The 2012 presidential election is approaching! Do you think that the new presidential candidates should support or ban abortion for women of all ages? Why?
You're just looking for trouble!
Abortion is THE most emotive issue ever.
Until God tells us when human life begins, I guess it should be up to the woman.
Not that I would ever fan the flames!
God has told us. It happens at conception. However reality is that you cannot make a woman a prisoner of her own body.
The foetus growing within the body of a woman is undeniably totally dependent on her, yet independent of her, because it is not part of her body.
From conception, it is a new life.
You could consider a foetus to be like a leech, feeding off her.
She will lose her teeth if the foetus needs calcium and her dietary intake doesn't provide enough.
In a WANTED PREGNANCY, the woman will change her diet. In an unwanted one, she will not.
Actually that's a bit of textbook nonsense because plenty of us lost calcium or other stuff while pregnant, while trying to ensure our diets were good for baby.
Anyway, that is not a conscious thing, babies do change our lives and our bodies whether we like it or not.
Aborting them doesn't reverse the damage they do, because their time of greatest growth is very early on in the pregnancy.
Really? God declared, and it was written, that when a sperm and egg join it makes the resultant zygote a human? When none of the terms were known and even the concept of a part of us too small to see was ridiculous?
Sounds like more convenient interpretation than the Word of God to me.
Abortion is a legitimate medical procedure that is provided to a woman. It's HER decision and there shouldn't be any other authority which should dictate otherwise.
Exactly! Abortions should not be banned! If banned, they will still be performed and usually under undescribable sercunstances taht would endanger the woman.
I'm comfortable with it being up for a referendum...if only women of child-bearing age are allowed to vote in it.
I was a very vocal anti-abortionist until I hit the menopause. So no worries about not having a say.
But I would not leave the decision to the woman unless she is accurately informed of what she is doing.
Too many women abort thinking it is only a 'cluster of cells'. Reminds of of the 34% of Chinese polled who didn't realise shark fin soup came from real sharks.
An educated decision to abort is between the woman and her conscious.
It is NOT a method of birth control, that's all I'm saying.
I can agree with this but on a much wider scale - no woman should be allowed to decide anything for herself - ever. The state, and especially religious groups, should be able to interfere in any woman's life as they please. I would put every woman in a burkah and dictate to her how many children she should have, what religion she should follow - and if I got fed up with her I should be able to have her stoned to death and move on to one of my other wives.
Of course, we could just all butt out of everyone else's lives and mind our own dogdamn business !@
I think very, very, very few women consider abortion a form of birth control. I think the process is incredibly painful, emotionally and physically, so it isn't treated lightly by many.
And, even so, it's their bodies. Men will never have to make that decision, so I really get pissed off when I see men trying to limit women's right to govern their own reproductive processes. (And, unsurprisingly, men are much more likely to want abortion rights limited than women) Why, might I ask, were you against abortion before, and what made you change your mind?
I'm not sure too many women are in the dark about what an abortion entails. But I agree with your point about it being a matter between a woman and her conscience.
I'm against it because I love babies. I had six of them myself, but I was against abortion before I had six.
Abortion is, in most cases, completely painless.
It is only painful if the woman feels regret.
In the UK, all the so-called abortion advisory agents, are in fact fronts for abortion clinics, so the woman/girl is not given the full information.
I am not Catholic. This is not a religious thing. I was a nurse for many years.
Early in my career I heard about babies being aborted that were still alive, in my own hospital (where I worked I mean, I never owned a hospital).
These babies were given no medical help to live, and were left on a worktop, abandoned, until they died.
Their mothers were never told of this.
Even in the 80s we had grown women who thought they were aborting a bunch of cells - not a real, living, human baby.
Any foetus, from about 12 weeks, is undeniably human.
In those days, abortion was permitted up to 28 weeks. They could have been saved at well before that point.
The youngest ever survivor was 21 weeks. I think the limit now is 24 weeks.
But, you know, what has changed in my mind is, if the mother didn't want them, who else would?
Once upon a time, childless couples were queuing up for babies to adopt. Now they use IVF.
