Based on my personal opinion, I genuinely believe women should be able to make full decisions regarding their body, including what they are going to go through and the circumstances in place.
Some were probably not ready to become a mother or to become pregnant.
However from my ethical perspective, I think as long as the fetus does not have a consciousness, it should never be considered as ending a life. I don't think anything is truly "alive" if it can't experience consciousness < which a fetus can't.
First, I'll start off by saying my opinion on the subject has been labeled 'useless,' especially by a few of my female friends, wholly based off the fact that I'm male and cannot get pregnant so my opinion is pointless. However, I think everyone needs to be able to agree on what's right or wrong because there's men out there who vote based on their own biases.
I will always support abortion in whatever form is necessary. Mother's health at risk? Go for it. Mother doesn't feel ready? Go for it. It's better to be ready for a kid than to be forced to give away your life for one you didn't plan on.
I do think contraceptives should be taken more seriously, of course. And I don't think people just get abortions because they're easy cop-outs, that stuff is not a fun process and more of a last resort. Between hospital bills and rabid conservatives bitching at you every step of the way, it's safe to say abortion is already mentally taxing enough.
People who decide to get them need to feel safe to do so, not to be slut-shamed or anything of the sort. As for the cut-off time (for instance, third trimester or first breath) on when abortions become "unethical," I think that decision should be left to the ones who are able to even give birth, as well as people who used to be able to give birth.
As for fathers who didn't quite want an abortion, well, it's still not fair to force your partner to go through with something life altering even if you wanted a child. This should have been discussed before raw-dogging, as well as keeping an open mind that people can change their minds when fully faced with a daunting life path.
Abortions are fine with me and people who can or used to be able to get pregnant need to be the ones determining what they find ethical without being bashed for promiscuity or differences in religion. I will say, though, I don't think men's opinions should be thrown straight out the window, unless they're just being ignorant or uncivilized about it. That being said, I understand someone skipping over all of this because I am a blue account. There's been enough gender war already.
I am not either-or regarding abortion. *I hold that abortion-at-will for convenience should be disallowed insofar as the unborn infant was conceived by legal, willing (at the time) partners. However... *I hold that (as a concession) a standard must be set in a non-political way to determine when an unborn infant acquired a sufficient degree of human functionality that abortion should be denied. Some states are using a heartbeat standard. Brainwaves might also be considered. *I hold that the primary purpose of reproduction is to perpetuate our species in a healthy, viable condition. There are times that an infant is affected by genetic errors that would likely contaminate our species. Spina Bifida is one of these. *I hold that certain identifiable non-genetic malformations that would contribute to an infant having a short, painful, non functional life and which would present an excessive burden to individuals, families and our culture in general. Thalidomide babies out of the 60's are examples. *I hold that modern medicine is or will be able to detect the basic functionality threshold, compelling genetic defects and physical malformations of an unborn infant such as to provide for termination of pregnancy in advance of the threshold of functionality such that pregnancy termination in advance of human functionality and due to genetic defects and malformations is indicated.
In our past, babies made the conventional way, regardless of the reason (including rape or incest) likely went to term and became functioning members of the tribe or village. However, babies born malformed for whatever reason were "carried to the river" or abandoned. In some places, they still are.
But modern society is presumably more humane and can apply its resources to manage the issue of abortion in a civilized manner. So the framework if "I holds" above is my best effort to get a handle on abortion. I know there are "buts", "Whatabouts" and name calling that I have no interest in. Say what you wish but this is not an invitation to dialog. It is one man's view on how to resolve the issue and you are just as entitled to yours.
Yes because sometimes that kid generally is better off dead. Like I would have been happy to be aborted and not been brought into this shit hole but sadly my parents had me to selfishly try to repair and love them because their own parents didn't. Shitty parents shouldn't have kids but many do. I think it's ethical because honestly who wants to be born to broken or poor people? No one.. trust me lol.
Ethical as dumb woman forgot to take pills or whatever or dumb men forgot to wear condom or it broke etc. stupid people without brains can do stupid things. Better to be smart and not have a kid who will regret to have their stupid parents right? I mean who likes to be called "hey I'm a bastard born out of wedlock?" You know what's the meaning of "bastard" right?
There are legitimate reasons to be against and for abortions, which sounds like a politician's answer, but it is where I stand. You are taking a human life, and depending on how reckless you were, it is your fault - not the baby's. However, you would be forcing the baby to either be put into the system or raised by parents who are too unready to give it a decent upbringing.
For me, it is why I refuse to sleep with or seriously date woman unless I am at least 50% sure that she would be a good mother. It makes dating difficult, but I experience less stress with that 😂
I see your point, however the question becomes on what you define as "human life" if a fetus is incapable of experiencing consciousness or self-awareness, how can it be considered "alive"?
