One of the most controversial debates in today’s realm of politics and philosophy is the debate over the medical procedure which terminates a pregnancy: abortion. This procedure seems synonymous with “controversy” and “debate”.

Since this is such a controversial debate, there are a few special rules in place to ensure that this remains a logical and debate where no one has to feel intimidated or upset. We are here to discuss this matter, not flame those with different opinions. The “special” rules are as follows:

1. Refrain from personal attacks based off a person’s actions, experiences, or beliefs. If someone has had an abortion and you are against abortion, please keep yourself from calling them a “murderer” or “morally corrupt”. This is one of the reasons which the original thread was shut down, and we do not want to see this repeated. Please also refrain from making insults on a group of people who may not be present. In the last thread, it was a common occurrence for women who have had abortions to be called “whores” or “sluts”, even if it was not directed at any one person. Do not, under any circumstances, make such claims! This is a debate; talk like a “big kid”!
2. Call people by what they wish to be called. There will be none of this “pro-abortion”, “pro-death”, “anti-life”, or “anti-choice” nonsense. As a general rule of respect, it is not kosher to call people by names which upset them. When it comes to political terms, we will refer to one another as “pro-choice” and “pro-life”. Not only does this create clarity, but it also prevents us from turning into a debate of semantics.
3. If you make a statement, please attempt to back it up. We do not want “hit and run” posts; you may come into the thread and say “Abortion is wrong”, but do not leave it at that. Tell us why you think abortion is wrong, or we will never get the ball rolling.
4. Try to read the last page or two of the debate before you post. Abortion threads tend to become very long, I know, but I am not asking you to read fifteen pages or anything. To prevent repetitiveness, please try to at least read the last two pages.

If we can all pay attention to these rules and remember the universal Golden Rule, we should have a very productive and thought-provoking discussion. Now, let’s take a look at some of the terminology of an abortion debate:

• Pro-choice - the political affiliation which promotes the availability of abortion. How long depends on the person. Having this stance does not mean that the person believes abortion to be morally permissible.
• Pro-lifer – the political affiliation which is against the legality of abortion. Some pro-lifers are in favor of some exceptions to abortion being illegal, but many raise the question of whether or not this is consistent.
• Roe V Wade – the legislation which made abortion legal in all states. “Roe” was the woman who fought for her right to have an abortion, and “Wade” was the lawyer who sought to keep abortion illegal.
• Embryo – the unborn offspring of a mammal (for humans, the first eight weeks)
• Fetus – unborn offspring after the end of the first eight weeks.
• Trimester – one third of a pregnancy (three months of a pregnancy). At different trimesters, the fetus is at different stages of development.
• Mifepristone – an abortive pill and the most common form of abortion. This does not burn the fetus nor does kill it by pulling it apart or anything equally horrid; this induces a miscarriage.
• Late-term abortion – an abortion which occurs in the latter half of the first trimester. It is only legal with the advisement of a doctor that the woman will die and the approval of the court. This is not elective, and ONLY done in cases where the woman’s life is at risk.
• Planned Parenthood – the most popular woman’s health clinic. It provides women with the ability to have an abortion, but also with free birth control and other medical treatments for women, such as pap-smears.
• This is a LEGAL term. Abortion does not fit the term for this. While abortion may kill something, it is not murder (this is not a politically charged statement, but a factual one).

Please remember the rules and to respect the opinions of others about abortion! Remember: if you feel too heated, before you reply, wait five minutes and come back to the post. If it still makes you angry, write your reply, read over it, and edit anything which might be taken as offensive or childish. This is a place meant to be safe for everyone, pro-life or pro-choice, to express and discuss their opinions. Moderators often patrol the thread and will be sure to warn us when we are treading on thin ice.

Happy debating!

Kris, could you add a definition of "murder" to your list of terms? I believe that was in the OP of the last thread, and several times people misused the word without understanding what it meant, either in general or as a legal term.

I don't know how I forgot that one! D'oh!

