Abortion. Should It Be Illegal?

[rhan]

Statistics say that 3 of out every 5 teenagers have had sex by the age of 18.

Some take action to be avoidant of STD’s and pregnancies. Others don’t take the necessary precautions to avoid such things. That’s why teenagers become pregnant. Some teenage females terminate their pregnancies to avoid being a mother so young possibly ruining their future. But is this right to kill something before it has its first breathe at life?

Personally, I’m against the fact of taking a life away for their selfish needs. If teens had made the decision to have sex then they should take the consequences that come with it. No matter how slim the chances are, they should consider the fact that it CAN happen to them. Nothing good will happen to them if they take their future child out of the world. It will only cause the parents of the embryo grief and sorrow once the deed has been done. It may cause the mother to become deeply depressed and maybe in a suicidal state of mind. Maybe I’m just being overly dramatic about the situation.

The point I’m trying to get at is that should it be illegal to terminate a pregnancy? If against this situation, please state why it should be illegal and maybe a punishment that could be for such acts.

If for Abortion, should the father of the child have a word in the decision? Should the parents of the pregnant child have a say in the decision?

 

[GwJ]

My belief is that a woman should have the decision to terminate a pregnancy if they wish to. Truly, women suffer those most out of an unexpected child. It can ruin all possibilities of a normal life afterwards due to a lack of education, social skills and whatnot.

HOWEVER

I doubt that a solution that will completely allow or disallow this will happen. My thought is that the world needs to become more child friendly, aka child centers in colleges, not discriminating based on if you have a child and things of other matters.

 

[Watchful_Eye]

I think that the important point about allowing or non-allowing abortion is the question if the "child" is able to feel something or not. In my opinion, the core point of the special protection rights of life in general is the consciousness - a living being has to feel that it exists, otherwise there are no moral rules broken if it is killed, because there is "nothing lost" for the being itself.

If you observe just the destruction of a potential of getting a "life with consciousness", you also should see masturbation or sexual prevention as a kind of "murder".

 

[The Fail Tracer]

I personally am half for and half against abortion (I don't really know). I will state my points on both sides.

Against

1. Sexual intercourse is not a dire necessity. Those who have the irresponsibility and impatience to partake in sexual activities before marriage brought the girl's pregnancy on themselves and the baby should not have to pay for the mother's poor choices.

2. I consider abortion killing (maybe even murder), so since it is already against the law to kill, why should it be okay to kill babies/fetuses/embryos/whatever? There's a word for that... I *think* it's ageism.

3. I may be wrong about this point, and it has been stated by others a couple times anyways, but I have not heard the answer to this question: Could you not put the baby up for adoption?

For

1. If the woman was *****, it should be at least a little okay to abort, then. But I think that this should be performed early, as in before the baby can feel pain.

2. Even if the couple was the said couple I mentioned in point one for "Against," it would screw up their lives, so abortion may be all right for this one as well, and will offer the couple a once again normal life.

3. Overpopulation. We should kinda cut down on the birth rate...

Seeing how, although I have given equal points for both pros and cons, since the cons kind of outweigh the pros (especially point three, if I'm correct) in logic, I may be becoming more against abortion. If abortion was illegal, I suppose the punishment should be time in prison... As for the question, "Should the father/parents have a decision?", I am a bit stumped.

 

[Judge Judy]

In the past when abortion was illegal in the U.S. it caused a lot of distress and a lot of illegal "homebrew" abortion businesses started cropping up. Since people really didn't have anywhere else to go to get abortions, these people would get them from untrained amateurs who often performed the operations in unsanitary conditions. My point is that even if you ban abortions, desperate people will still get them and you might end up causing more problems than you fix.

 

[Yoshi-Kirby]

Well, my view is that Abortion shouldn't be illegal, but it is wrong morally. For example, as said before, 3 out of 5 have sex by the age of 18. Some of which get pregnant of course. Well, if a girl get's pregnant, it isn't the guy's fault, it's hers. She's the one that had sex in the first place, and, knowing the consequences, still has it before 18. If she doesn't want to have a baby, then why bother having sex? What is the point of having sex, then getting an abortion? Just avoid sex until you're willing and responsible enough to have a child. But, if pregnancy does occur, and the girl knows that she can't handle it, she should get a abortion. What is the point of having a child that you know you can't care for?

Well, having an abortion shouldn't be illegal, but it is morally wrong. I think that a solution too this is also not gonna happen. If the world did have more stuff for children, then abortions should be illegal. But for now, abortion is legal, even though that may someday change.

 

[AquaTech]

To put it bluntly, NO, abortion should not be declared illegal!

Some take action to be avoidant of STD’s and pregnancies. Others don’t take the necessary precautions to avoid such things. That’s why teenagers become pregnant. Some teenage females terminate their pregnancies to avoid being a mother so young possibly ruining their future. But is this right to kill something before it has its first breathe at life?

