Abortion

[---]

Getting an abortion because you're "not ready to be a mom" is a perfect reason to have an abortion.

Then like I said, just give it up for adoption, there's no need to table flip the situation and eliminate someone from being born. Edited April 10, 2012 by SuperJXJ

[Mono]

It's easier and cheaper to have an abortion than carrying around a baby you know you won't be keeping. I'm not talking about fully formed fetuses here. I'm talking about balls of cells that have no feeling.

Edited April 10, 2012 by Jay Rockman

[Velotix von Skruviktorrius]

Well, I've avoided posting in this topic long enough. I know for a fact my view on this will be very, very controversial, but I might as well open the can of worms.

For me this issue is simple: until the foetus can survive unaided, in that it can breathe and perform all its required biological functions assuming it is properly fed, it cannot exist without piggybacking on and exploiting the resources of another individual. As soon as this biological independence is achieved, you are dealing with what can be recognised as something that is a human life rather than something that could become a human life.

In other words the human foetus literally behaves like a parasite until it achieves this independence, and I will always treat it as such. I do not feel anything when killing a flea, similarly I do not feel anything when killing a foetus. Whether the potential mother wishes to let this parasite become something else entirely over a period of nine months is their choice.

People will take serious issue with my dismissing a foetus as parasitic, but it literally is a parasite. There's the biological fact that the body has to fundamentally alter its biological chemistry during pregnancy to not treat the baby as a foreign organism - despite the fact that it is - and reject it. Indeed that's what causes a miscarriage: when this chemical adjustment fails to occur. There's also the fact that a person's eating habits are altered so long as the foetus is present and tapping them for sustenance.

The other issue is that no-one can look at this issue objectively without being mentally ill. We are born hardwired to recognise our young - and other species' - as vulnerable and deserving of protection. It is a very human thing to want to do, and indeed we need this trait to survive as a race.

The law however, should always reflect the reality of the situation and not what people wish it was nor believe it to be. I will always be pro-choice to the point that I don't even believe it should be a point of discussion anymore, but a simple statement of fact. The fact that people cannot accept this irritates me, as do any regressive laws bred from an unrealistic viewpoint at best and mental retardation at worst.

And with that, the match is thrown on the fire along with several barrels of gasoline. Have fun.

[-Robin-]

Planned Parenthood is filing a federal lawsuit against Texas for its recently-passed bill that cut it from Medicaid funds

Planned Parenthood branches in Texas have filed a federal lawsuit in an effort to block their exclusion from the state's Women's Health Program.

After Texas' Republican leaders indicated their intent to start enforcing a state rule that bans "affiliates" of abortion providers from participating in the Medicaid-funded contraception and cancer-screening program, the Obama administration pulled federal financing from the program. Gov. Rick Perry has vowed that the state will find the money to continue the program without federal help — and that the rule banning Planned Parenthood clinics will stand. No clinics participating in the program have performed abortions.

The lawsuit, filed today in Austin, asks the court for an injunction to stop enforcement of the rule, so that the Planned Parenthood clinics would be able to remain in the program past April 30. Its filers argue the rule violates clinics' rights by putting an "unconstitutional condition on their participation" in the Women's Health Program. It also alleges that the Health and Human Services Commission, which is enforcing the rule, "overstepped its authority in adopting a rule that conflicts with the purpose of the laws that created the program."

In a conference call with reporters, Patricio Gonzales, the CEO of the Planned Parenthood Association of Hidalgo County, warned that his four remaining clinics along the border are at risk of shutting down by the end of May because half of their patients are Women's Health Program clients. The Hidalgo County Planned Parenthood gropu already closed four other clinics last September as a result of state family planning reductions.

“We do not provide abortions, but we do support every woman’s right to make personal decision about her health,” Gonzales said. “We’re the largest women’s health care provider in our region. We know no one else can absorb 6,500 women in this region.”

Perry's office strongly disagrees. In a statement to the Tribune, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said Texas will "not leave these women stranded."

"The state of Texas is under no obligation to provide taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood, which accounts for less than 2 percent of the more than 2,500 [Women's Health Program] providers statewide," she said. "The Obama Administration’s decision to abandon the women participating in this program was a shameless pander to Planned Parenthood and its supporters."

Women's Health Program and Planned Parenthood client Rene Resendez of Odessa said she remains skeptical of the state’s plan to take over the program. A graduate student at UT-Permian Basin who has no access to private insurance, Resendez participated in a Planned Parenthood conference call on Wednesday, saying she used to go to the clinic in Odessa for care until it shut down in March due to state family planning cuts. Resendez said she wants Planned Parenthood to remain a Women's Health Program provider because the group detected cervical cancer in her mother and provided referrals for care that ended up saving her life.

