Abortion Survey...

[Donnie Darko]

I'm pro-choice. I think the woman should choose, but aborting as birth control is pretty low.

[lovejunkie02]

(f) 29

yes, abortion should be an option.

not your body, not your life, not your business.

[mike90]

26,M

 

I see a lot of people here arguing out of idealism, not realism. Realistically there are already too many bad parents doing the bare minimum in raising their children. Too many people out there with a total lack of direction because no one ever gave a damn about them.

 

While you can't argue that a baby born into poverty or a life of mistreatment will definately have a poor life because of it, you have to admit it raises the chances. Any child thats a product of a rape( or even is simply unwanted) is going to have a higher chance of being raised impoverished, being resented, not having adequate mentorship to make something out of themselves, being the black sheep of the family and etc etc.

 

Even if you could make every woman carry every unwanted pregnancy to term, your then just left with a mass of unwanted children being born.

 

adoption isn't

a cure all either.Many end up growing up in foster care, which seems to increase the risk of suffering physical or sexual abuse.

 

Life in and of itself is not intrinsically of value IMO. It's the quality of that life. So if your going to crusade for unwanted to children to be brought into the world, remember that someone has to take care of these children after you forget about them.

 

And you cant argue that every living thing would want to be living. I've known people that were raised /treated so badly by family that they say they wish their parents had aborted them.

[JHAQ]

I (M) ( age 78 ) am prochoice because a fetal entity has NO anticipatory foreknowledge of its imminent demise so if the termination is painless it does not suffer . What H.sapiens has is the uniqueness of being the only animal who knows death & its conflict with that evolutionay imperative to survive at almost any cost

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm pro prevention. If you don't f***ing cause the problem in the first place, you don't have to deal with the consequences. I think the focus should be on prevention, though of course that is not perfect.

 

Failing that, I think that if there are some good parents willing to adopt and raise the child, that the child should not be aborted. However, I do think abortion is preferable to an unwanted child.

[MrSandman]

(m) (16) I have to disagree with JHAQ. The fetal does have feelings about its eminent demise. There has been videos shown at very early ages where the fetus was try to move away from the tube, or should I say squirm away to give you a better idea. I'm prolife, but totally agree that prevention is what we need to worry about. However, in answer to the author of the thread. I say that a girl who is raped should take the baby to term, because the baby had nothing to do with it. Why should it have to pay for the convience of the mother and the crime of a man?

[Mr Skeptic]

As to the original question, I am (m, 23) somewhat pro-choice with the following qualifications:

*only with the mother's consent

*abortion is preferable to an unwanted child. However, if there is someone willing to adopt that child the abortion should not be allowed

*late-term abortion should not be allowed unless the pregnancy threatens the mother's life

*a damaged or genetically defective fetus should probably be aborted. There's already enough suffering in the world, why add more?

*aborting a child of rape is probably a good idea due to genetic reasons (unrelated to the male parent if there is one, "rapist genes" if there are such things), as well as emotional reasons for both mother and child. A fetus is easy enough to replace eh?

 

At some time after conception and before birth, a single-celled non-sentient creature becomes a human child. Where exactly the line is I am not certain.

[MrSandman]

Yeah, like we could ever make a line.

[Snoggums]

I'm anti-abortion. If you get pregnant, it's your own fault. Adoption is always a great option, if the mother cannot afford or doesn't want the child.

 

I will accept abortion for certaint cases. If you're raped, then abortion could be an option, since you really had no choice to get pregnant. And if the fetus will cause great damage and/or death to the mother. Other then that, I see no great reason why abortion should be legalized.

[Pangloss]

Other then that, I see no great reason why abortion should be legalized.

 

Is it illegal where you live?

[Geodude]

I don't know my stance on this. I guess it depends on the situation, though I find that being "anti-abortionist" tends to draw some negativity these days.

 

To me its all relative.

[Wookiee]

M(16)

 

I'm Pro-life...

I figure it this way... Even if you don't believe a fetus is life at any stage untill born: I see it as if its GOING to create life, then shouldn't it be considered good enough as life?

 

The only thing I might consider is if its going to take the life of the mother.

 

I have heard that most women regret their decision to have an abortion. I can't find the poll(haven't looked very long). But if I find it I'll post it.

Just my views anyhow...

 

-Randy

[ydoaPs]

M(16)

 

I'm Pro-life...

I figure it this way... Even if you don't believe a fetus is life at any stage untill born: I see it as if its GOING to create life, then shouldn't it be considered good enough as life?

Is life a morally relevant characteristic? Cows are alive; should we be vegetarians? Plants are alive, should we live on nothing but water? Bacteria lives in the water, should we live on nothing?

[AlienSpy]

Abortion ideally should be a decision for individual woman to make for themselves - it is a private matter - and no one else's business really.

 

But being raped does not mean the woman will automatically seek abortion. In war zones many loved children are conceived this way.

 

I have not felt the need to have an abortion - but many I know have felt the need to terminate their pregnacies.

 

(I am a FEMALE)

[iNow]

Even if you don't believe a fetus is life at any stage untill born: I see it as if its GOING to create life, then shouldn't it be considered good enough as life?

 

By this logic, you shouldn't masturbate either.

 

I struggle to think that there are any women who want to have an abortion. The issue is not that it's the right thing to do, but often it's the best thing to do. The women pften know that the child being born would cause suffering, both for themselves and for the child. They often know that there would be no way to adequately care for the child, and that a child brought up in orphanages and going through the adoption process tend to be psychologically wounded beyond repair.

