The Morality of Abortion!

[Rational Head]

All of us believe in the right of one to possess ones own life. No sane person would argue against the right of one to possess his own life & no sane person would argue that he prefers death to life. If one does he contradicts himself through that statement. Even the fact that he exists to utter those words is an apparent proof of the fact that he prefers life to death. One, after all, is free to die!

One’s right to live-which means: to possess one’s own body is impossible in a society where aggression is a rule। If freedom to aggress is accepted as a rule, most of us would have a hard time holding on to own ones own property–And one’s own body is the most important of ones possessions. Most thinkers and philosophers, though not opposed to the above argument, usually attempts to rationalize abortions by trying to fit it into some moral framework.

The most cited argument is as follows- “A child, yet to be born is just a potential newborn child. It has no reasoning power and resides in the mother’s body. It can have no rights at all.” A newly born child too lacks reasoning power, is incapable of most actions & is dependent on his parents. It is only that it has the power to acquire those skills-In the similar manner a potential new born child is capable to grow into a born child. If a newly born child has the right to his life as it is a potential adult, why is it that an unborn child, which is a potential newly born child doesn’t have it? Needless to mention, the argument contradicts itself.

Let’s hear what the Brilliant Economist, Scholar, Historian, Moral Philosopher & Anarcho-Capitalist, Professor Murray Newton Rothbard has to say on this topic: “Most fetuses are in the mother’s body by the mother’s freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic “invader” of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as “murder” of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother’s body.” Murray they go on to argue that a mere promise is not a legal contract & one can’t have any legally enforceable contract with an unborn child.


I’ll draw an analogy to refute the above argument। Let’s assume for the sake of an argument that an implicit contract has moral & legal validity. I am driving my car through the highway. I meet you in the middle of the journey & am offering you a lift. The vehicle reaches near an abyss & I am now speeding up the car and shouting at you-“How dare you invade into my property? Get down!” Is it right or wrong? If not, why? There is an implicit contract here and one can’t have any such contract with an unborn child, you say? Very well! Imagine it is your new born child that I am giving a lift-with your consent, of course. What if I am doing it to him? This is very much similar to a mother deciding to abort the child. There is an implicit contract with you, you say? Very well! Imagine now, that you agree to me that I can force him to get down from the driving vehicle whenever I want. Am I wrong in doing so? If so, in what sense? Our contract was that I am free to do so & the child, apparently is not capable of making any such contract. This is very much similar to both parents deciding to abort the child. Do I not have the perfect right to aggress against that invader? One should further keep in mind that Murray & other libertarian thinkers do not agree to the legal enforcement of implicit contracts & promises. None of the counter arguments I made above has any validity under such premises.

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

P.S:: I am Objectivist and as a general trend, Objectivism is said to be a subset of Libertarianism! (Lol I don't shout hail Ayn Rand!)

[Muskan]

I don’t care about what Rothbard said about it or anything (I have very little or almost no reverence for him).
But I would like to COUNTER QUESTION you.

So why don’t you try to answer that, when you offered a person lift in your car, was he having a gun in his hand with an expression that he is a looter or a contract killer willing to kill you? And if suppose he was someone you knew he may kill you (as in case of pregnancies where doctors warns that the pregnancy may cause extreme problems while there are 50% chances that pregnancy may be safe for mother).
So If the situation is, you doubt that the person you gave lift is safe or not, and during the travel, after sometime, you come to know that he actually is gonna kill you, he is dangerous, will you try to safeguard your *** against the bullets he will shoot in your backward creek? Trying to safeguard yourself may lead to his death you know! Self-defense is righteous because nobody is willing to die, it is clear to you isn’t it?

Second question is, what if someone shoots at your car and forcibly gets an entry? yes I am talking of pregnancies because of rapes. What if a terrorist stops you at midnight on road and enforces his comrade in your car? Will you try to save your *** because if the police sees you with the infamous terrorist or criminal or terrorist, they may shoot you too or you may get shot while police was trying to kill the terrorist or his comrade who entered your car forcibly?
Would you deny the fact that in such situation where your own life is endangered because of the person who forcibly took a lift in your car or whom you accidentally and innocently gave lift in, if you shouts or criticizes that person who forcibly took lift and try to get rid of him anyhow is righteous?

I consider it as righteous. I may try to get a good look of the person whom I assume to give lift, but even then, i may commit mistake in actually assessing if he is a simple honest citizen or a well-known hard-core criminal, terrorist, or killer who can very easily kill me during the travel.
And in the case of such mistake, I will certainly be entitled for safeguarding my life. its self-defense.

Abortion is LEGAL because it is moral.
Abortion itself is not immoral. Although the person going through the abortion may be immoral. That is a woman may go through abortion even when she actually didn’t needed it.
She may be mercurial deciding to have a baby at one moment and getting hooked and then after 3 months, deciding to have abortion. if she is such mercurial, then she is immoral.
But if she is not such, and she righteously needs an abortion, then it is MORAL!

[lucy]

That theory doesn't hold up, because most, if not all, women who even consider getting an abortion didn't want to get pregnant in the first place. Now of course there's a lot of reasons why a woman gets pregnant without wanting to. Those include plain bad luck, nonconsentual intercourse (aka rape), stupidity, lack of knowledge, forgetfulness and so on.
However, all these reasons exclude consent in "getting the passenger into the vehicle".

[Muskan]

One should think twice before getting into any vehicle in a Libertarian society. It could be a murder attempt!

I am objectivist. Yet it doesn’t matter whether the car driver is libertarian or not, but the person who asked for lift can surely be a terrorist, a killer, a burglar a criminal, a rapist too.

[denuseri]

And I quote:

"I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfil according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art - if they desire to learn it - without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

If I fulfil this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot."

Hippocrates, 4th century BCE.

[Laila]

I am not a friend of analogies for real life problems, because really you can find an analogy for everything to make it sound like your in the right. And then everything gets muddled up because you forget whether you are talking in the metaphor or the real example and it creates misunderstandings... at least in my experience.

I can quote too: “Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose” Nietzsche


The first thing I ask myself when I read your question - Is abortion moral? - is: What is morality. You first need to define this before you can ask if abortion is it or not. and Morality is one of the vaguest, haziest things to define in an international forum such as this. (You and I probably wouldn't say stoning a woman to death is moral - in other cultures it is... etc.)

For me, personally, I wouldn't answer the question at all. I think it is a question that every woman has to answer for herself and it is NObody's business to interfere. I personally wouldn't - but I don't judge others who would or have.
My own mother has had an abortion because she was pregnant with a man whom she didn't love and didn't want to stay with under any circumstances, she was basically alone with me and my brother and already felt like she couldn't handle it. I would never judge her for that - and not just because she is my mother. She did draw her consequences from that and had her tubes tied afterwards.

But even though I couldn't have an abortion - I always argue Pro-Choice. And I think the reason for that is, that those who argue Pro-Life never JUST argue pro life. Usually it comes with a religious agenda - and that agenda, while using human rights as long is it helps them, completely disregards them when it comes to areas where they are less convenient.
Its no coincidence that in this American election people always talk about Abortion AND Gay rights. I know we don't talk about that and I don't want to offend anybody, but I won't try to argue about morality with someone who doesn't want to grant gays the same rights as everybody else, just because they are gay and at the same time say 'You can't give a a bundle of cells no human rights JUST because it might not be a human jet."

Also, I feel that especially in the States, the issue is pushed to ridiculous proportions - so much so, that I feel it really isn't about the issue at all. It is about a conservative outlook and policy. If this was really about human rights and saving lives people would start where children die every day from hunger, war and genocide. Or wouldn't even start there - would make sure that kids in their own country had health care to get medical treatment if they need it.

In this world of intertwining cultures there are very few things that can definitely said to me moral or immoral - i don't presume to be in the position to make that choice for abortion.

Because where does it start and where does it stop? Is for a man masturbating wrong, because he spends sperm in waste? There are cultures where this is true.
And what about birth-control? What about the morning-after pill?
The pope says condoms are wrong and thus sanctions AIDS to keep spreading in Africa. I personally think THAT is immoral.
Another example for how easy morality is to stretch - how many people do you think I would have on my back for calling the pope immoral?

So my conclusion - the only morality that exists the the one that we have in our heart - our coincidence. And nobody can answer this question for someone else. After all, Kant says "Immaturity is the incapacity to use one's intelligence without the guidance of another."

[mkemse]

To me the reality of Abortion is simple, Pregnancy is part of the Female Reprotuctive System, and to me No Court, Goverment or other Legal Enitiy has any right to decide what ANY women does with her Repductive Sytem, it is owned by thw omen, it is part of her system, and thus is not a Governement, owned System or owned by any other enity on Earth
The issue of the right to have an aborion has to remain a private personal matter between the Women, her Husband and her doctor and not the Government or other enitiy their of
If the Governement is allowedo r the Courts are allowed to determine whether she can have an abortion, what is then ext next, they start to dictate who Women can go out with, Marry?? ect
Leave abortion where is belongs, a Perosnal Private Mastter between the Women her Husband or Boyfriend as the case might be and her docotor, not to the Governement or Courts System

[Thorne]

Well said, Laila. I just want to add my two cents worth.

As far as I'm concerned, any discussion of morality is silly. If two people are of the same culture and religious background, their moralities are going to be quite similar. If they are from different cultures, naturally they will have differing views of morality.

Any law which would force any person to do something which is injurious to himself or to others, is a bad law, and probably "immoral". Any law which forces any person to adhere to a moral code which they do not believe in, is a bad law. Given that, the law must still protect the people, which naturally forces us to prevent people from doing harm to other people.

So the question becomes, who do we consider people? That will vary from place to place, culture to culture, religion to religion. In some cultures, a child wasn't considered to be a person until it was several months old, at least. In many early Christian religions, a child is not a person until it has been baptized. So how could abortion be considered immoral, in those cultures?

