Abortion rights have always interested me. There are many reasons why people have them. I have heard that, in other countries, people will have an abortion as soon as they find the sex of the baby to be female. Do we have abortions for such reasons of vanity, here in the US? How much freedom should the freedom of choice give you? Weigh in. This is what I Think:
Mentally handicapped: Yes
Fetus is found to have a serious defect: Yes
I'm not ready: No
I'm single: No
I want to focus on my career: No
I don't want his baby: No
I don't know who the father is: No
I don't make that much money: No
The "No" section for me, in my opinion, is all vanity, and in no way different than aborting because you find out it is a girl. If you are healthy, I believe you can carry a baby to term, and place it up for adoption if you really don't want it. If people are allowed to get abortions for these reasons, what does that say about our society? You don't have to own up to your responsibilities?
Used correctly, contraceptives will prevent pregnancy. Messing up truly isn't a reason to not take responsibility for your actions.
*shrug* People vary. If you're going to destroy a fetus does the reason really matter?
Rape. The mother is saying she doesn't want the mental stress of carrying the child to term, so kill it. Not much of a reason for a sentence of death is it?
Teenager. The teen, mostly likely someone of an age that 100 years ago was raising a family, doesn't want the responsibility of their actions, so kill. Again, not much of a reason for a death sentence.
Same with mentally handicapped - that someone made a choice they didn't understand fully is a reason to kill someone? Or are you proposing that because a handicapped person should not pass on their genes that an abortion is OK?
Even the defect is questionable. Did the child make the decision to terminate or just someone (mother) that didn't want the trouble of raising it. Did you see the guy that ran in the olympics with two false legs? Missing two legs is pretty serious, but he certainly did alright!
All that is predicated, of course, on the concept that a fetus is a human being. Should you disagree with that, then all the no's don't carry any weight as any reason is good enough (up until the point that the fetus is considered to be human).
Seems to me that either a fetus is a human being (whereupon NO reason is good enough outside possibly the health of the mother) or it's not (whereupon ANY reason is good enough - much like freezing a wart off your hand).
That is a philosophical question that each person must answer for themselves. We need to all understand that, and quit forcing our beliefs, religious or otherwise, onto someone that has just as much right as we do to make that call. Given that it's her body the mother-to-be (or possibly the father) has far more right to make the call, but those of us that are willing to declare that their philosophical/religious decision is the only right one hardly agree.
Wow. Or close to a million dollars in medical bills, in-home nursing invading your home 24 hours a day, the necessary neglect of any other children, 12-15 doctor's appointments a month, 8 specialists, 14 surgeries in 3 years, 20+ ambulance trips in the same amount of time, the destruction of a marriage, severe depression/exhaustion, the emotional trauma done to a 6 year old boy who actually made the phone call to 911 while his father was doing CPR on his brother, the indelible memory of telling the er staff to stop CPR on your child after 2 hours and then the feeling of holding your child as his heart took it's last forced beats, and finally the experience of being a pallbearer of your own child's coffin. I personally would have made the choice to have my son even if I knew what was in store but I'll be damned if I would ever force the decision on anyone else. To call it a parent not wanting "the trouble" of raising a disabled child though is downplaying the struggles quite a bit though.
Melissa, what you have gone through and what you have done makes you one of a wonderful and elite group of people, and one that I personally have no issues with.
What I don't get is how one moment a fetus is a person to be protected from harm, but only unless certain conditions have been met, among them to be nearly perfect or not the result of rape or teen pregnancy. If a disabled child in the womb can be killed at will, what about those that are outside the womb? Is the next step to murder all Down's Syndrome kids?
I know that's an unreasonable question, and that no one is proposing it, but what has happened to us that we can flip flop on our morals that way? As a species we pay lip service to our morals in a hundred different ways. We demand that other cultures share our morals because they are the best. We go to church (or meditate or whatever) to know what is right or wrong, but as soon as our morals bite just a little it's out the window with them.
Same thing I said above - if a fetus is a person it should never be killed. If it's not, it can be disposed of as any other unwanted growth in our body. What has happened to us to declare that that one, in her body, is a person but the one in my body, that I don't want, isn't? Are we really that pathetic?
You're so right. Women who are pregnant and want the baby are so protective of their child, naming it and talking to it and about it constantly. But those who decide they don't want the child simply decide that it's not really a child yet, it's a fetus and won't ever be missed. Makes no sense.
We, as a species, cannot possibly share the same set of morals. We all have different morals, which is clearly apparent on this thread.
I am asking, here, what you believe is too far, and why you believe it. I don't think we have the right to impose our morals on others, and that's why I think the government should get their nose out of our personal business (abortion rights/wrongs, our health care, what constitutes our marriages, etc etc).
