What is your opinion on abortion?

[MissMoo]

After a bit of research, I have to add that the belief that you can get a brainwave reading is mainly a thought of certain religious groups. I found this on religioustolerance.org "2 months: The embryo's face resembles that of a primate but is not fully human in appearance. Some of the brain begins to form; this is the "reptilian brain" that will function throughout life. The embryo will respond to prodding, although it has no consciousness at this stage of development. The brain's higher functions do not develop until much later in pregnancy."

 

[starsgoblue]

Infants aren't even born with complete brain developement! Your brain isn't even truly fully developed in all its capacities much later in life...

 

[indra]

Infants aren't even born with complete brain developement! Your brain isn't even truly fully developed in all its capacities much later in life...

I guess that means there is a whole lot more latitude in the time an abortion can be performed then!

 

[indra]

Can a newborn human survive on it's own either?

Yes. I did not mean, can it survive without food, etc. But a newborn can be cared for by anyone. It doesn't need a womb. There is a big difference.

 

[starsgoblue]

I guess that means there is a whole lot more latitude in the time an abortion can be performed then!

As far as the other post...I don't think I nessacarily see a "big difference". What of the prematurely born babies...that need incubation and whatnot? If you get into partial-birth abortions, those babies are old enough to technically survive outside the womb with the same support given to premies...

 

[deep]

a fertalized egg dislodged by the morning after pill (ru486) is not killing a baby.

people who say things like this sound irrational.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I dont believe in intentionally killing anything. That includes plants, ants, wombats, fetuses, whatever.

That said any woman who decides to abort a pregnancy wont get judgement or condemnation from me. What bothers me the most in these debates is the way the term murder is used. I've never met a person who was so uniform and regulated in their view of death by third party hand. I know I certainly am not uniform. Those who believe abortion is a right for the mother certainly are not, nor are those who are adamantly against it.

The law is as wrong/right and as inconsistant as our views and opinions.

 

[indra]

As far as the other post...I don't think I nessacarily see a "big difference". What of the prematurely born babies...that need incubation and whatnot? If you get into partial-birth abortions, those babies are old enough to technically survive outside the womb with the same support given to premies...

And you are splitting hairs there. The so-called partial birth abortions make up only a tiny portion of all abortions. I was replying to your mention of a very early term embryo/fetus, I believe between 4 and 6 weeks. That can not survive outside the womb.

We are never going to agree on this issue (unless you change your mind. ) If my arguments don't sway you, why on earth do you think your's are going to sway me? You can state your opinion, I have no problem with that, but I get the feeling you (and it's not just you by any means) are trying to convert me to your way of thinking.

 

[speedracer]

a fertalized egg dislodged by the morning after pill (ru486) is not killing a baby.

people who say things like this sound irrational.

Where would you draw the line?

 

[joyfulgirl]

According to who? In the Jewish faith, the mother and child are one entity until the child is born. The soul does not even enter the embryo until 40 days after conception for males and 80 days after conception for females. And rabbis have said that abortion is justified if the mother's life is in danger, if the baby could be born with severe deformities or if the mother is not mentally fit to care for a child.

Many pro-lifers I hear from are basing their decision on their Christian faith and Christian upbringing. What if your belief based on your religion is different from someone else's religion? Should your beliefs be used to create a law against someone else's beliefs? The problem I have with pro-lifers is that they believe their morality should become law regardless of what other religions believe or people who don't follow a religion believe. If you want to protest, so be it. If you want to help women find alternatives, fine. But this country is great because it's laws are not regulated by a particular religion and I don't want it to start now.

I agree with Dread -- look for alternatives if you are in that position and I think we should go a step further. If you get an abortion, the doctor should be required to tell you ALL of your options. But in the end, it is the decision of the woman.

Great post. I didn't know this about Jewish law.

 

[shart1780]

So you're saying that as long as the baby is in its mother's stomach it's ok to kill it?

May as well just stick a knife up the mother's womb while she's giving birth and kill it, there's no difference, right? That would still be ok to you.

 

[nbcrusader]

For all the arguments in favor of abortion, why must it stop when the child is born?

 

[joyfulgirl]

So you're saying that as long as the baby is in its mother's stomach it's ok to kill it?

May as well just stick a knife up the mother's womb while she's giving birth and kill it, there's no difference, right? That would still be ok to you.

Go back and read sharky's post on Jewish law before you say ridiculous things like that. It outlines very clearly what the stages of life are according to the Jewish faith.

 

[speedracer]

For all the arguments in favor of abortion, why must it stop when the child is born?

Please also note that nbcrusader's argument makes absolutely no appeal to religious principles.

 

[starsgoblue]

Go back and read sharky's post on Jewish law before you say ridiculous things like that. It outlines very clearly what the stages of life are according to the Jewish faith.

