Abortion?

[Azusanga]

Zephyrkitty

Azusanga

I'm personally against abortion, unless it's rape. Rape is just the one instance where to me, carrying a child you didn't even want, isn't right. I believe in people having soul-mates. I know, I know, cheesy of Azu, but if you're killing off the fetus, are you killing off someone's soul mate? That question just bugs me. My boyfriend was s'posed to be aborted, but wasn't, as was one or both of his brothers.

Two more instances where abortion is ok to me is if it's incest, which is usually always rape, and if the mother has an STI(D), like AIDS.

Would a kid dying of a disease or from an accident also be killing off someone's soulmate, then? I've heard different answers to this, so I'm curious what your view on it is.

On the same note, wouldn't aborting a rape/incest/STD-inheriting fetus would also be killing someone's soulmate? Why do those get a pass?

It would, but if they're already dying, then there's a large chance they won't make it on to actually either meet their soul mate or get a chance to do as soulmates do.

incest: Inbreeding would, without a doubt, produce a child with a lot of problems. That's the way it works for other mammls, so I'm not upping the humans on this one. And incest would often fall under rape, too.

rape: A rape-born child would probably live a VERY troubled life- a mother not prepared or neccesarily wanting them, a father whom their mother might not even know- serious social issues. Sometimes enough to drive the soulmate away. Serious faults can do that, in my opinion.

STD(I): Already explained.  

[Zephyrkitty]

Rayne Skyver

I read an article two years back for Biology class about stem cell research. It didn't say anything about IVF but people were raising a fuss about how they were "killing innocent children".

I went looking and found this:

[url=http://www.religioustolerance.org/res_stem1.htm]Religious Tolerance[/url]

Embryonic stem cells are commonly extracted from unwanted, surplus embryos. These are typically embryos that are created during medical procedures in fertility clinics which help infertile couples conceive. When a woman undergoes in-vitro fertilization, she is given medication that causes her to produce perhaps two dozen mature ova. These are then fertilized, usually with sperm provided by her husband. About three days later, each embryo is at the blastocyst stage -- a collection of 4 to 10 cells.

Unless this site is horribly off, abortion and stem cell research aren't related at all.

The "killing innocent children" is the main argument against it, though. Getting stem cells from embryos kills the embryo, so someone who holds the view that the z/e/f is a human person from fertilization will view it as killing a human being.

There's research in using other cells that don't involve killing embryos, as well. That obviously has much less controversy around it, though.  

[cupidsgrrl2006]

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body?  

[theHarechan]

Rayne Skyver

I read an article two years back for Biology class about stem cell research. It didn't say anything about IVF but people were raising a fuss about how they were "killing innocent children".

Just did some research on STR for an Anatomy and Physiology class a couple months ago. The embryos they receive for research are from IVF, but only those that are unused and would have been thrown out (destroyed). Fetuses are not used at all and researchers do not use anything from abortions...

That said. I believe that abortion is completely "okay" is some cases that have been previously mentioned - rape, incest, even a "mistake"... I think it's completely appropriate when the mother's health and life are endangered by the pregnancy (I'm sorry, but I feel: mother's life > unborn fetus' life).

Ectopic pregnancy is an example of a medical condition that endangers the mother life. There are others.

--Do I feel all types of abortions should be allowed? No. Third term abortions should not be allowed (unless the mother will die). One should be able to assess if keeping the infant is an option by that time. "Back-alley" abortions are dangerous and are in some places, sadly, the only option.
--Do I think of abortion as a form of birth control? No. Use a condom, birth control (most of which are given out at free clinics)... don't have sex (not that many would like than option.)
--Would I give a child up for adoption rather than get an abortion? No. At least in the US, the foster services system already has more children than they can adopt out. Granted infants do has a higher likelihood of being adopted, but if that infant is not adopted, the child will spent much of his/her life in foster homes (many of which provide subpar care) and be shuffled around through a system that is overloaded and overworked. As of January 2008, there were half a million children in the foster care system and the US gov's studies showed that more children where entering the system than leaving it through adoption or "aging out". Children living the foster care are more likely to suffer abuse, neglect, and even death. About half of foster kids, in the US, become homeless once they reach 18. For more information on the lovely US foster care system, look at liftingtheveil.org. They provide information from case readings. ...Yeah. Putting a kid up for adoption is a great idea.
Not that adoption isn't an option, or completely fails - I have a friend who was adopted as an infant. It is however a horrifically flawed system.

Abortion isn't black and white. It should be considered and the decision made by the woman involved, not by people that think they "know what's right" for everyone. Safe, sanitary options overseen by trained medical professionals should be available to everyone so that "back-alley" abortions, which can result in injury and death, are no longer needed and so options are available to everyone regardless of their viewpoint on abortion.  

[Lieutenant Shotgun]

cupidsgrrl2006

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her body?

Well said.  

[Lieutenant Shotgun]

This reminds me of a book I want to read. It's called "Unwind."

