Abortion - a necessary part of life

[miss starry]

The abortion methods described in this article are pretty horrendous. I'm glad that in this day and age, we have access to contraceptives and the right to choose an abortion if necessary.

I'm pro-choice, but I wish our culture would advance to make abortion more of a thing of the past than a norm. Although having an abortion in a medical setting is much more comfortable and safe than doing it through methods like throwing yourself down stairs or jumping off houses, it's still a traumatic and horrible thing to have to go through. I don't understand why women don't try to avoid it at all costs.

Sexually active people who don't want kids should use birth control methods at all times. With so many options readily available (including the morning-after pill), I just don't understand why abortion is so prevalent. It has to come down to laziness and lack of education. Of course, I understand that abortions will be necessary when someone is raped or if birth control fails. But in modern society, they should no longer be "a necessary part of life" for women. It just seems so archaic, especially considering the history of the practice.

 

[happyus]

abortion isn't a 'necessary' part of life,but it should definately be an option.every circumstance brings about a new set of options and ideals,it would be wrong to take the option of abortion away from a woman,of course we should all not abuse abortions and use them as a replacement of birth control. sex education should be more varied to include more forms of contraception (not just condoms), also i think it would have been more beneficial at school if the topic of abortion had been raised objectively,and not just stating it's a bad and life wrecking experience.of course i can't say all schools were like this just my own in the uk.

 

[AmorRoark]

I had a boyfriend who was adopted, and he pretty much felt the same. Personally I prefer the idea of abortion to adoption, seeing as how there are enough children without parents on this planet already.

Interesting argument about adopted children being a 'fucked up bunch'... but I personally am a huge advocate for nurture over nature. I've had quite a few close friends who were adopted, and yes, they had extreme issues dealing with their adoption. But in every case, the parent had kept secrets from the child, and, I suspect, treated them differently than their own children. In the same token, many of them easily adjusted to the family life, and claim to have no problems with their status as an adopted child.

And in regards to the argument that there are already too many children without homes.. I think is too easy. We're arguing about one making a decision during the time they could still feasibly have an abortion (hence, during pregnancy). If one puts their child up for adoption before it's born, most likely, it will be adopted and will not end up in a home.

Furthermore, though many of the people who would consider abortion in the first place would be unfit carriers of the baby (STDs, addictions, other necessary medication), this isn't everyone, and should therefore at least be CONSIDERED in the agrumentation of abortion. Nowhere did I say that I think abortion could be solved if everyone put their child up for adoption, and this, because of the possibility of said circumstances. I simply wish people wouldn't exclude it from endless debate of the 'right' thing to do with unwanted children.

On another note, many have argued that the quality of life of those who could potentially be put in a home outweighs the value of living itself. The problem with this is that one could make the same argument for children born in the most poverty-stricken areas. Their quality of life, I would argue, is somewhat comparable to those that live in foster homes/ orphanages. I say this because I find it hard to believe that the mere existence of a parental unit in dire conditions would make a great enough difference for the quality of the child's life to be justifiably 'better' than parentless child's.

So, if we're going to argue in view of the most likely result of the individual's quality of life, the children that would be born and raised in the ghetto would be better off if they were aborted too. And I think the majority of children born and raised in the ghetto would disagree that all their children should be aborted on the weak stance that their quality of life isn't worth their existence.

(Oh, and I am well-aware that my view-point is mainly that of the Western influence, and my argument is consequently subject to that perspective)

 

[miss starry]

Nowhere did I say that I think abortion could be solved if everyone put their child up for adoption, and this, because of the possibility of said circumstances. I simply wish people wouldn't exclude it from endless debate of the 'right' thing to do with unwanted children.

I agree that adoption should be considered. However, this is a lot more easily said than done. When abortion is an easy option, it takes a very selfless person to choose to carry a child for 9 months, find an adoption agency and adoptive parents, and give the child away. It's immensly easier to make an appointment and have the abortion. It's over within hours.

I'm 5 months pregnant right now. Only recently did I start feeling the baby move and seeing my tummy get big. Honestly, the pregnancy did not feel real for a long time; it didn't start to sink in until the first sonogram. I never considered it, but if I'd had an abortion right away it would probably have been less emotionally devastating than going through the entire pregnancy and then giving the child up. Yes, this is a very selfish way to look at it, but most people who have abortions do it for selfish reasons.

Being pregnant for 9 months is part of giving the child up for adoption. This is no piece of cake. You feel sick, you gain weight, get stretch marks, have to give up drugs/alcohol, and constantly have to go to the doctor (which I'm sure is expensive if you don't have insurance!!) This is a lot to give up for someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of a child in their life.

I'm not agruing against adoption here, but I'm just pointing out why it's not an acceptable option for many of those who choose to have abortions.

