Is abortion better than the alternative?

whats the difference between a ''rape-baby'' and a ''non rape baby'' ?

and yes, rape is HORRIBLE. i agree completely. but i remember hearing about a study of woman who were raped and then kept the babies full term and they actually recovered faster emotionally/mentally then those who aborted.

the child isnt at fault for anything that its ''father'' did. and what its ''father'' did doesnt mean ppl should kill it.

phred...please elaborate on the difference between a human being and human life.

i mean...whats the diff? besides how they were concieved?

being a ''rape baby'' doesnt mean its a monster. if you put 2 children side by side, you would never be able to tell if one is a ''rape baby'' or not.

again...goes back to who/what/why gives us the right to determine what babies to let live?

The polarization of sides...I think I will address both sides today!

gallykid08 said:

babies can feel pain, and cry, in the womb. so that is a BIG consideration in abortion. in fact i believe there is a law going through congress or wherever about that. saw it in the newspaper when i was at work.

please, dont put ur personal opinions and twist it to put words into other people's mouths.

this is getting heavy

solution...USE birth control. then there wouldnt be the need for abortion of ''unwanted'' babies and pregnancies.

Click to expand...

Yes, older unborn babies can feel pain...and it seems clear that unborn babies are "people" by 22 weeks-the can be born, they feel pain, etc, and abortions should no longer be performed for any but the most dire reasons. So they should be treated with respect, and if an abortion must be performed for life-saving medical reasons, then, yes, a baby should be given painkillers.

Yes, everyone should use birth control. 2 methods, used every time, even if it is a little extra work. Because, for instance, birth control pills only work when taken every day for the 21 days. And condoms only work if they are used-having 'em sitting on the bedside table doesn't work.

for saving mother and baby...i dont think we have the right to choose one of the other. and i say again...doctors need to focus on finding ways to save BOTH.

etoptic pregnancies is another issue. one that i am not completely sure about.

Click to expand...

Yes, doctors do need to focus on saving both-but sometimes that is not possible. And when it isn't possible, and one can live, then save the one who can in fact live.

Etoptic pregnacies are totally non-viable. They will kill the woman. No baby can be born. Perhaps in the distant future some sort of resolution can be found, but until then, there isn't a solution for both.

Voodoo Gypsy said:

Considering a majority of rapes go unreported, you can't accurately have a statistic saying how many abortions were from rape, especially since most states require abortions from rape to be reported to police and people will lie in order to keep their boyfriends/rapists (since most rapes aren't stranger rapes) from being arrested or their rape from being exposed. On the flip side some states, like mine, don't even have "rape" as a choice for abortion. Don't you find it odd that every 2 minutes somebody is sexually assualted and between 25 and 35% of women are sexually assaulted in their lives, but reported abortions for rape are so low?

Secondly, I don't know of anybody who said "I got an abortion because it was conveniant.

Click to expand...

Perhaps reports for abortions due to rape is so low because the chances of getting pregnant from a single encounter is low, or because the incidence of abortion for on-demand abortioin is high. Something to look into.

Funny, I know of lots of people who have gotten abortions becaue it was inconveniant to go through pregnancy, and adoption is just complicated. That's right: they had the abortion because it was convenient, not due to rape, unhappy situations, or health reasons. Just. Because. It. Seemed. Easy.

There was one woman I know, though, that is the exception...she was truly alone and desperate, and her abortion probably truly seemed like the only way out of a desperate, depressing situation. It wasn't about convenience...it was the only thing that seemed at all possible. It doesn't make it correct or wrong, but it was a bad situation.

And I've seen pepper, floating on the surface of water, jump away from a drop of liquid dishwashing soap. Somebody alert the media, pepper is a living thing and it jumping away from the soap proves it.

Click to expand...

You realize how folly this reasoning is, right? An older unborn child is just that...and unborn child. And he/she can react to what is around it. A pepper is moving not because of any sort of self-propelled, self-aware movement, but because of the movement the drop of dishwashing soap was creating. You were just being sarcastic with this example, right? Right?

SallyNow said:

You realize how folly this reasoning is, right? An older unborn child is just that...and unborn child. And he/she can react to what is around it. A pepper is moving not because of any sort of self-propelled, self-aware movement, but because of the movement the drop of dishwashing soap was creating. You were just being sarcastic with this example, right? Right?

Click to expand...

I think the point being made was that, just because something responds to stimuli, doesn't mean it's conscious. Perhaps a better example would be to point out that even a fly is capable of defending itself against attack. That doesn't mean it's intelligent. It doesn't even have a real brain.

Antoninus Verus said:

This is part of the reason I am against the pro-life movement.

