Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[Pasi Nurminen]

Never said that. And we don't talk about childs who experienced their parents divorcing, but about childs NOT WANTED.

You said it's hard for parents to raise kids in a relationship that they don't want to be in, I'm just providing proof that parents don't need to be in a relationship to successfully raise a child. Didn't compare my case to that of an unwanted child.

Yeah, and that's a lot of fun to live like that.
You can't do what you want anymore. Getting a partner is really hard because of the children. You have to work your *** off to get enogh money AND divorce is such fun - all the hours at court, and the attourneys...

Wow. You'd kill a human being just so that you can pick up chicks easier, and save some money on legal bills? I have absolutely nothing to say about this. I say again, my parents raised me without being married since before I was one; they did the right thing, and of course it wasn't easy. It was damn hard, and I respect them tremendously for the job they did, considering the circumstances.

As a woman, you'd still have to carry the baby until it's born. In that time you could loose your job. Yes, there is maternity leave and stuff like that, but very often after maternity leave you get a bad and boring job. In an economical situation like ours today you can't afford that.

Again, you'd kill a baby to save some money?

Mothers can sue for very large amounts if they are fired simply because they are pregnant. They're called discrimination laws, and they're there for a reason.

Even a murderer gets a second chance; you don't wanna give that to a woman??

Two new points:
One: Contraceptives work normally at 98 %. So there's 2 % of failure. Let's say a couple has sex 3 times a week - that means that the woman is (statistically) pregnant about three times a year - and she didn't do anything wrong. Do I have to say anything more?
Two: Adoption is good. But most people don't do it. Here in Germany it's possible to give a baby totally anonymous to certain organizations. It's called "Babyklappe" which roughly means "baby basket" or "baby door".
But still - many parents keep the baby and kill it after a couple of months, because they're not up to the task. In most cases they didn't want a baby but they tried. It would be better for them to get an easy abortion - and for the child, too, because it wouldn't have had to suffer.

Again, you'd kill a baby for convienience? I've already listed plenty of alternatives to abortion, and you're just repeating the argument that abortions for convienience, when the baby can be raised, are okay.

@duddha...

A fetus is a person by virtue of the fact that it is. It is no less a person than me or you. It is entitled to the same rights as you or I are. In short: it just is.

 

[hawai_74]

Rape accounts for less than 1% of unwanted pregnancies, so it can be excused.

And contraception, when used properly, is virtually guaranteed to prevent pregnancy.

We can't quantify rapes, don't know where this 1% comes from. That's not the point, rape is one of the reason you don't want to be aborted.
Think about adoption is absurd, most of these children will be adopted by the state! Not by a married couple!

 

[yoshi74]

A fetus is a person by virtue of the fact that it is. It is no less a person than me or you. It is entitled to the same rights as you or I are. In short: it just is.

Thats how you it see. And some other. But then others see it differently. Lemme quote myself:

It is my opinion that there are no general rights in the world. All rights a human has are given to him by his society. And in societies where abortion is legal the society does not give the right to live to someone not even a person of its own, but still a part of his mother.

My opinion. Shared by other as well.
Now what you wanna do. Seems like a stalemate for this discussion.
For a democracy its easy: the majority wins, plain and simple.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

My opinion. Shared by other as well.
Now what you wanna do. Seems like a stalemate for this discussion.
For a democracy its easy: the majority wins, plain and simple.

Okay, now you're implying that whatever the people want, they get, which is clearly not the case in democracies. There are many things which are not decided by the people. Laws are not set by the people, they're set by elected representatives. This is a whole other debate, and I will not let you drag this off topic.

 

[yoshi74]

Okay, now you're implying that whatever the people want, they get, which is clearly not the case in democracies. There are many things which are not decided by the people. Laws are not set by the people, they're set by elected representatives. This is a whole other debate, and I will not let you drag this off topic.

You imply that a majority thinks like you. How do you come to such a assuption?
Do you really thing YOU have the moral or divine superiorty to decide how people should live?

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

@Pasi Nurminen:

You don't get my point.

It's not about convenience. It's about screwing up your life.

You think it's easy to give up a baby to an adoption agency? I don't know it first-hand, but women tend to get depressions about that - did they do the right thing, how do the kids look now, are they having a good life or should she have kept the baby...it's a never-ending circle of questions and more questions which can screw up the life of a woman very effective.

And there is also the pressure. Pressure from other people, like parents and friends. What if they don't support the woman with the adoption-thing (and this happens A LOT)? This pressure leads to even more questions and more depressions and more screwing up the life.

With a woman with so much depression and worrying it won't be a very happy life for the partner as well; so we have two lifes screwed up.

It's just not worth it. It's not about convenience, it's about giving people a chance to continue a good and happy life.