I am pro-life. Alot of it has to do with religious reasons and just my own. I only see an abortion to be accepted is if it endangers the mother's life or the woman was raped by a family member.
I do see it as murder. In the other debates on this subject, people kept on saying "so, if you kill bacteria or an animal, do you consider that murder?" well, something along those lines. I do not consider those as murder. I only consider murder if it is a human life and if it has a heart beat. We don't go to jail if we kill a bug or bacteria, now do we? Yes, we do go to jail if we kill an animal inhumanely. Well, at least if it is animal that is considered as a pet, which that is just wrong.
This is my opinion. Everyone has their own opinion. I am going to clear this up to the people who keep on saying "well, you say that you can have your opinion, but we can not have ours? Double standers!!" One: I did not say that. I said "I have mine and you have yours, and I don't think anybody has the right to say I am wrong." Nowhere in there says "....but your opinion is wrong and you can't say anything". Even a child could see that. All I am saying, they can state their opinion and they have a right. I am not going to say they are wrong, because I don't want them saying I am wrong. We all have are own opinions on everything. NOBODY IS WRONG WHEN THEY STATE THEIR OPINION!!!!

Originally Posted by ichigo8504

I am pro-life. Alot of it has to do with religious reasons and just my own. I only see an abortion to be accepted is if it endangers the mother's life or the woman was raped by a family member.
I do see it as murder. In the other debates on this subject, people kept on saying "so, if you kill bacteria or an animal, do you consider that murder?" well, something along those lines. I do not consider those as murder. I only consider murder if it is a human life and if it has a heart beat. We don't go to jail if we kill a bug or bacteria, now do we? Yes, we do go to jail if we kill an animal inhumanely. Well, at least if it is animal that is considered as a pet, which that is just wrong.
This is my opinion. Everyone has their own opinion. I am going to clear this up to the people who keep on saying "well, you say that you can have your opinion, but we can not have ours? Double standers!!" One: I did not say that. I said "I have mine and you have yours, and I don't think anybody has the right to say I am wrong." Nowhere in there says "....but your opinion is wrong and you can't say anything". Even a child could see that. All I am saying, they can state their opinion and they have a right. I am not going to say they are wrong, because I don't want them saying I am wrong. We all have are own opinions on everything. NOBODY IS WRONG WHEN THEY STATE THEIR OPINION!!!!

If we all have the right to an opinion, why not the right to our bodies?

It's perfectly fine with you being against abortion personally. However, I would find it crossing the line to outlaw it for everyone.

Like I said before, I have my opinion and you have yours. Just because I am against abortion, does not mean I am saying you can not have one, but I don't want to be taxed to pay for these procedures since I am against it. You can have one if you want, but I will not.

How is this thread different from the other abortion thread?

Originally Posted by Shtona

How is this thread different from the other abortion thread?

This one isn't locked.

lol at Kris comment.

Also...last I knew...you have to pay for an abortion out of your own pocket, it isn't covered by any state or government funding, so how are you getting taxed for a woman to have one?

Also, why does it have to be a family member to rape you? If I suddenly get raped by someone I don't know, or even my boyfriend or husband, does that mean I shouldn't be allowed the abortion? That doesn't seem fair.

Someone who knows more details about abortion, correct me if I'm wrong, but once the fetus has a heartbeat, I believe it's too far along to be allowed an abortion. I'm not sure when the brain development starts compared to the heartbeat. I'm thinking about it, and I think I'm wrong on this point, but please let me know.

Also, last I checked, you don't go to jail for having an abortion either. And why only humans? If someone came in and shot your dog in front of you, you wouldn't consider that murder? Just because they aren't as intelligent as a human? A fetus is unthinking, unfeeling and unemotional. How is this murder? LEGALLY it isn't, so please refrain from calling it such, as is mentioned in the OP.

When your opinion is stating things that are just legally wrong, then, yes, your opinion is wrong. Not necessarily wrong, but extremely flawed. This is a DEBATE. If you don't want to listen to other argue against your opinion and you don't want to back that opinion up. If you're just here to post once and leave, then this really isn't the place for you.

Originally Posted by ichigo8504

I am pro-life. Alot of it has to do with religious reasons and just my own. I only see an abortion to be accepted is if it endangers the mother's life or the woman was raped by a family member.

And it begins.
Why are incest-rape fetuses less valuable than normal rape fetuses, or just your regular old consensually-conceived fetuses? Or, conversely, why is the suffering of someone who's been molested worse than everyone else's and justifies an abortion?

