Should women have "the right" to end a pregnancy?

In the case of rape, then abort. If you don't have the financial ability to have a baby, then you shouldn't have one. th3warr1or

I think abortion is the most selfish act a human can commit. Whether you consider it murder or not, in most cases, the mother is prevented another human being from ever living in order to accommodate her own life. That to me is unacceptable.

Samurai_Xavier

Yea sure, I don't care what they do to themselves as long as it isn't my child.

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

I think abortion is the most selfish act a human can commit. Whether you consider it murder or not, in most cases, the mother is prevented another human being from ever living in order to accommodate her own life. That to me is unacceptable.

SgtKevali

Can you be a little less judgemental? I doubt you've been in such a situation where you have to make a choice like that. :|

No, I have not been in that situation, but whether you justify the abortion or not, I don't think you can deny that it is a selfish act.

But of course, these are my views, and like you said, I have never been in that situation. However, it doesn't mean I can't express my views. Most people who engage in this debate have never been in the situation either.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

I think abortion is the most selfish act a human can commit. Whether you consider it murder or not, in most cases, the mother is prevented another human being from ever living in order to accommodate her own life. That to me is unacceptable.

Samurai_Xavier

Can you be a little less judgemental? I doubt you've been in such a situation where you have to make a choice like that. :|

No, I have not been in that situation, but whether you justify the abortion or not, I don't think you can deny that it is a selfish act.

But of course, these are my views, and like you said, I have never been in that situation. However, it doesn't mean I can't express my views. Most people who engage in this debate have never been in the situation either.

It's no more selfish than the child burdening her when she didn't even want it.

Yes they should, it is or should be a mother's choice whether her child should live or die when it is still inside her body.connorisgreat93

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

Can you be a little less judgemental? I doubt you've been in such a situation where you have to make a choice like that. :|

Espada12

No, I have not been in that situation, but whether you justify the abortion or not, I don't think you can deny that it is a selfish act.

But of course, these are my views, and like you said, I have never been in that situation. However, it doesn't mean I can't express my views. Most people who engage in this debate have never been in the situation either.

It's no more selfish than the child burdening her when she didn't even want it.

Yes, but the child is not aware that he/she is a "burden". So its unfair for the child to not be allowed to live. The mother is aware, and she has a choice. Hence, my core argument = it is a selfish act by the mother to choose to end the life of her child in order to make her life more comfortable.

Sometimes its the better choice for a lot of reasons, considering how many unwanted and badly treated children there are in the world I don't know why people cant see this. And suggesting that a woman should carry her rapists child full term then have it adopted is disgusting :| how would you feel if you were the product of your mothers violent rape? go on imagine it for a moment, see how you feel about the notion.

Sometimes its the better choice for a lot of reasons, considering how many unwanted and badly treated children there are in the world I don't know why people cant see this. I think these children would still prefer to live if given the choice.

And suggesting that a woman should carry her rapists child full term then have it adopted is disgusting :| how would you feel if you were the product of your mothers violent rape? go on imagine it for a moment, see how you feel about the notion. The child never has to know.

SapSacPrime

i'd also add some women have had multiple abortions, I think it's disgusting, I would never want to be with a woman who acts so callously.

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

No, I have not been in that situation, but whether you justify the abortion or not, I don't think you can deny that it is a selfish act.

But of course, these are my views, and like you said, I have never been in that situation. However, it doesn't mean I can't express my views. Most people who engage in this debate have never been in the situation either.

Samurai_Xavier

It's no more selfish than the child burdening her when she didn't even want it.

Yes, but the child is not aware that he/she is a "burden". So its unfair for the child to not be allowed to live. The mother is aware, and she has a choice. Hence, my core argument = it is a selfish act by the mother to choose to end the life of her child in order to make her life more comfortable.

But now we have someone giving up at least 9 months of time and her body to something that she has not consented to and to someone she is not obligated to help.

So yes, it's selfish, but it is selfish in the same way that it's selfish not to allow a homeless man stay in your house for shelter (specifically, for 9 months), or provide him with food and money so he does not starve (or atleast, 9 month's of work's worth).

[QUOTE="SapSacPrime"]

Sometimes its the better choice for a lot of reasons, considering how many unwanted and badly treated children there are in the world I don't know why people cant see this. I think these children would still prefer to live if given the choice.

And suggesting that a woman should carry her rapists child full term then have it adopted is disgusting :| how would you feel if you were the product of your mothers violent rape? go on imagine it for a moment, see how you feel about the notion. The child never has to know.

Samurai_Xavier

In the first trimester, women should have every right to end it, as the foetus is not developed enough to feel pain, and the Mother will have to live with it forever. Rape is all the more reason to call it off. Sluts are guys with female genitalia- don't persecute them for it!