I've also learned in the intervening years how many children became victims of sexual abuse while in 'care'.
Now I think it is better they are not born at all if their own mother doesn't want them. Better for them, worse for the perverts.
Until society is ready to face up to the fact that there are a huge numbers of perverted people working in the care services, I am all for abortion.
I don't think anyone is 'for' late term abortion - the ruling that exists in almost every part of the world limits abortion to within the 12 weeks term.
Thank you for your well thought-out explanation. For the issues you raise, and many more, abortion is and always will be a powerful issue.
But in the end, I do believe that as long as the mother is the *only* person that choose whether a baby can be brought to the point that it can survive on its own, whether she continues to carry the fetus is up to her.
(This is probably why late-term abortions tend to not be allowed, I think.)
In a twist of irony, my partner and I are waiting to adopt a child, so we have an interest in at least one mother who doesn't plan to raise her baby to carry it to term and give it up for adoption. But I still support a woman's right to make that choice.
And I wish you and your partner all the best - I am sure you will make great parents!
All a child needs is love, a loving home, and the discipline that is handed out within a loving home.
I learned that children need discipline, not because they are bad, but because there are boundaries they need to respect.
On the subject of abortion, please see this piccie (its amazing what they have now)
This poor wee mite is 10 weeks, not 12. Human yes, dead yes, it is sitting in a surgeons gloved hand.
If it was up to me, now that I have aged, all women could have an abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, so long as they were shown this picture first.
Yes it is your body, but yes it is your child, not a bunch of cells.
You're gonna be a daddy!
How fabulous is that!!!
The idea that anyone else would think they can tell me what I can or cannot do with one of my own internal organs is offensive.
If abortions are banned, backyard abortions will just come back into vogue. And how many of those resulted in deaths and sterilisation during the earlier parts of the 20th century?
What about women who have babies that will die once born or will end living as vegetables? Should they be forced to have no abortion and to either birth a dead baby or see a child each day who can't even communicate and may be trapped in their bodies?
What about women who may purposely harm the child during the pregnancy if they can't abort, or after the child is born? I'm talking of the women who have no problem drinking energy drinks, alcohol, and taking drugs in huge amounts during pregnancy. And the women who will take out all their issues on the child in forms of abuse, yet somehow avoid having the child taken away by social services.
I've had four children and I would never choose to have an abortion...but on the other hand I've also been in the position of choosing whether to turn off life support or not for one of my children. I chose not to, then almost four years later I was forced to make the decision of whether or not to keep giving him CPR after they had worked on him for over 2 hours. At that point, I let him go.
Now, with that being said, I would also not presume to tell another women that she had to live the life I did and I will actively oppose any law that says that the government can make that choice for them.
Now, the limiting of abortions to the first 12 weeks sounds like a wonderful restriction, until you realize that the earliest that certain birth defects can be reliably detected is between 18-20 weeks. In many cases, amnios aren't reliable until 22 weeks. Testing for most birth defects before 12 weeks is impossible both by amnio or ultrasound.
Testing for the same heart condition that my son had was only achievable at 32 weeks (fetal cardiogram).
Those are my personal reasons, and I really do fear the slippery slope... A lot.
From a broader point of view, I view abortion as a reproductive health issue. In general, I think it is a very very bad idea to turn my uterus over to the United States Government. It sets a bad precedent.
That is a sad situation to be in.
My parents had a 'blue' baby that died at one year old and my mother especially never got over it. If society was as tolerant and balanced as it could be then I would say that preventing the suffering for the baby and for my parents before birth would have been a better option at that time. As society is in the condition of being ruled by an interfering bunch of backward and bigoted children I think the current situation is the best option all round, sad as it is.
Big hugs, you've lost a child, and thank you for sharing that with us. I am so so sorry.
You raise some excellent issues in that detecting abnormalities in an unborn child comes so late in the pregnancy.
This is why, in the UK, the law allows terminations up to 24 weeks.
Basically, if the child is simply unwanted, you can terminate easily up until 12 weeks.
