Abortions - Right or Wrong?

@thegreatnobody: First of all, the dynamite is not much like a nuke in any way, except it makes a bang and can kill people if used carelessly. And hate america for using the nuke instead, not the inventor of a explosive that has helped us a lot in getting this far as a civilization goes.

Well, I won't go further into that, instead I'll say this: condoms/drink pills/natural family planning/whatever works for people who has sex by free will, what about the others? Preteen girls that are raped etc. that actually might die by giving birth to a baby.

Sure, go ahead. But it would've been more convenient to have an abortion instead...


If a woman gave birth and doesn't want it, might as well give it to someone who cares, otherwise, the kid is better off being dead than not nurtured. Especially in modern day society.

First of all, the dynamite is the predecessor of almost all modern day explosives. You can say that the chinese fireworks started it by being used as a war weapon, but the point still remains: It was made for someone's convenience, and somebody had to pay for it.

Well, if you have read my other post, yes, although i'm proclaiming my views, the final say is from the pregnant woman herself. And also from my other post, people prioritize emotions over the situation and vice-versa. Preteens that got pregy may get support from someone and rape victims should not blame the child for it also didn't desire it. Also putting the situation of the girls together (preteen+raped (makes good hentai)) means putting both answers together (get support + don't blame the kid).

But as I have said in another post, IF LIFE IS THREATENED CAN ONLY ABORTION BE EXCUSED. I'm not saying stop abortion entirely, but I'm saying it should be done only as a medical procedure to save a life.

Please read my other posts and give another argument. The same things are being said again and again and I'm tired of answering the same thing again... T.T

Haa, so you're saying that we should stop invention all together, since in the future, it might evolve into something that is bad? If, for example, a vaccine against HIV is invented, but since it might be explored and changed into a biological weapon in the future, even though no one can foresee something like that, then it's better if we just stop right now? Is a bit extreme perhaps, but what you're saying makes just as much sense.



No one blames the child, the child is removed so that it cannot be put in a situation of blame. And yes, people have a tendency to act based upon their emotions when they are put in a tight spot, it's called being human.



And no, I did not read your earlier posts, since they seem to be on a past page, and I just said what came to my mind when I read your answer. And I agree with you in the way that abortions should not be exploited as a contraceptive, but I also think that a woman in a moment of weakness can be forgiven if they do not want to possibly ruin their life.

Overpopulation is a very serious problem. If only people are responsible to their actions, cause if you ask me? Id rather not see more kids living in the streets.

If I where a fetus in some... insignificant whore's womb, and given a choice, then 'scoop me out doc'.

1. All I'm saying is that we must try to look forward to the consequences of our actions. Who knows that the black powder will soon be used to kill? It looks good as fireworks and I'm happy its invented, but you can see that there can be a good and bad side of everything. Abortion if used as an emergency procedure can save a woman's life, but used over and over again can endanger lives.

2. But why kill the child? The child can be put up for adoption or be taken care of someone wo will appreciate the child in case the parent just can't stand him/her. And yes, being emotional is being human, but being human also means having proper morals, the only thing that differentiates from animals (besides opposable thumbs). Heck, even animals kill the child only because of necessity, not because of convenience.

3. I have to type again so you can get my point huh... (sigh)
Well anyway, I'm not in the position to blame women for doing abortion, whatever their reasons are, but as a thinking human being, I feel obliged to state my views in hope to prevent future unnecessary abortions. The deed is done in the past, but we must do what we can for the future.



The problem is that they don't poor people don't plan ahead, and the solution is not "Scoop me out, doc". And no living being wants to die, especially ones who have never experienced life.

Hey new hentai! FINALLY!!

Sorry bout that, forgot to put I in the last part of the sentence.
(If "I" where a fetus in some... insignificant whore's womb)

Well, that would also make sense... But that would make that insignificant whore your mom, and no child will diss his/her parent like that. Nobody is insignificant, really. Its just we don't usually meet the quota that makes us significant to others.

(Shawshank redemption pose due to amazing new hentai)

Maybe. Never had a whore for a mom. hehe.
Still, a parent could only be called a parent if the person took on the responsibility. Right!?
Its just that here, there are lots street children. Crossing streets in the highway,
begging for some spare change, all thin and dirty. Even infants!
'Rent an baby, increase your charm for your begging needs',
I mean, no kid should experience that.
No one should..

