Abortion

[Titan]

The woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.
If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

[Jolly Sapper]

Well the problem with how the anti-legal-safe-medical abortion crowd (im really freakin nitpicky about how its described, its not a dig at the anti abortion crowd) is that until implantation, the fertilized egg can be flushed out of a woman's body at any time.  

Now if "abortion" (meaning the ending of a pregnancy by any means) in general is a bad thing, then women are being condemned (or potentially) condemned for something outside of their control.  

Man marries woman, has sex with wife who doesn't get pregnant.  Gets bored with wife (not a requirement) and then accuses her of aborting "his" child.  There is no evidence of this other than the act of unprotected sex didn't result in a child.  The woman has no way to defend herself in court and the decision is left to the biases of a judge or jury....

The situations that would lead a woman to have to consider seeking legal-safe-medical abortion procedures are never (its safe to say) good.  I'm all for giving as much information and support as humanly possible to that woman, whatever her situation, but in the end the decision is up to her.  

If she wants to carry the child to term and then put it up for adoption, then go her.  Its up to society to make sure that 1) she has top notch pre/post natal care with the expenses are taken care of, 2) whatever control local government have over child welfare and adoption agencies needs to be exercised both liberally and with the utmost importance.

*on a side note: I personally find artificial insemination to be repugnant in a country were so many are expected to give their children up for adoption because its a "sin" to abort a pregnancy (and in some opinions, attempt to remove the possibility of needing an abortion through the use of contraceptives.)
** This also means that making silly laws that restrict the number of potential homes and foster homes due to some arbitrary issue are just as reprehensible.

There shouldn't be any pressure to avoid seeking a legal-safe-medical abortion and endangering her life due to medical complications or potential catastrophic birth defects.  This also requires that society ensure that there is an added emphasis on accurate and timely testing/reporting when an expectant mother wants to have her child screened in utero.
[
I'd imagine it gets harder and harder to make the decision to end a pregnancy the closer it comes to the nine month mark, regardless of whether the person is pro-choice or anti-legal-safe-medical abortion procedures.

This got really long so I'll wrap this up.

I don't think that outlawing legal-safe-medical abortion procedures is the way to reduce the rate at which these services are sought out.  (It's like treating the symptoms without attacking the disease.)

The few articles I've read in the last few years regarding survey's in countries where legal-safe-medical abortion procedures are outlawed showed no significant drop in the number of women who were seeking these procedures. (sorry, I didn't think to save any links)

There are ways of ending a pregnancy before term without the aid of legal-safe-medical abortion procedures, namely finding some local variety of plant (or household cleaner) that is highly toxic and taking just below the lethal dose (throws the body into shock and can cause a miscarriage), traveling to an area/country where it is legal (discriminating against those who aren't able to afford the trip), and the age old back alley doc (which increases the likelihood of complications leading to sterility or death).  So outlawing safe-medical abortion procedures probably won't be worth the effort that has been put into making the procedures illegal.

[Jolly Sapper]

The woman's existing rights trump those of the unborn, especially in cases of rape, incest or when the child has significant defects and it would be a massive hardship for the family to care for the child.

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.
If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

Really? Where?  In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).  

I've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China.  I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

[Titan]

Really? Where? In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).

I said "adoption of NEW BORN babies." Not adoption in general.

I've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China. I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

There are, but the waiting line is SOOOOO much longer here, trust me, my family has been on it.

[rlrose328]

Why is choice superior to life in this case? And I can't accept the last point as valid since there is a HUGE waiting line for adopting new born babies.

Why SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case?  Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body?  I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

If the child is the result of rape why should the mother be allowed to abort the baby?

First, I will assume you are not a man and second, I will assume you've never been a victim of rape.  I'm both.

I'm a responsible person who was told at age 20 that I could not conceive a child due to a few medical conditions.  I was, by all accounts, a broken baby machine and I grieved for a few years, then I got on with my child-free existence.  The hubby and I never used contraception... why should we?  Had I known the doctors were wrong, we would have used contraception.  I got pregnant and I wanted that child more than I wanted anything else in the world.

