News & Politics - The abortion debate - Page 3

**TheAngel** · 11-29-2007, 06:37 AM

Wait a minute, I have a question. If you're for abortion in some cases but not in others, are you for murder in some cases but not in others? It's the same.

fetch · 11-29-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

Wait a minute, I have a question. If you're for abortion in some cases but not in others, are you for murder in some cases but not in others? It's the same.

Are you adressing someone in particular?

I personally don't see abortion as murder.

I believe sex education should be more in depth and more common, so hopefully there will be less unwanted pregnancies.

I believe abortion should be legal and open to all women. There are some cases which make me uncomfortable- if a couple decides to have an abortion because they want a baby of the opposite sex, for example, but I can't say it should be illegal. I feel an unwanted baby is often brought up in a way that is hurtful to them and is better to avoid.

I feel if the woman feels her only option is to get an abortion, she should be able to do that.

**TheAngel** · 11-29-2007, 02:34 PM

It wasn't addressed to someone in particular. It seems to me that no one is against total bans on abortion. Everyone adds some extenuating circumstance. They say that in one case it's murder, if the mother doesn't want to have it, but that if it's incest, rape, or the health of the mother is at risk then it's not. But murder has a universal definition. I don't see how abortion in one case can be considered murder and in another case it can't be. I'm playing devil's advocate here. I totally support all abortion in all cases because it's not my life, my body, or fetus. I would never have an abortion personally, but it should be open to choice. Without a doubt sex education should be much more detailed and should be taught universally, but that's not the issue here, abortion is the issue.

migamoo · 11-29-2007, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheAngel (View Post)

Wait a minute, I have a question. If you're for abortion in some cases but not in others, are you for murder in some cases but not in others? It's the same.

I never understood those who said it's okay in X's case because she's been raped, but the woman who used contraceptives and still got pregnant cannot abort because it's murder. What's really the difference? If you think life begins at conception, it shouldn't matter if conception was due to faultly BC, or rape, or whatever.

elisheva · 11-29-2007, 10:17 PM

Well, I think the argument is based on the idea that if it's because of lack of protection/condom breaking etc, then it's somehow because of the woman's irresponsibility/she's just using abortions as birth control and that is not a sufficient reason to abort. But if it's due to some external traumatic incident (rape or incest) then it's more understandable that she would not want to go through the pregnancy? I don't know.

I don't agree with it.

migamoo · 11-30-2007, 07:56 AM

But it's still wrong to me, a double standard if you will. Someone who is sexually active but actively using birth control should not be punished because someone believes something else. Yes, there are many people who would still have that child, but if they don't want the child/go through the pregnancy for adoptive reasons, then they should be allowed to terminate.

fetch · 11-30-2007, 11:39 AM

Not to mention the logistics are impossible. If abortion is illegal except for cases of rape and incest, first you'd have to prove you've been raped, and that could take months. And not everyone wants to press charges, esp. if they've been raped by someone they know.

elisheva · 11-30-2007, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fieryangel (View Post)

But it's still wrong to me, a double standard if you will. Someone who is sexually active but actively using birth control should not be punished because someone believes something else. Yes, there are many people who would still have that child, but if they don't want the child/go through the pregnancy for adoptive reasons, then they should be allowed to terminate.

Oh, I totally agree with you.

jerkstore · 11-30-2007, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fieryangel (View Post)

I never understood those who said it's okay in X's case because she's been raped, but the woman who used contraceptives and still got pregnant cannot abort because it's murder. What's really the difference? If you think life begins at conception, it shouldn't matter if conception was due to faultly BC, or rape, or whatever.

It's all about punishing women for having sex for fun.

**TheAngel** · 11-30-2007, 03:23 PM

Well, to me those that argue against abortion always say that the fetus is a human life as soon as a sperm and an egg meet and there is a potential for a baby to be born. But what I don't get is, if that's the case, then it's the same whether a woman was raped, in an incestuous relationship, or if the child could harm her when its born. So, if that's the case, than abortion is exactly the same no matter when it's performed.

**sunnykerr** · 11-30-2007, 09:05 PM

I think there are people who are against abortion all the time, no matter the circumstances, no matter that the mother might have been raped or that her life may be endangered by the pregnancy or whatever.

I do think that there are some people who are again abortion on principle are also trying to be human about it. What I mean is, I think even people who don't believe in abortion can see that the ongoing victimization of a rape victim when she has to live through the ensuing pregnancy is beyond appalling. I do think it's not all black and white for every single person, whether they are pro-life or pro-choice.

A person who is pro-life has to take into consideration the life aspect of that proposition. A mother's life being put at risk by a pregnancy intrinsically endangers the life of the baby anyway, not to mention its quality of life should it be born. Beyond the fact that the child may survive its mother from the moment of its birth, there's no telling what kind of health side effects might result from prolonging a pregnancy in a woman who's health has been adversely affected. Obviously, presumably, there may be no side effects at all, but there could be some also.

And then, when it's a case of rape, then you get into psychological spaces. Even assuming the mother intends to put the baby up for adoption once it is born, there's no guarantee she'll take adequate care of herself during the pregnancy.

The thing about the abortion debate is that it's all rhetoric until it happens to you. Until you are put into that position, where you consider it or might want to consider it, then all the positions and opinions on it in the world don't really amount to much.

Which is why I always say that I don't think I could have one, though I obviously can't know that for sure just yet, but I would absolutely demand that it be an option for all women, including myself, who may have to face that situation one day.

sum1 · 12-03-2007, 11:22 PM

I'm worried the US supreme court is going to end up knocking out Roe sometime in the next few decades. There's already been worrying moves toward restricting abortion.

ceilirose · 12-04-2007, 08:49 AM

The Supreme Court has already ruled against a certain type of late term abortion.

If a pro-life candidate is elected in 2008 I'm sure Roe will be overturned. Even with a pro-choice candidatebeing elected it will be tough. Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia will be there for a good length of time. It's not a good situation but one that was predicted in 2000 when Bush was elected.

**TheAngel** · 12-04-2007, 09:55 AM

I hate that. The Supreme Court shouldn't be allowed to make medical rulings. I understand that topics like euthanasia and doctor assisted suicide are different than abortion, but I don't think the supreme court should be allowed to make decisions about any of those things, especially since those against abortion argue largely on a moral and religious basis and therefore it's not universal. There isn't even a universal decision on when "life" is considered to take place. (Is it at birth? Conception? etc.) I think it's ridiculous for some old, religious, white guys in DC to be able to tell me what to do with my body, or anyone for that matter. To me it's the same as making everyone get an abortion. I want the right to chose.

ceilirose · 12-07-2007, 08:31 AM

I never thought of it that way but telling someone they can't have an abortion or a certain type of medical procedure (even if it would benefit you) is just as bad as telling someone that they need to get an abortion.

It will never be clear to me why the topic of a woman's reproductive system is at the forefront of a national debate and why perfect strangers who literally don't have a clue about what goes on in a person's life can have such power.