In my opinion, the question of abortion can only be answered by the mother of the fetus. No one else has any right to determine the "morality" for her. And until men are capable of bearing and delivering children, they have absolutely no right to tell any woman she cannot do as she wants!

[mkemse]

Well said, Laila. I just want to add my two cents worth.

As far as I'm concerned, any discussion of morality is silly. If two people are of the same culture and religious background, their moralities are going to be quite similar. If they are from different cultures, naturally they will have differing views of morality.

Any law which would force any person to do something which is injurious to himself or to others, is a bad law, and probably "immoral". Any law which forces any person to adhere to a moral code which they do not believe in, is a bad law. Given that, the law must still protect the people, which naturally forces us to prevent people from doing harm to other people.

So the question becomes, who do we consider people? That will vary from place to place, culture to culture, religion to religion. In some cultures, a child wasn't considered to be a person until it was several months old, at least. In many early Christian religions, a child is not a person until it has been baptized. So how could abortion be considered immoral, in those cultures?

In my opinion, the question of abortion can only be answered by the mother of the fetus. No one else has any right to determine the "morality" for her. And until men are capable of bearing and delivering children, they have absolutely no right to tell any woman she cannot do as she wants!

Thank you my point exactly the only one who control the life of the fetus should be the mother who has it nobody else, be it the Governement ect

[AdrianaAurora]

Very often (especially in US) groups who scream PRO LIFE parole are the same who cling to guns and religion. Their religion. They are right, they have all the answers and everyone else is immoral. They argue that they have a right to carry guns and shoot criminals, and apparently they don't need government to regulate that. What strikes me as the biggest hypocrisy of all is that those who argue pro life are usually the same bunch who argue pro capital punishment, "conservative" (though thats a moot point considering they put into office "Mother of All Big Spenders") government spending ie spending as little as possible on welfare projects, preferably nothing.

What is moral? Who has the right to decide that? You? God? In my opinion, any person who panders his religion as the absolute moral imperative and himself as a "prophet authority" should be committed to asylum.

I find it preposterous that those who argue for smaller government, free market and "against those damn liberals telling them how to live" - are the same who think they have a right to meddle into such personal matters of another person.

Whether or not abortion is immoral is irrelevant. No person is better than any other person, no person has the right to tell another what is moral or immoral, no person has the right to tell another person what to do with his/her body.

Whether or not abortion is legal or illegal is irrelevant. Women always had and (most likely) always will have abortions, it is simply the matter of how. Illegal or not, they always found a way, it simply wasn't discussed as publicly. And if that failed - does the word infanticide ring a bell?

You cant force a woman to have a child she doesn't want. As for men having a say in it - until he is the pregnant one, he has no say (that goes both ways, he cant force her to have an abortion or forbid her from having one). Its something even my husband and I disagree on and thats fine - as long as its my choice.

Is the woman who had a baby that is by product of (gang) rape morally superior to a woman who had an abortion after the similar event? Is it moral or immoral to judge either of them for making the choice they have?

Is it moral or immoral to have plastic surgery?

Is it moral or immoral to use contraception?

Is it moral or immoral to whip your partner and call her a slut?

There is no one universal answer, we all have to decide what is right and with what we can live with for ourselves - thats why its called PRO CHOICE.

[Ragoczy]

Curiously, I had a discussion on this topic with my thirteen-year old daughter recently. On the long car rides to and from her classes, I like to torment her by making her talk about substantive issues instead of just listening to music.

The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?

When does it change from a merging of sperm and egg, from a blob of cells, from a "fetus" ... to a human being, with all of the rights associated with such?

Sadly, that question can't be answered today, because we have no real definition of what constitutes human life. There's no machine that we can point at a pregnant woman and watch the "human" light turn on.

This is not an issue of hypothetical car rides, about consent and withdrawing consent -- it's either about killing a human being or not; all dependent on what defines a human life and when that begins.

It's not about individual, personal morality -- those things that we decide for ourselves are right or wrong -- because there is no such thing when another person is involved. We don't get to decide what's moral or not when it impacts others -- if we did, then murder would be legal if the murderer didn't feel it was wrong.

If an abortion is performed before the fetus has achieved whatever it is that defines a human life, then it's the moral equivalent of clipping your toenails; after that indefinable point and it's murder ... worse, murder of a child.

There are extreme, ridiculous positions on both sides.

I don't believe that sperm and egg conjoined define humanness -- that makes little or no sense. There's no ... substance to three or four, or three- or four-hundred, cells, with no definition or recognizable form, to hold the concept of a human being. To believe that requires a belief in a human soul, which can't be proven to exist.

Worse, though, is the belief that abortion on-demand in, say, the third trimester isn't murder. That's sick and depraved -- to deny humanity and rights to an infant who, if birthed instead of butchered, would survive independent of the mother is unconscionable. What magic happens with the cutting of the umbilical that turns it into human from non-? A twisted rationalization.

Out of the conversation with my daughter, I posed a question, which I now pose to you:

Today, this very minute, you have the power to settle legality or illegality of abortion once and for all. You pick. Then no more argument, no more debate, no more discussion -- your decision stands as the law.

Then, twenty-years from today, we've advanced technology to the point where we can define "humanness", that unique quality that makes a human being different. We build a machine that can detect this and can, once and for all, determine when human life begins. Press the button and the light turns green for human.

If you made abortion illegal and twenty years from now that light turns green only when the cord is cut, well, you have to apologize to all those millions of women who had to endure some discomfort and inconvenience for nine months of their lives.

If you made abortion legal and the light turns green when sperm meets egg ... what on earth can you say to millions of dead children?

Our entire legal system in the US is based on a very simple premise: It's better for the guilty to go free than to punish the innocent. If an accused murderer gets the benefit of the doubt, shouldn't a child?

[Ragoczy]

Is it moral or immoral to have plastic surgery?

Is it moral or immoral to use contraception?

Is it moral or immoral to whip your partner and call her a slut?



Is it moral to kill someone?

Is it moral to rape someone?

Is it moral to steal property from someone?

These are more apt analogies to abortion, because the premise is that another person is involved is fundamental to the objection.

So a question for those who think abortion should be legal:

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

[damyanti]

some discomfort and inconvenience

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

[AdrianaAurora]

Is it moral to kill someone?

Is it moral to rape someone?

Is it moral to steal property from someone?



It on itself its neither moral or immoral, its a matter of social contract.





Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?



Above all else, I am for prevention (education, contraception....) where such choice is not necessary.

IMO, no.

[Ragoczy]

It on itself its neither moral or immoral, its a matter of social contract.

So if society decides that rape is okay, you're good with that?


Above all else, I am for prevention (education, contraception....) where such choice is not necessary.

IMO, no.

So, abortion on demand in the third trimester isn't acceptable, in your opinion, but should it be legal?

[the_moirae]

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

Not even addressing the original "argument" of this thread because...well, let's just move on.

Ragoczy (and all those who agree/believe there should be a ban on "partial-birth" abortion) tell me something please. How many women go through their first and second trimesters, arrive at month seven, eight, or nine, march into a doctor's office of their own volition (sound body/mind), and say: "You know, this whole pregnancy gig just ain't working out for me. I've changed my mind."

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS THE QUESTION OF TERMINATION OF A FETUS WOULD ARISE IN THE FINAL TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY: SEVERE RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE MOTHER/BABY/BOTH SHOULD GESTATION CONTINUE, OR SEVERE BIRTH DEFECT INDICATING THE CHILD'S LIFE WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

That this has even become an issue for debate is ludicrous.

[Ragoczy]

Is that what you think pregnancy is? What about those women who find pregnancy disgusting and that making abortion illegal is a violation akin to rape?

Take the other outcome and what about all those children who, I'm sure, would consider death to be a bit more of a "violation"? Well, if they'd had a chance to form the opinion, of course.

If, instead of taking one phrase out of context, you addressed the entire scenario you laid out, you'd see that I was comparing finding out that your (as the decider) decision had a) forced women to go through the pregnancies unnecessarily; or b) killed a bunch of kids.

The point is: which are you more comfortable with bearing the potential responsibility for?

If you're 100% certain when human life begins, good for you. I sure wish you could prove it.

[AdrianaAurora]

So if society decides that rape is okay, you're good with that?


So I do have a choice?

Why should I have any more choice about that than abortion?

Because thats what its all about choice. Its an extremely private and personal issue - and no one but myself, least of all government has the right to make that decision.

[damyanti]

You say that "The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?"

I don't think its relevant if the fetus is a living being or not...if something is growing inside of me, its my decision.

If someone breaks into my house, don't I have the right to shoot him...after all the bugler is human too?

I am in favour of teaching personal responsibility and education, but you cant force people to be sensible,...even before it was legal it was being done, there were always ways to come about abortive remedies.

Most European countries have a 12 week limit "on demand" and "may be performed after 12 weeks if necessary to avoid serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health; if the child is at risk of being born with a serious physical or mental defect; or if the woman is under 14 years of age" clause. I think thats a very good and reasonable stand.

[Ragoczy]

Not even addressing the original "argument" of this thread because...well, let's just move on.

Ragoczy (and all those who agree/believe there should be a ban on "partial-birth abortion) tell me something please. How many women go through their first and second trimesters, arrive at month seven, eight, or nine, march into a doctors office of their own volition (sound body/mind), and say: "You know, this whole pregnancy gig just ain't working out for me. I've changed my mind."

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS THE QUESTION OF TERMINATION OF A FETUS WOULD ARISE IN THE FINAL TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY: SEVERE RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE MOTHER/BABY/BOTH SHOULD GESTATION CONTINUE, OR SEVERE BIRTH DEFECT INDICATING THE CHILD'S LIFE WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

That this has even become an issue for debate is ludicrous.