 

It's no easy decision, but it's still their decision to make. As much as you can rationalize it and justify it in your own mind, you cannot force others to live by your morals and beliefs.

 

Nobody likes abortion, but sometimes it's needed... and beyond just rape and health.

[DrDNA]

By this logic, you shouldn't masturbate either.

 

And also by that logic.....a condom, a diaphram, or the pill would be wrong also since the sperm is wasted much the same as it is in masturbation.

 

Lucky for us though, sperm and eggs are haploid, not diploid; therefore, they are not potential human beings. In other words, one piece of a puzzle does not a puzzle make.

[tvp45]

Your question may be a little biased.

 

To wit, I am vehemently against abortion. And, I am pro-choice. Should I answer? OK, you choose.

 

Rape victims get to choose at any point. The murder (if that is the correct term) of the fetus is on the rapist's head, not the mother's.

 

(m)62

[ParanoiA]

36 m, Pro-choice.

 

I don't believe it is any more righteous to force a woman to carry a child than to force a woman to carry a parasite. The lifeform is using her resources, disabling her efficacy in terms of survival, responsibilities to existing offspring and so forth. Not to mention the many health risks associated with pregnancy and delivery. To force someone else to risk their life or even quality of life for another life is unethical.

 

The child she carries has no rights not afforded to it by her. As long as it's in her body, I don't see how anyone can claim the moral authority to force her to endure these things.

 

Think of it this way...if some accident victim's life was only possible via an umbilical connection to another human, would we also force that other human to remain connected? Wouldn't we see that as a basic violation of their rights?

[DrDNA]

Think of it this way...if some accident victim's life was only possible via an umbilical connection to another human, would we also force that other human to remain connected? Wouldn't we see that as a basic violation of their rights?

 

Following that train of logic, should society should grant immunity to parents who starve their infant children to death?

[ParanoiA]

Following that train of logic, should society should grant immunity to parents who starve their infant children to death?

 

Not after they're born and afforded rights by the people of the country. The gaurantee of life, liberty and all that jazz. I just don't believe we have the right to supercede an individual's personal rights - which is what you're doing when you try to afford rights to something inside of them, forcing its host to comply.

[Mr Skeptic]

Not after they're born and afforded rights by the people of the country. The gaurantee of life, liberty and all that jazz. I just don't believe we have the right to supercede an individual's personal rights - which is what you're doing when you try to afford rights to something inside of them, forcing its host to comply.

 

What's the difference between an unborn child leeching resources off its parents, and a born child also leeching resources from its parents? Better yet, what if the unborn child is mature enough to survive if it were to be removed from its mother?

[DrDNA]

Not after they're born and afforded rights by the people of the country. The gaurantee of life, liberty and all that jazz. I just don't believe we have the right to supercede an individual's personal rights - which is what you're doing when you try to afford rights to something inside of them, forcing its host to comply.

 

In the murder of a pregnant woman, the murderer should be charged with how many counts of murder; one or two?

 

PS; I am not trying to trap you in a hypothetical situation. This has come up before the courts on numerous occasions.

[ParanoiA]

What's the difference between an unborn child leeching resources off its parents, and a born child also leeching resources from its parents?

 

An unborn child is within the mother's body. You have to violate her personal rights to get to it in any way. Her compliance is required, in my view, and not enforceable.

 

A born child becomes a responsibility; it has the "natural born rights" afforded to it by the state - us. Once it is protected by our constitution, naturally, the responsibility follows the parent.

 

The resources being leeched by the unborn vs the born child are different as well. A born child does not need any specific food provider, or in any specific manner (ie..breast feeding by mom is not required etc). An unborn child takes specific resources by a specific provider in a specific way - most of which are uncontrollable, involuntary processes by the host. She will miss work; she will suffer biological consequences that could jeopardize any other aspects or responsibilities in her life - like providing food, shelter and clothing for 3 already born children, all on her own.

 

In the murder of a pregnant woman, the murderer should be charged with how many counts of murder; one or two?

 

PS; I am not trying to trap you in a hypothetical situation. This has come up before the courts on numerous occasions.

 

Should be charged with two, in my opinion. The default assumption should be that the mother afforded rights to her unborn child. Now, if she was murdered on her way to the abortion clinic...ugh...maybe not.

[DrDNA]

An unborn child is within the mother's body. You have to violate her personal rights to get to it in any way. Her compliance is required, in my view, and not enforceable.

 

A born child becomes a responsibility; it has the "natural born rights" afforded to it by the state - us. Once it is protected by our constitution, naturally, the responsibility follows the parent.

 

The resources being leeched by the unborn vs the born child are different as well. A born child does not need any specific food provider, or in any specific manner (ie..breast feeding by mom is not required etc). An unborn child takes specific resources by a specific provider in a specific way - most of which are uncontrollable, involuntary processes by the host. She will miss work; she will suffer biological consequences that could jeopardize any other aspects or responsibilities in her life - like providing food, shelter and clothing for 3 already born children, all on her own.

 

 

 

Should be charged with two, in my opinion. The default assumption should be that the mother afforded rights to her unborn child. Now, if she was murdered on her way to the abortion clinic...ugh...maybe not.

 

 

I don't think you can have it both ways.

[ParanoiA]

I don't think you can have it both ways.

 

There isn't "both" ways. It's one way. The mother grants rights to her unborn child - and only the mother can do that. That has been my opening position - that the state cannot afford rights to anyone by violating the rights of another. That the unborn child does not have any rights not granted by the mother. All I'm saying in the case of murder, is that the law should assume these rights have been granted without evidence to the contrary.