Debate: Abortion?

[cmoneyr]

Alright, the topic had been brought up so here's the thread of all your whining and baby killing.

I personally am for abortion, although I do have a stipulation or two. I think that any woman should be legally able to have an abortion if she sees fit. I do however, feel that all abortions, unless there is a medical reason, should be performed in the first trimester. No, I don't think that life begins at conception, but I think there needs to be limits so we don't have women killing babies the day before the due date, or during delivery for that matter on the premise of "it's an abortion".

Discuss. And play nice.

 

[brianhos]

Re: Abortion?

Ohh boy, this outta be fun! I am staying out of this.

 

[wonkadog]

Re: Abortion?

So why the stipulation on the 1st trimester? Does the baby suddenly become "alive" when it gets more developed?

 

[iceclone]

Re: Abortion?

You’re getting positive rep for starting what might be the most controversial thread in the cave!

Given that, I should provide my own views. I personally find it inconceivable how anyone could make the choice to have an abortion. I can’t envision any circumstance in which I would even consider it for a moment myself. However, I don’t really believe that life begins at conception, which to me makes it a choice, not a murder. I don’t make such choices for other people, so I am for abortion rights … but against abortion.

 

[Incyte]

Re: Abortion?

To me there is a continuum of pre-adult life beginning at conception and ending at adulthood (maybe at about 15-18).

All distinctions in that continuum that are used to justify why abortion should be permitted before that time period but not after (e.g., no hearbeat, no ability to feel pain, no brainwaves, not born, not viable) are typically distinctions without a difference IMO.

Just as an FYI, At one time I was favored capital punishment but now oppose it because it was contarty to my "sanctity of life" stance.

 

[bos]

Re: Abortion?

I am on the fence in three different ways.

1. I dont support abortion because I think there are alot of women out there that see this as an easy fix to their bad choices, much like the pill.

2. I do support abortion for those that are raped.

3. I have a hard time with number 2 because I still feel its killing a child. Why should that child die because a terrible person put it there. But I also understand that the woman will probably never relate positively to that child because it wasnt made in the presence of love.

I have a really torn feeling from this. I was adopted, where I could have been aborted. My mother did not conceive me in love but in lust or loneliness. Instead she took the higher road and let someone give me a home. I do know who she was but I dont know who he was. He could have been a jerk, criminal, or whatever, but I was given to a loving family who raised me right.

 

[Jer]

Re: Abortion?

Rules for this thread, this is the only warning given on such a divisive and controversial subject...

No warnings will be given for vulgar or threatening comments. Anybody that breaks the rules will be given a 2-day ban or worse. Anything bad that happens should cause negative rep to be given and credits taken away.

 

[alaskaguy]

Re: Abortion?

You’re getting positive rep for starting what might be the most controversial thread in the cave!

Given that, I should provide my own views. I personally find it inconceivable how anyone could make the choice to have an abortion. I can’t envision any circumstance in which I would even consider it for a moment myself. However, I don’t really believe that life begins at conception, which to me makes it a choice, not a murder. I don’t make such choices for other people, so I am for abortion rights … but against abortion.

Would either incest or a situation where the mothers life was in jeopardy be a circumstance where you might consider abortion?

 

[CloneFan65]

I'm not going to get involved in the debate, but I just wanted to drop in my 2 cents. It will probably be a surprise to those of you that have read my posting in the politics forums, but I'm pro-life. I believe life begins at conception so abortion is killing. As far as instances of rape, I too am torn. Practically I don't believe abortion will become illegal any time soon, so I'd like to see restrictions put on later term abortions.

 

[Incyte]

The thead come back! Hooray for Mr. Lind! :notworthy::notworthy:

 

[brianhos]

Before kids -- pro choice
After kids -- not sure anymore, could never live with myself if I was pro choice.

 

[Incyte]

IMO, the Constitution was not meant to provide answers to the abortion question. The substantive due process used by the court in Roe and Casey was and still is a huge intellectual cop-out.

States should have their own rules based on local values. Alabama and California are very different states for a reason.

 

[Angie]

Previous thread (including a poll) about this:

http://www.cyclonefanatic.com/forum/cf-archive/10072-who-supports-roe-vs-wade.html

 

[alaskaguy]

I agree that the Roe opinion was an was an extravagant exercise of judicial power. The abortion issue should have been decided by the political will of the people (the 50 state legislatures).