It's absolutely relevant. And I'll thank you to note that I didn't say abortion of any type should be banned ... I asked questions. If someone's uncomfortable thinking about the question, then maybe that means they have a faulty position on the issue.

The entire premise of support for abortion is that a fetus isn't human and doesn't have rights. If you disagree with that premise and still support abortion, then you support the murder of children.

Therefore, if a fetus isn't a human life, then why isn't abortion on-demand in the third trimester perfectly okay? Why does even raising the question in this discussion draw such a STRONG reaction?

Could it be because the humanness of a "fetus" in the seventh, eighth, ninth month is self-evident? Well, then, we're so damn sure that seven-months-minus-a-day is the magic number for humanity?

The other premise is that it's the mother's body, so her choice. If that's the case, then what difference does it make which month the abortion occurs in? If it's her body and choice that's so important, then it shouldn't matter.

The abortion argument is so full of hypocrisy that it disgusts me.

"It's not a human being ... but we won't allow it in after the seventh month." Because we're sure that's when it becomes human and seven months minus one day it isn't, so it's perfectly all right to kill it then.

"It's the mother's body and choice ... except when the baby's so formed that it makes me feel icky." It's either her choice or it isn't, until you can conclusively demonstrate when human life begins.

"Life begins at conception, so abortion is murder ... except for rape or incest." Because the crimes of the father affect the humanness of the child? My ass.

[Ragoczy]

You say that "The fundamental controversy of abortion is: When does a human life begin?"

I don't think its relevant if the fetus is a living being or not...if something is growing inside of me, its my decision.

If someone breaks into my house, don't I have the right to shoot him...after all the bugler is human too?

I am in favour of teaching personal responsibility and education, but you cant force people to be sensible,...even before it was legal it was being done, there were always ways to come about abortive remedies.

Most European countries have a 12 week limit "on demand" and "may be performed after 12 weeks if necessary to avoid serious danger to the woman's physical or mental health; if the child is at risk of being born with a serious physical or mental defect; or if the woman is under 14 years of age" clause. I think thats a very good and reasonable stand.

If it's your body, why a 12-week limit? Why bother?

[craven]

I am not sure of this thread has become somewhat blurred whilst the two aspects are of course connected the morality of abortion is different from the legality.

Now as damyanti points out here in Europe when life begins is clearly defined and there have been several test cases and more recently in the UK a parliamentary debate on this subject. We know legally when life begins and therefore when it is legal for a woman to have a termination.


This is not up for debate, or in any way questionable.

Now the morality issue, hmmmm tricky one, and of course dependant upon ones own judgement, this is quite simply the only answer here.

No one else can possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on the woman considering a termination, it is down to the individual concerned, end of.

Ones own moral code may well be representative of or reflective of the society in which one is immersed or educated, however it is just that at the end of the day, ones own moral code.

I have never been involved in such a decision, but have no doubt what so ever that the decision to terminate has never been reached without much soul searching or lightly.


Only the woman concerned should be able to make such a choice free from peer and social pressures.

[craven]

Each case is different and unique, to impose carte blanche rules or moral codes is unjust and quite simply wrong.

It should always be down to the individuals concerned to decide rationally free from moral stigmas and pressures.

[Ragoczy]

So I do have a choice?

Why should I have any more choice about that than abortion?

Because thats what its all about choice. Its an extremely private and personal issue - and no one but myself, least of all government has the right to make that decision.

One of the government's role (at least in the US) is to protect the individual from others. That's why we have laws ...

Murder harms another, so there's a law.
Rape harms another, so there's a law.
Theft harms another, so there's a law.

If life begins before birth, shouldn't that citizen be protected from harm by others? If it doesn't, shouldn't abortion on-demand in the ninth month be perfectly okay?

[Ragoczy]

I am not sure of this thread has become somewhat blurred whilst the two aspects are of course connected the morality of abortion is different from the legality.

Now as damyanti points out here in Europe when life begins is clearly defined and there have been several test cases and more recently in the UK a parliamentary debate on this subject. We know legally when life begins and therefore when it is legal for a woman to have a termination.


This is not up for debate, or in any way questionable.

Now the morality issue, hmmmm tricky one, and of course dependant upon ones own judgement, this is quite simply the only answer here.

No one else can possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on the woman considering a termination, it is down to the individual concerned, end of.

Ones own moral code may well be representative of or reflective of the society in which one is immersed or educated, however it is just that at the end of the day, ones own moral code.

I have never been involved in such a decision, but have no doubt what so ever that the decision to terminate has never been reached without much soul searching or lightly.


Only the woman concerned should be able to make such a choice free from peer and social pressures.

I see, so 12-weeks is the law of the land an no one should impose their own feelings or beliefs on others, regardless of whether they feel and believe that the law is immoral and harmful to others.

By this logic, apartheid should still be legal in South Africa. It was the law of the land and morality is a personal thing and no one should possibly impose their feelings or beliefs on others.

[craven]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

[Muskan]

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.


War for self-defense is not immoral. It was moraly correct to fight against Hitler.

Hunger and poverty can not be said immoral, because if it is, then 2/3rd of the world is immoral. Hunger and poverty can be the result of immorality though, but in this world, you will find many riches who are rich just because they are corrupt and immoral, our politicians comes in same group.

[craven]

i think you may have taken me a little to literally to be honest, i feel that to wage war is immoral so yes i agree to defend against it is not, as in the second world war i do though feel that hitlers aggression was immoral.

I also feel that the existence of poverty and hunger is immoral and not those afflicted by these circumstances, so i feel the conditions to be immoral and not as you say the two thirds of the world that are poor and hungry.

[shayna{L_D}]

i cannot believe this is a thread


i wont comment for fear of getting banned


*smh*

[Ragoczy]

So to make your point or force your own moral codes onto others you feel able or rather I guess justified in choosing which laws to quote to me as right and wrong LOL

The law dictates in the UK that life begins at 12 weeks, period, termination up to that point is perfectly legal.

No I do not believe in apartheid, not sure how you have connected the two very distinct and separate issues to be honest but never mind.

Let me explain simply, yes apartheid was immoral, and the overwhelming majority of that country, backed up by international political support through democratic change and legal processes changed the law, and thus an immoral system was made illegal.

Now until the UK government as a result of overwhelming pressure from its citizens makes terminations illegal for pregnancies less than 12 weeks it is very simply a moral debate for the individuals concerned and NOT you.

Your views are of course to be respected, but can NOT be seen as right and there for the moral code for all to follow.

Termination is legal, and as such the choice to decide upon this course of action is a moral one, morals are personally developed.

You may choose to try and impose your own moral viewpoints upon others that is of course your prerogative, but and this may come as a shock or not, I am not really sure, but individual moral codes are highly unlikely to change or alter laws, unless as in apartheid there is a majority of similarly held views.

As the laws currently stand i can only assume that you are in the minority, politicians don’t after all tend to pander to the extremist or minority elements of their electorates now do they.

I personally think that war, hunger and poverty are all immoral, but cant really see anyone making them illegal.

My point was that just because something's legal doesn't make it moral or right.

I do find it interesting that it's okay for unaffected parties (in the form of the international community) to seek to impose their own morals on South Africa through legal, legislative change, but not okay for someone who believes abortion is immoral to seek the same thing in their own country -- that gets criticized.

In addition, I'd point out that I haven't stated my own, personal position on this issue yet. Simply asked some questions and pointed out some asinine positions and hypocrisy, on both sides of the debate.

[Torq]

OK,, Here we go again,,

What started off a good thread asking good questions and starting a good debate has once again gone "south" quickly!!!

ENOUGH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

STAY ON TOPIC!!!

Unlike other threads when I have given warning after warning this will NOT be one of them!!!!!!

Let me be PERFECTLY clear here,,, The next member who posts ANY comment even close to a flame, close to a "finger-pointing" remark towards another members OPINION,, will be BANNED from the entire site for LIFE!!

ARE WE CLEAR ENOUGH HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is a VERY volatile subject,,STAY ON TOPIC and it can be a VERY good thread.

Choose not to heed my First and FINAL WARNING and you will be BANNED FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Be Well

T

[Ragoczy]

.

[hopperboo]

...I'm going to have my comments looked over before posting.

[SnickerKitten]

THERE ARE ONLY TWO REASONS THE QUESTION OF TERMINATION OF A FETUS WOULD ARISE IN THE FINAL TRIMESTER OF PREGNANCY: SEVERE RISKS TO THE HEALTH AND SAFETY OR THE MOTHER/BABY/BOTH SHOULD GESTATION CONTINUE, OR SEVERE BIRTH DEFECT INDICATING THE CHILD'S LIFE WOULD BE UNSUSTAINABLE OUTSIDE THE WOMB.

That this has even become an issue for debate is ludicrous.

I drove a friend of mine to a clinic because she had gotten warts and was having them removed. While in the waiting room I met a woman that was 7 1/2 months pregnant and was having a late term abortion because her boyfriend had broken up with her. There was absolutely no known risk to her continuing to carry the baby and the baby was viable outside the womb. She merely didn't want to raise the baby herself and for whatever reason refused to consider adoption.

To relate this back to the topic of the thread- was her choice immoral? Yes, absolutely. She killed needlessly.

Are there times when abortion is definately immoral? Yes, absolutely. When the infant is at a point that it could survive outside the womb it does not endanger the mother any more to have an induced birth than to have a late term abortion- in fact, the only real difference between the two is that in am induced labor they preserve the life of the infant and in a preterm abortion they suck the brain out before the head is fully delivered. Four more inches and it would just be an induced newborn.

Is it immoral to use abortion as a chosen form of birth control? "Oh, *if* I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion." "I don't need to worry about birth control, there's always abortion." IMO, yes!

