Abortion - An age old issue

Women have the natural and God-given role of motherhood. The idea that whether or not a child is allowed to live is a "choice" that a woman can make based on how much it hurts is pure, utter tripe spawned from minds less developed than those of the children targeted by the anti-life movement.
 
Rape/Incest: The circumstances of one's conception or who one's parents are doesn't change the value of a life.

As for danger to the mother's life, that would have to be decided on a case to case basis but I suppose the mother's life should be prioritized.
I agree on the rape issue, but not so much on incest, however, it all depends on a lot of variables. Another question, again not trying to be rude, just curious; what about mothers who find out that their child will be born with problems? Either ones that will kill them days after they are born or ones where they are born mentally retarded or any sort of case like that?
 
what about mothers who find out that their child will be born with problems? Either ones that will kill them days after they are born or ones where they are born mentally retarded or any sort of case like that?
It's better to try and hope for the unlikely miracles than to give up entirely in cases as far as life-threatening defects go. As far as retardation goes, what is your cut-off? At what point do you decide that "this child is too below our standards in terms of mental capacity, so it's best that he not even exist"?

I am not bringing this up in an attempt to draw parallels between abortionists and Nazi eugenicists, but the use of such problems as an argument for abortion has always troubled me.
 
I would agree with you up to a point, but let's be real here: the horrors, particularly in terms of domestic abuse that that could result in, are almost uncountable. The best we can do is give the father their own sort of abortion-equivalent and allow them to walk away. While there is a chance that shitty kids will demand the right to "know their father" and this is a fate the mother could escape, it is the best we can do.
I think that the rape exemption would also apply to domestic abuse too
hormone-induced psychological alterations
If these are only temporary then I would still say they are not enough but if it is permanent then I would say otherwise.

I am mostly supportive of this to prevent women from getting abortions in order to get a thrill out of power over life and death or getting abortions in order to spite their exes possibly whom they left because they found a man they like better.
 
I agree on the rape issue, but not so much on incest, however, it all depends on a lot of variables. Another question, again not trying to be rude, just curious; what about mothers who find out that their child will be born with problems? Either ones that will kill them days after they are born or ones where they are born mentally retarded or any sort of case like that?
Speds deserve a chance at life too.

http://www.today.com/parents/we-love-hes-here-baby-missing-part-brain-thrives-despite-t47966
Hell, this baby hardly has a brain and he is, and should be, alive.
 
It's better to try and hope for the unlikely miracles than to give up entirely in cases as far as life-threatening defects go. As far as retardation goes, what is your cut-off? At what point do you decide that "this child is too below our standards in terms of mental capacity, so it's best that he not even exist"?

I am not bringing this up in an attempt to draw parallels between abortionists and Nazi eugenicists, but the use of such problems as an argument for abortion has always troubled me.
I can somewhat agree, but I also think it's really horrible to have your baby born and then have to watch it die, but you're right, miracles happen, and my opinion on that part is pretty much the same as yours. I'm really for abortion, but there are some things that I don't think permit an abortion. If that makes sense. As for retardation, I understand what you're saying, and it is troubling. I think as long as you are coherent, you can actually live a life, even if you can't live one on your own, and etc, you have every right to live. Though, say in my Aunt's case, where her son will act like a 1-month old until he dies at age 20 (he's 18 now), I think that's a cruel way to live for him and for her (he wasn't born that way in this case, but this is saying if he was), I think maybe the termination of a pregnancy would be better for both parties. Of course, who knows, things happen and maybe a child like that could retain some semblance. If the choice were up to me, I would probably terminate the pregnancy.
 
I think that the rape exemption would also apply to domestic abuse too

Please, excuse me, but I think you might have missed what I am saying. Pregnancy is a tool often used by the abusive to control the other party. This is not uncommon, and would be putting a lot of power in their hands. Think carefully before allowing men this power, because it is giving us the "thrill" of "power over life and death" just as much as it is the woman. In a sense, it might be giving us unfair power over two lives. Remember: by vetoing her right to that abortion, you decide her fate and the fate of the child. Potentially her life. You might say that medical complications would bar a man from this power, but not all such complications are predictable.

I think that the rape exemption would also apply to domestic abuse too

If these are only temporary then I would still say they are not enough but if it is permanent then I would say otherwise.

I am mostly supportive of this to prevent women from getting abortions in order to get a thrill out of power over life and death or getting abortions in order to spite their exes possibly whom they left because they found a man they like better.

I see where you are coming from, but that is an extremely uncommon reason for such a harshly judged and potentially dangerous medical procedure (depending on the society you live in and your access to medical care.)
 
It's better to try and hope for the unlikely miracles than to give up entirely in cases as far as life-threatening defects go
You have to understand the people that choose to abort babies with severe defects aren't necessarily heartless nazis who hate the slow in da minds; many of them have seen the same defects in their family (maybe an aunt they've always pitied) and know how fighting to the bitter end just to bury a child shortly after birth, or having to look for him during his entire life is an emotionally taxing process that we aren't all tough enough to handle, and it's not fair to force anyone to go through.
 
It's better to try and hope for the unlikely miracles than to give up entirely in cases as far as life-threatening defects go. As far as retardation goes, what is your cut-off? At what point do you decide that "this child is too below our standards in terms of mental capacity, so it's best that he not even exist"?

