Abortion

[Dark]

I saw nothing wrong with my hypothetical situation. Is it plausible? Hell yes. Is it likely to account for 99% of all abortion cases? Not at all.

 

The Dark One made quite a point when he said "with legality comes regulation". If you were raped by a father, or accidentally had a kid (condoms break, man), you should have a right to get an abortion. Same as your opinion, where the right to abortion is with the mother.

 

The problem with regulation is, how well can something be regulated? If you regulate it too much, you might be missing some people who have legitimate reasons not to have a baby, and they are stuck with seemingly hell (since once the baby is born, it's quite hard to give it up for adoption once you have that bond). If you don't regulate it enough, there will be some (albeit not a lot) abuse of the system, which is the thing we're trying to avoid.

[Flinsbon]

I say that having an abortion, whether the baby has been growing for 7 hours, 7 days, 7 weeks, or 7 months, is considered to be killing. Whether a baby is just a cell or is fully developed, there is life. Therefore, I am pro-life. However, it is okay if (AND ONLY IF) the development and/or birth of the baby is guaranteed (and I do mean 100% guaranteed without the slightest doubt) to kill the mother. In that case, I believe the mother can make her own choice - to have an abortion or have the baby, dying in the process. In that case, it wouldn't be right for abortion to be illegal because the law might as well say "Oh well it's illegal for you to live. Sorry."

[Smesh]

This is all i would say on the matter: It should not be performed uneless the woman was raped.

[Hydra of Ages]

I say that having an abortion, whether the baby has been growing for 7 hours, 7 days, 7 weeks, or 7 months, is considered to be killing. Whether a baby is just a cell or is fully developed, there is life. Therefore, I am pro-life. However, it is okay if (AND ONLY IF) the development and/or birth of the baby is guaranteed (and I do mean 100% guaranteed without the slightest doubt) to kill the mother. In that case, I believe the mother can make her own choice - to have an abortion or have the baby, dying in the process. In that case, it wouldn't be right for abortion to be illegal because the law might as well say "Oh well it's illegal for you to live. Sorry."

 

Wait... what?

 

You'd make the mother carry the child to term even if there was a, say, 50% chance of her death in the process? Or even an 80% chance, where it's just LIKELY to kill her? That's... rather sick... especially considering there's a good chance the child wouldn't survive that birth either.

 

As was previously stated, with legality comes regulation. I would rather have that option open and properly regulated to prevent its abuse, than shut out people with legitimate reasons and medical concerns. Say what you will about teen pregnancy and them shirking responsibility, but there are major risks to both the mother and child's life if you try to give birth at too young an age.

[Tentacruel]

Regulation? No. Regulation would be sexist and only serve to suppress women's rights and only be carried out by crazy, ignorant religious extremists like me.

[Flinsbon]

Wait... what?

 

You'd make the mother carry the child to term even if there was a, say, 50% chance of her death in the process? Or even an 80% chance, where it's just LIKELY to kill her? That's... rather sick... especially considering there's a good chance the child wouldn't survive that birth either.

 

As was previously stated, with legality comes regulation. I would rather have that option open and properly regulated to prevent its abuse, than shut out people with legitimate reasons and medical concerns. Say what you will about teen pregnancy and them shirking responsibility, but there are major risks to both the mother and child's life if you try to give birth at too young an age.

 

Well I was gonna say anything over absolutely no chance the mother would die, but I figured there's always at least some risk. I just wasn't sure what percentage to make it.

 

What percentage should it be? 30? 40? 50? I just don't really know.

[Cin]

I believe Abortion should only be allowed when for example it was conceived as a result of rape, or the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (e.g Mother's heart is already struggling or failing before conception, but the added strain of pregnancies could kill her. (I've seen a documentary where a mother did survive this combination, but she was VERY lucky)).

 

Abortion shouldn't be seen as a quick fix to irresponsible teenagers, if you're 'mature' enough to do it, you're mature enough for the consequences. I know that's not fair for the baby born to them, but maybe a baby will knock some sense into them. (At my old school you were lucky if your year made it the end of year 11 (15-16), without a pregnancies or several)

 

I dislike when people use it because a baby doesn't fit into their life....how many forms of protection are out there to stop this sort of thing? You don't want to get pregnant you use protection. (Saying that all forms of protection have a failure rate, I think with Condoms only 1% or less, so use a combination)

 

The point of when a fetus becomes life will always be a heavily debated topic.

[Tentacruel]

I believe Abortion should only be allowed when for example it was conceived as a result of rape, or the pregnancy endangers the life of the mother (e.g Mother's heart is already struggling or failing before conception, but the added strain of pregnancies could kill her. (I've seen a documentary where a mother did survive this combination, but she was VERY lucky)).