 

[Beatlebot]

I don't really want to enter this argument... but, I'm still confused as to why so many arguements about abortion fail to address the option of adoption. I mean, I understand that certain cultures would never allow a child to be adopted, but generally, it's possible. I mean, even in the situation you provided, beatlebot:

it was permissable.

I somehow missed this one in my first read through Amorroak! Sorry.

I'm not sure what adoption was like in the thirties, so this is just all my guess, but I think there were many more fertile women than infertile ones. With sex education and contraception being what it was at the time, that would mean many more children coming into the world then there were people who wanted them.

Also, with some women living out in remote areas without even access to a doctor, I'm not sure if adoption would have been a possibilty for them. Even if it was, being heavily pregnant when you already have a large number of small children would put a great deal of strain on a person.

As for the adoption being an alternative to abortion, I really do think that is a decision left up to the individual. Personally, I don't see myself giving up my child to never see again, spending the rest of my life wondering if it's ok.

The thing is, if we were all cold and logical people always doing the right thing, there wouldn't be unwanted pregnancies, we would all abstain until we wanted children (oh wouldn't the church be happy!). Women would then spend their pregnancies drug free and raise their children the 'right' way. But the world isn't like that, we are big bags of chemicals and electric impulses and hormones with emotions we can't really control, so we have to do the best with what we have to work with.

People are not perfect, which is why abortion is a necessary part of life.

 

[psychetool]

I can't tell you how offended I am at this comment

Why ? You may see it as an 'egg', but I don't. We disagree, and thats ok. I suppose it would be wise to mention that while I am pro-choice, a persons body is theirs to do with, I just -personally- find abortion abhorrent. It's not my place to tell you what to do with your own body, and if my girlfriend got pregnant I would do everything in my power to convince her to either give it up for adoption or pass it to another family member who could put in the time to take care of it properly. If she ended up having an abortion I won't lie, I would be furious and most likely break up with her but then again it isn't MY decision to make. I just planted the seed, I don't have to carry it around inside of me for 9 months and then go through the terribly painful expirience of childbirth. If you can come out of the situation with a better decision then abortion then I think that is the right way to go. If abortion is your choice, fine, but I am against it.

 

[glitterbizkit]

And in regards to the argument that there are already too many children without homes.. I think is too easy. We're arguing about one making a decision during the time they could still feasibly have an abortion (hence, during pregnancy). If one puts their child up for adoption before it's born, most likely, it will be adopted and will not end up in a home.

This is just how I personally would feel if I got pregnant and had the choice of adoption vs abortion- apart from the huge factor that adoption would probably be more traumatising for me than abortion, I feel that this world is over-populated already and I'd feel guilty bringing another child into it if I wasn't going to take care of it myself. But then, I feel slightly guilty about the fact that if I ever do get children in the future, I'll have my own biological children, again bringing more children into the world when it would be so much better to instead adopt children that have already been born and are in desperate need of a home.

 

[miss starry]

If you can come out of the situation with a better decision then abortion then I think that is the right way to go. If abortion is your choice, fine, but I am against it.

I agree that abortion should always be the last option, when all others have been exhausted. It's just that it's so much easier than other options. Not many people will choose the hard road if they can take an easier one.

 

[Johnny1]

By equating abortion to the holocaust? I don't see how your comment applies to the abortion situation at all.

Unless you're talking about hard line right wingers with their defensible (to them) motives for restricting women's access to safe abortions and therefore hurting them in the process.

Is that what you meant?

I can't answer for Lovelife, but what it seems like he means is that inherent in your argument is the notion that the aborted embryo/baby absolutely is not a person who has any rights whatsoever. Because if it *were* a baby, a living thing with its own rights, then millions of abortions would equate to millions of murders, and a Holocaust analogy is not very far off.

That you could not see this, and dismissed it as some sort of political ploy against women (which might be partly true, but that doesn't mean it's the only truth) is quite surprising.

Personally, I am in favor of abortion in every case where the child will not have parents who will want it and love it and take care of it. I favor abortion over adoption in these cases as well. But Lovelife's argument is clear as day to me.

 

[AmorRoark]

I agree that adoption should be considered. However, this is a lot more easily said than done. When abortion is an easy option, it takes a very selfless person to choose to carry a child for 9 months, find an adoption agency and adoptive parents, and give the child away. It's immensly easier to make an appointment and have the abortion. It's over within hours.

I'm 5 months pregnant right now. Only recently did I start feeling the baby move and seeing my tummy get big. Honestly, the pregnancy did not feel real for a long time; it didn't start to sink in until the first sonogram. I never considered it, but if I'd had an abortion right away it would probably have been less emotionally devastating than going through the entire pregnancy and then giving the child up. Yes, this is a very selfish way to look at it, but most people who have abortions do it for selfish reasons.

