The History of Abortion and Why I Support It

[Randomawkwardness]

Throughout history, the termination of a pregnancy has always been present. Whether a shushed occurence or a widely spoken act, it has always been there.

The first recorded induced abortion happened in Egypt, 1550 BCE. In India, 1075 BCE, Assyrian Law stated that the penalty for abortion was death; however, this is the only written law that introduced a punishment for the act. In the law, it had to be procured against the husbands wishes for any legal action to occur.

From that time and forward, many methods were used to induce an abortion. Including but not limited to: extreme activity, herbs and poultice, tight corsets; and of course, the widely refered to method with surgical tools.

Large spurts of records show abortions occurring more commonly during famines, especially in Japan during a famine in the 12th century. In the Greek and Roman era, silphium was used as a form of birth control but was rumored to be used as a herb to start an abortion. The plant was so symbolic that it was actually used on a coin of currency for the Cyrenians; however, the plant is now extinct. Abortion was widely accepted in Roman and Greek times and was only suggested to be unacceptable if the husband had died as the child would've been their heir.

As for societal attitudes around the act, it was widely believed that the fetus didn't have a human soul until at least a month. In other texts, philosophers regarded the practice as inhuman and wrong; but, for comparison, also saw surgical practices as wrong citing the Hippocratic Oath.

Nearing the modern era, abortion became criminalized more in western civilizations. As with the advancement of healthcare and medical knowledge, came the cheap and usually dangerous ways to expel a pregnancy. Often untrained doctors, woman would go on to die on their medical tables. As for punishment, death penalty was common but cases were often based upon a mothers testimony of when a 'quickening' had occurred. For those that don't know, a quickening is when the first movements of the fetus can be felt. In the 1800's, a more replaced stance was taken before it quickly turned in the 1900's. After more laws were passed through the states, the womans right movement began, along with the fight to vote, and the Roe VS Wade case legalized abortion. (U.S)

Meanwhile, in France, abortion was simply for unwed woman and later for unwanted pregnancy. In England, a rise of infertility due to careful activity, led to less abortions. While not illegal is some areas, it was still offered just not used as much.

As for why I support abortion, it is clear. Woman have died and struggled through history to just escape a pregnancy. Children shouldn't be forced upon someone and we should be counting our luck on how many of our sisters, mothers and aunts that have access to safe medical practices and are still alive today. Abortion will always be there, whether we like it or not. Outlawing it only leads to unsafe practices.

[Lliam]

Good My Take, Randomawkwardness.
I am pro-choice, not because I support abortion, which is an undesirable thing to have to do and is usually undertaken after agonizing consideration, but because I oppose the idea of enforcing people's opinions on others through legislation and punishment.
I have little problem with abortions that are performed within the first three months. In the early stages of development, a fetus can in no way be considered conscious, let alone a human baby. At most, it is a potential human.

[Oram52]

Absolutely one of the reasons abortion was made legal in England to begin was unsafe abortions. Women were going to get them anyway. Millions of unsafe abortions happen all around the world putting women's life at risk.

What I find amusing about pro-birthers is, they are so fixated on fetus yet couldn't give a shit when the baby is born.

[Oram52]

Thanks for MHO.

[gothgirl997]

Great MyTake; well-written and informative
You should write more often

[Randomawkwardness]

Thank you :)

[gothgirl997]

Thank you for MHO

[aigerxd]

nice

[WhiteShoulder]

Great Take 💗

[Randomawkwardness]

Thank you❤

[WhiteShoulder]

Thanks for MHO

[nightdrot]

The problem with this MyTake is that it assumes the morality of something just by virtue of the fact that it happens. Fortunately that standard was not applied in 1930s Germany or 1970s Cambodia, o cite by two especially egregious examples.

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 leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.

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.)

Inherent then in the pro-choice argument is the idea that life has no value save that which each person chooses to attach to it. It denies society any authority to make a collective judgment on such questions. Therefore, in this view, the law may not afford protection to life except at some arbitrarily defined (and inherently subjective) point.

This then conduces to an assertion of power over rights. Life is maintained not as its own end, but according to the will of the person who, effectively, controls it because they can. An ethic of convenience is established and it is a slippery slope on which to build a culture and a legal edifice.