After that, there is usually a medical reason. The child is damaged in some way - though I personally don't think that testing positive for either Down's Syndrome or Spina Bifida is reason to abort.
Ever read The Memory Keeper's Daughter?
Or God forbid, the mother's health is in danger, and that can happen with loads of rare conditions like placenta praevia.
Unfortunately, the law is interpreted as abortion on demand. All that is needed to two doctor's signatures, the second of whom has (in most cases), never even seen the mother.
The third scenario is that the mother's mental health would be in danger to continue with the pregnancy, and it is on this grounding that most abortions are carried out.
It is basically abortion on demand.
Keep it within the first 12 weeks and you won't hear anything from me, but go up to 24 weeks under the 'Mental Health of the mother' part of the act and you will still get me riled.
You are saying here that you don't trust 'other' mothers to do what YOU think is right, and you don't trust the doctors WHO are there to introduce a checking function. In this way you bring the argument full circle back to what others behaviour is to do with you ?
Your wish to impose YOUR picture of a half formed foetus on other women at an already traumatic point in their life is counter to all the sensible things you said previously.
Thank you for the hugs, I'll always take them
With Lily (who was conceived after Kaine passed) I only allowed testing on things that might cause serious complications at birth (so we could have a team standing by) If they would have told me she was an octopus, I would have said "have a tank standing by then" Like I said, for me personally abortion is a no go...
(The irony is she turned out to be a special needs child anyway, but so far as I know there is no test for autism)
I can -kinda- see later term abortions for mother's mental health in the case of late reporting of rape or incest.
See, that's my biggest problem is the kinda's and the exceptions... It seems to rely so much on personal viewpoints that the whole area is gray. Placing laws on gray areas is kinda scary to me.
I'm not one who thinks that a 4 week pregnancy is any different then a full term delivery. Which makes it hard sometimes for me to not say that abortion is completely wrong. I wouldn't trade any of my kids for all the money in the world and if I got pregnant with Octoplets I would consider it a blessing... but I just don't feel comfortable with putting rules on other women about it.
So I guess I completely agree with you, but will have to disagree on some points... if that makes any sense...
Makes perfect sense
Once again, I am so sorry about your little 'uns.
Don't be sorry. Kaine forever changed my life and the life of everyone who ever met him, but his work here was done and he went home (and the first person who says anything about religion to that statement gets it on principal).
Lily is the absolute love of my life and I wouldn't change her for any "normal" child in the world. Whatever her life turns out like, she will be among the most loved little girls in the world and be ridiculously spoiled.
It's all good Izzy.
If I can butt in here - this exchange illustrates exactly why the least interference in other people's lives the better. Melissa, with her enlightened views and openly caring attitude, makes most kinds of child preferable to an abortion. Not everyone is like Melissa, or Izzy for that matter. For instance, an autistic child in the wrong hands is condemned to a life of fear and difficulties - I don't need to go any further with these comparisons, they all point to the same thing, leaving the perosonal treatment and care of both mother and baby to doctors provides the best protection for everyone, even if it is far from perfect.
The best kind of mother? I know those weren't your words but you sort of suggested it took a special type.
Well yes it does and it doesn't.
The love of a mother is stronger than the pull of the ocean under the effect of the moon.
A mother that has aborted does not feel that pull until much later, that is why she grieves.
This whole scenario is not black and white.
So to all those who say "its a woman's body; she can do what she chooses", she can, up to point.
My theory is to educate women and girls, of the emotional pull of their unborn, even though they don't feel it it the time.
There is plenty of info out there about the born - the trials and tribulations children bring.
No-one talks about the grief caused to the very same mothers by abortion, I still speak to mothers who are still grieving the child they aborted 30 years ago.
As for Malissa's little ones, I would be honoured to meet them!
As before - I agree with most of what you say. And I did not say a 'special' kind of mother, if I inferred anything it was that there are plenty of very NOT so special mothers to be considered.
The issue is most definately not black and white, which is why interference should be kept to the minimum and left to doctors.
