The Moral thing to do ~ Abortion

Oh my god, truer words were never spoken. That shit is sexy.

You also mentioned people don't have the right to decide who has kids and who doesn't, that's valid but I wanna say, there are a lot of people out there who indescriminantly have kids, and bringing a child into the world has much greater consequences for the world than people give it credit for.

I'm not sure if you were getting at laws in some areas that limit the number of children you can have, but I think those laws are a good thing; the world population is going up, not down, and certain resources will become scarce in a couple generations, right? I think it's time lawmakers started considering this sort of stuff.

I did a HUGE debate project on this back in high school. I was pro choice, alone, against a trio of bitchos claiming that babies feel pain before the third trimester (which is totally false). That was the main thing I remember. Oh yeah, and I got a C on it because the grade was dependent on the votes of my stupid republican classmates. Anyway, abortion isn't something you can classify as 'wrong' or 'right'. Each situation where abortion is considered an option is unique. If the two parents are not in a situation to deal with a child, they should not let the baby's quality of life be diminished by their mistakes. This is notwithstanding the need for people to be more safe about their sex. Also, illnesses such as Down's Syndrome give good reason for people to have abortions.

What is moral and what is not moral varies from person to person. People tend to forget this planet is over populated to already.. if the population continues to grow even the renewable resources we have will be pushed beyond their limits.

and what about rape victims who become pregnant due to the rape? Having a child is a life altering event..should they be forced into having a child? then forced to either raise it, or put it up for adoption?

the only side i can see of this where i can agree is if the pregnant party is doing nothing to prevent pregnancy from happening in the first place.

Think about it, what prevents killing animals or plants for resources we need(or think we need) from being immoral. After all their living things too.

Right and wrong, moral and immoral, good and evil. these are just words that are subject to each person to decide where it belongs.

As a woman I firmly stand for Pro Choice.

I can take labour pain, that is not my concern. However having a child before you are ready for it is one of the worst things I could think of. Think about it, you have to be a mother 24/7 no breaks no nothing, and in some cases- not even someone to help you.
If you are in school- that's it you cant go anymore, you can't really keep a job either (until the child's old enough for daycare). When you have a baby you are totally dependent. A child requires a lot of care and a lot of money. Another thing is stress, if you are not prepared for it, it can crush you.
And of course the child could be given for adoption but that doesn't always turn out as good as it sounds.

I think you are missing a lot by simply thinking 'Baby or No Baby?' The problem is much more complicated than that!

With pregnancy you have a choice to make, yes. The most important is to ask yourself "Can I really take the responsibility of raising and providing for my child?"

If I was to have a baby without being ready for it I would abort. I want my child to live a good life. I have the right to make that decision. I prefer to do what is best than what is moral. This might be completely selfish but if I am wrong then so be it.

As for rape victims- entirely their choice. I cant give an opinion because I don't think I could even begin to imagine their situation.

I have a million more things to say on the matter but I'll stop here, I think this is enough. Don't take this question too lightly tho. Having a baby changes a woman's life completely and permanently.

So what criteria would people use? Would you have to provide proof of income before you have a child? Screen the baby for potential health problems? Have to take a mental examination before a woman would be permitted to have a child? What about political alignment or religion? Some Atheists could make the case that Muslim and Christian families promote homophobia, sexism, racism, extremism,etc We certainly don't want racists or homophobes running around. The whole idea leads to a huge complicated mess because everybody has different definitions of who would be an acceptable parent.

Abortion facts.

For the second half of your post. I'm not promoting limiting the number of children someone can have as it leads to gross child imbalance such as with earlier China(not to mention it's a gross overstepping of the Governments powers by the constitution). Limiting the number of Children in western countries won't do much to curb the overpopulation problem. Mandatory "population controls" would have to be implemented in countries such as India and China. Most western countries have been on the decline in population by birth and only see their numbers rising because of immigration.

Well people have their choices, its up to them to decide what to do, you can only give them a little boost.

Abortion is only for those who aren't prepare to handle a huge responsibility to bear a child and make them happy. I don't say it okay to do abortion, it just that not all people can take the burden to care for a child. Either way abortion isn't with it side effect, it may lead to a life of guilt and the health of the mother who are doing the abortion.

It up to the mother to make the choice. So i vote pro choice, either way life isn't cheap. Make decision wisely.

Ok, hopefully I'm not being rude in quoting things out of order, you said a bunch of things I want to focus on separately.
To anyone who missed my original post, I suggested screening people before they're allowed to have kids and having caps on the number of children you can have, like in China (where overpopulation has reached breaking point).



I disagree, there are at least a couple widely agreed-upon definitions of what makes a bad parent, and that's what examinations would try to prevent. Now, the criteria on what passes and fails is difficult to decide on, but I think with careful deliberation an acceptable test and programs to assist those who fail could be developed... but probably not in America, because we have enough trouble coordinating taxpayers' money as it is.



