Presently, a woman has, by law, the freedom to end her pregnancy. After all, its her life and her body.
Is this issue, free-choice abortion, a matter of politics? Social science/politics is about what is good for society as a whole. Is abortion good or bad in the light of what is best for society?
Or is it a scientific issue in that once a child is born he/she needs a certain amount of love and stability for the growth of body/mind/soul. Abortion should be allowed in cases where a mother cannot provide the needs of her child and is unwilling to give up the child for the sake of adoption.
Is it a religious issue in that killing an unborn child will result in the grief of the mother who is devastated at what she has truly done: killed her child. If a woman chooses to kill her child, will she ever really be happy again?
It is a complex issue. Is it religious, political or science-oriented?
If all three, what is the best way to deal with the issue of whether or not to terminate a human life.
Freedom of choice, or not?
Personally, I think the child, once conceived, should be brought to full term and put up for adoption, in cases where the mother finds herself unable to take responsibility for its life.
And that mandatory adoption, rather than free-choice abortion, should be the law.
Basically, I ask this question to give a voice to those who are against abortion.
“After all, it’s her life and her body.”
Science reveals this statement to be a fallacy. A zygote is biologically distinct from her mother. It has a set of 46 unique chromosomes and is not a part of a woman’s body like a tumor. They are two beings, distinct from one another, so it’s no longer just “her body.”
This becomes clearer as the fetus grows. The umbilical cord unites him/her with its mother, to provide nourishment and oxygen, but also keeps them separate. Their circulatory systems are different and must not mingle or complications arise.
The more I learn of this subject, there are many purely scientific reasons, apart from religion, that should make abortion illegal.
and how about what a man, (the father,) wants? Surely a man can be just as devastated at the termination of a life which he helped create / nay, caused to exist.
The male, after all, is the initiator of the sex act. The woman typically is the receiver.
If the male knows his sperm will create a life that is to be born, no matter what, wouldn't he take more responsibility for his actions?
... and the female, as well?
If anyone wants to make abortion illegal I would advocate also requiring mandatory birth control for all, outside of marriage. Men and women, alike. Problem solved.
Why? Because if you are going to take away a legal option that has been part of our culture for several generations, because of a moral stand on your part, you've got to accept the fact that you can't change hearts and minds of others quite so easily. You can't change a culture steeped in sexual innuendo where even our toddlers are exposed to it. You can't ignore the fact that fashion is meant to exude sexuality, role models of our young are usually pop stars, radio stars or reality stars who use sex to sell. You can't ignore the reality that this environment condones underage sex, eschews marriage until well into adulthood. Basically, Pandora's box of sexual delight is advertised on every level and the person who advocates criminalizing abortion must look to the negative effect such an act would have on young people in such a society.
In my mind, access to early term abortion is a necessary evil we accept in order to ensure there are multiple options to protect women from the effect of living in a society with so many mixed signals bombarding them.
If you want to be the morality police on one level, you might as well be it on all levels you can force legislation to rule over the lives of people you will never reach out to with a helping hand.
The other law that needs to be passed is making sure the man responsible for the pregnancy incurs all burdens EQUALLY. If the woman is jailed for an abortion, then the man is too. If the woman must raise the child or chooses to raise the child, then the man must share in half of everything or be put in jail. There must be vigorous enforcement of some kind of equal parenting/pregnancy responsibility.
In other words, a man who gets a woman pregnant and then abandons the child, must be jailed.
If a woman chooses to have an abortion (her choice, not his), then the father (if known) shall be jailed? Don't know that I can go along with that one.
Also not sure that a father must share in the day to day care of the child, particularly when very young. A 50-50 parenting, where each has the child half the time is reasonable...except when nursing. It's hard on the kid, though, unless both parents are required to live in the same school district.
But financial support - absolutely! With the caveat that putting the father (or mother) in jail for not paying child support only means the rest of us support both the child AND the parent in jail. Is there no other way?
I'm being hyperbolic, obviously. But we're talking about stopping abortion! If we're going to do that, then a man has to be subject to the same punishments as the woman if he abandons her after getting her pregnant.
Then punish him for abandoning her. Not for a murder he did not commit and had nothing to do with.
One day we will have to address the rights of fathers re: an unborn fetus. But until that day the father has no part in the decision of abortion and cannot be punished for what he did not do.
the father has no part in the decision of abortion and cannot be punished for what he did not do.
What is he asked her to have an abortion? What if they both agree? What if he pays for it?