Such a society will not value life that sees life as not an end, but as a means to some other end. 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. These were not unrelated phenomena.

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 follow. One cannot expect the society to absent itself from collective moral judgments on the value of life and then expect an ethical social order to result.

[JohnnySigma85]

Mic drop moment ☝

[nightdrot]

@JohnnySigma85 Thanks for your kind compliment.

[JohnnySigma85]

No problemo✌

[aigerxd]

@JohnnySigma85 hm

[JohnnySigma85]

? what?

[RoninReich]

Well said... I can see why pro-choicers disliked it.

[nightdrot]

@RoninReich Thanks very kindly for your kind compliment.

[curiousnorway]

Just because of something have always existed doesn't mean it's ethically and morally right. Abortion isn't a new thing, but so isn't theft, murder, war and genocide. Regardless if it's abortion or any of the other things, I think we should try to avoid it as much as possible. To avoid as much theft as possible it's important for the society to provide enough working places so none has to live in extreme poverty, and same with abortion. If people had access to affordable education, healthcare and had a well paid job, they wouldn't be so poor and therefor didn't need to have an abortion. A society shouldn't try to justify an action just because of the intentions are caused by human suffering. It should rather try to decrease the suffering and then decreasing the problem.

In the past people didn't have birth control, so they didn't know better on how to deal with it. People also knew less about psychology, were poorer, had less technology and resources, so they punished criminals harsher instead of rehabilitate them too. Nowadays more people gets sexual education and birth controls each year, so now we can rise the expectation to people being careful. We can also expect states to treat prisoners more humanely than we could in medieval time and rehabilitate them. Things changes, so we can't really say "Because of this existed in the past and was bad, it's okay to do it now".

I would argue it's taking away the child's freedom and right to live if we aborts it, but if you tried to avoid the pregnancy in the first place there wouldn't be any children to take into consideration because of they wouldn't exist. Then there wouldn't be any lives to take. Our history can't justify this or murder.

[Randomawkwardness]

I included the history bit do people would read how past civilizations regarded it. Nothing more, just some interesting facts so people knew it wasn't a new thing. I support it because it will always be there, whether we want it or not. Should we really go back to the era of coat hangers in alleyways when New York banned it? Do we not use the 'history will always repeat itself' slogan? Birth control and condoms aren't entirely affective and with abstinence instead of sex education being taught in schools, it is no wonder that abortions are on the rise. Just because you think they're wrong doesn't mean they need to be outlawed.

[curiousnorway]

"I support it because it will always be there, whether we want it or not."
We could say it about anything. I could say I support attacking foreign countries for oil, murdering and torture because of it would always be there anyway regardless of if people wants it or not. The argument is flawed because of it implies just because of something can't be prevented we've to say it's acceptable.

"Should we really go back to the era of coat hangers in alleyways when New York banned it?"
Again, I would say coat hangers aren't necessarily a worse consequence than legalizing ending innocent people's lives. I've heard the argument one would survive instead of two because of abortion is legal, but on the other side the women of the 99% of the cases doesn't need abortion to survive and therefor it's possible for both the mothers and child to live. We've adoption, foster care and we can create better living conditions, so people can keep their own children. Being pregnant is temporarily, so giving birth would be fine most of the time. In cases where it's danger for the mother's life there would be exceptions. If an amateur tries to shoot someone else, they've a risk of shooting themselves with an accident. It could be prevented if they could pay a professional to do it instead, making it "safer". Does that mean it should be legalized? I don't think so. When harming others it's a risk of harming yourself and I think it's fine having such consequences.

[curiousnorway]

"Birth control and condoms aren't entirely effective"
There's ways to solve that. First of all, everyone should knows there's a risk of having children when having sex and be prepared to show some responsibility. If you're not ready to take the responsibility of becoming pregnant, then you shouldn't have sex in the first place. When using contraceptives you can use multiple at the same time. The woman may use the pill and the man the condom. There should be courses teaching people to use them correctly. People being sure they doesn't want children should be allowed free sterilization and still use condoms, then fewer "accidents" would happen. Sex is about procreation, not only pleasure. Your 10 seconds pleasure aren't more important than someone else's lives.

