It's always up to the parent/s of the unborn child in the end, all we could do is give them options or alternatives to help them out.

Oh... A tense one, well, I'm usually opposed to it not like badgering or condemning but wouldn't encourage it, a kind of stand offish approach. But I do have exception, say a person gets raped or has a medical condition. Not a female, but if they aren't responsible enough to have a check list and prepare then they shouldn't really be having sex. As always adoption is an option. I'm also for equal right as well. So yeah, make that out for what you will a tricky subject.

In conclusion,

A girl gets pregnant out of spite for a religion or whatever I'll just facedesk. (PS I won't say anything because they wouldn't listen anyways, go figures right? Sadly there is always two-sides to every coin. )

A girl gets pregnant because of non-consensual sex it's completely up to them and I won't facedesk. I'll support whatever they decide. Same goes with medical condition, no real use for losing two beings.

An accidental pregnancy? I'll sigh and leave it in a grey area.

So there are my thoughts on the subject.

Flame in 5...

In my opinion it should be legal, women should have the right to decide about their own body. Sometimes the contraception fails. I personally don't want to have children but also I don't intend to live my whole life in celibacy, so I would like to be sure that if anything goes wrong I always have this last resort.

In my country (Poland) you can have abortion under only three strict conditions: when the woman's life or health is endangered by the continuation of pregnancy, when the pregnancy is a result of a criminal act (rape) or when the foetus is seriously malformed.
Sadly only theoretically. In 2014 there was a big case in which one of the polish doctors refused to perform abortion on a malformed foetus (invoking the conscience clause) and the woman gave birth to a deformed child, which as she said was very traumatising for both her and her husband.

As I heard many women go to Czech Republic or Slovacia to get abortion, because it's legal there(?)

Also it can be really hard to get emergency postcoital contraception pills ("morning-after pill"). I remember a story of a woman who visited 4 doctors in order to get the prescription. She said doctors told her that if she wasn't ready for a child she shouldn't have had sex and sent her away. In the end she had her friend mail her pills from different city.

There is nothing worse than bringing an unwanted child into the world. Anyone who wants to disagree with me on this point is an utter moron.

I support you :-) Men like that are too rare. In a way, it feels the same as make fapping illegal because of killing potential humans. I doubt any male would like any female to put them in jail because of self-disposing of his body.


Here in France we do distinguish :
- IVG : interruption volontaire de grossesse ==> the personal choice to terminate a pregnancy, whatever the reason
- IMG : interruption médicale de grossesse ==> the medical act/decision to terminate a pregnancy because of health complication (ex : death of fetus, too early pregnancy regarding body condition, rape, heavy congenital problems such as in the legal decrees, etc)

IMG can happen anytime and, fetus death aside, the decision is taken within a medical council, before informing the mother-to-be and her possible companion/family of the possibility or necessity to abort. It does not matter how old would be the fetus/embryo, since it's a matter of ethics :
- problem(s) endangering the mother's life while pregnancy or child birth more than the acceptable average risk
- rape, incest, pubescent child, as a heavy psychological matter/trauma
- heavy congenital problem(s) that are listed in the legal decree -- in order to avoid any possibilities of eugenics, while taking in account the (really) heavy congenital matters "might"/will take a slaving form for the family

IVG, on the other hand, has the purpose to guarantee the free self-disposing of her own body to any female (adult as well minor without the need of her tutors' consent). There are also secondary purpose such as economic factors etc, but the major "secondary" purpose is to eradicate forever any clandestine abortion. That's why IVG act, too, is free (100% covered by our public welfare system), to make sure there is no way/pretext for "legitimate" any clandestine abortion -- and protect women from awful/dubious sanitary conditions.

Now there are limits and conditions to undergo IVG : you must go to two obligatory medical consultations, with a week of reflection delay between those two consultations ; and in France you can't ask IVG beyond the twelfth week of pregnancy. I wonder if it's because before the 12th week, fetus sex diagnosis is too difficult ? Though it's not a bad thing regarding IVG and sex eugenics...

As for the amount of abortions... It is rather stable in France since 1975. But the good news is that we also have more births, so it has decreased the percent abortions/births.


