Struggling with the abortion issue.

Very difficult indeed. Like if your wife asks if her dress makes her look fat...

I sit on the fence on this one. The only thing I would suggest, if you force someone to bring an "unwanted" child into the world, we as a society must be ready to raise and support it.

reply to post by intrepid


I agree that the issue of legality is pretty much a non-issue yes.


But I think there is still a greater ethical issue involved here.

I mean can we label abortions (that are not due to extreme health concerns) as unethical? If a woman has the ability to carry a child to term and then give it to a couple who cant conceive a child, is that not an infinitely more moral choice?

reply to post by Openeye


The point is that what you think about abortion, or I do, doesn't matter. Why focus on an issue that isn't going to change? Wasted energy and as contentious as this issue is... divisive. Makes people draw battle lines. Now people are divided about a non-issue and REAL issues are not discussed as they should be as one will not work with someone that supports/abhors this non-issue.

reply to post by Openeye




Many years ago prior to abortion being legal, and single mother hood being acceptable

in society. Women even some at legal age of responsibility, went into 'unmarried mothers'

homes, where they were worked very hard for their keep, Their babies were taken from

them, they had no option, due mainly to he fact that (mainly fathers) would not let them

back home for the shame that she would be bringing to the family, and the new mothers had

no way to keep, support or give a home to their child!


Recently I have been watching true real life stories of women now in their 60's meeting

up with the children they had, had to give up The stories are heart wrenching and

the mothers have lived most of their lives with such guilt at having given up their babies ...

they had no option ... they didn't have a choice


As a mother I don't know how they did it and to me that is more sad than an abortion

I would also be interested in the stats off deaths to women from botched backstreet

abortions and the number of children left motherless due to this.

reply to post by Openeye



Here's a hypothetical which I think given the progress of virology might eventually be possible. What if someday a virus is developed that causes human embryo clones to grow in pus-filled sacks on your skin.

How would you handle this hypothetical situation? Do they deserve to live?

reply to post by Wertdagf


Kind of absurd but I'll bite.

If the condition had no extreme risk of death to the "host" then yes I would say the being has a moral right to live.

I think we would develop some sort of antivirus eventually anyway.

reply to post by Openeye


your analogy only holds true if a woman is getting an abortion to save her own life. The man could get help (adoption) to pull the other guy up.

I've known several women who use abortion as birth control, and because of that my view is the ONLY reason for abortion is to save the woman's life. Anything else you're killing a little defenseless human being over something he/she had no control over.

Also, if abortion remains legal, I think they should stop saying if a pregnant woman is killed then someone has killed 2. ( I hope you know what I mean, can't seem to write it)

It's actually a very simple problem to solve. If you are against abortion, don't have one.

Pretty easy.

Here's something that one has to consider in this debate, until the fetus is viable outside of the womb, it is in all reality a parasite. If one "Chooses" to allow that parasite to develop, they can extract it, name it, and make it wear stupid clothes till it's old enough to demand it's choice in what stupid clothes to wear.

The other thing to consider is with 7 billion humans on this god forsaken mud ball traveling around a mediocre white dwarf star in a galaxy with over 100 billion other stars in it. Human life is very VERY expendable. It's not precious at all. If it were, there wouldn't be wars. There wouldn't be killing, there wouldn't be famine, disease, or poverty. But there is, because human life doesn't mean jack squat.

It's a choice. One that has to be made by the individual who's ultimately going to be responsible for the child if she allows it to come to term. If that is something that you are ok with, then by all means have a child, love it, care for it, celebrate it's birthdays, give it Christmas presents, and lots of love.

If not, it's better in the long run to abort it, than a child who has to be born into a world of suffering.

Personally I'm pro choice, I have a son, glad I have him, love him to pieces, I enjoy every single day with him. I am glad for the choice I and my then wife made to keep him. For us it was the right choice.

Pro choice doesn't always mean pro abortion, it means choice.

reply to post by Openeye


Well.. it could easily be solved by being responsible.. if you are not you are kinda on the noose for it.

If you look at it from another perspective.

Men have no say on whether a woman should or should not carry a child.. and that is fine

However a man i still forced to work for a child he didn't want and is forced to watch a child get aborted without a say in the matter.

A woman holds the power over both.. he can screw the child out of life and he could screw the man on how he feels on the matter.


My opinion is that once a woman gets pregnant under normal circumstances you kinda have to stick with it. I don't think she should be forced to have it but a penalty for murder or something of the like should come with it.

Everyone starts to talk about a womans right to their body.. well how about the right to the baby and his body and the man and his labor... the man kinda uses his body for labor.. and he has to do extra for a child he didn't want.

but eff them right/

reply to post by FlyersFan


That is not a valid point to for society to legislate about. If death of human life is what one intends to prevent then outlaw war and other shenanigans, heck end the multi-state system we live now and the prevented deaths will be in the billions over 50 years. Imagine putting all the money to guarantee a minimum of food and education to the population...

I see your argument valid towards the personal decision people make, I have no issue in people attempting to educate and help other do family planning but at the same time I see that the most vocal against abortion also are against contraception and even part of the system of moral and economical corruption, from pedophilia to money laundering and lobbing...

Educate the people, give them the resources necessary to exert the human right over their reproduction and it will solve the problem. Why do you think people have abortions ? Because they can't manage their reproduction and society pressures. The problem clearly is lack of information...

Originally posted by Openeye
So if there is one political/ethical issue I have a really big problem dealing with it is the issue of abortion. The complexity of this issue to me seems extraordinary. I mean I would rather get into a Israel vs Palestine debate and find it less complicated than abortion.

In this hand I hold the position that abortion should not be illegal, because the state (IMO) does not have the right to impose laws to control the human body.