“Planned Parenthood has been a place my family can trust, and I should be able to decide who provides my health care,” she said.

Here's hoping PP wins this case, and Rick Perry doesn't cry foul over it.

[Emmett L. Brown]

The most disturbing part of the pro-life debacle to me is that they never seem to highlight the obvious fact that if a pregnant woman really wants to have an abortion, then she can have an abortion of her own doing. You're not eliminating abortions, you're just taking away the option to have it done safely.

And hell, if you don't trust her to have the choice, then why do you trust with a child?

EDIT: Heh, didn't even realise I was referencing the image at the top of the page. Saw that one a few days ago and it kinda stuck in the back of my mind.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Grumpy Old Guy

[Nepenthe]

I've recently gotten curious about the rape exception many pro-lifers make. If one believes that abortion is tantamount to murder and that the right to life trumps the woman's right to choose, why then does the woman get the right to murder her child merely because that child was born from violent circumstances? Why does an innocent child's right to life suddenly become irrelevant if that child was conceived from rape? The child is basically getting the short end of the stick for something that he had absolutely no involvement in which seems wrong. It's not a conclusion I can see playing out in similar circumstances with a kid that's already born- that being assault from the father means the woman can choose to take the child's life- so I don't see how a pro-lifer can logically make the exception. And I don't mean to be disingenuous either; I'm just wondering what the exact rationale is for this exception.

[Pelly <3's U]

The problem is most people's feelings on abortion are an emotional belief.....so it's hard to always get a rational answer

[Emmett L. Brown]

The problem is most people's feelings on abortion are an emotional belief.....so it's hard to always get a rational answer

Nailed it. Fortunately, it's the elected politician's job to step above the tide of passion and make rational choices. Unfortunately, most of them kinda suck at that bit.

[Solkia]

Then like I said, just give it up for adoption, there's no need to table flip the situation and eliminate someone from being born.

Don't be stupid. There's a lot more factors to it then that.

What if the fetus wasn't bound to live, and also could kill the mother in the process? Would you abort it to save one life, or keep it around and kill 2?

What if the baby is a result of rape? Would you have the child spend the rest of it's life hated by it's mother?

And you also seem to forget how shitty it is being an orphan. I wasn't an orphan, so I've never experienced it personally, but anyone could tell you that it's not the greatest experience in the world.

However I do agree that killing off a child because OOPS CONDOM BROKE LOLOLOL and selfish shit like that is terrible, but there's more to it than that in most cases.

But I'm going to stay away from this topic now. I hate touchy subjects like these.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Solkia

[Roarey Raccoon]

Just parade a load of signs in front of the pro-lifers showing children who weren't aborted but are still suffering and dying all over the world. Children who were given a chance at life yet nobody gave an ounce of a shit. Preachy motherfuckers can't have it both ways; you can't demand that women must give birth to children no matter what, because they are responsible for that childs life, and then avoid all responsibility for taking care of the children that are born, but unwanted. In other words, fuck off pro-life wankstains and keep your fuckin' opinions to yourselves.

Oh and whilst I'm on the subject of preachy motherfuckers, I am sick and tired of all groups who decide it is their right, nay, duty, to tell everybody else what they should be doing, thinking, saying and where they should or shouldn't be doing it. Whether it's Bible thumpers lecturing gays and lesbians; racist pieces of shit slagging off immigrants; the dickead PETA; advocates of sexual abstinence or whatever group you can think of, put down the signs and learn a bit about shades of grey, about life and other human beings. Shut the everloving fuck up and mind your own business.

[John F. Kennedy]

I don't approve of abortion. If people were more responsible in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about killing an unborn child.

[Nepenthe]

Parents can be irresponsible with a child when it's born. Not every kid on this Earth lives a life of puppies and rainbows.

[Stacy]

Parents can be irresponsible with a child when it's born. Not every kid on this Earth lives a life of puppies and rainbows.

Puppies!

Seriously even in our own developed countries child poverty, neglect and abuse still exist. Unwanted pregenacies can lead to neglect and abuse, sadly.

Sadly life isn't all puppies and rainbows.

Edited April 12, 2012 by BW199148

[Danj86]

Gah, this topic is bugging me. Why is it always here? Can't we all talk about something more pleasant?

I am glad I got to read Roareys post though. It's so true.