 

[Incyte]

I agree that the Roe opinion was an was an extravagant exercise of judicial power. The abortion issue should have been decided by the political will of the people (the 50 state legislatures).

I went to a presentation by Scalia about a year ago. He said law school didn't prepare him for questions like abortion, death penalty, sodomy, etc. Such questions are best left to the electorate than the personal opinions of 9 judges.

 

[Kyle]

Re: Abortion?

All distinctions in that continuum that are used to justify why abortion should be permitted before that time period but not after (e.g., no hearbeat, no ability to feel pain, no brainwaves, not born, not viable) are typically distinctions without a difference IMO.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, do you believe that those who are brain dead should be kept alive artificially? Not having brain activity is increasingly being used as the legal definition of being dead. If you believe older brain dead people should be allowed to die, while distinctions should not be made early in life based on the presence of brain waves, how do you account for the difference?

 

[Incyte]

That's a good question Kyle.

I took an ethics class at the U of I medical school that dealt with this and similar issues. It was interesting but it opened a pandora's box in my mind.

I assume you are presenting a situation in which there is no medical power of attorney, do not resuscitate order, etc. . .

I guess I believe that we should run the natural course of events (as they are at the time of the decision) and eliminate further human intervention. If feeding tubes are put in that support life they should be left in until the patient dies of another cause. If artificial support has not been installed yet it should not be (if consistent with medical power of attorneys, do not resuscitate orders, etc).

I think this is consistent w/ my start of life position but, if not, please poke a big hole in it. :wink:

 

[iceclone]

That's a good question Kyle.

I took an ethics class at the U of I medical school that dealt with this and similar issues. It was interesting but it opened a pandora's box in my mind.

I assume you are presenting a situation in which there is no medical power of attorney, do not resuscitate order, etc. . .

I guess I believe that we should run the natural course of events (as they are at the time of the decision) and eliminate further human intervention. If feeding tubes are put in that support life they should be left in until the patient dies of another cause. If artificial support has not been installed yet it should not be (if consistent with medical power of attorneys, do not resuscitate orders, etc).

I think this is consistent w/ my start of life position but, if not, please poke a big hole in it. :wink:

Your position is actually very consistent.

Indeed, it is much more consistent than mine, which is full of holes. But I'm sticking too it anyway!

 

[ISUAlum2002]

Unfortunately, abortion has become a necessary evil. I say that because I can't fathom the thought of choosing (with the g/f) to go through such a thing, but that there are a whole lot of couples (and singles) who are far worse off than I am who are left with no financial choice but to get an abortion.

Those who are staunchly against abortion don't understand the grave repercussions that criminalizing abortion would have to society. We have bad enough crime right now, but statistics shown in studies indicate that crime levels per capita dropped off markedly 17-19 years after Roe v. Wade. Unwanted children turn into unwanted adults. They are the menace of society.

Maybe I'll expound on this after seeing some responses.

 

[Kyle]

That's a good question Kyle.

I took an ethics class at the U of I medical school that dealt with this and similar issues. It was interesting but it opened a pandora's box in my mind.

I assume you are presenting a situation in which there is no medical power of attorney, do not resuscitate order, etc. . .

I guess I believe that we should run the natural course of events (as they are at the time of the decision) and eliminate further human intervention. If feeding tubes are put in that support life they should be left in until the patient dies of another cause. If artificial support has not been installed yet it should not be (if consistent with medical power of attorneys, do not resuscitate orders, etc).

I think this is consistent w/ my start of life position but, if not, please poke a big hole in it. :wink:

If I interpret it right, your position appears to be consistent and is the one typically taken by the medical establishment. That is, it is fine to do nothing and allow someone to die, but it is not acceptable to actively do anything to bring about someone's death.

I personally find this to be a very weak distinction though, as not acting is an act in and of itself. This likely came up in your ethics class, but the "Smith/Jones" example is commonly used in philosophy to demonstrate the seeming inconsistency of this position, and goes something like this:

Smith is watching over his nephew. If the nephew dies, Smith stands to inherit a large sum. Smith decides to kill his nephew so as to obtain that inheritance. He goes upstairs to where his nephew is taking a bath, and proceeds to drown his nephew. Jones is similarly situated to Smith, except that when he goes upstairs to kill his nephew he finds that he is already face down in the bath water. "How convenient" thinks Jones, and he turns around and goes back downstairs. Is Jones somehow morally superior to Smith because he merely allowed things to "run their course?"