Originally Posted by Tsukipon

Abstinence is not the answer to this case but protected sex is. Birth control, condoms, etc should be used if you are having sex and are not looking to have children. I don't care how "good it feels bareback". That is BS.

And for those who are totally against condoms only, there's... spermicides, 'the pill', surgery, implanted birth control... so many other options. With all the other options... I wonder how many are just 'laziness'?

Originally Posted by Tamoko

I'll not go into depth on how I feel about it.

If you're 17 or younger you can not get -any- job that will allow you to properly take care of your child. you then have the choice to abort it or put it up for adoption.

But at the age of 18 a lot of job opportunities are opened up to you. If you're 18 and older you should continue with the pregnancy. If you don't want to keep it put it up for adoption.

Er, yeah... That works on paper. The truth of the matter is that if you are eighteen, you are still not likely to be hired at a job, even moreso if pregnant. Having no prior experience in the workforce means a company may not want you as a canidate, even if you are skilled in the area of work. They also do not want someone they have to give maternity leave to six months after they hire.
I love my boyfriend, and he loves me... but even if he did get that good-paying job with a game company, there's no way I could keep a baby and keep going to college. No telling if I could get a job either.

So, in theory it works. Reality isn't so beautiful.

Originally Posted by Philomel

It is greater, but only slightly.

Despite what so many people seem to believe, incest doesn't produce mutants because it's "icky". Because genetic disorders tend to run in families, when you pair up two people from the same family, you're more likely to get two sources of a "bad" gene than you would be if the parents were unrelated. For some disorders, both parents must carry the gene for it to have any chance of manifesting in the offspring. For others, it guarantees it. The more generations this continues, the more likely the "bad" gene getting passed to the offspring becomes. This is why so many dog breeds have common health problems -- the "bad" genes that promote or cause the health problems were passed on along with the desirable traits. But for the first generation, there's little more chance than if the parents were unrelated strangers, and there's no guaranteeing that the gene that gets passed on would negatively affect the future-child's life, anyway. You would essentially be aborting a pregnancy based on the one-in-a-million chance that a slightly inconveniencing gene happened to get passed to the fetus. Now, if you said that the stigma from being the result of incest might cause the child some problems, I'd agree, but that could be used for many different things.

I'm not sure what you were talking about with the rest of your post, sorry :/ Mind clarifying?

Yes I do know all of that, but even if it's just a slightly higher risk, it could still mean that child would be born with serious problems.

I was aiming on your statement about eugenics, thought you meant genetic science ? Because they do research fetuses for any sign of it leading to the child being disabled, if so, you get the choice to remove it. That's what I was talking about.

Originally Posted by Arousal

[SIZE="1"]
Yes I do know all of that, but even if it's just a slightly higher risk, it could still mean that child would be born with serious problems.

And it could also not mean that. So, yet again, it doesn't make sense to suggest it's okay or better in the case of incest than with any other pregnancy, since the increase is so small as to be negligable. Also, should two people who know they carry genes for something not of the norm abort any pregnancies?

I was aiming on your statement about eugenics, thought you meant genetic science ? Because they do research fetuses for any sign of it leading to the child being disabled, if so, you get the choice to remove it. That's what I was talking about.

Yes, and you're suggesting that while it's not okay to abort just because, it's perfectly okay and even preferable to abort a fetus that might have some sort of 'defect'. I realize you've said you're pro-choice, but you've also said that you don't agree with abortions that aren't for what you've deemed "good" reasons. I'm just curious as to how you, and really, quite a few anti-choicers justify including incest in that. It's usually included alongside 'rape' in the reasons people who are against abortions would accept.

Originally Posted by Philomel

And it could also not mean that, since the increase is so small as to be negligable.

I still think that even that slight chance of someone being born into a life that no one deserves to live, means that person should get the right to prevent it. Perhaps it would never have been born ill, but what if it does? I think it's definitely worth that risk.. I think it's horrible for both parents and children to live a life filled with pain, medication, disease, trouble, no chance of an independent future..

