1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Neo-Logic, Jun 5, 2005.

?
  1. Yes, abortion should remain legal up to the 2d trimester

    17.3%
  2. Yes, abortion should remain legal, even up to the 3rd trimester

    15.4%
  3. Yes, abortion should remain legal, but only to the 1st trimester

    9.6%
  4. No, abortion should be made illegal because the fetus is a living being

    48.1%
  5. I don't know/others

    9.6%
  1. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade, abortions up to the second trimester was deemed acceptable by the Supreme Court. You'd think this would be a reasonable enough of a compromise as after the third trimester, the fetus is very close to an infant and thus morality is taken into consideration. Yet, there is still much opposition from anti-abortionists or pro-life groups advocating for abortion to be made illegal fully or pretty close to it.

    The only real good reason they would have is that the fetus is a living being and thus killing of it would be inhumane not to mention murder. The way I look at it though, not giving the mothers the choice to abort is the real inhumane course of action. I'm all for abortion. I see no harm in letting the mother have the choice of abortion if need be or the mother wishes it so.

    Just as a mother has the right to remove a tumor which is apart of her body at will, so should she the right to remove a fetus which is technically apart of her, as the tumor is. The difference, some would argue, is that unlike the tumor, the fetus has the potential to become a living thing. I've read many arguments on this and the one that makes the most sense is by this one guy whose name I can't seem to remember ... :149:

    Anyways, to paraphrase, he basically stated that potentiality doe not mean life. That just as one would not go and put steak sauce on a cow and try to eat it just because the cow could potentially become steak. At the same time, one would not try to plug the electric stove into the waterfall or a river just because that water has the potential to become electricity. :biglaugh:

    I don't know why anti-abortionists would even try to argue against abortion. Don't they know if they got their way, they would've esentially chose the right of the fetus over that of the mother? If one makes abortion illegal and in a sense forces the mother to carry the baby, is it not the mother who loses her rights? The mother then would have the carry the fetus for 9 months against her own will, giving up her way of life and the way she wants to live it. She shouldn't have to put up with incubating a fetus for 9 months inside her body against her own will, all because some thinks the fetus is a living being? To once again paraphrase the guy whose name I can't remember - just as no one is obligated by the law to jump into a rushing river to save a drowning person's life, as noble as it maybe, one also should not be forced to carry something inside her body for 9 months against her own will just so it can live.

    I wanted to see if anyone was against abortion and if so, why? (preferably besides the fact that the fetus is a living thing argument):)
     
  2. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,695
    Ratings:
    +1,597
    Religion:
    Christian
    A fetus is not a tumor.

    A fetus is a distinct and seperate life with his or her own unique DNA.

    It is not just potential for life, it is life.

    Let's see, maybe because we view the pre-meditated killing of an innocent unborn child wrong?

    Exactly. (pssst, that is why they are called Right to Life centers, I believe the right to life to be pre-eminent over a woman's "right" to comfort)

    This is a horrid comparison, on one hand we have apathy, on the other we have direct action causing the cessation of life.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  3. jeffrey

    jeffrey †ßig Dog†

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,366
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    I concur 100%. Just because my neighbors might upset me and crimp my lifestyle does not give me the right to shoot them. Responsibity. Abortion is a lack of responsibility. And the father needs to be just as responsible.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ormiston

    Ormiston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +165
    The anti-abortionists have a great hurdle to overcome. Abortion is legal currently. To try and take away peoples existing rights is a challenge to say the least. Violence is expected. Is there any argument that can sway those from one side to the other? If not, this is all retorical.
     
  5. jeffrey

    jeffrey †ßig Dog†

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2005
    Messages:
    5,366
    Ratings:
    +1,008
    Last I heard, the majority of people in America think abortion is wrong.
     
  6. Stormygale

    Stormygale Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2005
    Messages:
    224
    Ratings:
    +24
    My wife and myself are having a child here in a few months. Before hand, I was not that outspoken on it. But yea, if you screw around and get yourself pregnant, you should own up to it, and not take the easy way out. That's the whole thing with being consenting adult. What changed my life was the fact that I heard the heart beat, and realized, who the heck are we to go in and cut out a baby and throw it in the trashcan.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    Thanks for re-stating what I basically said the sentence after.

    For something to live and be alive, it has to be able to indepenently move on its own, detached from another living being, and self-sustaining for most parts. Of course there are some exceptions with the parapalegic and the handicapped.

