What's your stance on abortion?

Wednesday 28th January, 03:00 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 88 Total Comments Show All

Nessie at 08:16 PM JST - 30th January

My stance on abortion?

Con.

My stance on legalization?

Pro.
LIBERTAS at 08:19 PM JST - 30th January

As humans we are obliged to regulate our lives with a spirit of intelligence. Consciously choosing parenthood, or not is part of that obligation. One lives in hope that the choice to have sex includes some degree of forethought and contraceptive planning. If it does not, or if it fails, safe alternatives should be available to terminate and unchosen pregnancy. Nobody is "Pro Abortion" but sometimes it´s the best choice. Why make it unsafe too?
OhioDonna at 02:01 AM JST - 31st January

I believe abortion is wrong. I do not support the pro-choice movement. I would have loved to have been able to have given birth to a child. I am very thankful that there was an unselfish woman who decided to give birth to her child. She made me the mother a beautiful son. My son is very aware of his adoption and knows how blessed he is to have two mothers. The mother who gave birth and me.

Not flesh of my flesh, not bone of my bone but still entirely my own. You weren't born under my heart, but in it. (Author unknown)
Betzee at 10:00 AM JST - 31st January

To me the information which has come to light regarding the circumstances of the woman who gave birth to octuplents last week in Los Angeles reflects just how absurd the debate over abortion has become:

She filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. She already has six older children. Doctors question why so many embryos were implanted in her, a medical issue which is unrelated to her financial situation. While her mother "acknowledge[d] that supporting a family with 14 children would be difficult, but that her daughter felt like she had little choice. "What do you suggest she should have done?" [her mother] said. "She refused to have them killed."

Is is too much to ask someone to behave responsibility, in this case forgo fertility treatment when she already has six children and are facing bankruptcy????? In the event she is in a position to care for more, well then why not adopt from the pool of needy children who have already been born?
Betzee at 11:00 AM JST - 31st January

It's murder, except when the life of the mother is in danger.

This is exactly the situation we confront in cases like this woman in Los Angeles who gave birth to eight babies last week. Like many who avail themselves of fertility treatment, she opted to have as many embryos implanted as possible to maximize the odds one would "embed." Yet this cost-saving approach opens the door to multiple births. Having had a friend go through fertility treatment which health insurance may not cover, I know the average in the USA is 2-3 embryos and it most other countries regulations dictate fewer. If the ultrasound reveals multiple "buns in the oven," well doctors may advise selective reduction in the interests of both the mother and the fetus which is allowed to gestate to term.

Arriving at biological parenthood other than the natural way may entail some tough calls. For some selective reduction is tantamount to murder. These are ethical issues that go far beyond the current debate.
Blue_Tiger at 07:26 PM JST - 31st January

Good to know, likeitis, that you are promoting underage sexual activity, especially among young girls. God help us when we, as a society, declare it right and good for 16-year-olds to have sex. Why not just hand keys of a bank to abank robber? and condoms aren't 100% effective, not by a mile. This kind of attitude is what makes a "woman's 'right' to choose" (legalized murder on demand) the law, and to the flames with the consequences. As such, how can you, in one side of your mouth, declare it "modern" and "forward" for 16-year-olds to have sex and get abortions, then, in the next sentence, say we need to regulate sex? You cannot have it both ways, likeitis.

Betzee, I have found, having lived in a state that was deemed economically backwards at one time (and in the opinion of many, still declared to be so), that even if and unplanned child arrives, the funds to take care of said child will be there.
JoeBigs at 08:01 PM JST - 31st January
In my opinion it is not anyone but the mother and or father of that fetus to decide if they will keep it. Anyone who would claim that that fetus is a baby really does not know much.

It is funny how many folks would toss out the rights of the woman to save the child. This question brings to mind kooks like
1. Paul Hill - Murderer
2. Eric Rudolph - Terrorist
3. Shelley Shannon - Terrorist
4. James Kopp - Murderer
5. Clayton Waagner - Terrorist
6. Anyone associated with the Army of god - Terrorist
All these folks believed that god was calling to them when they committed their crimes.

These folks needed to be in a nice padded room rather than be walking the streets.

BTW I do not know about anyone else but when I was a 16 year old boy I was having sex with 16 year old girls. So to claim to be shocked is a joke. Sex has been happening for a very long time and by many people.
Betzee at 11:18 PM JST - 31st January

Betzee, I have found, having lived in a state that was deemed economically backwards at one time (and in the opinion of many, still declared to be so), that even if and unplanned child arrives, the funds to take care of said child will be there.

I don't doubt a combined reliance on family hand-outs and public assistance would enable most parents to muddle through. By contrast, those seeking to adopt, either domestically or internationally, must demonstrate they have the financial means to raise a child and a suitable home to do it, something verified by a social worker.

I wish more expectant parents would make choices in line with the child's best interest rather than simply hiding behind the "she chose life" slogan as if everything else is inconsequential.

Very nice post, Libertas, you sum things up so well.
likeitis at 02:41 PM JST - 1st February

Good to know, likeitis, that you are promoting underage sexual activity, especially among young girls.

No. I am disagreeing with the definition of "underage", a completely made up term with no basis in anything but overactive imagination and control freakishness.

God help us when we, as a society, declare it right and good for 16-year-olds to have sex.

Its legal in my state!