Is it immoral to get an abortion if you get pregnant as a result of rape? I wouldn't care if it was or not, but I *personally* would certainly abort that child.

Is it immoral to get an abortion if you find out there is something "wrong" with the child you are carrying? I've had a very set opinion on this question many times. Having a child that was diagnosed with autism has given me a very powerful insight into what it is to raise a special needs child. If I knew then what I know now..... Let me tell you, that's one of those things that drives home the old reference to walking in someone else's shoes before judging them.

For the record-because individuals views on abortion were pointed out earlier in this thread to be predictable based on their social and political views: my political stance is decidedly conservative although I am not a Republican. My fiscal stance is also decidedly conservative and I am completely against any type of "redistribution of wealth", as far as social welfare programs go, I'm not at all supportive of giving "handouts" for longer than a VERY brief term and to instead provide job training and job opportunities (providing daycare for other "welfare" families, etc). My religious stance is- I'm not a practicing member of any religion. My view on capital punishment is- much as my darling husband opposes it and has tried to change my opinion, I support it.

So my bottom line opinion on whether abortion is moral or immoral is that it is more immoral than moral but is excusable in some situations.

-kitten

[hopperboo]

Are there times when abortion is definately immoral? Yes, absolutely. When the infant is at a point that it could survive outside the womb it does not endanger the mother any more to have an induced birth than to have a late term abortion- in fact, the only real difference between the two is that in am induced labor they preserve the life of the infant and in a preterm abortion they suck the brain out before the head is fully delivered. Four more inches and it would just be an induced newborn.

Is it immoral to use abortion as a chosen form of birth control? "Oh, *if* I get pregnant I'll just have an abortion." "I don't need to worry about birth control, there's always abortion." IMO, yes!

Is it immoral to get an abortion if you get pregnant as a result of rape? I wouldn't care if it was or not, but I *personally* would certainly abort that child.

Is it immoral to get an abortion if you find out there is something "wrong" with the child you are carrying? I've had a very set opinion on this question many times. Having a child that was diagnosed with autism has given me a very powerful insight into what it is to raise a special needs child. If I knew then what I know now..... Let me tell you, that's one of those things that drives home the old reference to walking in someone else's shoes before judging them.

I agree.





My opinion on this topic:
If one is old enough to have consensual sex, and they are just not taking the precautions of safe sex then I don't believe abortions should be allowed (unless the mothers life is in danger or the child has a physical/mental problem - in which the parents should have the ability to choose). I don't think age should be a variable either. If a 14-year-old is having consensual sex and just not taking the precautions I don't believe abortion should be an option for her. I am of a very pro-choice mindset; Abstinence, contraception, adoption.

I don't believe in the common thinking that a child isn't a child until it can breathe on it's own. If this was truly the case then we wouldn't be bothered by trying to incubate premature babies, nor would we have courts trying a man for two murders when he kills a pregnant woman. A fetus is a baby from the moment of conception. Without the moment of conception one wouldn't have the baby.

I think people in general find the idea of terminating a fetus much easier than the idea of terminating a baby.

It's a very slippery slope, and this is just my opinion on the topic.

And as for men's rights (which they have none)...I personally don't believe a woman should be allowed to have an abortion without written consent of the father of the child. Perhaps that is going to far, but that is the man's child too, having it inside of you [a woman] doesn't make it only her choice. The baby was made together and decisions about it should be made together.... That is just IMHO.

[damyanti]

When people use “I believe” and therefore it shouldn't be “allowed” reasoning its a very dangerous ground, as witnessed throughout history.

My personal moral views are conservative (in some cases extremely so), but that's all they are MY morals, it would be immoral to force them upon someone else. Laws should be liberal. I don't think government or anyone else has the right to pass judgement in that kind of decisions.

Its very easy to pass judgement in theory, but human reality is different...every human is different, we deal and react to situations differently.

Legality of abortion is such a sensitive question because it is never that simple, it isn't just about terminating pregnancy...its about personal liberties, a right to choice, invasion of privacy, someone else making decisions concerning your body...

How many people, including those who say they are pro life, eat meat? I believe that is immoral, I believe its against religion, I believe that its murder and its a sin.....but I just don't have enough...(not quite sure which word to use) arrogance, shamelessness, to say that it should not be allowed at all or made illegal for everyone else too. Its a matter of personal choice...whether one will do something just because he/she can.

Most people find the idea of eating meat much easier without thinking that it once was a living being, they find it easier to think of it as ham rather than animal corpse. And lets not forget that humans are animals too. So if we are to ban abortion based on the premise that life is life, it will make possible to ban animal killing.

No contraception is 100% reliable.

To force a victim of rape to have a child...I find the idea horrifying beyond imagination, to me its more violating than rape itself.

Where is the prudence in creating teenage mothers, how is that good for society?

As for making all abortion illegal...its pointless. As it has been pointed out several times before, if a woman wants to have an abortion she will not matter whether its legal or illegal she will find a way. There will always be doctors or butchers in back ally offering their services. We have an abortion pill available today. There are old “remedies” such as herbal teas. Even those who officially think its wrong want a legal loophole just in case (Ireland has voted five times in the past 20 years on its abortion laws, most recently deciding to continue to allow women to have an abortion if they say they are suicidal - a loophole the government and Catholic Church wanted closed).

I am interested what kind of punishment would those who seek to make abortion illegal impose on unwilling mothers?

I do think that its immoral to use abortion as a form of contraception...it should be the very last resort, and its why I preach education, education, education...but would it be any less immoral to force that woman to go through pregnancy and have an unwanted child? Will those people who coerced her into having it, take responsibility for that child...my guess is no, so isn't that immoral?

Personally, I have no intention of finding myself in such situation, but who knows what life brings...could I go through with it, I don't know, I am tilting towards no, but it would depend on the circumstances....what I do know is that I am more likely to keep it if I have a choice than I would be if abortion were illegal.

I feel lucky that I live in a country where the right to choice is a given fact. We are characterized as a conservative, Catholic country, yet it was never an issue, certainly not in my lifetime and it was never a point of debate in an election campaign. Sometime ago someone mentioned something about abortion being an active issue in US and therefore we should make it here too, (God, I hate when European politicians try to copy American ones), but no one took the said person seriously (as evidenced by the fact I cant even remember who it was), he was labelled an extremest loonie, people paid him no attention and no one ever made a peep about it again.

My point is...whether you think its immoral is irrelevant – a woman's body, a woman's choice. It doesn't concern you.

[lucy]

deleted because i'm not sure whether i pointed a finger or not. i think i didn't. but still, better safe than banned

[lucy]

I have yet to meet a woman who actually wants an abortion. I don't know how this is in other countries, whether in other societies abortion is considered just another form of contraceptive. That would be indeed wrong, imho. And stupid too.

I know quite a few women who have been in that situation, myself included (although i had a spontaneus abortion and so was spared to go to a clinic i would have done it), and not one of them took the decision to have an abortion easily.

[lookingforsomething]

I have read through all the different posts, and thought about it a great deal. I hesitated quite a bit over responding, because generally the forum seems to be split into two groups pro and against. When ever someone has brought up the abortion debate, responses generally get heated.
I have always been personally against abortion, but supported it in case of rape, or women’s well being, or if the baby/foetus was disabled (I don’t agree with resuscitation if the child is brain damaged, etc etc. my niece is severely brain damaged due to resuscitation after child birth complications) so if a child has obvious difficulties with life, I don’t agree with forcing the mother to go on with the pregnancy.
I didn’t agree with women having abortions, just because they where an “accident” because why didn’t they take better care not to have accidents.
I did believe in a woman’s right to choose though, each person has a right to make a choice, if they where willing to give up their bodies to grow this new life, be sick for months on end, and may lose their jobs, partners. Life isn’t as easy as a broad general statement; it is easy to decide for other people, harder to live with the decision you make.
Also the women who face honour killings, and its not as rare as you think, the destructive disaster of a surprise pregnancy is not as simple as saying this is a contract and you are killing a baby. A woman who fall pregnant by accident and faces death, now tell me, should she have the baby then to face definite death, or be murdered before she has the baby. So then you have the loss of both.
I must say anyone who wants to abort at 7.5 months is stupid, and should not be allowed, because that baby will survive on its own, the baby should be delivered and given up to adoption.
In Australia, abortions up to 16 weeks is allowed, up to 12 weeks you have a normal on the spot termination, while 13-16 weeks they give tablets and do stuff then you have to come back the next day and they complete the abortion. We don’t have a cooling off period, you can call and book in and do it then and there.
I was faced with this decision; I will not say what I decided. But until you have to face this decision, you wouldn’t believe how hard it is, you can imagine it, but it is nothing like the actually thing. It was the hardest thing I had to decide in my life, ever!!! My divorce which was happening at the time was a walk in the park compared to the abortion decision, and my divorce was a nasty destructive one...
Illegal abortion is a leading cause of death among women of reproductive age in developing countries, killing around 100,000 women a year. While in the comfort of USA legal abortions have been ranked as 11 times safer than child birth, yes child birth is still quite dangerous to a woman’s health, and by choosing to have the baby she risks her own well being. Maternal mortality has dropped by 40% since 1970’s when abortions became legal. This points out that if abortions are legal or illegal, women will still decide for themselves. Educate them, supply them with easy to access protection, and then provide a safe healthy environment for them to decide and choose what they want to do…
That is my personal point of view, hence I used lots of I think… thank you for reading.

