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

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="PeaceChild90"]

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

The child is conscious.

PeaceChild90

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.

Yes, I believe the woman should have the right to end a pregnancy. And its no ones place to tell her she shouldn't ( in my opinion).

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

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

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

T_P_O

usually with rape cases the women take a plan b tablet so that kind of terminates the whole rape baby abortion thing.

this topic is alot like politics some people view it one way some people view it another way and out of every abortion topic that i have read no one changes there mind

No... not unless having the child threatens her life (i.e. in the case of 10 year-olds being raped, or any complications during pregnancy could kill the mother). No one should ever have a "right" to kill anyone else... born or unborn. There are more than enough ways to avoid pregnancy, and if you don't utilize them (especially abstinence) then you have to "man up" and face the responsibilities. Sex isn't a pass-time, or a hobby... it is an adult activity that comes with high level responsibilities that just can't be reversed by saying "oops" and going to a doctor.

At the very least abortions (that aren't for medical emergencies) should not be funded by tax-payer money. I definitely don't like the fact that my taxes are paying for the murder of children because the parents aren't willing to accept the responsibilities, or to pass those responsibilities onto other people who can't have children for themselves (through adoption).

[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...

So any woman who gets pregant has to go the 9 or so months of pregnancy. Fine, so long as they're paid a prorated $35,000 salary across that time span to cover all their costs, the wages lost from work/hours lost from school,including for putting it up for adoption.

If there are 1.38 million abortions a year, that's a lot of lives. In all the times I've debated the issue, it's rare for anyone against abortion to support public funding on child services. It's a situation where they care about the fetus until it comes out of the womb, where it then becomes a non-issue afterward.

The country cannot sustain an extra 1.38m/year. It cannot. It would require a culture change and fundamental changes to the structure of child services to bring that number down before abortion can be seen as an issue that's not necessary. You want those kids to live, then you'll support the government taking more of your money to put towards social services like daycare spaces and funding, better schools and extracurricular programs, better sex education, etc. If you don't, then you're living in a dream world.

I am all for free abortion... horgen123

I have no answser to that question. It comes down to the rights of the woman versus the rights of the fetus/baby. Who has the larger say? Should a woman be forced to carry an extra life? Does an unborn infant have any rights? I don't know.

no no they shouldn't. they only have to give up 9 months of their life.

no no they shouldn't. they only have to give up 9 months of their life.

jpph

Yes, they should have the right.

no no they shouldn't. they only have to give up 9 months of their life.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]*facepalm*

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...

Lockedge

So any woman who gets pregant has to go the 9 or so months of pregnancy. Fine, so long as they're paid a prorated $35,000 salary across that time span to cover all their costs, the wages lost from work/hours lost from school,including for putting it up for adoption.

If there are 1.38 million abortions a year, that's a lot of lives. In all the times I've debated the issue, it's rare for anyone against abortion to support public funding on child services. It's a situation where they care about the fetus until it comes out of the womb, where it then becomes a non-issue afterward.

The country cannot sustain an extra 1.38m/year. It cannot. It would require a culture change and fundamental changes to the structure of child services to bring that number down before abortion can be seen as an issue that's not necessary. You want those kids to live, then you'll support the government taking more of your money to put towards social services like daycare spaces and funding, better schools and extracurricular programs, better sex education, etc. If you don't, then you're living in a dream world.

no no they shouldn't. they only have to give up 9 months of their life.

[QUOTE="Trollsters"][QUOTE="T_P_O"] Only? It might not seem like much, but a pregnancy at a crucial time in a woman's life can be hugely damaging to their future choices and social standing.T_P_O

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

binpink

[QUOTE="binpink"]

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

racer8dan

That child doesn't share a parasitic relationship furthermore this is a bit disengious.. When people argue that the fetus is just a lump of cells its only a few weeks to a month or two into the pregnancy.. Not 8 months old..

Sad is stuffing out a childs life before it has a chance to live.

racer8dan

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Sad is stuffing out a childs life before it has a chance to live.

Jandurin

[QUOTE="binpink"]

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

racer8dan

And I disagree. But you're welcome to think that and to not abort any children you get pregnant with. Arguments for the fetus do not sway me.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Sad is stuffing out a childs life before it has a chance to live.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="racer8dan"]

Sad is stuffing out a childs life before it has a chance to live.

racer8dan

No please elaborate.. This isn't some clear cut discussion that supposedly a blind man could see.. Many peopel such as my self think that a pregnency of a month or two I can't even qualify it as a child.. Its a lump of cells in a developing fetus. What your trying to make it sound like is she is going to get a abortion 7 months into the pregnancy.. When that even by the largest supports of giving the woman the right to abort as absurd.

should the man that gets the woman pregnant have a say in the decision? if he gets her pregnant and wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep it, should he be able to not pay child support, but then give up any rights to see the child?