I'm still questioning the accuracy of the text used myself....being that I do have a Jewish background...

 

[starsgoblue]

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone to my views on this. I know it is something that is intensely personal. I have said nothing other than my own personal thoughts on the matter....I haven't even talked about the role I feel is acceptable for the government, you might be surprised....

 

[Jamila]

The main inconsistency that I see in the anti-choice/abortion position is that the concern for the welfare of children too often seems to disappear in the people who hold this position AFTER the child is born!

What am I talking about?

Many of these anti-abortion folks are the same people who do not get involved in protecting the rights of poor children to have a decent quality of life by making sure that social programs (like health care, free school lunches, Headstart etc) are fully funded to meet the developing needs of children AFTER they're born.

It's like all most of the anti-choice people care about is getting the child born - screw what type of life the kid has after they're born.

To me, that's the height of inconsistency.

If people TRULY care about the sanctity of life, then they would PROTECT LIFE AFTER IT'S BORN.

And many of these same folks support the death-penalty(the taking of life) and a lot of them do not want the U.S. to give money in foreign assistance to poor countries, even if that money will save the lives of poor children overseas!

To me, until one becomes an advocate of the sanctity of ALL life and actively works as hard to protect it OUTSIDE the womb as you do inside the womb, your position is riddled full of holes.

Either protect everyone's right to life or don't be so moralistic.

 

[thacraic]

It's wrong.

 

[starsgoblue]

The main inconsistency that I see in the anti-choice/abortion position is that the concern for the welfare of children too often seems to disappear in the people who hold this position AFTER the child is born!

What am I talking about?

Many of these anti-abortion folks are the same people who do not get involved in protecting the rights of poor children to have a decent quality of life by making sure that social programs (like health care, free school lunches, Headstart etc) are fully funded to meet the developing needs of children AFTER they're born.

It's like all most of the anti-choice people care about is getting the child born - screw what type of life the kid has after they're born.

To me, that's the height of inconsistency.

If people TRULY care about the sanctity of life, then they would PROTECT LIFE AFTER IT'S BORN.

And many of these same folks support the death-penalty(the taking of life) and a lot of them do not want the U.S. to give money in foreign assistance to poor countries, even if that money will save the lives of poor children overseas!

To me, until one becomes an advocate of the sanctity of ALL life and actively works as hard to protect it OUTSIDE the womb as you do inside the womb, your position is riddled full of holes.

Either protect everyone's right to life or don't be so moralistic.

I understand that concern very well. Pregnancy centers run by places such as PDHC do help empower the women should they decide to have the child. They provide help with job training, medical care, material aid..etc.

But I do totally understand where you're coming from. Alot of people sometimes get way caught up in only one part of the problem....ever see Citizen Ruth?

 

[speedracer]

Jamila, I don't think using abortion as a safety net against poverty is such a good idea.

 

[thacraic]

Ok I can't just leave it with such a flippant statement as "it's wrong".

Now there have already been so many posts and I will be honest I didn't take the time to read them all so I hope I am not repeating something that has already been said.

The primary reason people have abortions is for a means of birth control. The idea of getting rid of a child because they may have severe birth defects or be retarded (profoundly or otherwise) is just inhumane and morally wrong.

Hitler had those kind of ideas. He did away with people that were flawed. This would have included those people that according to the nature of the question posed, if given the opportunity, should be considered for abortion. A life is a life, regardless of the challenges that may be in store for either the parents or the child and that life is just as prescious and valuable as one that is free from any possible mental or physical afflictions.

I have an older sister who is retarded. She went through hell in high school being picked on, and she has had it rough in general pretty much anywhere she goes. People will stare and try to figure out what the deal is, not quite sure if something is up with her or not, and she is completely aware of that fact. She however loves life, people, and God for that matter.

I can't make anyone's decision for them. God doesn't even do that. He doesn't really offer up advice unless called upon for it.

All I can hope for is that people will ask Him. That is the ulitmate solution.

Carrie

 

[nbcrusader]

The main inconsistency that I see in the anti-choice/abortion position is that the concern for the welfare of children too often seems to disappear in the people who hold this position AFTER the child is born!

What am I talking about?

Many of these anti-abortion folks are the same people who do not get involved in protecting the rights of poor children to have a decent quality of life by making sure that social programs (like health care, free school lunches, Headstart etc) are fully funded to meet the developing needs of children AFTER they're born.

It's like all most of the anti-choice people care about is getting the child born - screw what type of life the kid has after they're born.

To me, that's the height of inconsistency.

If people TRULY care about the sanctity of life, then they would PROTECT LIFE AFTER IT'S BORN.

