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

[Scott1]

In my opinion, if someone is unable to accept the morality of killing a newborn then they have no business supporting abortion. If they are able, well...I wonder just what they mean by the word 'morals'.

Perfect.. well said James. Frubals to thee!

 

[Ryan2065]

Whoops, voted for the 3rd trimester, thought it meant 3rd week.

My view is that the baby should be allowed to be aborted up to when the babies heart beings to beat regularly. This is in the 6th week usually (5th week the heart begins to beat, 6th week it beats regularly with rhythm.) Before then I do not think the fetus is actually alive, I don't believe it has any feelings or thoughts or emotions or anything of the sort, and therefore it can be aborted.

 

[Aqualung]

This is my view. To ask, "why shouldn't the mother be able to decide" is like asking, "why shouldn't I be able to decide if my next door neighbour lives or dies?" The answer is, because it is his life, so his opinions about it come before mine. You're not asking the baby if it wants to live. Most of the time, the answer would be yes. By aborting a baby, you are taking its life into your own hands, instead of letting its opinions overrule yours. And since I think life begins at conception, there is no point at which an abortion is okay.

 

[michel]

This is my view. To ask, "why shouldn't the mother be able to decide" is like asking, "why shouldn't I be able to decide if my next door neighbour lives or dies?" The answer is, because it is his life, so his opinions about it come before mine. You're not asking the baby if it wants to live. Most of the time, the answer would be yes. By aborting a baby, you are taking its life into your own hands, instead of letting its opinions overrule yours. And since I think life begins at conception, there is no point at which an abortion is okay.

I agree in theory, but if there is a danger to the life of the mother to be, that would be the only viable reason, in my mind. ( I think I have become more polarized on this subject, since joining the forum).

 

[Aqualung]

I agree in theory, but if there is a danger to the life of the mother to be, that would be the only viable reason, in my mind. ( I think I have become more polarized on this subject, since joining the forum).

Yeah, I think I would agree with you there. If there is a danger that neither person would live, and by doing an abortion, at least the mother might live, I think it is a consideration after lots of prayer.

 

[jamaesi]

Why don't we just kill the poor and drug addicted? That way they won't have children they have to abort and we won't have poor or drug addicted people.

We could just sterilize them since you´re so against killing and death. : ) But, this is a slippery slope and I doubt we´ll ever start killing the poor. Is this logical fallacy the best agrument you can throw back at me?

(I also don´t believe that the drug-addicted have any business breeding- drugs not only effect their body, but the foetus´s too. I´d also say it effects their parenting skills.)

This is my view. To ask, "why shouldn't the mother be able to decide" is like asking, "why shouldn't I be able to decide if my next door neighbour lives or dies?"

Since when does your neighbor live in your body- or even on your property?

My view is that the baby should be allowed to be aborted up to when the babies heart beings to beat regularly.

Since when does a heartbeat = cognative thought? By that logic killing animals is a majour no-no, not only do they have a heartbeat but then feelings and thought- and they´re already born.

 

[drekmed]

i put legal to the 1st trimester. the reason ithink it should not be legal past that is that sometime during, but more towards the end of the second trimester the fetus becomes developed enough to survive outside the womb. while i would never want any woman that i got pregnant to have an abortion, and would tell her that, i should not be allowed to tell someone else that i have never met that they can't have one. and there are many different reasons to get an abortion, andthe 1st trimester is more than enough time to realize them and have the abortion.

drekmed

 

[Apotheosis]

Up until the point of birth, a fetus is simply a parasite on the mother, it is undeniably alive, having said that, so is a bug. Forcing someone to unwillingly allow a parasite to live on them for 9 months isnt something I for one will do. I love kids though, babies as well, but I believe that it should be the mothers right, and I believe instead of abortion, adoption should be considered, but I will not force anyone to give birth against there will. Babies cannot understand the idea of life, thus how can they consciouslly make a decision to eithee live or die? It is up the mother, simply because the baby is a parasite on her body, and likely on her mind as well, the baby cannot decide for itself.

 

[KirbyFan101]

Everyone here is allowed to have an opinion.

Why people feel that their opinion should inflict on the choices of others, I will never understand. For this reason, I really do resent people that are pro-life.

I believe in pro-choice. Do what you want to do, its your life. And yes, a responsibility as large as raising a child for 18 years should be made by the individual, not by some small minded catholic down the road.

Every time I masturbate, my sperm (and therefore, "potential people") are being killed. Why don't we outlaw masturbation, and protected sex, alltogether!

Think of the sperm, people!

 

[Ceridwen018]

Up until the point of birth, a fetus is simply a parasite on the mother, it is undeniably alive, having said that, so is a bug.

Some mothers consider their babies, toddlers, and even teenagers to be parasites. Are they allowed to kill their children? As for comparing an "undeniably living" human to a bug, well, I think that that one can explain itself.

