Should Abortions Be Legal or illegal?

[Luméa]

I'm curious about your ideas

[AviatorTom]

Abortion should be legal before fetal viability outside the womb, or if the woman's doctor determines their are health risks to the mother or fetus if carried full term.

Ultimately, the decision to abort or not should be a joint decision by the pregnant woman and her doctor.

[Luméa]

Well said..

[AviatorTom]

Thanks for MHO

[Luméa]

You are welcome

[KostasKouvalis]

It should be at the discretion of medical professionals. I certainly don't think it's something you should be jailed for. This isn't some backwards Christian or Muslim country.

[Luméa]

Yes I agree with you

[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 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.

[Hawkes_Lady]

Legal. It is my body, my choice. An embryo or fetus has no rights as it is not a viable human being. It is not a viable human being until it can live outside of the woman's body in the real world on its own without the woman's body to sustain it. There were already laws about how far into a pregnancy it could be terminated legally.

There are lots of reasons for a woman to choose an abortion (and most don't just use it as birth control).

I also find it interesting that everyone is screaming at women for wanting to abort the embryos and fetuses, but nothing is being said about the men who don't want to stand up and take responsibility for their sperm. They had a dick in making the embryo and fetus just as much as the woman had a vagina in it. Why does the responsibility always fall on the women... we can't make a baby without a man fucking us, but it is women that are evil when the man doesn't want to be responsible and help with what they made. Somehow once we are pregnant, men wash their hands of us and move on to the next non-pregnant liability.

How about we make a regulation that any man caught impregnating a woman and doesn't stand by the woman and pay for his child from the time it was conceived until at least the age of 21 has to go under the knife and be cut so he can't repeat his problem of making babies that he doesn't want to pay for?

And how about all those people who are screaming to make abortions illegal and want to make those women carry to term and give birth to a child they don't want or can't afford or knew would come out medically damaged We'll just now require you all to adopt those children and take on the expense of raising the child that wasn't wanted and was dumped into the system so that mother who didn't want to be a mother doesn't need to go to the state for help to feed, cloth, and house that same child.

As we all know, you people who are screaming about abortions are the same people who scream about the poor degenerates who are using and abusing the welfare system. They don't really need help paying for that food, the rent, or the medical bills.

It is all fine and dandy for you to scream about how women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions, but there are already so many children in this world who aren't wanted, who sit in over-crowded and sometimes deplorable foster homes waiting for a family to adopt them who are never going to be adopted and they are going to age out of the system and some will make it and some won't.

In a perfect world, every child (hell, every person) would be wanted and completely loved. But we don't live in a perfect world. If the woman is not ready to be a mother, if the father isn't going to do his duty and stick around and pay his share, if there is something medically wrong with the mother or the child, or any of a million different reasons I think it is better for the embryo to be aborted than to be brought into this world and dumped in a trashcan, dumpster, a fire department safe box or a hospital entrance to be farmed out to people who just want to make a few buck for taking it in.

[TonyMetal___86]

Why are you angry? No one is shouting except you!
It ain't about a woman or a man, it must be illegal because a fetus is a life and killing it is a crime, no matter how much excuses you try to make!

I'm against abortion except only in harsh cases...

It's the responsibility of a man and a woman together, since they both have created this child!

I do agree with you that there must be a system where a guy gets punished if he doesn't holds the responsibility of his actions, i believe that a man is not only responsible about the baby that he made but also responsible about the woman who is carrying his baby and the woman is responsible about creating this baby as much as the man who did it and she can't take decisions without him especially if he's present in her life and never ran away from his responsibilities...

They all want sex but when things gets serious, all of them wants to just run away, when you both can't handle the consequences of your actions than simply don't make sex or take extreme precautions!

[Hawkes_Lady]

@TonyMetal___86 I am not angry, simply stating what I see as facts and my opinion. I am tired of people arguing over what is essentially just another way for people to control women.

If the government was to step in and try to tell men that they had to start taking a pill that would make them incapable of getting a hard-on until they were ready to have a child men would be "angry" and "screaming" as well.

The difference in this is that the government isn't stepping in and trying to regulate your body, but ours. They aren't trying to control men and what they do, but only trying to control women and what we do medically with our bodies.

[TonyMetal___86]

No one wants to control you or any other women, there are just ethics were some things are just wrong and some things are just right...

