Abortion - your views.

I feel that if people are having sexual intercourse, they should know the risks involved and try to protect themselves if they are not interested in having children. People who just choose not to wear a rubber or protect themselves efficiently because of their own immaturity should not be having abortions. It's not the child's fault that their parents were being ignorant.

However, there are some cases where I feel abortion should become an option, primarily when dealing with victims of rape. Women who have been raped have undergone a traumatic and terrible experience. If they did not ever want to have children or fear being pregnant, it's not exactly fair to force them to have a child they didn't want to give birth to or carry right after they've been sexually assaulted by someone. Think about it. It's just cruel. Not to mention very YOUNG women who get raped. Some girls have the capability to get pregnant at VERY young ages (personally, I matured at ten). What if they get raped? Are they expected to give birth to and carry a child? A ten year old isn't even close to being a fully grown woman! A pregnancy could very well endanger the mother, as well as the child's life!
 
Bun said:
I find it odd that some people think pregnancy is all fun and games (ie. eating whatever you want and getting compliments and pampering from everyone) until the labor pains kick in. We seem to be forgetting just how horrible pregnancy can be during those 9 months.
  • Loss of energy/feeling worn out
  • Weight gain
  • Nausea/vomiting
  • Breasts are sore
  • Feeling bloated (that's because you are, you fat cow)
  • Excessive urge to urinate
  • Backaches (Jesus Chris, I already deal with this shit and I'm not pregnant)
  • Swollen ankles
  • Other possible complications with the pregnancy...
Keep in mind, this all depends on what your age is and your previous health condition. These symptoms can range from mild to life threatening. I guess it all just depends on how the woman feels about going through that kind of hell and whether they'd want to put up with it.
Click to expand...

I was 11 weeks pregnant. I experienced the nausea, breast tenderness, overeating, bloated feelings, backaches, and constant urination. I was in the beginning stages of swelling (my fingers and toes were getting there). I was beginning to gain some weight. Sure, I was only 11 weeks along. I still had 27 or so weeks to go. I was not at the worst part, I know that. My willingness to become pregnant completely outweighed the effects of pregnancy.

Why am I Anti-Abortion? Because there are better options available then having fluid poured into your body to kill a baby or to have a fetus sucked out as if it were just excess fat... Or at least to me they seem like better options. There a so many forms of contraceptives. Condoms, gels, pills, patches, shots, foams.. or even surgeries. They don't always work. I know that.

But hey! I'm not trying to tell anyone what to do! Please don't get me wrong! I am just posting how I feel, that's all. I can't force anybody to feel the same.

Everyone is entitled to their decisions and opinions. It's human nature afterall :]
 
Last edited:
Bun said:
I find it odd that some people think pregnancy is all fun and games (ie. eating whatever you want and getting compliments and pampering from everyone) until the labor pains kick in. We seem to be forgetting just how horrible pregnancy can be during those 9 months.
  • Loss of energy/feeling worn out
  • Weight gain
  • Nausea/vomiting
  • Breasts are sore
  • Feeling bloated (that's because you are, you fat cow)
  • Excessive urge to urinate
  • Backaches (Jesus Chris, I already deal with this shit and I'm not pregnant)
  • Swollen ankles
  • Other possible complications with the pregnancy...
Keep in mind, this all depends on what your age is and your previous health condition. These symptoms can range from mild to life threatening. I guess it all just depends on how the woman feels about going through that kind of hell and whether they'd want to put up with it.
Click to expand...

The problem with this argument, though, -- the reason why it will convince no one who opposes abortion on the grounds that it is murder -- is that it is circular. It presupposes that a "right to life" is alienable when it is consequentially convenient to do so. Essentially, to a pro-life advocate, the argument you have advanced is analogous to saying that one ought to be able kill his next-door neighbor on the grounds that the guy has caught the swine flu and will probably inconvenience you by communicating it. In other words, what you are appealing to is precisely what is at issue in this debate: Namely, can murder be justified by its consequences (and, if not, does an abortion constitute murder?) ? And therefore, your argument misses the point.

