Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[monolith94]

Zylka, what does it matter if a fetus feels pain as a metal rod goes through it??? I mean, it's not like it can sue you, can it???

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
...because you can't prove a point on it and therefore dismiss it as "lowly"? C'mon Spiffy, you're better than that

There is no point to be proven about whether it is ethical or not to destroy an embryo. To some, it is an individual with all individual rights. To others, it is some goo that has no say on its fate in its current state. This debate has nothing scientific in it, and is purely moralistic.
This issue is the strong point of the anti-choice camp. The pro-choice can not argue that an embryo is a human being in the making. Whether it is an individual already or not, however, is a mindless and issueless debate.
If the limit was one week, all the anti-choice would still be saying that abortion kills babies. Heck, the anti-choice crowd considers the monocellular organism to be a full fledged individual. The 'time limit' issue is an utter non issue.

BTW, a small note: most abortions are dealt quickly, i.e as soon as the pregnancy has been identified and the paperjob has been handled. The 3 months limit is more a technicality than an ethical statement, since in some cases, this identification and paperwork may require time. Some other times, the mother may want to keep it at first, before changing her opinion a few weeks later, for various reasons.


For the sake of convenience, and for the sake of avoiding this pointlessness, I blindly agree with the limit fixed by the law. For now, it is 3 months. Very well. I'd accept it as blindly if it was 2 months or 4. This law is a convenient measurement to me.

A-D-O-P-T-I-O-N

Adoption would look like a beautiful thing to do, and I personally wish it'd be more developed in France. I am no fan of abortion in itself, because I know it does loads of psychological damage to women. I personally try hard, so that my girlfriend never has to go through abortion.
However, adoption should not be the only answer, because I highly doubt there is nearly as much demand for adopted children than there is supply of unwanted children (if you forbid abortion).
More than that, an unwanted pregnancy can result in disastrous results for your life even if you don't have to raise the kids afterwards (assuming the abortion system is perfect and takes your kid right after birth). An unwanted pregnancy can ruin your studies if they are at a high level, it can ruin your carreer and send you on the streets, it can ruin the relationship of your life etc.
All these elements may have deep consequences for the rest of your life. To avoid them, abortion [b]must[b] be legal and kickin'.

Right, just as I would be equally indignant for making an "accidental" bank robbery in which I "accidentally" shoot a teller in the spine. Even if I fully and sincerely regret my actions down the road - I'd better damn well pay for the mistakes, with the rest of my life! THINK

Completely irrelevant comparison. 'Accidental' pregnancies happen either when there is a technical incident like when the girl forgets to take the pill this night, when the condom is defect, or when the guy swears to stop ****ging before the ejaculation (a long time favorite of unwanted pregnancies).

Accidental pregnancies can also happen when the girls are led to trust a guy who doesn't care a **** about her. Many teenage girls are misled this way, and the guy disappears as soon as he hears the word 'pregnant'. Too many teenage girls, still learning about love, do nnot expect such cowardice from their studs, and end up being pregnant of an absent father. Yeah, sure, forbid abortion, and further punish the weak for having been cheated "We have to protect the strong from the weak" I guess

There are also teenage girls who simply do not expect to turn pregnant. I know it sounds stupid, but in some backwards areas, girls aren't taught about sex at all, which leads them unaware of the consequences of sex. I guess they should take responsibility as well ?

Lastly, there are the many cases of limited control for the girls. I'm especially thinking about the alcohol influence, or promiscuity. A girl who gets drunk, knowing she's likely to have flirt, may sometimes not control that her lover isn't using a condom or the like. This is the only kind of circumstances in which we could imagine the girls are 'faulting' and should bear consequences for their 'wrong' (i.e not preventing pregnancy despite looking for sex).

To be short, an unwanted pregnancy is almost never the fault of the woman, except when she is willfully looking for promiscuity sex without protecting herself. Most unwanted pregnancies come either from technical accidents, from men's cowardice, or from a life accident (when the wanted pregnancy suddenly becomes unwanted because of some event).

Women sure should suffer their whole life because of that :Puke:

[Imran Siddiqui]

I blindly agree with the limit fixed by the law. For now, it is 3 months. Very well. I'd accept it as blindly if it was 2 months or 4.

(puts on Devil's advocate horns)

What about places where the law is different, such as the US, where you can have abortion up to the time of birth?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
What about places where the law is different, such as the US, where you can have abortion up to the time of birth?