To directly answer your question, no, it's not "right" to kill "something" before it has it's first breathe of life. However, I don't think that question is an honest one to ask when talking about abortion. What this will come down to is a discussion of when life starts. Some people say at conception. Some people say after one or two trimesters. Other certain ones will say not until the umbilical cord is cut. Lot's of people agree that at early stages of the fetus's development, it is up to the mother if she continues any further with the pregnancy, regardless of age.

Personally, I’m against the fact of taking a life away for their selfish needs. If teens had made the decision to have sex then they should take the consequences that come with it. No matter how slim the chances are, they should consider the fact that it CAN happen to them. Nothing good will happen to them if they take their future child out of the world. It will only cause the parents of the embryo grief and sorrow once the deed has been done. It may cause the mother to become deeply depressed and maybe in a suicidal state of mind. Maybe I’m just being overly dramatic about the situation.

If you're personally against the idea of abortion, that's great. Don't get a girl pregnant, or if you do, be able to support her and the baby. All is well.
But to address the people who do want an abortion, I don't think you can stop them from doing it because it doesn't make sense to you personally. They might get depressed? Yeah, that's a bad part of it. But women sometimes get depressed and suicidal even if they do have the baby (postpartum depression).
I also think the yellow line in there is a little unfair. Nothing "good" might come out of it, but if the baby isn't being born into a healthy living situation, a lot of bad might come of it. Normally words like "good" and "bad" are used very sparingly in debates!

The point I’m trying to get at is that should it be illegal to terminate a pregnancy? If against this situation, please state why it should be illegal and maybe a punishment that could be for such acts.

I tend to agree with the law the way it is now. Abortions ARE legal, but only up to a certain point in the pregnancy. I can't think of a punishment for abortion offenders, that's way out of my league.

If for Abortion, should the father of the child have a word in the decision? Should the parents of the pregnant child have a say in the decision?

I don't think the father and parents should have a say in the matter. Of course they can offer their feelings and opinions, as strongly as they like. But at the end of the day, the decision has to rest with the mother.

 

[:mad:]

You could honestly allow abortion, but with good reason. If a woman could die from child birth, I can see why it would be a good reason. Abortion doesn't affect our lives directly, why should we get in the way of a potential-mother's wishes? They have their own reasons we couldn't understand. The fetus is not even capable of deep-thought, and probably isn't even aware of its own existence.

I've always been worried about how the mothers would feel. If they can't afford to keep the baby, why do you insist on forcing them to take care of it? They might very well be forced to place their baby in an orphanage where it'll never truly be happy. A boy or girl could have their own health problems. There's just too many variables, abortion is a touchy subject, and is just a matter of ethics. From what I've been taught, it's the mother's decision.

 

[KillerSOS]

The only way I would approve of a abortion is either

A: The child would be horribly deformed and unable to lead a real life

B: The mother would die during childbirth

If it does not fit either of these catagories than there are plenty of adoption agencies that will take a newborn child in.

 

[Vorguen]

Who is to say a deformed child wouldn't prefer life? I would, even deformed.

Not to be overly-conservative (and I'm not) but I just can't agree with the taking of a life. Fertilization leads to life, and no matter which way you think about it, ending a pregnancy prevented a life from being born.

It is of course personal belief intertwined with some theology and the way I was raised, but if I had the wooden mallet and all the powers of congress / executive branch (dictatorship?) I would not allow it.

This is just a debate that will always remain inconclusive. This is like the debate of all debates. You will get the hardcore religious zealots loving all life and the women's rights enthusiasts swearing by the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is the end of that woman's normal life.

For that matter, I believe strongly against abortion.


I have only one thing to say to anyone talking about this, and it is a quote I heard when I was in high school about 5 years ago.

"Isn't it funny that everyone who is pro-choice happens to NOT be aborted?"

yes the statement is childishly obvious and strangely self-refuting but it makes you think, you were not aborted. Would you really be okay with it, if, when your parents were pregnant with you, had your current decision on pro-choice, tipped them over the edge to abort you?


My thoughts.

 

[Narukari]

Right now my problem with making abortion illegal is that it would make it so that a woman couldn't get an abortion no matter what the situation.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3152746.cms

This is the exact kind of case that I worry about if we decide to make abortion completely illegal in America. If a young girl gets ***** and doesn't tell anybody about it, it will be too late to use a contraceptive once her parents figure it out

http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2006/11/26/nicaragua_abortion_ban_called_a_threat_to_lives/?page=1

This is a good read about what has happened in countries that have banned abortions. Women did not just start going through with their pregnancies, they just went and got back-alley abortions instead. This lead to many more injuries than there would have been if abortions where legal. It also has examples of how women in danger of death from their pregnancy were now allowed to abort either.

http://www.ortl.org/index.php?Itemid=75&id=39&option=com_content&task=view

I like the way that Oregon is handling abortions in their state. There has to be a reasonable excuse to get the abortion, and you have to have two physicians approve of the abortion.