Both men and women should take extreme precautions if they don't want a baby, also of a man makes a woman pregnant than he must hold responsibility towards his action just like the woman does...
Personally that's why i prefer sex after marriage because there will be no escape and instead of being sad, the couple will be happy and hold their responsibilities towards their baby...

A baby is a gift from god, don't know why people these days makes it look like a nightmare or run away from it, some married couple are selling all what they've got, working 24/7 and praying all the time to have a baby while others are just dumping this priceless gift as if it's a piece of garbage...

You want to feel happy and comfy miss @Hawkes_Lady never make sex with a man unless he is the right one, A REAL MAN, perid!

[rigmarole]

In the United States of America The Fourteenth Amendment to The Constitution of the United States declares "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Thus abortion should be illegal unless a court hears the case of the mother and determines under the principle of “fundamental fairness” that abortion would be appropriate in that situation. That is to say, medical evidence provided by qualified individuals is presented to the court which argues that the mother is likely to die in the event that the pregnancy if it were to go forward. The Child as a human possess legal personhood, and thus under equal protection of the law can not be deprived of life without due process of law. Therefor a case should be made as to why the child's term with the mother's womb would cause a concerning level of threat to the mother's life that outweighs the child's right to life as justification for abortion. If a fair decision concerning life and death is to be made for either party, the evidence must support the position. Both Mother and Child have legal rights, but I can understand a legal decision that would favor the Mother over the Child if the Child threatens the mother's life beyond a reasonable level. Wholesale no fault abortion is flat out murder and it is a usurpation of constitutional law.

[rigmarole]

*within

[rigmarole]

If you examine Black’s Law Dictionary which is the most frequently used legal dictionary in the United States and has been in circulation since 1891 a person is defined as:

1. A human being 2. An entity (such as a corporation) that is recognized by law as having the rights and duties of a human being. 3. The living body of a human being.

If you also examine Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary which is a primary medical reference book for personnel in the medical field and for legal libraries you will see a person is defined as:

1. A human being.

[rigmarole]

Under George W. Bush with the assistance of “Conservative” Democrat/RINO Charles Canady in the Second Florida District Court of Appeal who was appointed by Jeb Bush 1 U. S. Code § 8 was doctored up and passed by congress under a bill with a name that is opposite of it’s purpose in blatant violation of the Constitution of the United States ignoring all legal and medical meaning of language. But that’s what New World Order Skull and Bones Woke Global Homo Satanists do… Just like the Patriot Act... So now all the fucktards that hate our country and want to remove our right to live go around parroting it's just a clump of cells.

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

[rigmarole]

The propaganda push is so fucking stupid because all humans are eukaryotes. We are all multicellular organisms. Thus we are all "clumps of cells". The pro-abortion argument basically suggests that we should be able to take away anyone's right to life and be able to kill anyone for any reason at any time because they are of course just "a clump of cells"...

[AviatorTom]

The difficulty is that we cannot agree on whether a fetus is a person, a topic that has been debated for years.

[rigmarole]

@AviatorTom There was no debate on it. For all of medical and legal history a person was a human being. That is any being with Human DNA. That was the consensus of the medical community and legal community up until August 5th, 2002 when the The Constitution, law, and science were all usurped by a Democrat judge in coordination with Bush family and the 107th congress.

[rigmarole]

What they did with the word "person" is exactly what they are doing with the word "woman" today. Everyone knows what a woman is. There is a long history and it is a solidly defined term. They are running a propaganda campaign to confuse people. Then in the dead of the night some jackasses will pervert the word in some obscure text like called the woman protection act or something like that which will be used to attack women.

[rigmarole]

*likely

[rigmarole]

They are murderous tyrants...

[rigmarole]

c. 1200, persoun, "an individual, a human being," from Old French persone "human being, anyone, person" (12c., Modern French personne) and directly from Latin persona "human being, person, personage; a part in a drama, assumed character," originally "a mask, a false face," such as those of wood or clay, covering the whole head, worn by the actors in later Roman theater. OED offers the general 19c. explanation of persona as "related to" Latin personare "to sound through" (i. e. the mask as something spoken through and perhaps amplifying the voice), "but the long o makes a difficulty..." Klein and Barnhart say it is possibly borrowed from Etruscan phersu "mask." De Vaan has no entry for it.

