Originally Posted by Arousal

A woman who got raped should have the possibility to get rid of child if she really doesn't want it.


A woman whose life it at risk if she carries through with the pregnancy.

I hate to be ambivalent on anything, but I'd have to say that I never thought of the second situation. Don't take me as some conservative Christian or anything, but abortion is something I am strongly against.

I believe even if you didn't want a baby, there's someone who possibly can't have any that does. Adoption is the best alternative in my opinion. Even if it was caused by rape.

But, back to that second incident. I never really thought about that. I really wouldn't know what to do in that predicament [although I would never be in it seeing as how I'm a guy]. I'd probably still try and have the baby though. The thought of taking away a life before even giving it a chance just doesn't register to me.

Everyone's pretty much replied to everything else, so unfortunately my post will be rather short :P

Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker

There will always be a risk to women who have had abortion's. Later in life when they want to have a kid they will regret what they had done in the past,

As Molly said, not every woman regrets having an abortion. Indeed, I'd venture to say few do, considering all the thought that goes into it. After all, abortions are expensive, they aren't covered by insurance, and any woman who wants to get one has the run the risk of being met with harassing and shaming and language so foul and disgusting it pushes the limits on "free speech". I really don't think women are just getting them for the heck of it. And besides that, what does a past abortion have to do with them not having children? Very rarely do (legal) abortions affect the recipient's ability to have children. My mother's first pregnancy ended in an abortion, and besides it happening fairly soon before she became pregnant with me (and so, I wouldn't have happened if she'd continued the pregnancy), it also made my life far better. We were very, very poor. She could barely care for me, so can you imagine what would have happened with two children?

Also, a majority of women who have abortions are either mothers already, or plan to have a child at some point during their lives. Anti-choicers often promote this idea that all abortion recipients are naive teenagers who "sleep around" and don't know the "joys" of motherhood, and if they did, they wouldn't get abortions. But this simply is not the case. Of course, they also often suggest or even state outright that when a woman pushes a child out of her vagina, she automatically loves that child, and we know that isn't the case, so.

So the best way to prevent an abortion is to not have sex at all, so that there is no abortion.

Aha, and that's where we get to the heart of the anti-choice stance: women shouldn't have sex unless they intend to reproduce. We should not enjoy something natural and wonderful as just that and must instead view it simply as a way to make babies and, like our hymens, something we "owe" to our future husbands.

Oh, but don't ask men to keep theirs in their pants. Having sex is just what men do! And don't ask them to take any responsibility for preventing pregnancies, either, because condoms are just unnatural and after all, if that slutty woman wants to have sex for some unnatural reason like pleasure, she deserves what comes to her, be it an STD or pregnancy.

(Don't ask me who pro-choicers and conservatives as a whole think men are supposed to have sex with if women are supposed to remain "chaste". I mean, I see an obvious answer, but I'm not so sure the conservatives would like that idea :P)

Also. @iRandall: That's still forcing a woman to go through a whole lot of pain and danger and personal expense and possibly permanently mess up her life. If you ignore the mother, as anti-choicers so often do, you're still putting yet another child into the system, a system that is wholly inadequate and corrupt and often includes abuse by guadians through all stages if they are ever adopted at all. I'm not sure how anyone could see the possibility of complete misery as a good "alternative" to ending a being's life before it even knows it has that life. It's not like it's going to miss it, or that it's going "Oh noes, please don't kill me!" as it's being aborted.

I also find it funny how anti-choicers bring up adoption. It's true that not all anti-choicers are conservative, but a large portion of them are, and a large portion of conservatives and anti-choicers, so the two groups can be pretty fairly said to overlap. And yet, they're actually intentionally making the adoption system worse. I'd love to adopt someday, but as I don't really have any plans to get married and will likely marry a woman if I ever do get married, that probably will never happen. And it's all thanks to conservatives. Thanks, conservatives, for caring so much about those children you were "protecting" while they were in the womb!

Originally Posted by Riley_Dragonseeker

My opinion on abortion is this:
If the woman in question was raped then she have the right to get an abortion, she should not have to go throught the pain of knowing that her child is of the man that raped her. And also you wouldn't want to let the child raised to be hated either. But if the woman wants to give birth to the child and give it up for adoption then all the more power to her

If the woman in question was impregnated by one of her kin(incest) then she should be allowed to have an abortion only if it is harmful to her life, otherwise let the child be born and then give it a good home.
If the woman in question willing had sex without the use of a condom, abortion should not be allowed unless there was a risk to her life. If you are seriously stupid enough to have sex without any protection then you should let that child have a chance at life.
There will always be a risk to women who have had abortion's. Later in life when they want to have a kid they will regret what they had done in the past, So the best way to prevent an abortion is to not have sex at all, so that there is no abortion

This could mean her child would be born handicapped, I think she has all the right to abort in a situation like that.

Actually, unless there are several generations of incest, the chance the child will be born with a severe defect is little greater than any other child. Should we then extend it to fetuses with a family history of, say, heart disease or cancer?