If you think that this is convenience - OK, your opinion. But I'm wondering if you were that fast with your opinion if it was YOU to decide. Such things are said very easy when you're not in the position to decide. This applies for many ethical discussions like abortion.

 

[Duddha]

@Pasi

Inorder to have a valid argument you have to give a qualification for why a fetus is a person just like you or me. Why? This is a contentious belief that requires qualification. Many things exist and live in some form or another but are not bestowed with personhood by our moral standards.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

You imply that a majority thinks like you. How do you come to such a assuption?
Do you really thing YOU have the moral or divine superiorty to decide how people should live?

I implied nothing. Do not put words in my mouth.

@Pasi Nurminen:

You don't get my point.

It's not about convenience. It's about screwing up your life.

You think it's easy to give up a baby to an adoption agency? I don't know it first-hand, but women tend to get depressions about that - did they do the right thing, how do the kids look now, are they having a good life or should she have kept the baby...it's a never-ending circle of questions and more questions which can screw up the life of a woman very effective.

And there is also the pressure. Pressure from other people, like parents and friends. What if they don't support the woman with the adoption-thing (and this happens A LOT)? This pressure leads to even more questions and more depressions and more screwing up the life.

With a woman with so much depression and worrying it won't be a very happy life for the partner as well; so we have two lifes screwed up.

It's just not worth it. It's not about convenience, it's about giving people a chance to continue a good and happy life.

If you think that this is convenience - OK, your opinion. But I'm wondering if you were that fast with your opinion if it was YOU to decide. Such things are said very easy when you're not in the position to decide. This applies for many ethical discussions like abortion.

So you'd murder someone to live a happier life? I'm afraid it's all about standing up and taking account for your mistakes, about doing what's right. If the woman (and man) cannot do this, then they should not be having sex in the first place. Sex comes with risks. Be prepared to live with the possible consequences if you consent to sex. It's that simple.

@Pasi

Inorder to have a valid argument you have to give a qualification for why a fetus is a person just like you or me. Why? This is a contentious belief that requires qualification. Many things exist and live in some form or another but are not bestowed with personhood by our moral standards.

A fetus isn't just a rock. It's alive. It's a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being. It can move on it's own. It is alive.

 

[Azadre]

My opinion on the subject can be summed up by reading Perfection's posts in this thread.

 

[yoshi74]

A fetus isn't just a rock. It's alive. It's a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being. It can move on it's own. It is alive.

alive - well, like anything else around this planet which claims this adjective.
breathing - there isn't much air inside the womans belly. He gets his oxygen from his mother via blood.
thinking - your claim, not proven at all. You need some way to communicate with a fetus to prove this
feeling - maybe. There are rumors that plants also feel. As proven as above.
human being - not yet. When he's crawled out of its mother.

You see your argument is good for ye, but no for me. But at least this discussion circles around its true question.

 

[Azadre]

A fetus is a person by virtue of the fact that it is. It is no less a person than me or you. It is entitled to the same rights as you or I are. In short: it just is.

I posted this somewhere else. An embryo is not a fetus as a fetus is not a baby as a baby is not a teen as a teen is not an adult. All mammels have a embryo-fetus stage in which all embryo/fetus are similar but the thing that makes them different is the DNA.

Human - having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings; "human beings"; "the human body"; "human kindness"; "human frailty"
www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn

With this knowledge, it is not a human until birth.

 

[Azadre]

alive - well, like anything else around this planet which claims this adjective.
breathing - there isn't much air inside the womans belly. He gets his oxygen from his mother via blood.
thinking - your claim, not proven at all. You need some way to communicate with a fetus to prove this
feeling - maybe. There are rumors that plants also feel. As proven as above.
human being - not yet. When he's crawled out of its mother.

You see your argument is good for ye, but no for me. But at least this discussion circles around its true question.

I don't think anyone is denying the fetus is alive, but it is a matter of acknowledging it is not a human. Sperm is alive, but it is not a human. Catterpillers are alive, but they are not butterflys.

 

[Stapel]

Let's not flame Pasi dudes!

Anyway,

@Pasi,

Do you think of a 2-celled embryo as a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being? (and if yes: why?)
That still seems to be far fetched to me!

 

[Plotinus]

A fetus isn't just a rock. It's alive. It's a living, breathing, thinking, feeling human being. It can move on it's own. It is alive.

Two points here:

(1) *Being alive* is not the relevant quality. My blood is alive but I don't have qualms about flushing it down the sink when I have a nosebleed. *Being a person* is the relevant quality.

(2) Your description of what a foetus is like is obviously referring to a very late-term one. It can think and feel? Well, maybe such a creature does have rights and its right to life does override the right of a woman not to have such a creature inside it. But these considerations do not bear on early-term abortion. A bunch of cells doesn't think or feel. It has no more right to the protections and rights afforded human beings than a blood clot does.

