The point of this discussion is to get people’s perspective on abortion. Why people do it. And why people are against it.
From Catholic.org I found a video on abortion, but it didn’t look like the normal procedures performed in the United States. It looks like they purposely chose the worst pictures possible to convince Christians that abortion is wrong. Where did they get such graphic material?
Video Link: http://www.catholic.org/video/watch.php?v=13
A legal abortion in the United States looks more like this: http://www.thisismyabortion.com
I believe if you get pregnant by accident that you should keep it. But if you are forced (rape) (incest) then it definitely changes things. How can we force her to bring a rapist’s baby to term? I also heard that giving birth to a rapist’s baby is like being raped all over again.
I think that making abortion illegal is wrong. This takes away women’s rights. I believe women should choose, but I think it’s recommended that women take counseling before taking any action.
This is my opinion, but I would like to know others point of view on the subject.
I got two questions for you:
I think there are SO many different factors, but generally I think that regardless of whether or not it's an accident, you should have the right to keep it, or not keep it up to a certain time in the unborn baby's existence. For instance, I would be against someone choosing to abort the pregnancy at 30 weeks. I wouldn't say I'm Pro-Choice or Pro-Life, but if I had to choose, I would label myself as Pro-Choice.
Sometimes you can't find out if the baby has a disease, or if something is wrong until a certain number of weeks, and depending on the severity of the situation I think that also changes things. Like, if you were to find out at 20 weeks the child would be a complete "vegetable", unable to function or live on its own, that might change things for you.
My decision on this has been made from my life experience. I've not had to choose for myself on this topic so I don't *really* know what it's like to have to choose, but as a woman, I can say that you can not take away this right from people.
No one should be born unwanted in this world. I think the only one that should have a say for an abortion is the woman in whose body the unwanted offspring is located (plus there should equally be a way to back out for the men of any support for any "oops" pregnancy a woman may way "accidentally" have happen). If she doesn't want it should be enough for a reason.
It's not realistic to expect everyone who doesn't want to breed at a given time to have a sterilization or a vasectomy.
If you don't like abortion, don't have one.
I should qualify everything I say with the following; I'm a man, and thus can't really claim to know what the internal moral struggle over getting an abortion might be like, and that I'll probably never even get anyone pregnant unintentionally. However, I think I have compelling points to make regarding the issue, even while recognizing the extremely personal nature of an individual's decision.
Point 1: Anyone who claims to be 'pro-life' rests this position on a fundamentally made-up series of claims that have their eventual root in religious nonsense. Most conspicuous in this regard is the idea of a Soul, without which the debate on abortion is pretty meaningless. Christians, and theists, have been getting their feathers raised for centuries over the notion that science might someday discredit the notion of a soul, and today, repression-of-evidence-disguised-as-religious-tolerance notwithstanding, the disciplines of embryology, evolutionary biology and neurology have effectively done away with any notion of a 'Ghost in the Machine', i.e. the little Homunculus we sometimes imagine sitting in our head running our body. This poses a problem for pro-life activists, who attempt to rationalize their position by equating a zygote with a baby. This argument's weakness have been probed by the rational for so long that the Catholic church, among others, has had to resort to the ridiculous notion of 'Ensoulment', i.e. the moment of conception being the moment that a new soul enters a body and becomes a person. Besides the obvious you-just-made-that-up nature of this arguement (where was the idea of ensoulment 100 years ago), it's perfectly obvious to anyone willing to learn about embryological development that bodies and brains form gradually, and that there's no definite point at which pre-human bundles of cells become human. Even after birth, there's no longer any sense in believing in a unified consciouness, personality, or 'self'. We are our brains, nothing more or less. There is no magic moment of ensoulment, and no sense in the belief that a tiny ball of cells, or even a first-trimester fetus, is in any way comparable to a post-natal infant.