I do see it as murder. In the other debates on this subject, people kept on saying "so, if you kill bacteria or an animal, do you consider that murder?" well, something along those lines. I do not consider those as murder. I only consider murder if it is a human life and if it has a heart beat.

According to Dr. Wiki, the fetus' heart begins to beat at 6 weeks. Would it be okay to abort prior to six weeks?
Besides, it is alive and it is human but that doesn't make it a person. There's a distinction that needs to be made between HUMAN and PERSON. Murdering a person who has family that will miss them, thoughts and feelings and a will to live is very different from removing an unwanted clump of cells from one's uterus.

All I am saying, they can state their opinion and they have a right. I am not going to say they are wrong, because I don't want them saying I am wrong. We all have are own opinions on everything. NOBODY IS WRONG WHEN THEY STATE THEIR OPINION!!!!

Certainly, you have a right to state your opinion; that doesn't make your opinion right. Of course there are wrong opinions. If I tell you that my opinion is that giraffes are purple, giraffes certainly do not turn purple because I think they are.

I'm Pro-Choice, well actually I'm not a big fan of abortions, but I know, that if an opprotunity arose, I would want the choice to abort, so why wouldn't someone else?

I think that some people use the idea of abortions to liberally, and they take advantage of the system. Thats what needs to stop.

I remember in the last debate, people brought up the idea of 'couples not using protection, should not be allowed abortions, no matter what age'. This I disagree with. Why force a child into an enviroment where it wasn't wanted, to "teach the parents a lesson"? Why should the child suffer for the parents mistake. If they aren't mature or stable enough to have a child, why force them to keep their 'oops'.

And this connects to the babies concieved by rape tactics. Why should a woman have to live with this constant reminder of the indignaties she suffered? It's not fair that she'd have to look at this baby every day and remember that she was raped, and that can transfer as to how she treats her child. Isn't it better that she have an abortion, than send another kid into adoption agencies and foster homes? Or even worse, kill her own child?
Don't be naive enough to think this doesn't happen.


I believe there should be a choice.

Originally Posted by ichigo8504

Like I said before, I have my opinion and you have yours. Just because I am against abortion, does not mean I am saying you can not have one, but I don't want to be taxed to pay for these procedures since I am against it. You can have one if you want, but I will not.

I commend you for your position to not impose your views onto other people through legislation. I do want to point out a couple of things though.

There are very, very, very few governmental entities that cover any or part of the cost of abortion. One is the state of Washington, another is Medicaid.

Medicaid covers it only in the following cases:

Originally Posted by ACLU

At present, the federal Medicaid program mandates abortion funding in cases of rape or incest, as well as when a pregnant woman's life is endangered by a physical disorder, illness, or injury.

For taxpayer funding, I think that is a reasonable compromise--to dignify victims of a sex crime, and to save a woman's life.

An early-term abortion is usually not more than $500. The abortions in the area I live in cost less than my deductible, but if I were to get a late-term abortion (which can be upwards of $5000), due to my state's laws, I cannot get the abortion covered by my insurance company unless my life is in danger, or unless I specifically purchase an "abortion option." In essence, very little of the cost of abortion is passed on to taxpayers or private insurers, and that cost is definitely overshadowed by the costs of pregnancy, WIC, and child welfare.

To the rest of the thread, you can find out about more state-imposed restrictions on abortion and insurance here. (pdf)

More state laws can be found here. (sorted by state, so you can find information pertaining to you :))

Originally Posted by Kris

This one isn't locked.

In other words: it's the exact same. I know you had permission to open this thread, I just don't understand why you did. This topic has been talked to death. Everything surrounding this argument has been discussed in the other thread. All that's really left is a moral debate, and those never go anywhere...

And don't say I'm not contributing to the argument, I claimed it was a moral debate, which some would say it's not because of (insert argument here)...

Really, the point I'm trying to make is, or rather, the question I'm trying to ask is: Why does this have to be discussed? It's all been covered before...

You might feel it has, but there are people who might decide to join in, such as Kris
(I don't believe Kris took too big a part in the last one, am I right? My memory might be off), and now ichigo as well.