[AdrianaAurora]

The rhetoric on abortion continues to embattle and confuse "pro-choice" and "pro-life", "liberals" and "conservatives" alike. Many "liberals" complain that it is irrational and brutal to expect a woman to die so that her unborn child may live. Abortion should be permitted basically on demand, certainly in cases where the health and life of the woman are at risk, and even in cases of incest or rape Besides, they remind us, it is legal. In contrast, many "conservatives" argue that abortion can never be rationalized or permitted, as it is fundamentally immoral to kill an unborn child who is an innocent human being, no matter what the circumstances or the law - regardless of the woman's health, life, incest or rape. At times it seems that the advocates of either position are "talking past" each other, oblivious to the possibility of any moral legitimacy in each's position. Further, there seems as yet to be no structured or principled means by which to circumvent this highly politicized stand-off or to address these tragic moral dilemmas which after serious consideration are commonly acceptable to both "camps".

My point is that just because something is immoral we dont have a right to make it illegal.

The common moral principle often used in these difficult situations is that found in the time-honored theory of natural person - known as the principle of double effect. Properly understood, the principle of double effect evolved in order to address just these types of difficult moral dilemmas - in this case where both of the lives of those affected are innocent, and yet something must be done or will happen which inevitably will endanger one of these two innocent lives. The obvious application for our purposes here is when a woman, who is herself an innocent human being, whose human life is precious and must be respected, is pregnant with an unborn child, who is likewise an innocent human being (from fertilization onwards), and whose life is also precious and must be respected. Since, as natural law theory holds, one may never directly intend to kill an innocent human being, under what circumstances and conditions is it morally permissible: (1) for a woman to undergo an abortion procedure; or, (2) for a physician to help one of these innocents to live, by means of other and different morally legitimate medical actions, and yet permit or allow the other, unfortunately, to die?

My point is no human can prove he alone has the absolute unequivocal answer to that dilemma.

Is abortion moral? An equaly valid question could be wheter it is morally defensible to bring an innocent child into this horrible, pain-filled world. Some people are simply not fit to be parents.

I dont believe that abortion is wrong as such. It could even be argued that abortion is perfectly natural - all creatures that raise their young will abondon them if they cannot raise them properly. Indeed, all females will have have miscarriage if the fetus is unable to live, or reabsorb it if they cannot spare the nutrients.

Another point of thought is - a baby cannot think, even to the level of knowing that it exists, or demonstrate even an instinctual layer of selfpreservation. Ethically, murder is wrong because it robs a person of their right to exspress their preference to continue to live. A neonate has no such preference, being intellectually incapable, and thus no right to life.

Pro life central point is that abortion is wrong not only because its murderous, but because adoption is a viable alternative. This is not entirely the case! While many families are waiting for children, this is because of two factors. First, most of those families are not yet officially waiting, as they have to be approved by the stringent safeguards against adoption by those deemed unsuitable.

Secondly, these families insist on adopting only the youngest babies, which leaves a lot of children as wards of the state. It is untrue to imply, as they often do, that children put up for adoption all find happy homes. Is it not kinder to abort fetus, without fear or understanding of death, than to risk (and the odds are high) that child being abandoned to live alone, unloved and in poverty.

[damyanti]

Thank you lucy and lookingforsomething for your posts, sadly I have friends who have went through and still going through the same situations. And no, its never an easy decision, but the choice should exist and be legal.

For myself whenever someone brings the issue of abortion the central point is...and its what always gives me a knee jerk reaction...who gets to decide and make that choice. And I think the best answer is the mother of the fetus.

[shayna{L_D}]

To force a victim of rape to have a child...I find the idea horrifying beyond imagination, to me its more violating than rape itself.






My point is...whether you think its immoral is irrelevant – a woman's body, a woman's choice. It doesn't concern you.

Point one. thank you very much for saying that. I wouldnt have said it better myself.


Point two: amen. my body is my body i will do what i want with it. i will do what *I* see fit.

this will be my only two cents on this topic thank you Damyanti for saying it better then i could, or would have dared.

[shayna{L_D}]

But until you have to face this decision, you wouldn’t believe how hard it is, you can imagine it, but it is nothing like the actually thing. It was the hardest thing I had to decide in my life, ever!!!



er maybe i should read all the posts before i start going on a posting spreee ;)


Thank you! i had a whole post written up, but i deleted it, no need for people to read what i think on this topic. But thanks for this imput i totally agree to the tenth power.

[hopperboo]

I 100% agree on the rape victim stance. I think a person who was raped should have the ability to choose for themselves if they are going to keep the child or not, and that goes along with incest. (Though I think both cases it should never come to the actual "abortion," we have the morning after pill now).

And...as for having a woman have the ability to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter what...I don't agree with that. If it's negligence on the woman's part, and she wasn't using safe sex then I think the woman needs to buck up and take some responsibility in her life. The baby didn't sign up to be aborted because someone didn't use birth control and it's not just the woman's body anymore. That woman has another body inside her and she must not take that lightly. (And I think it's taken very lightly these days).

I think being extremely right or left in this matter is an unhealthy view.

Abortion will always be needed in some cases, though I also think it should be regulated.

One should not say; abort whenever the passing feeling comes by.
One should not say; the child must live no matter the circumstances.

It's a dangerous way to live in my opinion.

[shayna{L_D}]

And...as for having a woman have the ability to do whatever she wants with her body, no matter what...I don't agree with that. If it's negligence on the woman's part, and she wasn't using safe sex then I think the woman needs to buck up and take some responsibility in her life. The baby didn't sign up to be aborted because someone didn't use birth control and it's not just the woman's body anymore. That woman has another body inside her and she must not take that lightly. (And I think it's taken very lightly these days).

what if the woman was on B.C., and the guy was using condoms at the time she got pregnant? Does this mean that she isnt taking responsiblity?

Does this mean that women should only have sex when they are ready to have a child? Or that if a couple already had child (all the ones they wanted anyway) then they should stop having sex, because a child might be brought into this world becuase of it?

just trying to get a better hold on how you think, and where you are coming from. :)


I am lucky that i am celibate in this case, but i am still on B.C. and if i was to ever engage in intercourse i would damn sure be prepared to have a child as the after effects.

[Thorne]

Abortion on-demand (no edge conditions, just because the woman wants it) in the third trimester? Acceptable or no?

Third trimester? Not acceptable, except to save the life of the mother.

First trimester? Acceptable IF the mother desires it, but only the mother has the right to decide. She cannot be forced to have the abortion, nor can she be forced to carry the fetus against her will.

Second trimester? Here's the real problem. This is the foggy area where most pro-abortion people, I think, run aground. This is where, IMO, the question of "humanness" comes into play. I don't know where the dividing line is, but if there is one, it's in this time frame.

There is a point in the development of the fetus where extraordinary medical intervention can save the baby if it is delivered prematurely. There is another point where the child can survive with no or minimal intervention. Somewhere between these two points has to be the demarcation.

But regardless, I don't feel it's the government's business to determine whether or not a woman can abort her fetus. That has to be her own choice, and her own conscience must guide her.

[SnickerKitten]

Third trimester? Not acceptable, except to save the life of the mother.


That's the thing, though. In the majority of the third trimester the baby is viable outside the womb. Why should the baby have to *die* when all that is really needed is to remove it from the womb??? In order to do a partial birth abortion they induce labor and suck out the infant's brain after the body has been delivered (they pull them breech) but before the head has come out. Therefore it is no more stress on the mother's body than a birth would be. In my opinion, killing a baby just before it's delivered when it could live on it's own if you didn't suck it's brain out is ALWAYS murder.

-kitten

[Skyybird]

Whilst it's difficult to accept that life is viable in different circumstances, the fact remains that all women are entitled to choose. I have been lucky never to have known a doctor who will abort a healthy fetus after 12 weeks unless there are circumstances to indicate it is medically for the best.

In my experience every effort is made to counsel the mother and consider alternatives.

Morality is a difficult standpoint here because whilst I agree we must be responsible as humans and healthcare practitioners, the rights of the mother are paramount. Her body, her choice.

I would honestly prefer to prevent an unwanted neglected unloved child enter the world. Clinically, termination of pregnancy is effective and swift. To go ahead with a pregnancy and spend the next 18 years abusing and destroying that childs life is far more immorral and has far reaching consequences.

Society must take responsibility for educating it's population in their attitudes and responsibilities to sex before we can sit in judgement of those who find themselves having to deal with the consequences.

[Laila]

Well said, Skyybird.

I think a society must be ready to help young mothers in need (monetarily, with childcare available when she wants/has to work, with acceptance, a good educational and healthcare system) before it has the right to shout murderer and condemn abortion.

I'm not saying that its the right thing to do - but I do understand the woman's motivation and if pro-lifers are serious they would spend less time judging and condemning and more time helping.

(Saying that - the idea of aborting a foetus in the third trimester is horrendous to me and I would never associate that with the word abortion, which for me is only valid in the first trimester. There is still adoption after all... unless of course it really is life threatening to the mother. But still, that poor poor woman having to make that choice.)

[Thorne]

Society must take responsibility for educating it's population in their attitudes and responsibilities to sex before we can sit in judgement of those who find themselves having to deal with the consequences.

It's always bothered me that the same people who are against any kind of abortion tend to be the same people who are against any kind of sex education for our kids. It's as though they feel that not teaching kids about sex will keep them from actually having sex! And if they don't know about sex, then how can there be any unwanted pregnancies?

[Skyybird]

It's always bothered me that the same people who are against any kind of abortion tend to be the same people who are against any kind of sex education for our kids. It's as though they feel that not teaching kids about sex will keep them from actually having sex! And if they don't know about sex, then how can there be any unwanted pregnancies?

Being parents blinkers our conscience. We dont want to corrupt the innocent minds of our offspring or think of them engaging in such activities. It's the biggest flaw in our make up as humans.

I cant understand how a grown up and responsible programme of education, written with facts and humour and a good dose of relationship discussion, can be seen as corruption. I have educated my kids to have an understanding of the world as a whole, we've discussed religion, culture, sex, alcohol. This is really where we should be making a moral stand point.