He cannot make the decision to have an abortion. He COULD knock her in the head and cut the fetus out, but I assume that isn't what is being discussed.
Still, is it illegal to encourage another person to do an illegal act (assuming all abortion is illegal here), without ever applying any force or threats? Not sure, but don't think so. If he paid for an illegal abortion, though, did he not hire a "hit man"? I'd say yes.
None of which has much to do with automatically jailing a father that disappears into the sunset, which was the topic.
Wilderness, you're being very literal. Legally, I agree with you. What I'm suggesting is not really possible legally. But let me offer up this scenario.
A man and a woman meet in a bar, go back to his place, have sex, and she gets pregnant.
At this point, would you not agree that they are both equally responsible?
The woman would like to keep the baby, but the man doesn't want to be a father and asks the woman to have an abortion. When she refuses, he breaks off any relationship.
The woman goes a few more weeks, realizes that she cannot afford to have a child, and decides to have an abortion.
At this point, is she solely responsible for that decision? Does the man not have any responsibility in the final result? Assuming abortion is illegal, is the woman convicted of murder, executed, and the man gets off without penalty?
Tack on any variation to the scenario I've presented involving a woman who is pregnant and a man who decides to leave, forcing the woman to consider raising the child alone. What responsibility does the man have in that situation if the woman decides to abort?
The law that my state keeps trying to pass would criminalize the father only if he talked or coerced the woman into an abortion. This seems to be what is called a "model act" and some of states are considering it. It also holds criminally liable any other person, including a parent, sibling, or friend of the woman, and the doctor, nurse or other medical personnel involved in the abortion. The woman would not be criminally liable for ending her pregnancy in any instance.
I'm curious to know anyone's thoughts on this.
Insanity at best. The woman is not responsible for her decision, but everyone around her IS. Insanity, buried in "he said, she said" court arguments.
In any case, it's just another "back door" attempt to stop all abortions rather than accept that other people disagree with the opinions of the pro-life group, and compromise is not considered any more as a political strategy.
No, wilderness. The injector should have been resisted. The woman ALONE must pay the penalty and make her own decisions.
Be held accountable.
If abortion becomes illegal, jail the guy too. Jail any guy who has sex before marriage for attempted impregnation. Heck. Jail a guy if you can prove he had an early morning moment where he was in a position to have done something. That would be preparing for the act.
Bad. Bad. Bad.
Kudos to both Live to Learn and Crankalicious for your broad minded and practical views of a controversial problem!
Another question, we make abortion illegal. How do we monitor those who go outside the country to get abortions?
I presume those women should either lose their citizenship or be jailed upon return to the country?
I never thought about them. I was thinking about young women who'd run away, to avoid telling their parents, dirty back room abortions and babies dropped on doorsteps and put in dumpsters.
But, sure. If they criminalize abortion I guess they'll have to build more prisons to house those who find other ways to gain access.
Well, you and I are on the same page.
As you say, abortion is a necessary evil. Free birth control would solve a lot of the problem.
People who want to argue the moral angle don't understand why abortion is legal or don't care.
Making abortion illegal is a way for the morally righteous to punish poor women and young women who, as you say, might not have the financial means to get an abortion. These poor women will be subjected to unsafe medical practices. Those of us who have money and might need an abortion for some reason, will just go to Canada or Mexico or wherever.
We should do everything we can to make abortion uncommon, but if the procedure is needed, it should be safe for all.
You do tend to find that people who want to make abortion illegal to don't want to discuss the legal repercussions.
There is plenty of discussion re the legalities. A sampling is below:
See this on medical law and the conflict of abortion:
https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-ess … -essay.php
A look at protecting the image of abortion as opposed to the facts:
https://aclj.org/pro-life/the-lefts-tro … nd-bigotry
A few questions to ponder honestly:
Something to help boil things down for thinking through issues:
https://www.thoughtco.com/arguments-for … on-3534153
Opportunities to look at the legalities abound:
Abortion report from NZ:
Battling being prolife in Sweden:
https://world.wng.org/2014/07/in_sweden … _not_apply
France and Scotland silencing prolife groups:
https://stream.org/pro-life-groups-cens … nd-france/
https://insidethevatican.com/magazine/p … st-france/
Let's just all declare that abortion should be illegal. I'm fine with that. Doesn't affect me in the slightest since I'm a man.
Now, let's answer these questions:
1. What's the punishment for getting an abortion?
2. What's the punishment for performing an abortion?
3. What's the punishment for a man who abandons a woman after he gets her pregnant?
4. What's the punishment for a woman who gets an abortion in another country because she couldn't get her abortion in the U.S.?
