Why I Struggle With the Abortion Debate

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Abortion is a really hard thing for me. I value human life to an extreme. Lock me in a room with a convicted serial rapist and convicted human trafficker, two of the actions I detest the most, with a gun saying, "Kill these two and you can leave," and it looks like I am staying in that room for the rest of my life.

I also think that even though a fetus may not be able to feel anything early on, from conception, theirs is a unique biological process. That defines them as being an individual life. If they die due to natural causes (deformities, autoimmune disorders, etc.), then that is a sad thing, but it's not anyone's fault. If left to develop, they will grow into a baby. Scientifically, it's a member of Homo Sapiens, regardless of birth.

That all being said, I do understand the terrible problems that must exist in a woman's life that she would willingly go to a clinic to have a fetus removed from her rather than at least go full term and give the child up for adoption. It must be a terrible thing to have to do, and I can't find it in my heart to condemn them for it.

I also have way too many problems with inconsistencies on either side. There are so many hypocrites, and logical inconsistencies.

The first big thing is that there are a lot of people on either side that don't even care about the woman. Yes, both sides. Many pro-choice individuals are pro-choice not for the woman's right to her body, but because they don't want to deal with the after effects of a child being born by a woman. Most of these individuals are men, but some women are this way.

Also, pro-choice advocates are almost always moderates or liberals. While there is nothing inherently wrong with being either, they often use science as proofs to explain their stances, which is by all means a correct way to use science and to obtain proofs. The problem is that they turn around and deny that by scientific standards, the fetus is a living member of H. Sapiens. You can't play with science like that. It's the truth and nothing but the truth. Your opinions are invalid if they defy science.

On the other side, too many pro-life individuals will fight and defend for the rights of a fetus, but as soon as the baby is born, could care less what happens to it. They fail to recognize the problems with living and raising a child in poverty, or that the current model for orphanages is still based on early 20th century practices.

In my opinion, the best thing that could happen to this debate would be for the development and refinement of Ectogenesis. For those of you that are new to the term, it is the science of raising fetuses inside of an artificial womb. Basically, the thought goes, you wouldn't need to kill the fetus if you could somehow safely move it into an artificial womb. The mother wouldn't need to carry the child, and her freedom would be undiminished, but the child could still be born (talk about a game changer for everything for women). At that point, abortion as it exists now would be obsolete and harmful.

I hope that you take a moment to reflect on my stances and understand why I have such a hard time with this. It's not an easy thing to make a decision on. All I can say for certain is, "Who am I to judge?" I can't judge anyone for their stances on this, because I understand both of the arguments.

[abundantlyrich]

You care ethically what people do is wrong. But you don't really know the reasons behind it. So i doubt you really care actually for people having to abort the baby. Kids are not cheap and they can be leeches in society if there is no loving family to bring them up.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

I don't know the reasons behind an abortion? That's a lot to assume about me. Is it because some girls get raped and get pregnant from it, and can't bear to live with that reminder in her life? Or is it because their boyfriend who "loves" them enough to have sex with them doesn't want to help raise the child? Or is it because the girl has sex with some stranger in a one night stand, and can't afford to raise the child?
I understand that there are a multitude of reason for a woman to have an abortion.
The one that is lost on me, however, is the argument that since they'll have to live in an orphanage and be a leech on society, they should be aborted. What I am hearing is that orphans are leeches and should have never been born. I understand that orphanages are not the easiest places to grow up, but to say they'd be better off never living in the first place seems a bit much. Maybe if they were being treated like Jews in concentration camps, I could understand, but not what I am hearing.

[abundantlyrich]

You are not responsible for those embryos and fetuses formed nor will you have a right to tell the pregnant ladies what to do.

If you care so much about why don't you open a centre to adopt their kids from them? 😜

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Given the money and opportunity I would.
And believe me, I would never tell a pregnant woman what to do. If they want to have an abortion, I have no ground to condemn them for it. It still doesn't make me feel good about it.

[nightdrot]

The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.

A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leave open the question of the value of human life. The value of life becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. That is a highly problematic foundation on which to build a culture in general and a legal system in particular.

In a society that says, in effect, that life has no value save that which each individual chooses to attach to it, that society is apt to find that many individual judgments will be distasteful, to say no more. Indeed, that is why at about the same time as the culture began to shift on the abortion question we also saw a rise in child abuse, spousal abuse, divorce, out of wedlock births and other social pathologies.