The grieving of mothers who aborted is a contentious issue, although this does not detract from the issues women face over abortion. The horrendous 'guilt trip' that religious and anti-abortion put onto those who choose to abort should be condemned, along with sneaking emotive little pictures into the issue - as you were suggesting.
There are many sides to this whole argument and many people keep their views to themselves in the face of the 'emotive' nonsense that passes for reason. You (and Melissa) would probably be horrified if you knew my personal opinions on this issue. This is why the debate should be kept as a rights of the mother, or parents, issue and kept as far away from others as possible.
I have always said, and I will repeat for the panda, that the decision to terminate should be an informed one.
For years, women believed they were aborting a 'bunch of cells', it is important for women to be shown pictures of the foetus/baby at all stages of pregnancy, and especially their stage.
NOT to stop them going ahead, but to help them grieve later.
That is something else that is hardly touched upon, but even the most relieved not a mum to be feels grief at some point.
Women are built for childbirth, AND for a lot more too, but yes they feel a close bond with their unborn, even when in denial.
I think for the emotional health of the woman contemplating abortion, she needs the full picture first.
I don't disagree with much that you say, except that imposing your own 'values' on any other person is wrong. When society says it MUST be done, then the least imposition the better - and leaving the decisions and advices and treatments to doctors is the correct decision as each case is different and personal. I oppose ANY imposition of others views in any way.
I pray that abortion never be outlawed. Women should have children who are wanted. Having an unwanted child has deleterious effects on the woman and the future child. No, abortion should never be outlawed. Outlawing abortions will not stop abortions but will only increase back alley abortions which are often dangerous and unsanitary. A woman's reproductive system is her business and all religious, right-wing, and conservative nuts mind your business and stay out of a woman's womb.
Abortion is terrible and I'm sooooo against it, but no matter what we're gonna have girls having abortions all the time, should they go to jail because of it? They're putting the doctors, aids, and mothers in jail. Is that what we want? I don't know which side I'm on, but I'm definitley against abortion
I think we also have to remember that banning abortion didn't stop them from happening in the past, and it won't stop them from happening in the future. Countries that do allow abortion would see an influx of Americans coming in to have the procedure performed without fear of being arrested. That's the way it was in the past. Women who couldn't afford this form of "medical tourism" would just have the procedure done illegally in the United States, often by people who had no medical training.
Wow. You wonder why people can't let this issue die. It's no one's business but the woman in question. Any man with an opinion on what a woman should do with her own body is just being a busy body.
I would never have an abortion but, if asked, I would certainly drive a woman to the clinic that had made that decision because; it is her decision.
Any presidential candidate that doesn't take that stand gets a strike against them, in my book.
I agree with you! Being liberal and open-minded about this issue is very important! Thanks for stopping by
"Any man with an opinion on what a woman should do with her own body is just being a busy body."
Or that child's father. So far I've seen post after post that the fetus is a human child to be killed at the mothers sole option.
Yet the woman in question has produced, in conjunction with a man, a new life - that fathers child. That she doesn't want the child, doesn't want the child support payments and doesn't want many months of discomfort means that she can murder that mans child?
Just tossing it into the pot for discussion; I have never been able to come to an answer myself.
Well for one reason, over half of a million women die in childbirth or from complications related to pregnancy each year. Male deaths from childbirth are zero.
Some estimates go as high as 10,000,000 further permanent injuries/disabilities from childbirth/pregnancy. Again, male injuries/disabilities are zero.
In addition, current American laws largely say that a man can walk away from a child and be responsible for child support. However if a female walks away from her child there is a likelihood that she will be charged with criminal child abandonment. She will also face the possibility of loosing any other children. Men can have as many kids as they want and pick and choose which ones they choose to parent.
1) A small number of healthy women in western society (where abortion arguments rage) die or are harmed by childbirth
2) Women might be charged by giving up any legal rights to the child
3) Men can have many kids
are the reasons for a father to have no say in the killing of their child. While #1 has some merit, it can be dealt with by allowing abortion if the mother is in danger. The others don't seem to hold much water to me - certainly not when we're talking about killing his child.