From mid-13c. as "one of the persons of the Trinity," a theological use in Church Latin of the classical word. Meanings "one's physical being, the living body" and "external appearance" are from late 14c. In grammar, "one of the relations which a subject may have to a verb," from 1510s. In legal use, "corporate body or corporation other than the state and having rights and duties before the law," 15c., short for person aggregate (c. 1400), person corporate (mid-15c.).

The use of -person to replace -man in compounds for the sake of gender neutrality or to avoid allegations of sexism is recorded by 1971 (in chairperson). In person "by bodily presence" is from 1560s. Person-to-person (adj.) is attested by 1919, originally of telephone calls; the phrase itself was in use by 1880 in reference to the spreading of diseases.



This is why corporations have legal personhood. The root word corp- in corporation means body as in a corpse. You act confused and pretend you cannot agree on what a person is, yet if a child is aborted there is a body, "a corpse" that is medical waste that must be incinerated... It's a solid fact that children are human beings.

[rigmarole]

Children are "persons". Children have legal "personhood"... Thus under the Constitution of the United States "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

[AviatorTom]

@rigmarole If you don't mind, would you mind posting where that definition of a person was made. That would mean that the tooth of a person who's been dead for centuries would be a person, since the tooth contains DNA. I've always understood that the medical and legal community considered viability as at least an important factor.

[rigmarole]

@AviatorTom I already referenced "Black’s Law Dictionary" and "Taber's Cyclopedic Medical Dictionary". These are both esteemed references for the legal field and medical field. For the history of the word "person" I referenced the "Online Etymology Dictionary".

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Etymology_Dictionary

https://www.etymonline.com/word/person

[rigmarole]

A "person" is "an individual, a human being". You can confirm someone is human by analyzing their DNA. We use DNA evidence in court all the time to convict humans of crimes based on biological evidence. A "being" is a living thing. Cells are the basic structural and functional unit of all forms of life. Thus where you have cells you have life. You have living "beings". If those beings have human DNA, then they are "human beings". A "body" is the organized physical substance of an animal or plant either living or dead. Single cells have a structural and functional order and organization. DNA carries logical instructions for the organization and function of that cell. Groups of cells have basic forms of intercellular communication. They organize into a "body" like a group of people in a corporation and differentiate into specific cellular types to fulfill particular biological roles. Thus you get multicellular life. Once you have a "clump of cells" (i. e. 2 or more), then you technically have a "body".

[rigmarole]

If you want a reference for DNA you can use GenBank:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank/

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/assembly/?term=homo+sapiens

[rigmarole]

And as was previously defined in "Black’s Law Dictionary" a Person by law is "The living body of a human being". Therefore, if you have two living cells with human DNA you have a person. 12 hours after fertilization by sperm the egg generally undergoes mitosis leading to two cells. So logically you have a legal person 12 hours after successful fertilization by law and science.

[rigmarole]

@AviatorTom You didn't even read the definitions that were provided. You just made up a propaganda narrative to mislead people away from the true meaning of words. You are very disingenuous. Because I have repeatedly echoed and sourced definitions from reputable sources of language, law, and science that denote that a person is a the "living body" of a "human being". A human "being". Thus in order to be a person, one must be alive. Not born, alive. Once you are dead, you still have a body, but it is a dead body which is a corpse. In order to be a person, one must be alive. So no that would not mean that the tooth of a person who's been dead for centuries would be a person, They are no longer alive.

[rigmarole]

And for all the retards that think being born is the start of life, it's not. Cells are alive. To be born means your were carried. It's not something you do, it's something your mother did to you. You were born by your mother for 9 months. It was a task she carried out to ensure you were safe until you could survive on Earth just like a joey sits in the pouch of a kangaroo and is carried around by it's mother. If you didn't already exist how would your mother carry you. If you think birth is the start of life, how do you explain stillbirth when children are born dead. Birth has nothing to do with life. You could bear a soda can in a backpack and carry it around for 2 years and it still would not be alive.

[Anonymous]

This question has been asked to death. Literally over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

I will support abortion being legal when men aren't forced to pay for children they may not want. Because its literally the same thing, Shirking responsibility.

[NamerOfStars]

Yes. I'm not a fan of it, but I don't pretend that making things illegal makes them go away- or that the government should have MORE control over people's lives. Illegality just means it's not safe.