I think abortion is the most selfish act a human can commit.Samurai_Xavier

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

[QUOTE="Samurai_Xavier"]

No, I have not been in that situation, but whether you justify the abortion or not, I don't think you can deny that it is a selfish act.

But of course, these are my views, and like you said, I have never been in that situation. However, it doesn't mean I can't express my views. Most people who engage in this debate have never been in the situation either.

Samurai_Xavier

It's no more selfish than the child burdening her when she didn't even want it.

Yes, but the child is not aware that he/she is a "burden". So its unfair for the child to not be allowed to live. The mother is aware, and she has a choice. Hence, my core argument = it is a selfish act by the mother to choose to end the life of her child in order to make her life more comfortable.

I'd put a mother who is aware above a fetus that isn't aware.

Its the woman's genetic material she can do whatever she wants with it. Just think maybe she is aborting a serial killer, mass murderer, rapist, next hitler etc.

Women was raped and kept child:

"What's that son? you want to see a picture of your father?...Well I'm afraid it's more of an artist's impression."

"You have his cold dead eyes!"

connorisgreat93

Because we all know adoption is just a joke am I right?

Its the woman's genetic material she can do whatever she wants with it. Just think maybe she is aborting a serial killer, mass murderer, rapist, next hitler etc.

dracos9000

It works both ways....

[QUOTE="connorisgreat93"]

Women was raped and kept child:

"What's that son? you want to see a picture of your father?...Well I'm afraid it's more of an artist's impression."

"You have his cold dead eyes!"

Ravirr

Because we all know adoption is just a joke am I right?

It's a joke to want to put every potentially aborted kid into adoption. And it's a joke to force someone against their will to carry a child to term if they don't want to.

Its the woman's genetic material she can do whatever she wants with it. Just think maybe she is aborting a serial killer, mass murderer, rapist, next hitler etc.

dracos9000

Should women be forced to have a baby or should they have the right to kill it before it is born? Is abortion murder? Do you see any difference between life at conception or life after twenty four weeks of conception? Is there any difference to the fetus wether it was conceived from a rape or incest or as a accident from a drunk night out? I am all for womens rights, but when they are pregnent, its not just about them anymore. Unless a womans health is at stake, i dont believe abortion should be allowed. Where do you stand on the subject?

Videodogg

It's unfortunate that so many think adoption is a truly legitimate alternative. Most who believe this are men who either have never witnessed childbirth or who don't know what it and the 9 months of pregnancy entails. They also don't seem to take into account the cost of raising a child in an adoption center, the amount of children already in an adoption center and the likelihood it would rapidly multiply to epidemic levels if the only alternative was giving up for adoption. Who will be adopting and paying for all these millions of extra children born into centers?

On average there are around 1.38 million abortions per year VS around 200,000 (not all adopted from the US, some were adopted from overseas) children adopted per year in the US. If abortion did not exist and adoption was the only answer, 1.38 million children extra would go to centers each year. Feeding all these children and housing them all, with a vast extra load of children isn't cheap and I have little doubt it would cause a huge strain and problems with money. Unless you can find an extra 1.38 million people per year to adopt a child, using adoption as an alternative isn't feasible. And forcing the woman to keep the child would just be pure stupidity.

Though to be fair, banning abortion wouldn't cause all 1.38 million to go to adoption centers. Alot would still be aborted but instead by dangerous back alley abortionists which risk the mothers life. It would be great if we lived in a world where abortion wasn't necessary, but we don't. Making it illegal is just as irresponsible as the person who got pregnant by their own means and didn't want to.

There are consequences to massive changes like banning something. It isn't all sunshine and roses.

Pixel-Pirate

Money makes the world go round and it is an issue with this. You can't feed and home 1.38 million children via good intentions. Banning aboriton will never become attainable because there are women who want it, feel it is their right, and would go to desperate mesures to get one if needed. All you'd do by banning abortions would be increasing back alley abortions and likely number of deaths of women due to such procedures.

When you're talking about taking away someones rights and telling them they have to do something they don't feel you should have any say in, you need better reasoning than simple good intentions. If you don't have all the answers, why would they listen to you on such a delicate situation?

[QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

It's unfortunate that so many think adoption is a truly legitimate alternative. Most who believe this are men who either have never witnessed childbirth or who don't know what it and the 9 months of pregnancy entails. They also don't seem to take into account the cost of raising a child in an adoption center, the amount of children already in an adoption center and the likelihood it would rapidly multiply to epidemic levels if the only alternative was giving up for adoption. Who will be adopting and paying for all these millions of extra children born into centers?

On average there are around 1.38 million abortions per year VS around 200,000 (not all adopted from the US, some were adopted from overseas) children adopted per year in the US. If abortion did not exist and adoption was the only answer, 1.38 million children extra would go to centers each year. Feeding all these children and housing them all, with a vast extra load of children isn't cheap and I have little doubt it would cause a huge strain and problems with money. Unless you can find an extra 1.38 million people per year to adopt a child, using adoption as an alternative isn't feasible. And forcing the woman to keep the child would just be pure stupidity.

