Abortion Opinions

[Ali]

2. I do not believe that you should be legally obligated to save me with one of your kidneys -- because you are not in any way responsible for me. A fetus comes into existence because of the actions of a man and a woman -- and they are therefore responsible for it. Let me give an example of my own -- Let's say that you and I were born together, attached as Siamese twins, and we were perfectly capable of surviving that way. Then a doctor comes along and says to you "I can remove your twin from you, but it will kill him." Does your right to your body allow you to merely discard mine?

Okay, let's say that my child (already born) that I created with my body needs a kidney to live.  Sure, me personally, I would give my child my heart if he needed it.  But, and this is my point, should I be required by law to give him my kidney because I created him and am therefore responsible for him?  We're talking about legalities, not about what is the loving thing to do.  The bottom line is that a fetus needs a woman's body in order to live.  So, do we condone making laws that force a woman to give use of her body to someone else against her will?

The thing with the conjoined twins isn't quite the same, because it's hard to argue who "owns" the body since we've shared it since birth.   It's pretty clear that my body is owned by me since I have had it for 32 years without sharing it with anyone else (except for the 9 months I carried my son.)

I also agree with DJ; pregnancy is not just something that you go through for 9 months.  My body still isn't same and my son is 4 and I work my butt off at getting/staying in shape.  There are parts of me that I know will never be the same no matter what I do.  I agree that it is barbaric to make someone go through that against her will.

Also, you'll probably get more than 5 responses.  You can pick and choose what you reply t, but trying to impose limits prolly won't work.  Just sayin'.

ETA:  Just re-read Dj's post.  *Shudder* Yes, the tearing.  I called it the Franken-vagina once I was able to laugh again. *Shudder*

[AnimatedDirt]

Also, you'll probably get more than 5 responses.  You can pick and choose what you reply t, but trying to impose limits prolly won't work.  Just sayin'.

Agreed.  However, I read it TIC.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I have another thought about treating living things with potentiality in mind.

The ultimate "actualization" of human potential from a chronological point of view is death. It might sound morbid, but it's true. If we ignore the present and base our arguments and defenses of what constitutes life based on what something "will be", it all becomes moot. We all become dead. Can I kill someone and defend my actions by saying, "well, he was going to die someday anyway." No. I think, similarly, we can't treat a zygote as anything other than a zygote because, factually, it's not. Potentiality as an argument taken to it's extreme, is still non-existence. I really don't think it's a solid foundation for an argument against abortion unless you start attributing souls, God's will, and other theisty things to it.

[Sweetdeath]

It's a woman's body. A woman's choice.
I'm not sure what there is to argue about it.

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

[DeterminedJuliet]

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. 

[Sweetdeath]

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. 

Hope you recovered well since then :<

[DeterminedJuliet]

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty.  

Hope you recovered well since then :<

Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good.   I'm in the best shape of my life, all things considered.

[Sweetdeath]

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. 

Hope you recovered well since then :<

Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good. 

That sounds so painful ;_;

[DeterminedJuliet]

And oh man, thanks for the details, DJ XD *shiver*

Haha, trust me, I spared you plenty. 

Hope you recovered well since then :<

Haha, I'm all fine and dandy. My tail bone did give me trouble for two years or so, but I'm good. 

That sounds so painful ;_;

Breaking your tail bone is pretty uncommon, but it did hurt like a bitch. I couldn't sit on hard chairs without a lot of pain for about two years or so. Picking up yoga and dancing really helped, actually.

[Whitney]

At what point is the fetus considered 'life'?

What matters is not when the fetus is "life"...what matters is when it is a person.

If the fetus is not considered 'life', is the potentiality for it to become 'life' significant?

Replace life with person for clarity and my answer is that no it's not significant...a egg and sperm both in many ways alive and have potential to become a human being but they aren't a person till a certain series of events has taken place.

Does the fact that the fetus is a burden on the mother give the mother the right to terminate it?

Are you intending to only talk about the fetal stage forward or do you mean developing embryo?  The fetal stage begins 11 weeks in, and more than half of abortions occur before that stage. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5109a1.htm
I think that if a mother won't be able to take care of her child and wants to abort early on that it can sometimes be the more ethical decision....and of course women should have the right to control what happens to their own bodies.  I also think there is a wide array of medical reasons for why carrying the fetus to term would be a unreasonable burden and numerous medical issues the fetus could have which would make carrying it to term immoral.

Is abortion an issue that falls under the public domain or the mother's concern only?

Until such a time that there is a non-invasive method of removing a developing embryo from a woman's body then it is only the woman's concern.

[Will]

Wow, that's quite a discussion.

Personally, I'm less concerned about what does or doesn't constitute life or alive. It's possible that some day I'll be in a persistent vegetative state, still technically alive, but with no hope of ever regaining consciousness again. In that circumstance, I would hope that my being alive would not prevent a doctor from allowing me to die.

When I think of the issue of abortion, I tend to think about two things: practicality and the basis of individual rights.

