[PAX] let's talk

I'm pro-abortion. Since I'm not a follower of any particular religion my views on it are entirely secular.

First reason might sound selfish and to some extent it is, and that is that when I would be in that situation I would like to have that option.

The decision to abort pregnancy is not an easy decision to make, possible consequences are something that woman will have to live with for the rest of her life, and not to mention emotional scaring.

Second, abortion must exist as an option simply because age when women have their first pregnancies is not the same as it use to be, and having a first child in 30s can complicate development of a fetus. Screening for possible wrong development issues and aborting if they occur should be a possibility for every woman.

Third, abortion should be an option if pregnancy resulted from a rape.
 
Well, I guess I'll take the plunge. (Holding nose and bracing self for icy water...)

Sigh. I hate this crap.

As far as aborting a late-term fetus, one that could survive easily outside the mother's body, that baby surely has some rights. I do not see any difference between aborting a third-trimester, viable infant and killing a newborn, or an older child. There have been many scientific studies showing that infants in the 33rd week of pregnancy onward to 40 weeks, do feel, learn and react similarly to newborns, and my personal experience backs this up. I'd just as soon support throwing puppies out of speeding car windows, personally. (And I wouldn't support that.)

Perhaps it is difficult for me because I've carried babies, and know how they move and react and interact late in pregnancy. They're people, and rights we give to people should be extended to them. This seems so glaringly obvious to me I wonder that anyone couldn't see it.

But when you start talking about earlier term abortions, especially the morning-after pill and things like that, that seems to me a completely different matter.

Scientifically and secularly speaking, there is a difference depending on how developed the fetus is. I just have to think that people must not understand this, or they could never 1. support late-term abortions or 2. rule out early-term abortions. There's a difference. Obviously.

Also, scientifically and medically speaking, there can be atrocious health problems that could justify abortion; there are birth defects and other illnesses that can be extremely painful and difficult to handle, and will certainly lead to a painful life and an early death. In those cases I think science and secularism and general human decency would make abortion an option.

Although, as a general rule, I think educating people about birth control and taking care of existing children is much more important than splitting hairs about abortion rights.
 
I am an atheist, but I am neither pro-abortion nor strictly pro-life.
I am something much worse than either of those; a libertarian.

I believe people have the right to do whatever they wish to their own bodies.
But...
I believe a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes "human" when neural pathways develop.

Before then, shouldn't matter if you kill it, after that, it should be illegal for the same reason killing any other human is illegal.
There is a lot of grey area, though, as far as when they do start and finish developing.
 
Read the OP and a few posts, but haven't followed the full discussion.

I would first like to make it clear that pro-Choice is NOT pro-abortion. I'm pro-choice, but if I were ever in a position to make the choice, I would choose life.

The deal is, there will always (or so it seems) be people who get pregnant without wanting to have a child, and they think that abortion is best. If it is illegal for doctor to perform abortions, people will turn to coat hangers instead, and in such a process it is rather likely that both mother and child die. Therefore, for the interest of saving as many lives as possible, abortion must be legal (but maybe discouraged, with orphanages made to be a much more appealing option).

As to the point of, its ending a life, until it has an nervous system, it could medically be considered nothing more than a tumor. until it differentiates cells, its just a bundle of cells growing at an amazing rate with a genetic code thats different from the host (which, in most cases is called a cancer. sorry for the ridiculously cynical POV, but I'm trying to make a point).
 
BenW said:
I believe a zygote/embryo/fetus becomes "human" when neural pathways develop.

Before then, shouldn't matter if you kill it, after that, it should be illegal for the same reason killing any other human is illegal.
Click to expand...
Very well, then, don't kill it. Just refuse to keep supporting it: remove it from the mother's body.

If you disagree with that, then you evidently do not really believe this:
I believe people have the right to do whatever they wish to their own bodies.
Click to expand...
 
TheLastMohican said:
Very well, then, don't kill it. Just refuse to keep supporting it: remove it from the mother's body.
Click to expand...
Equivalent.

TheLastMohican said:
If you disagree with that, then you evidently do not really believe this:
Click to expand...
I believe the rights of the mother stop where the rights of the alleged child begin.

I'm pretty sure were talking, like, two trimesters in.
Is that really not long enough to make up your mind?
 
BenW said:
Equivalent.
Click to expand...
Would you recognize no difference, then, between partial birth abortion and regular delivery that is followed by abandonment?