Originally Posted by Philomel

Yes, and you're suggesting that while it's not okay to abort just because, it's perfectly okay and even preferable to abort a fetus that might have some sort of 'defect'. I realize you've said you're pro-choice, but you've also said that you don't agree with abortions that aren't for what you've deemed "good" reasons. I'm just curious as to how you, and really, quite a few anti-choicers justify including incest in that. It's usually included alongside 'rape' in the reasons people who are against abortions would accept.

Remember I posted this thread in 2007.. My view has changed since then. While I don't support abortions for no reason at all, because it's not something with no consequence and it's not a harmless act, I do support abortion to prevent someone from living a life in hell.

I have a very strong opinion on disabled and sick children, they carry such a burden throughout their entire (usually short) lives and live in constant pain while feeling guilty for being born that way because of the pain they cause others (parents), no one should live that life, especially if it could be prevented.

I don't think getting rid of a 'defect fetus' is abortion for no reason at all, it's a very good reason even! And apart from the child's life being horrible, it's very expensive for the parents as well with all the medical costs, it could even mean they can't provide their child the right treatments to lessen its hurt..
Money isn't important, only when it could endanger someone's life, and as far as I know, not all medical costs are covered in the States right?

Originally Posted by Arousal

I still think that even that slight chance of someone being born into a life that no one deserves to live, means that person should get the right to prevent it. Perhaps it would never have been born ill, but what if it does? I think it's definitely worth that risk.. I think it's horrible for both parents and children to live a life filled with pain, medication, disease, trouble, no chance of an independent future..

I personally think a woman should be able to get an abortion for whatever reason she deems fit, as she is the one who is suffering and we should not question her ability to decide what is best for herself. So, I'm not arguing that it shouldn't be allowed, merely that if one believes there are good and bad reasons for having an abortion, the fetus being the product of incest is not a good one. Remember, there is slightly *more* of a chance with incest. There's still plenty of risk of it happening with non-incestual parents, particularly if one or both of the parents have a family history of poor health. By that logic, everyone who doesn't have "perfect" genes, or as perfect as is possible and has any risk factors such as age should abort.

I don't think getting rid of a 'defect fetus' is abortion for no reason at all, it's a very good reason even! And apart from the child's life being horrible, it's very expensive for the parents as well with all the medical costs, it could even mean they can't provide their child the right treatments to lessen its hurt..

And I'm not disagreeing with you that parents have a right to prevent a financial burden from happening. However, when we start talking about aborting fetuses that may be defective because it's what's best for them, we make it easy to stray into 'it's what's best for society'. That puts a pressure on parents to terminate pregnancies based on the possibility the infant born will be defective in some way, which essentially turns those who are born with disabilities into outcasts. I don't disagree with the sentiment of preventing pain from happening, indeed it's one of the main reasons I became pro-choice, but the way you worded it is rather hurtful to those who have disabilities.

Money isn't important, only when it could endanger someone's life, and as far as I know, not all medical costs are covered in the States right?

Right. But then, neither are abortions, birth control, or contraceptives, so.

Originally Posted by Arousal

I still think that even that slight chance of someone being born into a life that no one deserves to live, means that person should get the right to prevent it. Perhaps it would never have been born ill, but what if it does? I think it's definitely worth that risk.. I think it's horrible for both parents and children to live a life filled with pain, medication, disease, trouble, no chance of an independent future..



Remember I posted this thread in 2007.. My view has changed since then. While I don't support abortions for no reason at all, because it's not something with no consequence and it's not a harmless act, I do support abortion to prevent someone from living a life in hell.

I have a very strong opinion on disabled and sick children, they carry such a burden throughout their entire (usually short) lives and live in constant pain while feeling guilty for being born that way because of the pain they cause others (parents), no one should live that life, especially if it could be prevented.

I don't think getting rid of a 'defect fetus' is abortion for no reason at all, it's a very good reason even! And apart from the child's life being horrible, it's very expensive for the parents as well with all the medical costs, it could even mean they can't provide their child the right treatments to lessen its hurt..
Money isn't important, only when it could endanger someone's life, and as far as I know, not all medical costs are covered in the States right?

OK I have a question. What would you consider a "Life in hell"?

Would you consider living in a homeless shelter, living in a car, being unfed, left alone for hours, unwanted and uneducated a life of hell?

