Abortion

So fine, the woman can carry to term and put children up for adoption. Who, pray tell, would pay for the medical checkups, the labor and delivery costs, the vitamins, etc. while the woman is pregnant, if she cannot afford it?

The government, of course, in the form of WIC and medicaid. What would have been a $300 abortion bill turns into a medical bill that is at least $8000 (I'm using the figures from here).

And adoption isn't a good guarantee that the child will be taken care of either. If it were, the foster care system wouldn't be loaded with unwanted children.

You see, everyone says that, as if it's some magical fix and everyone walks away happily. Life's not that easy unfortunately. ):

The child COULD be put up for adoption. But then you have to worry, what about when the kid is older and understands that their adoptive parents aren't their real parents? And will the kid wanna meet their real mother (and father if he's still around)? And will the mother be responsible enough to want to be in their child's life at that point? All these questions in turn bring up sub-questions and concerns of their own as well.

Am I the only one who thinks it gross and utterly villainous to force a woman to carry several pounds of burden, be forced have trouble (and sometimes pain) peeing, then force said package through her vagooo - her most sensitive part - just because the state demands it?

Fuck it, it's not a person, it's just a collection of cells. A woman shouldn't have to undergo that kind of pain and suffering for some vague "inherent value of life" you crackpots ascribe to. Try delivering a baby first, or heck just carry it around for a couple of months... let's see how your tune will be then.

Not to mention other complications of pregnancy such as swollen limbs, hormonal swings, random food cravings, exhaustion, and even fatal conditions such as pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.

I watched my mum give birth to all three of my siblings. It's not a pretty process, and she almost died giving birth to my littlest sister because of pre-eclampsia. I would not force a woman to go through that if she did not choose to.

statistics place the number of abortions due to rape and incest around 13,000 of 1.3 million abortions. That's about 1%. Better to base your argument on something that isn't the rarest of occasions.



I am disappointed because I expected better from you. Apparently I'm an idiot for thinking people have a right to live. Going to call me a religious zealot next?



Am I the only one who thinks it gross and utterly villainous to arbitrarily end someones life because someone's convenience demands it?

"just a collection of cells" need I remind you good sir that you and I are "just a collection of cells" so, if that "collection of cells" doesn't have a right to live then I could justify killing you for my own convenience. I mean, you ARE just a collection of cells.

Let me ask you this Flaser (or abortion supporters in general). Do you have a right to live? Does a 18 year old have a right to live? How about 16? 8? 4? 2? 1? Anywhere along that line the right to live cease to function? I assume you'll say no and that they all have the right to live without being arbitrarily deprived of their lives. So where does being "a bunch of cells" become a human being? Is it a functioning brain? a beating heart? or does this "bunch of cells" only gain the right to live once it sees the lights of the delivery room?

Since it is just a "bunch of cells" do you support amending legislation so a person is not charged with double homicide in the case of a pregnant woman's murder? Murder by definition is killing another human being. It's illogical to charge a person with murder for killing "a bunch of cells"

Your argument FPOD is fallacious, because you don't make a distinction between a bunch of cells without any inherent function - what a zygote is - and one that has distinct characteristics that make up what we call a person.

I believe person-hood is established when the brain is formed. One could go into deeper arguments whether it need consciousness or experience to call it a person, however having a brain is pre-condition. So a zygote that hasn't developed to a degree where it has a brain can't be called a person... it's no different from any other scraping of cells you loose during a day.

Using your logic, I could argue that masturbation is murder, since thousands of sperms are wasted that had the *potential* to be a person. Any menstruating woman is also committing murder, as she just wasted the *potential* for her eggs to become a person.

Here's one more tidbit: a lot of pregnancies end is miscarriage and no-one are wiser as the zygote is expelled during normal menstruation. It's just a fact of life, that not all zygotes manage to embed themselves in the wall of the womb.

Whether late/mid term abortion kills a "person" is debatable... I have to agree to that, it's hard to draw a line when the fetus is developed enough to have a "functioning" brain...

...however outright rejecting abortion (except for extreme moral reasons) is just as, if not more abhorrent.

There's no valid reason - beside ones based on faith - that should prevent early abortions, as what you destroy at that point is no different from getting your hair cut or a teeth removed.

A zygote in the first trimester simply lacks all qualities that'd make a person.