From looking at all the sources above, I can not see how banning all abortion is a reasonable way of handling the situation. Contraceptives are a common form of birth control when previous resumes like condoms fail. These would also be banned since they prevent the fertilized egg from progressing any further in the pregnancy. Banning surgical abortions will only make women have them illegally and dangerously.

I am strongly against abortion because of my beliefs, but I am also against pre-marital sex which is just reinforces my objections against abortions. Yet, there are many situations in which abortions should be allowed such as ****, so I cannot approve of a law that would ban all forms of abortion.

 

[rhan]

I personally am half for and half against abortion (I don't really know). I will state my points on both sides.

Against

1. Sexual intercourse is not a dire necessity. Those who have the irresponsibility and impatience to partake in sexual activities before marriage brought the girl's pregnancy on themselves and the baby should not have to pay for the mother's poor choices.

2. I consider abortion killing (maybe even murder), so since it is already against the law to kill, why should it be okay to kill babies/fetuses/embryos/whatever? There's a word for that... I *think* it's ageism.

3. I may be wrong about this point, and it has been stated by others a couple times anyways, but I have not heard the answer to this question: Could you not put the baby up for adoption?

@3: Adoption would be the best idea for an "unwanted" baby. This way the child has it's chance at life. If the mother didn't want the child or cannot support the child, then the best thing to do would be to give the child to a couple who can't have children or to a family that can support the child. This will hopefully have the child lead a normal and healthy life.

For

1. If the woman was *****, it should be at least a little okay to abort, then. But I think that this should be performed early, as in before the baby can feel pain.

2. Even if the couple was the said couple I mentioned in point one for "Against," it would screw up their lives, so abortion may be all right for this one as well, and will offer the couple a once again normal life.

3. Overpopulation. We should kinda cut down on the birth rate...

@1: That's kinda hard to answer... If the female was ***** and became pregnant then they should (in my opinion) still go with the birth. Then just have the child put up for adoption because murder is just as bad as **** in my book.

If you're personally against the idea of abortion, that's great. Don't get a girl pregnant, or if you do, be able to support her and the baby. All is well.
But to address the people who do want an abortion, I don't think you can stop them from doing it because it doesn't make sense to you personally. They might get depressed? Yeah, that's a bad part of it. But women sometimes get depressed and suicidal even if they do have the baby (postpartum depression).

True, the female may still to go in a deep depression even if they have the baby or not. But which depression do you think would be worse? Having to think about the unborn child you took out of the life or having to think about the child you may not be able to support and keep healthy? If not being able to support the child is the case, adoption is the better choice for the child. This way you bring life to the world and your child may have a better life than what they could have had in an unstable situation.

I know I can't stop anyone from doing anything that doesn't interfere with my life. But just think if your mother had an abortion to your unborn baby sister or brother? Wouldn't that cause you to become depressed even though you're not the one giving up the baby? An abortion can effect more then just the mother. It effects everyone in the life of the mother.

I also think the yellow line in there is a little unfair. Nothing "good" might come out of it, but if the baby isn't being born into a healthy living situation, a lot of bad might come of it. Normally words like "good" and "bad" are used very sparingly in debates!
I tend to agree with the law the way it is now. Abortions ARE legal, but only up to a certain point in the pregnancy. I can't think of a punishment for abortion offenders, that's way out of my league.

It's just my way of viewing it. I know it's not the way everyone else sees it but it's my view on the situation. I believe nothing could come from good can come from an abortion. It's just an act of selfishness.

 

[GwJ]

To directly answer your question, no, it's not "right" to kill "something" before it has it's first breathe of life. However, I don't think that question is an honest one to ask when talking about abortion. What this will come down to is a discussion of when life starts. Some people say at conception. Some people say after one or two trimesters. Other certain ones will say not until the umbilical cord is cut. Lot's of people agree that at early stages of the fetus's development, it is up to the mother if she continues any further with the pregnancy, regardless of age.

Technically, it's been proven that life starts the moment the egg is fertilized byt he sperm. It'd be impossible to abort a child without killing a living organism.

The only way I would approve of a abortion is either

A: The child would be horribly deformed and unable to lead a real life

B: The mother would die during childbirth

If it does not fit either of these catagories than there are plenty of adoption agencies that will take a newborn child in.

This is where the mother's feelings come in? What if the mother didn't feel comfortable giving away what she worked for. Then we'd be in quite a predicament. If the mother IS deformed that still doesn't take away the right to have a child. That all comes down to whether the mother feels comfortable having a child.

Who is to say a deformed child wouldn't prefer life? I would, even deformed.