The problem with abortion is that it's a "sorites paradox". This is a classic philophical problem. "Sorites" means "heap". Say that we agree that a huge pile of sand is a heap, but a single grain is not a heap. And say we agree that adding a grain of sand to a pile that is not heap will not make it a heap (because a single grain can't make any difference). There's the paradox - start with one grain (not a heap) and add another grain (still not a heap, because one grain makes no difference). Keep adding grains one at a time and you will never, by the definitions above, have a heap. But when your pile has thousands of grains in it, it is obviously a heap. When did it become one?

This applies to the abortion problem too. Most people would agree that a single-celled zygote is not a person and does not have the rights of a person. I don't think any sensible person could disagree with that unless they have a religious reason to do so (eg the belief that all human life is sacred irrespective of the form it takes). Similarly, most people would agree that a baby nine months after conception - on the point of birth or after birth - does have considerable rights. But at which point does the blob of jelly gain rights? It's such a gradual process that any "single" point you choose to identify as the watershed will seem arbitrary.

 

[Vilati Timmadar]

@Pasi Nurminen:

Sex comes with risks. Be prepared to live with the possible consequences if you consent to sex. It's that simple.

I accept your opinion. I'm just wondering if it's that simple if it's YOU to decide. If you stand up for your principles - good for you.

I don't want to change your opinion. I always like it when people have their own opinions and stand up for them.
I just ask you to consider the possibility that it might be different for other people and that you could create a number of hard cases if you abandon abortion at all. There's always another point of view from where the whole thing just looks different.

Just think about it.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

First of all, to yoshi74: you have no way of knowing that I am thinking or feeling, so does that mean that I am not a person? Likewise, you have no way of knowing if anyone other than yourself is thinking or feeling, so are you the only human being on the planet?

To the rest of you, abortions are not performed when the baby is just a blob of cells. Note how I stated that morning after pills are acceptable? These are used only after the egg has been fertilized. Most abortions are already performed after the baby has taken form that is distinctly human ie has legs, arms, a neck, a head, a heartbeat, etc. I never said a blob of cells is a human, but the fact remains that abortions are never performed when the fetus is just a blob of cells; they are performed when the baby has taken form. Not fully developed form, of course, but form nonetheless.

 

[IglooDame]

Okay, now you're implying that whatever the people want, they get, which is clearly not the case in democracies. There are many things which are not decided by the people. Laws are not set by the people, they're set by elected representatives. This is a whole other debate, and I will not let you drag this off topic.

The irony is that, according to an article I read (and sorry, I can't remember where and couldn't nail it down via Google readily) eventually anti-abortion voters will be a clear majority, as those who favor legalized abortion are essentially aborting future pro-abortion voters.

 

[Duddha]

To the rest of you, abortions are not performed when the baby is just a blob of cells. Note how I stated that morning after pills are acceptable? These are used only after the egg has been fertilized. Most abortions are already performed after the baby has taken form that is distinctly human ie has legs, arms, a neck, a head, a heartbeat, etc. I never said a blob of cells is a human, but the fact remains that abortions are never performed when the fetus is just a blob of cells; they are performed when the baby has taken form. Not fully developed form, of course, but form nonetheless.

What makes the fetal form human? A frog has legs, arms, neck, a head, heartbeat but it is not human. At a certian point in development a fetus even has gills. Is it a fish then? I believe a human fetus only distiguishes itself from a primate fetus in the last trimester. A fetus can also not be thought of as a distinct independent animal like all our examples. A fetus is still tied biologically to the mother, it cannot survive without support.

 

[Mise]

The irony is that, according to an article I read (and sorry, I can't remember where and couldn't nail it down via Google readily) eventually anti-abortion voters will be a clear majority, as those who favor legalized abortion are essentially aborting future pro-abortion voters.

Why would the children of anti-abortionists be against abortions necessarily? I know it sounds silly, to think that a child who is alive by virtue of an anti-abortion agenda could be pro-abortion themselves, but it's at all possible. And vice versa, a child who had a brother or sister aborted (before that child was born) could themselves be anti-abortion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

One: Contraceptives work normally at 98 %. So there's 2 % of failure. Let's say a couple has sex 3 times a week - that means that the woman is (statistically) pregnant about three times a year - and she didn't do anything wrong. Do I have to say anything more?

I think you misunderstand what's meant by a contraceptive having an efficacy of 98%.

A fertile woman who is sexually active has about a 85% chance of becoming pregnant within a year, without contraceptives. Saying that a contraceptive has an efficacy of 98% would normally be interpreted as cutting that 85% by 98%, meaning that she would have 1.7% risk of getting pregnant in a year.

@Stapel: In Sweden, similar concerns were addressed by requiring that the woman take counseling before the abortion is carried out. The choice, however, remains hers and hers alone.