Abortion - a necessary part of life

[IAmJacksUserName]

I don't think you have grasped the fact that many people think it's unfair that innocent people-to-be are killed against their will every time someone has an abortion.

Yes, that's pretty much the bottom line of what I'm saying. People who are against abortion feel that it's murder because they believe a fetus to be a human being (And in their defense, a fetus does have a beating heart, many functioning organs, and a partially functioning brain, so I don't consider their idea to be entirely outlandish, although I don't agree). As strongly as you disagree with that concept, you still need to be able to not take that concept personally, and be able to say to one of them "I really disagree with you, but I honor your intentions." Because that's exactly what they think they're doing.

I'm just trying to show you that the people who threaten abortion's legality are putting the life of a person at stake,

I agree with that statement. Unfortunately for us, they would compare that to having regulated infanticide to reduce adverse effects.

 

[Beatlebot]

Prohibiting rape does not make it go away.

Laws are in place to DETER bad conduct.

The fact that laws don't completely eliminate bad conduct does not mean that there shouldn't be any laws.

I really don't think you are grasping the concept of competing interests.

I understand that you think it's unfair that some women suffer and die for trying to have an abortion.

I don't think you have grasped the fact that many people think it's unfair that innocent people-to-be are killed against their will every time someone has an abortion.

See, the difference is, nobody is directly hurt by the law against rape. The law against rape does not cause people to die. A law against abortion would. Please refrain from making comparisons like this. I have plenty of comparisons I could make say, between the prohibition of abortion and the prohibition of recreational drugs, but I've realised that the abortion issue is a unique issue and needs to be argued on it's own merits. So let's do that.

 

[IAmJacksUserName]

I wouldnt consider abortion as some sort of birth control, but like I said I did have one many years ago, because I was to young, to naive, and to stupid to know the difference. I thought I knew everything at 16. Yeah, adoption is another option but not always the best. I know many kids who have been pushed throught the legal system, jumping from one family to the next...ask them how easy their lives are? Most of them had a terrible childhood and still struggling today. So, IMO, I am and always will be pro-choice.

I'd say that pretty much sums up what I feel on the morality of abortion.

Now, I became sexually active at the age of 17 and I'm 25 now. So if lived in a world of no contraception or abortion then I would have about six kids by now, maybe seven. I would not have been able to work due to constant pregnancy and child rearing, so I would be completely dependent on the goodwill of my partner to provide for me. I still have roughly 30 years of child bearing left to go when eight years has left me with (a possible) seven children.

You could also be dead. Something like 1/8 childbirths used to result in death for the mother.

 

[L O V E L I F E]

See, the difference is, nobody is directly hurt by the law against rape.

The law against rape does not cause people to die.

A law against abortion would.

If someone decides to break the law and engage in a dangerous activity, and that person gets hurt or killed in the process, I think it would be more accurate to say that that person's decision to take that risk caused his or her injury or death.

The mere fact that legal abortions are safer than illegal abortions does not, in and of itself, mean that abortion should be legal.

Almost nobody NEEDS to have an abortion.

To borrow your word, it is almost always a CHOICE.

Life is not always easy.

Sometimes we are placed in situations in which we have to choose between two options, neither of which is attractive.

I'm sorry if this seems callous, but the mere fact that someone is in a terrible situation does not give that person the right to improve his or her situation by killing someone else.

For the millionth time, if you are going to argue that abortion should be legal, you need to argue that a fetus does NOT have a right to live.

Because otherwise, you're arguing that in certain circumstances, when your situation gets sufficiently bad, you should be allowed to directly hurt others to improve your situation.




*****

 

[zephyr]

Now we're getting into interesting territory.

Let's first assume that a fetus has at least SOME rights, because absent that, this issue isn't even worth debating.

I dont know about the US but the foetus is considered part of the mother until such time it can survive on its own where I live. If you intentionally harm a foetus after it is able to be born and live then you can get charged for murder- there are a few recent cases of this happening.