Not to be overly-conservative (and I'm not) but I just can't agree with the taking of a life. Fertilization leads to life, and no matter which way you think about it, ending a pregnancy prevented a life from being born.

It is of course personal belief intertwined with some theology and the way I was raised, but if I had the wooden mallet and all the powers of congress / executive branch (dictatorship?) I would not allow it.

This is just a debate that will always remain inconclusive. This is like the debate of all debates. You will get the hardcore religious zealots loving all life and the women's rights enthusiasts swearing by the fact that an unwanted pregnancy is the end of that woman's normal life.

For that matter, I believe strongly against abortion.


I have only one thing to say to anyone talking about this, and it is a quote I heard when I was in high school about 5 years ago.

"Isn't it funny that everyone who is pro-choice happens to NOT be aborted?"

yes the statement is childishly obvious and strangely self-refuting but it makes you think, you were not aborted. Would you really be okay with it, if, when your parents were pregnant with you, had your current decision on pro-choice, tipped them over the edge to abort you?


My thoughts.

That's just it. We don't know what an unborn child would want. We don't know if it would want a life of pain and other affects that come with being disabled. We don't know if he would like to live regardless of the circumstances.

Agreed with your second point.

Well, we can't really take 'personal belief' and religion into discussing what should come into law. We need to know if the fetus can actually feel the pain, the state of life it would be in if born, availability of options once born, and things like that.

Agreed about this argument remaining inconclusive. I think I stated that in my first post here.

 

[.Marik]

A discussion such as this will never reach a conclusion...

I'm pro-life. While I respect the mothers decisions to end her unborn childs' life, I can't necessarily say I agree with them.

So, let's say a woman gets brutally *****, and impregnated. Yes, I understand the fact that it may "ruin" her life, but is it the child's fault?

No. It is not. It doesn't deserve to die, no matter what the situation. A mother doesn't have to raise her child, there are plenty of adoption agencies out there. While some of these places are indeed a sad place for children to grow up, at least they have a chance of being successful, happy people with the opportunity to enjoy life.

Either way, I feel that the mother, after being brutally ***** and destroying her fetus, will feel more guilty if she ended its life, then if she gave it the chance to be born, and live a life.

Now, if the mother was somehow going to die during childbirth, (and with modern technology, this is rare) then maybe she'd best consider her options. Mind you, she doesn't need to give birth naturally, there's always the option of C-Sections.

Now, if a mother and father foolishly had sexual intercourse without taking the necessary precautions, then that's their own d*mn fault, not the child's fault. It will teach them a lesson, so that they don't make the same mistake in the future. What if they can't raise it? Oh look, is that an adoption agency I see? Problem solved.

Plus, abortions are expensive, aren't they? What if the mother doesn't have that kind of money? Well, just birth the child and give it up for care, or let a relative take care of it until you're capable of doing so.

Who is to say a deformed child wouldn't prefer life? I would, even deformed.

Not to be overly-conservative (and I'm not) but I just can't agree with the taking of a life. Fertilization leads to life, and no matter which way you think about it, ending a pregnancy prevented a life from being born.

Agreed.

 

[GwJ]

Well, you can't assume that a woman will feel guilty aborting her child. For all we know, she'd feel more guilty having the baby and ruining both of their lives because she can't support it. And plus, when a husband and wife have sex, the condom might break which would be completely accidental. They have all the right to abort it if they don't want it. Again, as I stated before, they can have an adoption. However they might be comfortable giving their child away, but they can't support it. their best bet is to abort it.

Price also shouldn't be a factor in a debate on whether or not it should be legal. I mean, if a few people can't afford it, that wouldn't matter at all in deciding in whether it should be legal. Abortion still will be legal, so we're not debating on making abortion the only option.

 

[Narukari]

I'm pro-life. While I respect the mothers decisions to end her unborn childs' life, I can't necessarily say I agree with them.

This is what the debate is about, should abortion even be a choice that everyone is allowed. If these bills pass, it will never be an option.

So, let's say a woman gets brutally *****, and impregnated. Yes, I understand the fact that it may "ruin" her life, but is it the child's fault?

If you are assuming a fertilized egg is a born child, why does it start there? Why does it not start at the unfertilized egg? It seems that most people don't realize how much goes into making a child both before and after sex.

No. It is not. It doesn't deserve to die, no matter what the situation. A mother doesn't have to raise her child, there are plenty of adoption agencies out there. While some of these places are indeed a sad place for children to grow up, at least they have a chance of being successful, happy people with the opportunity to enjoy life.

How can a clump of cells die? Adoption is always an option, but usually if the problem is financial. The cost of giving birth in a hospital is much more expensive than having an abortion. Sources:

Cost of giving Birth:
http://tinacassidy.blogspot.com/2007/06/cost-of-giving-birth.html

Cost of an abortion:
http://www.fwhc.org/abortion/flyer.htm

From these sources, a first trimester abortion is much cheaper than giving birth, and a second-third trimester abortion could cost little or somewhere around the same as giving birth.