There is no winner in this debate! And morals also play no role in it.
There has always been abortion and there will always be abortion. The argument is Legal and safe or Back Alley. Women with money will do what women with money can do, go to a doctor who can and will accommodate them or to another country that will. Poor women will as in the past... do what they can afford.
Only your own conscience can decide. Those who will defend all aspects of abortion are down at the dog pound screaming "murderer" at the fence....2 and 2 do not equal four anymore. ~WB
Only your own conscience can decide. Those who will attack all aspects of abortion are down at the prison screaming "kill 'em all" at the fence....2 and 2 do not equal four anymore. ~ES
I don't think that ever killing a developing life is permissible. What if your mother had done that to you?
The reason I say yes to teenagers and the mentally handicapped, is because, they aren't granted the right to make decisions concerning their own lives. How can you be responsible for someone else's life (your child) if you can't even legally vote, have sex, drive, etc, etc. Mentally handicapped people are treated like children in many of the same regards. Their sentences in prison are less extreme, just like children, and they often live in homes with a chaperone, and have certain guidelines put into place about the number of hours they can work, and other such things. Why force responsibility, when they aren't given it?
As for defects, many highly-defective fetuses aren't even carried to term. Aborting it ahead of time, rather than experiencing a miscarriage can be much safer for the mother.
As for rape, I said yes, because she wasn't given the choice in the first place. When you choose to have sex, there is ALWAYS a possibility of pregnancy. Recognize that, and take ownership of the consequences, because sex was the choice you made. The rape victim does not get that choice.
When you choose to have sex, there is ALWAYS a possibility of pregnancy.
Yes, but given that abortion is legal, there is always the possibility of terminating a pregnancy as well.
Recognize that, and take ownership of the consequences, because sex was the choice you made.
People choose to have sex knowing that if they get pregnant they can get an abortion.
Your rationale seems to be based on punishing people for having reckless sex. But if they engage in the activity knowing full well that they can obtain an abortion in case of pregnancy, then to my mind they aren't being irresponsible or heedless.
People have sex, and they have all kinds of sex. And that's perfectly fine by me.
What I do not like is that abortions are used as birth control, or a safety net, or an excuse to have sex (such as what you have just stated). My issue here is that people are using it as a cop-out, and aren't taking responsibility.
I am a 22 year old woman. I have money. I have a home. I am healthy. If I were to get pregnant, there really wouldn't be any rational reason for me to get an abortion, would there be? Even IF I didn't want a baby, there are thousands of people who would love to have a child but cannot (gay couples, sterile couples, older couples, etc.)
My issue here is that people are using it as a cop-out, and aren't taking responsibility.
Taking advantage of a legally available option is taking responsibility for their actions.
If I were to get pregnant, there really wouldn't be any rational reason for me to get an abortion, would there be?
There are plenty of rational reasons why someone could get an abortion in that scenario. For example, not liking kids, not wanting to get fat, or wanting to devote time/money/energy to other pursuits besides parenthood. Those are certainly not irrational reasons.
Okay, not having a baby because you don't want to get fat? I guess I can agree that that person probably shouldn't have kids. There is, of course, also eating healthy foods and maintaining an active lifestyle (which, to me, seems like a much easier alternative to "not getting fat" than to pay thousands of dollars to abort a fetus).
Whew! I have always been interested in abortion as a topic of discussion. I mainly posted this to see other's opinions, and why they have them. I'm not going to try to convince you to think the way I do, but I am certainly going to try to show you why I think the way I do (do you understand?).
" aren't granted the right to make decisions concerning their own lives. How can you be responsible for someone else's life (your child) if you can't even legally vote, have sex, drive, etc, etc. Mentally handicapped people are treated like children in many of the same regards"
How can they be responsible for someone else's death, either? They can legally and ethically murder, but can't raise a child?
Likewise for rape. The woman wasn't given a choice about sex, so we'll giver a choice about murder? She can't murder her rapist but is allowed to end a totally innocent life? That doesn't make sense to me.
For the life of me, I've never understood how it's OK to kill a person that is the result of a teen "indiscretion" or the result of rape. Or how such a person isn't a person at all, but little more than a wart to be removed, while another that wasn't the result of rape is a person and thus entitled to live.
I can only repeat that abortion of a living person is murder and abortion of an organism that is not human isn't. The circumstances of fertilization doesn't determine that, and doesn't change what that fetus is.
Where are the vocal father's rights advocates here?
Unfortunately, I don't think fathers will ever gain choice-rights. The circumstances under which fathers are given the right are about as gray as when a fetus is considered alive.