All to say, I think states must control IVG but must not forbid/ban it. As for IMG, it is a crime against humanity to ban it and condemn innocents.

While I definitely respect life, and hope that each pregnancy can come to term and bring new life to our world, I am totally for abortion. =)

There are 7 billion people in the world... we don't need another child raised by a single mother who doesn't want it in the first place.

IF "pro-life" meant that the child would be fully cared for after the pregnancy then I might not be as inclined to support it. But the reality is, as soon as that kid pops out, no one gives a shit anymore. In fact, the same political party (typically) that is all pro-life immediately turns around and says no kid - no tuition assistance, no free school lunches, fuck you, your food stamps, and your mom that knew she couldn't take care of you. If you're not in the womb it's socialism and that's evil.

If we were talking at length I'd probably be a little less blunt and more nuanced... but that's my basic take on the whole abortion thing.

A woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body.

It's sad and frustrating when politicians try to create rules that govern a woman's lifestyle and then tries to convict women of murder. These are the same people that condone rape culture.

Now technically speaking, the fetus IS alive and its organs have all begun developing as soon as the zygote is created, so life is being destroyed. That's a fact. Does that make abortion wrong? That's a huge gray area. Personally i think a woman has the right to do whatever she wants. In cases of rape especially. Should we feel bad that life is being taken away from an otherwise innocent fertilized egg? No. We wouldn't have developed these methods if we were going to be caught up in moral battles.

But all i've said so far are for the early stages of abortion. The later stages get really messy and a trip to the hospital to deliver a dead baby is not something i wish upon anyone. To that end, if the pregnancy is allowed to go that far, it would better for both the woman and the child to see the pregnancy through. Adoption services are always available if you cannot care for the child.

I think it should be legal for many reasons. The main reason is the need will always be there, and allowing for a safe, legal option should always be available. Second, the vast majority of those against Abortion (before the 22 week mark) are religious, and I feel that religious view should not be forced upon others. I also feel that without proper support for any mother in any situation, it becomes irresponsible to ban it. Lastly, before Abortions were made safe, adoption houses were full and death from attempted abortions were common.

I also see problems with the majority of people who support no abortions, they also are against any help from the child after birth, food, education housing, any education in sexuality to prevent pregnancy, they are against birth control, they are against cheaper socialized medicine for the mother or child, they are against distributing free contraceptives. They are also against programs that help the mother get educated to get a better job, or live in subsidized housing or just about any other social program that would prevent the situation of getting pregnate. They just want you not to have a choice.

For many its the best solution. Most teenage girls (and da baby daddy) couldn't support the kid finacally or live a lifestyle that means they shouldnt have the kid at all. This also ties in with drug addicts. The child could be harmed in the womb from the drug usage. I know cause my niece was a premature birth due to my older sister being an addict. She has also been taken by the state due to my sister. And if they hadnt taken her, my sister and the "father" wouldnt have been able to give her a stable life. Im glad my sister didnt abort but it would have been a viable solution due to her lifestyle. So im a grey line on the subject. I belive its a good solution if there are valid reasons behind why it would be used but if the parents dont want it "just because", then no i dont think its right. This also goes for any religious or political reasons.

If I had to choose a side, I would be leaning toward against Abortion.

I hold the stance wherein I consider fetuses/fetii as human beings the moment they already begin developing in the womb. Now, this isn't a religious view (I'm largely an Extentialist lol, rather I believe all beliefs and religions have extents to their truths and faults). I hold the opinion that it's wrong for anyone to die if they didn't choose to of their own free will.

Plus, well, I think it's sad when mothers kill their children :(

However, I say that I'm "leaning" because I still also see the... merits in abortion. Some mothers face the risk of dying if they give birth, and that's when I personally have to say I wouldn't blame them if they chose to abort. I still wouldn't like the idea of it, but let's say I understand the predicament the mother was faced with.

As to the issue on pregnancy due to rape on the other hand, I don't believe I'm the first person to say there are many other alternatives to abortion when a mother does not want her child, or rather would be ashamed of what her child would always remind her about. In this case, I still think abortion would be wrong. My preferable option (I say this with what with little authority I have as a male) would be to give the child to adoption instead. Not only would the baby be out of the mother's hands (one of the main reasons, I believe, many are in support of abortion), but one less child isn't killed for simply existing.