Note that the same is true of gun sales, on the off chance you're not angry with me yet; it seems everyone else is unable to reconcile those ideas.

Want to see a reduction in abortions? Better education, more readily available contraception, and knowledge of and access to a wider range of adoption options.

[strateguy632]

would you say that about other laws punished theft or murder? don't make law because "making things illegal not
makes them go away".

[genericname85]

generally no. they should be considered murder. but i think that there should be certain exceptions. for example a woman should be allowed to kill the baby inside her, if her own life will be endangered by giving birth, which is a rare condition some women may have. also women should be allowed to kill the baby of a rapist. that's alltogether probably like 1% of the abortions carried out while it's legal.

over 90% of abortions take place, cause people are too dumb to use birth controll... which in my opinion should not be a good enough reason to murder a human.

[HiveBee]

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

[strateguy632]

precedence? that only justified when ma life danger, not MOST abortion that not real health care.
also your word embryo would not justify fetus when more developed. check out french abortion laws.

[HiveBee]

When the woman decides "I am having this baby." That is when their life begins.

It is the mother's choice and only her choice. It's her body and her life.

The only reason anyone is anti abortion is because they believe God thinks its wrong.

There is no other reason. There is no changing their minds.

It's too bad that religious people are not capable of reason. This is why they should be ignored. They are not capable of the use of the human mind.

In the opinion of the religious, mankind only has one path. Something that looks like sharia law.

And these religious nut jobs are growing rapidly. The denial of the efficacy of the human mind is their most basic standard.

Mankind cannot guide himself. There is only submission to Jesus or Allah.

Any choices we make are of sin automatically unless those choices are guided by submission to the higher power.

And the people who use our brains don't seem to understand the looming threat that is religion.

It threatens to take away all freedom and liberty and replace it with some kind of sharia law. Religious law. Religious dictatorships like in the middle east.

That is the destiny and future religious people wish for.

We must fight for liberty in the face of those who believe human beings are not capable of thinking for ourselves.

Freedom is the ultimate good. Not rule by religious belief. Not rule by communists.

[wiltingrosepetal]

I don't think people realise that the whole 'illegal unless it's rape' would create so... so many more problems than it solves. The amount of false rape allegations would SKY-ROCKET if that was the only way to avoid a pregnancy. I'd rather it be fully legal or fully illegal than go through that 😭

[strateguy632]

only? what about condoms? need safe anyway?

[wiltingrosepetal]

I meant avoiding staying pregnant- like, if the only way to terminate a pregnancy was to call your baby daddy a rapist. Sorry, bad wording. I realised that after I posted it 🥲

[PBandJ_Nerd]

It should be legal. Because even if it's made illegal, those who want an abortion will still get one, it just means it might not be safe and involve death. Legality is made so medical professionals can give women a safe abortion procedure (for those that want them).

[strateguy632]

but what about saving some?
punishing abortion staff SAVES LIVES.

[zagor]

@strateguy632 And ruins others.

[BlissfullyCurSed]

It should be legal as it is better for a child to not be born than to lead a miserable life. One who can give up on their own child do not love them enough to raise them with enough affection and care for a child to grow up to be a healthy adult both physically and mentally.

[RingOfFire]

Who decides if the child will live a miserable life? A child can be adopted and live a fantastic life. I have a friend who was adopted and he is one of the happiest most successful people I know.

I don't see how anyone can dare say that they know more about what is better for someone else than that person knows themself. Unless you can ask the baby whether he wants to be born or not, and take his chances, I don't think you can or should have the right to make that decision for him. I think the only moral assumption is that all babies want to be born unless they tell you otherwise.

[BlissfullyCurSed]

@RingOfFire "The CDC reports that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 13 boys in the U. S. experience child sexual abuse." It is issued in 2023. You cannot ensure what might happen to the children who are adopted.

[RingOfFire]

Legal in the case of rape, incest or if the life of the mother is in danger. Illegal if you decide to have consensual sex, get pregnant as a result of your choice, and then decide you want to murder the baby because you refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of your own choice.

[antelope51]

Yes. People have historically always found ways to have abortions whether they are legal or not, but they are more likely to die or become a burden to the healthcare system if it gets botched in some back alley. If you don't want women shoving slippery elm up in their cervix or douching with Lysol or causing deadly hemorrhages with knitting needles and all the other horror stories... keep it clinical, safe, and easy to find help.

