• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Need help with understanding the ethical dilemna of abortion

Phokus

Phokus

Lifer
Note this has nothing to do with those nasty pictures of aborted fetuses that were just posted (i didn't look at em, but the thread reminded me to post this question). Anyway, I am struggling to decide on whether i am pro choice or life on this issue, and i think i fall somewhere in between, maybe leaning a bit more towards the pro-life side.

I believe that there are some stages in the development in the fetus where you are harming a human life, namely when the fetus becomes sentient. Now someone correct me if i'm wrong, but would this be when the fetus starts to develop a brain? I feel that if the baby has a brain, then it would be incredibly wrong to harm it, as it would feel pain, and would have perception, etc. etc. Now when does the fetus start developing a brain?

But at the same time, there are reasons for a woman to abort her baby (i.e. she was raped, she has no means to provide for it). However, one of the arguments that i do not buy is that the fetus, or even the 'fertilized egg', is part of the woman's body. After the egg has been fertilized, the dna changes and is no longer the woman's DNA (it has unique DNA acquired from both the man and woman), and therefor cannot claim that it is part of her body. IMHO i think my argument is pretty solid, but i'm still interested in hearing some opinions (expert opinions preferably).

I guess the reason i am asking this is because i have never really participated in any discussion/arguments in abortion (like i do in arguments about drugs, guns, politics, etc.), so i am not as informed as i could be. I'm going to sleep soon, but i'll check back tommorow morning on what your opinions are.
 
Actually, I think your DNA argument is very good. I'm going to use it next time I get in an argument with a random feminazi.

Everyone should be Pro-life and recognize that abortion is the last possible resort.
 
but the issue is clouded by the grey areas of individual rights; at what point does a fetus have rights??? At what point do you sacrifice one individual's rights for the sake of another's???? Interesting as I find myself very much against abortion but even more strongly towards the rights of the individual. It would be alot easier if people were responsible enough to make the sensible choice in the first place; except in those cases where no choice was given.
 
As a male I NOT do feel that I have any right to force a woman into motherhood if she is not ready for it. This is a very personal decision that should be made by the mother to be. I do not understand how the government can put it self in the postion to make such a call either. If you have religious convictions that forbid abortions, more power to you. But what right do you have to force your convictions on other humans. Again this must be a choise made by the mother, not me, not you and most certianly the government.


Edit: added the NOT to the first sentence.
 



<< However, one of the arguments that i do not buy is that the fetus, or even the 'fertilized egg', is part of the woman's body. After the egg has been fertilized, the dna changes and is no longer the woman's DNA (it has unique DNA acquired from both the man and woman), and therefor cannot claim that it is part of her body. IMHO i think my argument is pretty solid, but i'm still interested in hearing some opinions (expert opinions preferably). >>

Well I'm no expert I guess, but i'll share my thoughts on that. You mention that since it has its own unique dna, it has its own rights. Where do those rights end. I think most people agree that one persons right end where they begin to infringe on another persons rights. I could go outside and scream at the top of my lungs for hours, thats my right if you will. If my yelling is keeping you, my neighbor in the apartment next door awake though, I think you'd agree that I'm infringing on your right to a good nights sleep and I should shut up. Lets say that a mother finds out that for some reason if she goes through with the birth, there is a high probability it will kill her. Doesn't the rights of the fetus infringe upon on the mothers right to live. She was there first, she is supporting it, her rights come first in that instance I feel.

As far as when a fetus can &quot;feel&quot; things, its a take a guess situation. A quick search on google showed the 2nd trimester, 20 weeks, 7 weeks, and 12 weeks all on the first page.
One link
Link Two
So to me this looks like a situation where each side can cite numbers in their favor.

I'm personally prochoice, but believe that except for in the most unusual of circumstances, abortions should take place in the first trimester only.
 
Well I'll say this... if we're baseing the right to abort upon the babies consciousness and it's ability to percieve this doesnt happen to shortly after birth. I don't believe in abortion.. I believe in choice... Since the moral issue of deciding when a baby is a baby is so vague unscientific and undefined... I believe that it is the individuals right and duty to decide for themeselves. Yes this means many people will abuse this privalege... but it has been shown that abortion does not stop where it is made illegal... it simply becomes more dangerous.