When thinking of abortion purely practically, I think our goal should be to make abortion safe and rare. Safe, of course, so that women don't get unnecessarily hurt or killed, and rare because, regardless of where one falls on the abortion debate, abortions are incredibly traumatic, life-changing procedures for many women. The best way I understand to make abortions safe is to keep them fully legal. It's in places where abortions are difficult or impossible to get legally where the procedure is performed unsafely the most, which results in needless suffering and death. The best way to make abortion rare has to be adequate sex education and access to birth control. We've seen it again and again and again: real sex education--not abstinence only--leads to a marked reduction in unwanted pregnancies because people understand better how to avoid getting pregnant/making someone pregnant. Sex education classes that appropriately label things like the pull-out method as myths that really aren't a substitute for birth control lead to less pulling out being used as birth control. And having the pill and condoms available for people who want them lead to the biggest reductions in unwanted pregnancies.

When thinking about the issue more from the intersection of individual rights and biology, I can't not think of the mother and the zygote/embryo/fetus (from here on, just "fetus") as being biologically linked. Like it or not, between conception and birth, the fetus living inside of the mother is entirely dependent on the mother for oxygen, nutrients, waste disposal and protection. It's not just that the fetus can't provide for him/her/itself, it's that the only way of functioning is through a direct physical connection to a human being who already has rights granted by law and society. If any part of that direct connection is lost, the result is either separation from the mother or death. So, when we discuss the individual rights and privacy of the expectant mother, we are talking about the individual rights and privacy of the entity of the mother, which includes the fetus. As such, I cannot imagine that the rights of the fetus supersede those of the mother until the moment of birth. Once that connection is severed, the infant becomes an individual, but before then the fetus is a part of the mother, and thus any decisions about the mother's body should be hers.

At least that's my take.

[Whitney]

I would agree that the destruction of those lives is alright, but they are not equivalent to abortion. A flower will never develop sentience. Bugs will not really develop sentience either

This is why it's not pointlessly playing semantics to discuss personhood rather than just if a fetus is "alive." 

The whole abortion debate boils down to two questions:  1)At what point should a fetus have the same rights as humans who are already born 2)After that point, if any, do the rights of the fetus overrule the rights of the mother.

Using legal precedent for this relationship is difficult because in no other legal situation is a human living inside of another human.  Keep in mind that if you decide that 1 is birth and 2 is birth that you create a legal system where a mother could not abort even if she medically could not carry to term without the death of herself and the fetus.

[Sweetdeath]

Wow, that's quite a discussion.

Personally, I'm less concerned about what does or doesn't constitute life or alive. It's possible that some day I'll be in a persistent vegetative state, still technically alive, but with no hope of ever regaining consciousness again. In that circumstance, I would hope that my being alive would not prevent a doctor from allowing me to die.

When I think of the issue of abortion, I tend to think about two things: practicality and the basis of individual rights.

When thinking of abortion purely practically, I think our goal should be to make abortion safe and rare. Safe, of course, so that women don't get unnecessarily hurt or killed, and rare because, regardless of where one falls on the abortion debate, abortions are incredibly traumatic, life-changing procedures for many women. The best way I understand to make abortions safe is to keep them fully legal. It's in places where abortions are difficult or impossible to get legally where the procedure is performed unsafely the most, which results in needless suffering and death. The best way to make abortion rare has to be adequate sex education and access to birth control. We've seen it again and again and again: real sex education--not abstinence only--leads to a marked reduction in unwanted pregnancies because people understand better how to avoid getting pregnant/making someone pregnant. Sex education classes that appropriately label things like the pull-out method as myths that really aren't a substitute for birth control lead to less pulling out being used as birth control. And having the pill and condoms available for people who want them lead to the biggest reductions in unwanted pregnancies.

When thinking about the issue more from the intersection of individual rights and biology, I can't not think of the mother and the zygote/embryo/fetus (from here on, just "fetus") as being biologically linked. Like it or not, between conception and birth, the fetus living inside of the mother is entirely dependent on the mother for oxygen, nutrients, waste disposal and protection. It's not just that the fetus can't provide for him/her/itself, it's that the only way of functioning is through a direct physical connection to a human being who already has rights granted by law and society. If any part of that direct connection is lost, the result is either separation from the mother or death. So, when we discuss the individual rights and privacy of the expectant mother, we are talking about the individual rights and privacy of the entity of the mother, which includes the fetus. As such, I cannot imagine that the rights of the fetus supersede those of the mother until the moment of birth. Once that connection is severed, the infant becomes an individual, but before then the fetus is a part of the mother, and thus any decisions about the mother's body should be hers.

At least that's my take.

This post is intelligent and should be bolded.

Seriously, i agree with everything you say 100%.

[Genericguy]

I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.

[Sweetdeath]

I went to a lake yesterday. It was a fairly secluded and quiet spot. Then, these 15 to 17 year old annoying, giggling, loud, and completely rude girls showed up and wouldn't calm down. For future refrence, is abortion only legal if they are your kids and haven't been born yet? I was considering aborting them, but I wasn't sure about the details.

haha, what you were thinking of doing starts with the letter M.

yes, i feel MOST teens should be disposed of. >_>;