One cannot expect the society to absent itself from moral judgments and then expect morality to spontaneously follow. We shape our laws and then our laws shape us - see also the civil rights laws of the 1960s which have effected a revolution in race relations. (The idea that a black man and a white man cannot sit together at the same lunch counter is as alien to this generation as Neptune. Yet in 1965 it was pretty much the norm.)

Aristotle said that the first questions of politics are, "How ought we to live? What kind of a people do we wish to be?" The implicit answer of those who support abortion on demand is, in effect, that it is nobody's business. Predictable results to follow.

The pro-choice argument is that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. Therefore the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point. (Usually the first trimester - it being unclear what the moral or biological difference is between the last day of the first trimester and the first day of the second.)

Thus it becomes, in effect, an assertion of power over rights, and it is a very slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice. No protection for the unborn - and at the other end assisted suicide. The space for life grows narrower and narrower. Eventually so too will the choices.

[Curmudgeon]

I am hardcore right wing on just about everything, but not this issue. However, I certainly don't favor a morbid celebration of abortion. But I just can't compel a woman to bear a child she does not want.

I. Just. Can't.

And even the hardest core Republicans (that are left) in California tend to feel the same. This state did legalize abortion 6 years before the wrongly decided Roe case, signed into law by then Governor Reagan no less.

Just about all abortion is birth control, really. In modern medicine, no one has to save the mother's life that way. And that's how, in every case I know of, they were used. As the ultimate back up birth control, so as not to "ruin the girl's life" and send her off to college, rather than her suffering the fate of the underclass, or like that character in "Riding In Cars With Boys".

Adoption is wonderful for cute, cuddly, drug free and white infants. (No, I am not making racial judgments here, but hey, some orphan babies get snatched up more than others, and some races are more likely to adopt than others). I pity the crack, fetal alcohol and other druggie babies. That's two strikes against them at birth.

The pro-choice majority in states like California in my generation (and even more so among the younger generation) is easy to misinterpret, but it makes sense. Imagine growing up in a world that condones, nay, encourages, sexuality in your mid-teens if not early teens, yet makes family formation too costly and impossible until you are thirty--at best. Then imagine going through those two decades with few intact courtship rituals and no effective means of compelling a child's father to act responsibly. Imagine seeing how single motherhood essentially means hopeless poverty. Finally, imagine how creating a single parent child would be a chilling replay of what so many people from divorced parents didn't like about their own childhoods.

You might still think abortion is wrong, and you might never have one yourself. But you would be hard pressed to persuade your peers that their choice to abort reflects a selfish choice against family life. They would respond, "WHAT family life?"

[Laura_Marx]

yeah, this is a very good answer.

[flypaper]

@Laura_Marx
Great well thought out answer Sir.

[Rocket_Queen]

"On the other side, too many pro-life individuals will fight and defend for the rights of a fetus, but as soon as the baby is born, could care less what happens to it."

It's not that we could care less what happens to it. It's that many of your pro choicers want to try to make it our responsibility to raise the child and say things like "well how many kids have you adopted huh?" when it's their irresponsibility that created the issue in the first place. It makes me want to ask "well have many condoms did you use? None huh?" or "how many men did you bang? 25 huh?".

It's not that we could care less once the child is born, it's that, let's be real people, the majority of abortions are from people that are irresponsible. So we think they should be PROACTIVE instead of REACTIVE. How hard is it to be responsible?

Birth control pills, shots, insertable devices. Can't use those? That's often an excuse, well then condoms. Don't like the feel? Well get over it and stop giving sex out like candy and be prepared to be an adult.

Y'all hate me, comment how it's her body her choice, it's cool. How I'm ignorant blah blah. There is also another body and beating heart involved but call it a lump of cells if it helps you sleep at night.

That's my brutally honest thoughts. ✌

[schnipdip]

Amen sista!

[Rocket_Queen]

@schnipdip Thanks! I always feel like the only one with these thoughts on here lol

[schnipdip]

Me too. People today just can't grasp the concept of personal responsibility.

[Rocket_Queen]

@schnipdip Truth!

[bjjk067]

Its a lump of cells until about 3 weeks when it starts developing heart tissue. The picture of the fetus he showed is not okay to abort for me. Im pro choice and for abortion until it starts resembling a human instead of a cluster of cells.

[bjjk067]

*developing heart tissue, so it couldn't have a heart beat before then.

[Rocket_Queen]

@bjjk067 understandable, but most people can't even get a positive pregnancy test until they are 4 to 5 weeks pregnant, and by then, plus 7 days to think about what to do, they have a baby with a beating heart. I think anyone who chooses to have an abortion should have to listen to their childs heart stop and live knowing that they made that choice.