I am not bringing this up in an attempt to draw parallels between abortionists and Nazi eugenicists, but the use of such problems as an argument for abortion has always troubled me.
I think that it is quite important that the purpose of pregnancy is not to create a child but rather to create a future adult. From this I would say that any disorder that makes an offspring unable to reach functional adulthood which I would define as having the ability to reproduce themselves would simply constitute as not really killing a potential human to begin with, in other words when raising them becomes an act that is self defeating.
You have to understand the people that choose to abort babies with severe defects aren't necessarily heartless nazis who hate the slow in da minds; many of them have seen the same defects in their family (maybe an aunt they've always pitied) and know how fighting to the bitter end just to bury a child shortly after birth, or having to look for him during his entire life is an emotionally taxing process that we aren't all tough enough to handle, and it's not fair to force anyone to go through.
What you are saying is effectively the same thing that I am saying but you are using emotional language to desribe it
I am not bringing this up in an attempt to draw parallels between abortionists and Nazi eugenicists, but the use of such problems as an argument for abortion has always troubled me.
I think that the primary difference is that the Nazis were not doing this to their own children but rather they were doing this to the children of others. Also with the clear presence of aggression towards groups aside from their own such at the killing of Jews I would say that it is clear that they didn't see it in this same manner
 
That's just wouldn't work. We long to have offsprings of our own to satisfy our primal urge of perpetuating our genes; that's why countless couples choose to exhaust all (expensive) fertility treatments out there before even thinking adopting. It's not really rational, but it is the way it is.
I've been thinking about this and maybe couples should be encouraged to only have one biological child and if they want more than that adopt? Although, I realize China's 1-child policy didn't turn out that well so I don't know.
 
I've been thinking about this and maybe couples should be encouraged to only have one biological child and if they want more than that adopt? Although, I realize China's 1-child policy didn't turn out that well so I don't know.
The only problem with adoption is the cost. Though, I think the idea could work, if you put more emphasis on encouraging rather than forcing.
 
You have to understand the people that choose to abort babies with severe defects aren't necessarily heartless nazis who hate the slow in da mind
I tried to address this point in my previous post. How adeptly I did so is up to your judgment.
I am not bringing this up in an attempt to draw parallels between abortionists and Nazi eugenicists, but the use of such problems as an argument for abortion has always troubled me.

In any case, I can understand how one would not want to have a child live a miserable and short existence due to a life-threatening birth defect. Still, as I alluded to earlier, miracles do sometimes happen. It is not too infrequently that you see fluff pieces in the newspapers about some baby that beat the odds and survived some congenital heart defect, and I suspect that we will continue to improve in our capabilities to save the lives of defective children and allow them to live reasonably comfortable lives as time goes on.

The argument in favor of abortion regarding whether or not a child should be born at all if he has no arms and half a spine always arises in discussions on the topic of abortion, yet I would like to see exactly what portion of abortions are actually undergone for that purpose. How does portion compare with the portion that are performed because people, both teens and adults, decide to play around and don't want to face the consequences of their actions?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Nezy999
The argument in favor of abortion regarding whether or not a child should be born at all if he has no arms and half a spine always arises in discussions on the topic of abortion, yet I would like to see exactly what portion of abortions are actually undergone for that purpose. How does portion compare with the portion that are performed because people, both teens and adults, decide to play around and don't want to face the consequences of their actions?

You know, the irony of this entire discussion for me has been that I do not support abortion in most cases, simply because I hate how the current laws are implemented in western jurisdictions and because I do not believe the populace is informed or mature enough to adequately handle the topic, yet I constantly find myself defending the other side. I suppose I am now going to do so again.

While people will inevitably play around, and people so often, so easily, escape the consequences of their actions unjustly, it seems a little harsh to force them into parenthood forever because of a one night stand. In the case that the parents are in no way equipped, prepared, or mentally able to raise a child, abortion could be a viable option where no such humane and viable options for adoption or fostering exist in a given jurisdiction. For instance, the United States.
 
In any case, I can understand how one would not want to have a child live a miserable and short existence due to a life-threatening birth defect. Still, as I alluded to earlier, miracles do sometimes happen. It is not too infrequently that you see fluff pieces in the newspapers about some baby that beat the odds and survived some congenital heart defect, and I suspect that we will continue to improve in our capabilities to save the lives of defective children and allow them to live reasonably comfortable lives as time goes on.

The argument in favor of abortion regarding whether or not a child should be born at all if he has no arms and half a spine always arises in discussions on the topic of abortion, yet I would like to see exactly what portion of abortions are actually undergone for that purpose. How does portion compare with the portion that are performed because people, both teens and adults, decide to play around and don't want to face the consequences of their actions?
I will have to agree on this because I think that in general the small chance of gain from having such children still outweighs the costs associated with taking them to term. I would only think it is a good idea in that case when there is almost zero chance of recovery or in cases in which adoption is severely restricted legally such that you may end up with a barely living offspring that prevents you from having other offspring due to the costs of taking care of it that cannot be mitigated through putting it into fostercare or a group home
 
The solution to this dilemma would be to create viable options for adoption or fostering not to create abortion clinics.

Aye, and I agree with what you are saying, but one takes longer than the other and won't ruin any lives in the meantime. Well, okay, it might, but first come, first served, eh?
 
Back