Abortion

[rising-flame]

This may sound strange, i'm not pro or anti abortion, but I am pro choice. I believe it should be the woman's choice, afterall she is the one who will have to carry it to term, and aside from the physical implications, there's all sorts of mental implications.

I totally disagree with churchs that pay women to keep the baby, I just think that's morally wrong (and I'm christian).

[Jess]

I'm aware that my views are probably gonna come across as quite hardcore and, of course, I respect the other opinions in this thread, but I have to say that I disagree with the majority of them.

I think that if you're gonna have sex, then you have to be mature enough to deal with the possible consequences - a baby. And, in my book, that doesn't mean killing it. It's not like we live in some dark time, where contraception isn't freely available. Family planning clinics virtually throw the things at you. Between that and the pill, the chances of getting pregnant are virtually nothing. Of course accidents happen, but that's hardly the child's fault.

In cases such as rape, too, I don't really believe it's a viable option, either. As Symphony, I think, said, how can you condemn abortion for one reason, but condone it for another? I'm not saying that rape isn't a truly horrible experience (and one that I'll hopefully never have to bear), but abortion isn't just like taking a pair of jeans back to a shop because they don't fit. It can have a lasting mental, physical and emotional effect on the mother. So, really, I think it'd have to be a pretty awful pregnancy for it to even be comparable with the pain of having your child killed while it's inside of you. And, okay, people say that the child'll be a permanent reminder, but that doesn't have to be an entirely negative thing. Children are the most precious gifts in the world, and being born out of a bad situation doesn't make a mother's love for them any less.

According to this website, only 1% of all abortions in the US are because of rape or incest, 6% because of health reasons and the remainder because the child is inconvenient. This is the major problem I have with abortion. So many people use rape as the exception to the rule, but it accounts for such a small amount of terminations statistically, and yet thousands of procedures (almost 194,000 in England and Wales in 2006) are carried out every year. Even though abortion clinics are so available, too, over a third of all abortions in '06 were carried out between ten and twenty weeks gestation - when the foetus is beginning to resemble a "real" baby.

I'm not saying I would want it to be made illegal - backstreet abortions are so dangerous - but ethically I don't agree with them. No one gets away with killing a ten year-old boy, so why should anyone be allowed to kill a ten week-old foetus?

I'm sorry if I've come across as being overly passionate about this, or offended anyone - it's just a subject that's very close to my heart.

[charmed60]

Anyway, it strikes me as somewhat odd when people say life starts at conception, yet your age is dated from the day you are born. Surely if life starts at conception, we should all be around 9 months old when born (if all goes to plan)? Dating our age by when we are born automatically suggests that life begins at birth, not conception. Does that make sense? I know you call it a birthday, but it doesn't make sense to me. I have a habit of over-thinking things, but it is interesting.

I can definetely see where you're coming from but looking at the other side of it, I think the date of conception is never taken into account because for many parents (IVF not included) they don't know the dates their baby was conceived. The due dates women are given for the birth of their child aren't 100% accurate and so the difficulty in calculating it, seeing as babies aren't all born at exactly 9 months gestation, is probably why it's taken from birth. I'm just playing devil's advocate sorry

I agree with your views regarding inconvenience Jess! Those statistics are pretty shocking!

[Haymaiden]

I was reading a H20: Just Add Water fan fic on www.fanfiction.net.

One of the characters is pregnant and has an abortion.

The baby talks to the mum before the baby's death and in the part about the abortion the baby says something like:

The needle went through me

Blood filled me

I will pray for you mummy

I will never speak to you again

I would personally never have an abortion now after reading this. I had an abortion at age fourteen and if I had read that before hand, I would of raised the child or given it up for adoption.

Yes, rape is a horrible experience and nobody should have to experience it or be the product of something so terrible.

[thelonius]

I don't think women who have abortions should be made to feel ashamed of themselves. I agree with Cal, people start living when they are born and I don't think you're killing a baby when you have an abortion because it isn't a baby. I know a lot of people will disagree with me about that but who gets to decide when something becomes a human? You might as well argue that contraception is killing a potential baby, which many people do argue actually.

I agree that if you have sex you should be responsible for the consequences but I think abortion is one of those consequences. It's unfair to expect people to not have sex if they are unwilling to have a baby if there was an accident. I'm not justifying that abortion should be used as a form of contraception but everybody knows that mistakes happen and contraception is never 100% full proof. What if you already have kids and you and your partner have decided that you didn't want to have any more? If you were too old for more children or if you aren't in the position to raise any more children? Does that mean you are expected not to ever have sex ever again in your because of the off-chance that contraception would fail?