[FallOutBoy2001]

Just regarding your opinion, what if they've been raped, or if they've only been with one partner, used a condom, and it failed?

[Rocket_Queen]

@FallOutBoy2001 rape is something I think they should have a choice about. While hopefully I'm never faced with that choice, I would hope that if I were faced with that choice I would choose to carry my child because either way it is still half my blood. Would it be hard? Sure. But I would hope I would find the strength to carry on because that child is innocent. But as I said, rape should be a choice for others. As for a failing condom, I don't think thats an exceptable reason for an abortion. I think in sex there is always a risk of becoming pregnant and if you're going to have sex you should be prepared for the what if. And if we allowed abortion for someone with one broken condom it would just become the new excuse for people using abortion as birth control.

[FallOutBoy2001]

I wouldn't. Not because I don't value the child's life, but because many states allow the rapist to have dual custody of your child. I'm not going to expose my child and I to a rapist, and I feel that if the rape was especially traumatic, that I would struggle with living with the product of the rape. (I'm talking actual rape, not regret sex)

See, I don't agree with you. If you took the proper precautions, and still got pregnant (such as in cases where both birth control and the condom failed, which has happened) I don't believe that's your fault.

[Rocket_Queen]

@FallOutBoy2001 I can understand your hesitation about rape. As for the other while sex is definitely enjoyable, the bottom line is that it is for reproduction. So I couldn't support abortion for that. While that is unfortunate, I think if you're going to make the choice to have sex then you should be ready. And I think while burth control can fail, those numbers and a lot lower than the numbers of people who just got pregnant because they were in the heat of the moment. Only speaking for me and people I know, of the ones I know that had an abortion they were not using protection and some had multiple abortions. Of the few people I know who got pregnant while using birth control, they have beautiful healthy children today.

[Mayamoon02]

Its an incredibly personal and often spiritual time for a woman to be pregnant.
I feel the same as you in the aspect of placing extremely high value on life.
But it is very different CREATING LIFE inside you compared to ending someone elses life.

I am currently pregnant but did have an abortion when I was a teenager at 4 weeks pregnant.
I would not have been emotionally ready to be a mother. My body was rejecting the pregnancy, it was the worst feeling. I wasn't fit for it.
9 months is a long time and would have been unbearable. A baby doesn't develop properly if the woman is stressed.
Being a parent should be a welcomed privilege and not a circumstance.

I got pregnant again this time (both times unplanned) but I feel wonderful as if it was my destinity. The baby is healing me and teaching me beautiful things.
You don't actually feel a presence in your body till after a few months.
Many many pregnancies end im miscarriage before 20 weeks.

I can see and feel auras and I could almost feel my human arriving in the womb.
My baby's soul arrived around 16 weeks.

This is why I don't think men or women who have never been pregnant can truly have an opinion on abortion as they don't know what its like.

[Mayamoon02]

Its nice you understand abortion and nothing wrong at all with feeling upset about it.
Everyone has sex but few people actually make good mothers.
You will make a good father one day because you have empathy and compassion.

[RationalMale]

Hmm. For one, human life has to have value. Or how can you have a society?

If the serial rapist was an actual rapist--someone who violently attacks women and rapes them, or uses the threat of extreme force, or someone who drugs women then rapes them--I'd be quite fine killing him. (regret sex still isn't rape, sorry ladies and white knights.) A human trafficker? Yeah, we don't need that around. Two 9mm slugs to the head.

On the flip side, who am I to deny blacks the legal right to kill their unborn children? I mean, damn. www.cnsnews.com/.../nyc-more-black-babies-killed-abortion-born More black babies were killed by their parents in NYC in 2012 than survived to be born! Man. Can you imagine how horrible it would be to trample on that freedom? It would be like enslaving blacks all over again, forcing them to not kill their offspring. And think of the crime rate, how it would spike... Every black woman who has an abortion should get a check for 2k.

And logically... if you believe abortion is a fine thing, and a right of Americans, nothing I just said can bother you anymore than if you got upset at someone legally owning a gun or voting. They are just exercising their rights!

[Soteris]

You seam to be confused on the question of life and what makes an individual. The reason humans have rights and why we do not condone killing humans is not because they are from the that species or because we are the same species. The reason is because they are a "Human person" or an individual.

Before we can detect that a fetus has developed the features we associate with being an individual such as "thought" (Not just brain activity but thought patterns) it is essentially just a clump of meat that is physically connected to the mother in such an intimate way that we are forced to see it as just another part of her.

This goes for other species as well and many people have pushed for the rights of animals such as dolphins but that is another story.