But before I was married, I was viciously attacked and raped by a man who said he cared about me.  I won't go into any details here but in the end, I was left in a motel room, incapable of leaving until a maid finally opened the door the following day and set me free.  Had I been pregnant with the seed from that horrible man and as a result of that cowardly and savage act, I would have aborted in a heartbeat, despite my established inability to conceive.  I would NOT carry that child for 10 months, regardless how innocent it would have been.  I would have relived that brutality every second of every day and that is a punishment no woman should have to endure.  

THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

[curiosityandthecat]

THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

I can be pretty cold at times, but even I would never try to argue against that. *hug*

[Titan]

Why SHOULDN'T choce be superior to life in this case? Why does the woman have no control over what happens with and inside of her own body? I tell you what, if men could get pregnant, this would NOT be such a hotly debated topic.

Because of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If you believe the child is living then the child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which such a choice would flatly deny in favor of personal preference. Besides, when a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her body, it is hers and the childs. When a man who owns a van is driving his kids and the neighbor's kids around is he allowed to crash it at no worry for the safety of the neighbor's kids? If anything he could try to kill them because they were a burden. You are riding a very slippery slope here.

"If men could get pregnant" is such a horrible logical fallacy. Explain how you could know something like that?

But before I was married, I was viciously attacked and raped by a man who said he cared about me. I won't go into any details here but in the end, I was left in a motel room, incapable of leaving until a maid finally opened the door the following day and set me free.

I've very sorry. If I'm making you relive memories then please tell me so and I will stop.

Had I been pregnant with the seed from that horrible man and as a result of that cowardly and savage act, I would have aborted in a heartbeat, despite my established inability to conceive. I would NOT carry that child for 10 months, regardless how innocent it would have been.

But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime? Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort. If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

No, I empathize, I believe it is horrible and it makes me sick just thinking about it but I also empathize with the child and believe that that child should not be punished for someone else's crime and that that child should be granted the same rights as another human. Yes, something horrible and despicable happened, but you can turn that into something amazing and wonderful.

[Whitney]

Really? Where? In Arkansas, where the ban on unwed couples from adoption/fostering just passed, there are about 1000 more kids than there are people willing to adopt/foster (this is pre ban).

I said "adoption of NEW BORN babies." Not adoption in general.

I've heard of groups, told to me by my Catholic sister-in-law, who have meetings every month about adopting babies from China. I wonder if there are any groups working the domestic side of things?

There are, but the waiting line is SOOOOO much longer here, trust me, my family has been on it.

Titan, most people who are trying to adopt want healthy white babies (and are usually picky about gender too).  It's sad to have to say people are that way, but it's true.  What happens when a black or hispanic woman has a baby that she needs to give up for adoption but no one is willing to take the kid?  Is she left with taking on the burden of a child she can't support...or even worse, left knowing she had to abandon a child in foster care until someone is willing to adot him or her?  I think our country is taking some big strides towards getting rid of prejudices against races...but for now it is a problem we have to consider.

What about crack babies...babies with aids...downs syndrone....not all babies are easy to adopt out.  That's why the wait list is so long...it's not that there aren't babies to be adopted it's that there aren't many babies of a certain type waiting to be adopted.  

Not long after taking me home my parents found out I had a hole in my heart.  Now, I'm not going to put them in the position of having to answer the following question, but what do you think most people would do if they were on the adoption waiting list and found out the next available kid required a very expensive operation with unexpected outcome?  I think we all know most people would choose to wait a bit longer for a completely healthy baby.

I'm not sure what the ideal solution is to fixing the adoption process would be.  Lessening the requirement to qualifiy to adopt would be one leap forward...I've heard the average adoption costs around $30,000 dollars.  I think this is a place where the governement should step in and offer to pay for the pre-birth medical costs and whatever else adopting parents are having to pay for so more couples (or individuals) can qualify to adopt a child.

Maybe it would work even better if we guilt tripped people like some pounds do with puppies.  

[rlrose328]

Because of the American Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

If you believe the child is living then the child has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which such a choice would flatly deny in favor of personal preference. Besides, when a woman becomes pregnant it is no longer just her body, it is hers and the childs. When a man who owns a van is driving his kids and the neighbor's kids around is he allowed to crash it at no worry for the safety of the neighbor's kids? If anything he could try to kill them because they were a burden. You are riding a very slippery slope here.