Being pregnant for 9 months is part of giving the child up for adoption. This is no piece of cake. You feel sick, you gain weight, get stretch marks, have to give up drugs/alcohol, and constantly have to go to the doctor (which I'm sure is expensive if you don't have insurance!!) This is a lot to give up for someone who doesn't want the inconvenience of a child in their life.

I'm not agruing against adoption here, but I'm just pointing out why it's not an acceptable option for many of those who choose to have abortions.

Yes, I realize the issues one has to deal with if they were to get pregnant and give the child up for adoption. But perhaps the reason I feel that adoption (in many cases) is justifiable solution is because, in today's age, the actions that caused the woman to get pregnant in the first place are overwhelmingly at the fault of the the person who conceived the child to begin with.

I hate that I've come across sounding like your typical burb soccer mom but IMO (yes, ONLY my opinion) two wrongs does not make a right. Killing a potential life because YOU didn't use birth control correctly or at all is unjust... Fair consequences? Do they exist?

This conviction of mine coincides with many other parts of our civilization that I particularly disagree with. Our society constantly replaces our concerned for what is right with what is most convenient. What I consider fair consequences to actions continually diminishes in Western society. I'm not saying that all women who have abortions do so because it's most convenient but I have personally known people, and assume many many more individuals fall into such category.

 

[miss starry]

Our society constantly replaces our concerned for what is right with what is most convenient. What I consider fair consequences to actions continually diminishes in Western society. I'm not saying that all women who have abortions do so because it's most convenient but I have personally known people, and assume many many more individuals fall into such category.

This is absolutely the truth, which is the only thing I was pointing out. People will choose the easier route rather than the hard one, and adoption is a difficult option. This doesn't make it right, it's just a reality that unfortunately can't be changed. Even when abortions are illegal, many women still see them as an easier option than other ones (such as keeping the child or adoption), which is why they do horrible things like blow up firecrackers inside themselves to end the pregnancy. I don't think it's because they don't know about the option to give the child up for adoption; it's just because they don't want to deal with having to go through the pregnancy itself, and early on in the pregnancy it's easy to justify an abortion since you don't feel pregnant or attached to the child yet.

 

[Mariposa]

That thinly veiled Holocaust analogy is annoying and inaccurate. No offense to you as a person, LOVELIFE, but I'm not with you there. (I am annoyed in general by Holocaust analogies, for whatever it's worth - and certainly abortion cannot be remotely compared to systematic, religious/ethnically based genocide.) I trust that puts the issue to rest.

I have only had one pregnancy scare, and it took me until I was 25. Although my partner and I both make good money and could probably technically support a baby, we live in a very expensive city and it would not just have been a cut in lifestyle, it would have been a constant struggle. We're also not quite ready to get married, and I would have a very hard time having a baby out of wedlock (damn Catholic guilt!). Thankfully, I had the option of the morning after pill, but we weren't convinced it had worked until I had taken 3 pregnancy tests (yes, I am extremely neurotic) and got my period, right on schedule.

I was absolutely convinced I was pregnant, though. It scared me to my core. I have a hereditary condition that puts me in a high-risk category for pregnancy, and when I quit my last job I lost my medical insurance. There is no way I could have paid for all the doctor's appointments, and I'm not eligible for public benefits because, ironically, I make too much. I started throwing up from the nervousness and I was tired ALL the time while I was waiting for my period. A couple friends who have been pregnant were also convinced I was. I know my partner would have stood by my decision, but it would have been his wish that we not continue the pregnancy had there been one. He's the first man I've ever seriously considered having children with, and I know someday we will be in a position to give a child a great life but it wasn't (and isn't) the right time.

I am now on a fuckup proof method of birth control and keep an extra pack of the morning after pill around in case I or any of my friends have a scare.

I'm originally from Southeast Louisiana and heard stories growing up about illegal abortionists there. A book I read set not far from where I was born referred to an "Aunt Sarah" who performed abortions while they were still illegal. Her makeshift operating table was lined in newspapers and bloody fetuses were thrown out in the garbage, and I am pretty sure this goes w/o saying but the tools she used to perform the abortions were not sanitized nor intended for that purpose.

AmorRoark - I agree with you that adoption should be promoted and offered as an alternative to abortion, but it wouldn't have been a viable option in my personal experience. On paper I love the idea of giving loving adoptive parents a healthy child. It's an incredibly noble thing to do. But it doesn't fit with too many people's reality. Everyone, without exception, that I have known that had an unplanned pregnancy, has either had an abortion or kept their child. I don't know anyone who has given a child up for adoption.

Safety is the single most compelling reason that abortion should remain legal. If someone doesn't believe in abortion, the solution is quite simple - they shouldn't have one.

