First  Prev  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  Next  Last
Post Reply Abortion
527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/9/14
Abortion should remain legal. Otherwise there would be an influx of newborns who grow up to only become burdens to society, because of their uneducated parents who were too braindead to use protection. However I do agree that it should be heavily taxed in order to keep the dumb poor.
12621 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / California
Offline
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/10/14
Abortion should be legal before the unborn has developed to a certain point. I want to say the cutoff should be about 4 or 4.5 months into pregnancy since I'm reluctant to say I'm sure a fetus further developed would not be able to survive independently of the mother's body and a not-excessive amount if medical care.

Obviously, though, abortion should not be outright encouraged because there's something undoubtedly intrinsically valuable in a potential human life and abortion carries risk for the woman. It's not the same as, say....getting a haircut or something. And it's still more sensible to encourage people to practice responsible, preventative behavior.
4069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hell
Offline
Posted 9/10/14 , edited 9/13/14
Can't ever just have a say
Children always gotta argue
^.~ Bye ^.~
10192 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / R'lyeh
Offline
Posted 9/11/14 , edited 9/14/14
It's primarily a question of personhood, bodily sovereignty, and consent. Consent to engage in sexual activity is neither synonymous with nor inherently entails consent to become pregnant, and so it can be reasonably argued that a zygote, embryo, or fetus violates the bodily sovereignty of a person who has not consented to pregnancy simply by its presence inside them. A complicating factor, however, is that at some point personhood must be assigned to that zygote/embryo/fetus. The bulk of the debate surrounding abortion is when this assignment ought to be made.

Personhood

The first thing to keep in mind as one evaluates the subject is that personhood is a philosophical and legal institution, not a biological one. Whether the zygotes, embryos, and fetuses in question are human is not in dispute on either side of this debate. What is at issue is whether and when zygotes, embryos, and/or fetuses ought to be considered persons or simply a collection of human cells. In other words, the main question is "When do we assign personhood"?

On the one hand, setting independent fetal viability (approx. 20 weeks after the last menses) as the standard for when to assign personhood establishes a clear deadline which (unlike the fertilization standard) leaves adequate time for the mother to come to an informed, rational decision and is based on a significant event rather than an arbitrary point in a pregnancy's duration. On the other hand, it is essentially an argument that independent viability is a defining criterion of personhood, a prospect I expect few depending upon life supporting equipment would find especially exciting. Fortunately, the concerns of opponents of the independent viability standard with regard to such individuals have been shown to be unwarranted, and so the standard remains a reasonable one as of this point.

Bodily Sovereignty

The second issue to be addressed is the subject of potential conflict between the bodily sovereignty of the mother and that of the zygote/embryo/fetus. In order for there to even be such a conflict personhood must first be assigned to the latter, and so this issue is one I consider to be a secondary priority. You cannot have a conflict of bodily sovereignty between a person and a non-person, non-persons have no such right.

The conflict, once in place, is effectively that one person is occupying the body of another without their consent on the mother's side, and that another party is determining whether one will live or die on the fetus' side. Resolution of this conflict is a difficult and delicate process, and ultimately it isn't possible to satisfy the bodily sovereignty of both parties. We're left to ask which violation is the least severe and lasting, and I don't really see a way to argue that the mother's inconvenience and genuine suffering are more severe than the fetus' coerced termination of life. As the violation of the mother's bodily sovereignty is less severe and lasting than the coerced death of another person, temporary violation of her bodily sovereignty is acceptable.

However, it is important to remember at this point that I spoke in favor of the independent fetal viability standard for assigning personhood , which means a mother would not actually temporarily yield her right to bodily sovereignty until about 20 weeks into her pregnancy because personhood would not be assigned to the fetus until that point. It is a well-known fact that abortion bans (which the fertilization standard effectively is) lead to women taking desperate, potentially life-threatening measures to terminate unexpected pregnancies. The fertilization standard causes women to behave both dangerously and irrationally, and worse yet it offers absolutely no benefit to the zygote/embryo/fetus that it intends to protect since a dead mother is unable to continue carrying on a pregnancy anyway. Another important reason the mother's bodily sovereignty should take precedent up to the point of independent fetal viability is the fact that consent to sexual activity is not equivalent to consent to pregnancy, and even more importantly that not all sexual activity resulting in a pregnancy is consensual. It is unreasonable to doubly violate a person's bodily sovereignty by refusing to allow them the opportunity to abort a pregnancy which is the result of coerced sexual activity, and it is unreasonable to consider consent to sex as equivalent to consent to pregnancy.
3496 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Pandemonium
Offline
Posted 9/12/14

IgniteBadIntentions wrote:

People who get abortions should be aborted from life as well.
Case closed.
=)


Care to justify that statement?
4069 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Hell
Offline
Posted 9/12/14 , edited 9/13/14
^.~
527 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 9/13/14 , edited 9/13/14

IgniteBadIntentions wrote:

I already did sweetheart!
Please don't quote me thank you~


You did not justify your statement as you did not provide any valid points that serve to justify that statement at all.
793 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
18 / M
Offline
Posted 9/13/14 , edited 9/13/14

IgniteBadIntentions wrote:


applestash wrote:


IgniteBadIntentions wrote:

I already did sweetheart!
Please don't quote me thank you~


You did not justify your statement as you did not provide any valid points that serve to justify that statement at all.