I think screening for income is a really good idea, the standards don't have to be strenuous, but yeah, I think people who are jobless should be obligated to put their child in a foster home or something.
Screening a baby for potential health problems, I dunno if you're talking about before pregnancy or during pregnancy. Before pregnancy I'm pretty sure is impossible, you can't test until the fetus begins to develop. During pregnancy, I'm pretty sure every responsible couple already consults a doctor, I dunno what the cost for that is, maybe it could be subsidized or something
Mental examination for the mother, no. Psychological profile of the parents maybe, but those tests are expensive and require specifically-trained professionals who aren't available everywhere. At that, psychological testing would have to be concerned with the parents' ability to raise children, not the offspring's potential for psychological disorders (how a child turns out mentally is a wild card, you can't test it ahead of time).



Testing for political alignment or religion is retarded, I dunno where you're getting that from, there's no logical basis for any such test.
There's as much proof that a god exists as there is proof a god does not exist; no theological mantra, INCLUDING ATHEISM, has any say in how valid another is, because not one is any more valid than the next.
To your notion of preventing racists and bigots being born, there's a psychological principle of nature vs. nurture, and I'm pretty sure the verdict is that people are not born racist/intolerant, they become so. This sort of goes back to my answer for psychological testing.



I can't disagree with any of this, I need to research it some before I can give you a retort, but I have heard of the immigration thing, I forgot about that.

I would agree with pro-death if there were some mandatory procedure that all people go through at puberty to make them infertile. Think spaying/neutering, only reversible. When you want to have children, you undergo the tests, and upon passing, your operation is "undone" and bam, you're fertile. Go nuts.

Conceiving a child and then having it taken away from you could cause great emotional scars. Women develop a natural attachment to even the fetus. If the baby is taken away after birth, it's even more painful.

tl;dr - Not being able to have kids in the first place is going to upset people less than having your kid (fetus, whatever) taken away from you.

There is a lot of things that i dont like about abortion but there is always a plus on everything which is why its still around and still performed

Ex For Good
Might be dangerous for the mother host - old/badly sick

Ex For Bad
Abused for Welfare(US) - fuck all day and night, get babies and collect money

but its always up to the mother host to decide nowadays.

Im for it though since there is still people around that actually have a true need in this.

I said a good parent, not a bad parent. As i said before, everybody has their own definitions for what counts as a good or bad parent. If you need me to elaborate just say so.



Screening by income would institutionalize racist policies that unfairly target Blacks and Hispanics. As most poor people are either Black or Hispanic.

Screening for health issues; I'm talking about Eugenics. Where do we draw the line? Do we abort the autistic? What about physical disabilities? The list goes on.

I touch on why psychological screenings are a bad idea below.



Try telling Richard Dawkins or any other Atheist that they are wrong. Psychological testing can and will be used to screen out the religious by targeting their beliefs as "psychologically undesirable". Unless you can provide an example of how we would we screen people while leaving out political contamination.



This is why I want to leave psychological testing out. You're only allowed to have children if the political establishment allows you too. How are we supposed to keep political contamination out of the screening process? Lets say a person is Muslim or Christian and their religious beliefs are considered "undesirable" then they will probably be screened out. Thus discriminating against people of faith. Or if we have a religious administration or congress in office then the rules can be altered to screen out "undesirables". Imagine the Bush administration being able to select the "psychological profiles" that are allowed to have children.

All you are promoting is institutionalized racism and discrimination.



No need for research. China has a gender imbalance. Though China does not allow abortions which leads to natural births and the infanticide that results. Gender selecting occurs during late term which just about everybody except the extremists are against. This opens up legal problems of when are people granted their constitutional rights? Does a fetus have to make it out of the womb before it's legally protected from death?

As for the population controls. How can abortions in America or Europe prevents the over population in growing countries like India and China? That's like mowing your lawn hoping that your neighbors grass will magically be cut as well. The only way you'll get population controls in China or India would be to promote abortion there. Which will lead to gender imbalance as males are preferred in their cultures.

Final note: Do you not see ANY problem with allowing politicians to decide what the voting base looks like?

Edit: Just something I want to tack on. I'm all for offering financial incentives to low income women or women in general to freeze some eggs and then have their tubes tied. This only prevents natural births but, still allows for artificial insemination. I'm not sure if the process is possible for men but, still there are alternatives.

I'm Pro-Choice, definitely. A child should be wanted and loved, not some kind of sick "serves-you-right" punishment for teens who think with their genitalia. Of course I still think that abortion always should be a last solution, and that all life should be cherished.

But to make an input on the Pro-Death crowd: That is some serious bullshit, sorry. I can see the logic and reason in the arguments for pro-death. There are a lot of people who shouldn't be allowed to have kids since they either wont take care of them properly, or because they can't do it. The earth is over-populated as it is and we don't need more kids. But stay and think for a while, what would you say if someone told you that "Sorry, you're not allowed to give birth to your baby" by some reason?

A lot of the arguments that are Pro-Death are a little to cold-hearted in my opinion, even if they are actually "right"(As in reasonable). The thing is, people should try to be happy, and give their kids a happy life. And no-one has the right to say to anyone that they can't make their kids life a happy one. Who's to say that the white, rich, healthy kid will lead a more happy life than a poor kid born in the slums of Addis Ababa?

