Abortion: A question of choice

[taedium]

Which misses a couple of important points.

1. The mother isn't always to blame.
2. The mother rarely intends to get pregnant even if she did willingly engage in sex if she is seeking an abortion.

Sometimes life isn't fair. Deal with it. I do and so do the majority.

Only in rape cases are the mother and father not equally to blame. In the case of rape, the father has full blame. She may not intend to get pregnant, but pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, 'protection' or not.

My arugment was mostly just a counter-argument to what you said earlier. I don't know when a fetus becomes a child, can't save I've thought about it much.

One thing I think you've missed is why I'm pro-choice. I'm sure I've said it already in this thread but I'll say it again. It's not because I have no problem with abortion. It's because I see no benefit in outlawing abortion. It's a band aid solution. It doesn't attack why women are seeking abortions in the first place. Lets attack the problem.

People aren't taking responsiblity for their actions, why not blame them for their position? I don't think outlawing abortion would make it illegal, but I support overturning Roe vs. Wade because abortion isnt' a constitutional right. The states can do what they want, though I'd prefer to live in a pro-life state. The reason being that its a bit inconsistent to make a father fiscally responsible for a child if he has no choice in it's existence. I support mandatory child-support, thus I cannot support abortion rights.

Lets look at the fact that sometimes women have to have abortions for financial reasons and see what we can do about it. Lets look into why unplanned pregnancies are happening. Lets see what we can do about the social stigma against adoption (and there is one), compared to the supposed easiness of abortion. Lets change the law so that the truth about the health effections on abortion has to be told before they're administered.

People have abortions mostly because they commit premarital sex. Having children in a single-parent environment isn't too pleasant, I don't blame them for not wanting to become a single parent. However I do blame them for having premartial sex, that was their choice.

I think people willing to adopt should be given even more fiscal benefits (tax excemptions) than people raising their genetic offspring. It's easier and more selfish to be raising a child with the intent partially being the continuation of your genetic line.

Outlawing abortion solves nothing but makes a few people feel good about themselves when they've done nothing but look like they're doing something. That's not good enough.

It makes the laws more consistent. Abortion rights aren't guarenteed in the constitution. You can't make a father take responsiblity for a child if he has no choice in its existence.

 

[msjones21]

Think of it this way, you are hit over the head and wake up to find yourself physically joined and dependent on someone else. This someone else happens to have been one of two people that created this situation, the person that hit you over the head and connected you to their body. Lets say things get ugly and the person that you are connected to starts having serious health problems because of what he/she did, how could you justify you being the one killed to rectify the situation?

You bet I would have every right to kill them. Self defense.

 

[taedium]

You bet I would have every right to kill them. Self defense.

I think you read that wrong, you were the one in the situation through no choice of your own. Yet you are being killed because the person that chose to put you in that situation is now getting hurt by you being in it.

 

[Marissa]

People aren't taking responsiblity for their actions, why not blame them for their position?

They are taking responsiblity for their actions. They're simply not taking responsibility in a way that you approve. The woman are accepting they're pregnant and taking a course of action they deem appropriate.

To not take responsibility would be to ignore the pregnancy, give birth in a bath tub and then throw the baby out with the water. Something that does happen from time to time.

I don't think outlawing abortion would make it illegal, but I support overturning Roe vs. Wade because abortion isnt' a constitutional right.

Ofcourse outlawing abortion is making it illegal. What do you think "outlawing" means?

As for Roe vs Wade, quite frankly I don't give a rats one way or the other about the US constitution. No offense but I'm an Australian. We're discussing whether or not Abortion should be legal. What your consitituation says on it actually has very little to do with that.

The reason being that its a bit inconsistent to make a father fiscally responsible for a child if he has no choice in it's existence. I support mandatory child-support, thus I cannot support abortion rights.

Abortion is about whether or not a woman wants to carry a child. Why should a father have any say in it? Yes, it's his child, but it's her body.
If he didn't want to risk being a father he should have discussed that with the woman before he had sex with her and found out what she plans to do should she get pregnant.

People have abortions mostly because they commit premarital sex.

How about some depth in your answers? Why are they engaging in premarital sex? Are they taking proper safe sex precaution? If not, why not? Are they having casual sex, or premarital sex within serious relationships?

Life isn't as black and white as you are trying to make out.

I think people willing to adopt should be given even more fiscal benefits (tax excemptions) than people raising their genetic offspring. It's easier and more selfish to be raising a child with the intent partially being the continuation of your genetic line.

