Abortion?
 

Abortions for some, miniature American flags for the others!

Go archive some Lincoln. Real men act on their principles.

Rape, incest or health of the mother or child. NOT as a contraceptive alternative.

I vote "No", since you make it one or the other.

Originally posted by MrFun
Rape, incest, teen pregnancy, or serious complications to expectant's mother's health and/or to fetus. Also in situations of an impoverished or lower class woman who is pregnant and would find the cost of child-bearing and raising child to be too economically/financially stressful.

I would not favor any law that explicitly prohibits women getting an abortion merely for convenience's sake in other much less serious pregnancy situations. But personally, I find those types of abortions more objectionable. I agree. I think women should have the right to choose and don't think it's me who can judge an individual case. Yet I'm more than uneasy that a certain number of women seems to take the issue too casual, using abortion merely as a contraceptive.

I compare abortion to amputation.
I oppose amputation, but in some cases, amputation can save life. I think amputation shouldn't be illegal, and should be done at the hospital...

edit: Douple post

That comparison is hopelessly inadequate.

It all depends on when it is a human life, so for all intents and purposes abortion in the first trimester only.

Originally posted by Patroklos
That comparison is hopelessly inadequate.

It all depends on when it is a human life, so for all intents and purposes abortion in the first trimester only. The point of the comparison is that I don't care when or if it's a human life. It has to deal with whether the fetus/baby has your consent to be in your body.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Pro-choice here. I find it akin to being forced to keep a homeless man in your house on a sub-zero day after you've found him crawling in a window. That is a ridiculous comparison, Imran. Actually, disgusting. You both invited the baby in.

Originally posted by SlowwHand
That is a ridiculous comparison, Imran. Actually, disgusting. You both invited the baby in. No you didn't.

K

That is one of the worst characteristics of some of the pro-choice crowd, their complete inability to admit what they are doing. It detracts from their position unnecessarily.

You consented to sex, not to have a parasite in your body. It may have been a forseeable consequence, but the consent was not there. Therefore, if you want it to leave, you should have that right. Except that in this case the result is not say a car accident or forclosure like the forseeable but negative consequance of other common activities (note the infrequency doesn't absolve your from the consequences), but rather a human life.

Now, if you believe that for some or all of the pregnancy that there is no human life and abortion is thus okay then fine, but to pretend that pregnancy isn't a known consequence of consenting activity is dishonest to say the least. The only question is what the consequenses of that action entail.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


You consented to sex, not to have a parasite in your body. It may have been a forseeable consequence, but the consent was not there. Therefore, if you want it to leave, you should have that right. Imran, I had hopes that as you grew older, you would also grow wiser. I see that's not the case. Parasite?
Given it's your offspring, you might be correct. How about this. an abortion and then a trip for you and your "pardner" to the nearest spay and neuter facility?

The biggest struggle I have with the issue of abortion is knowing that in the old days parents discarded unwanted babies. Whether they were unwanted because they were deformed or because they were simply born at a bad time in the parents life, it used to be common practice. We have fairy tales about it it was so common.


Ultimately though I think that the decision for an abortion is up to both of the parents, if either one of them wants to keep the child the mother should be made to bear it.

I know, I'm a terrible woman hater, but lets face it everyone knows sex makes babies.

Originally posted by Barnabas
I see it as a lottery

In the old days, sex was like a lottery in which 17 times you would get 100 bucks, and 1 time you would get a kick on the balls

Nowadays, because of contraception, you get 100 bucks 98 times, and a kick on the balls only twice

When people decide to participate in that lottery, they know of that small risk of losing, so, if they lose, they have to be responsible about it. In general, this violates the moral principle that people should not be compelled to accept the consequences of things that have a very low probability of occurring and that they took all reasonable precautions to prevent.

It's all irrelevant anyway. Unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a human fetus counts as a person, you have no case for a law prohibiting abortions. Frankly, for the first couple of months of a pregnancy, a severed human hand is more of a person than a fetus is. More to the point, there are a great many pregnancies that result in spontaneous abortions (some of which women aren't even aware of), but you don't see major campaigns to fund medical research that would save these unborn
"persons".

The whole reason for this malarkey is that right wing authoritarians want to control women's sex lives. Indeed, they are uneasy with the fact that women are sexual beings. Hell, these are the same ****** that spread lies about the danger of HIV infections from normal sex in order to force their warped and puritanical abstinence fantasies on the rest of us.

I'd have a better time believing the anti-abortion crowd if their real motivations weren't so obviously apparent.

Originally posted by dannubis


The problem is God didn't give us only enough blood to have an erection and use our brains at the same time... That bastard !!!
You have two hands and an entire industry helping you with that problem.

Originally posted by Space05us



You have two hands and an entire industry helping you with that problem. While the second part is certainly true, the first one is such a killjoy... http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...lies/frown.gif

it is a yes, so pro-choice... you cannot "outlaw" a practice as it will only push it underground (or in better cases abroad), and punish the least capable in your society - ie the ones who cannot afford the extra expenses, even though their might be the abortion due to rape etc... inact the ban and close your eyes, is not the solution.

What needs to be done is education, and prevention by all other possible means. However looking at education in general in our anglo-saxon societies - it is getting worse rather than better, and this is the real point someone should be spending their voter attention on.

Outlawing is on the other hand an easy one-dimensional issue which it is easy to hook voters on... so together with all the other ills of our societies, this get us +1 issue that only serves to distract instead to solve anything...

Originally posted by SlowwHand



I don't think you have to worry about it. yeah http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...milies/lol.gif