1. That's just the thing, there is always a good side, and a bad side. Evolution of civilizations, technology, medicin, all of these depends upon the fact that you have to challange the unknown and not fear the outcome, not saying "but what if". Just as many "good" inventions has used for bad means, there is also "bad" inventions that has been changed to do "good".

2. Wether a fetus is to be counted as a child or not is something that everybody has a different opinion about. Even if the (future) child can be put up for adoption, the mother must then cary the baby (that she does not want) for 9 month, suffer physical and mental strain during that time, even more so if she's a young girl. Perhaps she goes to school, is scorned and ridiculated because of her pregnancy and is driven to suicide? There is later no guarantee that the child will be born healthy, or that the mother won't die in childbirth (not likely perhaps, but possible). The "child" is still a part of her own body.

As you said, the only thing that differentiates us from other animals is Moral, a human invention, and something that has not stopped humans from ruining this planet, fight wars and exterminate other spieces. "Proper moral" is something that is very, very, VERY subjective, something that differs between country, culture and individuals. Which actually means: there are no "proper morals". What is right for you might not be so for anybody else.

Yeah, even here, there are so many beggars carrying children just to make themselves look pitiful... The kid deserves better, but the solution is not death. There should be some way to help them.






For number two, are you saying infanticide is the solution for the problem? Even if she gets rid of the child, people will still remember and people who hates her will continue to ridicule her. If there are people who will support her, she will feel protected and she has no reason consider suicide. And as I have said, only if the woman's life is in peril should abortion be considered as a medical option. And as you said, the child is part of her body and abortion is the same as killing a part of yourself.

Moral, on the other hand, is a natural gift of us humans. We didn't invent it, we have it. That bad feeling you get for running over a cat? Yeah, monkeys don't have that. Give them cars and I bet those monkeys will run over us and declare domination. And even if there are different views of morality in different places, there are still core values imparted on us as humans. I dare you to say there's a place who openly accepts killing, stealing, rape, adultery, and all those things that make you feel bad for doing it. Nobody in their right mind will accept those things.


Also, we're straying off the abortion topic and there's another morality outside this thread.

She is much more likely to be able to hide her pregnacy if she gets an early abortion than if she give birth to the baby. "If there is people who will support her" is just another "what if" statement, there is just as much chance that she will get disowned by her parents or something like that.

And "the child is part of her body and abortion is the same as killing a part of yourself." is very true, and I am of the opinion that If I want to kill myself (or a part of myself) it is my choice to make. No one have the right to prevent me from commiting suicide if that's what I want. It's a part of Free Will.

And how can you say that if you have even the slightest bit of knowledge about human history? Humans have killed, murdered, raped, stolen and done a number of bad things for as long as we have existed. No one would do things like that if everyone thought it was moraly despicable. The values you speak of is something that is forced upon us, starting from when we are born, be it by laws, religion or w/e. Many countries proclaim their wars to be "for the greater good", but it's all just a matter of perspective, and there are probably very few wars that haven't suffered civil casualties just for the plain fun of killing. No, morals is a fight against human instincts.

But yea, I guess you're right, this is straying from my intended topic. Though I enjoyed this conversation =)

Well, as said futher back, the final say is the woman's and, to my dismay, emotions easily sway the heart, thus making regrettable decisions. If it is her will and she commits abortion, whether her reason is good or bad, I won't be there to stop the operation. I just wish people who already committed it live not to regret what they did.

And yes, I know human history and we did unspeakable acts in the past. We killed, we pillaged, we raped, we tortured, and many more, but are we proud of what we did? People who only reads history might say, "Our people won the war and we are right. We don't regret anything!", but for the people who fought in that war, raped war victims, killed civilians. I'm sure they are regretting what they did and I'm pretty sure they won't tell their grandchildren with a proud face that "I raped an asian preteen in the midst of war!"

Morals are important, ad though society and culture have different views on the topic, there are still taboos that we, as humans, won't dare cross without proper reason. Under such is abortion.


Ethil, this is my final post on this topic coz I get to sleep late and now I'm sick with a flu (achoo!). I enjoyed this debate too and you have good arguments. Thanks, but I won't be replying soon. To everyone else, my only point here is that abortion should be done with proper reason and not be done as freely as most pro-choice tells us. I shall live by this belief and die by it.

(Finally, some early sleep...)