Some people are more sympathetic to rape victims or teenagers who fall pregnant having an abortion than to say, a 20 or 30 year old who wanted to terminate. I completely agree with Symphony that it isn't very fair to pass judgement on some people and not on others for doing the same thing. Just because some people are considered more prepared or better suited to motherhood, doesn't mean they should be forced into it more than others. The only type of abortion that's different from another, in my opinion, is a late term one. But that's a whole other grey area.

But for the record - girls who don't use contraception because they know they can just get an abortion are just stupid in my opinion. They're putting themselves through more physical and mental pain when it could have been easily avoided. I'm not advocating abortion as a form of contraception.

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone but this is also something I feel strongly about and I understand everyone else has their own opinions too. I'm glad abortion is legalised and women aren't forced to take the consequences for something that takes place between both men and women. I'm glad that women have a choice. I don't think abortion is a good thing - it's painful physically and can be psychologically traumatic. But I'm glad there is a choice involved. Women who have them know this and for the majority of them, it isn't something they would willingly choose to do. All situations are different and its a personal choice for everyone.

[Salem]

I'm aware that my views are probably gonna come across as quite hardcore and, of course, I respect the other opinions in this thread, but I have to say that I disagree with the majority of them.

I think that if you're gonna have sex, then you have to be mature enough to deal with the possible consequences - a baby. And, in my book, that doesn't mean killing it. It's not like we live in some dark time, where contraception isn't freely available. Family planning clinics virtually throw the things at you. Between that and the pill, the chances of getting pregnant are virtually nothing. Of course accidents happen, but that's hardly the child's fault.

In cases such as rape, too, I don't really believe it's a viable option, either. As Symphony, I think, said, how can you condemn abortion for one reason, but condone it for another? I'm not saying that rape isn't a truly horrible experience (and one that I'll hopefully never have to bear), but abortion isn't just like taking a pair of jeans back to a shop because they don't fit. It can have a lasting mental, physical and emotional effect on the mother. So, really, I think it'd have to be a pretty awful pregnancy for it to even be comparable with the pain of having your child killed while it's inside of you. And, okay, people say that the child'll be a permanent reminder, but that doesn't have to be an entirely negative thing. Children are the most precious gifts in the world, and being born out of a bad situation doesn't make a mother's love for them any less.

According to this website, only 1% of all abortions in the US are because of rape or incest, 6% because of health reasons and the remainder because the child is inconvenient. This is the major problem I have with abortion. So many people use rape as the exception to the rule, but it accounts for such a small amount of terminations statistically, and yet thousands of procedures (almost 194,000 in England and Wales in 2006) are carried out every year. Even though abortion clinics are so available, too, over a third of all abortions in '06 were carried out between ten and twenty weeks gestation - when the foetus is beginning to resemble a "real" baby.

I'm not saying I would want it to be made illegal - backstreet abortions are so dangerous - but ethically I don't agree with them. No one gets away with killing a ten year-old boy, so why should anyone be allowed to kill a ten week-old foetus?

I'm sorry if I've come across as being overly passionate about this, or offended anyone - it's just a subject that's very close to my heart.

Firstly, it is NOT a 'child'! It is a nothing. A parasite attached to the host (mother), a clump of cells. Harsh, but its the cold hard fact. It is no more a 'child' than a sperm is, or blood on a sanitary pad is.

Being pregnant because of a rape means carrying a bad seed around and I find it absolutely horrific that anyone could even suggest that a person who was raped, would 'adjust' to seeing the 'likeness' in the born baby. That is callous and cruel. Women who say that, sorry, but I feel they betray their own sisterhood. Thats my opinion. A woman who has been raped would NOT want to keep the foetus. Thats common sense. And its easy for someone who has never been raped, to say such a ridiculous and horrifically ignorant and insensitive thing. To keep a bad seed that was the result of rape, is simply not something a normal woman would do.

Lastly, please don't quote from, and be fooled by 'abortionno' propaganda sites, full of LIES. A foetus definitely does NOT 'resemble a 'real' baby' until 20 + weeks. And many people don't even know they're pregnant until the second month 8-10 weeks. Those sites are run and written by religious and malicious liars who attempt to pass off a full-term baby as an 'aborted foetus' with all the gory pictures added to manipulate the gullible and the easily lead. The fact is, apart from the gross distortions and lies passed off by that 'site', is that the vast overwhelming majority of abortions are performed when the FOETUS (not 'unborn child') is no bigger than a pinprick and doesn't resemble anything but a microscopic clot of blood. I've seen all the filthy LIES from these sites, and seen and heard all the tricks in their never-ending string of dirty and manipulative tricks. The fact of the matter is, when the overwhelming majority of abortions are done between 10 and 20 weeks, the FOETUS is only as pig as a pinprick and has zero resemblance to anything other than a spot. To even suggest killing a 10 year old born fully formed, functional human being to a microscopic 10 week dot, is insulting to the poster themselves at best, and sheer desperation at worst.