Now, if hypothetically, a fetus or a baby crawled up your smelly hole and into your body, I would entertain the argument that you would have the right to kill it if that was the only way to get it out of your body.

It follows then, that I would acknowledge that a woman who is raped has at least a reasonable argument that she should be allowed to get a fetus/baby out of her body by means of abortion.


The counterargument would be that while becoming pregnant through rape is a tragedy, that doesn't give the woman a right to transfer her misfortune to the fetus and that therefore, she should instead have to carry the baby to term.

The impact carrying a rapists baby for nine months and having to give birth to it would be too much for most women to bear. The female has to be protected in these cases, at the cost of the fetus who hasnt even been established as a person yet.

If, on the other hand, a woman becomes pregnant from sex she consented to, one can make a much stronger argument against abortion based on the rationale that the woman assumed the risk of becoming pregnant, and thus should be prohibited from using the "intruder is in my body" argument.

Accidents happen in sex. Quite frankly, if I were to become pregnant by accident and decide to not keep the child because I didnt think I would be able to cope with it then I dont care what is an acceptable argument or not- it would be my decision I would have to live with and no one elses buisness.

Women who have abortions have a lot to deal with afterwards. Its not a matter of being happy that they have had an abortion, its a gut wrenching decision that needs to be made with care. There is a lot of guilt involved, which is why the decision is not to be taken lightly. Sex comes with a lot of responsibility and women should be responsible for their own bodies. Contraception isnt foolproof. Women who get pregnant by accident arent always irresponsible (although there are some who are) and shouldnt be treated like its their fault if they take all precautions necessary in sex.

Again, please be clear that I am not trying to state emphatically what I personally think is right or wrong in any of these scenarios; I am merely trying to frame the issues properly.

I would actually be interested in hearing what you think is right and wrong in these issues and what you would do if you were a female in these situations. If you were, would you change your stance?

 

[Beatlebot]

Lovelife, you brought up the issue of the competing interests of the mother and foetus, and then you later said that almost nobody NEEDS to have an abortion.

However as I’m sure you realize, some women do. Women who are unfortunate to find out they have cancer during their pregnancies are faced with the difficult CHOICE of deciding whether terminate their pregnancy, or to risk their lives bringing the child into the world. In these cases it is always understood that the mother’s interests trump those of her unborn child. No one would dream of telling her she was a murderer.

Women who are unfortunate enough to become pregnant through rape face the difficult choice of whether to selflessly bring that child into the world anyway (an option you’ll find few take) and perhaps suffer a mental breakdown, or to go have an abortion and therefore help put the traumatic event behind them much quicker. In these cases most people understand that the mother’s interests trump those of the foetus.

There are many other cases, where due to either mental or physical health problems of the pregnant woman, a pregnancy would be very harmful to her well-being and even threatening to her life. Abortions are then performed because it is understood that the life (and interests) of the woman are more important than those of the foetus.

One could then safely conclude that women have more rights than foetuses. Furthermore, since in the above situations we deem it appropriate to assign the woman rights to determine the future of said foetus, we admit that foetus is indeed her property and she has the CHOICE to keep it or not. Once a child is born, we can then declare it an autonomous being with its own right to life.

 

[AmorRoark]

^I think what Johnny is saying is not that he personally thinks it's murder, but that those who oppose abortion believe that. You can have the opinion that it's not murder, but to them that's what it is. This is why it's so difficult to reason with many pro-lifers. They don't use logical philosophical or scientific reasoning to come to their conclusions, they use emotion and religion in many cases.

I agree with Mariposa that abortion should be kept legal because of safety reasons. The reality is that abortions are going to occur whether or not they're legal. I personally don't think I would ever have one because emotionally I don't agree with it, but logically I understand that it makes sense for many people. I also would never claim to have authority to make that decision for someone else.

I'm not disagreeing with you here Miss_Starry, but I wanted to expand on your statement about pro-lifer's issues with debating on the same field as say morals based in rationality and ethics.