The pro-life position is, very typically, founded on a deontological understanding of ethics that does not believe that convenient consequences can be appealed to as reasons to advocate abortion. Now, you may point out, as many others have rightly done, that pro-life advocates very often favor capital punishment on the grounds that it conveniently disposes society of its troublemakers and that to justify capital punishment on such grounds is hypocritical. And I agree: Too often pro-lifers are unschooled in the deontological grounds for alienating the "right to life" in the case of a severe criminal (namely, that justice must be satisfied). But this does nothing to erase the pro-life argument that if one is serious about defending the "right to life" as a universal principle that is not subject to the whims of popular Zeitgeist, that can stand in defiance to the petty caprices of tyrants, then one must be prepared to inflexibly oppose any effort to justify the taking of life on the grounds of convenience. Consistency in civil law demands such a definition.
 
Last edited:
I was merely addressing the specific comment made in one of the post that pregnancy is all rainbows and sunshine, not using those symptoms/consequences of pregnancy as a means to justify the reasoning behind the decision of a pro-choicer; not at all. I understand that the symptoms a woman goes through during pregnancy is a minute bump in the road compared to the want and the desire to be a mother, and that is a completely different subject. Never in my post was I attempting to make an excuse for aborting a child. In fact, the things your body goes through during pregnancy would be a pretty lame excuse, even for someone like me who believes in pro-choice.

Sorry if there was any confusion about that.
 
Last edited:
For 1st trimester, its questionable. But beyond that, it is murder. At that point, the fetus possesses too many basic functions of life for any abortionist to claim otherwise, no matter how they try to twist the facts.
 
Makatak said:
For 1st trimester, its questionable. But beyond that, it is murder. At that point, the fetus possesses too many basic functions of life for any abortionist to claim otherwise, no matter how they try to twist the facts.
Click to expand...

Actually it still lacks the most important of human functions. Chinese professors have engineered a pig with human blood. Even though it has human genetics it still is a pig.
 
Mehaha said:
Actually it still lacks the most important of human functions. Chinese professors have engineered a pig with human blood. Even though it has human genetics it still is a pig.
Click to expand...
A pig lacks the potential to become an adult human, let alone a human at all. In that regard, you are wrong, because the infant or fetus, while it lacks the qualities of a more matured human, has the potential to become one, which inherently negates your claim that it "lacks important human functions". Its primary function at the time, the one that will remain with it for its lifespan, ensure its future, that is imminent in all human beings, is the ability to grow, to adapt, to mature.
 
Last edited:
Apolyonn said:
A pig lacks the potential to become an adult human, let alone a human at all. In that regard, you are wrong, because the infant or fetus, while it lacks the qualities of a more matured human, has the potential to become one, which inherently negates your claim that it "lacks important human functions". Its primary function at the time, the one that will remain with it for its lifespan, ensure its future, that is imminent in all human beings, is the ability to grow, to adapt, to mature.
Click to expand...

A fetus has the potential to be human. The problem is that it lacks the human necessities thus it isn't "Human" just a bag of genes.

So yes at that point it still lacks the stuff needed to be human at this point. The creatures of this world all posses the ability to adapt and evolve ETC. So by what you say a fetus it akin to a germ or a parasite.

They evolve, mature, grow and adapt.

So no my argument has not been negated.

EDIT:Actually I thought about it and... Based on what it means to be human a pig matches the description better than a fetus.
 
Last edited:
Mehaha said:
A fetus has the potential to be human. The problem is that it lacks the human necessities thus it isn't "Human" just a bag of genes.

So yes at that point it still lacks the stuff needed to be human at this point. The creatures of this world all posses the ability to adapt and evolve ETC. So by what you say a fetus it akin to a germ or a parasite.
Click to expand...
Well, thus far the only reason that you have identified for us to conclude that a fetus is not human is that it lacks certain features that it finally acquires around eight months. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, but I have yet to find anywhere in this discussion where you have nominated exactly what those features are. Nor have you told us by what authority you decide that these features are "human." Therefore, you make it difficult for anybody to see why you would ever conclude what you do.

