I have no problems with abortion. I think that its good women have the choice to have abortions, I mean there are all sorts of scenarios that it can come in handy and can help take off the stress that a newborn baby can bring. Though what I don't condone is the women out there that treat abortions like contraception. Just because the end result means your not pregnant it doens't mean that its ok to do it. I mean legally yes its prefectly fine to end the life before it has the oppertunity to grow but morally its a little more difficult.
Personally speaking I don't think that I could live with myself if I had an abortion, unless of course there was going to be some serious health risk for myself or the baby but other than that I think that an abortion is the sort of thing that would eat me up inside, not just me either, its a big thing for quite a lot of women.
I think that if women want to get abortions then its their choice, and other people who have a problem with that should just butt out, I mean its none of their business what goes on behind closed doors is it?

Okay, let me just throw my two-cents in here. I think illegalizing *or* legalizing abortion is entirely *not* the issue; the issue should be defining what is human. It'd be like having different laws for killing teenagers; just decide whether they're human or not, and make the killing of humans illegal. If a fetus is a human being, then abortion should be treated as murder, and if a fetus is *not* a human being, then it should not be treated as murder.

Now, religious opinions usually get brought in here and Bible versus flung like projectile weapons, but I'm going to steer clear of all of that and make my argument based solely on *biology*. Most people seem to think that science says a fetus is a blob of tissue that is part of the mother's body to do with as she pleases and that only religion says differently. However, this is not the case.

The way that science tells the difference between a body part and a separate body is by genetic makeup. If you and I were somehow fused at the elbow or whatever, we would still be *two* organisms, because we have different DNA. My hand is my hand because it shares my genetic makeup, and your hand is not mine because it does not. The fetus has a different genetic makeup from the mother; indeed, sometimes the fetus is *male*, having a Y chromosome that the mother certainly does not have. Scientifically speaking, the fetus is not part of the mother's body, but a separate organism. And as it has human DNA, it is in fact a separate *human* organism.

Now for the question is it alive? Again, religion usually gets thrown in here, but I'm going to use the basic signs of life we were all taught in eighth grade biology class. Does it grow? Yes, in fact from the size of a single cell to several pounds over the course of just under ten months. Does it move? Yes, it kicks inside the womb, and by I believe it's the fifth (?) week of pregnancy (I may be remembering wrong) the fetus' heart beats. Does it have a metabolism? Yes, it receives oxygen and nutrition from the mother's blood via the placenta; note there is no actual mixing of blood, because (being a separate organism) the fetus usually has a different blood type from the mother. The fetus matches all of the scientific requirements for being alive, being human, and being separate from the mother, and killing it should be treated the same as killing a human at any other stage of life.

What about the Rhythm method? Religions couples that don't believe in chemical birth control, but are trying not to get pregnant using cycles? I mean they have a reason NOT to use condoms or birth control, but they're still trying not to get pregnant. I said it before, and I'll say it again, it's far from black and white, it's a huge gray area. You're welcome to go through every possible scenario and dole out judgment, but seriously, what is the point, it's not your body.

Your previous post clearly stated that it is the woman's responsibility to take care of all birth control needs. Condoms included. I think instead of saying you're right or wrong about this, I'll point out something you are over looking. The REASON you feel it's the woman's responsibility is because it's the woman who is going to get pregnant if something fails, right? And here's where the core issue arises. A woman who gets pregnant IS alone unless the man CHOOSES to involve himself in the pregnancy. That kind of pressure, not having the support of the child's father is yet another reason to get an abortion. Maybe more of the responsibility SHOULD be placed on the men, so that woman wouldn't be forced to make those hard choices about abortion. Why should they get a free ticket?

After reading both links, I have found that there is NO indication at all that rapists breed rapists. I'm glad you've come to your senses and stopped pushing this as fact. What WAS said in both articles, is that there MIGHT be SOME genes that MIGHT CONTRIBUTE to sexually deviant acts. And, also, while someone MIGHT have these genes, it doesn't mean it's an active gene. You can have a blond mother and a brown haired father, but only one of those genes will be active, right? So why should it be more important to abort the child of a rapist if there is such a small percent chance that they, again, MIGHT have a theoretical gene? In the end, it's a bunch of scientists working on theories, but none of them have proof of anything. If you want to side with one of the other, go ahead, but that's yet one more gray area that you're trying to recolor to black and white.