"Just because you think they're wrong doesn't mean they need to be outlawed"
It's a reason discussions exists, because of people would have different opinions anyway and it takes time to find a solution. Some people thinks war and genocide are morally right, so in a discussion it's important for both of the sides to come up with arguments both for and against. Although people arguments for these things, I've still my right to think it should be illegal.

[HOAAH]

I enjoyed your side of the argument sir. Well said.

[curiousnorway]

@HOAAH, thanks. :)

[RoninReich]

@HOAAH Agreed

[RoninReich]

"Should we really go back to the era of coat hangers in alleyways when New York banned it?"
Since meth is illegal, people shoot meth all the time in alleyways... Simply by banning something, we aren't then condoning the ugly further use of it like with coat hangers. In fact, it is the opposite. The people who banned abortion and meth CONDEMN the further illegal use of it in "alleyways"... And if people participating in such actions are caught by authorities, they WILL be punished (in simple terms)...
Your point about the coathangers in the alleyway dynamic is invalid and irrelevant... You are simply trying to appeal to peoples' emotions by mentioning less than pretty situations.

[OlderAndWiser]

"Woman have died and struggled through history to just escape a pregnancy." Except for cases of rape, women can escape the possibility of pregnancy through many means that do not involve an abortion.

"Children shouldn't be forced upon someone." Except for cases of rape, children are not forced on us. They are the occasional result of our conscious and deliberate decisions.

"Abortion will always be there, whether we like it or not. Outlawing it only leads to unsafe practices." Cocaine, heroin, and other drugs will always be there so should we legalize them, also.

You haven't mentioned one word about the rights of the unborn child. It is always easier to advocate for the killing of a "fetus" than it is to advocate for the killing of an unborn human.

[curiousnorway]

It's not only drugs that would always exist. Things like murder, rape, theft, terrorism and war would also exist.

[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 Cali 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?"

[Lliam]

I'm with you, Curmudgeon.
Too many people think it's perfectly okay to force their values on others by legislating punishment. I have generally liberal values, but I'm libertarian when it comes to liberty. I feel the same way about gun ownership, for example.

[betaTester]

I would like to address sir @nightdrot's argument. To view abortion only in terms of 'the freedom to have some convenient choice' is such a childlike naivety rarely seen in older people, I would have overlooked it if teenagers hold this view. He focused the issue solely on choice, then argued against that choice, that makes him simply anti choice and not pro life. There is a long process leading to life with a lot of suffering involved that he chose to conveniently omit. No sir, the issue is not simply a "convenience according to the satisfaction of another's will", it's also about the willingness of another human being to suffer mental and physical damage for an extended period. There are more than one life involved here, I'm afraid the morality of this situation is not that simplistic. The quote from Aristotle was kinda funny, when someone quotes an ancient Greek for a pro life argument, it makes me chuckle a little bit, considering the ancient Greeks are known to have some pretty barbaric, anti life, child sex related traditions. Not that the Aristotle quote is invalid, ironic, but it is valid, as with the whole wall of texts about justice, "le political philosopher wrote... We shape our laws and then our laws shape us etc." After all it should be pretty easy to wax poetry about morality of society when you aim these theatrical rhetorics at a complete strawman.

Consider this, pro life people who believe the State should outlaw abortion completely:
I'm sure you have a few organs on your body you can live without, and I'm sure there are more than a few people who need them to live, are you willing to go through medieval style surgery to pull those organs out, put them in ice boxes to be delivered to the people whose lives actually depend on them? you're saving multiple lives here! unlike the embryo, it's not even controversial that these people are humans with rights to life, like you and I.

See? it's very easy to demand the preservation of life from your armchair when others pay for it with their blood.

(I'm up for a philosophical discussion, on second thought, only with those people who have successfully adopted a more mature view on this issue, also this is an example that the influencer title of this site is such a joke lol)

[nightdrot]

Yours is an elaborate solecism. In fact, you seem to believe that choices should be absent consequences and that the consequences for our choices are best foist upon those for whom no responsibility might attach.

Create a child and define that as a living being, to abort it then is to inflict the consequences of your child upon the innocent product of that choice. To avoid that, you must erase - and here was the central thesis I was making - the humanity of the child. To do that, then, you make the value of life a subjective judgement.