[QUOTE="binpink"]

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

Snakewiseman

That is beyond offensive.

should the man that gets the woman pregnant have a say in the decision? if he gets her pregnant and wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep it, should he be able to not pay child support, but then give up any rights to see the child?

needled24-7

No he should not.. The woman is not only going to be going through immense physical and mental problems.. But the pregnancy may prevent her from working and doing other such things.. Child support is not about being fair, its about making sure the child is properly funded for..

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

should the man that gets the woman pregnant have a say in the decision? if he gets her pregnant and wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep it, should he be able to not pay child support, but then give up any rights to see the child?

sSubZerOo

No he should not.. The woman is not only going to be going through immense physical and mental problems.. But the pregnancy may prevent her from working and doing other such things.. Child support is not about being fair, its about making sure the child is properly funded for..

[QUOTE="Lockedge"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]EXACTLY, Which is why it should be the mothers responsibility to see to it lives until it can make decisions for itself.

racer8dan

So any woman who gets pregant has to go the 9 or so months of pregnancy. Fine, so long as they're paid a prorated $35,000 salary across that time span to cover all their costs, the wages lost from work/hours lost from school,including for putting it up for adoption.

If there are 1.38 million abortions a year, that's a lot of lives. In all the times I've debated the issue, it's rare for anyone against abortion to support public funding on child services. It's a situation where they care about the fetus until it comes out of the womb, where it then becomes a non-issue afterward.

The country cannot sustain an extra 1.38m/year. It cannot. It would require a culture change and fundamental changes to the structure of child services to bring that number down before abortion can be seen as an issue that's not necessary. You want those kids to live, then you'll support the government taking more of your money to put towards social services like daycare spaces and funding, better schools and extracurricular programs, better sex education, etc. If you don't, then you're living in a dream world.

I'm saying abortion is cultural, and passing a law to ban abortion would be fruitless and cause more harm. Keep their pants on? It takes two parties to get pregnant, and one can walk away leaving the other on the hook. Many people who have abortions aren't responsible, I'll agree with that, but if abortion was not an option, there would be a drastic shift. Adoption agencies would stop taking in children to the point where the parent would have to keep the child. That reality would not take long to come to fruition.

Then what? Our education system would not be able to handle the surplus of children. Children would go uneducated.
Daycare spaces are already overrun and overflowing. There would be no daycare, meaning those women who gave birth would likely have to remain home hoping to get by on welfare for the next few years, if not until the child moves out. That's a huge loss of women in the workplace, and to the economy.
And accidental pregnancies will not stop. Our culture is incredibly sexualized, and that will lead to wave after wave of forced pregnancies with girls in their teens. What teenage boy is going to stick with some fling he had one night? Slim chances there.

The difference between the Elderly and the fetus is that fetuses are attached to the mother's body and are 100% dependent on it to live. It is, in the end, the woman's choice what to do with her body. When that choice is taken away, historically, we've seen cases where the government deems the mother a danger to the child due to eating habits or her opinion on method of birth, and her body is literally taken hostage as the government takes custody of the child inside of her and does what they deem necessary for the child with little regard to the woman's freedoms. If you have a medical condition where a C-section puts you at a health risk, and the doctors think a c-section is necessary for the child to come out healthy and get a warrant for such a procedure...they can do that. In this kind of future, the woman's body is held hostage for 9 months, and she receives no compensation for her troubles. It is her body, her choice. If she is not allowed control of her body, the least they can do is pay her medical bills, recompensate her for lost wages, etc.

If abortion is banned, women will just go to back alley abortion doctors and a good many will die from the procedure, but it won't fix the issue at hand. it's cutting off the stem of a weed and not looking under the surface for the source. Abortion is a side-effect from our culture. Want to get rid of abortion? Fix the culture. Steps towards making abortion unnecessary are exponentially more important than steps towards outlawing abortion.

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="Jandurin"] How do you kill that which has no life? Your choice of words, not mine.sSubZerOo

No please elaborate.. This isn't some clear cut discussion that supposedly a blind man could see.. Many peopel such as my self think that a pregnency of a month or two I can't even qualify it as a child.. Its a lump of cells in a developing fetus. What your trying to make it sound like is she is going to get a abortion 7 months into the pregnancy.. When that even by the largest supports of giving the woman the right to abort as absurd.

