Do you agree with abortion? Discuss

Post Reply New Topic

Rather key distinction here. You can kill someone in self defense, if you have reasonable cause to believe your life is in imminent danger and the use of such force is deemed necessary, on property or not. Using your property is not a good enough reason, you'd be tried for murder.




These silly hypotheticals... Ok car example now. The car has been disassembled and its battery is now hooked up to someone's life support machine. You can't disconnect them just to retrieve your battery. That is murder in the course of retrieving your property, you are not allowed legally or morally to do that.

I've had three children and one spontaneous abortion.

I believe no person should be forced to sustain another against their will.
Figure out a way to sustain life independent of another person but even if you could, I still would believe you have no right to prevent me from removing my DNA from the embryo.

Pregnancy and childbirth often leave lfelong scars and/or damage even in the best of circumstances. We all know the USA most assuredly does not offer the best of circumstances since so many people have substandard healthcare or none at all.

Anyone that wants to force another human to have a baby should be forced to contribute x amount of dollars to raise that child to age 18 whether that child is put up for adoption or not. Put your money where your values lay.

I have considered the same, except in relation to genetic editing. If there was a way to test for this, and editing was viable, then the parents wouldn't need to get an abortion: they would simply edit away the traits they don't like. Considering that this would allow parents to pick their child in one go, rather than by trial-and-error with abortions, it seems much more likely that this is what people would try to do. Thus, I am not that worried about abortion in this case, because it is much less efficient, and thus will likely be less utilized, than other potential techniques.

Telling women to carry on with a pregnancy because the resulting baby can be adopted is an absurd lie. My understanding is that tens of thousands of people age out of the adoption programs every year. If people really believe this adoption reasoning then they can prove it by adopting the people that are already available.

While I agree that life in general has value, in many cases, it is easy to imagine that ending abortion isn't saving lives, just trading lives. For instance, I had a friend who became a single mom at 18. Ten years later, she is still a single mom with one child. It is easy to imagine an alternate reality in which she got an abortion instead, which gave her time to look for a lifelong partner. In turn, they could have two children by now instead, albeit younger children. What makes the first pregnancy more valuable than potential later pregnancies?

In addition, it is difficult to consider a fetus to have great significance when they are so easy to produce. Someone got an abortion because they don't feel this is the right time? They can just make another one next year, when they do feel it is the right time. In general, making them isn't a very difficult task. We can make a whole lot more than we could even support. Why don't we make as many as we possibly can, and have something like a billion births every year? Placing much more value on conceptions that happen, while ignoring conceptions that could happen just as easily, seems like sentimentality. No single conception has any more importance than any other, and they happen too often already (recall how many people are never adopted), and there is plenty of potential to replace unwanted pregnancies with wanted pregnancy. I see no reason to place all-consuming importance on an unwanted pregnancy now, to the detriment of the a potential wanted pregnancy later; the potential lives are of equal value to themselves (the produced humans of either pregnancy would rather be alive than not), but one is of greater value to the parent(s).

On a more personal note, I believe that a person is more than just their genetics. A fetus is not more than just its genetics, so I don't view it as a person. It is, at least in some technical sense, a living human. However, the mother's needs, as she is a person, seem more important to me. Theoretically, I could make this argument that they aren't human even for a while after birth. However, it seems most fair to have explicitly defined rules that apply to everyone, and there needs to be some compromise, so I find the third trimester limit to be an acceptable balance.

I agree with abortion. It is kinder to abort an unwanted child before it has developed real thoughts and feelings and personality (which is the day it's born). Some women get raped, which causes an unwanted pregnancy, so what is so wrong with them choosing to abort? Other women get pregnant then find their partner is abusive or they split up or whatever and then the woman decides she doesn't want to bring up a baby on her own so she decides to abort before the baby is born, which is also fair enough. I've known people whose parents abandoned them at birth and they may have got brought up by someone else or in foster care, but often it messes them up emotionally and they turn into aggressive young adults. A colleague of mine accidentally got pregnant when she was just 18, and she didn't get an abortion, but after she had the baby she found she was an unfit mother who wasn't ready to be a parent and the dad didn't look after the baby at all. The girl turned to drugs to cope, which got the baby took away by social services, which made her drug addiction worse. She got a court order to stay away from the child, and although she's not on drugs now, she's become an emotional wreck with depression and anger issues. Her child is now in foster care, but she remembers her real mother and this will probably affect her emotionally later on when she's a teenager. So it's situations like this where it is kinder to not bring the child into the world in the first place, then nobody is hurt.