 

Abortion shouldn't be seen as a quick fix to irresponsible teenagers, if you're 'mature' enough to do it, you're mature enough for the consequences. I know that's not fair for the baby born to them, but maybe a baby will knock some sense into them. (At my old school you were lucky if your year made it the end of year 11 (15-16), without a pregnancies or several)

 

I dislike when people use it because a baby doesn't fit into their life....how many forms of protection are out there to stop this sort of thing? You don't want to get pregnant you use protection. (Saying that all forms of protection have a failure rate, I think with Condoms only 1% or less, so use a combination)

 

The point of when a fetus becomes life will always be a heavily debated topic.

 

This.

[Flinsbon]

The point of when a fetus becomes life will always be a heavily debated topic.

 

I know this is a heavily debated topic, but in reality, it's not a topic that can be debated because there is only one correct argument. The life of a baby begins at fertilization when a sperm cell and an egg cell combine to form a fully functional human cell (technically, when this occurs, both the egg cell and sperm cell cease to exist and a new type of cell is formed). Single-celled organisms are as much "alive" as any fungus, plant, or animal. Any person who objects to this obviously believes that the lives of humans are more important than any other form of life, which is, of course, WRONG.

[Dr. Cakey]

I know this is a heavily debated topic, but in reality, it's not a topic that can be debated because there is only one correct argument. The life of a baby begins at fertilization when a sperm cell and an egg cell combine to form a fully functional human cell (technically, when this occurs, both the egg cell and sperm cell cease to exist and a new type of cell is formed). Single-celled organisms are as much "alive" as any fungus, plant, or animal. Any person who objects to this obviously believes that the lives of humans are more important than any other form of life, which is, of course, WRONG.

At this point, the embryo has slightly less viability than a yeast cell - at least yeast can eat and divide. Do you find leavening bread to be murder?. In other words, it remains a part of the mother. For more on the subject, please see Crab Helmet's post in this topic.

[Flinsbon]

At this point, the embryo has slightly less viability than a yeast cell - at least yeast can eat and divide. Do you find leavening bread to be murder?. In other words, it remains a part of the mother. For more on the subject, please see Crab Helmet's post in this topic.

 

1. Leavening bread is not considered murder because we eat bread as nourishment and is therefore one of life's necessities.

 

2. Though the embryo is still inside the mother and is attached to the mother, it is in no way PART of the mother. The embryo is attached to the mother in order to receive oxygenated blood and nutrients in order to survive and grow, but it's not an extra organ or anything.

 

3. Crab addresses the embryo as a parasite until it has been present and growing for 5.5 months. I do not pretend to disagree with this. By the definition of a parasite, a human embryo can definitely be classified as parasitic. HOWEVER, parasites (except viruses) are still alive, are they not? Mosquitoes are parasites; does that make them any less alive than any other organism? I think not. Just because an embryo needs to remain attached to a host for nutrition and protection doesn't mean it isn't alive.

 

4. The mother's body does not divide the embryo's cells for it, nor does it place nutrients inside of the cells of the embryo. Once the embryo receives nutrients from the mother, it can bring nutrients into the cells and perform some mitosis on its own.

[Hydra of Ages]

1. Leavening bread is not considered murder because we eat bread as nourishment and is therefore one of life's necessities.

 

2. Though the embryo is still inside the mother and is attached to the mother, it is in no way PART of the mother. The embryo is attached to the mother in order to receive oxygenated blood and nutrients in order to survive and grow, but it's not an extra organ or anything.

 

3. Crab addresses the embryo as a parasite until it has been present and growing for 5.5 months. I do not pretend to disagree with this. By the definition of a parasite, a human embryo can definitely be classified as parasitic. HOWEVER, parasites (except viruses) are still alive, are they not? Mosquitoes are parasites; does that make them any less alive than any other organism? I think not. Just because an embryo needs to remain attached to a host for nutrition and protection doesn't mean it isn't alive.

 

4. The mother's body does not divide the embryo's cells for it, nor does it place nutrients inside of the cells of the embryo. Once the embryo receives nutrients from the mother, it can bring nutrients into the cells and perform some mitosis on its own.

 

I'm going to cut in here, if nobody minds. I'll also continue the inane numbered bullets here, because I'm a sheep like that.

 

1. You could just as well eat human meat for nourishment. It's not an accepted practice, but you could use it to satisfy life's necessities just as well as you could by eating bread. The human body isn't terribly picky where the organic matter it breaks down for raw materials comes from, as long as it has the proper enzymes to break it down with.

 

2. It's a growth physically connected to the mother, lacking any personal sapience or even sentience, which cannot exist without being connected to its host. It was created by the mother's body, and serves a primary function in the propagation of the species. By practically every definition, it's part of the mother, at least until it is expelled and physically severed. To be completely technical, it IS an extra organ; an entire sack of spare organs, actually. The only difference is that they don't provide any benefit to the host.