Lol you simplify the process. You should realize a woman has to: feed two beings, stay healthy for both, carry regularly have doctor visits to keep tabs on the human growing inside her, DELIVER the damn thing into the world, and then go through the possible pain of separation/guilt for having given birth to it and then needing to give it away.

Abortion is a much simpler, more economic, and less emotionally upsetting processes when done early and correctly.

Fpod, I mentioned this in the other thread, but I do believe that fetal rights should not overshadow the rights of the already living, breathing person (woman) who is carrying said fetus. She has as much or even MORE right to live as the fetus, and if and her doctor believe that carrying the fetus will do more harm--whatever that harm means--than letting it live, then it's their choice to terminate.

Your argument is also fallacious by not drawing a distinction between different types of cells then running to the most extreme examples to try to disprove my stance. Seriously, murder for masturbation/menstruation? That is either the worst instance of trolling I have seen in a while or a misplaced knee-jerk reaction due to misunderstanding my own stance.

I believe life begins at conception and I see an embryo in the same light as one see's an acorn. While an acorn might not be a tree it is one of the stages of the cycle

Embryo > Fetus > Infant > Teen > Adult

Seedling > young seedling > Sapling > Tree.


To clarify, I reject "convenience abortions" which is an abortion as casually as you or I put on a condom. We have technology to prevent pregnancies and proper use of that technology can eliminate the need for abortions. If you choose to have unprotected sex and end up pregnant then I believe you should carry it to term. Sex makes babies, if a couple wants to reduce the chances of having babies, get on the pill, use a condom, use spermicide, vasectomies, etc.

I do however support abortions in the case of rape, incest and medical emergencies.

I hope you'll apologize for calling me an idiot.



You have failed to answer the question of where does right to life begin. Flaser has already stated his and I'm interested in your answer.

I'm not trying to convince either of you to change your minds as I know it would be an exercise in futility but, I am trying to show you the other side of the argument that doesn't revolve around chanting "God says so" to the rhythm of bible-thumping.

It's possible people would still be against abortion in the case of life-threatening danger, but I assume that a larger percentage of people would be for it in the case that every pregnancy had a high risk of death to the woman, but they don't.
If the fetus has even a slight right to live and the woman's life isn't in danger.
The stakes for a fetus and a woman are quite a bit more severe for the fetus.



Statistics aren't always the most reliable things. I also find it interesting that the study you read included incest. I'm curious as to if you would approve abortions if they had to be court-approved from rape cases (and/or incest)? You can say they are rare but you can't deny that it happens.
Oh hey you just answered it in a post you put up when I was typing this



It sounds mildly flawed to simply say all cells are the same considering the scrap of cells you lose a day won't turn into a person no matter how cool that would be.



It's better if people don't mangle each others' arguments like this. In a way the expression "potential" of life is flawed and you're pointing out a piece of semantics which isn't really an argument. It might be better phrased "The inevitability of life."



I find this a strange argument. Are you arguing that because a kid might not like the thought of being adopted, he or she should have been aborted?


Well, regardless, I'm fairly mild on everything, and I'm not necessarily sure if abortion should be generally legal or not. However, I do think it's possible I tend to have "pro-life" sympathies. I don't really care about the whole when does life start debate myself really. But I do know that it's possible that an aborted fetus is the loss of a potentially cool person.
Not necessarily a genius or some major figure, just a cool person, and that would be too bad.

That's the problem...almost half of the abortions done in the world per year are "back alley abortions": unsafe abortions done by unskilled people in places where abortion is illegal and in conditions that don't fit medical standards, like trying to dig the fetus out with a wire hanger and pumping toxins into the woman to cause a miscarriage. In fact 1 in 8 pregnancy related deaths are from unsafe abortions, and those who survive end up with long-term repercussions (incomplete abortion, infection, hemorrhage, etc). I could keep going, but i'm going to link the site where i got the info instead...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsafe_abortion


Don't get me wrong: i'm not against abortions, I just hate the fact so many of them are done without taking the proper procedures and in underdeveloped countries just to save money.

I admit that there are good reasons why people support abortion, but I think you're unfairly attacking the Pro-life people. By their opinion, it's murder, by your opinion, it's not. Can we just accept that we have contrary opinions on this, and not force everyone to believe in one side?

Just to say, you sound like you're against abortion in this (statement, that is, not overall) but this is actually an extremely typical argument for pro-abortion people.