The problem I have with pro-choicers is that many try to sugarcoat things and won't call them out for what they are, not to mention how inconsistent many are.

Forcing someone to unwillingly allow a parasite to live on them for 9 months isnt something I for one will do.

For every action there is a reaction. Sometimes that action is sex, and sometimes that reaction is pregnancy. Needless to say, these women aren't being "forced" into anything. They willingly had improperly protected sex. Its their fault, and it needs to be called by its true name.

I love kids though, babies as well, but I believe that it should be the mothers right, and I believe instead of abortion, adoption should be considered,

I absolutely agree! Adoption is a wonderful choice in many cases.

but I will not force anyone to give birth against there will.

Again, it may not be something they want, but it was in their power to prevent it. To make these women out to be helpless victims of a society that is forcing them to bear children against their will is pure propaganda. The truth is that they have a unique living and growing human inside of them which they wish to kill.

Babies cannot understand the idea of life, thus how can they consciouslly make a decision to eithee live or die?

They understand pain quite well. Abortion is often very painful for the fetus, which is one of the reasons why 3rd trimester abortion was done away with.

Either way, this is not proper justification for abortion. Many toddlers do not understand life and death either. Are mothers allowed to kill them?

It is up the mother, simply because the baby is a parasite on her body, and likely on her mind as well, the baby cannot decide for itself.

These things are no different for a newborn baby. This is what I'm talking about when I cite inconsistencies.

 

[Neo-Logic]

Jamaesi summed up my thoughts pretty well.

Basically, the mother has the choice and should still have the choice to abort.

Why? No mother is going to go ripping parts of her body out for entertainment nor will a mother kill her unborn fetus for personal pleasure. If one chooses to abort, there is a good reason, and using often insignificant reasons such as "getting back at the father," for example, is weak, in my opinion. The choice should remain viable and permanant.

Comparing the termination of a fetus, which mind you is still inside of the mother's body, to something such as killing a neighbor, poor, homeless, drug-addicted, and other types of vindictive killings doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe it's just me but the mother is carrying this fetus inside of her. Can you say the same for the other types of killings that some people have suggested thus far?

Oh yes, there is always that "you had sex, you pay the price" argument. As far as this is concerned, KirbyFan101 pretty much summed up my thoughts as well.

The question is, why do you care if someone needs to resort to abortion for personal reasons and furthermore would try to stop them which would achieve nothing but forcing the person to unwillingly carry a fetus for 9 months, thusly imprisoning them to 9 months of pregnancy without fully realizing the extent of the implications that the forced pregnancy will undoubtbly have on the mother?

 

[Apotheosis]

First, the fetus is a parasite, not considered, it IS by every definition I have come across. What is a human? The fetus is not a human, it is a potential human. It is often the "fault" of the mother when she becomes pregnant, but when a kid wanders into the street, do we just watch it and say that it is their fault if they get run over? It was within the childs power to avoid it, but he/she did it anyways. I will venture a fetus does NOT understand pain, it likely understands nothing, how can it understand pain without pleasure? My argument about the fetus not being able to make a decision was a counter-argument to Aqualung who stated when a fetus is aborted, it is an action in which the mother places her opinions over those of the fetus, and that the fetus can make a choice concerning life or death. Which it obviously cannot.

 

[Ceridwen018]

First, the fetus is a parasite, not considered, it IS by every definition I have come across.

"Parasite", as defined on dictionary.com:

par·a·site
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
2. 1. One who habitually takes advantage of the generosity of others without making any useful return.
   2. One who lives off and flatters the rich; a sycophant.
3. A professional dinner guest, especially in ancient Greece.

So it seems that yes, a fetus could be considered a parasite, but so could a myriad of other things. Namely, born babies, toddlers, teens, bums, handicapped people, people living as vegetables, the elderly, etc. All I'm asking is that you be consistent.

What is a human? The fetus is not a human, it is a potential human.

I will start by answering your first question. A human is an organism which is a member of genus Homo and especially the species H. sapiens. The way that we tell one human apart from another is most commonly through DNA. Every different human has its own unique set of DNA.

Thus, the fetus is human. It is a living organism which is a member of the genus and species Homo sapiens, and it has its own DNA which is not only different from yours and mine, but also different from its father's and that of the mother who carries it.

but when a kid wanders into the street, do we just watch it and say that it is their fault if they get run over? It was within the childs power to avoid it, but he/she did it anyways.

The reasonisng capabilities and overall knowledge of a child cannot be compared to that of a grown woman. When a kid wanders into the street it is either because they didn't know better, or because they just weren't thinking. If the problem was the latter, then it would most certainly be the kid's own fault, which would be excused by the child's underdeveloped brain which could have allowed him/her to make such a lapse in judgement. Basically, your analogy is faulty.