I think one of the major problems with popular ethics is that it presupposes the idea that people make or should make moral decisions purely on reason. However, people just simply do not operate this way. Most ethical theorists fail to consider the fact that man realistically does not operate in the individualistic world which philosophers use as the norm. The absense of this in ethics makes theory, to feminist ethicists, incomplete.

Furthermore, feminists argue that not only does ethics fail to incorporate a realistic perspective of humanity's interpersonal relationships; but also, their spirituality, emotional intelligence and responsibility watch over his fellow man.

Went on a tangent there, but I just wanted to illustrate that nowadays moral decisions based on religion or other ethical standards isn't being considered 'irrational' as it once was before, and is indeed gaining its own seriousness in achedemia.

 

[mariacallas]

Where I'm from, I WISH a so called "moral" decision such as having the choice to abortion [wasnt based on religion or ethical standards, you get what what I'm trying to convey here? It's as simple as that!
To hell with a persons need to justify herself to EVERYbody in all areas , spiritually, ethically, morally, societally, jeez....being pro choice is a case to case basis and for a LOT of women on the verge of such a life changing situation such as considering whether to terminate or go on with a pregnancy , (and I speak for myself and pro choicers i know who happen to have RELIGIONS) its all just very exhausting always having to think of how EVERYBODY else will be.
I sure as hell dont feel obligated to anymore. I would be pro choice as I see fit and I would do it for MYSELF, for my SANITY, and for my HEALTH, and most certainly for my FUTURE.

 

[miss starry]

I'm not disagreeing with you here Miss_Starry, but I wanted to expand on your statement about pro-lifer's issues with debating on the same field as say morals based in rationality and ethics.

I think one of the major problems with popular ethics is that it presupposes the idea that people make or should make moral decisions purely on reason. However, people just simply do not operate this way. Most ethical theorists fail to consider the fact that man realistically does not operate in the individualistic world which philosophers use as the norm. The absense of this in ethics makes theory, to feminist ethicists, incomplete.

Furthermore, feminists argue that not only does ethics fail to incorporate a realistic perspective of humanity's interpersonal relationships; but also, their spirituality, emotional intelligence and responsibility watch over his fellow man.

Went on a tangent there, but I just wanted to illustrate that nowadays moral decisions based on religion or other ethical standards isn't being considered 'irrational' as it once was before, and is indeed gaining its own seriousness in achedemia.

There's nothing inherently wrong with an individual making moral decisions based on religion or other ethical standards they have set for themselves. The problem comes when these individuals believe so strongly that their way is the only right way, and they want to impose their own ethical standards on others.

t is very difficult to change a person's mind who thinks this way; they will not be swayed by facts and logic. I agree with you that most people do not operate in a purely reasonable fashion; that's why it's so hard to change people's opinions on a subject they feel strongly about--the argument becomes personal and emotional very quickly.

Personally, I can have two opinions on the subject of abortion. My emotional and personal opinion is that I would not do it. My reasonable and logically thought out opinion is that women should be allowed the choice to make this decision on their own. I will rarely argue my own personal view on abortion, because I don't believe I have any facts or logic to back up my emotional opinion. Does that make sense? It's still pretty early in the morning and I'm not sure my brain's working properly yet

 

[mariacallas]

There's nothing inherently wrong with an individual making moral decisions based on religion or other ethical standards they have set for themselves. The problem comes when these individuals believe so strongly that their way is the only right way, and they want to impose their own ethical standards on others.

Well said! Thank you for putting succintly into words how i really feel .
Personally, I also have 2 opinions on the subject of abortion. My emotional and personal opinion is that if faced with the dilemna of making a choice at anytime in my life I see fit, yes I would. I cant speak for how I will be in the future or with what may happen but one thing for sure is that I will make a choice regarding whats best for MYSELF and my BODY. And

My reasonable and logically thought out opinion is that all women should be allowed the choice to make this decision on their own.