-Max
 
Lalaki, my argument is that the woman gives up her rights when she chooses to engage in behaviors that may make her pregnant. I, too, am very much in favor of individual rights, but I am also vehemently pro-life.
 


<< ...it simply becomes more dangerous. >>

So? Should we really care that someone is injured or killed when voluntarily engaging in such activities? I do not.

 


<< Lalaki, my argument is that the woman gives up her rights when she chooses to engage in behaviors that may make her pregnant. >>


What is your stance when she doesn't choose, but is raped? How about if she wants a child, but finds out delivery complications will most likely leave the child with no mother?
 
reitz, it's not that easy. How many young mothers have children while they are still children??? What support system will the children have raised in that environment?? The issue of abortion effects everyone in one way or another, from child support, medicaid, education, ect..

If this was an easy problem the politicians would have taken credit for solving it long ago and we'ld still have the problem. As is, the issue is so divided and based on emotion, that logical solutions don't apply,.........except to be responsible in the first place. But do you want to compound one problem with another and perhaps force a child to live a life that's unpleasant in the extreme, so that we can have an easy consciounce???
 


<< What is your stance when she doesn't choose, but is raped? How about if she wants a child, but finds out delivery complications will most likely leave the child with no mother? >>

Of course in both of those cases, I feel that there is a justification for abortion. I still feel that aborting the fetus is wrong, in and of itself, but it is the lesser of two evils in those situations.

<< How many young mothers have children while they are still children??? What support system will the children have raised in that environment?? >>

Simple: take the child away from the mother if she is unable to care for him or her. It sounds radical, but it is much better for the child to be taken from his or her natural mother and put up for adoption than it is to kill him or her inside the womb.

Sometimes we must do what is right, rather than what is easiest. Abortion is nothing more than the &quot;easy way out&quot; for both the mother and society; instead of taking responsibility for her own actions, the mother can just kill the fetus that is growing inside of her. Society allows abortions to occur because it is easier than finding a solution to the real problems.
 
This remains such a deep personal concern for the mother, that what I feel does not matter. I am very concerned about the continued loss of personal freedoms due the ever growing enroachment of the goverenment in our lives. Unfortunately to maintain a free society we must allow things to happen which we may not agree with. That is the nature of freedom. So, Rietz, for you and yours, please refrain from having abortions. Please do not attempt to legistlate your personal views of morality or mortality on the rest of us. It has been shown that legal or illegal abortions still happen. At least when done in clean, controled surroundings the mother's health is protected.

I would rather live in a world where abortions are allowed, not encouraged mind you but not illegal either, then a world where the big brother government takes another hunk out of our personal freedoms.

Given the freedom to legislate we have legislated away freedom.
 
reitz, I hope you don't think that abortion is always what is easiest. I don't know how old you are, or if you have children of your own, but the idea that abortion is painless or easy for all women is just wrong.

I've tried to stay out of this debate, but it seems like there are actually no women commenting in either this thread or the other one. You all are talking about what a woman should and should not be allowed to do - as much as I do believe that this is a joint decision a woman should make with her partner, in the end, it is usually legally the woman's choice, not yours.

I happen to be very pro-life, yet I believe that legally, each woman has the right to make a decision about it herself. She's the one who'll be carrying the child and taking all of the physical risks associated with pregnancy. I would hope that as a society, we'd concentrate on providing alternatives to abortion rather than simply saying she can't have one or denigrating her for her choice to have one.

I don't buy into the whole &quot;abortion in some cases&quot; arguments - you are either for choice or against it. There can't be any gray area, at least not legally. Yes, you can be emotionally divided - recognizing that there are some horrific instances when a woman should simply not be asked to bear a child, but still feeling that the life she's carrying has value. But you can't draw this line about who can and can't have an abortion - do we discriminate against a woman who's husband violently raped her and got her pregnant? She's married to the guy, it's not like it was a stranger rape...but maybe she feels differently. What about mentally disabled people who get pregnant? Were they capable of giving consent to have sex in the first place? Do you put the cutoff at those with a 70 IQ - what about the woman with a 71? How far do you allow the line to move?