I will venture a fetus does NOT understand pain, it likely understands nothing, how can it understand pain without pleasure?

They do understand pleasure. For instance, many unborn babies can be observed sucking their thumbs and things of that nature. There's not a whole lot of pleasurable activity inside of a uterus though. As for the pain part, I thought you'd like to hear what a real doctor has to say:

http://www.gargaro.com/fetalpain.html

My argument about the fetus not being able to make a decision was a counter-argument to Aqualung who stated when a fetus is aborted, it is an action in which the mother places her opinions over those of the fetus, and that the fetus can make a choice concerning life or death. Which it obviously cannot.

Understood.

 

[Apotheosis]

First, I have not said any of those things could not be considered parasites.

Second, if we are going to use your definition of human, every cell has dna, thus is it considered to be human? Is my finger as much human as your complete body?

So the reasoning capabilities of the mother(or the kid in the analogy) play a large part in whether it should be forced to accept the consequences of its actions? I believe that any female who is having unprotected sex without the intention of becoming pregnant makes her judgement and reasoning a little faulty. Thus can they be blamed for their actions, which could have been avoided if they had better judgement, or reasoning capabilities? They cannot be blamed for their lack of judgement, which can be excused due to either their underdeveloped brain, or poorly developed brain.

As to the argument about understanding pain, I did not intend to give the impression they I didn not believe they could feel pain, just that they can not understand pain. There is a difference between understanding, and feeling.

I also did not intend to double-post, my apologies.

 

[Apotheosis]

First, I have not said any of those things could not be considered parasites.

Second, if we are going to use your definition of human, every cell has dna, thus is it considered to be human? Is my finger as much human as your complete body?

So the reasoning capabilities of the mother(or the kid in the analogy) play a large part in whether it should be forced to accept the consequences of its actions? I believe that any female who is having unprotected sex without the intention of becoming pregnant makes her judgement and reasoning a little faulty. Thus can they be blamed for their actions, which could have been avoided if they had better judgement, or reasoning capabilities? They cannot be blamed for their lack of judgement, which can be excused due to either their underdeveloped brain, or poorly developed brain.

As to the argument about understanding pain, I did not intend to give the impression that I did not believe they could feel pain, just that they can not understand pain. There is a difference between understanding, and feeling.

 

[Ceridwen018]

First, I have not said any of those things could not be considered parasites.

Ok, thats fine--I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. Although the word "parasite" has a very negative connotation in our society, I agree that all of those things can be considered parasites too.

Second, if we are going to use your definition of human, every cell has dna, thus is it considered to be human? Is my finger as much human as your complete body?

Good question. I thought about this when I was typing my last post, but I figured I'd let you bring it up.

A cell which contains human DNA is obviously a human cell, and also obviously not a complete human. Now, we could argue for a long time about what constitues a "complete human", but I would like to put forth the definition of, "A multi-celled human organism with numerous distinct tissues and functioning organs." Cells are what make up tissues, tissues are what make up organs, and organs are what carry out the different functions of a living body. Does that work for you?

So the reasoning capabilities of the mother(or the kid in the analogy) play a large part in whether it should be forced to accept the consequences of its actions?

As a person charged with murder can escape jail time for reasons of insanity, so should people in other situations be judged according to their mental capacity for understanding, yes.

I believe that any female who is having unprotected sex without the intention of becoming pregnant makes her judgement and reasoning a little faulty. Thus can they be blamed for their actions, which could have been avoided if they had better judgement, or reasoning capabilities?

In this instance the problem would not be with reasoning capabilities and overall mental health of the female, but with education. Should a grown woman in good mental health be held accountable for her pregnancy because she wasn't properly educated on the consequences of unprotected sex? I believe that the lack of good sex-ed in this country is a travesty. I also know that in the case of law, ignorance is not considered an excuse for offenders. I think that sex-ed needs to be more properly promulgated in this country, and when it is I think that ignorance must cease to be an excuse. Until then, it remains all too real.

 

[s2a]

Neo-Logic asked:

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

Fortunately, up to a (limiting) point, mothers do retain both the option and the protected right to terminate a pregnancy.

"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)"

Haw! Abortion being the number one "atom bomb" of divisive politics and culture today, and you simply "wanted to see" if anyone within a religious discussion forum just might be opposed to a woman's legal right to terminate a pregnancy?

C'mon.

Maybe tomorrow I'll attend the local NAACP chapter meeting, just to see if anyone there just might object to my shouting "n*gger!" at the top of my lungs...or just might be opposed to my right to say as much. Geez. What do you think?

Typically, I don't enjoin discussions regarding abortion rights because arguments predicated upon appeals to logic rarely successfully overcome arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion. It's very difficult to overcome objections about how someone "feels" about an issue.