My state has this very impractical approach to jailing people regarding abortion, and I'm sure it isn't the only one. Our legislature keeps trying to pass a law that says if anyone, for instance the father of the fetus, a parent or guardian of the pregnant woman, or a friend, any of whom convince the woman to get an abortion, or the doctor who performs the abortion, will be jailed. There is nothing in this proposed law that holds the woman responsible for the abortion.
I agree with you LTL. But it isn't just irresponsible singles. If you have a married person and an unmarried person who happen to cause a pregnancy, are you going to hold the married person just as responsible for not using birth control as the single partner? What if they used birth control and it failed? Lots of issues here.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000, Live to Learn!
And yet, abortion is, In every single case, a tragedy.
... but it is relatively secret and it solves the problem of The Oopsy.
The Oopsy goes away easily ...
When are we going to grow hearts?
Only in a minute percentage of cases when the girl or woman is GUILTED by retrogressives into thinking that her action was wrong which it WASN'T. Girls or women who had abortions were GLAD that they did. They have ABSOBUTELY NO REGRETS...…….in fact, their lives...….BECAME BETTER .……...they went to college & had flourishing careers-they weren't regulated to being unwanted mothers in poverty who abused & HATED their children.
There has been much discussion here about possible punishments incurred if abortion were illegal according to criminal law. You may be interested to know of the punishment incurred by a Catholic who has an abortion according to Canon Law;
"A person who procures a successful abortion incurs an automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication." (Canon 1398) This includes all conspirators: the doctors and nurses who performed it, persons whose encouragement made it morally possible for the woman and those whose practical help made it possible, such as with money or driving to the clinic, etc.
However, there is hope! An excommunication, which means exclusion from Holy Communion, is pardonable. God is merciful.
The best example of this is Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who was a major spearhead in changing abortion legislation. He was directly responsible for 60,000 abortions. He repented after he saw the reality of abortion through the development of ultrasound technology.
LOL. The example of the hypocritical Catholic church. They abuse kids, keep nuns as sex slaves and then have the audacity to think any thinking person is going to take them seriously? I know they think they know better than Christ but log in the eye is a thought that comes to mind here.
Yes, your points are well taken – it seems vastly hypocritical to legislate morals in view of loose morals on the part of some clergy.
I’m likewise appalled and saddened by it all. However, the number of very good priests far outweighs the cancerous lot who tear down rather than build up. They unfortunately make the headlines.
At the same time, I applaud the Catholic Church for remaining firm on this issue through the past several decades.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 RIGHT ON, Live to Learn. The Catholic Church is beyond hypocritical. They have an animus towards women. It is surprising that there are women who are devoted to this misogynic church. The Catholic Church is MEDIEVAL...…...they are threatened by women & their sexuality that is why they are against contraception & abortion. They want women to be submissive. The Catholic Church has a severe problem w/sex. It is of they are AFRAID of sex! Preach LTL, PREACHHHH...…...
Mostly, a fear of heterosexual sex. Although the nun abuse shows not always. I hear they had done of the nuns they abuse have abortions. What a pathetic set of circumstances.
Everyone should be afraid of sex; unless for the purpose of procreating.
http://www.mesacc.edu/~barsp59601/text/ … totle.html
Again, not relevant. The Catholic church is not involved in making public policy.
Tell me what laws would be made to punish those who get abortions, compel abortions, and perform abortions.
Since abortion is murder in your eyes, I don't know how the answer can be anything other than a lifetime in prison and/or execution. Would an abortion be its own legal classification or would it simply be charged as first degree murder?
Crankalicious, unfortunately at one time the Catholic Church was involved in making public policy. I'm not sure how many or which predominately Catholic states outlawed contraceptives, but Connecticut was the last one to be forced to legalize it after Griswold v Connecticut went all the way to the Supreme Court. Until then misogynist Catholics controlled contraception by state laws in a few states.
https://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org … s-about-it
http://fortune.com/2015/06/07/50-years- … workplace/
Thank the gods they no longer rule anyone except those who are controlled by their own choice. This alone is a good argument against states rights v. federal law because we have a few nuts who want to go back to "It's my way or the highway." (My own state is one of those with a "keep 'em barefoot and pregnant legislature.")
Sorry, Crankilicious, it seems you want to get an answer out of me regarding criminal law, but it’s neither interest nor expertise. Execution is certainly out of the question. It’s wrong to try to end one evil with another.