What you need to do is give woman who are seeking abortions reasons to put their kid up for adoption instead, or make it possible for her to keep it herself.

 

[taedium]

Ofcourse outlawing abortion is making it illegal. What do you think "outlawing" means?

This is what happens when I don't proofread what I write I meant that it won't stop abortion.

As for Roe vs Wade, quite frankly I don't give a rats one way or the other about the US constitution. No offense but I'm an Australian. We're discussing whether or not Abortion should be legal. What your consitituation says on it actually has very little to do with that.

That the justices decided to make believe that abortion was a constitutional right is singificant, it means the states don't have control over something that they legally should have control over - assuming legislature didn't act to ban abortion.

Abortion is about whether or not a woman wants to carry a child. Why should a father have any say in it? Yes, it's his child, but it's her body.
If he didn't want to risk being a father he should have discussed that with the woman before he had sex with her and found out what she plans to do should she get pregnant.

It's not her body, the child, according to the mother's own immune system, isn't self. Not to mention the self tends to have a certain genetic code, which the child doesn't.

If she didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had sex while fertile. Not to mention, in the end the father has no say, she could change her mind about abortion and he has no recourse.

How about some depth in your answers? Why are they engaging in premarital sex? Are they taking proper safe sex precaution? If not, why not? Are they having casual sex, or premarital sex within serious relationships?
Life isn't as black and white as you are trying to make out.

They are engaging in premartial sex because they either don't understand the consequences or don't care about the conseqeunces. Safe sex a pregnancy won't always prevent. The lack of education, while possible, doesn't change the fact that she did this action and behold, this was the consequence. You are responsible for the consequences of your actions even if you don't understand.

I doubt many abortions happen within a marriage, which is probably the most responsible time to have sex. Is it possible? certainly, however with two parents, why would you want an abortion? Two adults should be reasonably fiscally stable.

Things are black and white: you do an action with choice, you are responsible for anything which directly results from that action. A preganancy directly results from an action.

What you need to do is give woman who are seeking abortions reasons to put their kid up for adoption instead, or make it possible for her to keep it herself.

Tax discounts for people pregnant? That seems OK... I'll think about that

 

[Marissa]

That the justices decided to make believe that abortion was a constitutional right is singificant, it means the states don't have control over something that they legally should have control over - assuming legislature didn't act to ban abortion.

I understand that, but whether or not it should be legal (what we're discussing) is separate to that.

It's not her body, the child, according to the mother's own immune system, isn't self. Not to mention the self tends to have a certain genetic code, which the child doesn't.

It's her body that is sustaining the child, not his. That is why the father can't have a say. It's separate to the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal.

Not to mention, in the end the father has no say, she could change her mind about abortion and he has no recourse.

Perhaps, but I think you'll find the cases of this aren't the norm, and discussing it before it happens ensures compatibility of opinions a lot more than just taking it as it comes. Could the father still get stuffed around? Yes, but it's less likely.

They are engaging in premartial sex because they either don't understand the consequences or don't care about the conseqeunces.

If they're engaging in premarital sex because they're unaware of the consequences, they're seeking abortions because they were unaware of the consequences of permarital sex.

In that case wouldn't making woman aware of the consequences be a better way to minimise abortion? Maybe not in the short run, we can't do anything about the woman already pregnant, but in the long run?

I doubt many abortions happen within a marriage, which is probably the most responsible time to have sex. Is it possible? certainly, however with two parents, why would you want an abortion? Two adults should be reasonably fiscally stable.

'Fraid not. I have two parents. There's no way they could have afforded another child when I was young. Likewise my brother is married with two kids. They couldn't afford a third. They're living cent by cent. The presence of two adults is in no way a guarantee of financial state.

 

[taedium]

I understand that, but whether or not it should be legal (what we're discussing) is separate to that.

Fine I'll consider this a disccusion about state-level abortion rights.

It's her body that is sustaining the child, not his. That is why the father can't have a say. It's separate to the issue of whether or not abortion should be legal.

If the father has no say, you can't legally make him pay child support. No choice = no responsibility. You can't hold someone responsible for someone elses decision without consent.

Perhaps, but I think you'll find the cases of this aren't the norm, and discussing it before it happens ensures compatibility of opinions a lot more than just taking it as it comes. Could the father still get stuffed around? Yes, but it's less likely.

No choice, no responsilbity.

If they're engaging in premarital sex because they're unaware of the consequences, they're seeking abortions because they were unaware of the consequences of permarital sex.