[HelpfulWoman]

making them illegal doesn't stop them happening, it stops them being safe. pro lifers are too busy trying to control a woman's womb and throw the rest of her away/call her a whore and deny basic and sometimes necessary health care... so they're no as pro life

[goaded]

In my opinion, there are two kinds of abortion. For unexpected and unwanted pregnancies, and end-of-life decisions for wanted but failing pregnancies.

I don't think either should be illegal, but I also would expect any doctor willing to perform a late abortion on a healthy fetus to face serious professional consequences.

[pervertedjester]

If it's not due to rape or it's not causing a serious health problem and their is at least one potential parent willing to take and raise the child then life should proceed as normal. The relationship be damned all you want but the child is blameless for any dislike or discomfort you have after connecting to someone for a few moments. If the dad doesn't want it but the mom does it's already allowed but if it's the other way around that seems unfair.

[dreamstar72]

Legal woman’s body her choice. Now if a man decides he wants to fight a make the mother carry the child then he must be forced to go through all the consequences the woman has for the next nine months including labor. The only difference is that is ass will be stretch apart in delivery.

[strateguy632]

woman's body? how can a male fetus be her body? ma not male. even daughter not same d. n. a. not ma body.
anybody ignoring the dead HUMAN victim cannot consider themselves a good person.

[IronPhoenix]

It's something that should not be used as a form of birth control. Honest to God it is not that difficult to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. Either use protection or keep you pants on. Now if the fetus is dead and it endangers the life of the mother then yes an abortion should be done.

[Anonymous]

Abortion should only be legal if every other kind of murder is. People should have equal rights under the law.

So as long as I don't have the right to kill you to avoid the inconvenience of your existence which I caused. You shouldn't have that right to kill anyone else for the same reason.

[zagor]

And so a clump of cells with less brain activity than a mouse has the same rights as a grown human?

[MrShaun]

@zagor So you're talking about a woman?

[Opinion Owner]

@zagor If your going to regard yourself soo superior on the account of your age that you have the right to kill younger people for your personal conveniences. One has to wonder if your the one who needs to be confined the safety of others.

I mean how is it that we can trust a person who thinks themself so superior to others as to merit such treatment?

[zagor]

A zygote is not "someone", any more than a mouse is.

[Opinion Owner]

@zagor I am impressed by your single-minded murderous bigotry and arrogants. A mouse does not have human DNA, if left alone naturally it will never be equal in thought and capability as you.

Indeed I am surprised even in the age of AI where we have proven how simple it is to build greatly capable complex Nero-networks you are not humbled by your own ignorance of what is required to even think.

For me the line is quite clear at the species line which is defined by DNA. To hold any other standard is to either nearly all of nature in a vague way or exclude too many of mankind.

[zagor]

There is human DNA in the skin you shed. What something has the potential to become is quite different from what it is. Killing a fully functional human being is quite different than killing something that may someday become one.

[Opinion Owner]

@zagor The DNA in your skin is not unique, just as your skin is never going to naturally going to become anyone separate. It is in fact already dead by the time you shed it.

A unborn infant is fully functional and doing everything a human is suppose to do at that stage of life.

[zagor]

A 3 month old fetus is not fully functional.

[Opinion Owner]

@zagor For the age they are fully functional

[zagor]

They cannot survive without a host. So they aren't an independent entity.

[Opinion Owner]

@zagor They cannot with current technology be safely moved before a particular point in development just like many other humans later in life. They can like all other humans survive anywhere where there is appropriate food & shelter.

That is a very different problem, the fact that you are also entirely responsible for their condition also makes you responsible for providing that food and shelter where they require it. If you want to pay to safely move them later when its technically possible that's your choice.

[Anonymous]

Abortion should be legal under certain circumstances (rape, incest, potential risk to the health or life of the mother, serious health defect in the phoetus, etc.), but it should NOT be freely available to anyone who wants to end the life the their child growing inside of them simply as a means of birth control. The VAST majority of abortions are nothing more than after-the-fact birth control, which is disgusting considering it is ending a human life.

[jshm2]

Neither.

The problem is too many fucking talking heads are getting into the debate to feed each others polemics, not because they have anything valid to add.