The DNA argument has some validity - but unless the fetus is viable outside of the mother, how can you say it's not a part of her? Can it survive without her? Legally at least, that's been one of the definers of &quot;life.&quot;

Now, you can decide for yourself if I'm an expert, since you wanted &quot;expert&quot; opinions. I've been pregnant 3 times, all while married and all with the intent of carrying to term. The first time, I developed some extreme, life-threatening complications and the only treatment available to me would also end my pregnancy. I was only 3 months along when I started treatment, and because of an incomplete miscarriage, ended up having to have a medical D&amp;C, which is frequently what an abortion is. BTW, I had to walk through a throng of picketers and people screaming at me to get to my OB-GYN who was doing the procedure. It made an already miserable situation absolutely unbearable. I cried throughout the entire procedure because not only was I upset about what was happening to me, I was actually afraid of what the people outside thought I was doing.

I got pregnant again a couple of years later and had a difficult, painful pregnancy that, thank God, gave me my son. My husband and I decided to try again a couple of years later, but that pregnancy also ended in miscarriage. More children are no longer in my future, but as woman who's at one point, carried three children, I think I'm qualified to at least comment on what a woman can and can't do with the life inside her body.

It's wonderful that most of you have such strong feelings about life - and I applaud every one of you for that, even though some people aren't expressing themselves very well and are resorting to flaming to get their point across. But please know that not all abortions are coldly planned like someone else suggested they'd do; unfortunately, some are and I readily admit it. But it's just not as cut and dried as some people who will never carry a child in their bodies believe.

I'm tired and probably not expressing myself as well as I'd like to, but this is the best I can do at the moment. We can have a discussion of this issue without flaming the crap out of each other, and I hope no one was offended by what I had to say.
 
Everyone here seems to imagine such a fetus as a tiny version of a baby, curled up in the cozy womb, sucking on its thumb. Well, it's not exactly like this. The unborn child lives as a parasite, it takes all its energy from the mother and, since its own internal organs don't work, returns all waste to the mother.
Pregnancy is certainly not the wonderful event everyone imagines. It's war. War between the mother and child, for the child wants as much energy as possible, while the mother needs energy to keep functioning.
Further there are the male and female hormones. The male hormones cause the placenta, womb etc. to grow bigger (so that the child grows as strong as possible), while the female hormones have exactly the opposite effect. Without those latter effects, the mother would quickly die because of the developing child in her womb, sucking away all her energy.

As for my view on abortion, I think that sexual intercourse should be limited to when its necessary to produce offspring. Sex for fun must either be done very safe (in which case abortion is not possible if it goes 'wrong') or simply not done at all.
In cases where the mother was forced to unsafe sex (rape) or deceived into getting pregnant (a very convincing male, for example), abortion is the best option, whether it's done using a pill or a small operation.
The same counts for situations where the mother's life is in danger, due to this pregnancy. Some females don't know that they can't get pregnant in 'the right way', until it's too late. It also happens that the fetus develops itself outside the womb. This situation is lethal.

If a female gets pregnant, but can't afford a child, the child is taken away for adoption.
 
I'm against abortion, simply because I view it as killing, but I'm also male, so I don't really understand all a woman has to go through. Although I don't think I'd let my future partner ever abort...

and...

Well written ChrichtonsGirl!

and...

chainbolt, stop crapping in every thread! :|
 


<< I think that sexual intercourse should be limited to when its necessary to produce offspring. >>



I think I sense someone who's not getting any....
 
If men were the ones who became pregnant then abortion would no doubt be legal, and would have been legal for a long time before it became legal in this country.

Lalaki, my argument is that the woman gives up her rights when she chooses to engage in behaviors that may make her pregnant

Are you kidding me?? So a woman gives up all of her rights to her body when she choses to have sex?? That's absurd!!
 
Could someone please point out to me where in the Constitution the &quot;Right to choose&quot; is.. Thanks.. You all use it so frequently it MUST be there.. Please just give a link, thanks.
 
ChrichtonsGirl, I very much respect your opinion, and it is obvious that you respect mine. I don't think you completely understood the point I was trying to convey, however.