[QUOTE="Snakewiseman"][QUOTE="binpink"]

It is so sad that in the year 2010 I have to defend my body and rights simply for being a female, and against people who will never be faced with having their rights destroyed the same way they want to destroy mine. I, an adult woman, come first. I will not apologize for standing up for myself, my uterus and my future daughters, nor will I apologize for demanding equality and the complete right to my own person. Ever. Anyone who does not value me more than what's inside me is not welcome in my life.

binpink

That is beyond offensive.

[QUOTE="binpink"]

[QUOTE="Snakewiseman"] tell me how your first abortion goes hopefully its everything you dreamed of and moreracer8dan

That is beyond offensive.

I'd think twice before putting words in my mouth because it isn't appreciated and doesn't help your cause. And I'd think twice before jumping on the bandwagon of someone who implied the following about me:

That I'd be willing to get an abortion.
That I would in fact be getting an abortion at some point.
That I'd be getting multiple abortions.
And then they make an inappropriate remark about wanting to know about the first abortion they assume I'll be having, and more inappropriate remarks indicating the abortion isn't serious and somehow a welcomed, dream experience. For me personally.

So just to be clear... you agree with all of that being said to me, simply because I'm proud to be pro-choice? You feel the same way and are making the same assumptions about me?

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="needled24-7"]

should the man that gets the woman pregnant have a say in the decision? if he gets her pregnant and wants her to get an abortion, but she wants to keep it, should he be able to not pay child support, but then give up any rights to see the child?

needled24-7

No he should not.. The woman is not only going to be going through immense physical and mental problems.. But the pregnancy may prevent her from working and doing other such things.. Child support is not about being fair, its about making sure the child is properly funded for..

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]

[QUOTE="binpink"]

That is beyond offensive.

I'd think twice before putting words in my mouth because it isn't appreciated and doesn't help your cause. And I'd think twice before jumping on the bandwagon of someone who implied the following about me:

That I'd be willing to get an abortion.
That I would in fact be getting an abortion at some point.
That I'd be getting multiple abortions.
And then they make an inappropriate remark about wanting to know about the first abortion they assume I'll be having, and more inappropriate remarks indicating the abortion isn't serious and somehow a welcomed, dream experience. For me personally.

So just to be clear... you agree with all of that being said to me, simply because I'm proud to be pro-choice? You feel the same way and are making the same assumptions about me?

To all of you pro choice people: Your logic is that the pregnancy should not interefere with your life amirite? so you can murder that innocent child because its keeping you from doing what you want to do? By your logic, you should also be able to murder someone that has applied for the same job as you. same thing. your taking a life to have your life the way you want it.Trollsters

no women should be forced into doing it . it is disgusting to force a women to have a child .

This is a really hard question because so many people come at it from different angles. I don't know much about the debate because I haven't really read any literature. But there are so many things to consider. We have a completely sentient, fully conscious human being who for at least the first part of pregnancy has an unconscious, life form developing inside of her.

A question we must ask is what is a human being? Do we become human when we possess a certain level of sentience? Or should we be considered totally and fully human at conception. Generally it seems that for the pro-life position, life begins at conception. Usually this is justified by the belief that human beings are made up of body and soul, and at the moment of conception, God enjoins a soul to the developing body, thus guaranteeing the developing human's position as something sacred. This is the position I personally believe, though it seems difficult to enforce this upon others because it presupposes a prior belief in God.

On the other hand, if there is no belief in God and no belief in a soul, then others must decide upon a different definition of human. Is something human because it possesses a certain DNA code? Does the fetus become human when it obtains a conscious state? Even then it's had no memorable experiences. Even if a position is decided upon, then one must consider interests. The mother's interests can range depending on the situation. She may want to have an abortion for many reasons such as inconvenience, emotional pain, physical welfare and other things. The fetus obviously has future interests, which aren't know to him or her, but obviously the interest to grow and experience a normal human life is an interest which pro-life people deem to be to be worthy enough that abortion is in their eyes wrong, even though the child itself doesn't yet know of this. Is the interest of inconvenience enough to kill an unborn baby? Is rape or threat of death from birth? So many variables.

Personally, even if I didn't believe in a sacred soul, I feel that inconvenience (such as threat to career or lifestyle) does not hold much weight against at least a sentient unborn child. I feel that the mother's interest to escape possible death if a birth were to go ahead could justify an abortion. But I'll stop rambling, because I'm not getting anywhere. I guess I will just state that I believe the human person is a sacred being, composed of body and soul, formed at conception and that for most reasons (such as inconvenience), I believe abortion is unjustified. Other reasons such as rape, I have to sit on the fence, I just don't know. And if a mother's life is threatened, then because the mother has a conscious future aspiration, whereas the baby does not, her life must be favored above the child's.

Phew, too much thinking