Interesting view on Abortion - Please Participate (FOR EVERY MEMBERS OF THE FORUM)

[DoseOFReality]

Howdy fellow citizens! Whether you are for or against Abortion, I would like to ask everyone for your honest and sound inputs on the following idea.

Abortion is/has been one of the top world-wide issue. I would like to take a moment to briefly analyze the definition of "life," and perhaps see it from a different angle. Also, I humbly ask to be excused from my flaws or any of my assumptions as I am still a student in philosophy. I also ask that you read this as a piece of treat without a critical mind analyzing my mistakes as I am only trying to better understand this subject. Thankyou.

Firstly, I have heard and am aware of the mother's right to choose. There are many exceptional cases in abortion. Some women conceive a child through rape, incest, or simply by a mistake. and for both the sake of mother and the "thing" inside the womb, it is understood that the following action of "abortion" is tolerated.

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

Because the way I see it, the issue isn't the mother's right to choose. I think the real issue is the definition of life. Because if the fetus inside the womb is by definition life, then it rightfully assumes the basic human rights which includes the right to live. The mother no longer has jurisdiction over the life of the baby if infact whats inside is life.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)
Which is greater?

Consider this, though it may sound awfully silly. Does a mother have a choice to "abort" a 5 year old boy? If the fetus is infact life, does it not have the same right as would a 5 year old boy? If so, then the difference between the 5 year old boy and the fetus would be the location. One being inside the womb and one out in the field.

Is it not agreeable that the real issue of abortion is definition of life rather than mother's right to choose? Thanks for bearing with me and I hope for many interesting inputs.

 

[Anubaby]

No, some people lives wouldn't be worth living if they had a child.

Abortion, however, should be carried out as early as possible.

 

[hugoguttman]

Hard issue is this Abortion.

My point of view is the following:
I agree that when a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape or incest, she can get abortion just because she did not want to have that child (with that person or on those circumstances) As a human being, she can choose abortion. Saddly, both resulting choices, having or not having will bring psicological troubles on time. If she decides not having the child and recurring to abortion...what would she think as time go by? If she decides to having the child...what will she think every time she sees him? I think it´s a very complicated issue.

But!!!! geting abortion just because I am an irresponsible person who spent a wonderful night with someone...and get pregnant...and say...Oh, I just dont want to have this kid...don´t worry, be happy. There is one choice called ABORTION. As easy as it seems. That is for me a killer, because there are a lot of anticonceptive methods that could be used to avoid pregnancy and just because I dont want to use anyone of them makes me an irresponsible individual that will bring, later the nice adjective of KILLER. But, at the end of the time...God will put that decision into account.

As we know, the firsts weeks of pregnancy, the product is just two cells growing fast as one. And unfortunately, it´s very difficult to know in those days if one person is pregnant. Usually, a woman gets to know wheter she is pregnant one or maybe two months later and by that time, fetus begins to seem like a little "thing"...
I have just seen some methods of abortion and I can not imagine an unworried woman giving her body to someone to put that thing out of her...and later, steping out that place as paceful as a tree...saying...well, that´s all...let´s go home and "#%$# again, that if I get pregnant again, I have found a wonderful solution to that problem.

Let me tell you that...not only woman has a big role in this scenario, but also the man. BOTH OF THEM ARE GUILTY WHEN ABORTION COMES JUST FOR NOT HAVING THIS KID, as a result of irresponsibility.
But, let´s hear another oppinions...
Hugo.

 

[A4C]

There is nobody's life that is not worth living.
Nobody has the right to make such a choice

 

[Rae]

The mother is an already existing being whose body will be harmed by bearing this other, unborn life. I think her wishes and her health must prevail over the unborn life, especially in cases where she will die or have serious health consequences to having a baby.

 

[Broken Doll]

Hard issue is this Abortion.

My point of view is the following:
I agree that when a woman gets pregnant as a result of rape or incest, she can get abortion just because she did not want to have that child (with that person or on those circumstances) As a human being, she can choose abortion. Saddly, both resulting choices, having or not having will bring psicological troubles on time. If she decides not having the child and recurring to abortion...what would she think as time go by? If she decides to having the child...what will she think every time she sees him? I think it´s a very complicated issue.

But!!!! geting abortion just because I am an irresponsible person who spent a wonderful night with someone...and get pregnant...and say...Oh, I just dont want to have this kid...don´t worry, be happy. There is one choice called ABORTION. As easy as it seems. That is for me a killer, because there are a lot of anticonceptive methods that could be used to avoid pregnancy and just because I dont want to use anyone of them makes me an irresponsible individual that will bring, later the nice adjective of KILLER. But, at the end of the time...God will put that decision into account.

As we know, the firsts weeks of pregnancy, the product is just two cells growing fast as one. And unfortunately, it´s very difficult to know in those days if one person is pregnant. Usually, a woman gets to know wheter she is pregnant one or maybe two months later and by that time, fetus begins to seem like a little "thing"...
I have just seen some methods of abortion and I can not imagine an unworried woman giving her body to someone to put that thing out of her...and later, steping out that place as paceful as a tree...saying...well, that´s all...let´s go home and "#%$# again, that if I get pregnant again, I have found a wonderful solution to that problem.

Let me tell you that...not only woman has a big role in this scenario, but also the man. BOTH OF THEM ARE GUILTY WHEN ABORTION COMES JUST FOR NOT HAVING THIS KID, as a result of irresponsibility.
But, let´s hear another oppinions...
Hugo.