So - you are in favor of laws forcing a man to look after a child then?
Good for you.
What do you think - 50% of his income taken by the state and paid to the Mother?
If the mother has sole custody, then 50% of the costs of raising that child are not unreasonable. Of course, just what those costs are is debatable and not easily agreed upon.
Awesome! 50% of the father's wages garnished. Go for it. Custody? What that got to do with abortion?
Is that the same as the backlink thing u r a expert on now?
And half the feedings, and diaper changing, and sleepless nights. Half of the being puked on, half of the loads of dishes and laundry. Half of the parents conferences and soccer practice trips. Half of the doctor's visits, half of the potty training, half of the sleepovers, half of the sex talks and drug talks, half of the discipline and half of the sibling squabbles.
Required. By law. Enforceable by jail time.
Not so. If neither parent wants a child there are millions that want to adopt. Talk to livelonger. If only one parent wants the child then love it and raise it, but do so in the knowledge that the parent will be alone.
It is not possible for the law to make a parent. Only love can do that. As we both noted below, life isn't fair.
So you would support laws jailing fathers that refused to participate in their children's lives? And you would also support laws that said if they didn't choose to participate in one child's life then they would loose all their children AND go to jail?
How about personal injury/wrongful death lawsuits aimed at fathers when a women was killed or injured in childbirth?
And I'm not even sure how to make sure that men share equally in pain and illness over the length of the pregnancy and delivery.
The point is the burden on carrying and delivering a child is not the same between women and men. Nor is the burden of raising those children. Since there is no way to make it equal, then the decision should rest in the hands of the party that carries the most risk and/or responsibility.
Not participating does not include, to me, not paying the cost.
But we are talking here of a man that wishes to raise his child by himself when the woman doesn't want that child. The question isn't applicable to that situation.
Perhaps if the woman gave birth solely because the father wanted his child she would not owe support monies in return for the pain of carrying that child? Just a thought.
Again, the mother is not assuming the responsibility beyond a few more months after finding out she's pregnant. That leaves only the burden and risk of childbirth - in a healthy woman without complications is that worth the fathers child?
LMAO, okay with that route, then the mother reserves the right (same as men currently do) to ignore the child for years then show up demanding visitation rights. And for the judges hands to be bound in allowing said visitation...
Look, I get what you are saying. I would be pissed off if the tables were turned and my hubby had the right to choose whether he carried or aborted. Once again, there is no way, without making huge changes to anatomy and law, to make it fair. If he was the one to carry, as pissed as I was, I would leave the choice to him.
You sound just a little bitter, as if you had first hand experience with a deadbeat dad. If so, I'm certainly sorry (my daughter-in-law has an ex that way) and understand, but you have to be aware that all men are not like that. Some men actually do want a child and their feelings on seeing that child murdered as a convenience to a deadbeat mother are probably even strong than yours.
You're right; it's not fair. Life isn't fair - it is only what it is and nothing more. You say you would leave the choice to your husband if the tables were turned, but would you? Given that life is sacred, that you want a baby with all your heart, that you want YOUR baby and are already bonding with that child; then will you quietly stand by and let him kill it because he doesn't want discomfort for a few months?
I'm not in that position, I never have been and never will be. But I can understand and sympathize with men that truly want their child to raise and have no choice but to watch as it is killed for no reason but that the mother doesn't want to be inconvenienced for 6 months. Murder is murder (to many that's just what abortion, even early term abortion, is) and that's HIS child being legally murdered.
And if that's OK, then why can't the man demand an abortion as well? It must be safer than birth, after all. Why does that work only one way?
As I say, I have no answers that satisfy me, just questions. Maybe there aren't any. Life isn't fair.
Thanks for your answers, though.
Many of these issues will be solved when men can get womb implants.
Until then, human reproduction is almost 100% the domain of women.
If a man wants to make sure that a woman carries his child to term, he should take extra good care in choosing a mate that he has the confidence that will do that.
That is indeed about the size of it, and I don't necessarily disagree. A woman's womb is her own.