    Oh, you mean the fetus which is inside of another actually living being? The termination of a fetus which is inside of another being is not murder. It is instead, the choice of the mother to do as she wishes, with something that is apart of her body. It is not seperate, it is not independently living inside her, it is feeding off of her. Putting it harshely, it is like a parasite.

    "Parasite: A parasite is an organism that lives in or on the living tissue of a host organism at the expense of it."

    Still doesn't really explain why one would give rights of a fetus when undoubtably condemning the mother to 9 months of labor and hardships if it is against her will. Sarcasm sure isn't doing it.

    "Cessation of " the supposed "life" which, lest we forget, is still inside of the mother, living off of her body and adding complications. These complications that comes along with the pregnancies are why only those(the mothers) who wants them go through with all the trouble to get a child. For those does not want to have a child and if abortion made illegal, forced upon them, it would be 9 months of burden.
     
  8. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    First off, congratulations!

    There is a big difference between a couple deciding (or even if it is a surprise) to have a child and those who never wanted it in the first place.

    Keyword there is consenting. What about pregnancies resulting in underaged kids from rape, molestation, and pregnancies in adults from rape and other acts of non-consentual sex? Surely these must qualify for abortion above all else.

    And who are we as a society, if we make abortion illegal, to decide for the mother that she has to incubate an organism inside of her body until birth for 9 months against her very will, undoubtedbly effecting her work and her very way of life? Lets not forget that it is she who has to suffer if it is against her will by having to carry a fetus inside her uterus for 9 whole months.

    Like a girl friend of mine once said, "of course the bunch of guys would think to make abortion illegal, afterall, it's not them that has to carry the fetus for hecka months " :biglaugh:
     
  9. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,695
    Ratings:
    +1,597
    Religion:
    Christian
    When your definition of life replaces the biological one, maybe you'll have an arguement.

    Yes, yes I do.

    I said killing(while I do believe it is murder, it is not so under United States law).

    That is what we are fighting against. :)

    I believe that has already been established.

    You are correct. The baby is completley and utterly dependant upon the mother.

    Because 9 months of "burden" against someone's will < a life. Legally it would be an even split if the pregnancy lasted 25 to life.

    Through personal experience neither does well-reasoned arguements.

    It is undeniably life. Well not under your definition, but if we all make our own definitions nothing would ever get done.

    I am sorry, but I feel no sympathy for someone who would end a life because of nine months of "burden".

    Edit:

    The only reason I could see abortion being viable is if two or more doctors agreed that both the child and the mother were 99% going to die.

    This is the last I can say on this as I can already feel my emotions roiling underneath my natural congeniality, and I do not wish to say anything cross.
     
  10. Ormiston

    Ormiston Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2005
    Messages:
    1,348
    Ratings:
    +165
    And what they say, think, and vote for are always consistent. Right?
     
  11. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,695
    Ratings:
    +1,597
    Religion:
    Christian
    Well okay, I will respond to this.

    Abortion to my knowledge has never been given to the voters, if it were it is my belief that it would be hugely lopsided, in the favor of life.
     
  12. Hope

    Hope Princesinha

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,363
    Ratings:
    +407
    Wow.....ummm.....wow.:help:

    Sooo.....babies are parasites, huh? It's a good thing most expecting mothers don't buy that---otherwise the human species would be extinct.

    Who's to say the mother's life is more important than the unborn child's anyway? If I recall correctly, every little girl that grows up, has sex, and gets pregnant, was once a fetus herself ( or 'parasite', if one believes that ). That's kinda what procreation is all about!

    If a young woman doesn't want to get pregnant, there's a much simpler solution than killing the fetus.......it's called using contraception, or, better yet, abstinence!!! Saying the fetus has no rights is only a means of letting the woman not be responsible for her own actions, as someone else pointed out. I would say abortion is only jusifiable in extreme cases, such as rape---though, even there, that life, though conceived through horrible means, is still precious.

    I will never understand the pro-abortion stance. It throws morality and decency right out the window.........:rolleyes:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,157
    Ratings:
    +37,806
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    First, it's not the "pro-abortion" stance, but the "pro-choice" stance. Very few people, if any, are pro-abortion, and characterizing the pro-choice position as pro-abortion is just as misleading as it would be to characterize the pro-life position as "anti-choice".