 

3. By biological definition being 'alive' requires you to respire, absorb nutrients and be theoretically capable of reproduction. A child does all these things, correct, but it requires the mother to do them for it first. It only absorbs oxygen the mother absorbed, etc. Now, an organ, say a kidney, also received oxygen provided by the mother's body, and nutrients the mother absorbed. In this way, they could be considered 'alive', in that they're part of a whole which is alive, but not as much independently. In the early stages, outside of a body, the fetus would be just as capable of respiring and absorbing nutrients as that kidney would be; that is, not able.

 

4. "The mother's body does not divide the embryo's cells for it" Yes, because it wouldn't be a 'cell' if it couldn't reproduce without outside help. Technically a mother's body doesn't divide its own skin cells for it either; all cells reproduce amongst themselves independently. And from a technical perspective, the mother's body is responsible for the cell's division; a cell can only undergo mitosis once it has its full number of chromosomes, half of which were provided by one of the mother's cells. Without that genetic data, the zygote could not multiply, and indeed, wouldn't even be considered a zygote.

 

"nor does it place nutrients inside of the cells of the embryo." Yes it does. The nutrients are broken down and ferried to the cells for them to absorb, in the same way that it provides nutrients to every other cell in the mother's body. The only way it could place the nutrients more directly inside the cells is if it used a hypodermic needle to inject it into the cytoplasm of each unit.

 

"Once the embryo receives nutrients from the mother, it can bring nutrients into the cells and perform some mitosis on its own." So can every other cell in a woman's body, excepting a couple special cases. That doesn't make it any more of an independent being. As previously stated, a kidney can bring nutrients into its own cells and preform mitosis of its own, once provided them from the blood stream. That doesn't mean that a kidney isn't part of the mother.

 

 

Also, to the one who posted more recently about not wanting abortion to be a 'quick fix' for teenagers... You do know that even without previous health problems, the chance of death in pregnancy increases exponentially if you're underage? The chance of miscarriage is even worse.

As for that 'maturity' comment... No, no it won't. Knock sense into them, I mean. If they carry the child to term, they'll be just as immature as ever, except now they'll be bitter and overwhelmed as well. If their parents don't take over and raise the child (the likely scenario), all you'll get is another teenager doomed to being stuck with a highschool education, low-paying job, broken dreams and a dreary look on the world. Plus another kid from a screwed-up household, unlikely to reach his own dreams due to his homelife.

Or they'll end up in an orphanage. Which still won't make the mother any more mature, but WILL add strain to the already congested system that already fails to place all of its kids.

 

The best solution, in my eyes anyway, is to make abortion unnecessary. That is, to somehow eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

[Dr. Cakey]

The best solution, in my eyes anyway, is to make abortion unnecessary. That is, to somehow eliminate unwanted pregnancies.

If only there was some sort of pill that could do that...

[Hydra of Ages]

If said pill were readily available to everyone, taken regularly, had a hundred-percent success rate and were completely safe, then I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have an abortion problem.

 

but I'm sure Moral Guardians would object to that one too.

[Guest tonymann]

Dr.Cakey said: If only there was some sort of pill that could do that...

As long as it aint thalidomyde.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If said pill were readily available to everyone, taken regularly, had a hundred-percent success rate and were completely safe, then I'm pretty sure we wouldn't have an abortion problem.

 

but I'm sure Moral Guardians would object to that one too.

Pretty much the only reason it isn't available to everyone and taken regularly (at least, in 1st world countries) is the Moral Guardians.

[Guest tonymann]

Truthfully the invention of abortion in my view WAS meant to be a quick fix for irresponsible teenagers. And also if people abuse it so what, the baby isnt neccesarily alive until it takes its first breath of oxygen. Plus it keeps the population under control.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Truthfully the invention of abortion in my view WAS meant to be a quick fix for irresponsible teenagers. And also if people abuse it so what, the baby isnt neccesarily alive until it takes its first breath of oxygen. Plus it keeps the population under control.

Nobody "invented" abortion. Its existed ever since people realized that poison causes miscarriages. There are accounts of it long before "irresponsible teenagers" were society's main concern.

[Guest tonymann]

i actually just realized that LOLZ. But again they are not really alive when in the uterus.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Depends on how you define "alive". I would say they are alive, but being alive doesn't mean that the life cannot be extinguished.

[Guest tonymann]

I define "alive" as being able to breathe oxygen which babies in the uterus dont do when being developed.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

I define "alive" as being able to breathe oxygen which babies in the uterus dont do when being developed.

So you don't think plants, etc are alive?

[Guest tonymann]

Well i may have contradicted myself there... Let me retry that... I believe it is alive when it is able to breathe Period. (no pun intended)

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Well i may have contradicted myself there... Let me retry that... I believe it is alive when it is able to breathe Period. (no pun intended)

How do you define breathing?

[Guest tonymann]

breathing a certain substance that a thing needs to live. Plants breathe carbon dioxide while us humans breathe oxygen.