Basically until "you" exist as in what you consider your existence within your own body you are just a "body" and human bodies or body parts does not have rights.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

You speak as though thoughts and emotions were generated by something outside of the body. Our body is our thoughts. You are nothing without your body.

All we are is our body. There is nothing more beyond that. So, yes, our bodies and body parts do have rights, because they are our rights.

[Soteris]

While it is not generated by something outside our body (yet) there is also a distinct difference between your thoughts and your body. To put it in computer terms you are the software for your bodys hardware. You and your body is distinctly different to the point where its hard to find a similarity.

Your body, a form of material things such as bone and blood.
You, a logical pattern of impulses running through a network without form or matter.

Thinking they are one and the same is a big mistake and the time might come in your life-time where peoples consciousness leave their bodies for one reason or another to exist as AI.

[flypaper]

Love this answer!!! You seem like you read a lot. Do you? If so any recommendations?

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Except it does have form and matter. It is all electrical signals and chemical reactions. Thinking is as biological a process as mitosis.
Software is represented in electrical flows, electrical potential, and magnetic storage. That's all it is.
At the very core of our sentience is just a complex arrangement of chemicals.
You and I conversing over this is nothing more than a set of electromagnetic signals causing chemical reactions causing electrical signals causing chemical reactions etc.

[Soteris]

@flypaper I do not read anything in particular. Most of my knowledge regarding this comes from picking up snippets from previous debates I have watched and science journals. Since I like new technology and random info it just kind of accumulates. Sorry :(

[Soteris]

The signals are just the medium and should not be confused with the information it contains. We are information, logic and abstract things like that not flesh and blood or electrical signals. For example there is nothing that is saying that your consciousness can't migrate from brain synapses into computer electrics and further into analog computing then back into the brain. It is just information and not limited by its form.

[flypaper]

Haha I didn't mean abotu this. Just sounded like you were well schooled in Sci-fi... my bad. I am a huge reader and I'm always looking for soemthing-lol. It's all good.

[Soteris]

@flypaper Then I have to extend the same question to you. I do not read much scifi so if you could point me in the right direction that would be great ^_^

[Nice_Guy_Last]

But that information is just a grouping of electrons electrons. Thoughts are not some metaphysical existence that happens within some magical realm of reality. If those electrons never moved, you would have never thought.

[Soteris]

Can you please look up the scientific difference between a "force" and a "force carrier" or energy and matter? That would make this discussion so much easier because you really do not seam to understand the difference between a "signal" and the information it carries.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

At the end of the day, force simple cannot exist without a carrier. Magnetism just doesn't randomly appear in empty space. It is conveyed by objects that produce it. So while it may be it's own force, without the energy or matter (redundant, I know), the force would never have existed.

[Soteris]

The thing is however that it is still independent of the carrier. They are not the same thing and have attributes independently of each other.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Ok, E=MC^2 tells us that matter is energy and energy is matter. One cannot exist without the other. So, matter could not exist without the forces, and the forces could not exist without matter.
So, when you separate matter and the forces, you are doing something that is literally against the nature of them. Matter is electromagnetism and electromagnetism is matter. Their effects are the same because they are the same.

[Soteris]

Even if they are fundamentally the same type of stuff does not mean they are the SAME thing. Besides information is something even more "formless" then energy in the first place...

Lets try this instead even if its grossly oversimplifying thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WytNkw1xOIc

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Information as philosophers define it is vastly different from how physicists define it: in physics, information is what something is. The vector of an object, it's average temperature, state of matter, elemental composition, etc. are considered "classical" information, while it's "quantum" information refers to wavefunction and quark spin.
Ideas do not exist beyond physical limitations. Whether it's a thought or a word on paper or data on a computer, it's dependent on it. If the matter didn't exist, the idea wouldn't exist. In essence, the idea is the clump of electrons. But it is not static. All things in the universe can affect all things. The words on a page, when seen by an individual, may cause an explosion of thought. That thought, though, is bound by the matter that conveys it.

[Soteris]

No. While information has a physical presence it is just a presence. However what information actually is in this case is metaphysical. It exists purely in the people and things that observe it and you can't necessarily figure out the information by measuring the physical presence of that information.

For example lets say I write down a string of numbers with information that I know. You can't read that information from knowing the numbers only. You can try and perhaps find different patterns in them but there is not necessarily anything about the physical numbers that tells you it is the correct information.

Destroying the message will also not destroy the information. Those numbers will still contain my information if written somewhere else either intentionally or unintentionally.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

There is no such thing as the metaphysical. It is magic, and belongs in fantasy, not in reality.

