How To Finally Resolve the Abortion Debate

So, does this apply when there is a medical reason for the abortion? Does it apply in rape? Does it apply to the married couple finding themselves in sudden financial difficulties?

But bottom line here is yet another poster who seems unaware that contraception has a failure rate

 

The majority - the vast majority are for foetal abnormality incompatible with life

 

Good arguments but many delayed abortions are due to lack of access. The so called pro lifers have actually had a hand in increasing the time before abortion by putting so many restrictions in the way

 

Yes - this is a disgusting practice by the hypocrites on the right - the religious right getting political and trying to mix church and state.

 

Personally I would like to see the availability and price of medical abortions reduce

Given that a very large proportion of women seeking abortions live at or well under the poverty line, making medical abortion accessible would be huge step forward

 

God forbid we reduce the number children being created - children are unwanted to begin with and many of which will be raised in disfunctional environments - and cost the system plenty.

But wait ! Isn't the religious right the one's that hate giving money to the poor ? "Does not compute -- does not compute --- does not compute "

 

A LEGAL right?

Sure, but there will be warning of harm won't there? In which case it is right that the fetus is terminated.

Legal arguments always fail in the abortion debate. Moral arguments are all that count.

But yet you don't believe that homicide should ever apply to someone killing a fetus?

To the point where a living human has been created BEFORE birth?

By ban, do you mean the abortion procedure to be removed from the health system, or making it illegal to get an abortion?

 

Actually, that's interesting. Out of all of our back and fourth, this hasn't come up that you consider them to be human! Although, from day 1 of pregnancy? If not, after what point?

Legal argument. YAWN!

 

The homicide of a fetus is beautiful? What the hell are you on about?

 

The line for what?

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
I doubt there is anyone who claims a human fetus isn't human, I haven't heard anyone say that.

Well, this may surprise you but you aren't the only poster in here that I go back and forth with and I didn't start posting the day you arrived.

If something is part of a human, in their body then DUH, of course it's human. Again, I haven't seen anyone say otherwise.

What else would it be ? Animal? Vegetable?

That was in response to :

"""However, it is not A human being as in "legal person"...it has to be born to be a legal person.

And no matter what anyone calls it or it's death, it is still not a legal person with rights."""""



Gee, sorry you're so bored with facts....I didn't mean to tire you out.....but "legal" rules, it's what counts.....

It's what protects women , and others , from people who wish to take away their rights..

 

Yes it is a beautiful thing. Much like heart surgery is a beautiful thing

 

I agree..surgery is an art.

And it sure has improved the lives of us all....

 

Exceptions would be rape and medical reasons, yes. They are things outside of her/their control.
In terms of sudden financial difficulties? IMO, no. Having a kid require long-term planning.And we're talking years ahead.

And no, I know that contraception have a failure rate, so does using a condom, not to mention the pill for that matter. Your point is?

 

I did not say "homicide should never apply" - Note that this is a legal question.

From a moral perspective I distinguish between the early stages of pregnancy and the later stages.

Morality is a subjective thing. For me this question revolves around sentience. "I think therefor I am". If there is no suffering can something be labeled as immoral ?

A rock has no awareness - at least not as it is normally defined. Thus I claim that throwing a rock creates no suffering and thus is not immoral.

Some believe that all living things are sentient on some level. Even these folks however have degrees of sentience. Some draw the line at animals and eat (kill) only plants. Some "Fruitarians" go as far as to eat only that which has fallen from the tree (Thinking I suppose that since this is already considered dead - it is OK or less immoral".

On this moral scale - where do we put the zygote ? A cow is far more sentient than a zygote yet most of us kill and eat cows and it is not viewed as being immoral.

Some, and I would claim most (including myself) put a higher value on life forms that are both human and sentient. Note that sentience is still a requirement. Most people do not cry too many tears over the daily loss of skin cells on the sole basis that these are "human life".
Nor do we cry too many tears over the death of other human cells ( heart brain and so on).

From the perspective of sentience - a zygote is no more sentient than any of these other human cells and it is certainly orders of magnitude sentient than higher order mammals. The zygote has no brain and so it has no sentience - at least not on the level normally classified as sentient.

If we claim "The DNA is the brain of the zygote" OK - but then we have the problem that other human cells have the same DNA - the same brain - the same sentience.

On this basis I claim that it is not immoral to kill a zygote or at least no more immoral than killing other human cells.

 

Why? The procedure and outcome of abortions are exactly the same whether for rape or consensual sex.

So it is NOT the fetus you are concerned with??????


Looks more like you want to punish women who have had consensual sex.....

Getting pregnant or not getting pregnant IS beyond all woman's control.

BC can fail, and NO one has an obligation to use it....you go right ahead and put drugs and foreign objects in YOUR body but don't expect everyone else to !

Which is a good reason to have an abortion!!!!

Uh, the point is even if women use BC that doesn't always prevent them from having an unwanted pregnancy.

 

You need to organize your posts a little more. It's like watching a mess.

The procedure is the same, the context for the reasons why are not.