Would you consider having no family except for your mother, who can't care for you properly because she hasn't the education to get a good job a life of hell?

Would you consider growing up being tossed from home to home because your mother is white and your father is black and no one wants a baby with your skin color a life of hell?

Ask anyone who's been in these situations, and they'll tell you that their lives are full of pain. There was a point where every day I thought about death, my life WAS hell because of that situation, and it didn't take a physical handicap to cause that pain. How is the emotional pain any different?

Should these women who can't care for or financially support their children still be forced to have them?

I hope you understand that suicide is attempted because emotional pain most of the time. Does this mean that the mother should have the child anyway.. just to let it kill it's self later in life? It still gets the job done, right? That sounds like a great plan.. for someone who doesn't mind their child suffering for15 or 20 years before they're belatedly self aborted.

You talk about deformities being the exceptions because the child could be in pain. Rethink your definition of pain?

Originally Posted by Arousal

While I don't support abortions for no reason at all, because it's not something with no consequence and it's not a harmless act, I do support abortion to prevent someone from living a life in hell.

It's good how nobody has abortions for no reason at all, then, eh?
There is ALWAYS a reason. Whether or not you agree with it is another story, but no one goes around getting abortions just because they can.

I'm a pro-choicer. A woman has the right to decide what happens with her own body. Personally, I think I would only choose to have an abortion if the birth would be too dangerous for me or maybe if I was raped by some crazy psycho guy and he got me pregnant. But, of course, the decision can't be made prior to the experience. Anything could change my mind. But either way, it's my choice.

If you're pregnant because you didn't use protection then you should take responsibility for your actions, but in the end it should still be that person's decision so i don't think it should be illegal.

Originally Posted by Dest1218

If you're pregnant because you didn't use protection then you should take responsibility for your actions, but in the end it should still be that person's decision so i don't think it should be illegal.

Getting an abortion is being responsible.

Just tossing this out there:

"Take responsibility for your actions" "Accept the consequences of your decision"... they can all really only boil down to one thing. Women need to be punished for having sex. If they didn't, they wouldn't need to be accepting any sort of consequences for it :\
And we always bring up the lazy people who just don't feel like using a condom, but the fact is you DON'T KNOW why these women are getting abortions. They could have been perfectly responsible and had their birth control fail anyway, or maybe they just made a simple mistake.

Children should not be punishments. Ever.

Originally Posted by MollyJean

You talk about deformities being the exceptions because the child could be in pain. Rethink your definition of pain?

I never talked about it being an exception. I don't think anyone should be forced to have a child, where did you get the idea that I did?

It really all depends on the situation. If it was just a whoops, I think that child still has a right to life, considering there's other ways, like adoption. But if it's a severe case like someone was raped and found out they were prego, then that would be a case where I'd say it was ok. Because if that person not only found out that they were an oops, but also the aftermath of something uber horrible, I think that would screw up that person for the rest of their life.
I believe that if people were more thoughtful about birth control/contraceptives it really wouldn't be that big of an issue in the first place.

Originally Posted by Rupert_Lestrange

It really all depends on the situation. If it was just a whoops, I think that child still has a right to life, considering there's other ways, like adoption. But if it's a severe case like someone was raped and found out they were prego, then that would be a case where I'd say it was ok. Because if that person not only found out that they were an oops, but also the aftermath of something uber horrible, I think that would screw up that person for the rest of their life.
I believe that if people were more thoughtful about birth control/contraceptives it really wouldn't be that big of an issue in the first place.

More than half of abortions are used while a woman is using one or more forms of birth control.

Tell me this: how does adoption solve an unwanted pregnancy?

Originally Posted by Kris

Getting an abortion is being responsible.

Originally Posted by Kris

More than half of abortions are used while a woman is using one or more forms of birth control.

Tell me this: how does adoption solve an unwanted pregnancy?

Exactly.

These children may never be adopted. Not to mention how a mother must feel giving away their kid.

There are enough children in adoption centers, not to mention the ones on the street because no one can take care of them.

Originally Posted by Kris

More than half of abortions are used while a woman is using one or more forms of birth control.

Tell me this: how does adoption solve an unwanted pregnancy?