I believe the rights of the mother stop where the rights of the alleged child begin.
Click to expand...
Then you believe that it is the government's place to force one human to sacrifice health and wealth for the well-being of another.

I'm pretty sure were talking, like, two trimesters in.
Is that really not long enough to make up your mind?
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. (I would, however, read through slant's "father's choice" thread for some examples of how the decision could be delayed.)
 
TheLastMohican said:
Would you recognize no difference, then, between partial birth abortion and regular delivery that is followed by abandonment?
Click to expand...
Probably not.

TheLastMohican said:
Then you believe that it is the government's place to force one human to sacrifice health and wealth for the well-being of another.
Click to expand...
So do you.
Unless you believe that it should be legal for a mother to chronically malnourish her children, while she eats healthily.
But I'm sure "That's different." by some arbitrary dichotomy...

Having children is a sacrifice to your own life, health, and fun, by its very nature.
If you aren't ready and willing to deal with it, use contraceptives.
If you don't trust contraceptives, have surgery to sterilize yourself.
If you don't have the money for that, or don't like the option, then I'd recommend avoiding sex.
 
Last edited:
BenW said:
Unless you believe that it should be legal for a mother to chronically malnourish her children, while she eats healthily.
But I'm sure "That's different." by some arbitrary dichotomy...
Click to expand...
The difference is that children can be fed by anyone, not just their biological mothers. The mother would be acting to prevent her children from obtaining food and better care elsewhere, not merely refusing to provide it from her own time and resources.

That qualified, I do agree that such lousy care in and of itself should not be illegal. It's awfully stupid for a government to try to force people to be good at parenting. If they do not already care enough to do so, don't bother trying to force them to. Just let someone else do it for them if se so desires.
 
I am pro-choice.

Personally, I am of the opinion that anyone with a penis has no right to implement laws forcing a woman to bear a child. Aside from the obvious considerations post-pregnancy (raising, supporting etc), the physiological aspect is something that most people aren't aware of. The effort and physical cost it takes the woman's body to prepare for, support through gestation, birth, and then revert back to normal is huge. The hormones change, menstruation changes. It is the kind of physical price that nothing in a man's life comes close to.

Bone density drops, the brain shrinks, even if a woman doesn't breast feed the breasts droop a little more, the hips widen (and that doesn't ever go back!), any scarring around the stomach may fade, but doesn't go away. Especially if there has been a lot of it. And sometimes, the joints and ligaments of the hips and knees are a bit weaker and looser due to the physical restructuring. The stomach generally doesn't ever get flat again there is a little pouch to it, especially for women who have had more than one child. Granted, the physical price each woman pays is different, but the body is indelibly marked and changed by pregnancy and child birth.

Would I ever have an abortion? Most definitely if I knew I wasn't in a position to support the child and myself, both mentally and emotionally as well as financially. A child is an 18 year dedicated commitment. These days people don't even choose to stay in a career that long.

As for when an abortion consideration should be limited to. I agree with ACD. A woman had 6 months to decide. Anything after the third trimester should be off the table. At that point if a woman doesn't want her child, there are countless other people in this country who have the means but don't have the ability to have their own.

Abortions are always going to be happening, whether they are illegal or not. In fact, there are probably plants and herbs growing in a garden or forest near you, on the internet, or at a store near you that can cause abortions. Better to keep women and girls safe from making a potentially life ending decision in desperation to end an unwanted pregnancy by allowing them access to clean and medically supervised abortion options.
 
TheLastMohican said:
The difference is that children can be fed by anyone, not just their biological mothers. The mother would be acting to prevent her children from obtaining food and better care elsewhere, not merely refusing to provide it from her own time and resources.

That qualified, I do agree that such lousy care in and of itself should not be illegal. It's awfully stupid for a government to try to force people to be good at parenting. If they do not already care enough to do so, don't bother trying to force them to. Just let someone else do it for them if se so desires.
Click to expand...
I believe parents should have a legal obligation to care for their kids.
If for no other reason, than to give a platform upon which to justify the removal of said kids from their care if they fail to do so.

Anyway; the moment it becomes possible to transplant a fetus without damaging it, I'm totally on-board.
 
BenW said:
I believe parents should have a legal obligation to care for their kids.
If for no other reason, than to give a platform upon which to justify the removal of said kids from their care if they fail to do so.
Click to expand...
If you mean "legal" in a contractual sense, then fine. What I oppose is the labeling of neglect as a criminal act. The children may be taken away, but the parents should not be fined or jailed for refusing to take care of them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top