Rape is illegal and have the lack of consent already built in due to it, well, being rape. The woman did not consent from the get go, hence she should have the option to have an abortion if she so pleases. In which case I am for the state covering the costs.

And no, I do not care for the fetus. The fetus doesn't even know what it is to be alive whereas the woman does. The already-living, breathing and contributing to society have a lot more priority over an unborn fetus.

Getting pregnant is beyond every woman's control, that is correct. Even if you do it every day you're not guaranteed to get pregnant. That said, the chances of the average woman is pretty decent.

What's your point? She is not obligated to give birth.

Key word: Planning. If both parents end up without a job(somehow miraculously at the same time) they will have to get new ones. Assessing your situation and being able to adapt accordingly is necessary if you want a healthy household for your kid to live in, if she decide to give birth.

However, to me abortion is an optional thing that you should have available to you if you feel you can't have a child and support him/her properly, but you have to pay for that abortion yourself. Worst case scenario can file an application to the government for covering the costs.

An abortion doesn't cost that much anyway, and you should already have money saved up for spontaneous stuff like this happening. If you don't you've failed even some of the most basic economic planning, and you shouldn't be messing around much in the bedroom in the first place.

What's your point? Nothing is 100% safe, even if you combine using a pill, contraception and a condom. If they are both very fertile it might end up in a pregnancy anyway.

 

When abortion is acceptable for health and safety of the woman

When is miscarriage abortion?

 

Sorry if you're easily confused.


So I was correct, Looks more like you want to punish women who have had consensual sex.....????

You don't want to take away a raped women's right to her own body but feel free to take away a woman's rights if she had consensual sex.

WHY?


Sex and becoming pregnant are two different acts....did you know that.

Then why are you against abortion?

Then why are you against abortion?

How is that a response to my """Which is a good reason to have an abortion!!!!""" ?????

BTW, people pay for any medical procedures the same way they pay for any other medical expense, any way they can........there is no reason abortion, a legal medical procedure should be an exception.

Although it is, the federal government forbids clinics to use federal taxes for abortions.

MY point??!

Did you have a point?

 

Wow just wow!
I feel I have to post this about every othe page on this thread!

https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/induced-abortion-united-states

 

So, who gets to decide what is a "medical reason"?

 

I'm pro-choice. I'm not pro-paying-for-people's-bedroom-fun. My taxes are better spent paying for and improving the infrastructure and other areas.

That is not punishing women. That is simply not wanting to pay for someone else's fun/sex habits. They are free to do whatever they want, but I am not going to pay for it.

As far as rape and medical reasons go, they are outside of the norm situations. In the case of rape, she didn't even consent to getting pregnant let alone want to do it in the first place. Of which I don't mind using my tax money to pay for it, as the whole situation were outside of her control, especially on the consent part to begin with. Same goes for medical reasons. They are outside of her control.

As far as normal pregnancies go, you take on the consequences of your actions, and lack there of. I am however not going to pay for it.

What? Who would've guessed? You're pretty bad at this.

Where have I stated I am against abortion? I am pro choice, not pro pay for people's sex habits.

A pack of condoms does NOT cost much, nor does the pill. Combine those two alongside a contraception and you have the best and cheapest methods of preventing getting pregnant. If all those 3 fail you should be prepared for that economically.

It's a response you don't like because it's skimming on the rather rare occasions where prevention/protection actually fail, which is, what, one in a hundred thousand or something? Will have to check the statistics on it when I have some more time. We're talking abortion in general, but all you seem able to do is make extreme examples.

If you can't save up a lot of money you shouldn't really be doing the deed that much to begin with.

No, I asked you. You brought it up. Again, nothing is 100% safe, so you're better off using your head and having some economic playing room for things happening that you didn't plan.

In this case, having some money already saved up by your own example. And by your own example, they were already financially stable but due to unforeseen circumstances miraculously lost their jobs, both at the same time. A couple in that sort of situation should already have had some money saved up to pay for the abortion.

How about being more specific about your example?

The doctors do, hence "medical reasons", of which FoxHastings already stated.

An example would be for the woman's health and well-being.

Interesting statistics.

I am however curious to know some more details.

Which areas have the most abortions?
Which areas have the least abortions?
Which areas have sex education as part of their curriculum, which areas doesn't?
What is the average economical status of the ones getting an abortion?
Possible correlations between people's beliefs on average in those areas, and compare those with other areas.

And that's what I have in terms of questions for now.

 

There is a law inplace, as I told you, that prevents taxpayer's money from being used for abortions....it's "pretty bad" that you don't know this common fact.

See the Hyde Amendment.

Why? If a woman has an unwanted pregnancy then she can just have an abortion....I thought you said you were Pro-Choice but you sound like an Anti-Choicer when you say ""shouldn't really be doing the deed that much to begin with""

How about stating what that has to do with the right to abortion???

 

What did your last slave die of?

I gave you the link to the best source on the internet if you want to learn more then I would suggest you open that link and do your own search

 

No question that it is when the pregnancy can be identified as putting the woman in serious harm. That's certainly my line for when it is 100% morally acceptable. Although I'm still working on my broader position on when abortion is acceptable.

Its not. Who is saying that it is?