That is a very problematic road to take. We have seen the history of societies where living being were reclassified as something other than human for the convenience of others. It of course begging the question of what a fetus is if not human. If it is human, then your right to eliminate it is, at best, conditional.

If it is not human, then you must define the exact second when the fetus becomes human. Then explaining what the difference is between the second before it becomes human and the second after. Explaining when it is and what defines it in both scientific and moral terms.

You may find my views too immature to be worthy of your time. I find yours to be strewn with presumptions and gaping leaps of logic.

[nightdrot]

Type-o:

This sentence - "Create a child and define that as a living being, to abort it then is to inflict the consequences of your child upon the innocent product of that choice."

Should read - "Create a child and define that as a living being, to abort it then is to inflict the consequences of your CHOICES upon the innocent product of that choice."

[betaTester]

@nightdrot I question your reading comprehension too, though good use of rhetoric, again. 'solecism' 'you seem to believe...' lol what I wrote is not a positive belief, but rather, a disbelief that your simplistic presumption and gaping leaps of logic are enough make any conclusion about the morality of abortion. What your argument lacks, I already pointed out, you have not addressed, and you have not known my view yet :))

Every human being has a physical body, and a moral status. You cannot discuss morality of action on something without accounting for its moral status (https://plato. stanford. edu/entries/grounds-moral-status/). Here is another gap in logic: "to erase humanity of the child" is a vacuous statement, because you're implying the future child and the current embryo have the same moral status, biologically, they are members of the same species yes, that is objectively independent of the woman, but moral status is a nonphysical human construct, it isn't a physical attribute like weight, shape and volume, so it doesn't simply 'appear' after a physical process like conception. You can't take it for granted on every single embryo, or demand an objective measurement on it, that is simply a categorical mistake.

[betaTester]

The moral status of the embryo is given by the mother's will to have the child and not the will of some random dude on the internet, for obvious reason. If the embryo does not have consent of the mother, then it simply has empty moral status, which is the same as that of any self replicating organism living inside her, but the difficult judgement comes from the fact that it belongs to the same species as the mother. Yes, it has to be a subjective decision. There are many other issues with your reasoning, like using the term "innocent" on something that has empty history, it's logically vacuous and an appeal to emotions which is subjective, but then you complain subjective judgement is problematic, sir, all moral judgements are subjective, they are called normative statements, this is like ethics 101. Yes, this just confirmed it's not worth my time. Can't believe I just exceeded the word limit to explain some basic ethics concepts to 50 year olds on this site.

[betaTester]

I might as well address this stupid argument I read somewhere in this thread from some users, something along the line of: "If a woman chooses to enjoy the pleasure of sex then she doesn't get to claim her child is being forced on her", great job, this same reasoning could be used to argue for the ban of all birth control methods. For it literally says pleasure of sex is sufficient for childbearing responsibility. Do people here even look at the premise and the conclusion of their reasoning, smh

[nightdrot]

You certainly are a bitter man. Words like "stupid" and the like permeating your language as they do. I sense vehemence in the absence of analysis. No matter.

One thing you wrote caught my eye: "The moral status of the embryo is given by the mother's will to have the child and not the will of some random dude on the internet, for obvious reason."

So the mother confers the status of human being on the embryo. It is therefore either not human - since human beings inherently have rights? Alternatively, human beings have no moral status save that which others confer upon them? Which is it?

This is the core question that I was making and the one you either have not resolved in your own mind - hence, my opening line - or you have come to a deeply disturbing conclusion about the value of human life, i. e., that human beings are merely the tools of those who have the power to assert their authority over them.

Either way not a pretty picture and nothing else that you said appears - and your writing is a wee bit unclear - to address the question. Suffice to say, the underlying moral predicate of the abortion question is tap dancing around that central question.

If the embryo is not human, you are then left with the problem of defining the exact moment when it becomes human, then to explain in scientific and philosophical terms when that moment takes place and how the child is different between the one second before that moment and the one second after it.

Alternatively, if it is human but its moral worth is defined subjectively, you are, suffice to say, going down a very black road in history. Mankind has - and still - "been there, done that."

CONT.