When you're older and you go through more things
As to why I say that
Then you'll understand
You're too young of a child yet
Sorry if I seem rude but it's true
Please refrain from messaging me
If you have nothing better to do then go outside
Live a little ^.~
Have a wonderful day lovely~
Bye =)


You're only 19 (if that is true), and that person has their age unlisted.
Morals are man made. What might be easy for you to comprehend might be recondite for others.
10244 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Stuck on Level 1
Offline
Posted 9/14/14 , edited 9/14/14
it's not a parasite in the earliest stages of pregnancy so there is no real reason to abort. But there is the fear that it will become a sort of parasite or inconvenience hence consideration abortion is in a way, of importance. as long as we feed in some way, there is a right to life that we demand.
381 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 9/22/14
If it has to be done, like to save the mother's life, do the abortion.
However, if it's just because they don't want a baby or don't have time for one, just give birth to the baby and give it up for adoption. There are infertile couples out there who desperately want babies.
1792 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / England
Offline
Posted 9/30/14
I wasnt going to come on this thread... I wasnt going to post...

I have a hereditary genetic condition it was spontaneous in my case so no one in my family has it but its hereditary if I have children naturally...The disorder can be life threatening, shortening and horrific in marry different ways...

Were trying a form of ivf to have a baby, this may not work... we currently have a 3 month wait and lots of injections and tests until the only embryo that survived and developed properly can be implanted... it all rides on this embryo not being rejected by my body, sticking and growing...

we have a 35-40% chance

If we did fall pregnant naturally by accident...we would not abort... we would take responsibility, this would mean 9 months of being terrified wondering if they had the disorder, its a 50% chance unfortunately... we would get them genetically tested and hope. If their condition is severe or medium-severe like mine I would feel very very guilty and responsible but we would all work through it together and help them live the best life possible...

but we would never purposely risk a natural pregnancy as then we are purposely risking it and putting the childs life on the line which we WILL NOT DO we are putting the child first

I cant understand people who abort unless they are raped or the lives of the baby or woman are at risk.

I dont think they should be made illegal as being forced to carry a baby, which will change your body and life forever and you will be going through a lot of suffering for 9 months not to mention the horrors of child birth if you do not want to go through all that and do not want the baby, it would also lead to deaths from backyard abortions...

But I do wish with all my heart that women wouldn't abort unless they are raped or the lives of the baby or woman are at risk.... I wish they would find couples who would love the baby or go through adoption routes ect...

We will adopt if this fails but here in the uk the waiting list for babys is years long and you arent guaranteed a baby and you cant go on it if your trying ivf first and its taken 3 years to get to this point in the ivf...

so this is a difficult topic for us.... every time a friend has an abortion because of the way I am feeling I have distance myself from them because I cant understand why, I cant stop the anger and upset and I dont want to ruin friendships over it.... I cant talk to them without wanting to scream at them >_<





297 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
15 / M / Ireland
Online
Posted 20 days ago

aznfarseer wrote:

Yeah, I don't agree with abortion. If a legit couple has the mistake of conceiving a child they don't want, they have the responsibility to carry it out, even if it's to put it in an orphanage later. Abortion is like killing someone you don't like out of inconvenience.

There are exceptions, however. Suppose a woman is raped and later finds out she's pregnant because of it... there's no reason to put her in one-nine months of agony and a constant reminder of the horrendous event.


I agree with you on the rape thing. If someone is raped no one should give them trouble over wanting an abortion, who'd want to give birth to that kind of man's child?

168 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 20 days ago , edited 20 days ago

Vatta wrote:

I agree with you on the rape thing. If someone is raped no one should give them trouble over wanting an abortion, who'd want to give birth to that kind of man's child?





I will try and put all my feelings about this statement together as efficiently as possible. No offense intended to anyone, but also no apologies if I fail at that.