Regardless of what these features are, of course, the flaw in your argument is easily perceived if we graduate to a feature of humanity that is only readily acquired after about 18 months out of the womb: language. Grammatically ordered human communication is universally said, by anthropologists and psychologists and linguists and evolutionary biologists and theologians, to be the feature of human beings that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. True, other animals communicate; bees perform ritual dances to direct each other where to find flower patches, and certain monkeys use distinct calls to tell other monkeys whether a particular source of danger is in their proximity. However, none of these are grammatically ordered. None of them combine communicative responses in the staggeringly complex way that produces definite articles, prepositional phrases, and subjunctive clauses.

But now suppose I produced to you a member of Homo sapiens who cannot produce the kinds of verbal responses that we would define as requisite for grammatical speech. Let's suppose that I discovered a "wild child" who had been abandoned as a young child and raised by feral dogs. Let us say that this child never learned to speak grammatically, much less speak at all.

Would you call this child human? For that matter, would you call "human" a child younger than 18 months (at about which time a "language explosion" is said to take place in their psychological maturation)?

The error with your conclusions is one of categories. When we ask the philosophical question, What really sets us apart from the animal kingdom?, we're not asking a moral/ethical question about what we ought to do with respect to humans. We are asking an empirical question about what humans really are. We are not saying, So what features of human psychology/biology qualify for a "right to life"? We are, as I said before, asking, What features of human psychology/biology are unique to humans? To use the answer to the latter question to solve the former would be like solving for x in one algebra problem and submitting that as the answer to the next problem on your maths worksheet. It is a category error.

Even within the sphere of empirical questions, your position commits a category error, because it mistakes the question that is being asked by scientists and theologians when they ponder, What features of human psychology/biology are unique to humans? The question is NOT, What features of human psychology/biology are, at the present moment in time, unique to humans? The question, to be more precise, is, What features of human psychology/biology are, in general, unique to humans? No biologist, no theologian, having identified that language is the most unique feature of human beings, goes on to say that their immature offspring are not Homo sapiens on the grounds that they are not bipedal, omnivorous creatures who are potentially reproductive at all times of the year and grammatically linguistic. That was never the question being asked. The question was interspecific, not conspecific.

Similarly, when we answer What features of human psychology/biology are unique to humans? with certain features of human biology that, as it happens, emerge in human development at eight months in the womb, it is illegitimate to conclude that this means that the fetus is not a human. Not only is this an arbitrary decision, because it inexplicably discounts all the other features of humanity that develop later, but it's also solving a conspecific problem with the answer to an interpecific question. And, as I said before, it's also solving an ethical problem with the answer to an empirical question.
 
Mehaha said:
A fetus has the potential to be human. The problem is that it lacks the human necessities thus it isn't "Human" just a bag of genes.

So yes at that point it still lacks the stuff needed to be human at this point. The creatures of this world all posses the ability to adapt and evolve ETC. So by what you say a fetus it akin to a germ or a parasite.

They evolve, mature, grow and adapt.

So no my argument has not been negated.

EDIT:Actually I thought about it and... Based on what it means to be human a pig matches the description better than a fetus.
Click to expand...

Humans are able to adapt to things on a far more complex level than any other animal known at this point. We are inherently restricted to certain primal desires that will ultimately parallel us with any other animal, but we are able to overcome more obstacles than so many other creatures. A pig does not know and will never know how to build a scyscraper; a fetus could grow to become a city planner.

I understand that a fetus is nothing more than "a bag of genes", and you're not wrong for saying that. I'm only stating that, as I see it, the fetus is no different from a matured human than you are from a crippled old person in a nursing home. If it varies to become retarded or attain any other unusual disability, or dies, then so be it. I don't see simply a bag of genes when I consider the fetus; I see its potential.
 
Last edited:
Apolyonn said:
A pig does not know and will never know how to build a scyscraper; a fetus could grow to become a city planner... I don't see simply a bag of genes when I consider the fetus; I see its potential.
Click to expand...
But if we form our judgment on the basis of the fetus' "potential", then why not consider the fetus' potential for future evils, as well? Why not take the view that you are snuffing out a potential murderer or a potential child molester? As yet, we have no infallible calculus that tells us which "potential" we are actually changing; we only have our fuzzy speculations, which gives us enough wiggle room to see whatever "potential" we want.

