Do you think abortion is wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

I think it is. Except in some special cases, like if the woman's life would be in danger. Killing a fetus in most cases is just as bad is killing an already born infant.

The alternative is forcing women to complete a pregnancy, so no.

No, I do not think it is wrong. A fetus is dependent on the body of the mother to continue its growth and development. It is her decision whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. If you believe that the government has the authority to demand that a citizen relinquish the right to the very blood in her own veins, you open the door to all kinds of ugly possibilities.

I believe the destruction of any defenseless human life equals murder. Ronald Regan put it best when he said, "I've noticed that all in favor of abortion are already born".

The whole "right to choose" argument is nonsense, because unless she was raped, the woman already made her choice by having sex. Liberals and the PC crowd often mistake this stance as one of hate, but the truth is that many people (including me) have a great deal of sympathy and compassion for the sexually abused. That said, its still not a valid reason for allowing a defenseless baby to be killed in the womb. Most "pro-choice" advocates say women should be allowed to abort their kids after six months, but not five...at which point the arbitrary nature of such a statement becomes painfully obvious.

Even though I could never approve of it, I'd understand abortion if both parents consented to it when giving birth would certainly kill the mother. However, this isn't even backed by current laws, because of activists who falsely claim the unborn child and the woman's body are the same thing. Those who oppose abortion want to inflict temporary pregnancy on the mother, while "pro-choice" advocates want to inflict permanent death on the baby.

Spoken like a clueless man. Cheers.

Yes, I view it as taking a human life. Technically speaking the mothers body is constantly trying to destroy the fetus and if it were not for the placenta her immune system would destroy the fetus. Essentially, it cloaks the fetus so the mothers body does not destroy it.

Personally for me it was wrong. However, I normally wont involve myself in the decision of someone else. This discussion goes on since centuries and there simply is no general solution to it. I do support all kind of stuff, trying to avoid needless abortions, like availability of the "emergency pill afterwards" or offices that inform and offer potential mothers about forms of existing governmental support and other stuff.

Legally, anti abortion laws would almost certainly not work and would raise considerable questions of legal rights. However, I do not think a civilized society should encourage the practice and it certainly should not be funded by taxpayer money.

Well, anti-abortion laws could work to a degree, but they wouldn't be able to prevent a woman who was determined to have one getting an abortion, and when you can't distinguish between abortion and miscarriage, you can't convict the woman (innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, remember?). But that doesn't mean you have to allow abortionists to practice openly.

As far as whether it's morally acceptable or not, that question can be reduced further - given that we've already accepted that it is wrong, except in a few limited circumstances (i.e. self defense, and then you've got the proportionality discussion), to kill people - to, "what point does the fetus become a person?".

So, at what point does the fetus become a person? Personally, I go for the 2 week limit (primitive streak), because before that point each of the cells could become an entirely new organism (okay, not entirely, but twinning is still possible), but after that point, it's definitely one single organism. Also, I don't know of any other such major points after that, so working backwards through the process of induction (if it is morally wrong to kill the fetus at k days, and it is morally wrong to kill it at k-1 days for the entire domain of k, then it is always wrong to kill it). Which holds unless there is something exceptional, which means it is no longer valid for k - say, a major change in the organisms development that means it's fundamentally different than before.

But whatever you decide, make sure you think it through, because, as someone pointed out, if you're pro-choice and wrong, a lot of babies have been callously murdered, and if you're pro-life and wrong, a lot of women (and men) have had their lives ruined needlessly. Or maybe both, but certainly not neither.

I think its inhumane for society to dictate a woman's choice with her body let alone rape victims to give birth. I am sorry a woman should have the right to choose whether or not to abort a fetus.

I've luckily never aborted a child. I bet it's a huge torment and I don't rule out the possibility of actually giving birth, even though I don't think I even like children. It's not that I don't acknowledge the fact that there's a small child in me, if I were to get pregnant.

If I choose to abort it, that would be a well thought-out decision, thinking of both me, my situation, my potential child and my possibilities of looking after it in a way I think a child deserves.

I think many women reason this way? Isn't it bizarre then that the state decides for them, in such personal matters, concerning their bodies and futures? As if the state'd be disregarding my sanity and ability to make a decision. As if I'd take it as lightly as a contraception. No.

Human situations, personalities, problems, et cetera are WAY too complex to fit into such a small legal frame.

My brother ( who is pro choice) made the same point as the comic above, which I believe is a valid point. Personally, I don't have a problem giving aid to those in need. People have different opinions when it is an isn't appropriate to kill an infant or fetus. I suppose the answer to that is when you start using words like "kill" and "terminate". When you use these words it would appear you have crossed a line mentally and at least subconsciously recognize that you are ending a life, which happens to be human. Its rather interesting how different people have different moral views on taking human life.

You know, I've been committedly pro-choice since I was an adolescent. I have always believed that the government didn't belong in the business of making a decision that should be between a woman, her partner, her doctor, and her Deity if she has one.

I'm still not comfortable with putting myself in the position of dictating someone else's choices; if I am going to change my stance, I'm going to have to go find an organization that supplies non-judgmental social and material support to struggling mothers and invest HUGE amounts of time and money in the effort. That's the only way I'm going to be able to live with a pro-life stance.

Whether fortunately or unfortunately, that may be exactly what I am going to have to do. Since being encouraged to abort my child based solely on my condition (then hearing some ignorant c**t express shock upon hearing that I'd driven myself there), listening to all the rhetoric about who should and should not be born, and swallowing almost outright slander from a certain well-known non-profit, I now believe that the pro-choice movement is EVERY BIT as guilty of inserting its own moral imperative into what should be a personal decision.

Ideally, I think I agree with Hilary Clinton: "I believe that abortion should be safe, legal, available... and rare." Ideally, I believe the option should be available if a woman truly feels it is what must be done. Ideally, I think that personal choice ought to be no one's business but the people actually involved.

I have not, unfortunately, seen any signs saying, "Welcome to the Ideal Plane." In an imperfect world where it seems like every other person has some kind of agenda, well... If someone is going to go shoving moral imperatives down peoples' throats, I think I'd rather that imperative be on the side of life. The alternative is more than beginning to frighten me.

No, I don't oppose abortion. I think the problem stems from the fact that one of our underpinning premises is wrong: Life is not precious. In fact, once established it appears to be quite trivial. But while we're on rejecting logical fallacies, the zygote is a human, it cannot be anything other than human, or it wouldn't implant and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In the U.S. attempting to fix that logical disconnect would likely be the final nail in our experiment's coffin. It's a can of worms of unimaginable size. So, here in the U.S. I believe we're better served by maintaining the status quo; just leave it at 'a breathing human has more rights than a less than fully developed one, and the mother has more rights over the fetus than the father.' It's a reasonably simple solution to an insanely complex issue.

tl;dr: I'm Pro-life and pro-choice.

Depends on how far into the pregnancy the woman is. The fact that fetuses are aborted at 22 weeks is madness, but if a woman chooses to have an abortion at 8 weeks, she shouldn't have to justify it to anyone.