Also, I think you should probably ammend your statement. The way it reads now is dreadfully close to supporting eugenics, and actually contradicts the argument from potential that is so prevalent in anti-choice rhetoric.

Originally Posted by iRandall

I hate to be ambivalent on anything, but I'd have to say that I never thought of the second situation. Don't take me as some conservative Christian or anything, but abortion is something I am strongly against.

I believe even if you didn't want a baby, there's someone who possibly can't have any that does. Adoption is the best alternative in my opinion. Even if it was caused by rape.

But, back to that second incident. I never really thought about that. I really wouldn't know what to do in that predicament [although I would never be in it seeing as how I'm a guy]. I'd probably still try and have the baby though. The thought of taking away a life before even giving it a chance just doesn't register to me.

How can you be so apathetic to the plight of the woman?

Women who are pregnant and do not want their child have no obligation to infertile coupes. However, parents looking to adopt already have many choices to pick from, and do have an obligation to give born children nice homes. To write off giving a newborn up for adoption expresses your great apathy for the emotion tied to pregnancy, and the stress of giving birth to a child and handing it over. It is not so easy, and disrespectful of you to pretend it is so. To tell a woman that, not only is she not allowed to control her body to appease your morals, even if she doesn't agree with them, and then to ignore her opinions, thoughts, feelings, state of mind, and situation is apathetic and self-centered. I hope you do not look at all issues with such a me-centered outlook.

How can you call yourself pro-life when you want women to die? What does the woman owe a fetus, enough to die for it? Who are you to let innocent women die for your own, selfish morality?

I'm all for pro-choice but at the same time I women should give their children a chance to live. Meaning if they don't want to raise it, then they should give it to a family who wants it. There are many couples out there who cannot have children and would graciously give it a loving home.

Kole, did you just completely ignore the post directly before yours? :|

And there obviously aren't enough, since there are so many children who aren't being adopted. And to be honest, "gracious" isn't quite the word I would use to describe everyone looking to adopt, considering how much more difficult it is for non-white, non-"perfect" children past a certain age to find homes. I'm not really begruding them; as expensive as it is to adopt, they have a right to be choosy. But I wouldn't automatically describe them as these "gracious", angelic people when they turn down a child for being a few skin tones too dark or not being perfect and cute enough to fit into their family.

Reading over the past few pages, there's a few points that I'd like to throw in:

1. Making abortion illegal will not stop it from happening. Abortion used to be illegal, and it was legalized so that it could be conducted in safe environments with doctors who know what they're doing.

2. Just because you think abortion is wrong isn't justification for you to control what someone else does with their body.

3. Forcing a mother to carry an nonviable fetus to term is a slap in the face and a danger to the mother. Under no circumstances should the abortion of a nonviable fetus be considered unethical or become illegal or restricted. I have never come across a valid counterpoint, so if someone has one to offer, I'd like to hear it.

4. The adoption system is a mess. Unfortunately, many adoption centers are for-profit, especially centers that bring children in from overseas. Unless this system is fixed, and gay couples can get rights to adopt children, it is not an acceptable alternative to abortion.

5. Personally, I think there should be a limit on how many viable fetuses a woman terminates (per year, for example). Abortion should not be a method of birth control, and a "quota" of sorts can prevent this from happening.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Actually, unless there are several generations of incest, the chance the child will be born with a severe defect is little greater than any other child. Should we then extend it to fetuses with a family history of, say, heart disease or cancer?

Also, I think you should probably ammend your statement. The way it reads now is dreadfully close to supporting eugenics, and actually contradicts the argument from potential that is so prevalent in anti-choice rhetoric.

The risk of producing a disabled child actually is greater when it's from incest. Especially mental health disabilities.

And i'm all for it, if you know your child is going to be born with a disability that could make their life a living hell of medicine, pain and a quick death, why not prevent it?
I don't care about the "unnatural" bullshit, we have the possibility to prevent people from unnecessary suffering, so why put it aside and act as though it doesn't exist.
We live in the twenty-first century, things like this shouldn't even be debated about.

Also, the woman should always have the option to get rid of her child, it's her own body and no one should be able to make her have a child she doesn't want. We only live this life once, we should at least get the possibility to do with it what we want, even if that means we'd want to get rid of an unborn child.

Originally Posted by Arousal

[SIZE="1"]The risk of producing a disabled child actually is greater when it's from incest. Especially mental health disabilities.

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?

I just did some research, and the chances of a congenital defect for children born of incestuous relationships varies. It's about 2% higher for cousins, 5% higher for parent/child and 7% higher for brother/sister relationships where the brother and sister have the same parents. It's back down to 5% if they have different fathers or different mothers. Anything past first cousins is hardly a percent. Thought I would toss that in ;)

Edited to add something else I found.

Thanks :heart: I couldn't remember the exact numbers, and my Google-fu is weak.

Originally Posted by Kris

How can you be so apathetic to the plight of the woman?