Either way, I feel that the mother, after being brutally ***** and destroying her fetus, will feel more guilty if she ended its life, then if she gave it the chance to be born, and live a life.

So you think when a girl gets pregnant should be decided by others? All someone would have to do is **** a girl and she would have to face all the consequences. And the law would just say "tough luck, you shouldn't have gotten *****".

Now, if the mother was somehow going to die during childbirth, (and with modern technology, this is rare) then maybe she'd best consider her options. Mind you, she doesn't need to give birth naturally, there's always the option of C-Sections.

Not all complications happen during the birth of the child. They can also happen during the second trimester, in which allowing the fetus to grow larger can result in the death of the mother. This is why we shouldn't deal in absolutes. If such a complication were to arise, a doctors hands will be tied since he won't be allowed to abort the fetus. In Oregon, you have to have a major medical problem to abort at second/third trimester with the approval of two doctors.

Now, if a mother and father foolishly had sexual intercourse without taking the necessary precautions, then that's their own d*mn fault, not the child's fault. It will teach them a lesson, so that they don't make the same mistake in the future. What if they can't raise it? Oh look, is that an adoption agency I see? Problem solved.

You want to use childbirth as a form of punishment on people? Even if you take all the necessary precautions they can still fail and result in a fertilized egg. Contraceptives can prevent the egg from progressing further resulting in an early first trimester abortion, but even that can fail. These laws would even make contraceptives illegal, which is a major form of birth control.

Plus, abortions are expensive, aren't they? What if the mother doesn't have that kind of money? Well, just birth the child and give it up for care, or let a relative take care of it until you're capable of doing so.

It is? Where are you getting that info from? If you take a look at my sources above, giving birth costs about $8,000, where a first trimester abortion costs around $500-$1000.

-------------------------------------------

It seems the discussion is turning too much towards whether people support abortion or not. The question is whether it should be illegal or not.

I don't believe that saying that the fertilized egg being aborted is going to kill a future child. Every single sperm/egg could become a future child, but if you don't have sex then you also kill a future child.

Also, contraceptives prevent a fertilized egg from being born. If you ban all abortion, that gets rid of one of the biggest forms of birth control people use. Which will result in higher teen mothers.

 

[Vorguen]

That's true. We should definitely start killing unborn babies to help out the economy. I mean, we ARE in a recession.

Some of these arguments really make me cringe, lol.

 

[M.K]

I believe that abortion should be the last resort when it comes to unwanted pregnancies. There are options besides abortion, such as adoption, that are suitable without being so controversial.
However, there are many, many, many reasons for abortion. For as many cases where women just don't WANT the baby there are other cases such as **** and child molestation that cause unwanted pregnancy NOT at the discretion of the woman. For this reason, I believe abortion should be legal, because desperate women will want an abortion whether it is legal or not.
Think about a psychopathic murderer. Will this person stop killing just because murder is a felony charge?
They have their mind set on something, and that is what they are going to get.

Here is a case in which abortion is being used irresponsibly:

In Australia, abortion has recently been deemed legal due to a huge controversy. After a certain number of weeks carrying a child, a woman is paid money if she loses her baby. This has caused many teenagers and young woman to abuse the system and purposely undergo illegal abortions in order to receive the money.
Their intentions were never to have and raise a child, but to get the money.

I guess I lie in a "gray area" when it comes to legal or illegal abortion, although I lean more towards the legal side. Making abortion illegal would just cause more stress and strain on women who wish to abort for personal reasons, and would clog the judicial courts with countless cases of illegal abortion.

 

[Vorguen]

Less than 1% of abortion cases are **** cases. If that was the case we would have hardly a problem to talk about with abortion.

 

[DFat2]

You could honestly allow abortion, but with good reason. If a woman could die from child birth, I can see why it would be a good reason. Abortion doesn't affect our lives directly, why should we get in the way of a potential-mother's wishes? They have their own reasons we couldn't understand. The fetus is not even capable of deep-thought, and probably isn't even aware of its own existence.

I've always been worried about how the mothers would feel. If they can't afford to keep the baby, why do you insist on forcing them to take care of it? They might very well be forced to place their baby in an orphanage where it'll never truly be happy. A boy or girl could have their own health problems. There's just too many variables, abortion is a touchy subject, and is just a matter of ethics. From what I've been taught, it's the mother's decision.

I can understand where your coming from. Since most of us will never be mothers, we can't honestly say how it feels to have this decision brought upon us.

Now, if I put it this way:

Do you think that person is suited to think if the Baby should be allowed to be born, grow and live a good/bad life?