Everything is it's physical representation. A thought is a grouping of electrons that move through the brain. An idea cannot exist outside of a medium to purvey it.

[Soteris]

Well it does exist in philosophy but I am mostly using "metaphysical" for lack of better words. Basically I do not have the best of vocabularies. Again an idea can very much exist outside the medium. For example we have the library of Babel project which is literally something which has always existed except it was never given physical representation until when you use it.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Possibility does not make something exist. The moment you think of something, that is when it exists as an idea. But existence as an idea is only represented as memory, which is tangible, and not intangible.

[Soteris]

Yeah this is going nowhere. Enjoy your life.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

You as well.

[Bandit74]

I think the best thing that could happen for this debate would be for the number of unplanned pregnancies to be cut down. Maybe vasagel (male birth control shot) will help with that.

Personally I am pro choice because I side with the interests of established life (the mother) over the interests of potential life (the fetus). Even if the fetus is a life, I still don't consider it alive the same way the mother is. It has no knowledge, perception of or deep connection to this world.

Also I think we are overpopulated so Im not a big fan of adding more kids that nobody really wants to take care of.

Technically being born isn't a choice for anyone, regardless of whether or not you were aborted. You didn't get to decide if you wanted to be born. It was a choice forced on you.

[schnipdip]

That's interesting. Socrates believed everyone has knowledge of the entire universe before birth and oy by the pain of birth did we lose that knowledge...

[PrincessofNohr]

Sadly, it's a messy debate that will probably never have a good answer. Abortion is convoluted philosophically and ethically, meaning no simple solution is a complete one. Personally, I tend to lean pro-choice because I worry about setting the precedent of giving the government the ability to regulate what you do with your body. It could be abortion now, then banning tattoos and piercing, forcing someone to give up an organ, requiring castration because of ethnicity/sexuality, etc. These are extremes and I don't usually like the slippery slope argument, but it has some merit in a legal text.

[Blonde401]

You seem to only care about the baby being alive yourself, you haven't really given much answer to what is going to be done with all these babies forced to live. What about disabled children grown outside of the womb (I'm not saying they don't deserve life, please don't mistake me here), who's going to take care of them? Already kids with disabilities are less likely to be adopted over those without, with this there would be even more. The earth is only so big, if we just keep filling it there will be no earth left. We have no real natural selection anymore and abortion is unfortunately a process of natural selection, we simply cannot keep every single person on planet earth. It's great that you love kids but who is going to take care of all these unwanted children when there are already millions of unwanted kids in the world?

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Oh, I have that already planned out in my mind: government run child rearing programs. Basically, after a certain age, such as 3 or 4, the child is removed from adoption sites, and is put into an intensive program to raise the children. They'd be offered optimal education opportunities, along with a regimented physical training program. Each child would be taught at an accelerated rate, and by the time they are only 16, they will have completed enough school to equate to a high school diploma. Then, they will be interred into a college, in a field of their choice.
Dropping out won't be an option. Leaving early won't be an option. The hypothetical location where they would be raised would be separate from society at large, and only government approved teachers and caretakers would be allowed into the program. Alcohol, cigarettes, and other substances of abuse will be non-permitted.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

They would be raised as their own community, with the knowledge that although their parents abandoned them, the American people never gave up on them. A promise that their future was just as bright as any child from a typical family, if not brighter.
You may ask, "Where would the money come from for such a large scale operation?" Well, there are many sources. For instance, the current model would no longer need much funding, as children from the ages of 0-3 would be the only ones up for adoption. So the average amount spent on orphans is about 225 million dollars. Let's give a conservative estimate for how much will be reduced from normal adoption money, and say that there's 125 million dollars toward my new program. Now, let's overestimate and say that this new idea I have will cost 5 billion dollars. That money from the normal adoption is now chump change. So, where are other sources. Well, we can take a little from Social Security (about 1.5 trillion dollars a year is it's total).

[Nice_Guy_Last]

So really, they are not going to miss 5 billion dollars all too much. And, viola, my master stroke in how to raise these children responsibly.

As for the overpopulation problem, it's only as bad a problem right now as it is because we are unbelievably wasteful with our resources, although that's not to diminish the point. It would be incredibly lazy of humanity to say, oh well, just have more abortions so there's less overpopulation. I feel the answer may come to us in extraplanetary colonization, although that's not coming for a while.

[Blonde401]

I wish you luck with trying to implement such a monstrosity. Turning more people into a cog in a machine, I don't understand but then I really don't find death so horrendous. We all die at some point, some earlier than others and there is far worse things than death in the world.