Comment wasn't aimed at people like you Gibs. It was more or less aimed at the people on both sides who talk at instead of talk to the opposing point of view. You and I technically disagree but, at least you can see my points and I can see yours. I used to be pro-choice, then pro-life now I'm just "don't give a damn". Anyways, sorry for the confusion I simply got lazy on the end.

Jeez, why not just let the woman decide? if she wants to keep the child, Let her (Tho' knowing today's generation, that kind of devotion is rare), if she wants to get rid of the baby, let her get rid of it she wants

I was wondering if anyone knows of any good research into the effect of banning abortion on the number of abortions actually performed. One argument I often hear put forth by people I know who claim to morally detest abortion but see it as "a necessary pragmatism" is that making abortions illegal will not significantly lower the number of abortions performed but will cause a decrease in the safety of abortion procedures. The second half of the claim certainly makes sense, but to me, the first half seems counter-intuitive. Going back to basic economic principles, I see no reason why illegal abortions would increase the demand for abortion, but it would likely decrease the supply of abortions and increase the cost(especially if we think not just about monetary but about non-monetary costs such as risking health complications or risking legal penalties). In terms of basic economics, this would lead one to project a decrease in the number of abortions actually occurring. Some people might be unwilling to shoulder the increased cost, while others might simply be completely priced out of the market. One could certainly conceive of other possible circumstances, but in general for most goods and services, the market behaves basically as described above when something is made illegal.

Does research exist which should make us question the conventional wisdom of economics on this matter? No one I have encountered on the other side of this point has cited anything to me.

The problem here is that banning abortions affects the dark figure, which per definition can always only be a criminological estimate, and thus never a solid grounding for good research.

However, it seems to me that you're being slightly intellectually dishonest in your argumentation there, if I may be so bold as to remark such:




The claim is that demand would not decline, not that it would increase. Also, in terms of basic economics, a lack of supply does not lead to less demand, it leads to new sources of supply being found to sate demand. These "new sources of supply" in illegal goods and services are the black market, and the black market for abortions is, well, the proverbial back-alley abortion. The conventional wisdom of economics, I'm afraid, does not speak in your favour here.

Would a middle ground such as letting the people of each state vote on the legality of abortions in their states and leave the feds out of the decision making process be a good compromise? If Utah wants to ban abortions but, Nevada wants to allow them. We can solve the problem of people in Utah just driving across the line for an abortion. Make it a federal crime for a clinic to grant an abortion to a woman from a state that doesn't allow them. Though we run into the area of "right to privacy" if we made it so the doctor must list the patients who receives abortions and on what date.

This idea allows the states to maximize the freedom of choice while not forcing one sides views on the other. If you live in a state you disagree with, then move out and take your tax revenue with you.

I phrased that poorly. In abstract, whether abortion is legal or not has no effect on whether someone desires an abortion, which is what I was trying to say, failed to consider the correct usage of the term 'demand' in this case. You are correct that it is unreasonable to assume that no new supply will appear and demand will simply be forced to decrease proportionally.

Your assertion that supply would simply increase is also not quite right though. While in an entry level econ class, one might observe with a linear graph that both supply would increase and demand would decrease until equilibrium is reached, it depends on the elasticity of demand for the service and the ease of increasing supply. You assertions assumes the demand for abortions is inelastic enough to overcome whatever costs providers of illegal abortions might face. Is this actually the case?

Unfortunately, there is no perfect comparison(hence the question of whether someone has found a good way to directly study this), but looking back to "Prohibition" in the US, which has a reputation as a failed government regulation that did nothing, many academic studies by economists using regressions of such measures as liver cirrhosis or drunkenness citations(since the primary statistic in this case is not available) appear to indicate that prohibition did lead to less alcohol consumption while enacted, mob bosses aside. This would lead to the conclusion that making a good or service illegal can effectively decrease its consumption, at least in some circumstances. And if this is a mere aberration, then the fundamental nature of illegal substance policy probably needs to be completely reworked.



If a fetus is considered a person, then it becomes a constitutional issue on the national level. If not, then it becomes a bit more contentious, but telling women what they can or can't do with something that is considered simply a part of their body(and in this case the procedure is quite and harmless, unlike suicide or self-mutilation) starts to sound pretty iffy(thus the "right to privacy".) When someone then sues a state and loses(upholding a state's right to ban abortion), it creates a somewhat uncomfortable federal court precedent. That's my view on that matter. Rhenquist certainly thought otherwise.