Abortion should only be considered when there is danger to the mothers life. But too many fuckwits are using it as a get out of jail free card, instead of educating themselves.

On the other side, scientists are happy to use it as a free stem cell store.

[Apple1996]

Abortion is healthcare so it should be legal

[pascal_climbs]

Everyone is free to decide about its own body. The only question is: up to how many weeks are you allowed to do it without extra requirements.

[Anonymous]

I don't think they should be illegal if they're morally reprehensible to society. It's why I don't really support abortion. Too much of society is too ok with it anymore. Whether you want to accept the REALITY of it or not. There is a significant percentage of the population that considers abortion to be an alternative to contraception and that should NEVER be. Abortion should be the NUCLEAR option. Unthinkable and an absolute last resort.

[AngelLily]

100% illegal. People need to start taking responsibility for what they do. For victims then both the victim an the child should be taken care of considering they are both victims of circumstance.

[AaronKrieger]

Legal, but I am not huge for them at all and it is killing a human life. It should be looked at that way, so people know the weight of it, which I think most people do.

[bolverk]

Legal, but within strict parameters/time limits and not as a primary birth control method.

[wiltingrosepetal]

I hope this answer goes through in the future

[cth2188]

Abortion is a personal choice and not anyone's decision what someone else does with their body. I'm pro choice as women have rights over their body.

[cth2188]

Legal stance here

[RingOfFire]

Why isn't it a personal choice for the baby? Why don't they get a choice about what happens to their body? If a woman chooses to have consensual sex, why should the baby have to pay with its life because she refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of her own choice?

[cth2188]

Women decide what they want to do with their bodies not the government or men - there's multiple abortions methods medical abortion and personal abortions - medical abortions where women have to terminate pregnancies due to an issue with the baby or rape... normally a doctor decides with the consent of the mother. Then there's personal abortion where a woman no longer wants to carry a child due to whatever reasons absentee father or etc

[cth2188]

Me personally I've never had an abortion or miscarriage.. and sterilized to have a more children

[cth2188]

Any more " not every man is meant to be a father and not every woman is meant to be a mother why I believe in abstinence and celibacy- even birth control methods

[RingOfFire]

But you didn't answer my question. If the mother chooses to have sex knowing that she might get pregnant as a result of her choice why should the baby have to pay for her refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of her own choice and actions? Why should she have a choice of what happens to her body but the baby doesn't get the right to that same choice about what happens to his body?

[cth2188]

This can go multiple ways ad I did it's her body what she does with the fetus

[cth2188]

And ^ because she can

[cth2188]

I'm not here to debate

[RingOfFire]

Did not mean to upset you just give you another perspective to consider.

[cth2188]

I don't need another consideration I can't have any kids and support women who choose to abort

[cth2188]

Why would should be careful not getting pregnant by men. I wanted my doctor to remove my ovaries

[cth2188]

Some kids shouldn't be born plus they carry the fathers defective genes being his DNA is recessive

[RingOfFire]

So you only care about how it affects you? You don't care about the effects of abortion on other people?

[cth2188]

Do men care when their abandoning their off springs? If the courts weren't involved men wouldn't care about their kids aslong as they pay child support

[cth2188]

The fetus doesn't even know its in the world until 3 months

[cth2188]

Why abortions are done before the 2nd trimester

[cth2188]

There's way too many kids and no parents or good parents stop bringing children into the world you don't want and if you don't want to take care of it adoption is an option

[cth2188]

Let's ask single mothers about how they feel about raising their kids alone most of them regret it and won't have another child- truth be told all mothers are single mothers because men are not capable of being fathers to the kids they have unless the courts forced him too and vwen still men gripe and complain about paying child support

[RingOfFire]

"Do men care when their abandoning their off springs?"

So your point of view is that because some men do bad things like not taking responsibility for paying child support for their children that all women should have a right to do even worse things and kill their babies?

[cth2188]

Why women should be careful who they have kids with

[cth2188]

Most men don't care about their kids and raising them once the mother and him spilt why because my ex husband doesn't care about his kids and the only reason why he cares is because he pays a little child support, but doesn't have to deal with emotionally taking care of his daughter - I've been doing that just fine without him

[cth2188]

Women should stop having men's kids- way too many single mothers raising kids alone - way too many married women raising children alone - same for divorced moms

[cth2188]

Women should stop having men kids and sleeping with many and abortions wouldn't be a thing

[cth2188]

Maybe these women don't want to be burden with raising a kid alone since most men don't care about their kids they create

[RingOfFire]

At least now I understand your view is coming from personal experience. I'm sorry that happened to you.