Artificial wombs would certainly end the problem, though!
...to say nothing of artificial testicles.
I think they already make those... I'd link you but I'd get banned for sure.
And - as a pertinent sidetrack - this whole situation applies to the argument for female equality. There can be no such thing as equality as it is currently imposed by law without allowing for the issues of man and woman being 'different'.
I agree completely.
I don't expect to pee standing up and I don't expect a man to breastfeed.
I value the differences between men and women quite a bit. There are plenty of stereotypes that I would like to get rid of but a few that actually have some validity. It burns to admit that sometimes, but it is the truth.
Part of making laws is being realistic. If there is no way possible that the law can be fair, it should at least be just.
Yes, when it comes to the biology of reproduction, nature has made it very much unequal. That inequality has been translated into the law, too, and abortion restrictions seek to take even more power away from pregnant women.
(Not to parrot your sentiments again, being your alter ego and everything. Squawk!)
Abortions should not be banned for more than one reason
The one thing that pisses me off the most about this topic is the blatant usage of specific words to cause more confusion than anything else.
At what stage(development) does/is fetus? baby? child? and so on. Each word used by specific arguments is to convey the subjective view point. Some people don't call a fetus a fetus, but do call it a child, just to make a point, which shows a lack of understanding of human life.
It's really so irritating.
This topic was looking for trouble right from the start..... but no, I do not think abortion should be banned. It is a womens right.....like it or not...it should also be a mans right to a degree.....either way, there are just too many reasons why outlawing abortion could be a bad idea.
Worry not - Wilderness will set us straight in a minute. It is a expert on every thing from backlinks to abortions.
Thank you. It always good when true genius is recognized.
On the other hand, you seem a little sarcastic. From my first post in this thread: "Just tossing it into the pot for discussion; I have never been able to come to an answer myself." Your one reply gave no answer - just more sarcasm that I had such a firm grip on the question. Well done.
The only posts I can think of on the subject of backlinks was pointing out to David470 in another thread that purchased backlinks are against google TOS (you might read up on that one if you are vague on it) and that I have several times indicated I backlink but very little. While I appreciate that you read between the lines to find genius, it might be a little premature in this case as well.
So - the advice you hand out regarding backlinks is a tad suspect?
OK - Just repeating wot god sed?
No - you may go to google and read their TOS yourself if you wish, although I'm not sure why you would care with no hubs.
God? Where does God come into it? Or simply more misplaced sarcasm?
I'm not in this thread to debate; as I said I don't have an answer that satisfies me. Your nonsensical replies don't even give an opinion, just the irritation you intended.
Actually, no real dead beats. My oldest son's father passed away. My exhusband is an asshat who made a REALLY bad decision while parenting, but he is/was a very involved dad. My current husband and father of my youngest is doting almost to excess.
Sorry. I know you'd like to chalk it up to bitterness but it's really not.
No life deserves to become of this. There are too many willing people out there that can't have kids of their own.
by Amber Musselman7 years ago
OKAY... SO I WROTE A HUB ON ABORTION AND TIMOTHY LEFT A COMMENT (BELOW)AFTER THAT COMMENT IS MY RESPONSE----- TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK AND WHO DO YOU AGREE WITH!! timothy Carpenter says:I...
by Jackie Lynnley5 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
Abortion is THE MOST CONTENTIOUS arena and subject of American politics. Abortion also generates the MOST VISCERAL reaction among people. However, what business and concern it is whether a woman elects to...
by moneyfairy2 years ago
Do you think a woman with more than 8 children has a mental problem?Isn't it just a little insane to have so many children? Unless you are a gazillionaire how on earth could you afford so many children? And how much...
by Phocas Vincent23 months ago
Do you believe in your opinion that in the topic of abortion, the US Government should regulate the procedure or should it be a left to the discretion of the individuals involved? (Please keep it civil and clean guys.)
by Onusonus3 years ago
Following remarks he made to GQ magazine concerning the Bible and condemning homosexuality, Phil Robertson was recently suspended from the series Duck Dynasty. Do you think his rights to free speech have been...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.