    Second, there are very few moral issues on which there is universal agreement. Competing views are usual, not rare. If you cannot understand both sides to any moral issue, it is perhaps because you have not looked at both sides fairly. Just an observation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Mr Spinkles

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    12,683
    Ratings:
    +3,065
    Exactly, Hope. Sorry, but just because children (yes, even after they're born) are entirely dependent upon their parents for sustenance, that does not mean they are "parasites". I've never heard of offspring of the same species referred to as "parasites" outside the context of pro-choice rhetoric. :rolleyes:

    In response to the side-topic about what Americans believe about abortion....

    From: http://www.publicagenda.org/issues/overview.cfm?issue_type=abortion
    [emphasis added] Note that publicagenda.org is a nonpartisan site that's filled with useful information about lots of current issues.

    I voted for abortion to remain legal but only in the first trimester.

    I agree with a lot of what you've said, Mister Emu, but I think this position is extreme. By "viable" do you mean "legal," or by viable are you referring to that part of your own personal morality which you do not feel must be made into law?
     
  15. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,695
    Ratings:
    +1,597
    Religion:
    Christian
    My gender aside, :p , my personal moral conviction would never let me have an abortion. Were I of the feminine(sp) persuasion, I would not care how low the chance I could not kill the child within me. Legally this would be my stance, that only if you have two or more doctors saying that most likely both will die in the birthing process. I would wish that no abortions ever happen.

    The child of rape is not the rapest, and I do not believe that because of the circumstances of conception that you should abort.

    I also understand that this is an extreme position, and accept that many people will not agree with me.
     
  16. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    <sarcasm> Yea lets be selfless and give rights to the fetus and forget about that of the mother's. Heck, I'm not the one that'll have to carry it for 9 months. Afterall, she's the one that got herself pregnant, now it's time to pay the piper. Mistakes ... who makes those anyways? A second chance, what the hell is that? </sarcasm>

    Just thought I'd try a different way of getting my point across ...
     
  17. Caprice

    Caprice Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    58
    Ratings:
    +9
    "Why shouldn't the mother have the option to abort?"
    Why shouldn't the father have the right to say "hell no"?
    Why shouldn't the fetus have a right to it's own existence?
    Why shouldn't the egg/sperm combo be called human?

    I really think this entire argument is moot, no one will ever change their point of view, but I think at least my #1 question deserves a reasonable answer. If a man and woman copulate and concive and the woman wants an abortion and the man wants the baby, why does the man have no choice? The man put some effort into it, he should have some sort of rights too. Sex is a combined effort, not just one person is involved, thus the effects / consequenes of the act should be a combined effort.
     
  18. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    I'm a guy and for some reason, this made me laugh out loud, really hard:biglaugh: ...

    Seriously, how much effort do you think we put into ejaculation of sperm into a woman's vagina? We basically perform a single act and its the women that ends up having to incubate it for 9 months. That's however long it took for the man to ejaculate versus the 9 months that the woman has to carry the fetus until the time of birth. It seems really unfair, not to mention selfish, that just because a guy wants to have a child, he justifies esentially forcing the woman to go through with the pregnancy until birth with the fact that he basically ejaculated into her vagina and thus, did so much work in the creation of the fetus. Yea ... :areyoucra
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Caprice

    Caprice Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2005
    Messages:
    58
    Ratings:
    +9
    Glad you got a laugh, I figured someone would.

    I guess I just figure that once the woman chooses to have sex, the choice to have a baby should go in part with that. Of course, in cases of insest, rape, etc., that doesn't work and I see that, but when two people have consentual sex, both people are involved and thus both people should have a right to the baby if they want it. You speak of fairness, why isn't it fair for the other side of the relationship to have it's say in the matter? What about the fetus, is it fair to destroy it when it bears no fault in the matter, no responcibility at all?
     
  20. Neo-Logic

    Neo-Logic Reality Checker

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,223
    Ratings:
    +332
    Well Caprice, unless sex equate to a contract that the woman has to carry a child if need be, I don't see why the guy should have a say in it. He donates sperm in a sense, and demands the woman carry his child. The only case I can think of where the guy should get a say is if both couple had been trying to convieve and finally when they do (after much investment from the guy - financially and time wise - of course) the woman decides she wants to abort. This is often not the case. It's about responsibility, yes. But it's also about the work it would take on each side of the gender in order to incubate a fetus into a human being. The woman obviously has to do about 99% of the work with the 1% being the sperm the guy donates. If you want a 'fun' example, think of the disgruntled guy wanting a child as a stockholder with 1% of the company and the woman holding 99% of the company. Sure the guy would get some say, but in the end, it'll be the woman that ends up with the decision.
     
Loading...