Birth control is not 100% effective. So even if a woman uses it, which is something they should, they have the chance of still becoming pregnant. What then? Should they have to give birth to a child they don't want or can't take care of?

So a woman does give birth because they cannot have an abortion. Then what? If they simply put the child up for adoption, how is that the good thing? That child might never get adopted and a lot of orphanages are not up to par due to lack of funding. There are just too many children in foster care and many go through the system without getting adopted. Is this the right thing to do?

I fully support Kris response here.

Originally Posted by Rupert_Lestrange

It really all depends on the situation. If it was just a whoops, I think that child still has a right to life, considering there's other ways, like adoption. But if it's a severe case like someone was raped and found out they were prego, then that would be a case where I'd say it was ok. Because if that person not only found out that they were an oops, but also the aftermath of something uber horrible, I think that would screw up that person for the rest of their life.
I believe that if people were more thoughtful about birth control/contraceptives it really wouldn't be that big of an issue in the first place.

No, not really.
Either fetuses have the right to life or they don't, there is no in between. And a pregnancy can screw someone up period, even if they weren't raped. Having a child you're not ready for will definitely screw up the child.

People ARE thoughtful about contraceptives. It's a fairly small section of the population that doesn't bother using them, and mistakes or plain failures are bound to happen.

First, I think don't the debate on abortion should be religious. To me, it's more a matter of when life begins. Some people believe it doesn't begin until the child takes its first breath, others believe life begins at conception or even implantation.

I believe life begins at conception and thus to end life is murder.

Although, if you don't want to see a fetus as 'living', then let's see it as property. It is half the biological father's and half the biological mother's, and if the two can not agree on what to do then I think the court should take responsibility for the 'property' like in any other civil issue.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

Although, if you don't want to see a fetus as 'living', then let's see it as property. It is half the biological father's and half the biological mother's, and if the two can not agree on what to do then I think the court should take responsibility for the 'property' like in any other civil issue.

Doesn't work. Even if we consider the fetus property, the man cannot lay claim to a living thing that he intends for the woman to care for and assume the risks of, especially when the woman does not want to take on those responsibilities and risks.

Imagine if you and I bought a dog together, but for whatever reason I was unwilling or unable to take care of it, leaving the full responsibility to you. Do I have the right to determine what you feed the dog, how often you walk the dog, or whether you keep the dog if it makes you miserable? If the dog starts behaving aggressively, do I have the right to force you to take on the risk of getting bitten?

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

First, I think don't the debate on abortion should be religious. To me, it's more a matter of when life begins. Some people believe it doesn't begin until the child takes its first breath, others believe life begins at conception or even implantation.

I believe life begins at conception and thus to end life is murder.

Although, if you don't want to see a fetus as 'living', then let's see it as property. It is half the biological father's and half the biological mother's, and if the two can not agree on what to do then I think the court should take responsibility for the 'property' like in any other civil issue.

...Do you honestly believe that a man should be able to control a woman's body and make life-altering changes for her? Like, seriously?

Look, if one parent wants an abortion, and the other wants to keep it, then only one can get their way. Why should it be the person who can very well walk out on the woman, the one who doesn't have to have any physical part of the relationship in their responsibility? You know, the one whose health and rights are not at stake.

That is extremely disrespectful to feminists, even the original ones like Susan B. Anthony. To say that you reject your own rights as a woman and want men to be able to control the lives of women on such a basic fundamental of rights is...sickening.

How is the court supposed to deal with these situations anyway?
Are they supposed to concretely determine whose wants are more valid and then give that person what they want? Or come to some sort of compromise where NEITHER party is happy?

I honestly don't see how the court can possibly intervene fairly, so please enlighten me.

I believe that it really depends on the womans situation and that she should get the right to have an abortion or not. Like you said it could be a woman who was raped or obviously cannot take care of the child. Yes there is the point of " well why can't she just give it up for adoption?" but personally I believe you should still have the right on whether or not to have an abortion and that there are far too many people in this world as it is.

Originally Posted by Kris

...Do you honestly believe that a man should be able to control a woman's body and make life-altering changes for her? Like, seriously?