[FallOutBoy2001]

What? He's turning them into productive members of society, giving them an education most people would die to let their children have, and giving them a much better life.

Asker, I do want to know what you're going to do for those kids who are either disabled or are incapable of learning at an increased pace?

[Nice_Guy_Last]

At some point, isn't it worth it to give life to people regardless? If suffering is averted in their childhood, then that gives them the chance to live happy lives in their adulthood. That is something worth fighting for.

[Blonde401]

@FallOutBoy2001 exactly. He brushed over my point about disabled babies.

[FallOutBoy2001]

He'll reply eventually, I hope. If he doesn't have that worked out, I would love to talk with him on a private message (mate, that's your cue) about it, as I have some ideas.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

@FallOutBoy2001 I think that depends on the type of disability. For instance, I think autistic people actually possess a great gift hidden within their social dysfunction: their ability to obsess over a few things allows them to devote time to them that few "normal" people will ever be able to. It's no small wonder that many of the world's greatest minds are now largely accepted as autistic individuals: Einstein, Newton, etc. They would get a more specialized version of schooling, with a much diminished social aspect.
As for those who have a hard time learning, dyslexic and ADHD would need courses more attuned to their specific learning deficiencies.
As for more severe disabilities, such as downs syndrome, those programs will have low expectations and will focus more on a kinder atmosphere.
There's a lot of things that I'll be the first to admit I don't know about teaching children with disabilities, so these ideas are more talking points than demands.

[Blonde401]

Basically you want to bring the workhouse back and expect everyone to pay for it.

[FallOutBoy2001]

Well he addressed it.

I like those ideas as well

[Blonde401]

@FallOutBoy2001 I don't think it's feasible to pay for all the children of the world to live. We don't have the space for them either, there are already housing issues in most major countries but I'm from the UK, not the US.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Don't get me wrong, there are many issues to tackle here. The biggest reason for unprepared pregnancy is lack of education, and poverty being the underlying cause behind that. We need a better global educational situation, with stronger efforts to lift those in poverty out of it. That's where you'll really see strides in a reduction of unwanted pregnancy.
Yes, in third world countries, the is an explosion of child birth. With a rampancy of underaged pregnancies, the answer shouldn't be a bandaid solution like abortion. There are deep cultural and economic problems that need addressed, not covered up by abortion.

[Blonde401]

Your world view is never going to happen, not in this life time.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Just because we may never see it accomplished doesn't mean we shouldn't try. Giving up in the face of a daunting task is not what we humans do. We went from tribal hunter/gatherers to the founders of civilization, from a desperate species barely clinging to life, to the masters of our world. Humanity can do anything it sets its mind to.

[bobbyxx]

So you now using natural selection to justify persecuting the disabled. You worse then the Nazis using natural selection to justify persecuting the Jews.

[Blonde401]

@bobbyxx Are you referring to me? Where did I justify anything? I merely stated that we no longer have natural selection and abortion is a form of natural selection and that a great deal of aborted babies are aborted because they have crippling disabilites. I then pointed out that babies with disabilities are adopted less than children who are completely healthy. I never said anyone should abort anyone nor did I say anything about coming up with a final solution. Read my posts before you start.

[Intraluminal]

I did a quick MyTake about the same subject here:
www.girlsaskguys.com/.../a29127-abortion-rights-it-s-a-simple-choice-right

A t the same time, I have to correct one error. To the best of my knowledge, no one is saying that a fetus is not a "member of H. Sapiens" what they are saying is that a SINGLE CELL is not a PERSON, and I agree with that. Even 2 cells or 4 cells or 256 cells or 65,536 cells is not a PERSON, whereas most "right to lifers" feel one cell is a person.

I would agree that one cell may BECOME a person, just as a bunch of bricks, steel, copper, and plaster may become a house, but that's POTENTIAL, not reality.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

But houses don't build themselves. Living things do.

[Intraluminal]

Self-assembly is not a unique process. More importantly, the fact that something is self-assembling is not relevant to the fact that the assembly HAS NOT HAPPENED YET.

[QuestionMan]

I used to be pro-choice now I'm pro-life with exceptions.
There are definitely extreme cases in which I would agree that a woman should get an abortion but on the most part I believe we can prevent most abortions if all women had to go through counselling first before making a decision.
It's the European model actually.

You can't ban abortion, otherwise either the woman will try to do it herself or have some drug dealer do it for her in his basement. I'd much rather it be done in a safe environment regardless of whether I agree with her reasoning or not.