Though to be fair, banning abortion wouldn't cause all 1.38 million to go to adoption centers. Alot would still be aborted but instead by dangerous back alley abortionists which risk the mothers life. It would be great if we lived in a world where abortion wasn't necessary, but we don't. Making it illegal is just as irresponsible as the person who got pregnant by their own means and didn't want to.

There are consequences to massive changes like banning something. It isn't all sunshine and roses.

jeremiah06

Why would you want to ban abortions? Do you think abortions will just magically go away after it's made illegal?

Women will try to give themselves abortions, harming themselves in the process.

Why do you want to control a woman's body?

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

It's not a child.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

PeaceChild90

It's not a child.

if they get pregnant due to being slappers and lay abouts then yes they should be forced to keep the child and buckle up their ideas,if it conceived through r@pe then i think they should be allowed to terminate.

[QUOTE="jeremiah06"][QUOTE="Pixel-Pirate"]

It's unfortunate that so many think adoption is a truly legitimate alternative. Most who believe this are men who either have never witnessed childbirth or who don't know what it and the 9 months of pregnancy entails. They also don't seem to take into account the cost of raising a child in an adoption center, the amount of children already in an adoption center and the likelihood it would rapidly multiply to epidemic levels if the only alternative was giving up for adoption. Who will be adopting and paying for all these millions of extra children born into centers?

On average there are around 1.38 million abortions per year VS around 200,000 (not all adopted from the US, some were adopted from overseas) children adopted per year in the US. If abortion did not exist and adoption was the only answer, 1.38 million children extra would go to centers each year. Feeding all these children and housing them all, with a vast extra load of children isn't cheap and I have little doubt it would cause a huge strain and problems with money. Unless you can find an extra 1.38 million people per year to adopt a child, using adoption as an alternative isn't feasible. And forcing the woman to keep the child would just be pure stupidity.

Though to be fair, banning abortion wouldn't cause all 1.38 million to go to adoption centers. Alot would still be aborted but instead by dangerous back alley abortionists which risk the mothers life. It would be great if we lived in a world where abortion wasn't necessary, but we don't. Making it illegal is just as irresponsible as the person who got pregnant by their own means and didn't want to.

There are consequences to massive changes like banning something. It isn't all sunshine and roses.

PeaceChild90

Why would you want to ban abortions? Do you think abortions will just magically go away after it's made illegal?

Women will try to give themselves abortions, harming themselves in the process.

Why do you want to control a woman's body?

people might think im wrong for saying this but if they want to kill a life they should risk dying themselves in a back alley.eye for a eye

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

Because its totally plausible to ask the child while its in the mother's womb if it wants to die or not.

Unless of course you meant after it is being born, in which case it makes perfect sense! Once the kid is, say, 5-6 the mother should ask: "honey, do you want to die?"

-_-

And yeah I know you probably just implied that the child just shouldnt die but seriously...

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

Teenaged

Because its totally plausible to ask the child while its in the mother's womb if it wants to die or not.

Unless of course you meant after it is being born, in which case it makes perfect sense! Once the kid is, say, 5-6 the mother should ask: "honey, do you want to die?"

-_-

And yeah I know you probably just implied that the child just shouldnt die but seriously...

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

Because its totally plausible to ask the child while its in the mother's womb if it wants to die or not.

Unless of course you meant after it is being born, in which case it makes perfect sense! Once the kid is, say, 5-6 the mother should ask: "honey, do you want to die?"

-_-

And yeah I know you probably just implied that the child just shouldnt die but seriously...

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

It's not a child.

You can't tell the difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a child?

The child is conscious.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

PeaceChild90

It's not a child.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

It's not a child.

PeaceChild90

You can't tell the difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a child?

The child is conscious.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

Teenaged

Because its totally plausible to ask the child while its in the mother's womb if it wants to die or not.

Unless of course you meant after it is being born, in which case it makes perfect sense! Once the kid is, say, 5-6 the mother should ask: "honey, do you want to die?"

-_-

And yeah I know you probably just implied that the child just shouldnt die but seriously...

i think its his sarcastic way of saying NO to abortion

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

It's not a child.

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

I think it should be the childs CHOICE on whether it wants to live or die.

racer8dan

It's not a child.

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Why, Cause its missing certain features?

racer8dan

You can't tell the difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a child?

The child is conscious.

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Why, Cause its missing certain features?

racer8dan

You can't tell the difference between a fetus in the first trimester and a child?

The child is conscious.

Uh, no. How is a cluster of cells in a woman's womb comparable to a 3 year old? It can't even live outside of it's mother's body.