Like most anti-abortionists then, you don't understand the implications for public policy or prefer not to deal with it because it is not the moral aspect that is relevant to the population but applying those morals to public policy and imagining what our criminal justice system will look like when abortion is illegal.
Is abortion murder or isn't it? If it's murder, then the application to public policy is quite simple. And most anti-abortionists believe in capital punishment and execution is an appropriate punishment for first-degree murder in many states.
So fine, execution is out of the question, but life in prison certainly seems to be on the table.
Ultimately what I get from discussions like this is that the morally righteous just want to make themselves feel better but don't actually want to do with the meat of the issue - the reality of it. Perhaps we should use Bibilical law as the basis for everything. I'm betting you or anyone else would find that surprising in its application and effects.
The best analogy for this debate is abstinence-only sex education. We know it doesn't work, but the morally righteous tout it anyway because it fits their personal moral code. It makes sense too. Don't have sex and you won't get pregnant. Full-proof! Unfortunately, public policy needs other answers to deal with reality.
Good ol' Aristotle:
"To be sure, there may be occasions when a good person approaches an ethical problem by beginning with the premise that happiness consists in virtuous activity. But more often what happens is that a concrete goal presents itself as his starting point—helping a friend in need, or supporting a worthwhile civic project. Which specific project we set for ourselves is determined by our character.
A good person starts from worthwhile concrete ends because his habits and emotional orientation have given him the ability to recognize that such goals are within reach, here and now. Those who are defective in character may have the rational skill needed to achieve their ends—the skill Aristotle calls cleverness —but often the ends they seek are worthless.
The cause of this deficiency lies not in some impairment in their capacity to reason—for we are assuming that they are normal in this respect—but in the training of their passions."
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aris … orPracReas
We can't legislate morality. If a woman has an oopsy, she needs to take care of it or suffer for the duration of her days on earth. Of course, she may be able to do more than she thinks she can do ... by herself, (in the case where the sperm injector pretended to love her, injected and fled.) Or maybe not: Its a gamble.
Nevertheless, the one who keeps her baby will always wonder what her life would have had been like, had she remained childless until happily married. I would say it is a very great folly to not be able to utter one simple word: "NO!' to a very persistent guy who has no intentions of keeping his passions in check. Women need to be afraid of sex with a person like that.
We will call him the injector.
If a woman finds herself being pursued by a passion-fueled injector, but can't stand up for her freedom, her body, her soul/psyche/WILL, she I S 100% to blame for an unwanted pregnancy which she alone must end.
So, in the final analysis, women need to fear sex.
Men don't ... but they can be HATED and FEARED by women.
Do they want to feared/hated ...
The choice is in their hands.
Saying no to the guy might be easier than saying no to herself.
I could argue that. but you have a point.
Girls are just to blame. There is no proving otherwise. It, (saying "NO!") has to happen AT THE TIME:
AT THE TIME OF INJECTION ... well just before.
well, actually, way before.
Girls need training in controlling their passions!
Until that enlightened day, abortion needs to occur. If you want to abort your baby the day before its born, have at it,
unless YOU CARE!
Nobody believes in abortion the day before a child is due nor does that sort of thing happen. Third trimester abortions, in general, are exceedingly rare.
becoming less rare:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-york-p … 019-01-23/
Again, exceedingly rare. And it makes sense to protect women when their health might be in danger. That said, I can't quite understand how this law might be used. However, this does not give women a free pass to have third trimester abortions.
This statement just shows how ignorant you are.
no. My position is that a baby should live and be adopted, when the mother can't keep it.
That day will come when society facilitates what has to be done. When everyone gets on the same page and pitches in as far as acceptance and helping a woman with humane adoption procedures and practices.
(And I'm not talking government assistance.)
If a baby must be removed one day before it's due date because the mother's life is in danger, it will receive medical care just like any other baby. Abortion would not be legal.
Do you understand that? Or do you still defend the ignorance of your statement?
After I read this article I understood. (You hear all this stuff/nonsense on the news.)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-polic … adbb3aaa60
But I still have this question: What is the actual difference between a baby just beginning to be physically formed and one completely (physically at full term,) formed?
The next phase is the long period of a second embryonic stage: the development of the psyche. It lasts six years.
Maybe we should be allowed to kill a child before six if things are not going very well, psychologically?
"(You hear all this stuff/nonsense on the news.)"
And, from the President of the United States, sadly.