[Dionysos]

I'm pro choice because I think your body is your property. Even if I were to stipulate that a person existed from conception (which I don't) it would still have no right to reside inside of another person, feeding off of it without that person's consent.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

What's interesting is that in the argument that the fetus is alive, it didn't choose to live there. Ultimately, that came down to the circumstances of conception, which are mostly it's parents' fault. It can't help but to be in the womb, where it's parents put it, intentionally or not.

[Dionysos]

Consent is revokable.

And like I said, I don't see an embryo as a person, but something that may become one once it can live as a separate organism outside of the womb.

[flypaper]

I very much agree, Sir!

[samhradh_leannan]

But who will raise the baby after it's been developed in an artificial womb? Does it become a ward of the state? Put up for adoption? There are already so many children who need homes and parents. I'm not sure how much of a solution ectogenesis really is.

[schnipdip]

Maybe the parents should take responsibility for their actions? Or is that asking too much?

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip Actually, in some cases, it might be. There are situations where people who conceive an unplanned pregnancy truly can't afford to raise a child, or they might not even be capable of raising a child properly due to drug use or some other issue. In those situations, the costs and responsibilities associated with raising that child WILL fall on someone else, whether partially or entirely, for the well being of the child. That's reality, and it's something we need to consider when we address this complex issue.

[schnipdip]

Meaning they shouldn't be doing drugs and having sex... Why is this so complicated?

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip No, they shouldn't be, but they will. Idealism will not help us solve real problems.

[schnipdip]

Which is why you teach idealism and not teach to the lowest accepted level

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip We will never get to a point where there are zero unplanned pregnancies. That is not within the realm of possibility in our current world. It would be great if that changed, but we can't simply wait around for that to happen. There will be unplanned pregnancies, and there will be cases where the parents are not able to step up and provide for that child. So we need a way to address that.

[schnipdip]

Not having sex?
Mandatory condoms for people making less than 30k/year?
Baby slave labor camps- live for free, work for free?

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip Not having sex? Sure, it's a great idea, but I'd like to see you make it happen. Mandatory condoms? Again, make it happen. Slave labor camps? Slavery is your perfect, ethical, idealist solution? Right.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

I would say so. I believe in an austere, but effective version of government based orphanages.
So, let's first tackle why the government takes care of orphans: well, simply put, orphans are just as much a part of the future as any other kid. The government has real motive to invest in these children's future. So how does the government invest in these children? By ensuring that the child grows into a productive individual.
I believe that children from the ages of 0-3 should be up for adoption. However, after that time frame, orphans begin to start showing signs of discontent and feelings of alienation from society. They begin to resent a world that has abandoned and rejected them.
At that moment, the government should take over the rearing and remove them from the adoption process. Give them a sense of community in each other and in the government, somewhere they belong. Give them a strict regimen, boltering their mind and body.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Mold them together into a community. Smother things like racism or sexism. Then, when they are 18, offer them the opportunity to go out and join the rest of the world.
If this idea works right, thousands of kids could be raised without negative influence from society at large. They could be industrious, intelligent individuals with a healthy respect for a country that raised them.

[samhradh_leannan]

And where do we get the financial resources to do that properly? How do we give thousands upon thousands of unwanted children the sense of community, love, and emotional support that they need to develop into healthy human beings when they're being raised in huge groups, without parents or families, with the meager resources that would realistically be put towards them? Do you not understand how strained and limited organizations like CPS and the foster care system already are? This is another unrealistic solution. Fantasizing is fine, but it won't solve our real problems right now, right here, in our world as it's currently set up.

[schnipdip]

That's because people don't have any sense of moral and self responsibility

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip Self responsibility is another issue entirely. And again, there are situations where taking responsibility is just not even on the table. That's bad but it's reality. It just is.

[schnipdip]

Choosing not to have sex with someone even though you know you're not financially or anything else ready is part of being a responsible adult..

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip You're right, it absolutely is. But our society is not made up of 100% responsible adults. We could talk all day about how things SHOULD be, but that won't change how things ARE. Right now, I'm interested in discussing real solutions that will work in our real world. If the human race consisted of entirely responsible adults who have the knowledge and resources to allow them to make smart decisions about sex, then we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.

[schnipdip]

Who will fund these abortion clinics?

[samhradh_leannan]

@schnipdip Which is cheaper?

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Re-allocate the funds from Social Security/Military. They run on $1.2 trillion combined, I think they can afford a few billion taken out of both.