Abortion, basically gives the mother the chance to dictate on her child's existence. With abortion, the mother judges whether the baby will be allowed to exist in this world, or deny it.

Ask yourself, what if My Mom would have aborted?

You don't know how lucky you are to be you. What if a Pregnant Teen that doesn't know what to do after having a hot night with her boyfriend Kills the Next Albert Einstein? Or if a mother struggling with a Job and a bad Husband Kill's the Next Bill Gates?

I understand that, in some cases, abortion is better due to living conditions and/or health Problems; but the only way I could be convinced is that the "Activity" isn't consensual. If it was your decision to participate, you obviously knew the Risks of not being protected and knew the probabilities of getting pregnant. If you know you are living in a bad condition for a Child to be conceived, you should have been abstinent or you should have used protection.

In cases of ****, there are **** Kit's and such. And if it's too late for a **** Kit, I would think of the option for abortion. But denying some one the opportunity to live and lead a good/bad life isn't up to a Human being to decide. It could be looked at as murder. Not because you Kill some one, but because you take their chance of Life.

Imagine some one very close to you. Now Imagine that person never existing. Now, do you still think abortion is Ok?

 

[Narukari]

Killing unborn babies to help the economy? I was not implying that. I was just refuting what MarikYoshi said that abortions are more expensive than giving birth.

Less than 1% of abortion cases are **** cases. If that was the case we would have hardly a problem to talk about with abortion.

Pro-Life activists want all abortion to be banned. Not just people who want to get rid of a baby. They want **** victims and protection failures to be forced into a pregnancy. They don't even want contraceptives to be used.

I also do not approve of surgical abortion to get rid of an unwanted baby. I do approve of abortions for medical reasons and the usage of contraceptives, but it is not up to me to decide where the line is drawn for everybody in America. Personal beliefs should not go into forming laws.

Preventing a future life from coming into existence is not killing. If that were the case then every time a woman went through her period she would have killed a future child.

 

[shlike]

First and foremost I believe that abortion is morally wrong, however I also believe that is unconstitutional to tell a woman what to do with her body. I find it hard to believe that someone could actually be pro abortion (aka the killing a fetus), they are actually representing their right to choose as protected by the constitution (right to privacy). Abortion will never become illegal the supreme court already decided this in Roe V Wade and whenever it comes to further discussion on the issue they just plead stare decisis (the decsision stands). Abortion is something that this country will always disagree on, the only thing we could really do is support and educate women (and men) to be more careful when having sex and to better understand the consequences.

 

[Vorguen]

First and foremost I believe that abortion is morally wrong, however I also believe that is unconstitutional to tell a woman what to do with her body. I find it hard to believe that someone could actually be pro abortion (aka the killing a fetus), they are actually representing their right to choose as protected by the constitution (right to privacy). Abortion will never become illegal the supreme court already decided this in Roe V Wade and whenever it comes to further discussion on the issue they just plead stare decisis (the decsision stands). Abortion is something that this country will always disagree on, the only thing we could really do is support and educate women (and men) to be more careful when having sex and to better understand the consequences.

This is something that I have thought about many times. The only thing is that the unborn baby is not considered a citizen of the United States yet. That is where I don't agree with the government.

 

[Narukari]

Why should a fertilized egg be considered a us citizen whereas an unfertilized egg should not?

 

[Vorguen]

Then I guess the millions of sperm cells in my body are all US citizens. Seriously, that makes no sense.

 

[Narukari]

That is the point I'm trying to make, a clump of cells being considered a US citizen doesn't make sence. There is nothing magical about the sperm penetrating the egg. It's just a sperm and an egg together.

 

[Vorguen]

That is where everyone's personal beliefs come into play. In my eyes, that fertilized egg = a human being. Like I said before, no matter which way you look at it even if you abort just a zygote, you are preventing a human being from living.

 

[.Marik]

Ignore double post.

 

[.Marik]

Well, you can't assume that a woman will feel guilty aborting her child. For all we know, she'd feel more guilty having the baby and ruining both of their lives because she can't support it. And plus, when a husband and wife have sex, the condom might break which would be completely accidental. They have all the right to abort it if they don't want it. Again, as I stated before, they can have an adoption. However they might be comfortable giving their child away, but they can't support it. their best bet is to abort it.

I think the mother would feel more guilty if she just aborted her baby, then if she gave it a chance. I can't say for sure, but I'll just say that's what the majority of women may think. Maybe.

I understand the fact that a condom(s) may break. Depending on the situation, she may or may not have an abortion. I think a foster home or something of the sort, would be a better option than abortion.

Stuff.

You seem to ignore the fact that after a week, it's considered a living thing. It IS a living thing. It's no longer "just a bunch of cells".

Less than 1% of abortion cases are **** cases. If that was the case we would have hardly a problem to talk about with abortion.

We don't really have a problem if this is the case.