Yes, all men are created equal and deserve right guaranteed by our constitution (I'll let the "by their Creator" thing go).   But when the Supreme Court interpreted the constitution in Roe v. Wade, Chief Justice Blackmun stated that the constitution applies to post-natal persons only and has no application to those pre-natal.  He left it that the scientific and medical communities need to come to a concensus as to when "personhood" starts before the constitution could be applied.  The scientific and medical communities are too torn to come to that concensus.

Were I an ancient Greek or a Jew, I'd say personhood doesn't start until the baby is delivered (or half delivered as the Jews consider it).  Through the middle ages, it was believed that a soul doesn't occupy the body until 40 days for a male and 90 days for a female, so CHRISTIANS set abortion limits at 90 days from conception.  Since then, most non-Catholic denominations believed that it is a up to the person to decide while Catholics have always believe in the at-conception ideal.

A fetus (yes, I'm sticking with fetus in my argument) is not a PERSON who deserves the same rights as an adult female who has memories, loved ones, a life, history, etc.  For me, I'd say I support abortion for pregnancies between 6 weeks, when the embryo develops brain waves, and 8 weeks, when the last vestiges of gills and a tail disappear.  A woman should definitely know in that timeframe what she wants to do.  For instances of rape or incest, I'd support abortion in the form of the morning after pill before she even has a chance to know she's pregnant.

And I'm not going to compare a woman getting an abortion with a man crashing his van to kill some kids, and you won't find ANYONE who would take up that argument.  That is a straw man argument if ever I saw one.

"If men could get pregnant" is such a horrible logical fallacy. Explain how you could know something like that?

You are correct... I can't possibly know that.  It's just my opinion as a woman in a male-centric world.  It is an illogical opinion.  

I've very sorry. If I'm making you relive memories then please tell me so and I will stop.

No worries... I've comes to terms with it and getting upset won't erase it.  It's merely something that happened to an irresponsible child who, at 19, thought she knew what life was all about... and found out in one shiningly awful instant that she was SOOOO wrong.  But this is why I'm so passionate about this argument.

But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime? Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

I'm sure there are woman who disagree with me as I am disagreeing with them.  Neither group proves the other is wrong.   The "child" is not yet a child, IMHO.  And it's not a matter of personal happiness when we're talking about the victim of a violent act.  We're talking psychological devastation and the reliving of that devastation for 10 months (approximately 40 weeks gestation).  

You seem to be implying that I'd rush all rape victims to the abortion clinic and hold them down under the knife.  Nothing is further from the truth.  All women are different and there is a significant percentage of women who DO bear the fruit of their violence.  More power to them.  But there are those who would choose not to... and they deserve the right to terminate if they so choose.

No, I empathize, I believe it is horrible and it makes me sick just thinking about it but I also empathize with the child and believe that that child should not be punished for someone else's crime and that that child should be granted the same rights as another human. Yes, something horrible and despicable happened, but you can turn that into something amazing and wonderful.

You are correct... the child shouldn't be punished for someone else's crime.  But neither should the woman.  And she should have the right to choose, as the living, breathing, memory-bearing human incubator that she is.  The answer is that BOTH scenarios are correct... if one decides to bear the child, so be it.  If one decides to NOT, she should have that right.

[rlrose328]

THAT is why a raped woman should be allowed to abort.  If it still makes no sense to you, then I will assume you possess no empathy whatsoever.

I can be pretty cold at times, but even I would never try to argue against that. *hug*

Thanks, curio... ya cold-hearted b@st@rd.  

[Wraitchel]

No woman should be forced to bear a child of rape. Why would you put the fetus's right to life above that of the woman to live her life. It is not just a matter of "nine month's inconvenience." It is risk and pain and it takes over your life. There are so many women and girls who should not have to make room in their bodies and their lives for an unwanted child. I know I am not stating this well, but pregnancy and childbirth are so much more than "nine months' inconvenience" that I cannot even put it into words. That statement is what proves you are a man and cannot understand. What about women who must work and care for an existing family? What about drugs she should take to prevent aids and STD's from her rape? What about a child rape? What about an alcoholic or mentally ill woman? What about a woman who is seriously depressed or has a body that just wasn't meant to bear? You don't know all the situations a woman can be in that make pregnancy an enormous burden, or all the illegal and addictive things women do that they would not admit, but they know they should not allow a pregnancy to continue. You cannot see into their brains and bodies and lives and say, "Every thing will be fine if you give birth to this child." You have no right to inflict your religious views on the beginnings of life. Legally, life begins at birth. The end.