Absofuckinglutely. If that's how your brain works early in the morning Miss Starry, you must be a bonafide genius the rest of the day

 

[miss starry]

^Thanks

 

[AmorRoark]

As usual, everyone takes their own meanings from what I wrote and didn't get, in the least, what I was trying to say. Honestly, I'm a pro-choice person. Let's get that across first. I don't think I have any right to choose what another woman does based on my own morality.

HOWEVER, I'm saying that the reason that it's difficult for different 'ethical' standards to communicate/debate effectly is because their structure is based in completely different types of thought. One (popular ethics) is based in rationality, while the other is in emotions and religion. I wasn't making a claim that either is better or cannot be achieved at the same time, but trying to lay out what feminist ethicists have seen as a problem between these two groups. It has NOTHING to do with abortion but the actual school of thought itself.

Furthermore, that INDIVIDUALIST statement I was referring to the fact that hard ethics (not abortion ethics) are often cold, and leave or no room for questions like 'well, what does the father think' in the calculation of morality. I didn't mean individual in the sense that one can't make a decision for themselves, I meant that they're effected by others, and THAT can alter moral decisions that would once be done in a more rational way. Sure, people of a more worldly ideology may be able to combine their religion, spirituality, and responsibility to others in their own rational school of thought... but the schools created by the biguns (Mill, Aristotle, Kant) have no consideration of such in their theology. And, I'm saying that I don't think there's anything wrong with those who don't follow say Kantian ethics because of this lack of inclusion... nor is there anything wrong with making decisions in a completely rational way.

All I wanted is clarity and I got a bombardment of haterade.

 

[miss starry]

^^Okay, I think we totally misunderstood each other here. I certainly wasn't trying to bombard you with hatred. I wasn't attacking any personal opinions you have on the subject, either. In fact, I have agreed with most things you've said so far; sorry if it hasn't come across that way.

I want to reply further but I need to think about my response a little and I have to actually get some work done, too

 

[Khadijah]

What I dont understand is why ONE situation, with unique circumstances that are 100% individual and depending on the particular woman and her life, needs to be ruled over by a debate about ethics as a whole.

The situations surrionding a abortion are different for every woman and you could not possibly take that into account if you try and apply a formula of who and why should be able to get a abortion related to "well if you think XXXXX, then in the rest of your life you gotta apply it to XXXXX too."

This aint a philosophy or ethics debate, even doe you could take it that way if you want to over analyze and try and out-philosophy eachother, but its a very small and simple issue, one that cant be decided by anyone but one person.
this is one womans life, place in life, and future, each case is different, and none of it can be figured out by some type of locical/reasoning analogy type of shit.


A busted nut that made it all the way up a pussy aint a human, fetus, baby, or anything in between. its a fuckin cell blob.

at one two or three weeks or even a month that shit aint even close to being a human life form, other than the fact that its the embryo of a human. what im sayin is, i can understand someone havin a problem with partial term abortion where the babys almost fully formed and a few months away from poppin, but to oppose getting rid of a non thinking non feeling clump of sperm and egg stuck together is like being against mowing the lawn cuz its killing the grass.

Plus, anyone ever consider that a mother is sometimes doing the baby a favor by aborting it?

Do you think its more wrong to get a abortion at 2, 3 months, or to give birth to a baby that you cant take care of, cant give a good life, cant truly devote your life to?

Do you think its more of a crime to abort a fetus that aint a human in the first place or to know you are incapable of giving a even slightly happy life to the baby and going ahead anyways and creating a life of hell for a child that never asked to be born?

sometimes people just wanna save their would-be kid from the shitty life that they are all too familiar with, consider it abortion out of mercy.

 

[mariacallas]

What I dont understand is why ONE situation, with unique circumstances that are 100% individual and depending on the particular woman and her life, needs to be ruled over by a debate about ethics as a whole.

Word. I think Beatlebots purpose with this thread is clear cut to me...its about the individual, not about some goddamn religious or ethical argument. Fuck that there are a million other threads out there that focus on the "big picture" . This thread is about the individual woman and her right to a choice.