@Thecuriousbird Because consciousness is an emerging aspect of a newly forming human being. And this, I think, really is the most difficult aspect of the whole abortion issue: What is the definition of life? Moat religions, if not all, will say at conception. For those who aren't religious, it then becomes a challenge to determine the answer to that question.
I'm not someone to get in the way of what women should do with their bodies but i also don't want them trying to butter their way out of the fact that they are still killing a kid because the facts are that if they didn't intervene that process then a child would be born, which is wrong when compared to respecting life, so where i stand is your body your choice indeed but you still made a selfish decison to put your own comfort, fear of responsibility and relief of rejecting responsibility over another life, which in a way makes you a different kind of murderer because the kid is dead, they won't exist, and you made that decision knowing this would be the exact results, you also put your own reasons over that life and made the choice to end that life, the only difference is that you don't cut it up yourself but you helped it get cut to pieces, when you had the power to give it life.
But how are they "killing" something that is not even alive yet? The fetus has no consciousness nor self-awareness, how can we consider it "alive"?
If you still hold to your perspective, Could the same be said for men when they ejaculate outside the purpose of reproduction? Which is still a destruction of a cell that could integrate to become a human being?
In ways wasting seed has its similarities but we don't feed our seed and our seed outside of an egg doesn't have any hopes to live and even compared to the natural design of how reproduction works, around 399trillion cells will die when successfully reproducing, which is where all the differences start to come to surface because every man has the requirement in quantity to impregnate every woman in world with just one ejaculation, many times over which shows an impossibility of saving all that life but yes at the end of the day it's still life that had a chance of living even if those chances are 0.000000000000000001%
But there's a difference between that and a life you have already been feeding for a few weeks before you even realize it's there, not just feeding but keeping alive, if it's eating then it's alive logically isn't it, things that aren't alive don't eat, even the things that are alive and don't have mouths eat, like plants, feeding is a part of life, it might not have a consciousness but that's where the fucked up comes in cause the woman is supposed to think for it to keep it alive until the fetus can do it itself, and let's say it wasn't alive, even then, you believe that ending that process knowing damn well it will be life is a loophole to make it valid cause thats fucked up, it's like you had a winner lotto ticket and you knew it and before they call the last number i ripped and burned your ticket destroying the existence of it, does that change the fact that it was a winning ticket and that you would've won, does it remove the fucked up out of it? What about if you were baking a cake and had it in the oven, baking, before it was done baking I grabbed you soon to be cake and threw it on the ground and stomped on it, would that change the fact it was going to be a cake? I still fucked up your cake, you still say I fucked up your cake, not that I fucked up your bowl of dough and ingredients.
Abortions are ethical only where PRE-coital contraception is unavailable. Laziness and apathy-in-planning are most often the cause for unplanned conception... ou DIDN'T just "happen to fall / sit upon" an ejaculating male erection! ... while the allure of physical sensation of the immediate moment is the primary 'seductive' motivation, ... that's NO excuse to be blinded to the long term potential consequences of potentially-fertilizing conception~
For me and only me. I am 100% pro life . Depending on the situation.
And if I was walking past an abortion clinic and a woman was trying to get into the clinic and was being bullied or hassled by people standing out front of it. I would walk in front of that women and take her to the front door to get her into that building if that's what she wanted
I don't think anybody has the right to tell anybody what they can do and what they cannot do with their body in their situation at any moment of time
That is something between them and their God and nobody else
Nobody knows the circumstances are the things that have happened
It is morally dubious to me and I think it is a moral responsibility on both guys and gals to avoid the necessity. Birth control is not difficult.
Pragmatically I don't want to put myself at risk of STDs or child support payments. Women do baby trap so I will protect myself against that as well. In any case St Johns Wort contracts oral.
Using abortion as a back birth control is wrong to me. And it is an expense to the public purse when it should have been a private expense for private pleasure. I don't know if abortion is seen as the primary method of birth control by some but I would hope not.
I accept first trimester abortions as that was the compromise reached in my country and the politics has been long done and dusted.
It wasn't within a Federal gov't power but was a state power. The states harmonized their legislation on abortion so it is the same everywhere. Easier for us as we only have 6 and you have 50.
Perhaps unethical in the sense that doctors take the Hippocratic Oath or the Oath Of Geneva which requires doctors to foreswear harming patients (there we go again about if a fetus is a true person !!!), but ABSOLUTELY ethical in the sense that a woman's health could be risked by a pregnancy.
Abortions are a choice, this is something only the mother can decide. For example, if she chooses to have the baby grudgingly, this is both unethical and unfair to the child. Perhaps abortion would have been better. Most importantly, I do not think it is right for anyone to judge or influence the mother on whether or not she chooses to have an abortion.