I really do want my childrern to grow up with a healthy enthusiasm for life and it's charms, sex included. If they get to enjoy the fruits of the flesh half as much as I have then they will be lucky people indeed. As their parent it is my job to ensure they engage safely with the world and consider the consequences of their actions legal and moral.

[denuseri]

It is my opinion that the proponents of "pro-life" everyone seems to like stereotyping are greatly misunderstood, most of the ones I know are all for sex education just opposed to the state sponsored variety with its influence of condoneing sexual intercourse, which we pretty much covered to death and back in another thread.

It is unfortunate that a moral delima does exsist on this issue for "some" people. It is unfortunate that they will dress the issue in any light that doest paint "them" as wrong for thier choice to commit murder.


Fortunately in the United States far wiser people have defined what the legal limits are for us in today's society.

Every cluture is different in that regard.

I personally believe that it is murder at a certian point to provide an abortion.

Where exactly that point "is" will of course vary from individual to individual.

The day after pill is not in my opinion murder. I believe the first tri-mester provides a woman with plenty of time to figure out if she wants to carry her pregnancey to term and still feel "good" about her self if she decides to kill her unborn child with an abortion.

The old fashioned way of doing medicine may have been best (which was mostly abbandoned with the industrial revolution in the later 1800's) the women generally took care of midwifery with little interaction from the men in most cultures. If an abortion was needed it was done and no one need be the wiser.

I am not saying lets remove the technological know-how and revert to the old ways, so much as I am saying if they had never abandonded seperate care practices by gender roles, that it may not be the same "issue" it is today.

Of course back in the day (according to an old Doctor friend of mine) if a woman really needed an abortion the Doctor would preform it, but he was the ultimate authority on weather or not she needed one, the ethical delima was his to debate with himself.

When I posted the Oath of Hippocrates I meant it in the sence it was written, which is that physicians be not involved in the issue lest they break that sacred oath. The Greeks obviously valued the potential life of the unborn much more highly than todays society. Which is why most woman seeking abortions in those days went to other scources like the old crone, or witch, to widwife them.

See to most people back then having a child was a blessing, a gift from thier god or gods. Something to be valued for the miracle it was.

Not generally avoided becuase it inconvienenced you.

Just becuase I say it is murder doesnt mean I don't say that it isnt nessesary at certian times. Like saving the mothers life, or to keep a survivor of rape from having to carry such a child to term.

Murder is after all justified by some societies in certian circumstances, we just like to window dress it to feel better about it later. (as in war or executions or aborations).

Basically it works like this: you want to have sex than be prepared for the consequences. Know that whatever precautions you take you may get preggers and decide accordingly weather or not your little bit of pleasure is worth it.

This lack of responsibility and blatant headonisim pervaded by certian dogmatic agendas with little care for anyone outside the "self" is one of the reasons our western civilization is teetering on the verge of decline.




Here is the link to the sex sducation debate thread I mentions for those that are interested:

http://www.bdsmlibrary.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17116&highlight=education

[jezabel]

This is a VERY emotive issue for myself as a survivor of a rape and consequent abortion. I still feel guilt for what I did, over twenty years later and wish that things could been different.

So anyone who thinks that an abortion is an easy way out for a woman is very, very wrong! the feelings will stay with me for the rest of my life

[hopperboo]

what if the woman was on B.C., and the guy was using condoms at the time she got pregnant? Does this mean that she isnt taking responsiblity?

Does this mean that women should only have sex when they are ready to have a child? Or that if a couple already had child (all the ones they wanted anyway) then they should stop having sex, because a child might be brought into this world becuase of it?.
If the couple already has a child/children and they do not want anymore the woman can have her tubes tied. If they don't take precautions as such and end up with a "mistake" they better be ready to deal with it, and NOT by 'getting rid' of it.

If someone 'accidentally' gets pregnant while on birth control AND using condoms (which I highly doubt this happens much, and if it does it's a VERY low percentage rate) then they still need to own up to their responsibility.



I think denuser answered this perfectly:


Basically it works like this: you want to have sex than be prepared for the consequences. Know that whatever precautions you take you may get preggers and decide accordingly weather or not your little bit of pleasure is worth it.

This lack of responsibility and blatant headonisim pervaded by certian dogmatic agendas with little care for anyone outside the "self" is one of the reasons our western civilization is teetering on the verge of decline.

[mkemse]

This is a VERY emotive issue for myself as a survivor of a rape and consequent abortion. I still feel guilt for what I did, over twenty years later and wish that things could been different.

So anyone who thinks that an abortion is an easy way out for a woman is very, very wrong! the feelings will stay with me for the rest of my life

I have NO doubt about what you say, but I still believe the ultimate decsion is a personal one between spouses and their doctor and NOT the Governement or the Courts

[damyanti]

Here are the historical facts:

The average family in Ancient Greece had 5 children. Healthy babies could be sold into slavery. Unhealthy ones or otherwise defective ones would be exposed. This meant they were left out in the elements to die. Some babies were exposed simply because a soothsayer forcast an evil from the baby. Some exposed babies were taken in by other people.

The ancient Greeks regarded children as little people. They did not regard them as different from big people. By the time a person was about 13 years old, he or she was considered an adult in every respect. Boys were educated separately for their duties as citizens of the state. Girls were educated by their mothers in the home.

Formal education was woefully inadequate in classical Greece. The lax attitude towards formal education reflects two principles; that children were not regarded in their own right, but were, seen as adults-in-waiting; and that an Athenian had supreme confidence in the ability of their children to become like their peers and to understand and to live by their standards and ideals of what it meant to be a good man and a good citizen in a good society. Some of these ideals and standards were very different depending on what part of Greece you were from. This was especially true in the differences in educating the youth in Athens and in Sparta.

Children of both sexes were kept naked while they were very young and boys spent a lot of time naked in athletic training. Greek boys had to contend with an open attitude toward homosexuality.

If you were a wife of a citizen you spent your time secluded at home having babies, cleaning, cooking, spinning and weaving. Since your needs were taken care of you led a pretty easy life. The husband had to work outside the home, shop, attend political meetings and go to war. Women slaves did more menial work including carrying water and wastes, grinding grain, serving, and in some cases providing sex for their masters.

Women were supposed to be confined to the home but there are reports that they are found outside the home. One possible solution to this contradiction is that the women are veiled when they want to be outside the home when it is not appropriate. There is some suggestion that the men felt the women were invisible in this situation.

The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

The birth process in women was seen as related to the production of natural goods on which the community depended. The fertility of women was seen as related to the fertility of plants and animals and even of the soil.

If the experience of Agnodice is any indication the women were attended by male doctors at birth, if at all. Men tried to keep Agnodice from becoming a doctor, but the women protested. Women became doctors until the 12th century. Midwifes probably became popular when woman were no longer able to become doctors.

As to the risk of childbirth Medea says "I'd three time rather stand And face a line of shields than once give birth."

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.

The ancient Greeks tolerated abortions though they were not all that common. During their time it was much safer to carry a baby to full term than have an abortion. Perhaps only one in ten mothers survived an abortion. The ancient Greeks tolerated infanticide. If the newborn baby was malformed then it would be exposed to the elements to die. If the baby was unwanted it could be sold into slavery. There were safer options in those days than abortion.

The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. Aristotle, Politics 7.16

Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, described how a dancer came to him with a need for an abortion. Hippocrates caused her to make certain violent jumping dance movements and her baby aborted. He then went on to make important observations about the aborted fetus. Abortion was not common in ancient Greece simply because they practiced infanticide.

During the Roman period the demand for babies dropped and some of the women opted for self-induced abortions which they performed on themselves with a knife. A desperate woman would plunge a dagger into her vagina, killing the baby. This would usually result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. This is a very un-safe practice and many of these women died. It was much safer for the mother to carry the baby to full-term and then expose it or sell it than to try to abort it before birth.

A parent who abandoned a new-born baby to die was not punished in any way. If a person found such a baby they could take it as their own.


The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.

The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.

The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

Even antiabortionists admit that, their reasoning is stretching Bible verses to claim that fetus is a child too:

Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3-5 -- Children are a blessing, a source of happiness and joy to their parents.
Titus 2:4 -- Young women should be taught to love their children.
Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4 -- God has made us stewards of our children.

(antiabortionist view) "But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. Abortion does fit the Bible definition of murder. But even if it did not, it would still be sinful because it is unloving, a lack of appreciation for God's blessings, and a gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs."

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

English Common Law agreed that abortion was a crime after 'quickening' - but the seriousness of that crime was different at different times in history.

In 1803 English Statute Law made abortion after quickening a crime that earned the death penalty, but a less serious crime before that.

In 1837 English law abolished the significance of quickening, and also abandoned the death penalty for abortion.

In the 1920s English law added a get-out clause that stopped abortion being a crime if it was "done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."

This change officially recognised a little-stressed feature of anti-abortion laws; they were often intended to protect women from a dangerous medical procedure, and not to protect the life of the foetus.

In 1938 the important case of R v Bourne decided in favour of an abortion performed on a 14 year old girl who had been raped - the court felt that the girl's mental health would have suffered had she given birth - and this established that the mother's mental suffering could be sufficient reason for an abortion.

The judge (Mr. Justice Macnaghten) put it like this:

...if the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor ... is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother.



Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Laws specifically against abortion became widespread in America in the second half of the 1800s, and by 1900 abortion was illegal everywhere in the USA, except in order to save the life of the mother.

Some writers have suggested that the pressure to ban abortion was not entirely ethical or religious, but was partially motivated by the medical profession as a way of attacking the non-medical practitioners who carried out most abortions.

Abortions were made legal in the United States in a landmark 1973 Supreme Court judgement, often referred to as the Roe v Wade case.

In 2003 the plaintiff in Roe v Wade asked for the decision to be reversed and put forward questionable evidence that abortion is harmful to women.