Why do people think there opinion is worth forcing on others, about a situation that they clearly don't fully understand?? Sure, sometimes a pregnancy is brought on because of irresponsibility, but it can also be brought on when even using the proper birth control methods. Doesn't anybody watch Friends?

Nothing is 100% guaranteed!! Do you really want the next generation to be raised by irresponsible idiots or by those that had the sence but might not be ready?

Heck, rape is one of the most worse crimes ever, in my opinion. It's bad enough that it happens, but to force a victim to raise the b*****ds child is f****ng ridiculous!!

Maybe these "pro-life wankstains" (as Roarey put it) should consider every angle and what it would be like in that persons shoes before bitching about everything!

I'm also tired of "the powers that be", men or religion constantly trying to tell what women can and can't do. We've been doing it for far too long in the worlds history and I foolishly thought it stopped, but clearly I'm wrong...

[mslurr]

Personally I am against abortion with exception to times where the woman had no say in whether she became pregnant or not (No, not failure of contraception or something like that, I'm talking rape and such). But I also believe that the law should not ban it. I don't think that the law should interfere with this kind of topic, and that it should rely on the morals of the woman and (possibly) husband.

But for some reason my pro-life family don't understand what I mean by that. To them it's either you want to ban abortion or you encourage abortion. I don't get them sometimes.

[SenEDDtor Missile]

Maybe these "pro-life wankstains" (as Roarey put it) should consider every angle and what it would be like in that persons shoes before bitching about everything!

I'm also tired of "the powers that be", men or religion constantly trying to tell what women can and can't do. We've been doing it for far too long in the worlds history and I foolishly thought it stopped, but clearly I'm wrong...

That's what happens when we put people who are so out of touch with the reality of the world into positions of power, and until we find a means to either bring them down to ground level, or find someone who does understand, this kind of shit will keep happening.

[Dr. Mechano]

Just parade a load of signs in front of the pro-lifers showing children who weren't aborted but are still suffering and dying all over the world. Children who were given a chance at life yet nobody gave an ounce of a shit. Preachy motherfuckers can't have it both ways; you can't demand that women must give birth to children no matter what, because they are responsible for that childs life, and then avoid all responsibility for taking care of the children that are born, but unwanted. In other words, fuck off pro-life wankstains and keep your fuckin' opinions to yourselves.

Oh and whilst I'm on the subject of preachy motherfuckers, I am sick and tired of all groups who decide it is their right, nay, duty, to tell everybody else what they should be doing, thinking, saying and where they should or shouldn't be doing it. Whether it's Bible thumpers lecturing gays and lesbians; racist pieces of shit slagging off immigrants; the dickead PETA; advocates of sexual abstinence or whatever group you can think of, put down the signs and learn a bit about shades of grey, about life and other human beings. Shut the everloving fuck up and mind your own business.

While I disagree with some of the finer points of this post, I want to say that I agree with the overall sentiment of it; The people who represent my position are often very preachy, very self-righteous, and very patronizing to their opponents. I hate that as much as you do.

My point of contention is the suggestion that those with a pro-life position shouldn't express their position. I'll agree that yelling and picketing isn't the way to do it, but to say that we should wholly keep our opinions to ourselves is to write off any sort of respectful debate or dialogue on the matter, as if it simply doesn't warrant discussion.

As you mentioned seeing shades of grey... my thought is that as long as the definition of life's exact beginning remains as vague and ambiguous as it is, then the issue of abortion does warrant serious discussion from people on both sides of the issue.

Edited April 12, 2012 by Yertle the Turtle

[Roarey Raccoon]

As you mentioned seeing shades of grey... my thought is that as long as the definition of life's exact beginning remains as vague and ambiguous as it is, then the issue of abortion does warrant serious discussion from people on both sides of the issue.

I think anything people want to talk about warrants discussion, but picketing outside clinics and threatening doctors isn't a discussion, it's a freakshow of dumbfuck. Mainly my point though is that you can discuss all you like about what point a fetus should be recognized as a complete human being and the finer details of the issue, but as soon as you get to lecturing about what people should and shouldn't be doing with their lives then it's none of your damn business. Having a kid is fuckin serious and if you can't take care of that kid and you don't want to have it then it's better for everybody if that kid is never born. Hell, if I could take this all back and never have existed that'd be cool with me; I'd be none the wiser.

[-Robin-]

If anything else, Bachmann is nothing short of ironic.

[Dr. Mechano]

I think anything people want to talk about warrants discussion, but picketing outside clinics and threatening doctors isn't a discussion, it's a freakshow of dumbfuck.