If you've had personal experience that say children of rapists are going to grow up to be rapists, I have one that says you're wrong. I was raped when I was 14. The person who did it had a son my age.. who is one of my best friends now. He has 3 kids of his own, has been married for 10 years and It may or may not matter to you, but he's also a very religions person. He disowned his father when he learned what he had done to a lot of girls. No, the son wasn't the PRODUCT of a rape, but he is the son of a rapist. By your logic, I should hate the son on principle. Do try not to let a personal experience color your view of the entire world, you'll only end up resentful and angry at people you have never met.

@Philomel: Honey, I just adore you! You are spot on.

I was told by two different doctors that it would be almost impossible for me to become pregnant, much less carry to term. But I went on the Pill anyway, just to be safe. Since I am in a monogamous, committed relationship, we were not using any other form of protection. I ended up pregnant, but because of the effects of the Pill, our baby stopped developing at around 4 weeks. At about my 7th week, an ultrasound discovered this, and I was forced to terminate. It was the hardest thing I have ever been through, but I didn't hesitate to abort in this case. It wasn't really a choice, it was an incomplete miscarriage that had to be brought full circle.

To anyone considering abortion as an option, I say this: DO NOT let other people's opinions or judgments sway you. Do what you feel is the right thing for you.

Thank you for sharing that, and proving again that it's a gray area, that there are a lot of different circumstances when it comes to abortion.

I would respond, but my response would pale in comparison to Molly's. Thank you. :)

Roxxxy: :heart: I'm sorry you had to go through that.

CallMeCal1987: Even if that's the argument, that they're somehow just like a human that has been born, they are being treated as you or I would. We have the right to bodily integrity. It is considered by the UN to be a basic human right. The usual thought experiment to explain this right is this:

You wake up in a hospital, hooked up to another person. It is explained to you that this person will die if you unhook them from yourself. Because of the right to bodily integrity, it would be entirely legal for you to do this, as they were, with or without their knowledge or intention, using your body without your consent. It would not be considered a crime.

This is an issue that often comes up in things like the ban on female genital modification that's present in many places, but it applies to pregnancy is well. Basically, your body is your own. A woman cannot be forced to carry a pregnancy to term without violating her rights as a human being.

Phiomel: That's a very interesting point, I'll have to consider this...

@Philomel

Yes, we actually covered a bit of the abortion issue in our philosophy class last year. That same analogy was in our book. There is another argument, though; an addendum to that, but I can't quite remember how it goes.

I would really like to know what the other side was. The whole thing sounds very interesting. Any way of finding it?

Being randomly hooked up to another person is a bit different than pregnancy, isn't it? Most times a pregnancy is the woman's fault, and she was completely conscious of the actions that brought her to that state, and she made choices that led to that outcome.
She wasn't woken up randomly and told, "Surprise! You're pregnant! We know you're completely innocent and could have never conceived for something like this to happen, but oh well!"

Although I can see where you're coming from a bit better if we were talking about just the woman who were raped or whatever.

That has nothing at all to do with it, however. The right to bodily integrity remains. It is the same thing that keeps people from being able to harvest your non-essential organs without your consent. It is the same thing that keeps someone from forcing you to be a surrogate mother. It doesn't really matter if you think it's the woman's fault. Having your right to bodily integrity violated is not a suitable "punishment" for some perceived "crime" the woman has committed. I mean, they can't even legally force child molestors to be sterilized, at least not here. Why should a woman who refused to take hormonal birth control, which can mess with your body in undesirable ways, and whose partner didn't do his part and wear a condom, be forced into carrying a parasite that can cause her hormones to go so nuts she ends up depressed, suicidal, and possibly even homicidal, that can weaken her immune system so severely she can die from a relatively minor illness, and whose birth can not only cause her to not be able to have a child later that she actually wants and is ready for, but can actually kill her, even in this day and age? It's a sick and inhumane punishment for something so minor that doesn't even affect you.

Besides, potential means nothing. Every time you drive a car, you know that there's a chance, a fairly decent one, that no matter how careful you are, someone or something will cause you to have an accident. Yet, we don't hold you accountable when you do get hurt in a car accident, we don't say it's your "fault" for taking that chance, we don't deny you medical treatment, we don't do just enough to keep you alive but force you to live with any scars or injuries when they could be avoided. No, you get every bit of sympathy, you get treated without any discussion about the morality of treating someone who's suffered a possible consequence of driving a car, and everyone does everything possible to make it as though the accident never happened.