In that case wouldn't making woman aware of the consequences be a better way to minimise abortion? Maybe not in the short run, we can't do anything about the woman already pregnant, but in the long run?

I'm sure they already knew about pregnancy, STDs, etc. You could include moral teachings, but I bet you don't want to (I'm sure they'd help, if taught correctly).

My reasons for opposing abortion:
1) Roe vs. Wade (won't get into that again)
2) Incompatible with child support

I personally don't care about the abortion procedure itself. I think its inhumane, but that just gets translated as disgusting and I have disgust to many, many things - abortion is just a tiny bleep. In other words, I don't care about women having abortions - I care about the legal inconsistencies.

'Fraid not. I have two parents. There's no way they could have afforded another child when I was young. Likewise my brother is married with two kids. They couldn't afford a third. They're living cent by cent. The presence of two adults is in no way a guarantee of financial state.

Vasectomy? That wouldn't work in all cases I suppose, perhaps married people need to be careful too

 

[Marissa]

If the father has no say, you can't legally make him pay child support. No choice = no responsibility. You can't hold someone responsible for someone elses decision without consent.

No choice, no responsilbity.

There is a choice. Again, he choose not to have sex. He can choose to discuss what actions will be taken should pregnancy occur prior to sex. I know it seems like a double standard, but again abortion is really about whether a woman wants to carry a child, not whether she wants to raise a child. After the child is born the mother has no more rights than the father does.

Pregnancy, in and of itself, has absolutely no effects on the male. It simply can't because he doesn't carry the child. Why should he have a determining say in what happens to the womans body? He doesn't have to live with the consequences. Ultimately someone has to have the final decision. It makes sense that it's the person who is most affected by the decision, and that is in a position to make a decision (ruling out the fetus).

It's good and well to say "abortion should be illegal because men don't have a say it in" but they still won't have a say in it. It'll simply be your opinion on abortion that is benig forced on them, rather than the womans. In the latter there is at least the option of including the father in the decision.

You're taking away the choice from everyone, because some have no choice.

I'm sure they already knew about pregnancy, STDs, etc. You could include moral teachings, but I bet you don't want to (I'm sure they'd help, if taught correctly).

If you're referring to abstainance (I can never recall how to spell that), then I'm all for it being taught. So long as it's along with safe sex, not instead of it. There is no greater precaution than no sex at all.

I personally don't care about the abortion procedure itself. I think its inhumane, but that just gets translated as disgusting and I have disgust to many, many things - abortion is just a tiny bleep. In other words, I don't care about women having abortions - I care about the legal inconsistencies.

We're an odd pair then. Neither of us are really concerned with the moral side of things in regards to legality.

 

[taedium]

There is a choice. Again, he choose not to have sex. He can choose to discuss what actions will be taken should pregnancy occur prior to sex. I know it seems like a double standard, but again abortion is really about whether a woman wants to carry a child, not whether she wants to raise a child. After the child is born the mother has no more rights than the father does.

Pregnancy, in and of itself, has absolutely no effects on the male. It simply can't because he doesn't carry the child. Why should he have a determining say in what happens to the womans body? He doesn't have to live with the consequences. Ultimately someone has to have the final decision. It makes sense that it's the person who is most affected by the decision, and that is in a position to make a decision (ruling out the fetus).

It's good and well to say "abortion should be illegal because men don't have a say it in" but they still won't have a say in it. It'll simply be your opinion on abortion that is benig forced on them, rather than the womans. In the latter there is at least the option of including the father in the decision.

If the choice is determined at conception (i.e. no abortion) then both parents are equally responsible. Otherwise they aren't. I'm sure many men really appreciate the abortion option, I'm sure alot pressure women to get them when its inconvinent for them. I'm sure deadbeat dads love the abortion option, it gives them a way to rationalize their irresponsiblity. But if both parents get the final decision, i.e. the decision is the conception, then there is no double-standard and no way for either party to shrink for the responsibilities.

I guess you could look at the pregnancy women get as being additional responsiblity imposed on them relative to the male for the same choice. That's true, women do get the bad end of the responsiblity stick for 9 months. However, the same action won't always lead to the same responsiblities - sex is itself is an example of that. Sometimes you get pregnant, sometimes you don't. Responsibilities are rarely equivalent among all people who make the same choice. An alternative would be both parties have abortion options, i.e. the woman can have an abortion by her own choice, and the man can have the fetus aborted by his own choice. That may be the most responsiblity-choice consistent approach, and could even work with child support. However, I doubt the femminists would like that

You're taking away the choice from everyone, because some have no choice.
If you're referring to abstainance (I can never recall how to spell that), then I'm all for it being taught. So long as it's along with safe sex, not instead of it. There is no greater precaution than no sex at all.