The second point; It is perfectly obvious that pro-life people's concern about abortion is much more based on a ruffled-feathers discomfort over the fact that some of their basic beliefs about human nature are challenged, than on a concern for human life. Once we recognize the stuff above, it's apparent that aborting a fetus is very, very dissimilar to killing a baby, and we can thus turn our attention to other issues, like the ones that make an abortion seem like a prudent option. Without even mentioning the cases of rape and incest, so much in the news lately, I would hope that most people can recognize that abortion as a form of last-resort birth control can, and probably often is, a moral option. A pro-lifer who would ruin the life of a woman by saddling her with an unplanned, unprepared-for child, and condemn that child to whatever life this circumstance results in, is clearly not concerned about the child, but about their own ideology. He should recognize that abortions aren't often performed lightly by hedonistic harlots who sleep around and then have their insides callously scraped out. It's common knowledge that getting an abortion is a deeply troubling decision, which tells us two things. First, that women are naturally inclined to want to keep the baby, and that to give it up is against their basic instinct; second, that some other factor, probably their life circumstances, causes them to override this instinct, for the good of their future children and themselves. Any objective observer can see that it's far more moral to forgo having a child that one can't handle than to bring a kid into the world without being in some way prepared for it. It's a quality of life issue, and the pro-life concern for Life seems to end at birth (and, as the saying goes, seems to pick up again at age 18, when they're eligible to join the military).
Pro-Life for me, although there are quite a bit of situations and factors that would make it okay. For example:
If the child is the result of a rape, the baby would have been born with a severe mental or physical defect, if the child would not be able to be cared for properly due to circumstances that popped up after its conception, etc.
Really there are a ridiculous amount of factors, but in the end I believe that people should be responsible for their actions. I admit, "If you didn't want it then you shouldn't have had it." is horribly cold, but sometimes life needs to be harsh. Self control is better than birth control.
Pro Choice - I believe that if a woman has to carry the child it should be up to her to decide what she wants to do with it, period. Just because a man drops his seed in a moment of passion I don't think gives him the right to dictate what the woman should have to do with her body.
I realized early on that my mom was two months pregnate with me before they were hitched! Always wondered if this affected my father/son relationship..;p). I quess I turned out ok, mostly...
Pro-Life VS Pro-Choice, seems like a false dicotomy and hides details. People that are Pro-Choice, are not by definition Pro-Death. People that are Pro-Life, still make choices with their chidren's future, and given their religious convictions, could kill their children by not allowing medical aide or intervention. People that are Pro-Choice, do not, at every opportunity, kill their offspring(in womb), but do want to preserve their 'right' to make this decision if necessary. While only a few folks of the 'Pro-Life camp, want the religious right to 'kill or let die' (out of womb) their offspring, they are still exercising this option. Recently, a few 'religious' families have taken even more trastic measures, torture/starvation.
Children die, by the hands of family and strangers, accidents, war time, and disasters. Some death we can prevent, some goes unnoticed or in mass. It is a sad world at times, and madness is sometimes in the drivers seat..;p(.
I'm pro-life and I recognize that a pregnancy involves two lives. There is the mother, who will ultimately be responsible for the second life, should she choose to accept that responsibility, and then there is the fetus, which up to a certain point is a hypothetical life. Obviously, being pro-life, I'm rooting for both of them. I'm not pro-choice because it isn't my business to be making choices for that mother or that potential child.
I guess I'm kind of obliquely with Heather. I don't see pro-choice and pro-life as all that mutually exclusive.
When two lives are involved, sometimes a choice has to be made, and the choice will be in favor of (pro-) one or the other of the lives when that is the nature of the choice.
The real question is, and should be, who makes the choice? Can the state force a woman to keep a pregnancy?
How? Lock her up and chain her to a hospital bed until she comes to term?
How about euthanasia?
I lived in Oregon for many years, and they have legal assisted suicide there. I think it's a good idea.
Not here. If someone talks about killing themselves, they try to stop you. But shouldn't they just let you do it? Basically, it seems to me that any government that allows abortion should allow assisted suicide...it seems to me the arguments that apply to one apply equally well to the other.
Until the fetus becomes sentient, it's just a blob of cells.