The argument being, government approved abortions are likely to be safer than back-alley abortions that women are forced to when they aren't allowed a legal abortion (although not all would probably resort to this).
It might be a bit more expensive but in a way you could compare the mentality of saving money on an abortion to be the mentality of saving money on any other operation, so the risks don't really change at all if you're arguing that government approved abortions would be too expensive.

You said it yourself that they happen in places where abortion is illegal more often...Well basically I'm just a bit confused at what you're saying here.

If I misinterpreted what you typed (which wouldn't be surprising), sorry 'bout that.



Well...what are you suggesting to do about the issue then...?

I must also question those that speak of adoption like it's the end-all solution. If people are getting adopted left and right, why are there so many orphanages? Fact of the matter is, orphanages are underfunded and overcrowded. Unwanted children are being born at a much, much greater rate than potential goodwill adopters are appearing. Then what do we do about the children that are left unwanted and suffering in shabby orphanages that desperately need donations just to stay standing?

While I may seem harsh by saying abortion should be an option for unwanted children, I DO NOT MEAN THAT ALL UNWANTED CHILDREN SHOULD BE ABORTED. It should be only left as an option after CAREFUL consideration. Adoption SHOULD be considered the better alternative if the mother is WILLING. However, if the mother shows ambivalence towards the pregnancy and any possible future for the potential child, it would be better to abort for the sake of preventing another tortured soul that may end up doing more harm to society in spite.

Given the statistic (I wish I could dig it up, buried somewhere in my many Criminal Justice notes) of how many criminals in our prison system were from dysfunctional families or complete lack of, allowing government funded abortions could dramatically lower the cost of the over crowded prisons. The cost of performing an abortion as compared to a death row inmate awaiting death in prison (funny how these people had to wait decades before finally being labeled as deserving unwanted by society by government) is vastly cheaper by tens of thousands. Multiply that for each inmate that would end up on death row and the community saves trillions for the future.

Of course, not every single born unwanted child is a convict and allowing abortions can possibly prevent the birth of some potential Einsteins or Ghandis. However, I must ask this... were any of the great thinkers ever born as an unwanted child where the parents had difficulty feeding their children or lacked time to provide any attention?

So for the people that say that abortion is essentially murder... I agree... in the sense that we're taking away life. However, by denying this act of preventing life, we would, in my mind, be leading the potential people to a life of torture and pain and neglect. Admit it, when was the last time you thought about the suffering orphans unless you work there. By advocating against abortion, I believe it would be a step towards advocating for torture not only against the unborn but also to the ones carrying the unborn. Torture, to me, is the greater of the two evils.

As for


I sum my response in this manner:
"So simply because they were horny teens that didn't know any better, they deserve to have their future ruined by the tremendous burden known as a baby?"

Back to the topic: By allowing "pro-life" advocates to skimp out on paying for the lower cost of government sanctioned abortions, they would essentially be getting a free ride to a safer community. Imagine paying taxes for a more pristine park in your neighborhood, but your neighbor decides that, while he does walk at the park often, he doesn't want to pay the taxes for it because the park doesn't matter that much to him. While he's skimping out on paying taxes for the park, he's still receiving the benefit of a pristine park that his neighbors are pouring their hard earned cash for.

*Edit for organization and additional thoughts*

I think the abortion supporters should support abortion, while the non-supporters don't support it.

If the majority truly wants to support abortion companies, then the abortion companies will get support from the majority

Well I mean, you're assuming that just because of a higher statistical probability of being a criminal, unborn fetuses are criminals, which is a tad funny. I mean if we want to go into statistical probabilities there are many ways to reduce the number of crimes Minority Report style. You could discriminate against black people, who if what I've heard is right, are more likely to commit crimes.
It just seems a bit harsh to assume things about unborn fetuses like they'll be unhappy or in this case criminals based off statistics.



I doubt many people would say that it's fair that they would have their lives ruined but there are a lot of situations when a minor mistake ruins a person's life, like drunk driving.
You could argue that there is an easy solution to this in the form of abortion, to minimize damage, and maybe that's true.
You could also forgive the drunk driver to reduce the damage on their life?
I've always thought penalties for things are really harsh.
Anyways it's not like this is an appropriate comparison- there are many differences in the situations which I compared in drunk driving vs abortion, but it is still interesting to think about I hope.



Democracy pure and simple. That's one way to go about it.
Still, discussion is good. Stubborn, heated debate, maybe not, but discussion expands people's knowledge on a subject, even if it doesn't necessarily change their views.