[samhradh_leannan]

Taking funds from the military could potentially work- IF we could ever get our country to actually do that. But I think there are still a lot of social issues with this idea that haven't been addressed. Humans are complex beings who have a lot of developmental needs. Raising children in crowded orphanages or placing them with a different foster family every year of their life has never been the best way to produce emotionally healthy, stable, well adjusted individuals. I don't know that creating an entire population of questionably stable youth is the smartest idea for our society- or very fair to those individuals. This would take a LOT of research, and to do it right, it would be an absolute black hole for resources. Which is not to say that I'm completely against it, but I don't expect our country as a whole to be open to it.

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Throw 10 billion at it, and that is less that a percent of the money they use on those two programs. If that doesn't generate results over a large enough time period, I'll concede it being a lost cause.
Honestly, you don't need the American public to approve it. So many policies and programs are created by the whim of government, not the will of the people.

[samhradh_leannan]

This is not the type of thing that should happen without the consent and approval of the majority of our society.

[vishna]

If we could place unwanted babies in an artificial womb, I would love to see how that political debate went because it concerns money, human life, and quite a few embryos and fetuses will be called little leeches.

Also, there's an overflow of unwanted babies as is, this would likely increase the problem. People would rather spend tens of thousands of dollars than adopt an unwanted baby as is.

[AthleticMom]

If I need an abortion, I want the very best, legal, main stream, most experienced crew to serve!
Anything religious is between me and Jesus, never should be between me & government, bullies, even spouses.
I was given this blessing of a body to care for it like a temple and I'll do my very best.
Remember Mary & her cousin were given signs about her births, so as to not make a mistake and certainly celebrate it.

[lumos]

Abortion is a necessary evil when all other options have an extremely negative outcome (child born in poverty/child being born with some kind of deadly disease or malformity/mother wouldn't survive the birth/mother not wanting to put yet another kid up for adoption when the system is massively overcrowded already etc). I think life that's already living and breathing on its own is more important to keep safe than an unwanted lump of cells that's completely unaware of its existence.

[howzit2015]

The funny thing is a majority of people in Canada and USA are neither pro life or pro choice, but a majority either identify as both or neither. So you're not alone in this argument, and a lot of people see your side. Unfortunately various groups mark those that identify as both or neither as an "undecided political party", and are removed from the equation as a result. When in reality ~50% of people are both or neither.

[confusedapplepie]

since pro lifers care so much about the baby, do you even care about how the child feels if it doesn't get adopted? or finds out their biological parents didn't want them?
cause i imagine that feelin pretty shitty

[Nice_Guy_Last]

Ask any orphan if they would have rather been aborted.

[Anonymous]

I am a republican Latina who hates all the presidential candidates, and is pro-choice. I won't deny it is a human fetus. That is a fact however, I do stand with the reasoning of science. And I simply believe that religion should not be forced onto people if they do not want to practice that religion, and that it is a personal ethical choice that a woman must make herself. If she finds it unethical, then so be it. And if she finds it ethical, so be it.

[Opinion Owner]

Plus in countries where abortions are illegal, some women will have abortions by illegal means, which are often unsafe, and can result in the death of the women getting abortions. This was in issue in Central America... to be specific, El Salvador. However, other central American countries also have this problem.

[B_J_R]

What about he fathers beliefs? Yeah yeah yeah it's her body, but it's his baby too?

[dudeman]

science says life starts at conception.

[Opinion Owner]

@B_J_R like I said, it is an ethical decision. That includes whether she thinks if the father opinion matters or not. What happens if he is MIA or AWOL? What if he is an asshole and doesn't care? Yeah there are a lot of men out there who do care, but at the same time, consider how many assholes are out there who don't care. There are a lot of guys out there (specifically Central/South America) who get girls pregnant and deny it is their kid, denies responsibility, and walks away.

This happened to two of my cousins. Yes, they were irresponsible. However, nobody ever gave hem sex ed, with my aunt/grandma only saying "don't do it". Not about the STDs, or the unplanned pregnancies. Heck, at the time, they didn't even explain where babies came from to my cousins.
To women like my cousins, the man's opinion doesn't come into play because of that. And that is why it is an ethical decision that a woman must make (which includes her decision if the man' opinion does matter or not).

[Opinion Owner]

@B_J_R And in the case where a woman is lucky enough to have a man in her life that won't run away from his responsibility, then she is lucky. And in my personal opinion, that is what would make his opinion count.

[John_Doesnt]

You're a man, you will never be pregnant and will never be the victim of rape. You don't have to carry that fetus around for 0 months, push it out and raise it either. Just because you disagree with what someone chooses doesn't give you the right to make it illegal.