[Symphony]

^ agreed. I know this discussion "when does it change from being cells to a baby" can go on FOREVER. Literally, on sites, I've seen it go in circles, round round round with the same thing being said all over again. But I do agree with the poster above me.

I also find that in my mind, people who are calling a 2 week old 'foetus' a baby, should be the ones that are against contraception - in that sperm has the ability to become a baby, just like an early bunch of cells which has been aborted has the potential to become a living child.

[Salem]

What are your views on abortion?

I should have started from the start of the thread. Oh well.

Abortion is the removal of a clump of cells from its host. Whether it be removal of a wart, a cancer, or a foetus, it is still the removal of a parasite from its host. Cold and harsh, but the absolute truth. Most abortions are performed when the foetus isn't even as big as an m and m, and resembles nothing remotely like a human, or anything, but a shapeless clot. There are many sites and 'videos' out there to manipulate the easily lead and those that don't apply logic or critical thinking. And there are many who are so easily fooled by the absolute vile rubbish these 'sites' post. Aborting a foteus is no more killing a human being, than a man's wasted wet dreams on his sheets are murdering children (sorry for the erm, terminology and topic, but thats the truth). You are no more killing a human being than when you are soaking up your wasted egg with a tampon during menstruation. Neither, are human beings. Nor, is an embryo, or a foetus. Potential, is not ACTUAL. It is NOT an "unborn child". It is a nothing. A clump of cells.

Abortion is a basic human, and civil right. When its the womans body that is the host, it is the woman's business. And I think myself, for women to be anti-choice, is the biggest and most unforgiveable betrayal of all to your own gender.

Firstly, pregnancy through rape. Now whether rare or not, it still can and DOES, happen. Being sexually violated and emotionally and spiritually violated is bad enough and something that will scar you for life, but expecting a woman to carry the results of that evil doing? Carry it for 9 months, reminded and flashbacks at seeing the scans? Give birth and whilst doing so, feel violated all over again? Only to either give the child up for adoption, or raise it yourself? I, myself could do neither. I'd sooner throw myself down stairs or off a bridge, than girth birth to that thing. And to say adoption, well the mother knowing the child is out there somewhere is much more torturous than not having the baby at all. Many people say; "If I let it be born, its mine", and thats why just spouting adoption (which causes more psychological harm to the child in the long run than not being born) simply doesn't work. So women are just incubators? To spit out a child and give it up? Adoption to me is far far far worse, and causes more pain to the adopted, adoptee and adopter, than not.

Another thing is where the baby is deformed or will be born with a syndrome, such as Down. Why bring a person like that out into the world, to drain our Disability and respite sources, which will need someone to look after them for the rest of their lives? And who takes over after the parents pass on? The siblings, who have their lives changes because of their PARENTS' decision? An institution? If you give birth to a child knowing full well that child will need care for their entire lives, then pay for it yourself, 100%, I say. Don't use welfare or Disability or respite. After all, you had the CHOICE. Why should the taxpayer pay for your choice? Why should their siblings have to sacrifice their lives to take up the burden once you have passed?

Lastly, what about if when an abortion is a 100% necessity such as a late-term abortion (which is when these late-term abortions are done, MEDICAL EMERGENCY) where the mother will DIE, if she keeps the foetus, which will probably die, anyway? So you sacrifice a born actual human being, who could go on to get pregnant again and have a successful pregnancy, for the sake of a foetus?

Ok, what about this scenario:

Jill is 29 and is in her third pregancy. Her and her husband already have 2 daughters at home. One 8 years old, the other say, 5 years old. Is anyone suggesting here that given a choice, you should kill the mother, destroying a family and leaving 2 young girls without a mother and a lifetime of suffering and seperation, all for the sake of a dodgy foetus? Which would you choose? To save the foetus, or murder the mother and take a mother away from her 2 little girls?

Bottom line is, Abortion is a necessity, it is a basic fundamental civil right and the vast overwhelming majority of terminations are performed before the cell even forms into any sort of shape, and the rest are usually due to medical emergency. How can anyone be anti-choice of something that is a fundamental civil right, beggars belief to me.

I leave you with these 2 slogans which are 2 of our sisterhood's truths;

Never again the coat-hanger times!

and

Keep your rosaries OFF *MY* Ovaries!!