To our sustaining credit, we are a society of self-governing people that establish secular law as neither favoring nor prejudicing any one individual's feelings or opinions; in order to insure universal applicability under law to all citizens. The commonly seen bumper sticker that states "Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one." succinctly summarizes the concept of secular law that imposes no personal burden of (moral) acceptance, but permits freedom of personal choice. Few would argue in favor of the ideas that government should impose (as a matter of law) that all married couples must procreate and deliver at least two children; or...that they may not procreate at all.
Why?
Because willful (or intentional) procreation is, and should remain, a matter of personal choice that no government, organized institution or individual (by law or force of will) should either mandate or eradicate.

If we can accept the notion that government has no place or purpose in telling it's own people what to think; how to feel; whom to love; or how to live...then we should certainly be able to discern and declare for ourselves as a collective and self-governing whole which laws and civic policies are reasonable, moral, and universally applicable without favor or prejudice towards any specified individual or grouping of individuals.

The crux of the "abortion debate" will eventually boil down to civil society definitively answering the question of "What is a person?"; not, "What is, or constitutes, life?"

Unquestionably, a fertilized ovum is "living human tissue", and therefore a form of "life". Such "life" retains the potential of gestating into a human fetus; and eventually, a fully grown and delivered "baby" (indeed, a "person"). But soon enough (whether collective society approves or not), virtually any human tissue will retain the potential for creating independent "life"...from hair follicles to fluffed off skin cells (any eukaryotic cell that has a full set of chromosomes).
What then?
What shall we as a society "protect" or otherwise imbue with equal rights and protections for "potential" persons? Why would a blastula or fertilized ovum have any less of a potential "right to life" than a toenail clipping, or some residue snot in a Kleenex?

And so, at some point, we are going to need to draw a very real distinction (by means of secular law and civil/social policy) between abject living tissue, embryonic tissue, and an externally and viably independent sentient and aware human being. All may represent "life" (or even the potential of becoming a "person"), but not all are "persons" at the outset.

Certainly today, as persons, we may all share equality under law, but we do not share (nor can we imbue or insure) equality of potential attainment or achievement in life itself.

As things stand, I prefer to defer to the properly established rights of living breathing humans to exercise personal choice, absent undue governmental intrusion...versus granting ubiquitous equality to any and all potential persons.

 

[Mister Emu]

Fortunately, up to a (limiting) point, mothers do retain both the option and the protected right to terminate a pregnancy.

Hopefully we can once again make this act illegal.

Typically, I don't enjoin discussions regarding abortion rights because arguments predicated upon appeals to logic rarely successfully overcome arguments predicated upon appeals to emotion. It's very difficult to overcome objections about how someone "feels" about an issue.

I must agree, thus the difficulties arising in a debate with pro-choice advocates.

To our sustaining credit, we are a society of self-governing people that establish secular law as neither favoring nor prejudicing any one individual's feelings or opinions

Are you serious? Today the feelings and opinions of the one/few far outweigh the majority.

The commonly seen bumper sticker that states "Opposed to abortion? Then don't have one." succinctly summarizes the concept of secular law that imposes no personal burden of (moral) acceptance, but permits freedom of personal choice.

And makes about as much sense as "Opposed to murder? Don't kill anyone." The government and law can and do impose morality upon the populace.

then we should certainly be able to discern and declare for ourselves as a collective and self-governing whole which laws and civic policies are reasonable, moral, and universally applicable without favor or prejudice towards any specified individual or grouping of individuals.

Laws are not, nor will they ever be entirely without prejudice nor favor towards a(n) (group of)individual(s). Nor should they be.

Why would a blastula or fertilized ovum have any less of a potential "right to life" than a toenail clipping, or some residue snot in a Kleenex?

It is not potential, it is actual. A fetus is a seperate and distinct human entity. It has a seperate and disitinct DNA.

As things stand, I prefer to defer to the properly established rights of living breathing humans to exercise personal choice, absent undue governmental intrusion...versus granting ubiquitous equality to any and all potential persons.

I agree, to grant rights to toenail clippings is absurd. Thus we should limit rights to distinct human life.

 

[jamaesi]

Adoption is a wonderful choice in many cases.

Except for the children who are never adopted, of course.



On the parasite "inconsistancy" whatever happened to personal responsiblity, eh? Pro-lifers seems to think pro-choicers have none. If you already had that child, then it's your responsiblity is to take care of it.

More seriously, the fetus is inside of the woman, a child is not. There's a difference, again. Killing your child for being a parasite is like the killing your neighbor for bothering you point- it just doesn't make sense.

 

[Sunstone]

In general, I'm more comfortable with individual women making the choice whether to abort or not, than I am with the government making a one size fits all law regarding it.