<< I don't buy into the whole &quot;abortion in some cases&quot; arguments - you are either for choice or against it. >>

I feel very strongly towards the &quot;abortion in some cases&quot; arguments, for two good reasons. First, most women become pregnant as a direct consequence of the choice they made. IMAO, a &quot;woman's right to choose&quot; only covers her right to choose to engage in behavior that could result in pregnancy. A woman who is raped is not allowed to make that choice.

I value the life of a fetus conceived from forced intercourse just as much as I value the life of any other. I definitely feel that the act of aborting that fetus is wrong. However, I feel that a much greater wrong is forcing a victim of sexual assault to carry the child to term, placing herself in [albeit slight] physical risk, and forcing her to relive the trauma each day. In that case, I feel that aborting the fetus is the lesser of two evils.

I also believe that it is justifiable to abort the fetus if the pregancy endangers the mother's life. I view that in the same way that I view any other justifiable killing. Would you allow an armed assailant to kill you, even if you had the power to protect yourself by taking his life? The difference there is that the assailant choses to place you in that situation, while the child is an innocent victim of circumstance. Unfortunately, though, life occasionally throws us a curve-ball.

My biggest problem with abortion is that it is 100% preventable (with the exception of the two cases I listed above). There is absolutely no reason that anyone should be faced with a pregancy that she (or he) is prepared to deal with. I believe very strongly in personal rights, but even more important to me is personal responsibility; something that has been lacking in this country for far too long. Every one of us needs to be held accountable for our actions, and we must deal with the consequences however difficult they may be. Abortion is a way to avoid the responsibility that comes with having sex; that is not to say that the choice is necessarily arrived at lightly, but it does allow a woman (and a man as well) to escape some of those consequences.

My girlfriend and I have been dating for over three and a half years. We finally consumated our relationship only four months ago. We waited so long because neither one of us was willing (or able) to deal with the possible consequences of sexual intercourse. Now that we are both in the positions we are in, we would be able to handle it should the unthinkable (😉) happen. I only wish the rest of the population were raised the way we were.



<< Are you kidding me?? So a woman gives up all of her rights to her body when she choses to have sex?? That's absurd!! >>

jahawkin,

Keep in mind that is NOT the woman's body that is in question. It is a seperate living entity, which requires her support to survive. I'm not saying that a woman gives up any rights when she chooses to have sex; I'm stating that she has already exercised &quot;a woman's right to choose&quot;. [With the exception of rape] no one gets pregnant on accident. It is a result of a conscious choice. If people in our society actually thought about the possible consequences of their actions, and were held accountable for them, we would not be having this discussion.



 
I just want to add a side note that so far, this is the most civilized and respectable debate on abortion that I've seen on these forums in three years. Let's try to keep it this way, and have a reasonable discussion instead of a flame war.

Matt
 
I RESPECT different opinions, but in this case, my patience and understanding is very limited.
How can somebody seriously dispute the mother's right to abort? (within a certain time frame of course).
 
Without reading anyone else's replies (and trying to stay out of any possible heated discussions) let me give you my opinion on your DNA idea:


To be brief, having distinct DNA does not qualify in my book as a sentient or distinct form of life.

I would claim that the fetus is not a completely seperate being with its own full rights, because its body cannot physically survive and operate without being attached to the mother.

I would also claim that a brain does not imply sentience. A brain is simply the hardware necessary for developing sentience, but it takes a fairly large amount of experience to develop a proper consciousness. Although the fetus may have natural instincts even while in the womb, this is not the same thing as sentience. Even the lowest order animals have instincts, and yet most people do not have a problem killing them given good reason, perhaps because they are not conscious in the same way we are.

These are my ideas, take them for what they are worth.

-jotahxe
 
Jothaxe,

I gather from your comments that you are an athiest 😉 I understand your reasoning, but I must disagree with it.

<< I would claim that the fetus is not a completely seperate being with its own full rights, because its body cannot physically survive and operate without being attached to the mother. >>

The same argument can be made for a newborn child (or even a child up to several years in age). It, too, cannot survive without its mother (or at least a guardian in her place), but we would never consider taking the life of that child for any reason. I personally see no difference between a fetus inside a woman's body being dependant on its mother for survival, and a newborn infant outside her body in the same situation. Both need her to survive...why is the taking of life justified in one case but not the other?


edit: spelling
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top