Honestly it's youe body, and I think you have the right to choose what you think is best for yourself. Obviously I have ideal situations, namely along the lines listed in the first post. For the most part, if you're just carelessly getting pregnant over and over, and keep having abortions, I really think you should rethink your lifestyle, but they still have the right to decide.
Some things I hate:
People who call it murder; it is not living, breathing, thinking.
People who make arguements such as "You don't know what you're killing, it could be the next president." Likewise, it could be the next Charlie Manson or Jeffery Dahmer.
Men who think they should have the right to make these decisions. You don't not experience pregnancy, nor or you usually the one stuck with the baby, since you could easily run away.

Let's there's new technology. A born person can be hooked up to another person for nutrients for months at a time. You hit a person with your car, and the person needs this technology. You are a match for them, and because you did it, you are forced into being the person they get these nutrients from.

This has a plethora of different side effects. You gain weight, your skin sags, you can develop diabetes, become bed ridden, are usually very ill, sensitive to smell and taste. It's very painful and leaves some negative side effects for your your entire life. You have to quit work, or drop out of school. It will change the chemistry of your mind, the way your body operates. It can even kill you, if something goes wrong.

But if the person is unhooked from you, they would die.
You are not at "fault" for hitting them. You are a safe driver, and you made no mistakes that day. It was just that the person ran out in front of you.

Should you be forced, against your will, to be hooked up to this machine?

Also, killing a fetus is different from killing a born person because the born person does not have to be attached to someone else to live.
It's not an applicable comparison, and it's a straw man.

No offense, but it still boggles my mind to see these kind of comments because in the US this is how the law already is.

First trimester: Legal.
Second trimester: Requires a doctor's note. There must be a medical need.
Third trimester: Doctor's note and court order. There must be a substantial reason to get both.

So, that's how it is. I think this is perfectly appropriate.

Keyori: That always amused me when people (*cough* O'Reilly *cough*) called the late Dr. Tiller "Tiller the Baby Killer" and described him as "controversial" because he performed late-term abortions. They completely neglected to mention or were just ignorant of the fact or maybe just didn't care that these "controversial" abortions were all recommended by other doctors because the women were facing very real very serious health risks. Had he not performed the abortions, there's a good chance that the women would have died or suffered long-lasting health issues.

Although most pregnancies are hardly as dangeorus as you say they can be,
You are right, we do deserve the right of bodily integrity.

I'm letting my morals get in the way again. Because I'm the sort of person to stay hooked up to the stranger in order for them to live, and I'm also the sort of person who could never think of a child and think "parasite". Hell, if I was raped by a family member, I'd still be happy to raise the child (and I'm an eighteen-year-old lesbian)! Haha, but that's just me, and I know other people are different. And I know where you're coming from.

It's just very hard for me to conceive that anyone could look at a baby that way, as a nuisance or as an unwanted thing, even if it's just a fetus. I see it as a miracle. But despite that, I'm trying! I'm trying and have tried very hard to look at it from others' perspectives, which is why I am pro-choice and harbor no hatred for people who have abortions. Even if I don't understand it, I know I can try and sympathize at the very least. C:

Please realize that I do not use the term "parasite" for emotional appeal, Anahata. Quite the opposite, actually. Pro-lifers always refer to the fetus as "baby" or "child", applying emotion and personification to it and suggesting that they're identical. Not every woman who becomes pregnant views the fetus with any sort of fondness. And without that fondness, the fetus is, essentially, a parasite. It takes from its host, giving nothing back, and in the case of women who do not want the fetus inside them, it doesn't even give anything emotional. That is exactly the description of a parasite, and being human doesn't make it less of one. I mentioned 'parasitic twins' earlier. They are very much human, and actually are farther along in development than most fetuses are when they are aborted. Mind you, they have no chance of ever becoming anything more, but that doesn't make them parasitic and fetuses not.

Just felt like I needed to get that cleared up ^^

But I think we both know that the word "parasite", for many people, translates to something like "unwanted insect that should be destroyed immediataly". Whether that is the real the meaning or not, like you said, there is an emotional appeal in words. A psychology of words. Gay may mean happy, but when you hear it that's not what you automatically think. So that emotion can be used both ways in the argument, even if really, it shouldn't be.

I hope I'm making sense... @[email protected];

In other words, even if you said "parasite" because that's what it technically is, many people say "parasite" for the same reason others say "baby"-- that's what they consider it, plus there is indeed emotional appeal there.