That is the point I'm trying to make, a clump of cells being considered a US citizen doesn't make sence. There is nothing magical about the sperm penetrating the egg. It's just a sperm and an egg together.

Again, after a week, it's a fetus. A living thing.

And I'm going to get to the point. Even though I disagree with the notion of abortion, it'll be unconstitutional to forbid it. So, it's up to the woman, but if she keeps getting knocked up and impregnated, and keeps on having abortions... then that's when said female has crossed the line. That's just simply irresponsible.

There are too many variables to warrant a law disallowing abortion.

 

[Vorguen]

Did you hear about the girl in a university who for I believe was an art project artificially inseminated herself and aborted herself many times? With abortion being legal, you give rise to disgusting stuff like this can happen. Let me look for the article and I'll edit this and post it.

Art major Aliza Shvarts '08 wants to make a statement.

Beginning next Tuesday, Shvarts will be displaying her senior art project, a documentation of a nine-month process during which she artificially inseminated herself "as often as possible" while periodically taking abortifacient drugs to induce miscarriages. Her exhibition will feature video recordings of these forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process....

tudents on both ends of the abortion debate have expressed shock - saying the project does everything from violate moral code to trivialize abortion....

Shvarts... said she was not concerned about any medical effects the forced miscarriages may have had on her body. The abortifacient drugs she took were legal and herbal, she said, and she did not feel the need to consult a doctor about her repeated miscarriages....


The display of Schvarts' project will feature a large cube suspended from the ceiling of a room in the gallery of Green Hall. Schvarts will wrap hundreds of feet of plastic sheeting around this cube; lined between layers of the sheeting will be the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline in order to prevent the blood from drying and to extend the blood throughout the plastic sheeting.
Schvarts will then project recorded videos onto the four sides of the cube. These videos, captured on a VHS camcorder, will show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub, she said. Similar videos will be projected onto the walls of the room....

Alice Buttrick '10, an officer of RALY [Reproductive Rights Action League of Yale], said the group was in no way involved with the art exhibition and had no official opinion on the matter.


Why not? If abortion is a constitutional right, the more the better, I would think. I would also think RALY would rally around this magnificent display of that which they so enthusiastically support.

I do worry about the consequences of these repeated abortions on Shvarts' body. Then again, if abortion is completely safe, quick and multiple repeats shouldn't matter.

BTW, these weren't "induced miscarriages" or "forced miscarriages," as the article described. I don't know why proponents have such a hard time with the word ABORTION.

And those won't be "self-induced miscarriages" wrapped in Saran wrap and suspended from the ceiling. They will be Shvarts' very small, very young, dead preborn children. Nor will the videos display Schvarts "experiencing miscarriages in her bathrooom tub." They will display Schvarts ABORTING herself.

The afore-described work of art will unfortunately not be available for viewing until April 22. Meanwhile, here is another example of Shvarts' work from 2007, entitled, Disarticulation:

The article can be found here:

http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/04/yale_induced_ab.html

 

[Narukari]

When I refer to the unfertilized egg vs fertilized egg. I'm debating the usage of contraceptives to abort the fertilized egg before it has the chance to attach to the wall of the uterus.

I'm finding it hard to show that I agree with most of you on the fact that a surgical abortion is an immoral way of getting rid of an unwanted baby. I just think there are too many reasons to have an abortion to make such a blanket law that states that all abortion is illegal.

Even if only 1% of abortion cases were because of **** and complications, I believe that is enough people to avoid a law that would just tell them "tough luck".

edit: There will always be disgusting things in life. You can't just make everything that makes you cringe illegal. Almost everything would end up illegal.

 

[SOVAman]

I think it should be the woman's discussion. Whether you agree it is right or wrong it is her body and her unborn child. If a woman was to get ***** and got pregnant then she most likely won't want to have that baby. It should be the woman's choice if she wants the baby or wants to terminate the pregnancy either way it should not be up to anybody else to decide. This argument will go on forever because there are a lot of supporters for both side of the argument. I believe it should be the woman's choice to get an abortion an end an unborn life. Expectantly if she is a **** victim or a teenager because it will most likely make the mothers life worse. Because a teenage girl would most likely not be able to keep up with school and may drop out.

 

[.Marik]

When I refer to the unfertilized egg vs fertilized egg. I'm debating the usage of contraceptives to abort the fertilized egg before it has the chance to attach to the wall of the uterus.

I believe for that to work, it must be taken within... 48-72 hours? But I do see where you're coming from.

And Vorguen, a linked article would be worth reading. I'll let you find that.

*Edit* The pills, I mean.

 

[Vorguen]

When I refer to the unfertilized egg vs fertilized egg. I'm debating the usage of contraceptives to abort the fertilized egg before it has the chance to attach to the wall of the uterus.