The stem cells making up a zygote are not as special as you'd like to believe FPOD. Stem cells have the same genome as any other kind of cell. I specifically compared them to reproductive cells, as the later too have the ability to become a person, so they too are "special" in a way.

However I feel you ascribe a "magical" attribute to these cells - the "spark of life", instead a mere phenomenon of being able to diversify and and fill specific templates contained within the genome.

You also ascribe a significant "magical" meaning to the act of having sex. Even though today the same "magic" (or sacred act, or whatever value you ascribe to sex) can take place in a petri-dish and has in fact resulted in healthy people who were conceived this way.

During the process or artificial insemination, dozens of zygotes are destroyed. Yet I don't see pro-life people demanding an end to the programs, as these "create life", instead destroying it as they perceive it...

Whereas I see the bottom line not so different:
-Artifical insemination: dozens of zygotes destroyed, couple of zygotes implaneted... implantation often fails, leading to lots of destroyed zygotes.
-Abortus: destruction of a single zygote, preferably as early as possible to mitigate emotional trauma to the mother and medical complication from the process itself.

You also seem to ascribe an "absolute" morality to the act willfully having sex - if you have sex, you're bound to carry it term. Why? What inherent quality of sex necessitates this morality? We *do* have technologies that mitigate the risk of unwanted pregnancy and using those seems "fine" by your morality... why are post-coital measures - morning after pill, abortion - sinful by comparison?

One could only accept that logic, if the act of fertilization has an inherent "magic" to it... like God granting a soul.

However even that logic doesn't hold up when one examines the practice of what Pro-life people consider acceptable and unacceptable.

Preventive measures make the fertilization of the egg by a sperm unlikely... however some preventive measures don't work like that! IUDs work by preventing the embedding of the zygote into the womb! How is that different from removing the zygote before it can develop?

Haha, you replied before I finished my edits. Yes, I agree I made that fallacy which I corrected for later on. Not all unborn are potential criminals as not all black people commit crimes.



I too have felt that some of the penalties towards drinking and driving to be a tad harsh. However, comparison between the two cannot be made. For abortion, only one party involved and that would be the parents because the child cannot give an opinion. For the drinking and driving, the parties involved would be the driver and the ones seeking retribution from the damage.

I was totally trippin' 'cause you didn't do the quotes right and so I thought you had the exact same argument as me for a second there.

I'm not necessarily even commentating on just drunk driving, I think that the general concept of the court system is really too bad (although I offer no solutions to what I call a problem unfortunately). I mean, murder, for example, is terrible for the dead person, but it's also terrible for the murderer, and then their life is basically gone. In a way the law system makes it a, double homicide (hohoho).

My interpretation of what you mean by the two parties could be a bit sketchy but it's not like there are always ones seeking retribution in drunk driving (or all crimes just period?). I mean, what if you hit a hobo with no family on the side of the street? Society might even call him a leech, but you're still sentenced and it's still illegal.

Just giving some random other example situations, it's possible the father wouldn't approve of the abortion but the mother would, which begs the question of if the father has any say and what connections would be required of him to have any say if he could (testing if it's really his kid? Being married?).
Just a random thought actually...Maybe irrelevent.

Well, I'm not confident that my interpretations of what you're saying are strong enough to continue my thoughts publicly, so I'll keep it with that.
I myself said that the comparison I made was by no means perfect, although it may offer a bit of thought.

@Fpod: Everyone will define it differently. For me, the point where the fetuses' right to live is equal to the woman's is at the point when it is not wholly dependent on the mother's body to survive. Legally, according to Roe v. Wade, it's defined as the "interim point at which the fetus becomes ... potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." With current medical technology that point is at about 6-7 months. However, I quite honestly believe that the best people to determine that point of viability are the woman and her doctor--they are the only ones who know all the details and without them, we are just looking on the outside and judging. If the doctor and woman determine that even at 8 or 9 months, the woman will not survive if the baby is not aborted, then why are we not trusting that decision?

Now, a question for you: how would you regulate abortion? How would you know an abortion was done out of "convenience" rather than a "good reason?" Would that not necessitate government looking into each and every termination, and approving only those for reasons of rape, incest, and medical necessity and denying those that aren't? It would add another layer of governmental interference between a decision that should only be made by the woman and her doctor.