Poll: Abortion.. A right?

[Pav89]

No it's not. It's removing the potential for human life.

Objectively speaking, when looking at abortion (especially in the earlier stages of pregnancy) we're only looking at removing a complex collection of cells. There is no individual to speak of, no human being with thoughts, desires, needs or wants. There is no life to kill, only potential. During the later stages of pregnancy however, this line may begin to become blurred, especially when we start to anthropomorphise the embryo/featus. Indeed, the later in development we venture, the less it begins to be anything more than potential and actually becomes an actual organism with needs.

I firmly believe that people should have a choice and that abortion is a morally acceptable procedure. However, I do also firmly believe that in many cases, the mothers-to-be in question should not be trusted or indeed, deserve such a choice to be made, nor should they have been breeding in the first place.

Ah, so this is where people's view differ, because the potential for human life is when the sperm is in the man, and the egg is in the woman. Cells bound together after intercourse do not have the potential to be naturally separated.

I agree with LawfordLass. Who are we to play 'God'? However, abortion should be legal in certain circumstances:

1) The woman has been raped
2) The child will bear severe disabilities/constant physical pain

 

[Van Hellseek]

Ah, so this is where people's view differ, because the potential for human life is when the sperm is in the man, and the egg is in the woman. Cells bound together after intercourse do not have the potential to be naturally separated.

I agree with LawfordLass. Who are we to play 'God'? However, abortion should be legal in certain circumstances:

1) The woman has been raped
2) The child will bear severe disabilities/constant physical pain

3) The birth will harm the mother?

 

[Uriel]

I don't like the term 'right' to abortion. I do think it's a practical necessity to have legal abortions and it can be the lesser of two evils.

I have issues with the time limit though. I know a little boy who was born at only 20 something weeks and have read about pre-24 week miscarriages where the baby had a precious few hours with their mummy before giving up. Tragically it's still labelled a miscarriage even though the baby had a very short life outside the womb.

 

[Nix]

I fully supported the right to choose.....right up until my son was born, now I find the entire concept of abortion horrific.

But at what point of gestation did the pregnancy cease being potential and actually become your son?

 

[PapaLazaru]

Totally for it.

An unwanted child? Who does this gain?

 

[Pav89]

3) The birth will harm the mother?

Sorry, missed that situation out as well.

 

[Dugganator]

Where possible it should be a joint decision. If the other parent doesn’t care or isn’t around then it’s a hard decision but it’s mainly up to the lady in question.

I don’t like the idea of a women choosing to do it without at least giving the bloke the decision to look after it once its born, giving the mother the right to walk away if she doesn’t want anything to do with the baby. Or at least speaking to the bloke about it not just doing it off her own back without any thought. And yes of course I’m not talking about if she was raped or a one night stand where she can’t remember who the person was let alone what happened. That’s a bit different.

But the main point which i think is true is "it’s her body it’s her right". Just I wish thought in all cases was put into it so that all bases were covered so to speak.

 

[Reed]

But at what point of gestation did the pregnancy cease being potential and actually become your son?

I imagine this is quite a subjective question. Some men will see it as his son as soon as they find out the news, for others it may finally dawn on them when their child is actually born. Science may dictate an answer but no doubt some individuals will feel differently.

 

[Izi]

No it's not. It's removing the potential for human life.

Objectively speaking, when looking at abortion (especially in the earlier stages of pregnancy) we're only looking at removing a complex collection of cells. There is no individual to speak of, no human being with thoughts, desires, needs or wants. There is no life to kill, only potential. During the later stages of pregnancy however, this line may begin to become blurred, especially when we start to anthropomorphise the embryo/featus. Indeed, the further into gestation we venture, the less it begins to be anything more than potential and actually becomes an actual organism with needs.

I firmly believe that people should have a choice and that abortion is a morally acceptable procedure. However, I do also firmly believe that in many cases, the mothers-to-be in question should not be trusted or indeed, deserve such a choice to be made, nor should they have been breeding in the first place.

agreed, or you could argue that fapping equals the mass execution of millions of lives, or each month when a women has a period is also killing.

complete crap tbh

 

[LawfordLass]

But at what point of gestation did the pregnancy cease being potential and actually become your son?

I realise this question wasn't aimed at me, but my point of view on this is - as soon as I discover I'm pregnant. At that point it becomes my baby. A life of it's own. Doesn't matter whether that discovery is at 3 weeks or 13 weeks. Its still my baby. To even consider aborting is repulsive.

 

[Cosimo]

Yes of course it's a womans right.

 

[Nix]

Ah, so this is where people's view differ, because the potential for human life is when the sperm is in the man, and the egg is in the woman. Cells bound together after intercourse do not have the potential to be naturally separated.

I agree with LawfordLass. Who are we to play 'God'? However, abortion should be legal in certain circumstances:

1) The woman has been raped
2) The child will bear severe disabilities/constant physical pain

We have the power to terminate the pregnancy, therefore it remains potential.