Look, if one parent wants an abortion, and the other wants to keep it, then only one can get their way. Why should it be the person who can very well walk out on the woman, the one who doesn't have to have any physical part of the relationship in their responsibility? You know, the one whose health and rights are not at stake.

That is extremely disrespectful to feminists, even the original ones like Susan B. Anthony. To say that you reject your own rights as a woman and want men to be able to control the lives of women on such a basic fundamental of rights is...sickening.

Susan B. wanted the right to vote, not kill unborn children. That's the work of Margret Sanger.

And I believe that IF YOU REMOVE THE IDEA OF A FETUS BEING A LIVING THING and consider it property it should be dealt with as such. I think you've taken me out of context.

As far as a man 'controlling' a woman, it would technically be the judicial system 'controlling' a woman. And how many life threatening cases do you know of? How common as tubal pregnancies? What is the fatality rate of women during birth? There are few conditions that can not be treated via prenatal surgery that would threaten a woman's life to the extend that she would abort the child. It's common knowledge that most abortions are obtained by young women that simply do not want to give birth and care for a child.

Originally Posted by Fabby

How is the court supposed to deal with these situations anyway?
Are they supposed to concretely determine whose wants are more valid and then give that person what they want? Or come to some sort of compromise where NEITHER party is happy?

I honestly don't see how the court can possibly intervene fairly, so please enlighten me.

. . . Alright, I recant my previous statement. Let's say this occurs in Family Court in this situation. How do courts decide which parent a child lives with if both parents live in typical, 'normal' environments, yet one wants it just a little more, yet neither parent live within 1,000 miles of each other? There are situations in which a man wants the child but the woman does. In those situations, the woman is selfless and has the child. Then she gives the husband full custodial rights, as if in an adoption.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

[. . . Alright, I recant my previous statement. Let's say this occurs in Family Court in this situation. How do courts decide which parent a child lives with if both parents live in typical, 'normal' environments, yet one wants it just a little more, yet neither parent live within 1,000 miles of each other? There are situations in which a man wants the child but the woman does. In those situations, the woman is selfless and has the child. Then she gives the husband full custodial rights, as if in an adoption.

A fetus would be a different situation than an actual child. First of all, the child (assuming they are old enough to even have an opinion) could influence the decision of the courts by saying "Well, I want to live with ____." A fetus obviously cannot do that.
The main difference I see is that once the child is actually born, we have concrete evidence of how well each parent is going to treat the child. Before the fetus is born, all we have to go on are their words, and we all know words are pretty worthless :\ once they become real parents you can judge their actions.
Were I a judge, the argument "I have been consistently paying child support and the kid always seems to enjoy visiting with me and oh yeah, the mother won't come home for weeks at a time" is much better than "I'll be a good father, promise!".

It is not right to ask a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to give it up to the father, especially when you cannot guarantee he will actually stay to care for the child.

Originally Posted by Fabby

How is the court supposed to deal with these situations anyway?
Are they supposed to concretely determine whose wants are more valid and then give that person what they want? Or come to some sort of compromise where NEITHER party is happy?

I honestly don't see how the court can possibly intervene fairly, so please enlighten me.

Originally Posted by Fabby

A fetus would be a different situation than an actual child. First of all, the child (assuming they are old enough to even have an opinion) could influence the decision of the courts by saying "Well, I want to live with ____." A fetus obviously cannot do that.
The main difference I see is that once the child is actually born, we have concrete evidence of how well each parent is going to treat the child. Before the fetus is born, all we have to go on are their words, and we all know words are pretty worthless :\ once they become real parents you can judge their actions.
Were I a judge, the argument "I have been consistently paying child support and the kid always seems to enjoy visiting with me and oh yeah, the mother won't come home for weeks at a time" is much better than "I'll be a good father, promise!".

It is not right to ask a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to give it up to the father, especially when you cannot guarantee he will actually stay to care for the child.

You make a very valid point, but none of which supports the actual abortion.

If a fetus were treated like property then the premise of a fetus being an unborn child, terminology which tries to attach an emotional bond to an 'object' most pro-abortionists see as 'inanimate', would then no longer exist in a legal sense. Thus, the dispute would be a civil one. Unless you want to see the fetus as 'body parts', in which there can legally be no value attached to.