Some may detest the idea of growing up in orphanages, but at least the child would have the choice to live :)

So you consider an 5 gram collection of cells (embryo) to be an human being? What about a zygote?

Does a zygote/embryo/fetus have better rights than a grown adult woman?



Is killing in self-defense wrong too?



Abortion does not mean you kill a child.



So it is okey to someone to die even if they didn't choose so out of their own free will?



So in the case of another person forcefully impregnating a women without her consent, that women should be forced to carry out that child against her will? Because that zygote/embryo/fetus has better rights than a grown woman does?



What about the stress and consequences that come with childbearing? Are all of those concerns nothing? Obviously she would have to take leave from her work and most other activities as well (against her will if abortion is illegal). Her life would change a lot, even if she just gave up the child for adoption.

And how is it a good idea that we fill up orphanages with children their parents didn't want to have, couldn't afford to have or were forced to have against their will when we have a much better solution which is abortion?



A choice to live? So if the kids in the orphanages decide that they don't want to live, it is okey for them to just commit suicide? You would be okey with this? And this is some how a better solution than abortion? Women forced to give birth to children who then are crammed into (majority of time) state run orphanages which are notoriously horrible at raising children or giving them a good life.

Or you could just get an abortion which has nothing to do with killing children.

Don't get me wrong, I respect your pro-Abortion stance, Coconutt. It's a very controversial issue to begin with, be it pro or anti. It just so happens that I retain the stance of being against it. Out of respect for your opinion, however, I will tackle each of your points defending my own stance.

1. Yes, I do consider anything with a heartbeat a living entity—so in the embryo's case, a human being. A zygote on the other hand, I say it is as of yet just as alive as sperm and egg cells are, so no one needs to worry about mass genocide in the case of “rubbing one out”.

I do not use zygotes, embryos and fetuses interchangeably in my stance, as it falsely presumes a premise, but yes I think fetuses should have about the same rights any human being does, no matter their living age.

2. The act itself would still be wrong, yes, but I believe in the difference between what is right and what is good. What’s right isn’t always the good thing to do, but that does not mean people should ignore responsibility and the consequences for their actions.

Which is why, in let’s say a mugger’s case in a victim acting out of self-defense, that mugger should have been prepared from the start that his targets may resist as even his action of mugging has consequences and a responsibility to take for.

3. In my stance, it does, and in yours it doesn’t.

4. Again, it would not have been a good thing to do, but it wouldn’t have been a bad one either. In this case, we’re faced with two evils, and this is a perfect ethical dilemma.

But even I have to admit, with my logical side, I should side with the fetus, as they’re the party with the least choice in the matter and, in my stance, it would be considered murder aborting them, but personally I can’t shake my profound sympathy for mothers, so I’m forced to take the grey side in this issue. But issues like these were never black and white from the start any way.

5. For disclosure, again I confess I’m not a woman, so I don’t claim to begin to understand the pain and humiliation and trauma rape can cause in a woman’s angle. But I do believe that woman should still bear the child to the best of her ability. I imagine it may be despicably disgusting doing it, but in my stance it must be done. It’s not that a fetus’ rights outweigh mothers’, but it’s that fetuses have just as much as theirs, and therefore I have to say a human being’s right to life outweighs any mother’s choice in childbearing.

6. The woman’s life changed already the moment she was hypothetically raped. But we’re getting off topic. Abortion isn’t just about rape. It’s also about two uninformed kids fooling around. My stance on abortion covers everything from a whole, and deals with each depending on each unique situation. Even in rape.

Also, better to fill up orphanages than more tiny graves in the cemetery in my opinion.

7. I would never be okay with anyone committing suicide, and it’s also just as wrong committing murder. But suicide… is a choice people make of their own volition. It’s an unfortunate one but, it’s still a choice. Please trust me this time, when I say I would know.

Again, claiming “abortion has nothing to do with killing children” presumes that your premise is absolute. Anything said in the declarative can be disguised as fact and truth. For the sake of the fruitfulness of your discussion, please refrain from that.