[nightdrot]

As I noted originally, we shape the law and then the law shapes us. The underlying ethic of Roe v. Wade and the abortion rights argument put liberty and willfulness ahead of any objective standard of the value of a human life at its conception. Given that the premise of our laws - "a nation dedicated to a proposition" - is that rights and worth inhere in every human being, relativizing that worth will, and has, profound long term implications.

This central question and central problem you must address. Your flinging about of epithets and insults will not compensate for that gaping hole in your thesis.

[betaTester]

@nightdrot You calling me bitter is just an Ad hominem, in fact, what I wrote is mostly an analysis of the logically vacuous statements you made and an explanation of basic concepts in ethics, but you surely can only sense bitterness from logic. The difference between us is my insults always come with a specific line of reasoning about this topic that I criticize, with quotes (first you omitted half of the relevant ethic issues, then it turns out you don't understand basic ethics, but that's fine, so are most vocal 'pro life' people on the internet! I can only respect a pro life who is truly an altruist about their organs and I have empathy for a pro life who is devout to their religion but aside from these two types and the academics, a lot of them are frankly just philosophically illiterate people who haven't figured out their hypocrisy, or incels).

[betaTester]

1. The physical beings and their moral status are two different categories, you still sound very confused about this. Simply recognizing that there are two concepts instead of one, is not sufficient to lead to your conclusion that "human beings are merely the tools of those who have the power to assert their authority over them", it's a hyperbole, you have missed many things in between. In fact, most of your reasoning are faulty hyperboles of this type: no horse has two tails, every horse has one more tail than no horse, therefore, every horse has three tails!
Analogously, your central question, I explained that "every human being starts with empty moral status, a collection of cells", you jumped from that to: "human beings have no moral status save that which others confer upon them", so you are disturbed, while forgetting that human being also has no life save for which others confer upon them, this is just an equivalent restatement. The thing you missed is, "others" in this case, is actually the unique being that gives birth to that life... so the statement is literally a logical tautology. Basically you are disturbed by truth value of tautologies, incredible.

[betaTester]

2. Like I said, all of the lengthy comments you wrote started from the premise about some grand historical issues of nations while ignoring the woman carrying the child completely, that's a wrong starting point for abortion, it is firstly about the individual by definition, if you want to connect abortion to genocide in Cambodia or slavery or the Nazi, you need to be more specific about the logical steps. Otherwise this is just a theatrical hyperbole. No sir, the dark road of history is a scenario you are fantasizing about. You keep complaining about "gaping holes", well you're the one who created all the holes, there are a lot of holes on the road from Aristotle and Lincoln's speech to the unique dynamic of abortion. I provided a framework and all of my conclusions follow shortly, they contain no irrelevant variables. Whereas instead of formulating an honest proposition of what you want to say like "if we allow early abortion, it will lead to slavery/genocide/a civil war/collapse of civilization etc. here's why:.." you like to use big words and vague rhetoric, "profound long term implications", well if you believe they exist, can you list more than one profound long term implication and how they logically must follow from outlawing abortion? Actually do it somewhere else, write to your government. I am not responsible for dealing with crackpots.

I understand that you have a set of values, frankly I consider them dubious (because you keep trying to connect them to more vague issues through a series of vacuous arguments), so I hope you don't want to push them onto other people. I think I'm gonna stop here.

[nightdrot]

To start, I called you bitter because you are the one who has been throwing the epithets and insults about. "Stupid" and all that. It seems disproportionate to what I would have been well content with a more civil discussion.

Thus, you do seem to start with a bit of a chip on your shoulder. Oh, and no, your insults merely cloud the issue. They neither clarify nor illustrate. Though it is good of you to pat yourself on the back for thinking so. "When asked if he hates flatterers, he says that he does, being then most flattered."

As to this: "The physical beings and their moral status are two different categories, you still sound very confused about this."

Really? So tell me on what basis we make that distinction, how we define it and the pedigree of that distinction. At the least it would seem counterintuitive. At worst, American slaves might beg to differ.

Either the culture starts with an animating principle on the inherent worth of life or it begins to make gradations. You keep banging on about the distinction but I see no historical example nor logical explanation.

To repeat, at what point does the distinction change. At what point does the biological fact conduce to a moral difference?