Quick edit to this post, as I'm getting to tired to remember who said what. 1. The 'so-called' "Silent Scream" is the LIES and propaganda of the like I was talking about. It was debunked long ago, and is worded to emotionally manipulate the easily manipulated and gullible. It simply is not true. That 'video' was a big fat HOAX.

2. Someone above said something equally very emotionally manipulative above, about their cousin having her foetus' 'limbs and legs pulled', as if the mother actually SAW it happen. This is just absolute rubbish. You don't actually look down and SEE it happening to you, nor do you know/feel what they are doing. Unfortunately there are many many dishonest and very emotionally manipulative people who really attempt the emotional guilt trip and word things to manipulate the reader. Do NOT FALL FOR THE *LIES*. Emotional manipulation, blackmail and deceit, is what many on the anti- civil rights side deal in. Though they condemn something they see is immoral, it is actually they who are the ones who abandon decency and standards and will stoop low in their never-ending tricks of emotional manipulation, blackmail, trickery and deceit. And this goes to no one in particular but that who propagate and push the lies and do some in such an emotionally manipulative way, that would make a dodgy used-car salesman proud. That leads to the last add-on, number 3. The 'poem' above has been passed around on the net and in books for many many many years and is a perfect example of the emotional blackmail and manipulation and deception the so-called pro-'life' trade in. It, like many of their fraudulent creations, are worded in such a way as to completely emotionally manipulate the reader. Its disgusting and if you are to read both sides of the debate (and there are some good anti-abortion sites I have to admit that DON'T partake in emotional manipulations but deal with science) please don't quote from rubbish sites or spout the debunked 'silent scream' rubbish.

[Salem]

I don't think that's immature at all, but then again I think it's very easy to say that, and a totally different thing to go through with it. Just like an abortion for some people might be a lot more difficult to go through with than they think it will be before they're in that situation.

Anyway, I don't think it's easy to give up a baby, no matter how sure you are about it. Just look at surrogates for example. I saw this documentary, and the surrogate, a very rational, reasonable and generous woman, dedicated to giving a baby to a single gay man. She was absolutely 100 % sure she wanted to do it, and the baby was not even ever technically or biologically hers, but still it was very difficult for her to give the baby away. There's even an adoption episode on the MTV show "16 and pregnant" that shows a very mature and pretty amazing young couple who decide to put their baby up for adoption because they know they won't be able to take care of it, coming from unstable homes. They had a very tough time giving the baby away, and like the surrogate I mentioned, they were dedicated to giving it away pretty much from the beginning. So, yeah, I think it's a lot more difficult than anyone can imagine without having been in that situation, but then again, I'm absolutely sure it's the right choice for a lot of people, don't get me wrong. I'm just saying I don't think it's easy, and I don't think it should be the only option if you know you won't be able to care for a baby. Like I said before, I think a horrible childhood and the parents' lives being ruined (education wise, economically speaking and in other ways, depending on the situation) and affecting their ability to take care of the baby, is worse than sparing a child from all of those things, if that makes sense.

I'm sorry if that was just a very weird post, it's late

Agreed. The pain for the mother to go through with the pegnancy only to give the child away, and forever wondering how he/she is doing, where they are etc, would be absolute TORTURE. I don't see adoption as a viable option, not at all. There are far too many homeless children up for adoption, and not enough families to adopt, as it is. The ratio gap is far too great now. Many children firstly that are given up for 'adoption' are thrown into orphanages or homes. And the abuse that can happen in those places? Well.... Then fostered out, re-fostered out, form one place to another to another. They really would be better off not being born, it is no life. Saying to someone that they should go through with the morning sickness (sometimes all day sickness for 7 months, like my friend had), leg cramps, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, weight gain, mood swings, depression, time off work/unemployment, and painful childbirth, for NOTHING at the end of it, just to give it up and then, KNOWING he/she is out there, would be torture far greater than I could ever handle. Adoption, to me is a silly and absurd suggestion for all the pain, sickness, emotional torture and unemployment I'd go through. I cannot understand when people advocate going through ALL of that (and the emotional seperation and questions for LIFE), just for absolutely nothing. How can people advocate adoption, when considering the trade-off and pain? Not just to the mother, but its a HORRIBLE thing to do to a child; carry them, just to dump them at the pound (orphanage) like a sack of kittens or puppies. Abortion, really, is the only answer. Because adoption certainly is not.

[-Kevin-]

There are far too many homless children up for adoption, and not enough families to adopt,

What I don't understand is that there are so many up ffor adoption then why do couples willing to adopt have to wait almost forever to get a child