The preservation of life seems to be rather a slogan than a genuine goal of the anti-abortion forces; what they want is control. Control over behavior: power over women. Women in the anti-choice movement want to share in male power over women, and do so by denying their own womanhood, their own rights and responsibilities. ~ Ursula K. Le Guin 1929-, American Author

Dread not infanticide; the crime is imaginary: we are always mistress of what we carry in our womb, and we do no more harm in destroying this kind of matter than in evacuating another, by medicines, when we feel the need.
~ Marquis De Sade 1740-1814, French Author

Every person, all the events of your life are there because you have drawn them there. What you choose to do with them is up to you. ~ Richard Bach 1936-, American Author

Thus we see that the all important thing is not killing or giving life, drinking or not drinking, living in the town or the country, being unlucky or lucky, winning or losing. It is how we win, how we lose, how we live or die, finally, how we choose.~ R. H. Blyth

You and I are essentially infinite choice-makers. In every moment of our existence, we are in that field of all possibilities where we have access to an infinity of choices. ~ Deepak Chopra East-Indian- American M.D., New Age Author, Lecturer

It is your own convictions which compels you; that is, choice compels choice.
~ Epictetus 50-120, Stoic Philosopher

The way to activate the seeds of your creation is by making choices about the results you want to create. When you make a choice, you activate vast human energies and resources, which otherwise go untapped. All too often people fail to focus their choices upon results and therefore their choices are ineffective. If you limit your choices only to what seems possible or reasonable, you disconnect yourself from what you truly want, and all that is left is compromise. ~ Robert Fritz

You are the person who has to decide. Whether you'll do it or toss it aside; You are the person who makes up your mind. Whether you'll lead or will linger behind. Whether you'll try for the goal that's afar. Or just be contented to stay where you are. ~ Edgar A. Guest

Seeing the light is a choice, not seeing the light is no choice. ~ Doug Horton

Once in a while it really hits people that they don't have to experience the world in the way they have been told to. ~ Alan Keightley

When a defining moment comes along, you can do one of two things. Define the moment, or let the moment define you. ~ Tin Cup Movie

I think there is a choice possible to us at any moment, as long as we live. But there is no sacrifice. There is a choice, and the rest falls away. Second choice does not exist. Beware of those who talk about sacrifice. ~ Muriel Rukeyser 1913-1980, American Writer

One's philosophy is not best expressed in words; it is expressed in the choices one makes. In the long run, we shape our lives and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And, the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility. ~ Eleanor Roosevelt 1884-1962, American First Lady, Columnist, Lecturer, Humanitarian

 

[knight_marshall]

and the christians scream "Oh my god... you just killed the second Jesus!!"

 

[AmorRoark]

I don't know why you feel the need to jump on everyone else's convictions when I don't jump on yours??? Besides, though some of you are saying that you're not looking at it from an ethical standpoint, you are. You just don't realize how much we use ethics in our daily thinking (and think it's our own). For example, beatlebot's initial reasoning was an example of utilitarian thinking: One should choose the action that causes the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people.

Ethics are so deep-seated in ALL of us that you can't ignore their existence in almost anyone's decision on morality (this INCLUDES abortion). So yes, I think it has its proper place in this thread, even if you don't like it.

I've chosen to look at abortion from the ethical standpoint in this particular thread... just because the general form of you chose to look at it from the perspective of focusing on the individual, it doesn't mean they aren't both apparent (conscious or unconscious) in each woman's decision. Consequently, each has its place in this thread.

This thread is about abortion, and I don't think y'all should put restrictions on which direction one can take it.. I wasn't asking for your imput, just throwing my ideas out there. Which, I don't think could have been construed as very inappropriate in the first place. Thus, my confusion as to why people care how I speak of abortion bothered so many people in the first place.

.02c

 

[Khadijah]

^^who you talkin to? lol.

 

[AmorRoark]

All You Motherfuckers!!

 

[Mariposa]

Crystalcallas, I realize your opinions are influenced by your extensive knowledge of literature. That said, I think it's in extremely poor taste to quote the Marquis de Sade in a thread about abortion.

Just *my* .02.