You go on and on - without bothering with conventional English grammar, sentence and paragraph constructions, which makes what you write somewhat difficult to follow. Yet you never seem to come to grips with that central question let alone its cultural ramifications.

As to the rest

[EyeAmNiceGirl]

Your conclusion was predetermined; it wasn't a rational conclusion drawn from the facts, rahter, you merely arranged information that in such a way so as to justify your predetermined conclusion.

(1) A baby is a separate entity from the mother; they are connected, via an umbilical cord, yet they are two distinct beings. Different DNA.

(2) A great many things "will always be there, whether we like it of not." That doesn't stop us from outlawing arson, rape, and embezzlement; if we applied the "will always be there" logic to other things, then nothing would be restricted or outright illegal.

(3) Seriously now, pregnancy is NOT a serious threat to life. Women's bodies (I have one) are literally made to be pregnant and birth a child. The fact that not everyone does get pregnant and have a child is beside the point, a healthy, mature (not pre-pubescent) female body is designed for that very purpose.

(4) While I will agree in principle that children shouldn't be forced upon anyone; that is not justification, in and of itself, for an abortion. Adoption is a rational choice. Besides, if the woman has the baby and keeps it, the baby is forced upon the father, whether he wants it or not. So, the premise that only women should have the option is a bit "unequal rights" of you.

(5) Outlawing things does lead to unsafe practices. That said, do you realize that roughly half the people who walk into an abortion clinic don't get out alive? Safety is a point of view concept here. I believe that if abortions were outlawed in the US, the total deaths would go way down. Yes, a tiny tiny increase in deaths of mothers would result from outlawing, like maybe 5 or 10 a year; meanwhile, 600,000 few babies die. Give any rational person in this country, and ask them if 10 grown women have to die or 600,000 babies have to die (there is no other option available), which would they choose. You already know the answer -- the 10 grown women are out of luck.

[StylesbyDR]

This is a huge topic of debate in religious and political terms.

In many peoples eyes an abortion is equivallent to murder. You are taking the life of a child in a world where the chances of you specifically being born instead of someone else is so small that the fact you are alive is in itself a miracle.

I find the option of an abortion to be OK in certain situations, like an individual being raped, getting pregnant, and not wanting to give birth to a child of their rapist.

However if its just an unplanned pregnancy I dont think the individuals deserve to have an abortion. You can't just have unsafe sex and not use birth control, be surprised you are pregnant, and say I am just gonna get an abortion. You should have to live with the consequences of poor decision making.

You are generalizing bad scenarios of pregnancy to the entire population as a whole to support abortion when they are not equivallent. Comparing stupidity and situations like rape to being pro abortion is just not a good solid argument.

[Celtero]

If your mom got an abortion 8 months before you were born, you wouldn't be around to talk about how abortion is a good thing.

As others have said, just because it's a consistent thing throughout history, doesn't mean it's acceptable. Our ancestors also would bash babies heads in with rocks and leave them out in the elements, but that doesn't mean we should start doing it.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying banning abortion is ideal, but I don't think there's anything wrong with setting a goal to have abortion never happen, and how we achieve that goal can be up for debate.

[Randomawkwardness]

If my mom had aborted me, it would have been her choice. If she had even thought about it, it would have been her choice. My dad was really abusive and having me just tied her down to him more.

[Celtero]

So you regret that she didn't make that choice?

[Randomawkwardness]

For her wellbeing, yes. I enjoy being alive but I would've never have wanted what she had to go through just to have me.

[Celtero]

And you think she would be happier without you?

[Randomawkwardness]

I didn't say that, I said she wouldn't have had to go through so many issues and could have left my dad sooner than she did.

[Bananaman177]

Look at this kid:

At one time he was an abstract concept to his own mother, but he grew up into a real person, a real individual. The same is true for every baby. That's SOMEBODY. You are not just killing a clump of cells, you're killing somebody's future friend, somebody's future husband, or future wife. Somebody's future father, or mother. You're taking a lot away from the world, not just a clump of cells. You're making the world a lonelier place.

[ObscuredBeyond]

So baby murder is dangerous for the mother, let's legalize murder? And what of that 11 year old in Chile that wanted to keep her child, and pro-abort goons flew in from other countries foaming at the mouth and demanding she be forced to abort?