And on that point you and I are in total agreement.

I really want to emphasize that not everyone who opposes abortion does so in a heavy-handed or insulting manner, nor is it always done with a patronizingly sexist mindset. The shouters and picketers are a vocal subgroup of this position, but their methods certainly aren't endorsed by all or even most of us.

Mainly my point though is that you can discuss all you like about what point a fetus should be recognized as a complete human being and the finer details of the issue, but as soon as you get to lecturing about what people should and shouldn't be doing with their lives then it's none of your damn business.

And here's where the disagreement lies. I think the argument for the personhood of fetuses naturally lends itself to the argument of whether or not abortion is okay. Because if we consider them people, then we also consider abortions to be the death of people. If we do not consider them people, then abortion is not the death of people, but rather another form of contraception.

If we agree that the death of people is a bad thing, then the argument for or against the personhood of fetuses has everything to do with whether or not abortion should be permitted. Because if indeed we are dealing with human lives, then those lives supersede whatever personal choices someone might want to make with their body. If we're not dealing with human lives, then I will agree with you that it's no one's business but the pregnant woman's to make that call.

Simply, the personhood (or lack thereof) is the entire deciding factor on whether abortion is right or wrong; If they're not people, then we're just dealing with a woman's body, and I would agree that it's hers to do whatever she wants with. But if they are people, then suddenly we're dealing with the rights of two, not one. And in such a dilema, the right to remain alive- in my opinion- takes precedence over anything else. This isn't to oppress pregnant women; This is a stance against taking human lives, if indeed they are defined as such.

[Emmett L. Brown]

I think the argument for the personhood of fetuses naturally lends itself to the argument of whether or not abortion is okay. Because if we consider them people, then we also consider abortions to be the death of people. If we do not consider them people, then abortion is not the death of people, but rather another form of contraception.

If we agree that the death of people is a bad thing, then the argument for or against the personhood of fetuses has everything to do with whether or not abortion should be permitted. Because if indeed we are dealing with human lives, then those lives supersede whatever personal choices someone might want to make with their body. If we're not dealing with human lives, then I will agree with you that it's no one's business but the pregnant woman's to make that call.

Simply, the personhood (or lack thereof) is the entire deciding factor on whether abortion is right or wrong; If they're not people, then we're just dealing with a woman's body, and I would agree that it's hers to do whatever she wants with. But if they are people, then suddenly we're dealing with the rights of two, not one. And in such a dilema, the right to remain alive- in my opinion- takes precedence over anything else. This isn't to oppress pregnant women; This is a stance against taking human lives, if indeed they are defined as such.

The only way to define if a fetus is a person is by defining the term "person".

Incidentally, I hate to be ridiculously dark, but if we humans keep reproducing at the same rate as today we're headed straight towards potential extinction via overpopulation. We're not going to stop having sex, and we're unlikely to produce a perfect birth control solution any time soon, so the attitude of saving all potential unborn human lives is detrimental to our survival as a species in the long run.

Seriously, check the global population from 1900 to 2000. It's terrifying. We're awesome, but gosh there's a lot of us.

Alternatively, we get crackin' on terraforming Mars. That'd be doubly awesome, and then we can start new and more interesting abortion debates.

[Nepenthe]

I'm curious: Let's assume that a fetus gained personhood status today. What of medical emergencies in which the mother's life was in danger? Would doctors be allowed to murder the child or would women just be out of luck? What of rape? Again, out of luck? What about normal contraceptive methods like birth control, medical inserts, and morning after pills; would these be outlawed? If so, what of women in third-world countries, or even women in situations where the likelihood of their children even surviving to the age of ten is up in the air? Just let the problem continue? Further strain the already overburdened adoption and foster care system with children the world doesn't want?

Even the most well-meaning pro-lifer cannot possibly separate the issue of abortion from women's health rights, hence why their position is seen as inherently misogynistic in some ways even before we determine what the rights of the unborn are. If taken to the logical extreme- that a fetus has the same rights as you and I at conception- you will be fundamentally oppressing women's health and sexual rights in some way to ensure the unborn are fully protected like people with person status whether you mean to or not. I don't think this should ever be forgotten.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Nepenthe

[Indigo Rush]

I'm not sure about my stance on abortion, to be quite frank.

I used to rush forward and be very vocal against it.

Then I considered, "well, unless it's rape or the child would die anyway..."

Then I considered, "but wait, even if it's rape, isn't that unfair to the baby?"