I thought late abortions were only allowed for medical reasons ?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Nope, you can have an abortion up to birth time. Even though Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, and Stenberg v. Carhart (sp?) allow for a ban on 3rd trimester abortions no state has come up with the Constitutionally sufficient ban yet (though one state will sooner or later).

[Spiffor]

Well, I have no problem with that. However, I admit this can fuel the anti-choice bigotry, and it could get some reforms for this reason.

[Sava]

oh BTW, ADOPTION, isn't an option if the pregnancy is high risk (i.e. the mother could die)...

[Mordoch]

Originally posted by Sn00py
That's kind of silly, you somehow have a soul when you first breath.


I find it typical that people would argue when is a baby a baby and not argue that killing anything for no good reason is justifiable.

On the contrary, I would consider killing a fetus similar to killing a comperable animal. I would suggest that people have a good reason for having an abortion after the first week or so after conception, and would not suggest people do it for the heck of it. Just as I believe people should have a good reason for killing an animal, I believe they should do the same for an abortion. Just as I accept as a valid reason killing animals for food, I accept the reason that it was an unwanted pregnancy and the mother is not ready to care for a child. (Just to clarify here, I'm not endorsing cannibalism.)

On the first point, its no more silly than some people placing the value of a human embryo immediately after conception higher than the life of an adult Dolphin or Chimpanzee. In spite of the fact that the embryo is barely more sophisticated than an amoeba, the emphesis is placed on the fetus even initially.

[orange]

but can it live on its own? No. Until it can, it is a parasite. Good day.

[Rex Little]

Originally posted by Zylka


You talk as if the child is some impending PROBLEM that is at fault for burdening the mother! Was it the child's choice to be conceived? NO - SHE was the one spreading her legs!

...and don't even bother with the case of rape, as that is a minority exception meant to be tackled AFTER the vast majority issue.

Fault has nothing to do with it. Regardless of how or why the fetus got into the mother's body, it doesn't have the right to stay there unless she agrees to keep it there.

[Victor Galis]

I think the baby is not a human until it can survive outside the womb (without some sort of special support machine).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sava
oh BTW, ADOPTION, isn't an option if the pregnancy is high risk (i.e. the mother could die)...

Yeah but don't you agree that it would be nice if a larger fraction of those who abort would instead consider adoption? It seems so perverse having all these couples desperate to adopt a healthy infant and to have millions of abortions taking place next to a small trickle of infants offered up for adoption.

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Sava
My mother had an abortion. She doesn't regret it one bit. My parents were at a time in their lives when they couldn't afford to give a child a good life. Abortion is a decision that should be between a mother, father, and doctor... or mother and doctor in the case of rape, incest, dead-beat dad, etc... NOT the government.

It's not as if I said that every mother regrets her abortion

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Sava
Jack... there are hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of kids already awaiting adoption. If there were no abortion, there would be 40 million more unwanted children. It's humane to end the life before birth rather than to put children in some failing institution.

In history there have been millions of 'unwanted' babies.
Why should they be putted in 'failing institutions'?
In fact they'll just be raised by their parents like all kids are, and 98% of these children will be loved.

In fact most of these babies would probably not even be 'unwanted' if the parents didn't knew there was an option of abortion.

[Robert Plomp]

Originally posted by Spiffor

This highly depends of the circumstances. Some mothers may be able to overcome the difficulties that come with an unwanted baby, and some others do not.
There are mothers of unwanted kids who treat them like ****, as a form of petty revenge towards the father; I hardly call these often violent mothers "loving".
There are mothers who cannot raise their kids/give them love because they have to work too much to have both ends meet. Yes, giving love to a child is work and takes time, although many people seem to think loving a kid is enough. Abstract love is not enough, the kid must recieve real manifestations of this love (as mundane as changing the diapers, or as great as spending a few hours raising its morale after a personal failure) etc. Too many mothers are not in the material situation to satisfy this need.

I agree things can go sour with wanted babies too. But that's no reason not to give a choice to the mother.

Thus, because of the lazyness of the parents the child should be murdered?
Pherhaps you're talking about the very very very very few situations in which the mother is insane or whatever.

But you're for sure not talking about let's say 99,5% of the current abortions.

[Spiffor]

you're for sure not talking about let's say 99,5% of the current abortions.