I'm a total abolitionist. There is never any right nor excuse for baby murder, and the global adenochrome racket is a far reaching death cult involved in human trafficking. Crushing their movement into a fine powder is cause enough to abolish abortion forever.

[zagor]

Yes, it's funny how the "pro-life" crowd rails against abortion yet never seems to be in favor of expanded availability of low-cost, effective birth control. They also say that people generally wouldn't need abortions if they weren't immoral and/or irresponsible.

Apparently they think we need more children raised by immoral, irresponsible parents...

[FlaviusStilicho]

A straw man argument. Just about everyone around me is pro-life (including myself) and fully in support of providing access to condoms, the pill, diaphragms, spermicide, etc. if doing so would actually cut down on unwanted pregnancies and prevent murder. And that includes both charity and governmental provision of said items. I personally would even be in support of a single-payer federal fund to pay for snipping and tube tying for those who want it.

And, yes, in today's era, abortions wouldn't be "necessary" if certain people had more self-control.

[Testaccount65754]

Yeah, even other animals kill their offspring. This is why women shouldn't have rights.

Also, I'm just gonna leave these here...

Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion.
https://bit.ly/2OErtGW

"I found that 5,337 biologists (96%) affirmed that a human’s life begins at fertilization, with 240 (4%) rejecting that view. The majority of the sample identified as liberal (89%)"
https://bit.ly/33fN91d

[Unit1]

"Large spurts of records show abortions occurring more commonly during famines"

Common sense right there and it's no different from today.

Speaking from experience first hand as such a then child.

[RoninReich]

If you don't want someone to get pregnant then don't have sexual intercourse with that certain someone. It's pretty simple. And if you do have sexual intercourse, then don't act surprised if someone turns up pregnant. People want the pleasure without the consequence.

[Unit1]

@RoninReich that's why i will have safe sex until i get myself a vasectomy.

[RoninReich]

Good... That's what people do if they are serious about not getting someone pregnant.

[Anonymous]

I'm not against abortion as a matter of public policy. I wouldn't want my child aborted, personally. The two problems I have with abortion are finding it through the government and the fact that a father who didn't want the child still has to pay for 18 years and possibly go to jail if he can't afford it.

Set up a privatized fund so all the people who support it can contribute voluntarily, and stop forcing child support payments on men who didn't want a child, and nobody can possibly have a solid objection to the practice.

[JimboGB]

'Children shouldn't be forced on anyone"
Now doesn't that statement scream out for some personal responsibility? Some discipline and a sense of morality? A woman who chooses to enjoy the pleasure of sex and thereafter pregnancy doesn't get to claim her child is being forced on her.

[stardust101]

It’s dangerous to illegalize abortion. And, it’s scary that just anyone can walk into a clinic and have one, even a minor. However, too many people are getting second and third abortions as a form of birth control, so why not just get on birth control? Plus, even with one abortion, it can mess up a female’s reproductive system. It’s just not a healthy thing to do, so it should be limited

[Mädchen]

Bodily autonomy is above everything. Yes the child or what could have been a child will die. But you know what also safes lifes? Donating blood. But we don't force people to do this either eventhough it would be over much faster than a pregnancy and doesn't leave any lasting marks.

[Phoenix98]

Sorry but I can't and won't support it not after what I've seen.

Also if your going to bring up the history of Abortion you shouldn't forget about Margaret Sanger one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, big supporter and advocate of Abortion and also happened to be a eugenicist and I'm sure they taught you what a Eugenicist is in history class.

[Gedaria]

You can wrap it up in a bow and all lovely and pretty. You are still killing your baby. If you don't want a child brake steps to stop you getting pregnant. If you put as much concern into find things about abortions , into family planning you may find life a lot easier...

[MysteryPerson70]

you're never justified in supporting in the killing of babes.
there is this one word that changes everything,
ADOPTION

do you really have the guts to be called a murderer/killer of babes?

[Randomawkwardness]

Not everyone can go through an entire pregnancy due to any underlying issues. Not to mention the health effects that adoption has on the child, not every family is safe.

[MysteryPerson70]

@Randomawkwardness what is this p word? is it a disease?

[Randomawkwardness]

I suppose although it's more like a tape worm infection