How would you determine who was raped and who consented to sex? A woman could just lie and say she was raped in order to get an abortion.

Broken Doll

 

[Broken Doll]

Do we, as human beings, recognize the "thing" inside the womb as life?
When does a human being become recognized as person? and during what process of pregnancy do we define this blob of blood as life?

Yes, it is life and it is human. However, it is not a person, it is a potential person. It becomes a person when it develops consciousness.

So does the "mother's right to choose" over-rule the fetus' human rights?(assuming the fetus is a life)

Which is greater?

Yes, the mother's right to choose over-rules the fetus' rights because the fetus interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of the mother.

Broken Doll

 

[rahma]

One of the things I find attractive in Islam is that we know exactly when the fetus becomes a human being, theologically. In our view, the soul enters the body at 120 days, and at that point is considered a human being with rights.

So abortions before 120 days, not as a form of birth control, but due to a legitimate health concern, are ok.

After 120 days, the health of the mother are weighed against the life of the child, and it's determined from there.

 

[jingwei]

It's all in the eye of the beholder.
In my opinion , a Christian woman would not get herself into the position to require an abortion unless it is life threatening.

 

[Seeking...]

Life begins at conception, but not all life has equal value. The life of a fetus is not equal to the value of the life of its human mother. I don't believe the fetus is human until it has a soul and I don't believe it has a soul until it can survive apart from the mother's body - I'm not talking survive through artificial means either - the body must be able to sustain basic life functions on its own. The mother can abort at will until this time. After this time it should become the domain of the doctors to decide if the health of the mother is at stake if the pregnancy is continued.

 

[Ave Maria]

Yes, the mother's right to choose over-rules the fetus' rights because the fetus interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of the mother.

You know, I've never heard that argument before but it does make a lot of sense. This is one reason I am Pro-Choice. I am personally against abortion but I refuse to force someone to accept my views on it because I know that there is no consensus about this topic.

 

[A4C]

God has not given mothers the rite that they can determine the destiny of their unborn child - The mothers have given themselves that rite

 

[DoseOFReality]

The mother is an already existing being whose body will be harmed by bearing this other, unborn life. I think her wishes and her health must prevail over the unborn life, especially in cases where she will die or have serious health consequences to having a baby.

what are you talking about? billions and billions of mothers had children. you have to be seriously joking if the mother's birth giving health concern is the reason why you think abortion should be legalized.

 

[DoseOFReality]

Yes, it is life and it is human. However, it is not a person, it is a potential person. It becomes a person when it develops consciousness.

Yes, the mother's right to choose over-rules the fetus' rights because the fetus interferes with the rights of Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness of the mother.

Broken Doll

You said it yourself that a baby is a life and a human. How then do you ignore its privileges and rights?

 

[DoseOFReality]

No, some people lives wouldn't be worth living if they had a child.

Abortion, however, should be carried out as early as possible.

Thats irrelevent to the subject of abortion and you cannot decide the quality of life with/without the baby. The baby by definition has the right to every rights as you have.

 

[DoseOFReality]

"health of a mother" seems to be one of the top reasons for abortion. I dont buy this at all. Women's body is design to carry a child and women have been having billions and billions of children through time. Ask your mother if having your child was possible. To say that a mother cannot give birth to a child because it may affect her health is unreasonable and a cheapshot lie. Abortion because of irresponsibility is a much more honest reason and even more credible reason than "health of a mother". Give me a break.

 

[DoseOFReality]

Can everyone please focus on what I have originally posted? Even a criminal who mass murders innocent children gets a fair trial and must be convicted in court in order to be executed. And believe me this criminal invaded every privilege and rights of the children and the family's quality of life and rights. However, even for this criminal has his rights and must be tried accordingly. So how do you suppose that a "life's" rights are ignored because it cross with the privileges of the mother?

 

[Broken Doll]

"health of a mother" seems to be one of the top reasons for abortion. I dont buy this at all. Women's body is design to carry a child and women have been having billions and billions of children through time. Ask your mother if having your child was possible. To say that a mother cannot give birth to a child because it may affect her health is unreasonable and a cheapshot lie. Abortion because of irresponsibility is a much more honest reason and even more credible reason than "health of a mother". Give me a break.

You're right, in most cases it is because of irresponsibility. About 1% (0.4-1.3%) of abortions were because of rape/incest, about 3% (2.8%) for maternal health, and 3% (3.3%) for fetal malformation. So about 93% (92.8%) of abortions are because of irresponsibility.

Credit: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Broken Doll

 

[Broken Doll]

You said it yourself that a baby is a life and a human. How then do you ignore its privileges and rights?

I really don't know. I'm not sure how I feel about this subject. I'm not really pro-life or pro-choice, just somewhere in the middle.

Broken Doll

 

[Broken Doll]

Can everyone please focus on what I have originally posted? Even a criminal who mass murders innocent children gets a fair trial and must be convicted in court in order to be executed. And believe me this criminal invaded every privilege and rights of the children and the family's quality of life and rights. However, even for this criminal has his rights and must be tried accordingly. So how do you suppose that a "life's" rights are ignored because it cross with the privileges of the mother?

Because the criminal is a conscious person, the fetus is not. It is impossible for two humans who occupy the same body to have equal rights. One's rights must over-rule the others.

Broken Doll