We can test your words after birth. "Abortion of toddlers are a choice, this is something only the mother can decide. " it doesn't work because of victim
First of all, using abortion as a form of birth control in stead of being responsible for you actions is wrong! I am not talking rape, incest or mother’s health. I am talking about girls who have had three or four abortions to get rid of the pregnancy instead of taking the morning after pill and then months later gets pregnant again. As for law, I think it should be in the states hands not the federal government and if a girl wants an abortion then she should pay for it herself and not with my tax money. The government doesn’t pay for a guys vasectomy.
Any situation where a choice is forcefully taken away from someone else on a massive scale never ends well and can never be ethically justified without saying this specific group of people is somehow less than human and thus less deserving of the right to make choices.
We have lots of nonsense laws, but the law is very practical in this topic. 3 months is given. After three months that woman will have to go to jail along with the doctor, nurse and staff on charges of murder if there is no medical emergency. In our culture, it is believed that after three months of conception, consciousness comes.
I don't see it as their body but what is inside their body attached to it. It is not a parasite, it's a forming human. They do have domain over that which is inside of them. I do not!
It's a huge responsibility and blessing and etc.. sometimes it's too much.
Ethical... I recally don't know what to think about the question...
I'd much rather see the energy moved into a domain that has a positive effect on change for life, rather than continual spin.
Ethical, because a woman is a person. A non-viable fetus is not. Abortions after 12 weeks are rare. Abortions after 24 weeks don't happen except in extremis -- the fetus is not viable or the mother's health is in serious danger.
It’s unethical , but sometimes it is a necessary thing to do in certain situations and even if it seems like a bad thing to do, it’s still the woman’s body that it’s happening to and she should have a say in it
Ok geniuses explain me this. If there is a car accident and pregnant woman loses her baby because of it. Then the person who caused the accident will be charged for murder/manslaughter. But woman can kill her baby (abort) anytime she wants - then its not a murder.
1) it’s inside a woman’s body. Everyone gets to determine what stays or goes for their body. 2) 99% of abortions happen with a pill and within the first 15 weeks. When it’s a bean sized fetus. Logically, that’s not a baby. 3) we unplug coma patients with more personality than fetuses.
In my country or even locally the laws here have had abortion legal for many years - the US is likely a different ballgame given its got states and territories laws just like we've got states laws and federal laws here - varies
It depends on how you define "kill" at this point, the fetus was never alive to begin with, it had no consciousness whatsoever. It'd be similar to say, deliberately destroying sperm by any means is like killing or ending a life.
So based on your logic, sperm is alive and conscious too. Does that mean we should hold men accountable for unnecessary ejaculations that are done outside the purpose of reproduction?
So when men destroy their sperm by any means, they are destroying "living beings" based on your interpretation.
A tree can be considered "alive" depending on how you define "aliveness", one way or another we can't say a tree can experience consciousness and self-awareness in the same way that human beings do, so the "aliveness" of a tree differs fundamentally from the "aliveness" of human beings.
We know that bacteria, viruses and other microorganisms are "alive" too, but we acknowledge that their aliveness is distinct from humans and animals.
This aliveness differs in terms of consciousness and self-awareness, all of which is related to the brain.
I could see where your argument was going far before you made it, so I answered beforehand and I'll do it again;
The same principles doesn't apply when it comes to a fetus and related microorganisms, if you use hand sanitizer, you are killing millions of bacterias, if you drink alcohol, you are killing bacteria too, these microorganisms that we consider "alive" so should you be considered a murderer?
Similarly, a sperm cell can integrate and become a human life, if you destroy it, are you ending a human life?
A sperm is not a human life. It will never grow into a human alone. A fetus is a human life. It has a distinct human genetic makeup that has never existed before.
A sperm will never grow into a human alone, that is why I mentioned that a sperm cell will "integrate" into a human life, this sperm cell however, has its own unique genetic characteristics, so each sperm has its own, so it doesn't matter whether or not it was going to form into a human being, as soon as the sperm cell is gone that genetic characteristics it was carrying will be destroyed and will not form again
By that, the sperm cell could in theory become a unique human life if it entered the ovum, but instead it was destroyed and so was its unique genetic makeup, this implies that it doesn't matter whether or not it became a fetus, the sperm cell's unique genetic characteristics doesn't exist anymore because the sperm cell was destroyed, so just because "it can't grow into a human alone" doesn't mean that it is ethical to destroy it because it still "could" become someone, and that "one" is gone forever.
That is right, because how else is it going to enter the ovum if you destroyed it? So by that it should be unethical for men to have any kind sexual activity leading to orgasm if it weren't for the purpose of reproduction only, because you'd be giving no chance for the sperm cell to reach the ovum and integrate into human life if you destroyed it at any point within time in the first place.
"If it enters the ovum" the "if" is a point given in time.
Thus, in order for the "if" to exist, men should not have any orgasms and possibly be charged with murder if they ejaculate outside the purpose of reproduction.
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