Gintama season 1 episode 40
or
Condoms

I support Planned Parenthood in America. With their services in all aspects of reproductive health (Except for fertility, which ironically I don't think needs a public service), they have women's health as a top priority and they are doing it correctly. From personal accounts, I really trust they offer the best support in cases of rape. This is rudely out of context, and I really don't think anyone meant in the real world with real people, they would do the opposite, but any woman who goes to planned parenthood after being raped isn't told they should abort a child if they don't want to raise it, It took a lot of thinking over a long period of time, and then finally some speaking to friends who got involved before I figured out why I should actually support PP. And they were right for their own reasons. Enough about that, let's talk about abortion.

First, we always have to approach abortion as a women's health issue. Because no matter what, a pregnancy affects a woman's health.
Secondly, we have to defer entirely to women on the subject, as a man can never become pregnant.
Third, the sanctity of life should never be ignored.

So I'm gathering that, hypothetically when a woman is raped and becomes pregnant she may have an abortion without grief but that's it. She had no intention, she is at fault in no way, she was raped. Therefore, she is then not to be troubled by anyone about the abortion, maybe because she knows the mental trauma based around the conception of her child would make her an unfit mother. Maybe she fears that the child will be a reminder of the incident, maybe she feels too depressed to perform parental duties. Maybe she is in no position to raise a child at all, maybe she is too old or too young or too busy or too poor or is struggling with addiction or has a partner who honestly cannot raise a rapist's child. For many very valid reasons, after a rape a woman should be able to terminate if she feels that is the best decision for her health.

I am totally with that, rape is horrible, disgusting, destructive act, and the when it results in pregnancy(because it does. It really does.), that's just one more hellish consequence.

Remove the rape from the hypothetical and you still have a lot of really good reasons to not be troubled by people for having an abortion. Remove rape from the hypothetical and you also have a child from a man who does not rape people. The caliber of the man cannot be the litmus test that decides allow or disallow.

Carrying a child to term is a huge duty. It is frustrating to see somebody ignore or cast off their duties. But people will walk their own paths in their own ways for their own reasons.

But in my opinion, shotgun weddings and abortions have both been around forever, and they both have merits, both have faults. In the end, we cannot forget the sanctity of life, but hypothetical situations are tough to carry out in the real world. To say a woman who CONSENTS to unprotected sex SHOULD be burdened by child really kind of ignores the human condition.

So my hypothetical is a woman who intends to be pregnant and miraculously, half a potential life, sperm, and another half a potential life, egg, don't go in the trash with tissues and tampons, they meet INSIDE OF HER and start growing together. Maybe this woman is in a good position to raise a child and this child would potentially enrich the world. Maybe the father really REALLY wants this child too. Within three months, she decides for whatever reason pregnancy is not a condition she would like to put herself through at this time. Maybe it's affecting her work. Maybe she's struggling with drug abuse. Maybe she's just not excited about it like she wishes she was. Why would we, as people, feel justified in troubling this woman? Unless we are close to her, unless we are family, close friends, someone who really knows this woman and could support her as a mother, we have no right or reason to question her decision.

Through abortion, we may lose a person who could enrich the world, through conception we may create destructive individuals, so it is not the outcome of the child that really matters in the hypothetical. But it is the outcome of the mothers just as much. We are (none of us, even the psychics) qualified to make these predictions, or to make this HEAVY, heavy decision to be a parent for anyone else. That is why I believe we have no right to outlaw abortion. I would like to see more support, but no institution should ever make a law disregarding health.

Ideally, if you want to eliminate unnecessary abortion, you must offer real comprehensive support to any person facing pregnancy.

Otherwise, we're doing the equivalent of denying prostate exams to anybody because we don't like the the idea of getting one. NOBODY likes the idea of getting one! But at some point you might need one (unless you're a woman).
1798 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
X / Chicago
Offline
Posted 20 days ago

digs wrote:

I learned the 4 criteria for like last year in Biology

1. Must contain DNA (the zygote has DNA now, and a full set of human chromosomes.)
2. But have a metabolism (the zygote burns energy and uses it to divide.)
3. Must be able to reproduce (the cells are reproducing and deviding. And the Zygote is the product of sexual reproduction)
4. Must interact or respond to surroundings (It devides and eventually implants into the uterus were it interacts with the female reproductive system and develops a placenta. it also reacts by dying when you murder it.)

The zygote and fetus are alive. Living things must belong to a species. So the zygote/fetus are human. Isn't killing a human called murder?


Killing someone is different from murdering someone. Killing is a general act and murder is how you went about killing someone.

19880 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
It doesn't matter.
Offline
Posted 20 days ago
I don't have a problem with it.
I think the bigger issue is when people have sex(not wanting a child) and not preventing pregnancy.
First  Prev  172  173  174  175  176  177  178  179  180  181  182  183  184  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.