Well, all abortions I've personnaly heard of were performed because the mother could not afford, in terms of time, money, and relationships, to raise a baby. This is what made the pregnancy unwanted.
I admit I don't know every aborting woman on Earth, but I highly doubt that only 0.5% of total abortions are related to the assessed inability of the mother to provide love to her kid.


Edit : oh I see, you are talking about the 0.5% kids that won't be loved...
First, less than 99.5% of unwanted children will be loved like you enjoy to believe. If its existance has enough consequences over the life of the mother (or the parents), it may very well become the scapegoat of the family, with potential terrible trouble with more timely siblings. I however admit that a vast majority (but I'd rather think of 70%) of unwanted children will still be loved by their parents.

But whether they'll feel this love on a daily basis is another matter entirely. If the mother is alone and has to take a second job to make both ends meet, this will be a situation where she cannot give love satisfyingly for her kids (this can also lwer the attachment to the kid in early years, when you have good reason to hate them when they wake you up at night).

MANY unwanted pregnancies are due to the fact the father is abandoning the pregnant mother, who has then to adapt her lifestyle to being a lone income bringer, and who'll have to adapt to an extra person to feed. This is a big change, especially when you are pregnant and physically cannot spend too much effort for it. If you have a stable situation with a house on your own, a stable and satisfying income etc., fine. But if you don't and are forced to take a bigger housing that what you'd need alone because of your pregnancy, well, things can be difficult...

I don't know on what personal experience you base your allegations about abortion. Maybe the women you know to have aborted were living a stable life and only feared an untimely kid would disrupt their carreer plan. Maybe the women you know to have coped with the unwanted pregnancy resumed a stable relationship shortly after the birth. Maybe the women who coped with the unwanted pregnancy managed to overcome the material difficulties they encountered, good for them.
But I don't think you base your experience on a sample similar to mine. The aborting mothers I know of did so because they :
- had an unstable sentimental life. They didn't want to give birth in this unstable climate
- were studying and would have their whole studies (and hence their whole professional life) ruined because of the pregnancy in itself, and the kid later.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CyberShy
In fact most of these babies would probably not even be 'unwanted' if the parents didn't knew there was an option of abortion.

Yes. God forbid the parents go abroad to abort, or that they resort to back alley crooks and butchers to perform an unhealthy and dangerous abortion. God forbid the parents of unwanted children kill the infant after birth. God forbid the parents to blame all their mishaps to the kid and make its life a hell. God forbid the too young mother isn't mature enough to raise her kids satisfyingly.

Mankind has never seen such a thing, ever !

[Zylka]

In the end, murder doesn't justify any of that criteria. This is the roadblock you'll unfortunately never get around

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
In the end, murder doesn't justify any of that criteria. This is the roadblock you'll unfortunately never get around

There is a roadblock only in your mind. This imaginary roadblock is to consider the destruction of a foetus as "murder". This imaginary roadblock doesn't exist in my mind, and I have no problem with my position.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Spiffor

There is a roadblock only in your mind. This imaginary roadblock is to consider the destruction of a foetus as "murder". This imaginary roadblock doesn't exist in my mind, and I have no problem with my position.

To which I fairly ask - WHY does this roadblock not exist in your mind? WHY is a human foetus not human - please define for me

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
To which I fairly ask - WHY does this roadblock not exist in your mind? WHY is a human foetus not human - please define for me

And like I said before this question is pointless, so I do not bother with it, and shamelessly use the law as definition of when it is possible to destroy a foetus or not.

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Spiffor

And like I said before this question is pointless, so I do not bother with it, and shamelessly use the law as definition of when it is possible to destroy a foetus or not.

The question is seemingly pointless because you CAN'T answer it - unless you can explain otherwise. Yet you just blindly accept the arbitrary law without ANY personal justification? Do you do this with all aspects of society?

Rather apathetic, at best.

[Atahualpa]

Zylka chill!

A fetus belongs to the mothers body and the mother can decide on what to do with it.
And because I think you too have a point, I believe a timeframe of 3 months is very well okay.

Why are you ravaging about this stupid black and white topic anyway? This topic is gray, there is wrong and right, do's and dont's and lots of things to consider and they are very close together. Its not easy to draw a line here and I dont think you will find anything better than the current situation.
Not allowing abortion is just soooo easy to say when you dont think of all the consequences.
Just look at Ireland, those girls are flying to the UK to do abortion.

ata

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Zylka
The question is seemingly pointless because you CAN'T answer it - unless you can explain otherwise.