I mean, it's hard as f**k to adopt a child, yet any unstable person with issues can make baby after baby so easily, and it's those children that suffer.

Yep, I agree with abortion.

Pregnancy is a direct threat to my health and well-being. I'm not legally or morally obligated to sacrifice my life and/or safety for anyone, especially not a zygote/embryo/fetus.



Aaaannddd this is an excellent example pf why I do not indulge "hypotheticals" while discussing abortion.

The fact remains that I do not grant the use of my organs to anyone, for any reason, without my consent, regardless of their developmental state.

I am not today in a reasonable enough mindset to argue, but I want to contribute this;


The testimony of someone who survived an abortion attempt, and faced long term damage from it including cerebral palsy.

My only personal concern with abortion is:

Although I am approaching 40, I still hold out some hope of being a parent. I am worried I will meet someone who keeps telling me she wants kids, but gets an abortion behind my back.

From a political standpoint, I don’t think it should be banned, nor do I think Roe will be overturned.

When I mentioned saying pro- or anti-abortion instead of pro-life or pro-choice, I am referring to people who say they’re pro-life in regard to abortion, but have no contingency plan once the child is born, or who support the death penalty. Same with those who say they’re pro-choice, but deride those who choose to be parents and call them “stupid breeders”.

Nothing that benefits many people should be banned because it fails a very small percentage of the time.

Her mom didn't want her but she got to live anyway; a life with cerebral palsy is better than no life. I don't see the fact that abortions can fail on occasion to be particularly relevant. Yes, her life is worse because of the abortion; ideally the failure would've been noticed and corrected. This seems like more sentimentality.



I really hope you can open up to being more trusting, and meet someone who inspires more trust.

By her own words the problem is not that she lived, she is glad and overjoyed that she is alive;
the problem is that there was an attempt on her life that was fully legal.
The problem is that she didn't matter and that she should of.

Her life inspires a lot of the worst case scenario ideas that pro choice people bring up;
She is disabled, she grew up in foster care, her birth mother hates her, and yet she is glad to be alive, and wants no other child to be killed like she almost was. She survived only by a stroke of luck.

You didn't respond to what I said, you merely reiterated what you had said. It seems your main "argument" is "she should of [mattered]", which isn't an argument, merely a reiteration of your belief.

I understand she is unhappy with what happened to her. I said that something shouldn't be banned just because it hurt this person; telling me that it hurt this person doesn't change that.

There is the opportunity to create, I would guess, at least a billion fetuses per year, all of whom would prefer to be alive. That doesn't give us any obligation to give them that option. The fact that one of them survived to confirm that they want to be alive doesn't change that. A lot of people would be happier if I did a lot of things I don't want to do; I feel no obligation to do those things. If somebody chooses to give that gift to a particular person then they are free to do so, but I see no reason to obligate people to do so, especially considering there are already so many people who are never even adopted, and there is a limit to how many people we can reasonably support.

In that case, if people don't matter at all, why keep it to fetuses? Why not just kill whoever and keep the population down?

Streeeeetchhinnnggggg a bit here. An unvaccinated human child, whether you are vaccinated or not, is technically a direct threat to your health and well-being ... do you kill on sight?



Hate to remind you, but this 2 year discussion all came out of your hypothetical "Should organ donation be mandatory?" question.

Women own their bodies. What they do with their own bodies is their choice alone. No man should be allowed to dictate any woman's reproductive choices. To do otherwise is to contempt toward women.

What do you mean? You mean only an all female judiciary could rightly decide to make abortion illegal? Or do you mean no one else, male or female, should be able to dictate to any particular woman? In which case why bring men into it at all?

Because I never said people don't matter. I'm sorry, but you seem unable to read what I'm saying, and instead are only capable of responding to the talking points you expect with the usual counter-points.