I think that your position finds far more strength when you emphasize the only "potential" that is 100% certain (or close enough not to matter), which you did here:

A pig lacks the potential to become an adult human, let alone a human at all. In that regard, you are wrong, because the infant or fetus, while it lacks the qualities of a more matured human, has the potential to become one, which inherently negates your claim that it "lacks important human functions".
Click to expand...
The fact is, we know that a fetus will certainly and naturally mature into a fully adult human given the condition that nothing interrupts its survival. After all, how often do pigs, without the artifices of human medicine, become human beings? It is by no means certain that they do so, and we would not consider it natural if we discovered that Senator Ted Kennedy did, in fact, grow up as a hoglet on a farm (though this would explain a few things). I mean, if there's really any doubt about this, I would advise Mehaha to write the Royal Academy of Science to protest the outrage that we still distinguish between Sus scofa domestica and Homo sapiens in taxonomic science, given that the one is known to spontaneously transform into the other 70% of the time.

Understand, of course, that I personally do not say that a fetus should not be aborted on the grounds that it can neturally become a fully adult human. I say, rather, that the fact that fetuses do neturally become fully adult humans should be evidence enough that the fetus, too, should be classed as human and should therefore not be aborted. But given that you, unlike myself, are willing to appeal to consequences, Apolyonn, I think the stronger appeal is made to potential humanity rather than potential goodness, given that the one is certain and the other is probabilistic, given the current limitations of science.
 
Last edited:
the stronger appeal is made to potential humanity rather than potential goodness.
Click to expand...
Yes. Whether or not the child becomes a paedophile or is beyond my control. What is in my control, however, is to give it enough grace to see if it will become a serial rapist or something greater.

Maybe I wasn't entirely clear about what I meant, but
But given that you, unlike myself, are willing to appeal to consequences
Click to expand...
If it varies to become retarded or attain any other unusual disability, or dies, then so be it.
Click to expand...
I covered this point already. By disabilities, I was referring to a wide range of malformations in the human condition.

By the way, good to have you aboard.
 
Last edited:
Apolyonn said:
What is in my control, however, is to give it enough grace to see if it will become a serial rapist or something greater.
Click to expand...
I like that. It's more profound than most. Sorry I butted in -- it's just that I think that utilitarian/consequentialist arguments weaken the pro-life position.
 
Dude, butt in as much as you wish. That's the point of these topics, to debate and broaden horizons. And for the record I'm pro choice to an extent. I just rarely argue the pro-life points anymore, so I thought I'd give that a go. And I absolutely agree with everything I said, but I do believe that there are certain instances in which a person should be allowed to get a fetus aborted. Such is the case with a mentally retarded girl who was raped a few years ago and governor Bush forced her to have the child.

But I hate to regurgitate my opinions because I'm sure the rest of this thread is filled with similar ones.
 
Last edited:
A woman's body is hers to decide what to do with it.
However... in my opinion, abortion is murder.
If you can't raise a child you have to think of it before you get or have a woman get pregnant.
 
Just about everyone has an opinion on this, and here are my two cents:

There's a theory that legalizing abortion causes a drop in crime: i.e. that unwanted kids are more likely to grow into criminals and have various other problems. You can read the basics of the theory on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect

The book Freakonomics makes a really strong argument for it in one of its chapters too.

There are too many people in the world, anyway, and I have yet to hear a good answer from anyone anti-abortion as to what they would do with all of those unwanted kids.

I think it's ugly, and I think knowledge and contraception are better ways to prevent unwanted kids, but in the end I think it makes the world a better place. People usually know when they don't want a child, or are unable to care for one.
 
I think it's fine to agree with abortion and equally okay to disagree with it. However, it's absolutely absurd to think that someone's way is the right and only way.

I think abortion should be allowed in most cases. If rape was involved, the condom broke, or anything that pretty much isn't just unprotected sex -abortion should be allowed. Sex causes pregnancy, and we all know this, so there should be no reason to not be smart about it. If you don't want a child, either use protection or just don't have sex at all.
 
Despite being brought up in a religious family and going to a Christian private school, I'm actually pro-choice. Female rape victims should be able to choose, after all, they did not choose to get raped. Also parents who know that their children inherited a fatal disease or acquired a deadly disease.
I'm not for abortion, I'm for the choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top