Abortion rights faced restriction in 2003 after the US House of Representatives and the US Senate voted to ban late-term 'partial birth' abortions.

[Thorne]

Well done, damyanti! Nice piece of work! :super::ty

[mkemse]

Here are the historical facts:

The average family in Ancient Greece had 5 children. Healthy babies could be sold into slavery. Unhealthy ones or otherwise defective ones would be exposed. This meant they were left out in the elements to die. Some babies were exposed simply because a soothsayer forcast an evil from the baby. Some exposed babies were taken in by other people.

The ancient Greeks regarded children as little people. They did not regard them as different from big people. By the time a person was about 13 years old, he or she was considered an adult in every respect. Boys were educated separately for their duties as citizens of the state. Girls were educated by their mothers in the home.

Formal education was woefully inadequate in classical Greece. The lax attitude towards formal education reflects two principles; that children were not regarded in their own right, but were, seen as adults-in-waiting; and that an Athenian had supreme confidence in the ability of their children to become like their peers and to understand and to live by their standards and ideals of what it meant to be a good man and a good citizen in a good society. Some of these ideals and standards were very different depending on what part of Greece you were from. This was especially true in the differences in educating the youth in Athens and in Sparta.

Children of both sexes were kept naked while they were very young and boys spent a lot of time naked in athletic training. Greek boys had to contend with an open attitude toward homosexuality.

If you were a wife of a citizen you spent your time secluded at home having babies, cleaning, cooking, spinning and weaving. Since your needs were taken care of you led a pretty easy life. The husband had to work outside the home, shop, attend political meetings and go to war. Women slaves did more menial work including carrying water and wastes, grinding grain, serving, and in some cases providing sex for their masters.

Women were supposed to be confined to the home but there are reports that they are found outside the home. One possible solution to this contradiction is that the women are veiled when they want to be outside the home when it is not appropriate. There is some suggestion that the men felt the women were invisible in this situation.

The Romans and Greeks weren't much concerned with protecting the unborn, and when they did object to abortion it was often because the father didn't want to be deprived of a child that he felt entitled to.

The birth process in women was seen as related to the production of natural goods on which the community depended. The fertility of women was seen as related to the fertility of plants and animals and even of the soil.

If the experience of Agnodice is any indication the women were attended by male doctors at birth, if at all. Men tried to keep Agnodice from becoming a doctor, but the women protested. Women became doctors until the 12th century. Midwifes probably became popular when woman were no longer able to become doctors.

As to the risk of childbirth Medea says "I'd three time rather stand And face a line of shields than once give birth."

Abortion was accepted in both ancient Rome and Greece.

The ancient Greeks tolerated abortions though they were not all that common. During their time it was much safer to carry a baby to full term than have an abortion. Perhaps only one in ten mothers survived an abortion. The ancient Greeks tolerated infanticide. If the newborn baby was malformed then it would be exposed to the elements to die. If the baby was unwanted it could be sold into slavery. There were safer options in those days than abortion.

The early philosophers also argued that a foetus did not become formed and begin to live until at least 40 days after conception for a male, and around 80 days for a female. The philosopher Aristotle wrote:

...when couples have children in excess, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation. Aristotle, Politics 7.16

Aristotle thought that female embryos developed more slowly than male embryos, but made up for lost time by developing more quickly after birth. He appears to have arrived at this idea by seeing the relative development of male and female foetuses that had been miscarried.

Hippocrates, the father of medicine, described how a dancer came to him with a need for an abortion. Hippocrates caused her to make certain violent jumping dance movements and her baby aborted. He then went on to make important observations about the aborted fetus. Abortion was not common in ancient Greece simply because they practiced infanticide.

During the Roman period the demand for babies dropped and some of the women opted for self-induced abortions which they performed on themselves with a knife. A desperate woman would plunge a dagger into her vagina, killing the baby. This would usually result in the death of the mother as well as the baby. This is a very un-safe practice and many of these women died. It was much safer for the mother to carry the baby to full-term and then expose it or sell it than to try to abort it before birth.

A parent who abandoned a new-born baby to die was not punished in any way. If a person found such a baby they could take it as their own.


The Old Testament has several legal passages that refer to abortion, but they deal with it in terms of loss of property and not sanctity of life.

The status of the foetus as property in the Bible is shown by the law that if a person causes a miscarriage they must pay a fine to the husband of the woman, but if they also cause the woman to die then they are liable to be killed.

The word "abortion" does not appear in any translation of the bible!

Out of more than 600 laws of Moses, none comments on abortion. One Mosaic law about miscarriage specifically contradicts the claim that the bible is antiabortion, clearly stating that miscarriage does not involve the death of a human being. If a woman has a miscarriage as the result of a fight, the man who caused it should be fined. If the woman dies, however, the culprit must be killed:

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25

The bible orders the death penalty for murder of a human being, but not for the expulsion of a fetus.

According to the bible, life begins at birth--when a baby draws its first breath. The bible defines life as "breath" in several significant passages, including the story of Adam's creation in Genesis 2:7, when God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Jewish law traditionally considers that personhood begins at birth.

The New Testament doesn't explicitly deal with abortion.

Even antiabortionists admit that, their reasoning is stretching Bible verses to claim that fetus is a child too:

Psalm 127:3-5; 128:3-5 -- Children are a blessing, a source of happiness and joy to their parents.
Titus 2:4 -- Young women should be taught to love their children.
Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4 -- God has made us stewards of our children.

(antiabortionist view) "But an unborn baby is a "child," and a woman who has conceived is a mother even before the baby is born. Abortion does fit the Bible definition of murder. But even if it did not, it would still be sinful because it is unloving, a lack of appreciation for God's blessings, and a gross abuse of our stewardship to raise our children as God directs."

Through much of Western history abortion was not criminal if it was carried out before 'quickening'; that is before the foetus moved in the womb at between 18 and 20 weeks into the pregnancy. Until that time people tended to regard the foetus as part of the mother and so its destruction posed no greater ethical problem than other forms of surgery.

English Common Law agreed that abortion was a crime after 'quickening' - but the seriousness of that crime was different at different times in history.

In 1803 English Statute Law made abortion after quickening a crime that earned the death penalty, but a less serious crime before that.

In 1837 English law abolished the significance of quickening, and also abandoned the death penalty for abortion.

In the 1920s English law added a get-out clause that stopped abortion being a crime if it was "done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother."

This change officially recognised a little-stressed feature of anti-abortion laws; they were often intended to protect women from a dangerous medical procedure, and not to protect the life of the foetus.

In 1938 the important case of R v Bourne decided in favour of an abortion performed on a 14 year old girl who had been raped - the court felt that the girl's mental health would have suffered had she given birth - and this established that the mother's mental suffering could be sufficient reason for an abortion.

The judge (Mr. Justice Macnaghten) put it like this:

...if the doctor is of the opinion, on reasonable grounds and with adequate knowledge, that the probable consequence of the continuance of the pregnancy will be to make the woman a physical or mental wreck, the jury are entitled to take the view that the doctor ... is operating for the purpose of preserving the life of the mother.



Abortion was common in most of colonial America, but it was kept secret because of strict laws against unmarried sexual activity.

Laws specifically against abortion became widespread in America in the second half of the 1800s, and by 1900 abortion was illegal everywhere in the USA, except in order to save the life of the mother.

Some writers have suggested that the pressure to ban abortion was not entirely ethical or religious, but was partially motivated by the medical profession as a way of attacking the non-medical practitioners who carried out most abortions.

Abortions were made legal in the United States in a landmark 1973 Supreme Court judgement, often referred to as the Roe v Wade case.

In 2003 the plaintiff in Roe v Wade asked for the decision to be reversed and put forward questionable evidence that abortion is harmful to women.

Abortion rights faced restriction in 2003 after the US House of Representatives and the US Senate voted to ban late-term 'partial birth' abortions.


Nice Factual Post

[~faerie~]

This is an extremely hard topic for me to talk about, but i feel the need to insert my opinion. i had two daughters with my ex. about 7 years into out relationship he became a drug addict and an abuser, and i was afraid to leave. i was working full time supporting my ex and two daughters, and at the time we were on welfare because he couldnt get or keep a joband i didnt make enough. i got pregnant 3 times and had three abortions. not because i wanted to but because i felt that at the time i had no other option. my main concern was to be able to support the children i have and i knew in my heart i could not bring another child into what my life was becoming. it took another five years for me to get out. there is not a day that goes by that i dont think about them and feel the pain of loss. But i know that i did the right thing. i knew as i was going into the clinic and had all the protesters shouting at me that i was doing what was best for me and my daughters. They did not have to live my life, i did. and i probably should have left him sooner but i didnt. and i have that to bear on my shoulders for all time. I am sorry i had to do it. a piece of me died each time, a part of my heart shattered and fell away, but i dont regret it.
i was raised catholic and i was raised that is was wrong, but i also remember to not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It is not the right or the place of the government or anyone to tell a women what she can or cant do to her body. are there not enough unwanted and abandoned children on the streets? are all of the people opposed to abortion going to take in and raise all of those children? Why not worry about the children that are already here and have no one than the ones that are not yet born. It is easy to get on your soapbox and shout to the world your views on morality and how all of us are killers and sinners and whores, but what do you personally do to make a difference. actions speak louder than words. what do your actions speak?


feel free to ban me if you must.