Cue a bit of a moral battle within myself. I believe that there is a point in time when the fetus becomes a human being, but what that point is I don't have a clear answer. I try to avoid topics relating to abortion for that very reason... I don't really have a side to stay on. I understand that women have a right to do whatever they want with their bodies, and at the same time I understand that every child should have a chance to live. It's such a loaded question that I can't begin to fathom how I'd answer it. It's beyond me, and because of that I've retracted my "pro-life" stance and am instead a "still thinking about it" kind of guy.

I will say though that the prospect of abortion doesn't appeal to me, but what appeals to me is inconsequential to factual basis. A sperm is a sperm, an egg is an egg, and a fetus is a fetus, whether I like it or not.

The other major factor deciding my ambiguous stance is, well, I don't exactly have a "cha-cha," if you catch my drift. I don't have the weight of childbirth (that wasn't an intended fat joke, I swear) to mull over, nor am I in a situation or mindset to go around having sex with women right now, let alone without protection. This topic simply won't translate to me as well as someone else, so I simply can't spew out facts and opinions and expect to be justified with it. I don't know what it's like, no one has ever told me from personal experience, I have yet to do more research on the process of abortion itself, and for that matter, I'd just rather keep my mouth shut until I do.

A friend showed me a video called "180," a half-hour short film about abortion (from the pro-life stance) and how it's akin to genocide. I'm sitting there watching the thing, I'm not really offended or mind-blown, but what caught my attention about it is that the producers beg the assumption that the second the sperm and egg meet and you get a new cell, that it is a living being. If this is the case, that changes everything, but how do we know that? How can we be sure where the "point of no return" is? The same person gave me statistics in regards to how often women actually get abortions and for what reasons, and the ratio from rape to "just felt like it" seemed to imply that most abortions were out of jumping from responsibility rather than from rape or illness. That certainly puts a different perspective on the situation.... but where exactly are these statistics coming from? I'm not being given substantial enough information here to make a proper judgement.

So all that being said, I reiterate that while I don't like the prospect of abortion, I will admit that I have no say, nor do I have any idea, if it is "right" or not. I'll still do some research, but I'm not holding my own breath that I'll come to a clear answer anytime soon, if ever.

Edited April 17, 2012 by Indigo Rush

[BarkingChaos]

I didn't actually read through this thread so if I repeat something someone else said I apologize.

While my own stance on the matter is something I just don't like to talk about, I do have issues with those zealous nuts who take protesting to the extreme.

I was watching this show and there was a group of pro-life people waving around signs of fetuses screaming about how doctors should be burned alive for doing abortions. And this was RIGHT OUTSIDE AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. It was talking about how crazy some of these people are that they need to hide the doctor and use a car with no license plate just to get them to their office.

Ok, how the hell is doing their little protest outside an elementary school going to accomplish anything? Outside an elementary school is just way inappropriate. Also, how are these protesters who, by the logic that killing an unborn baby is murder, don't think killing the doctor is also murder? What makes the murder of one person acceptable when you are screaming about how murder is wrong? I just don't understand that logic.

[Pelly <3's U]

Simply, the personhood (or lack thereof) is the entire deciding factor on whether abortion is right or wrong; If they're not people, then we're just dealing with a woman's body, and I would agree that it's hers to do whatever she wants with. But if they are people, then suddenly we're dealing with the rights of two, not one. And in such a dilema, the right to remain alive- in my opinion- takes precedence over anything else. This isn't to oppress pregnant women; This is a stance against taking human lives, if indeed they are defined as such.

I find one of the problems with the definition of personhood is it's often used in very logical, well-reasoned arguments, but we have no logical, scientific definition of personhood so it's so entirely subjective. The best we can do is just try to make enough of a reasonable argument (for those who are interested in the non-emotional side of the abortion argument) to convince people to buy our definition. While I realize the basis of the majority of our morality is usually from a contextual sense................abortion is not just an issue of how we subjectively define personhood but also a medically scientific procedure. I think how the subjective aspect of definitions is often mixed in with much more empirical evidence tends to make for some quite muddled arguments.

Although arguments for viability and such are riddled with their own problems, and I understand it can usually be taken for granted that anything with the status of personhood has a right to life. I guess my problem is haven't been able to find a definition of personhood that I've found holds up for me enough that I feel I can fully embrace it, though I am pro-choice due to the research I have done. I guess I just haven't found the right argument.

Of course, the emotional-filled pseudo-arguments such as 'person worth' (he could have been a doctor) are so ridiculously badly presented that they're almost sickening.