But I understand you didn't use it for that purpose. C:

Either way... I say fetus, but I think of fetus as what it is: A stage in human development. Fetus is a stage just like baby or teenager. It's just that it's the earliest stage. So I know it's not a baby per se, but it's a really young human, and so that's why I suppose I would be uncomfortable aborting.

@Anahata; I think for a person who WANTS it to live, to become a child, and is looking forward to the process of being used as a vessel for development, is looking forward to 9 months of pregnancy, they would say "fetus". And in that cause, it wouldn't be a parasite, it WOULD be simply a Fetus. The fetus is giving it's host (Mother) something in return for nourishment, warmth, protection, etc. . It's giving it's host a feeling of fulfillment and the promise of a child, it's giving it's host joy. It's not a parasite if it's providing something to it's host, right?

But when the host doesn't receive the joy and fulfillment of pregnancy, it goes from a fetus to a parasite. Sure, technically it's still a fetus, it's still a growing human, but in the host's mind, it's unwanted and providing none of the emotional payment that a fetus should provide a expecting mother. It's simply there to take from it's host; Emotions, money, time, hopes, education, aspirations, family. To a woman who doesn't WANT a child, or does want a child, but feels the time is wrong, it will only take and take, and never give. That's where the line is drawn between fetus and parasite. It can't be described as a scientific line, in any sense, but there is a line.

I completely see where you're coming from.

It's sometimes hard to argue with people that partial-birth abortions should not have been made illegal for these same reasons. No, I wouldn't have one if I could help it (or any other "type" of abortion for that matter), no I don't like thinking about the procedure, no I don't expect anyone to WANT to have one. But the bottom line is that, in that stage of pregnancy, it is the safest method. And a court took away something that was, for most women, the best option at that point. Doctors don't make recommendations for partial-birth abortions for shits and giggles. They do it for the health of the mother. And people think I'm a monster because I want what is safe, but it's portrayed by media as inhumane and gruesome and immoral.

That's an interesting statement to make.
Shouldn't cases outside rape and incest be allowed abortions, as well? It seems very likely to me that if you start forcing women to carry their children to term, you're going to end up with a lot of babies who are resented and never properly cared for.

Does anyone ever read previous posts before they put in their opinion?
Just because there is an accidental pregnancy does NOT MEAN a condom wasn't used. Condoms are not 100% effective! And even going beyond that, humans make mistakes and pregnancies happen. Find me someone sexually active who has never had a slip and I will find you a liar. :\


I don't really understand what you're saying here. Not everyone regrets their abortions, and why would they regret it later when they want a child? Having an abortion doesn't ban you from having kids later in life.

So, you're saying that it isn't about the life of the fetus, it's about making the woman pay for being sexually active?

Last time I checked, being sexually active and not wanting children is not something to be punished for.

I don't think this is as true as you think it is. I've been married to my husband for 10 years. In that time, I've had 2 abortions, something I'm not ashamed to admit. There was NO WAY at the time I could CARE for a child in either case, there was no way financially I could have carried either one to term, and with my own mental history, giving a child up for adoption wasn't, and still isn't an option at all. I've dealt with major depression and have attempted suicide a few times (thankfully they failed and I got the help I needed) and I know for a fact that if I had to give a child away I would kill me. Not hurt me a great deal.. kill me. I tend to dwell on events to the point they are physically painful.

However, I now have a happy, healthy and loved 7 year old daughter. She'll be 8 next month. My pregnancy was 100% normal and aside from my narrow hips causing a C Section instead of a natural birth, she was born with no complications.

You might find me cold for saying this, but I have very little regret about the two abortions I had in the past. Because I know that, had I kept those children, they and I would have suffered a great deal. The child I have now is better off for it.

I've said this before, but it was quite a while back so I'm sure not everyone saw it. Being the oldest child, I would gladly give my life for my brother and sister. I grew up poor, I dropped out of school to care for my brother and sister, I raised them as best I could, fed them, clothed them, made sure they got to school every morning. My mother was too young for children and didn't know how to take care of them. She was 16 when she had me. Looking back, I know for a fact I would have rather my mother waited the 4 years between me and my oldest brother to have a child. If she had aborted me, my brother and sister may have had a much better life. She wouldn't have had to drop out of school, would have been able to find a steady relationship, a steady job, whereas she went through boyfriend after boyfriend for years and was never able to keep a job for more then a few months, mostly due to her children, unfortunately. And she would have had the family support she needed, whereas my grandmother all but disowned her for having a child so young. She probably would have been more mentally prepared for a child. If I could have made the choice for her, I would have.