Why not just hand keys of a bank to abank robber?

Because in that case, someone always walks away sad. Usually when two people have sex, both walk away happy. I admit its not always the case, but I am far more interested in increasing the happiness than increasing the despair. You seem to be more interested in increasing the despair, and yes, sexlessness does that, especially among teens.

Sex is not bank robbery. A very poor comparison.

As such, how can you, in one side of your mouth, declare it "modern" and "forward" for 16-year-olds to have sex and get abortions, then, in the next sentence, say we need to regulate sex? You cannot have it both ways, likeitis.

Yes I can. Because "to regulate" does not mean "to ban". I am not kidding you. Look it up. That which is regulated is allowed to happen under controlled circumstances.

and condoms aren't 100% effective, not by a mile.

Not by a mile. This is true. I would say they are effective by "a couple meters". The key is education on proper use. In the event of a suspected failure, there is the morning after pill.

I only encourage abortion as a safety net, nothing more. I do not think it is as "forward" as all that. But certainly going back to the days of women "falling down the stairs" or using clothes hangers in ways the manufacturers had not intended is taking great leap back. I would like for abortion to be a total last resort, and avoided as much as possible. That takes care. It takes work. It takes education. I encourage all three. Abstinence is an encouragement to mental laziness and ignorance and dissatisfaction.

This kind of attitude is what makes a "woman's 'right' to choose" (legalized murder on demand) the law, and to the flames with the consequences.

No way. I always encourage people to be mindful of the consequences. Many women will be wracked with guilt if they have an abortion, and it is one of the many reasons why I feel it should be avoided and they should be counseled before the abortion. But a ban simply WILL NOT WORK. We have been there. We tried that. With this and many other things. In a perfect world abortion would not be necessary, ever. But we do not live in that world. The closest we can get is through diligence, not avoidance of what is good and pleasurable because it might rarely have consequences.

All your way is doing is increasing the consquences. The evidence is there. The only reason you cannot see it is because you refuse to open your eyes because it will break your dream of that perfect world.
bobbafett at 09:16 PM JST - 1st February

If both made a decision to have sex then both need to live with the consequences. However if rape is involved it opens up the ball game.
Bento at 02:33 AM JST - 2nd February

the fewer number of abortions the better..right down to zero if possible.
JoeBigs at 10:39 AM JST - 2nd February

Abortion was illegal in the states before Roe V Wade and many women lost their lives trying to have abortions. Then in 69 a group called Jane Collective came about as an underground abortion group.

Ok here is a question, what if abortion was illegal again and a woman was caught trying to have an abortion. Should she be hauled off to jail maybe whipped in public. Or maybe put her on trial for attempted murder.

I am pretty sure what will happen to the doctors under your perfect world. But what should happen to the women who try to have an abortion under your perfect world?

BTW what do you guys think about Spontaneous abortions, should they be illegal also in your perfect world?

Abortion have been happening for longer than religious groups have been trying to end it. Hell they have been around longer than folks have been calling themselves Christians.

Abortion has been part of our civilization since we have walked upright. Hell maybe it was around when we were still apes, who knows.
LFRAgain at 07:34 PM JST - 2nd February

the fewer number of abortions the better..right down to zero if possible.

The fewer number of children born into families that are scarcely prepared or equipped to have families, the better. Right down to zero, if that were at all possible.

But that's not the reality of the world we live in, and neither is a re-imagining of a world in which unplanned, unintended, and forced pregnancies will never happen. Stuff happens, and some of it not too pleasant.

Quite honestly, any suggestion that a family should be forced to accept the “consequences” of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, as if the birth of the child itself were some sort of divine retribution for sexual imprudence, is as morally abhorrent as murder. Furthermore, forcing a child to suffer the sins of the mother (and father) in order to satisfy a third party’s personal religious dogma ranks right up there with some of the greater irrational religious contradictions in the world, like suicide bombings and genital mutilation.

Personally, I'm entirely against the use of abortion as a convenient method of birth control. There are plenty of ways out there that are far more effective (and no, I'm not talking about the delusional silliness of "abstinence") and far less physically damaging to the woman.

But when it comes to situations of rape or a serious health threat to the child bearer, then there's simply so moral, legal, or rational justification for taking abortion off the table of options. When rape is purged from society and all childbirths are made 100% safe, then maybe we can make some progress in the debate as to whether or not abortion is moral or necessary. But until then, I just don't see it ever going away and I don’t see anyone holding any greater moral superiority in dictating its prohibition than I have in opposing a ban.
jonnyboy at 04:22 PM JST - 3rd February

people who are shocked about 16 year olds having sex need to study some history; the age of consent used to be THIRTEEN in the united kingdom during the victorian era and a great deal of money would be paid for the (guaranteed) virginity of a nice 13 year old wench in charles dicken's london. and 13 if anyone was bothered to bring the crime to court.

at least in terms of sexual morals i don't think much ever changes. far better to legislate for it rather than hope it will just "go away"
knews at 01:16 AM JST - 4th February

I also believe that it is the parents' decision. Hopefully they would agree but, if not, I think the mother should have the final say. It is her body and she is the one who has to undergo what I can only imagine is a very unpleasant and uncomfortable procedure. Also risking the possibility of not being able to conceive again. I don't think there are many women who have had numerous abortions so it certainly isn't some sort of generally accepted form of contraception.