Let me explain otherwise then.
The question on whether an embryo is a human being or not (or more importantly, profits from human rights or not) is the only point raised by the anti-choice camp. It has consistently been the anti-choice mantra ever since abortion became an issue.
You crowd pretends to scientifically argue that an embryo is a human being. It then derives that an embryo is a full fledged human being whose temrination is murder. The shift from one position to another is more than a stretch.

The anti-choice camp then uses this conviction (that embryoes are babies) to shout "murderers" at aborting women . They treat pro-choicers as baby killers, and use this weakness that nobody wants to be depicted as a baby killer.

As a defense to these insults, the pro-choicers have two equally pointless strategies:
- They argue embryoes aren't human yet. This is mostly nonsense. Even my skin cells are human.
- They argue that embryoes do not profit from individual rights yet. This is a much better argument, but as you can see, a debate about this with anti-choicers will become utterly pointless:
Antichoicer: "You're a baby murderer !"
Prochoicer: "I'm not, embryoes don't profit from individual rights !"
Antichoicer: "Don't try to justify yourself, you're a baby murderer !"
Prochoicer: "This is not justification but truth. Embryoes don't profit from individual rights !"
and so on, and so on.

As you can see such a debate can not progress in any direction. Both camps will find excuses to back their arguments, despite them being weaved out of hot air.

Lastly, this is an argument which has no relevance to abortion. Abortion is about relieving women of an unfair burden.

It is about women not having to get the consequences of accidents or assholish/coward lovers. The antichoicers always try to shift the focus from the (real) suffering of the mother and of the born kid to the (alleged and unprovable) suffering of the embryo, holier-than-thou principles like sanctity of life, etc.

The antichoicer crowd doesn't care at all about women. Pregnant women are invariably considered as 'faulty' for their pregnancy, and should now 'bear the consequences of their actions'. The antichoicers deliberately ignore the very many reasons as to why a girl could accidently become pregnant, without her being responsible for anything (my personal favourite is when girls trust that their lover will stop ****ging before ejaculation - how many million unwanted pregnancies have been caused by this lie ?)

Most antichoicers will be more tolerant towards post-rape pregnancies, but that's only because we don't considered raped women to be responsible for what happened to them anymore (it sure wasn't like that 50 years ago). The antichoicers however still don't ackn owledge that in many occurences of consensual sex, the girl doesn't get to decide if she actually recieves sperm or not.
I guess the little slut should have abstained instead of making love to the man she loves

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Atahualpa
Its not easy to draw a line here

That's precisely why I am using the law as a frame of reference. Since the line is difficult (very difficul) to draw, I prefer to use the one that's already drawn.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

That's precisely why I am using the law as a frame of reference. Since the line is difficult (very difficul) to draw, I prefer to use the one that's already drawn.

that may be convenient but have u thot about it much? its a pretty silly thing to say, "the line should be where it is cuz thats where it is."

[Atahualpa]

yavoon:

I said the line should be where it is, because nobody came up with a better one
And I guess thats what Spiffor meant too.

ata

[Robert Plomp]

Rex Little: Even if we agree that a fetus is a human being with full human rights, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent.

That's insane!
Every woman knows that if she has s.e.x. with a man without protection and without using the morning after pil, she runs the risk of getting pregnant.

It's not as if the baby came in here out of nothing!
It's because of what the mother did!
She is responsible for her own actions.

I'm pro-choise!
A woman can chose to not have s.e.x.
A woman can chose to use anti-conception
A woman can chose to use the morning after pill.

If she refused to chose, she should take her responsibilities.
It's not like "I can live the fun life I want, and if something happens as a result of my fun I'll just kill it"

[Robert Plomp]

It's not a child. It's not a human being (as per my definition of being - a sentient form of life). It's a human fetus.

Of course it's a human being. It's a developping human being. Like a 2 weeks old baby is a developping human being.

There's not much difference between a 3 months old unborn baby and a 3 months born baby besides the size.

By aborting a baby you take every possibility for the child to become a man or a woman.

What you say is in fact the same as if you remove someones eyes and claim he can't see.

[Robert Plomp]

one Rabbi argues that it is permissible because the baby has no soul until it draws its first breath.

I can't believe any jewish rabbi said that.
In the psalms King David says he was created and formed in his mother by God. And He was loved by God.

There is more in the Bible, but only that should be enough to claim that the Jewish faith believes that an unborn baby has a soul.