 

[Johnny1]

Putting aside the comparison to the Holocaust, if supporters of abortion want to keep this right safe and legal, we must contend with the same concept by a different name: murder. MURDER. Become comfortable with that word and do not shy away from it, because it is emblazoned on the minds of most of the people who aim to make abortion illegal. How can you fight someone if you don't understand them, or if you pretend you don't hear what they're saying? If the fight is lost and the opponents succeed, then poor women will again die the horrible deaths that Beatlebot described.

We all must understand what we are up against if we want to have any impact in this battle. Otherwise we're just spouting. You can dismiss what opponents say as anti-women or however else you want, but they are out there by the tens of millions and they think abortion is murder. We must counter this and address this or the opponents will keep doing what they think is right and legal abortion will go away and women will die in back alleys again. I think reminding people about the horrors that occurred when abortion was illegal is an effective way of fighting the fight. But that doesn't mean it's not counter-productive to be dismissive of the beliefs of the people whose minds we're trying to change.

Understand your enemy if you ever want to fight them successfully!

 

[L O V E L I F E]

Abortion, to these women, wasn't a crime against their unborn baby but a necessary part of their lives that ensured their own future and the future of their already existing children.

And the holocaust, to the Nazis, wasn't a crime against Jews, but rather, a necessary part of cleansing the human race.

I'm not equating abortion with the holocaust.

And yet, you just did.

No; actually I just made an ah-nah-low-gee.

I'm not sure if this concept has made it all the way to Oceania, but here on Earth, people sometimes use analogies to not-so-subtlely point out that perhaps someone else has been looking at a multi-sided issue from only one point of view.

There are plenty of well-reasoned arguments in favor of the legalization of abortion, but "I don't consider abortion to be wrong because I choose to look at it from my point of view and not from the other affected party's point of view" ain't one of them.

And it happens to be the same line of thinking that has led to a lot of despicable conduct by human beings throughout history, notably, the holocaust.

Ah-nah-low-gee.

Analogy.

 

[Beatlebot]

Oh thankyou Lovelife. I love to know new words.
Thing is, I thought I knew that one, so I looked it up:

a·nal·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

1. a) Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
b) A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.
2. Biology. Correspondence in function or position between organs of dissimilar evolutionary origin or structure.
3) A form of logical inference or an instance of it, based on the assumption that if two things are known to be alike in some respects, then they must be alike in other respects.
4. Linguistics. The process by which words or morphemes are re-formed or created on the model of existing grammatical patterns in a language, often leading to greater regularity in paradigms, as evidenced by helped replacing holp and holpen as the past tense and past participle of help on the model of verbs such as yelp, yelped, yelped.

I'm sorry if I offended you with my post. It's just that I find your ah-nah-low-gee offensive. I suspect that ALL parties in your ah-nah-low-gee would also find it very offensive.

A woman making a decision on her own future is not comparable or analogous with the systematic extermination of a particular group of people.

Perhaps a better analogy could be found if you compared it to all the women (as a particular group of people) who lost their lives because they were unable to procure a safe abortion. But still.

 

[mariacallas]

I would prefer a girl have an abortion today, than have her daughter have an abortion 15 years in the future. Does that make sense?

Yes, yes it does.

 

[zephyr]

Thanks Beatlebot, I just looked up analogy using the same dictionary to make the same post as yours- heh.

Its a pretty crap analogy really, and waffle like that just takes this discussion off topic.

Putting aside the comparison to the Holocaust, if supporters of abortion want to keep this right safe and legal, we must contend with the same concept by a different name: murder. MURDER. Become comfortable with that word and do not shy away from it, because it is emblazoned on the minds of most of the people who aim to make abortion illegal. How can you fight someone if you don't understand them, or if you pretend you don't hear what they're saying? If the fight is lost and the opponents succeed, then poor women will again die the horrible deaths that Beatlebot described.

It really wrankles me when abortion is compared with murder. I am a Scientist, I have a medical background. I see aborted fetuses pretty much every day. I am probably numbed to the impact of abortion because I see them so much. I am not even going to get into the ethics of abortion, I think every situation is individual and making sweeping generalisations about ALL abortions gets absolutely nowhere.

IMO abortion is not murder. These foetuses are technically part of the mother until they reach the stage where they could survive if they were born. The foetus has no rights until it reaches that stage. Harsh, but true. The mother's health and welfare should take priority because she is an already contributing to the community.

I have a lot to say on this particular subject but I get so hot under the collar about the extreme anti abortion views that crop up that I tend to avoid threads that discuss it. From a Scientists perspective religious views hardly co me into it.

I am pro choice. This does not mean that I think its ok to use it as contraception, I dont think any normal woman would think that. However, sometimes they are necessary for health reasons and yes- because it is in the best interest of the mother to not continue with the pregnancy. It is no one elses buisness but the mother and the father of the child about what happens to that child.

 

[miss starry]

^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.

 

[zephyr]

^ I didnt quote him to argue with him, I agree with his stance.

 

[miss starry]

^Okay, I wasn't sure