[Jolly Sapper]

But many women disagree with you and wouldn't abort the child. Why punish the child for another person's crime?

Why is it considered "punishment"?  Is the "child" going to go to hell?  Would not an innocent be spirited straight to the pearly gates?  

Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

Huh?

[MariaEvri]

Why deny the child the right to live because it upsets your personal happiness for 9 months?

oookay
usually I stay out of arguments of any kind, but, being pregnant, especially after a rape, isnt just "upsettng my happyness for 9 months!"
It is physical: Headaches, nausea, vomiting, backpains, not being able to do the things you could before, medicins, doctors, new clothes, "fake" labour pains, not to mention the birth, that if a man ever felt the pains of birthm he would go curl in his bed and never want to eave from there again.
Theres also the psychological: This costs a life time not just "9 months". You were violated, you body is no longer yours, you are an incubator for an evil man's seed, a deed that you hated and loathed, you watch yourself get huger and huger, and you relieve the momment everyday. Please bear in mind that my native tongue is not english, so I can not really express the pain and suffering taht goes through a pregnant woman's mind.
I dont think women go to abortion without thinking twice, thrice or even four times. They arenot happy about killing a future life, but considering all of the above, and considering "killing" a bunch of cells,thenno, thanks. I want only the pchychological pain, not the physical as well. It s abortion for me
Mind you all of the above was about rape victims.

[Moosader]

I genuinely believe I would have problems bringing up a badly disabled baby but there are some disabilities I would care less about. I think that stems from the fact that what a parent strives for is an independent self-supporting child (it's kinda the job description of parenthood, my job is to equip my child with all the tools and skills necessary to survive & thrive in what is often a hostile society) so a child that is so disabled that it will never achieve that independence scares the hell out of me. I can't rationally explain that, it just does ...

That's exactly how I would feel.  I could not raise a mentally handicapped child, and I've always wondered if that makes me a bad person. ;P

Otherwise, my mom had an abortion when she was 19, and I don't think I would be alive if she had not.  I think it was because she wasn't careful enough in relationships, but I've never actually asked her.  Still, though.  She was young and the kid might have had a horrible life.
My friend, similarly, was born when his mom was 18.  The father ended up dying, and the mom is bi-polar and schizophrenic, so he's had a really tough life.  Though I guess besides being broke and not having any real family to help support him through school and such, he's turned out alright.

I don't really want people having kids if they are going to resent and hate the kids.  In a way, abortion is a way to curb this, but if there were some _sure_ alternative that would be a better way to go.  Adoption seems so iffy to me these days, you're always hearing about messed up kids, and my mom works at an alternative school where the kids were kicked out of normal public schools, lots of them live with foster parents and such. :/

[myleviathan]

I agree with Asmodean - if the baby is dependent completely on the mother then she should be able to make the choice to end the pregnancy for any reason. The government getting involved in your personal reproductive activity is really scary.

Also - If someone is going to have a baby and they are even considering abortion, there's a strong indication they're not ready to be parents. I would rather the baby die before further development than be raised in a home that will cause it and society severe damage.

It could be argued that adoption is an option - and I certainly don't disagree. I would like to see unwanted babies go to good families. But I grew up in church associating with thousands of pro-life Christians. And only TWO couples I knew ever adopted. And that's because they were not able to have any children of their own!! So Christians all lament the MILLIONS of babies being aborted, but where are the MILLIONS of adoptive parents??!! They just DON'T EXIST! Sure, there are good Christian people out there who adopt, and some of them even adopt upwards of 20 children - but really - there aren't that many people who are willing to do that. Plus - what kind of home is that to be raised in? I can't see it being very beneficial.

Like Curio I'm utilitarian to a point. Abortion will help stave off overpopulation. Earth simply cannot support billions of humans. If somebody doesn't want their own baby - I'll trust they're not yet fit to be parents. I'm okay with that.