In it, there was a war, and when it was over, it satisfied both pro-choice'ers and pro-life'ers. You can't have an abortion. However, when the child is thirteen through eighteen (?), you can abort the child by having them "unwound."

To unwind something is to take out it's organs and donate them to those who need it. Thus killed the one whom was unwound.

Would you be happy, people who are pro-life, if it was like that?  

[Lieutenant Shotgun]

Azusanga

Zephyrkitty

Azusanga

I'm personally against abortion, unless it's rape. Rape is just the one instance where to me, carrying a child you didn't even want, isn't right. I believe in people having soul-mates. I know, I know, cheesy of Azu, but if you're killing off the fetus, are you killing off someone's soul mate? That question just bugs me. My boyfriend was s'posed to be aborted, but wasn't, as was one or both of his brothers.

Two more instances where abortion is ok to me is if it's incest, which is usually always rape, and if the mother has an STI(D), like AIDS.

Would a kid dying of a disease or from an accident also be killing off someone's soulmate, then? I've heard different answers to this, so I'm curious what your view on it is.

On the same note, wouldn't aborting a rape/incest/STD-inheriting fetus would also be killing someone's soulmate? Why do those get a pass?

It would, but if they're already dying, then there's a large chance they won't make it on to actually either meet their soul mate or get a chance to do as soulmates do.

incest: Inbreeding would, without a doubt, produce a child with a lot of problems. That's the way it works for other mammls, so I'm not upping the humans on this one. And incest would often fall under rape, too.

rape: A rape-born child would probably live a VERY troubled life- a mother not prepared or neccesarily wanting them, a father whom their mother might not even know- serious social issues. Sometimes enough to drive the soulmate away. Serious faults can do that, in my opinion.

STD(I): Already explained.

Rape is a source of child abuse. Almost all the time.

Incest can cause children to have mental illnesses, such as Alice in Wonderland Syndrom.  

[Hikari No Tamashii]

Lieutenant Shotgun

This reminds me of a book I want to read. It's called "Unwind."

In it, there was a war, and when it was over, it satisfied both pro-choice'ers and pro-life'ers. You can't have an abortion. However, when the child is thirteen through eighteen (?), you can abort the child by having them "unwound."

To unwind something is to take out it's organs and donate them to those who need it. Thus killed the one whom was unwound.

Would you be happy, people who are pro-life, if it was like that?

I've read that book, my opinion as a person who is pro-choice, is that that would be quite wrong. I believe that after it has been born, the child has a right to live it's entire life. Even more so at the ages of 13-18, when it has developed a personality and consciousness  

[Alyx Rodanthe]

As far as I am concerned, it should be the mother's choice.
By law, you are not allowed to have an abortion after so many weeks, the first trimester, to be exact. 12 weeks to decide if you can or want to keep the cluster of cells that is an embryo.
Once the fetus hits as early as 24 weeks, then it is able to feel pain. I have seen so many people and friends messed up because their mother couldn't support them, didn't want them, or they were born of rape. If you don't want or can't support a kid, don't have one in the first place. Have your doctor place you on birth control, and always use separate contraceptives. Birth control is never enough by itself.
Also, a lot of arguments are religion-based.
Q: Why can't I get rid of a cluster of cells that has taken root in my uterus?
A: "Because it's murder."
~~This argument is null. according to the laws, it's not murder unless it has been a person. It is classified as a 'person' when it takes it's first breath. Removal of a fetus, thus, is not murder.~~
Q: Why is it Planned Parenthood gets protested constantly?
A: "God says you are committing a grave sin. You are breaking one of the 10 Commandments."
~~Once again, refer to the above explanation, as this is referring to murder. Also, what if the mother does not believe in the Christian 'God'? I certainly don't. And, as Inferno Breeze mentioned, are all Pro-Life-ers vegetarian? I didn't think so. It's murder when people kill animals for food, but no one acknowledges that. You kill more bacteria in your body in one day than there are cells in a fetus. Please stop playing the religion card.~~

 

[Lieutenant Shotgun]

Hikari No Tamashii

Lieutenant Shotgun

This reminds me of a book I want to read. It's called "Unwind."

In it, there was a war, and when it was over, it satisfied both pro-choice'ers and pro-life'ers. You can't have an abortion. However, when the child is thirteen through eighteen (?), you can abort the child by having them "unwound."

To unwind something is to take out it's organs and donate them to those who need it. Thus killed the one whom was unwound.

Would you be happy, people who are pro-life, if it was like that?

I've read that book, my opinion as a person who is pro-choice, is that that would be quite wrong. I believe that after it has been born, the child has a right to live it's entire life. Even more so at the ages of 13-18, when it has developed a personality and consciousness

It also says that you aren't technically killing the child... Even though you are... : X

I totally disagree with unwinding, though. Pro-life or pro-choice, that's just not right.

I agree with you entirely. Mustn't forget, "...after the child has been born."  

[Lieutenant Shotgun]

Okay, listen to this.