The freedom to choose is better than no freedom at all in an orphan’s case. Somehow, I’m getting the impression you, Coconutt, think “sparing” them from a life, no matter how pitiful it might be, is a more viable option than having the child aborted, wherein they wouldn’t have a life at all, that you’re doing them a favor by keeping them out from a lifetime without their say so. But then, given your stance, that’s your prerogative to say, I suppose.

I won’t attempt to persuade you to turncoat your own stance, Coconutt. I will respect your stance, just as I hope you do mine. It’s really issues like these that bring out the diversity in the ways individuals think and connect things in their minds. If you’ve read this far, then I thank you for hearing me out.

So it is okey to abort an embryo during the first month since the heart, even though it develops during the first month, doesn't start beating until after the first month?



Equating a fetus to a already born child falsely presumes a premise.

Giving or asserting the same rights to a fetus that a already born human has simply isn't possible (technically), because it interferes on the rights of women, and a already born humans rights should weigh more than that of a unborn.



(I know this is off-topic, but i still want to give my response.)
There is nothing wrong in killing another human being in self-defense. I understand that the judgement of whether to use lethal force against your aggressor is purely subjective and debatable whether justified, but viewing an act of self-defense as wrong, is wrong.



Again, equating a fetus to a already born child falsely presumes a premise. It is simply scientifically not true that a 5 week old embryo is the same as a 3 year old baby for example. Meaning that, saying mothers kill children when they abort an embryo or a fetus is wrong.



There is no ethical dilemma, the other choice is good and the other one is bad.



What actually is murder, is forcing a woman to carry on with the childbearing and childbirth when she could (and some times shown that she will) face death because of it.

It is pretty ridicules that a already born and living human being must risk her life so that a potential life may be born.

And again, equating a fetus to a already born human being falsely presumes a premise and therefore calling abortion murder is wrong.



Again, equating a fetus to a already born human being falsely presumes a premise. Giving or asserting the same rights to a fetus that a already born human has simply isn't possible (technically), because it interferes on the rights of women, and a already born humans rights should weigh more than that of a unborn. A fetus will not survive without the mother, so therefore the mothers choice absolutely matters. If it didn't, it would mean that the potential human being would have better rights than the already born human being has.



And it would change a lot more if she was forced to carry out the child.



Pregnancy induced by rape is not off-topic from abortion. And the reason your stance is wrong, is because you assert that the potential human being is the same as already born human being is, which isn't true.



For the sake of the fruitfulness of this discussion, don't try to argue with comparing reality to a fantasy.



Abortion is not murder, as pointed out.



Mothers choice to either carry out the child or not is more important (or should be) than the potential life of an embryo/fetus.



It is a scientific fact that an embryo or a fetus is not the same as a already born child is, therefore a murder cannot occur. Obviously our laws could be changed to say that abortion is murder, but why not change that wasted sperm cells (through protected sex or through masturbation) is murder also while we are at it, or is the beating heart here the only definition you use when a murder can occur?



My stance on abortion has nothing to do with sparing potential children from potentially unhappy or horrible lives. Womens freedom to choose to either carry out the child or not is more important than the potential life of an embryo/fetus.



I respect your right to have your own opinion, but i don't respect your reasoning.

Nice overall use of my logic against me, specifically about false presumptions of premises being made like I did yours. However, the reason it can't work is because I stated "in my stance" when I explained my use of terms. Of course when arguing for our perspectives we use our own individual premises. That is after all how we can defend our stances. Arguing against another's, however, is a different matter, which is why I don't declare another person's argument wrong simply because mine is correct as explanation, or claim everything I use for my argument is absolute from the get-go. No discussion can find root from there.

When you think a person's argument that the chicken came before the egg is incorrect, you can't just tell them they are wrong fundamentally and assert that the egg, in fact, came before the chicken as explanation. Neither party would reach an understanding, and it would be a poor debate.

Fortunately, I manage to see your line of reasoning, Coconutt, and I admit, I come to realize my stance inhibits women's overall freedom to choose as far as giving birth goes. I admire your upholding freedom, certain rights, and empowerment, and I apologize if I am unable to allow you to understand my logic or be as overall progressive minded as everyone else here. However, I find myself incapable of freely interchanging subjectivity with objectivity, or of compromising my openness to be as staunch with my own opinion.