This has nothing to do with playing God and everything to do with self-determination. People need to stop looking up for answers and instead look inside.

If we did not have the ability to terminate the pregnancy and returned to a truly 'organic' perspective, then the whole debate would be moot anyway.

Cells bound together after intercourse are still only cells. We are only looking at or indeed, can realistically talk about another life-form in the later stages of gestation anyway.

What's morally worse? The removal of a fully functioning adult in society with needs, wants and desires, or the removal of an embryo?

 

[postmanfw]

It's not life if it cannot survive outside the womb on its own

Disagree 100%

My wife is 36 weeks pregnant with our 6th child and theres definately a life inside her that knows my voice and is part of our family already.

Its murder plain and simple

Life begins at conception

Just because something is legal doesnt make it right..also something illegal isnt wrong just because its illegal

 

[ordinaryjoe]

i don't see how anyone can judge until they find themselves in the position of having to make this awful decision

How can you judge a murderer until you have felt that desire to kill/rage they had when they murdered (assuming they murdered out of rage)? Of course you can say it is wrong for someone to do something without being in their position at the time.

It's not life if it cannot survive outside the womb on its own

Well how would we judge that? Firstly, some babies born before the 24 week cut off point survive, so 24 weeks is no magic number, and evidently too high based on this opinion. Secondly, why can a baby/foetus not have a life unless if it can survive independently of the mother? This is just some man made step the baby has to make to be counted as a life which happens to be a convenient amount of time for people - there is nothing special about it surviving alone.

Of course they should have the right. The most unfortunate example of when abortion may be almost a necessity is in cases of rape whereby of course the women should not be expected to have the child.

Rape doesn't make abortion a necessity at all - it is perfectly reasonable for the mother to continue with the pregnancy

How does one weigh one ego against another?

The father has a right, however the mother is sovereign and the buck stops with her. A father however, has a right to walk away.

Not without paying lots of money

 

[AtticusFinch]

Ummmm ... Yes.

 

[cm1179]

How can you judge a murderer until you have felt that desire to kill/rage they had when they murdered (assuming they murdered out of rage)? Of course you can say it is wrong for someone to do something without being in their position at the time.

you cannot make that comparison

 

[Pav89]

We have the power to terminate the pregnancy, therefore it remains potential.

This has nothing to do with playing God and everything to do with self-determination. People need to stop looking up for answers and instead look inside.

If we did not have the ability to terminate the pregnancy and returned to a truly 'organic' perspective, then the whole debate would be moot anyway.

Cells bound together after intercourse are still only cells. We are only looking at or indeed, can realistically talk about another life-form in the later stages of gestation anyway.

What's morally worse? The removal of a fully functioning adult in society with needs, wants and desires, or the removal of an embryo?

Who am I to judge the potential of the child who will have needs/wants/desires when he/she has grown up against a currently fully functioning adult? IMHO its still morally wrong unless any of those situations I have mentioned are present.

In which situations, apart from the ones I have mentioned, do you believe that abortions are absolutely fine?


Also, I can't vote in the poll as none of the answers accommodate my view.

 

[ordinaryjoe]

you cannot make that comparison

Oh, sorry

 

[JayMax]

Rape doesn't make abortion a necessity at all - it is perfectly reasonable for the mother to continue with the pregnancy

Perfectly reasonable on what basis? Biological, religious or ethical?

 

[Nix]

Who am I to judge the potential of the child who will have needs/wants/desires when he/she has grown up against a currently fully functioning adult? IMHO its still morally wrong unless any of those situations I have mentioned are present.

In which situations, apart from the ones I have mentioned, do you believe that abortions are absolutely fine?

Not all, no. The morality of the situation is completely subjective. However, if it is - for argument's sake - a normal unwanted pregnancy that will impact one or more adult's life, then I am for them.

If the abortion is taking place due to the banal idiocy of an immature girl, then I am still for - as such a woman should not be having dependants anyway nor should they be responsible for making such a morally weighted decision - although I find it much harder to justify.

As a rule, the earlier into gestation the pregnancy is terminated, the easier it is for me to accept. As said, there is no definitive point in gestation where the featus suddenly becomes a person or something we can deem an individual with actual needs. However, when weighted against a functioning member of society, I'm afraid the child-to-be always takes second-place.

Disagree 100%

My wife is 36 weeks pregnant with our 6th child and theres definately a life inside her that knows my voice and is part of our family already.

Its murder plain and simple

Life begins at conception

Just because something is legal doesnt make it right..also something illegal isnt wrong just because its illegal

At 36 weeks, I agree, it would be wrong to abort. I struggle with the terms 'illegal' or 'murder' being used here though.

However, earlier in the pregancy, it most certainly is not wrong as there is no individual to speak of - only the potential for one.