It doesn't matter if it's the exactly same OP or a lot of the same people. The last one was closed because some things had been taken too far. Though honestly, when it got closed I was a tad confused as no one was arguing anymore and we were actually talking about different forms of birth control.

She wasn't "given" permission. The moderator who locked it said in her statement that things had gotten too personal (or something along those lines), and that too many people were just plain out arguing and that she was going to close the thread and another should be made in its place.

I was actually LEARNING from the last debate. Especially about birth control and all the different methods of it.

Well, here's something I brought towards the tail end of the last thread, which I was really hoping to get more discussion on.

As Kris has mentioned several times, abortion is really the only way to end an unwanted pregnancy (whereas adoption implies carrying out the pregnancy, and is not really an end, so I'm going to leave that out as an option at the moment).

There are several couples that use in vitro to try to have children. I'm not very well-versed on this subject, but I do know that embryo are frozen and kept for the mother to use should a pregnancy fail.

Based on this information, I have a couple of ideas as alternatives to abortion (as there will always be unwanted pregnancies, which we can certainly reduce the number of through comprehensive sex education, but not ever completely eliminate).

For women whose pregnancies are ill-timed (for example, Molly, who had to end two pregnancies for the benefit of her current children): why not do research on freezing the embryo to use for later? It'd be like hitting a "pause" button on the pregnancy. The fetus doesn't die, and the woman can still have the child later. I realize that there is likely a strong correlation between the age of the fetus at the time it is removed and the likelihood that it can be salvaged later, but I don't believe that we've hit the technological ceiling on this yet. Cryogenics is still relatively new, and I think this could be a suitable application and a good middle ground for both sides (as most pro-choice women, I'm sure, would like to have children eventually, but under more ideal conditions later in life perhaps).

For women who have already had enough children: remove the fetus and use it for research (which would likely result in the death of the fetus), or put it on the "market" as one would an adoptable infant. I'd prefer the former over the latter, since giving it up to someone else would generate a market for women to produce "desirable" offspring for other people. To think that such a woman would go completely uncompensated in the end (whether legally or not) I think is a little naive, so I wouldn't prefer this option. However, I can see how the same pro-lifers would oppose fetal research, even if it did result in significant leaps in stem cell research that is crucial to understanding how the body works on a cellular level, and eventually, perhaps a cure for different cancers or AIDS. These fetuses would also likely be used to help determine the viability of cryogenically preserving fetuses for the first option, the "pregnancy pause button."

Personally I can't see much of an ethical conflict for the first option of freezing the fetus for later. The most difficult part would be convincing people now to be able to use fetuses that would otherwise be destroyed in an abortion for research on this kind of technology. I'm sure there are a lot of people who find it unethical, but my opinion is that if the fetus would be destroyed anyway, this is certainly a better option as it will contribute to essentially saving lives that would otherwise be destroyed by abortion later on.

I hope my explanation was clear, if you need clarification on anything please let me know.

I'm choosing not to include price as a part of these options since abortion is largely paid out of pocket anyway, and these options likely would too.

Originally Posted by Keyori

For women who have already had enough children: remove the fetus and use it for research (which would likely result in the death of the fetus), .

Well I was reading this thread and not to insult or atack Keyori in any way (i am really open to different views) however I believed I had to say an argument against this sugestion. I believe (and probably a few others might agree with me) that if you start testing fetuses which arre unwanted and it ends with their ending "death" this might bring out several ethical conceerns. First of all it is ilegal in most (maybe all) countries for human testing to be carried out which ends up in a human death. Some might argue that the "fetus" is not a human yet until something like 28 weeks. However in my personal belief I think that once the egg is fertilised I consider it as human which in my opinion would make the above action stated ilegal and in some ways imoral (meaning no offense to your beliefs i respect them fully)

To the issue of abortion I have to say that im highly anti abortion unless its a rape case and even then im not in favour of it. Some people would say that it is a pro choice perogrative of a women in choosing what is done to her body. Where I agree with this fully and Im not against the right for a women to choose to have an abortion, I believe that a man should have some say in its process due to the fact that the child is half his both biologically and spiritually. People would say that this is an imoral act a man getting a say over a womens body, however I believe that where the women should get the majority of the say the man should not be taken out of the equation. (Just to restate i am simply stating my views which i am not atempting to impose on other people and I am not saying that my views are the only right ones. )

You did take my statement a little out of context, so I want to clarify a few things in case it was my mistake for being too ambiguous.