Directed at Penguin, quoting would be unnecessary
Alright, just to clarify, I've been talking about an idealized screening system, in perfect conditions that could prevent a few of the pitfalls you've mentioned, and I finally understand that it won't happen; it's only just hit me that the only countries that could successfully implement it wouldn't have the problem in the first place, and the countries that need it... couldn't and have more pressing matters to attend to. I see your points about government intervention being a lousy idea and population control being a worldwide issue we couldn't solve with the screening pipedream.


One last thing I want to say though, your ideas on political or religious contamination springing up in psychological screening... that's not how psychological testing works.
A psych test focuses on abstractions that have little to no relevance in real life; a psych test doesn't try to discern whether or not a person supports the death penalty, it tries to find and explain the aspects of one's personality/thought processes that drive his/her actions (maybe a strong sense of justice).

If you're insinuating that a psych test will react poorly to certain political or ideological attitudes, it shouldn't. There are professionals across to globe who work to develop tests that won't.
If you're insinuating that certain areas of the United States would use unfair testing methods, I'd like to think those are paranoid delusions, but I understand the concern.

Sometimes though, not every would-be parent can give a child a happy life, especially if they don't have one themselves. I'm pro-choice for that reason alone; you need good, positive emotions to raise a child. On the other hand, adoption is a good alternative. Foster care would be out of the question for me. I've heard, and seen, how must kids turn out when they grow up in a world like that.




I agree, but if you live in a money centered society, it's gonna make it difficult just to get by if you don't have a steady source of income. Capitalism has literally turned living into an expense, especially if you live in America.

Some people are just scum who dont care about their bodies or about the life that they carry within themselves and those people who do the QUIKFIT "Oh im pregnant again better abort this motherfucker" thing are just cheap and I dont like their way of living or their way of thinking about life.

But if its a "Shit I took precocions but..." then that fine. (Shit happens)

Another thing is if rape is in the equation, I think that if something of that nature took place then your allowed to abort that shit.

People aborting for economic reasons is just bollocks in my eyes. (Too bad for you you rolled the dice and lost now just have the damn kid)

If you havent guessed already... Im inbetween about abortion it all depends on the circumstances!

I agree, that is not how psychological screening works but, that is exactly how government works. Government officials will try to bend the test or appoint experts who lean their way. If they can't rig the test then they will throw out those tests and replace them with bias ones.



I'd also like to believe these are paranoid delusions but, it's not true. I pay a lot of attention to politics and those involved and I know there is far too many self serving politicians and too much corruption for "ideal" systems to work. Politicians and their parties want votes. If they can use social engineering to tip the scale you can bet your ass they will do it as much as possible.

I will compromise and say that I'd be fine with screening out people with mental disorders like schizophrenia and similar illnesses but, how many mentally ill give birth?

Edit: I would need to know the specific criteria they would use in psychological screenings in order to more effectively argue for or against it.

Taking care of children is like being pecked to death by chickens or maybe worse.

As people usually would say, a mother should not have to endure something she does not want; a child should not have to endure life from a mother who never wanted him/her in the first place.

Then again, a poor quality of life does not justify death.

IF you can keep the child, keep it. If you can keep your body healthy throughout the pregnancy, then give it to a nice couple who can't have children.

If you cannot raise a child because of not having the money, why did you have to have children in the first place?

Sure, there is rape. Who would want to take care of a child that would remind her how it was like to be raped? How would that feel? Don't get an abortion if you can keep that baby. If you can assure yourself to be healthy throughout the pregnancy, have the baby placed in those adoption homes. BUT remember this, there are so much children wanting to get adopted how can you assure your child would be one of those that will be adopted?

I feel like if your responsible enough to have sex, your responsible enough to have a child. But I do believe that if you were raped, then you have a liable excuse.

I do agree that if a mother is physically able to carry the child of a rapist, it would be better not to waste its life. It would be ideal to give it up for adoption. However, I can't imagine the psychological impact that delivering that child would have on the mother. :( She's obviously going to get pretty round. She'll have to tell her family, friends, coworkers, lover something. Maybe she'll tell them the truth and have everyone feel sorry for her and talk behind her back. Or she might lie and say the baby was planned, that her boyfriend is the father, etc. Many rape victims feel deeply ashamed about what happened to them, or they blame it on themselves, or they live in a society where the raped is more at fault than the rapist.

On the other hand, abortion has negative psychological effects too. Aaah, no win situation!

Also, here's another unrelated thing to throw out there: I have a history of diabetes in my family. My mother had diabetes for many years, and her disease was affected by her three pregnancies. When she was pregnant with me (I'm the eldest), the diabetes she'd had for years went in remission. When she had my sister, it came back. When she had my brother, it disappeared again and has stayed gone for ~12 years. This makes me wonder... I'm healthy now. If I were to get pregnant, would I develop diabetes? (I'm not sure on the exact workings of this, so forgive me if I'm missing some big thing.) Bottom line is: Would you carry a baby if it meant giving up your own health? I'm not sure I'd even want to have a planned pregnancy if it meant suffering from diabetes. :\

I just can't wrap my head around this. Do people actually think this way? Do some people abort just because it's "cheap".