I'm finding it hard to show that I agree with most of you on the fact that a surgical abortion is an immoral way of getting rid of an unwanted baby. I just think there are too many reasons to have an abortion to make such a blanket law that states that all abortion is illegal.

Even if only 1% of abortion cases were because of **** and complications, I believe that is enough people to avoid a law that would just tell them "tough luck".

edit: There will always be disgusting things in life. You can't just make everything that makes you cringe illegal. Almost everything would end up illegal.

Alright even if that is the case, there could easily be a law enacted that would allow women who have sufficient proof that they were ***** to have an abortion.

 

[Narukari]

Yea, the pill thing is what I disagree with most in the abortion ban. It would be similar to banning the use of a condom because it prevents the sperm from having a chance at fertilizing the egg.

Alright even if that is the case, there could easily be a law enacted that would allow women who have sufficient proof that they were ***** to have an abortion.

That is how the law currently is (at least in Oregon). Banning abortion altogether is way beyond that.

 

[Vorguen]

I have the linked article up already, scroll up and you guys can read it. It's seriously depressing.

 

[Narukari]

While I in no way think what she is doing is appropriate in any way. I think it has been blown all out of proportion.

From what I have read, all she is doing is taking the pill. As I've said before this form of abortion just prevents the fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus wall. The blood they are talking about is just from a normal period. There won't be a half formed fetus coming out of her. I don't see why everyone thinks that an abortion only happens after 10+ weeks after pregnancy. Any woman who uses the pill as a form of birth control is doing exactly what the artist was doing. The artist is just displaying it publicly.

 

[.Marik]

While I in no way think what she is doing is appropriate in any way. I think it has been blown all out of proportion.

Any woman who uses the pill as a form of birth control is doing exactly what the artist was doing. The artist is just displaying it publicly.

It has been blown out of proportion. Definetly.

The difference is, that this woman is abusing it. And she seems to... gloat about it.

I have the feeling not many people at her University like her anymore. And you can't really blame them, eh?

 

[DFat2]

The Topic of Abortion is a very controversial one since there are obviously different/strong points of view.

And in any case, in a situation that involves the Law from banning something, they have to do all their researches and studies equally from both points of view. So, they must have realized all the good results of an abortion, as well as the bad ones.

If you and me disagree on something, and a teacher has to come up to us and say that what I say is wright and you can't do what you say or you'll do time out, it gives you the feeling that it's not fair because you got taken from you the right to do what you want. You probably think that if you had gotten another teacher, you could still do what you wanted to do.

When I refer to the unfertilized egg vs fertilized egg. I'm debating the usage of contraceptives to abort the fertilized egg before it has the chance to attach to the wall of the uterus.

I'm finding it hard to show that I agree with most of you on the fact that a surgical abortion is an immoral way of getting rid of an unwanted baby. I just think there are too many reasons to have an abortion to make such a blanket law that states that all abortion is illegal.

Even if only 1% of abortion cases were because of **** and complications, I believe that is enough people to avoid a law that would just tell them "tough luck".

edit: There will always be disgusting things in life. You can't just make everything that makes you cringe illegal. Almost everything would end up illegal.

^^This can be basically used to resume the question.

If you make it illegal, you completely take away the possibility of the abort, not making it an option.

-"I've been ***** and I need to abort"
-"Tough noogies, you can't. Be happy with your product of **** :D"

Which would be the result of making abortion Illegal. Even though you might think it's wrong and unmoral, you have to accept that it's still an option.

 

[M.K]

The Topic of Abortion is a very controversial one since there are obviously different/strong points of view.

And in any case, in a situation that involves the Law from banning something, they have to do all their researches and studies equally from both points of view. So, they must have realized all the good results of an abortion, as well as the bad ones.

If you and me disagree on something, and a teacher has to come up to us and say that what I say is wright and you can't do what you say or you'll do time out, it gives you the feeling that it's not fair because you got taken from you the right to do what you want. You probably think that if you had gotten another teacher, you could still do what you wanted to do.



^^This can be basically used to resume the question.

If you make it illegal, you completely take away the possibility of the abort, not making it an option.

-"I've been ***** and I need to abort"
-"Tough noogies, you can't. Be happy with your product of **** :D"

Which would be the result of making abortion Illegal. Even though you might think it's wrong and unmoral, you have to accept that it's still an option.

Yes, I agree that an "option" to abort is best in this case. However, it all depends on the moral values of the woman, and that is something that the law can not change.

If 50 women have abortions when it is legal, then 50 babies are never born.

If 50 women have abortions when it is legal, then 50 babies are never born, and those 50 women will have to endure a trial in court, adding more stress to a woman.

If I may ask, of what "medium" of abortion are we talking here? Surely there are **** and child molestation, but what about women who just don't want babies, or teen pregnancy? Surely one of these "causes" for abortion is most prevalent?