[mkemse]

This is an extremely hard topic for me to talk about, but i feel the need to insert my opinion. i had two daughters with my ex. about 7 years into out relationship he became a drug addict and an abuser, and i was afraid to leave. i was working full time supporting my ex and two daughters, and at the time we were on welfare because he couldnt get or keep a joband i didnt make enough. i got pregnant 3 times and had three abortions. not because i wanted to but because i felt that at the time i had no other option. my main concern was to be able to support the children i have and i knew in my heart i could not bring another child into what my life was becoming. it took another five years for me to get out. there is not a day that goes by that i dont think about them and feel the pain of loss. But i know that i did the right thing. i knew as i was going into the clinic and had all the protesters shouting at me that i was doing what was best for me and my daughters. They did not have to live my life, i did. and i probably should have left him sooner but i didnt. and i have that to bear on my shoulders for all time. I am sorry i had to do it. a piece of me died each time, a part of my heart shattered and fell away, but i dont regret it.
i was raised catholic and i was raised that is was wrong, but i also remember to not judge a person until you have walked a mile in their shoes. It is not the right or the place of the government or anyone to tell a women what she can or cant do to her body. are there not enough unwanted and abandoned children on the streets? are all of the people opposed to abortion going to take in and raise all of those children? Why not worry about the children that are already here and have no one than the ones that are not yet born. It is easy to get on your soapbox and shout to the world your views on morality and how all of us are killers and sinners and whores, but what do you personally do to make a difference. actions speak louder than words. what do your actions speak?


feel free to ban me if you must.

Not going to shout ect but simply say what I did before, th issue of Abortion to me is an issue between the Husband, wife and their doctor
It is NOT a decsion that should be eft up to the Governement or Courts, YOU own your reproductive system, they don't, what do you with it is your choice not their

[awakening2]

May be the reason for calling it immoral by some is that for a long time, making love has remain a noble act allowed or approved by societies for only those who got married to pronounce that they are ready to take responsibilities. Making love was like making a pledge to their own love, add meaning to it, and give new focus to their life and to be part of the nature to continue its journey.

Now life has changed, marriage is a burden for many, making love is little bit of love, more of fun, little bit of lust, and yes, sure a physical requirement (or may be an exercise!) for many! The fun and enjoyment is part of fun lovers (life is today so live it today, who has seen tomorrow!) and not much to do with taking responsibilities – plan, and if required, sacrifice today for a better future. Many factions of societies appreciate fun lovers and to help ease them from troubles, corporate sector such as pharmaceutical and other protective gear manufacturers have step forward. Amazingly still fun lovers are fun lovers, how can you control them, they are not meant to be….

Now come those who are forced into it, well I only hope that the societies get matured to a level where:
a) They collectively take the responsibilities of such born,
b) Inflict a punishment on the wrong doers (the man) to ensure he is unable to repeat the act again, even if the opportunity is generated by him again
c) Treat victim as the noble one, and prize those who strive to win the hearts of them...

Oh…it is turning into a serious lecture...no fun in it...and I am not that serious, but then it is difficult to have fun...for a society is wounded...in most of the cases the soul of the very woman who is the source of nurturing life is shredded, and the death of an unborn one, on who's soul and body (called fetus by some) we are reasoning to triumph. For me it is a lose-lose situation...no gain...no smiles...

Some one whispered - if you feel, it’s a death of a human society, if you don’t it’s just a ‘tumour’ remove it and dump it away!

[thedominthehat]

My own personal philosophy is that as a society we can decide the relative moral or ethical value of certain decisions. We can weigh the interests of the state, the mother, the father, the sperm/egg/zygote/fetus/infant and decide where the line can be best drawn.


I believe that the moral wrong created by giving the state control over a woman's body to interfere in this most personal and private decision complicated by all manners of individual circumstance produces a greater immorality than the elimination of a potential human life in utero.

I think that for the most part, Roe v Wade established a fair system where the further developed the potential human is, the more rights they have. At conception and for some weeks after they are merely a clump of cells and therefore the mother should have an absolute right to terminate the pregnancy. In the second trimester, the state has some interest in regulating the practice but its role should be to encourage women to make their decisions as early as possible in the pregnancy. In the third trimester during which the fetus becomes viable, the state may rightly weigh rights of the child to live as being superior to the mother's inconvenient circumstances, but in cases of emergency the life of the mother is more important.

Religious positions on abortion differ. While some religious groups believe life begins at conception and abortion is always wrong, even going so far as to proscribe birth control because they believe, mostly wrongly, that it kills fertilized eggs, other groups specifically require that the life and health of the woman be considered as superior to the life of the child even to the point of its birth.

[Arria]

I once read the Aborigines do not consider abortion a sin.

They believe bringing a child into the world that is not wanted, and will not be loved, is a sin.

I pretty much go with that.

And I think it ridiculous that men have a say in the matter.
I do not mean the potential father, who may feel a bond with the unborn.

I mean complete strangers who will never have a child in their bodies and will never be faced with a situation that makes you choose between having a kid and having the life and the chances you might have had without a kid.

I am not talking about some fanciful shit like "but I want to be an actress" etc.

I am talking about situations like mine - I decided to keep my baby and NOT marry the father, which made me WHAM from being a hopeful student into a person having to turn to the welfare authorities to finance my life!
It did not go over well with me, it was very hard, and if I had known HOW hard it would be, I would probably never have gone through with it!

However, I was lucky enough to get an apprenticeship, and finalize it successfully, and with my first "real" job after the apprenticeship time, I was off welfare again and have paid for my own stuff since.

Only after I had managed that - to become financially independent again -, I entered a relationship again.

The last thing on Earth I would have wanted was some asshole guy who would rub in at every given opportunity, "if I had not taken you, you would be still on welfare", etc.

Sometimes I think this world would be a better place if some people just managed to mind their own fucking business!

[Thorne]

Sometimes I think this world would be a better place if some people just managed to mind their own fucking business!

LOL! I agree wholeheartedly, but it wouldn't be THIS world!

[MMI]

On balance, I'm against abortion. It's a gut feeling and I cannot justify it rationally. I do accept there are circumstances where it should be permitted, and I think these must be related to saving the life of mother or foetus.

I have a question, however. It seems to be universally accepted that, if the mother's life is in danger, the foetus may be aborted to save her. Why? Isn't the unborn baby's right to life as good as, if not better than, the mother's?

[thedominthehat]

MMI:

Until modern times, an infant with a dead mother would be unlikely to survive anyways. In addition she may have other young children that would be put at risk, if she died in favor of the life of the infant. Also many children died young so putting the life of a healthy adult woman who might have opportunities to have more children later is not a good choice in the calculus of survival.

Some religions actually require that the pregnancy be terminated to save the life of the mother. They do not say it is ok to abort to save the mother as an exception to the normal prohibition, they say it is required. There is no choice, the mothers life is more valuable until the child is born.

[Belgarold]

I once read the Aborigines do not consider abortion a sin.

They believe bringing a child into the world that is not wanted, and will not be loved, is a sin.

I pretty much go with that.

And I think it ridiculous that men have a say in the matter.
I do not mean the potential father, who may feel a bond with the unborn.

I mean complete strangers who will never have a child in their bodies and will never be faced with a situation that makes you choose between having a kid and having the life and the chances you might have had without a kid.

I am not talking about some fanciful shit like "but I want to be an actress" etc.

I am talking about situations like mine - I decided to keep my baby and NOT marry the father, which made me WHAM from being a hopeful student into a person having to turn to the welfare authorities to finance my life!
It did not go over well with me, it was very hard, and if I had known HOW hard it would be, I would probably never have gone through with it!

However, I was lucky enough to get an apprenticeship, and finalize it successfully, and with my first "real" job after the apprenticeship time, I was off welfare again and have paid for my own stuff since.

Only after I had managed that - to become financially independent again -, I entered a relationship again.

The last thing on Earth I would have wanted was some asshole guy who would rub in at every given opportunity, "if I had not taken you, you would be still on welfare", etc.

Sometimes I think this world would be a better place if some people just managed to mind their own fucking business!

Good words Arria. I think that is my problem with Religious Right's position. The judgment that comes down. With two issues especially, Abortion and Gay rights, the judgment and superiority make me angry.

For example, I don't believe anybody is FOR abortion. It is difficult on the mother and the fetus. And I do not fault them on their position.

What I fault them on is judging the people, like me, that feel the choice remains with the mother. Calling them murderers and being self-righteous about their position.

We are also called PRO-abortion. No, we are pro-choice. I do not fault the position but the arrogance and self-righteousness bugs hell out of me, lol.

I do not know if anhy of this makes sense.

However, the last paragraph of Arria's post says it perfectly. The world WOULD be a better place if people would mind their own business and stop trying to force everyone to believe as they do.

[mkemse]

i cannot believe this is a thread


i wont comment for fear of getting banned


*smh*

Why not, Freedom Of Speach and Fredom Of Expression, one may not like some of the views expressed here, but if you are an American, Americans have the Public right to express their feelings and opinoins

[wmrs2]

My thoughts on abortion are simple. It pleases me that my mother did not abort me. To me, one who loves life, it would have been an immortal sin. By God's grace, I live. "Thou shall not kill." I might be selfish but I like that statement. It bothers me that I don't want to apply that to Adolph Hitler's mother though. Of course we did not know who she was giving birth to, did we? Morality of abortion is a difficult question. If you don't want babies, don't have sex is your best option.

[mkemse]

My thoughts on abortion are simple. It pleases me that my mother did not abort me. To me, one who loves life, it would have been an immortal sin. By God's grace, I live. "Thou shall not kill." I might be selfish but I like that statement. It bothers me that I don't want to apply that to Adolph Hitler's mother though. Of course we did not know who she was giving birth to, did we? Morality of abortion is a difficult question. If you don't want babies, don't have sex is your best option.

I Partial agree, but on the Shall Not Kill, what about going to War and killing people, yes killingf is part of going to war but killing is killing, be it abortion or war, you are still taking an innocent life, i realize that killing in War is needed to defeat the enemy, but it is still killing
As far as sex goes,what happens if the pregnancy was caused by either incest or rape at knife or gun point, hard to prevent that how do you blame the female then??