The rest of your post is just baiting with scenarios that don't exist, and will never exist, just like your mention of killing a baby one day before it's due. This is why serious discussions are so difficult. Can't we just stick with reality?
I am making a point. Why not kill it the day its born as some mothers do?
You hear about them dumping their child in a trash bin ...
killing it before the third trimester is exactly the same.
its actually better for the mother's body to let the baby grow to full term
That is your belief. Do you understand that not everyone believes as you do? If so, do you understand that the Supreme Court as ruled that you cannot force your beliefs onto others?
True, but belief is not necessarily fact.
If only people espousing belief in lieu of fact could understand that.
Putting it in all caps doesn't make it more of a ridiculous comment. Only because it couldn't be more ridiculous.
H U M A N
Q. Is it okay to murder a human at any stage of development?
How could it be?
That is murder. Of course, you know that.
Well, you have a point. Some animals do eat their young.
"My position is that a baby should live and be adopted, when the mother can't keep it."
I think we all support that as a best, first option.
whats the difference? a baby will become a baby whether just conceived, or fully, (physically) formed ... If you MUST get rid of a baby, then go ahead.
kill it without consequence.
HAVE AT IT
And there's always the chance the baby would have been born a lump of weird tissue.
I really wonder how many odd things emerge from a human mother's womb!
would some mothers opt for death, if they knew that in dying, the baby might live?
Mothers' instincts are pretty strong.
Killing a person for the betterment of society. Sounds like what the Nazis did. How is a child born into poverty a fate worse than death?
It is not okay to kill a human at any stage of development, but we do it because we, (as a people at this point in time,) are very cold of heart.
so have at it.
what is it to me?
am I affected?
am I affected by anything which does not concern me?
am I affected by the killings in the Vietnam War?
on the battle fields of the Civil War?
or either of the World Wars?
No. So, have at it.
Kill all you want.
Is it (the killing) the same as murder?
Not in the case of war where one is defending one's country or freedom.
If a baby is going to take away one's country or freedom, is it, (the killing of a developing human in the womb,) justified?
For the same reason cutting your fingernails isn't? Is the question based on your personal opinion that a fetus is a person?
a fetus is destined to become a person.
No it isn't. 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage. So, the best you can claim is that it has the potential of human life.
The fetus has a will to live. If the body rejects it, its a separate issue.
or if the fetus itself looses it's will to live.
You should write children's books. Not on abortion, obviously. But you have a vivid imagination.
Without a brain there can BE no "will". No more than an amoeba has a will to live.
Yes, how does a blob of cells have a will or a mind or even contain a soul?
It is not a blob of cells. They divide and multiply in a very orderly way according to nature's unfolding of DNA/copied pairs, etc., but the soul's blueprint is unfolding with the cellular procession of the body's psychical organization.
The soul = will.
This is true. There is a brain: the "light" brain / blueprint. The spiritual blueprint, if you will.
mistakes happen based on the health of the mother ... and the fetus as well, I would imagine/assume.
Not all of them. Some are just parasites because sometimes carrying a fetus poisons the mother. When the mother is deathly ill and the doctor says you can't carry this baby to full term, so you need to terminate it now before it does any further damage. The doctor terminating the so-called pregnancy said there was a huge blood clot with the fetus and that it should have already miscarried itself. I never looked back or regretted my decision.
it is not a personal opinion. Fact is fact. Human conception will yield a human.
... unless a mistake (miscarriage) occurs which, of course, does happen all the time.
Thats why every human that emerges healthy and beautiful is such a miracle.
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 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 have an abortion. She knows the reason and the circumstances as to why she...
by Jackie Lynnley 23 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 Williams 6 years ago
liberalization and the broadening of women's reprodutive freedoms, especially in terms of a woman's right to choose and the issue of contraception? What makes some conservative men view a woman's greater reproductive freedom and/or choice is an affront to "morality" and "family...
by JRs 5 years ago
Is abortion about women’s right or is it about the right to life?I get so mixed up in that debate, it would seem that the right to life outweighs any right of personal choice, but many see it much different. What is your opinion about abortion? What supersedes what? Do men have a right to a choice...
by Kathryn L Hill 23 months ago
Pro-Lifers are against abortion. They say the life of the fetus matters. They say the will of the mother, (not to be pregnant and not to have a child,) doesn't matter. (Its too late at that point.) The soul of the fetus is basically on a course toward full development and this process should not be...
by Amber Verville 5 years ago
What are your opinions on abortion?
Copyright © 2020 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 Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|