When I was born, I was upside down. I mean, right side up. If my mom borned me through her v****a, my foot woulda come out first. My momhad a c-section because of it. Mommy was cut open and I was pulled out. She said felt excruciating pain afterwards. She was thirty seven then, and now she's almost fifty. She still has a huge scar from it.

So, if a girl gets pregnant, her baby is in the wrong position, and abortion is illegal, she would be forced to have a c-section? What happens then? You make the go through the excruciating pain of it. That's really, really, wrong.  

[Azusanga]

Lieutenant Shotgun

Azusanga

Zephyrkitty

Azusanga

I'm personally against abortion, unless it's rape. Rape is just the one instance where to me, carrying a child you didn't even want, isn't right. I believe in people having soul-mates. I know, I know, cheesy of Azu, but if you're killing off the fetus, are you killing off someone's soul mate? That question just bugs me. My boyfriend was s'posed to be aborted, but wasn't, as was one or both of his brothers.

Two more instances where abortion is ok to me is if it's incest, which is usually always rape, and if the mother has an STI(D), like AIDS.

Would a kid dying of a disease or from an accident also be killing off someone's soulmate, then? I've heard different answers to this, so I'm curious what your view on it is.

On the same note, wouldn't aborting a rape/incest/STD-inheriting fetus would also be killing someone's soulmate? Why do those get a pass?

It would, but if they're already dying, then there's a large chance they won't make it on to actually either meet their soul mate or get a chance to do as soulmates do.

incest: Inbreeding would, without a doubt, produce a child with a lot of problems. That's the way it works for other mammls, so I'm not upping the humans on this one. And incest would often fall under rape, too.

rape: A rape-born child would probably live a VERY troubled life- a mother not prepared or neccesarily wanting them, a father whom their mother might not even know- serious social issues. Sometimes enough to drive the soulmate away. Serious faults can do that, in my opinion.

STD(I): Already explained.

Rape is a source of child abuse. Almost all the time.

Incest can cause children to have mental illnesses, such as Alice in Wonderland Syndrom.

Yus. It is.

ezactly. If it causes white tigers, it can cause problem'd people.  

[iColorCrazyyx]

I totally agree with you.

Perfect Stranger 3-0

It depends of the case. I'm 100% pro abortion in this cases:

_either the mother or the child are in serious risk
_birth defects (not Down Syndrome or Autism, but more serious things, like missed parts, spine bifida, etc)
_incest
_STDs (yes, babies get their moms STDs as well)
_ectopic pregnancies (out of the uterus)

In these cases, maybe (it all depends of the person):

_one night stands (if is the first time, ok)
_second time abortion (if is because a birth defect, etc.)
_teenage girls
why teenage girls are in the maybe section? because it depends of the maturity of the teenage parents. I had friends back in HS who were better mothers (arrived a bit later because they were feeding their kids, who milked themselves at lunch hour, who took their kids to school on days we didn't had too much classes, that after school had one or two jobs while their boyfriends or families took care of the baby) than many thirty-something women who work with my mother (she had a co-worker who tortured her kids with an iron).

Totally against abortion:

_if is used as a "reset" button constantly (done several times without thinking about other options, like adoption, contraceptives, etc.)

Since we all make mistakes, a one time abortion is ok (the next time, birth control), but a second, third, forth (and so on...) abortion? That's being irresponsible. Our bodies are not a video game console, and everytime something we don't want happens, we can't go around pressing the reset button. We make mistakes, and from those mistakes, we learn something. And abortion should be used like that; we abort an embryo once, so the next time, we use birth control.

_Rape? We denounce the a-hole who did that. Not many women wouldn't want to abort a kid product of a rape (this is what they say: is not my fault, but neither the baby's fault, and that's why I'm having it. It might been an unwanted pregnancy, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to give this kid a good life crying ). But I don't know what would I do in this situation. I think I rather give a baby from an unwanted pregnancy into adoption.

 

[FullMetalLex]

It is definitely okay.
Many people in this fourm are saying that it's sometimes, maybe okay, listing conditions-when it comes down to it, it's a yes or no question, keep it legal or make it illegal. A condom might rip, a woman may get raped, she might not be in a situation where she's ready to raise a child, the list goes on and on. The option must stay there because once you start taking, you begin the journey towards the illegalzation of abortions, the taking of a woman's right. It is a choice that every woman must have the right to choose. It's her body, her pregnancy, no one else can make such a personal, fate altering decision for her.

Abortion, under any circumstance is okay, and it must stay that way universally  

[Aliareana]

Your logic makes no sense to me. How is a fetus from rape less important than one from a reckless act? You either consider it a baby or you don't. You can't pick and choose conditions that make it okay for you to sleep at night.

I'm perfectly okay with abortion. Adoption is a joke and would never be an option for me to consider. Even though I am on birth control, I'm not going to stop having sex with my husband simply because my b.c. might fail. We're not ready for a child and we would abort if I became pregnant. We know where we are in life and what we can and can't handle. It is my choice - not the doctor's, not the government, and certainly not random strangers.