And many of these same folks support the death-penalty(the taking of life) and a lot of them do not want the U.S. to give money in foreign assistance to poor countries, even if that money will save the lives of poor children overseas!

To me, until one becomes an advocate of the sanctity of ALL life and actively works as hard to protect it OUTSIDE the womb as you do inside the womb, your position is riddled full of holes.

Either protect everyone's right to life or don't be so moralistic.

So the alternative is to kill them? You accusations of inconsistancy and TRUE respect for life are horribly inconsistent by themselves.

 

[iacrobat]

thecraic,

Are you really comparing all the people who have abortions to Hitler?

 

[U2Kitten]

Nothing makes me sicker than the term 'anti- choice' If you don't support everyone's right to do everything, you are anti-choice. As you, Jamila, say many people who are against abortion don't help the kid its whole life, there is hypocrisy in the term 'pro choice' too since most people in favor of abortion on demand are also pro gun control (anti choice for guns!) anti smoking (anti choice on cigarettes!) and other such things. I detest and refuse to use the terms 'pro life' and 'pro choice' because they are only rhetoric hiding what abortion really is. I believe in the terms pro and anti abortion, and if you are uncomfortable with those terms maybe you need to reconsider your position.

 

[thacraic]

thecraic,

Are you really comparing all the people who have abortions to Hitler?

Eh no... In fact I don't know how you came to that conclusion. My point was based on the idea of it being "OK" to abort a child because they may have some sort of defect.

I am saying Hitler killed off people that were profoundly retarded and physically impaired because they had nothing to offer the world and vice versa.

I am saying that same mentality goes into thinking a child that is in the womb and is found to have defects of any kind should or could be considered for an abortion.

In essence I see that as one saying, because they have no use in the world and they won't have a full life because of their challanges, that aborting that child would be better for the state and for everyone else involved.

Comparing everyone that has an abortion to Hitler? Huh? Sorry the more I think about it, I really don't know how you got that out of what I posted. Maybe its my poor writing skills. Dunno...

Carrie

 

[thacraic]

I believe in the terms pro and anti abortion, and if you are uncomfortable with those terms maybe you need to reconsider your position.

Agreed....

 

[nbcrusader]

thecraic,

Are you really comparing all the people who have abortions to Hitler?

Hitler sold the idea of killing Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. with the sick notion that these groups of people were somehow less than human.

Part of the abortion debate hinges on the notion that the unborn child is somehow less than human.

We should be able to address this concept.


Drawing the connection to Hitler is just tossing gasoline on an already hot topic.

 

[Muggsy]

from my point of view, women have the right and the obligation of take care of our bodies according to our individual way of life.
as an adult woman i think that is a lot easier to buy a condom or a box of pills than abort a child.

abortion is illegal here, in colombia, but the cases of young girls getting pregnant are more each day and usually those girls receive punishment from their schools (many of them expulse the girls) and the society. some of them go to clandestine places to kill their babies and they get sick or die. But, i wouldn't consider abortion as an inmediate solution, first boys and girls have the right to receive a good sexual education and they need to learn how to take care of their bodies and their souls. Adults (parents, teachers, etc) have to respect, protect and educate the young ones.

I think that abortion is the consequence of a lot of problems inside society: sexual violence against women and children, chauvinism, double moral, a poor sexual education and lack of respect to the human life. sadly, abortion will be still an option until that problems get solved.

 

[thacraic]

Hitler sold the idea of killing Jews, gypsies, gays, etc. with the sick notion that these groups of people were somehow less than human.

Part of the abortion debate hinges on the notion that the unborn child is somehow less than human.

We should be able to address this concept.


Drawing the connection to Hitler is just tossing gasoline on an already hot topic.

Well I seem to be proficent at fueling the fire. My first post ever on interference added to a certain debate....

OK, I don't think its right to abort for any reason, at any time during a pregnancy. I believe life starts at conception and I think people here probably gathered that already?

As far as determining that a child has birth defects, that test is usually performed shortly after the first trimester has passed, so I think even by the medical world's definition, at that stage it is considered human. (I really don't know though....).

I think it is clear what I am trying to say with the Hitler reference. Viewing a child that will be born with defects as a candidate for abortion is the same as saying that it doesn't have a reason or a purpose to exists. This is addressed to those that say abortion is wrong but in cases such as the one I have been discussing, an exception is made.

Carrie

 

[namkcuR]

I feel the need to add onto my previous post, in which I declared my strong view that the government need stay the hell out of the womb. Here's the thing: Even if abortion were to be made illegal, large amounts of women would STILL get them anyway, except they'd be getting them from illegal, less dependable sources, and as such will be risking their health far more than they put be in a legal aboriton. If these women are going to get abortions either way, then it needs to be kept legal so at least they are alive and well afterwards.