[cth2188]

Well I know many women it happened too - they're still raising their kids solo without the father present

[cth2188]

I love my kids , but won't have anymore not to men anyone and will consider vitro fertilization or adopting for me and my girlfriend

[cth2188]

My kids are teens now and I don't need the assistance of my ex husband

[HighlyQuestionable]

This is the problem with Biology vs Ethics.

I do think abortion should be legal.

I also think that no one should have one except in extreme circumstances.

But I am biologically male, so what do I know about it?

[strateguy632]

hmm so a male can't save a victim... what about domestic violence, not your body so can't save victim?

[HighlyQuestionable]

@strateguy632 You misunderstand. I wrote "what do I know about it". Emphasis on "know" not "do"

[ChicoFromThe305]

Illegal, I believe it's inhumane, if you had your fun, you gotta raise the chum.

[matchrestore]

Abortion should be legal, easily accessible, and affordable.

[strateguy632]

if not for the DEAD VICTIM i would agree.

[robhazelnut]

They're murder. It's another example of one person or more thinking that they own another.

[exitseven]

Legal but there needs to be a determination exactly when a fetus becomes a baby.

[Al_Musafir]

They should be legal provided they're done under a time limit. But only in circumstances when someone is raped (God forbid).

[BCRanger10]

Yes. It is outright evil and should not have legal protection.

[linka_pat307]

I can't really reason out the reasons as both seem good to people under different circumstances

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Illegal unless of incest rape, fetus deformity or medical emergency.

[HaveNoName]

ONLY AND ONLY for saving mother's life. Only if bearing the fetus will kill her.

[Jamie05rhs]

Legal in special cases. It shouldn't be a common thing. A culture that just kills their babies willy-nilly is a corrupted, sick culture.

[imfreeze95]

I think it should be legal under certain circumstances. But I believe putting up the kid for adoption is better.

[riverrat3]

Legal, we should not make these choices for women, should be their choice

[strateguy632]

this is not only about the women. what about the victim?

[serious_miss419]

It’s legal in some places.


However, it should be the pregnant woman’s choice.

[zagor]

Legal. The GOP will deservedly lose on this issue if they keep up.

[zagor]

Amazing how many people here think irresponsible people should be forced to become parents. Yeah like there aren't enough parents like that now.

[eagle1951]

in the case of Rape or Incest, or the mothers Health I think it should, my opinion

[Anonymous]

Seems reasonable to have them legal up to the point and then not legal after some point. Just a question of agree what that point is.

[strateguy632]

like the french law until 2018

[Opinion Owner]

@strateguy632 Could be.

[Anonymous]

Fuck yeah! We don't wanna pay child support or have to see one night stands ever again if we don't have to! Abortion is a man's ticket out!

[Pterodon]

Legal for rape, incest and health of mother but not for birth control

[QuietRunner]

Legal, safe, rare

I'm more birth control

The prevention of a potential life is better than the termination of a known life

[Anonymous]

Abortion should be illegal. It's murder.

[Luméa]

Why, what if the woman was raped?

[HighSky]

Illegal, any woman who gets one should be charged with murder

[pethouse]

This is a hard one for me. When it comes to most things I always try to look at both sides.

[mandyfire98]

Legal

[Anonymous]

Abortion should be illegal. It's murder.

[Luméa]

Why, doesn't a woman have rights? What if the woman was raped?

[Aphrodite801]

You should have taken men’s opinions off of this.

[cth2188]

Exactly 💯

[TonyMetal___86]

Illegal but only legal in harsh cases

[DextroShade]

They should be mandatory for unwed women.

[BrookeS]

Yes they should

[BrookeS]

I mean should be illegal

[smashleyy]

Legal

[Kelly6]

legal

[vicphilips]

Have you ever had an abortion?

[Kelly6]

@vicphilips yes.

[vicphilips]

How many times?

[vicphilips]

Or only once?

[PeachyPie93]

Yes, legal.

[_piotr]

Illegal.