If you TOTALLY banned abortions, arent you affraid that some people might go and get them any ways? Back alley abortion clinics where the doctor is less than trained and working in a dirty environment with a questionable knowleage of medicine and tools that MIGHT be clean.

A few years back I read a news story about places like these in India where the abortion was performed with a bent wire hanger and often resulted in serious injury on the woman's part and in some cases even death.

So a TOTAL ban on abortion, I think, would solve nothing. You'd be creating twice the problems for everyone.

Click to expand...

I personally think that people will do exactly what you said....it will create a black market. But it will significantly decrease the amount of abortions. If people do the back alley abortions, then that is the own persons perrogative... they will do harm to themselves, but if they want it that bad, then they can face the consequences for doing it. Also, if they need to go to the hospital and get professional treatment because the abortion went wrong, then they get charged with murder...

Antoninus Verus said:

No I dont believe it does make the kid a monster. But its generally a bad situation and a potentially emotionally shattering experience. The friend I spoke of earlier cried herself to sleep at night knowing she was carrying the baby of the person who destroyed her. I know because I was sitting at the foot of her bed watching her.

Click to expand...

i understand. but sometimes abortion can be an experience with emotional/mental consequences as well. so if that happens...u'd be doubling the trauma.

Use birth control -- it's better than getting an abortion.
Condom Facts

Hmm...

as a pro-lifer I am all for banning abortion, period. The thing is though, we need to educate first, to cut down on back alley abortions after abortion is banned.

If society really knew what the fetus was capable of in the womb, would they advocate abortion? I doubt it.

A challenge for interesting in becoming more educated (and this is for everyone, for both sides of the abortion issue) visit http://www.layyous.com/ultasound/ultrasound_video.htm
this has videos of ultrasounds at various stages of pregnancy.

And another rather graphic portrayal (must not have a weak stomach)the best one to see is the Hard Truth, and the next best is probably The Silent Scream.

http://www.abortiontv.com/


So go on, educate yourself and get back to me and tell me what you think.

one type of pregnancy im not so sure abt there asler, and thats etoptic pregnancies. in that pregnancy the baby will NOT live past a certain point and if not removed the mother will die as well.

thats one thing that im still looking into.

Everyone,

I tend to be anti-abortion (as opposed to being pro-life, which means that you favor having the greatest number of births in a nation as possible). My reasons have mostly to do with personal responsibility, and that I just don't think the government should play a role in facilitating destructive personal sexual decisions people might make.

I tend to think that the "rape baby" argument has some smokescreen characteristics. When you look at the figures, the number of abortions that occur through rape pregnancies is infinitesimally tiny. In the immediate issue of rape impregnations, it is my belief that the conceptus is not morally responsible for the violent act that created him/her and is separate from it, but I would not condemn a rape victim who has an abortion. Another reason I see this as almost a rhetorical strawman is the fact that those who are the first to argue that rapes are a reason to keep all abortions legal tend to be the first to argue that rapists should be "rehabilitated" or "counseled" rather than being subjected to hard prison time or execution.

As for the issue of alternatives, yes, there are lots of relatively reliable methods of birth control that can be used to good effect. I do know that vasectomies and tubal ligations can fail, but even then, there are ways to mimize the risks of recanalization.

--All sterilized men are urged to have routine sperm-checks with their urologist to make sure none are getting through.
--A couple can back it up with other means of contraception.
--There are physical ways to minimize conception that cost nothing. Vaginal sex is not the only form of intercourse.
--Both partners should consider getting sterilized. There is a Fallopian tube plug out now called Essure that is very effective and much less traumatic than a ligation.

I also am of the opinion that it is not necessarily God who causes birth control to fail when it does, but rather (a) a fallen world and (b) people who do not use it correctly. Brian

the scenario that is given as being the only natural recourse or result of a ban on abortion is a slippery slope paradigm that is moot. We have laws now that ban certain practices but the slippery slope has not occurred. ex. drug use. even w/ drug laws, drug use is down. making murder illegal definitely limits the amount of murders that are prevalent in our country. imagine a counry w/o such laws. if we go by the paradigm that laws are suitable when the alternative would mean the people would make even worse decisions then we reduce man from a thinking, rational being, into an animal that only lives according to the direction of another....

indra_fanatic said:

Everyone,

I tend to be anti-abortion (as opposed to being pro-life, which means that you favor having the greatest number of births in a nation as possible). My reasons have mostly to do with personal responsibility, and that I just don't think the government should play a role in facilitating destructive personal sexual decisions people might make.