On the other hand I have serious ethical issues with the practice. These beings are human and despite being unfortunately tethered to another human being for a period of time they will eventually become fully functional members of our society.

Most pro-choice advocates argue that a woman should no have to be burdened with pregnancy if she does not want to be. The same way a father or mother should not be compelled to donate organs to save their child if they do not wish to.

I tried to come up with an analogy about abortion to try and simplify the issue but it did not help at all.

Lets say you have two guys on a train that is traveling on a cliff side. Now the train derails and is hanging over the side of the cliff. One of these men (man 1) is about to fall and clings to the other mans arm (man 2) to prevent himself from falling. Now at any moment the train could fall and the longer the men hold on to each other the greater the risk that both of them will die.

Now lets say for the sake of argument that man 2 is incapable of pulling up man 1. If he stays holding on to the man they both will die. Now while sad I do not find it unethical that man 2 would let go to save himself, in fact I would say it was necessary.

However lets say that man 2 is completely capable of pulling up man 1, but is simply unwilling to. If he lets go is that not unethical?

The above may not be the best of analogies, it is probably grossly simplistic.

I have been watching lots and lots of debates on this issue and they just make me scratch my head more.

So ATS can we discuss this issue here without having a flame war with each other (probably asking a little much there I know)?

Several weeks ago I met a good friend in a cafe, in which we had a discussion about complex moral issues, similar to this. His response was that, "everyone has a story". What he meant by "story" was that everyone has a rationale. Rationales are excuses for basic emotions, spun into a thought construct that is woven into every facet of human existence. In other words OP, within the context of this topic, what is the basic emotion driving the immensity of intellectual acquisition, and thus the sociopolitical agenda?

Deconstructing the package from the top down makes it quite answerable and easy to tease out. If you can answer that question, you'll understand the human motivations we all have, including yourself.

This is the way I look at it.

You have a fully realized, fully developed, fully conscious, fully aware human being. Growing inside them, is a less developed, not fully realized, arguably not conscious in any considerable sense, largely unaware human being. The first human wants the latter out of her body.

You have an ethical choice between the sovereignty and rights of the former, and the life of the latter. It is a horrible ethical quandary and one I lament the existence of in the first place. But because it does exist, a choice must be made. Do you deny the rights and bodily sovereignty of the fully realized, fully developed, conscious human being to save the life of the undeveloped, unrealized, arguably unconscious infant? Or do you save the life of the unrealized, undeveloped, arguably unconscious being at the cost of those rights?

In my opinion, ethically, although a horrible, weighty choice, the rights and sovereignty of the fully realized human being must take precedence. I know a lot of people disagree, but the alternative is to me an unacceptable abridgement of the conscious aware patient's rights. So there is no alternative but to allow them that choice over their own body for me.

As a close friend and teacher once said to me, "I think it's awful, and I wish it never had to happen. But I still support a woman's right to choose."

Peace.

reply to post by Openeye



Your analogy is all wrong because of a very simple fact. One did not choose to make the other get on the train in the first place.

This issue is about responsibility

The woman has the choice of whether to give birth or not when she decides to have sex with a man.

So very simple but EVERYONE conveniently ignores it. :shk:

Of course rape and incest are not the woman's choice..

We live in a society that has had its opinion severely controlled. We believe that a woman's right to not have any self control of her rutting practices should be held above taking a life that had no say about being in her body, that at the point of choosing to rut has also chosen tot take the chance of gaining another being in her body.


Its all so simple...

the heart of the baby starts beating 22 days after conception

No it doesn't, but even if it did I wouldn't consider a fetus human until it's brain is functional, and we don't know when that is, though it forms around 2 months.

Hopefully plan B will become so prevalent that no one needs abortions any more- at least until Republicans outlaw it.

Being a guy, I have the luxury of knowing pregnancy is not something I will ever have to directly experience. As such (and maybe just part of the trade off), it really shouldn't be up to guys. Everyone is entitled to an opinion of course, but for a guy that opinion is purely academic, and has no experiential "weight" to it. In other words, it is impossible for any guy who speaks definitively and authoritatively on abortion to be anything but full of... stuff.

Ladies, this one's up to you.

This is an absolutely outstanding topic and post by the OP.

Openeye you crystallized my struggle with the abortion issue perfectly. I am such a strong supporter of individual freedom and self determination, but on this one issue it isn't so simple. I believe in a God in some form, but am not religious, however, my heart tells me that abortion is murder and morally wrong.

How does someone like me reconcile this issue? I don't believe I should try to interfere with the the free will of another, but how can I stand by if I believe murders are taking place? Would I not be as guilty as those that receive abortions if I just stand by and do nothing?

I truly don't understand how others can have such clarity on this issue. No matter what my position is I am in violation of my personal code of conduct and what I feel is ethical behavior.

I hope others can see how difficult this is for those who are essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place. I wish this could be easily categorized and processed like most other issues.

reply to post by NthOther

I see no sense in burdening an immature,underage or what ever so called "sperm donor" raising a child. And I don't see why "child support" from a child would help?

reply to post by LoneGunMan


And he who she is "rutting" with has a say? Hmmm...very interesting. And ignorant.

I don't even know where to begin with this, so I'm going to leave. I loathe abortion threads. LOATHE them.

reply to post by intrepid

The abortion debate is a non-issue. The SCOTUS decision onRoe vs Wade is set in stone. It's not going to change.

I would not be so sure. Roe vs. Wade depends on viability, and that in turn depends on medical technology, and the limit is decreasing. It is likely that sooner or later all abortions will once again be open for a ban.

edition.cnn.com...

Viability is not a good limit anyway, philosophically speaking. We need to find something more fundamental.