I was referring to teaching the long-term consequences of premartial sex. You've heard my arguments - I doubt you'd like government funding to get instructors to teach kids about how lack of virginity makes them not marriage material. It'd work, its just not something that seems appropriate to do with public funds.

We're an odd pair then. Neither of us are really concerned with the moral side of things in regards to legality.

I think laws should reflect my belief that choice = responsibility. That belief itself is actually a moral though

 

[Pure Paradox]

I think you're all making fetuses sound like alien invaders, a menace to society which go around attaching themselves to innocent women who've had sex. Listen to yourselves...

 

[Tracie]

Excellent, Paradox!!!

 

[Blessed75]

I think you're all making fetuses sound like alien invaders, a menace to society which go around attaching themselves to innocent women who've had sex. Listen to yourselves...

Well, thanks for your opinion but until you've been in this situation, do you really know what you're talking about? Listen to yourself.........

 

[Pure Paradox]

Thank you much, but I have every idea what I'm talking about. I'm too young to be anywhere near reproducing yet, but I've talked to people who've had abortions, people who've done them, people who've chosen not to abort. I've looked up Planned Parenthood, and the Right to Life groups. And still, I'm pro-life. Does that surprise you?

 

[flicka]

Thank you much, but I have every idea what I'm talking about. I'm too young to be anywhere near reproducing yet, but I've talked to people who've had abortions, people who've done them, people who've chosen not to abort. I've looked up Planned Parenthood, and the Right to Life groups. And still, I'm pro-life. Does that surprise you?

I don't think anyone is questioning your intelligence or ability to reasearch something...its just that most people who have been your age know that youthful idealism sometimes conflicts with the harsh realities of life. Nobody really knows how they will react to a situation until they come face to face with it, until then its all academic. For that reason it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate about abortion.

 

[panterapat]

We all have a choice. God gave each of us a free will. We can choose to preserve life or we can choose to kill life. The bible tells us, "I set before you life and death. Choose life." And we have no choice over the eternal consequences of our choices.

 

[Pure Paradox]

I don't think anyone is questioning your intelligence or ability to reasearch something...its just that most people who have been your age know that youthful idealism sometimes conflicts with the harsh realities of life. Nobody really knows how they will react to a situation until they come face to face with it, until then its all academic. For that reason it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate about abortion.

That's like saying, "You haven't committed murder. Until you've been in that situation, you can't judge whether it's right or not..."

 

[flicka]

That's like saying, "You haven't committed murder. Until you've been in that situation, you can't judge whether it's right or not..."

hmmm..no. Its not like that at all. But I guess that what you want to hear so you can argue more..thats ok. Pleanty of people around here that will do it, just not me

 

[Pure Paradox]

Okay, let me phrase it differently: how much more experience have you had with abortion?

 

[Arturis]

I don't think that people who support abortion should be refered to as "pro-choice" nor should those oppose abortion should be labeled "anit-choice". The reason is simple. "Anti-Choice" has negative conotation, while "pro-choice" has positive ones. If we are to remain neutral here, neither should promote or detract a sentiment from it label. Abortion is abortion. While someone chooses to abort or not is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the woman has either either the moral or natural right to choose.

According to science, the fetus has it's own unique genetic makeup at the moment of conception and is an independant life dependant on the mother for nurishment, therefore it is not the same entity as the mother. So if one chooses to abort the fetus, isn't it safe to assume at this point that that person is choosing to end the life of an entity that is not her own?

The reality of the situation is that an abortion is the willful destruction of another life, rationalized by the woman as its her right to choose to do so becuase the fetus resides within her body. This logic is faulty. Why then is suicide be illegal? Isn't the womans own life concidered her own and therefore she should have the right to choose to end it? The woman would be breaking the law to kill herself, but not in killing her own offspring in which she assumes is her own body? This logic is contradictory.

The bottom line is that all life is precious, whether it is your own or someone elses. Just becuase you have the right to choose doesn't mean that it is the right choice.

 

[Blessed75]

I don't think anyone is questioning your intelligence or ability to reasearch something...its just that most people who have been your age know that youthful idealism sometimes conflicts with the harsh realities of life. Nobody really knows how they will react to a situation until they come face to face with it, until then its all academic. For that reason it's nearly impossible to have a meaningful debate about abortion.

I have a tendency to agree but that shouldn't surprise anyone on here........