I tend to think that the "rape baby" argument has some smokescreen characteristics. When you look at the figures, the number of abortions that occur through rape pregnancies is infinitesimally tiny. In the immediate issue of rape impregnations, it is my belief that the conceptus is not morally responsible for the violent act that created him/her and is separate from it, but I would not condemn a rape victim who has an abortion. Another reason I see this as almost a rhetorical strawman is the fact that those who are the first to argue that rapes are a reason to keep all abortions legal tend to be the first to argue that rapists should be "rehabilitated" or "counseled" rather than being subjected to hard prison time or execution.

As for the issue of alternatives, yes, there are lots of relatively reliable methods of birth control that can be used to good effect. I do know that vasectomies and tubal ligations can fail, but even then, there are ways to mimize the risks of recanalization.

--All sterilized men are urged to have routine sperm-checks with their urologist to make sure none are getting through.
--A couple can back it up with other means of contraception.
--There are physical ways to minimize conception that cost nothing. Vaginal sex is not the only form of intercourse.
--Both partners should consider getting sterilized. There is a Fallopian tube plug out now called Essure that is very effective and much less traumatic than a ligation.

I also am of the opinion that it is not necessarily God who causes birth control to fail when it does, but rather (a) a fallen world and (b) people who do not use it correctly. Brian

Click to expand...

sterilization?

sterilization is permenant

and in case of rape...there would be no sterlization

in cases of one nite stands or even bf/gfs...they wouldnt want anything permenant.

gallykid08 said:

sterilization?

sterilization is permenant

Click to expand...

...unless there is a spontaneous reversal. The body has a tremendous instinct to heal, and seems to know how important the genitalia are (to perpetuate the race, I guess). Every man who has had a vasectomy and woman who has had a ligation grows a large bridge of scar tissue between the severed tubes to try to restore them. It usually fails, but the body sure tries. Sterilization failures are rare, but they do happen--hence the need for men to have continuous sperm-count checks and select a reputable urologist to do the operation.

and in case of rape...there would be no sterlization

Click to expand...

My point is that people who know that they could not bear to have a child ought to look into ways of making that a reality ahead of time.

in cases of one nite stands or even bf/gfs...they wouldnt want anything permenant.

Click to expand...

Lifestyle choices such as this should not be the government's prerogative. If they want to "fool around", they ought to be aware of consequences. People "reap what they sow". If someone chooses to act promiscuously with no thought to the future, it is unjust both to any possible baby conceived and the American taxpayer to willfully give that individual a "free pass" on their immoral decision.

Lokisdottir said:

I think the point being made was that, just because something responds to stimuli, doesn't mean it's conscious. Perhaps a better example would be to point out that even a fly is capable of defending itself against attack. That doesn't mean it's intelligent. It doesn't even have a real brain.

Click to expand...

Hmm...from pepper to fly. Pepper moves because of outside movement; a fly moves because it is "programmed" too. At no point in its life will that ever change-there is no thought process as such. This is agreed.

But at some point in the womb, unborn babies become aware-they are able to be born, they can feel pain, they are babies in mind and body-their bodies just aren't very strong yet. So aborting a baby that is at that point, without painkillers, is cruel. It appears that point is around 22 weeks-just at the end of the 2nd trimester, as the earliest babies born are around 24 weeks.

Comparing unborn babies that feel to flies and pepper is folly. Perhaps a 24 week old fetus does not have rights...yet a baby that is 3 months premature does. It's the same baby, it feels the same pain.

What am I trying to say? That both sides of this argument go to the extreme, go to almost ridiculous arguments. ie, "unborn baby=fly(or cancer, etc)" and "ectopic pregnacy-totally non-viable and deadly=still no reason for abortion".

Both arguments go too far, and both stop making sense after a while.

SallyNow said:

But at some point in the womb, unborn babies become aware-they are able to be born, they can feel pain, they are babies in mind and body-their bodies just aren't very strong yet. So aborting a baby that is at that point, without painkillers, is cruel. It appears that point is around 22 weeks-just at the end of the 2nd trimester, as the earliest babies born are around 24 weeks.

Click to expand...

Quadriplegics cannot feel pain either. Is it alright to kill them?

I won't deny that in some ways, an unwanted pregnancy can have a cancer-like effect on the mother; however, unlike cancer, it is a physical condition that is almost always avoidable, and involves a life-form that one day will rise above its currently parasitic-looking state.

SallyNow said:

But at some point in the womb, unborn babies become aware-they are able to be born, they can feel pain, they are babies in mind and body-their bodies just aren't very strong yet. So aborting a baby that is at that point, without painkillers, is cruel. It appears that point is around 22 weeks-just at the end of the 2nd trimester, as the earliest babies born are around 24 weeks.

Click to expand...

Oh, I was never arguing that. Personally, I think abortion should take place in the first trimester if at all possible.

indra_fanatic said:

Quadriplegics cannot feel pain either. Is it alright to kill them?

Click to expand...

What about emotional pain?