They're around ! Not very vocal maybe, which doesn't mean they have no opinion. Remember that it is the Mother who carries the child and in many instances, when the mother contemplates abortion, the father is long gone.There are also instances where the father is still around. I wrote a poem on this very subject, called Little Buddy,it's on my hubpages somewhere if you feel you might be interested. In any case this is a painful and touchy topic and everyone has a different view. But isn't the whole debate about liberty ?
Yes, they're around. The justice system and women in general have declared that men have no more rights in the matter of abortion than that baby does, though, and it isn't likely to change in the near future.
Very few women care one whit about a man's child if they don't want to give birth to it. It is their body, their choice and, if they want it, their baby. Irrational? Of course (it took two people to make that baby, which they will happily point out when filing for child support) but it is what it is.
Pro Choice should go far enough that it's each individual's personal business and not ours to sit in judgment.
We can assume we know someone else's circumstances and motives.
We'd very likely be wrong.
I don't know why this is such an issue really. I don't deny anyone's right to contraceptives or abortion. Your choices are yours and between you and your maker. However, I shouldn't have to fund your choices either.
Actually, no. We all pay for foster kids and welfare babies. That is the human side of it. Now, I am not one who disagrees with contraceptives, but some do. Why should they be forced to pay for others to use it? Same with abortion. These are issues with clear cut sides. It is that simple. By forcing funding you are denying the basic rights of certain individuals. No one's basic rights are being denied if they have to pay for their own contraceptives. I've yet to meet anyone who has a basic belief that babies should not eat or be clothed, so not the same thing at all.
Can you prove that heart disease and lung cancer are actually controllable? I'll say no you can't. My mother, my aunt and my grandfather all died of lung cancer. My aunt and my grandfather lived to be almost 90. One smoked, one did not. My mother never smoked a day in her life but died from it when only 58. Smoking may make you more susceptible but it is not the sole cause. You are attempting to compare apples to oranges. Same with heart disease. People who eat properly and keep in shape have dropped dead from heart attacks in their 40's. Again, poor eating choices could make you more susceptible to heart disease but one does not necessarily lead to the other.
You point is well taken, so I presume that you want to consider all aspects of reproductive health, vasectomies, hysterectomies, condoms contraceptions, abortions and such as choices rather than preventative medicine in any way? What if the RU-486 pill was made available over the counter for anyone, would you accept its availability under these circumstances, could conservatives accept this wihout interference?
Very few women choose a hysterectomy as a means of birth control and most doctors will not perform one solely for that reason. It is a very invasive surgery and has implications beyond not being able to bear children. To answer your question, however, if it is a choice solely about child bearing, no I should not have to fund it. If it is performed due to cancer, that is different. I am not advocating that any of these things you mention not be available or a choice. The morning after pill is available btw though I believe you have to be 18 years of age to purchase it. Obviously I cannot speak for every conservative but personally, I do not have an issue with availability even though I do not agree with abortion being used as a means of birth control.
by Scott S Bateman 2 years ago
The abortion debate is dominated by two extremes. On the one side, "pro life" extremists insist that abortion is murder. On the other side, "pro choice" extremists insist that abortion is a personal choice.I have met quite a few people who think they belong to one or the other....
by firstname.lastname@example.org 3 years ago
If you are pro choice, why limit choices in other areas?Those who claim to be pro choice are often against the choice to own an assault weapon, the type light bulb to use, the choice to put their social security retirement funds in a private account, coercion to purchase healthcare, oppose voucher...
by Leslie McCowen 6 years ago
“If pregnant women should have to get an ultrasound before having an abortion, men should have to undergo additional medical procedures before getting a prescription for erectile dysfunction,” Sen. Jill Vogel (R) noted, and introduced an amendment to the ultrasound bill, requiring that...
by Havenite 6 years ago
Personally I feel forcing someone to have an abortion they don't want to have is just as bad as forcing them to have a baby they don't want to have. Whilst in the west the issue is focused mainly on whether or not people should have the right to terminate a pregnancy or not, in places such as China...
by Dave Mathews 6 years ago
Abortion and euthanasia, and suicide all require a cessation of life. For abortion it is a requirement for the cessation of life of the fetus. For euthanasia and suicide, it is a requirement by an already living and viable human being for life to come to an end, or to bring their life to an...
by Susie Lehto 10 months ago
Alabama is taking into consideration recognizing the human fetus as a person. I am praying that the State of Alabama will recognize a fetus as a person. This is a monumental issue across the country, but these state leaders are at least wrestling with a decision on a state level. That must take a...
Copyright © 2018 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.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|