Women who are pregnant and do not want their child have no obligation to infertile coupes. However, parents looking to adopt already have many choices to pick from, and do have an obligation to give born children nice homes. To write off giving a newborn up for adoption expresses your great apathy for the emotion tied to pregnancy, and the stress of giving birth to a child and handing it over. It is not so easy, and disrespectful of you to pretend it is so.

How am I pretending? I'm just giving my opinion. It doesn't mean I'm wrong.
:roll:

I don't see how abortion doesn't effect your emotions as much as having a baby. I mean, if you can just kill an unborn without feeling any type of "apathy" for it, then that's you. I understand there are emotional ties to a pregnacy, which is another reason why I say go ahead and do it. You never know, you might change your mind when you have it.

Originally Posted by Philomel

Thanks :heart: I couldn't remember the exact numbers, and my Google-fu is weak.

It's ok, I'm a Google-Goddess *nodnod*

I am for abortion. I don't consider the newly forming fetus - which is small enough to go in through a tube - a living baby. Therefore, choosing to get rid of it is a woman's right. It is not murder in my opinion. By the way, I am not religious, but that does not make my opinion on this matter irrelevant - as most people said to me.

What if the woman was raped and impregnated? Should she be cursed to keep the spawn of such a terrible attack? No. Also, there are a lot of young mothers who end up killing their own newborn- now, a living baby. We, as women, should be allowed this right.

If the woman chooses to have a baby but can't take care of it, I'm for putting it up for adoption. It is sad how many children are up for adoption, but that is the reality of life.

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.

Please don't bash me on my opinion as I won't bash anyone who is against abortion. We all have rights to express our views.

Originally Posted by iRandall

I understand there are emotional ties to a pregnacy, which is another reason why I say go ahead and do it. You never know, you might change your mind when you have it.

While I approve of your opinion, I would also like to point out that some women don't have the choice. They may not be able to take care of the baby.
_______________

I am not exactly for Abortion. In my opinion, she shouldn't have gotten pregnant if she wasn't ready. But I am Pro-Choice. If a woman decides that she does not want the baby, then she shouldn't have to. And if she does, then what? Does she just dump him on the side, like half the teenagers in New York? Does she just leave him to another shelter, where he may never get adopted?

And the child is UNBORN, thus it is not living.

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.

"If you're against abortion... don't have one."

Whats funny is most of the people anti-abortion~~you don't see them with any adopted children.

That's also why I believe we shouldn't have to put more poor children on the earth.

I've said since I was younger that I would adopt because there are enough children on this planet and many who need a good home. I also intend on having a child of my own some day. :3

I don't intend of my own, but my father wants grandchildren.

I don't want to experience the miracle of birth
I don't even want to have sex and I am 19.

I would rather adopt. One less child brought into the world, and one more child out of the system.

I intend to be a maiden for life. You may find it naive or stupid, but right now, that is my views on sex intirely.

I'm adopting two kids, maybe.

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.

Uh, what makes you think that turning 18 makes you financially stable?
An 18 year old with no high school diploma isn't going to be able to get any better jobs than a 16 year old. And then there's the fact that it's hard to get a job to begin with...

Originally Posted by Fabby

Uh, what makes you think that turning 18 makes you financially stable?
An 18 year old with no high school diploma isn't going to be able to get any better jobs than a 16 year old. And then there's the fact that it's hard to get a job to begin with...

And then, if you DO get pregnant, you're going to lose your job for at least a few months, and heck, you could be 30 and lose your job at this point. I had 2 jobs during one of my pregnancies, my husband was making money.. and all of the sudden I'm pregnant, I lose a job and my husband gets in a car crash and can't work. Getting a job isn't easy at all, even if you have an education. My aunt has been working at the same factory for 20 years.. she got laid off last year and is still looking for a new job.

@Tamoko: I really wish it was that cut and dry, I really really do, but it's not. I hope you get a GOOD job right out of high school.. not one where you're making 6 bucks an hour and 25% is going to taxes, because it takes a LOT more to be pregnant AND to have the child. I hope you have a place to live and are able to pay your bills right after high school. I hope you can take care of yourself.. and I hope you see how hard it is to do so, then imagine trying to do it with a child on the way.

And I really can't stress this enough.. the emotional trauma of giving up a child for adoption is huge. The idea that you have spent the last 9 months of your life caring for something, willing it to grow, taking time off work, losing friends and family, going through emotional torture.. and then giving it away. Some people can't deal with that. I know for a fact I couldn't. The feeling of inadequacy as a mother would have eaten me from the inside, and I know I wouldn't have lived long after. Women, even the ones who have abortions, often WANT to be good mothers. The idea that you're such a useless person that you can't even care for your own child is heart breaking. For a woman, sometimes it really is easier to let the child go before they have the emotional attachment that 9 months of pregnancy brings to the table. It takes a very strong woman indeed to carry something that long, feel it inside her and protect herself for it's sake, then give it to a stranger and promise never to contact it again. I'm not that strong.