There were two premises behind the research suggestion I made:

1) I presented the research option as an alternative to abortion--that is, if that option wasn't there, the fetus would have been aborted anyway. It's going to be destroyed, and in this hypothetical situation, the mother would choose whether or not to destroy it immediately (through an abortion) or give it up for testing (which makes the testing perfectly warranted). The fetus would then be destroyed during the course of testing, or once testing has concluded.

2) The research could be on the feasibility of freezing fetuses for women to be able to use later (in the case that a pregnancy is ill-timed), which will inevitably result in several deaths at first, but perhaps will save several lives later.

However whether it would have been iborted or not is irrelevent. Arent you (ass in the people who are) still testing a living being and by that testing leading to its death. Your statement one I do not believe can be used as an argument as then that argument could be used in many cases which could not work (such as it is okay to kill humans as they are going to die anyway) however this is a ilogical argumen and invalid in many cases. In order for the argument of they would die anyway can be used as a valid argument, it would have to be used in every case. Arguments which are valid have to work in all cases otherwise they are invalid. (this is based on philosophical arguments that im currently studying) YOur second argument could be valid if your using a, i believe its called utilitarianims approach, this means that which ever action has more good ending results then bad ending results it is the more ethical one, there is from what i have studied no problem with that statement.

Taking away the argument for the first statement, if it was considered as true, it would basically be the same thing as an abortion to people who are anti abortion. This means that people who are pro choice would be maybe be for this idea however anti abortionists would still be against this choice. This means that the alternative that you have suggested to abortion would not bring any anti abortionist over because the ending result would still be the babies, "fetuses" death.

That might be true, it might not "convert" any pro-lifers. But, these are alternatives to abortion in regards to ending a pregnancy. There are currently no options that end pregnancy while saving the life of the fetus. At least with a research option the life isn't completely wasted, and if it is specifically cryogenics research, we might actually develop an option later on where a woman can freeze the fetus for use later, when she's ready to have a child.

However the there is a method which can save the childs life by transplanting the foetus from the mother (i believe this is possible correct me if im wrong) if not currently in the near future. If this was to occur more unwanted fetuses could be given to women who wished to have one thus saving the childs life.

there are many anti-pregnancy contraceptives that are available to any woman, whether it is with a prescription or available in the store. We actually just went over these in my class, so i know that there are dozens out there.
abortion is wrong for a couple reasons, and not just your standard "killing fetuses", but because it can;
~damage the woman's uterus (and i have personally seen this happen to a woman)
~cause psychological trauma such as guilt, depression
~it promotes irresponsible behavior (i know girls in my school who have had 4 or 5 abortions, and they still refuse to stop their irresponsible activity)
~no one ever seems to think of this, or it is overruled by people saying, "It's a woman's right!" but the father does go through psychological trauma when his child is aborted.
~it can morally tear a family, or a couple apart. One might believe in abortions, the other might not, and it is a huge burden to bear one everyone.

I already know that contraceptives are never 100% effective, but we still know that sex can lead to a pregnancy, correct? These are consequences that people have to face, and the only way to prevent that consequence is to use contraceptives or just not have sex. I also know girls who won't use a condom because it "doesn't feel right", well if you're going to do that then you shouldn't even be allowed to get an abortion! Shame on you!
Even if that were the case, take extra precautions like knowing your own body. Meaning, pay attention to when your period comes and goes, know how long it is and know when you ovulate. Keep a calendar, and take the pill.

statistics show that 95% of abortions are performed for birth control, while the remaining 5% are for rape, incest, abnormalities and health.

about 1 in 50 couples get pregnant a year if they use condoms correctly.
2 in 25 couples get pregnant with the use of the pill, correctly.
in 2002, there have been 5000+ abortions in that year.

@Sentinel-
1) Damage to the woman's uterus/cervix is very uncommon, and isn't it HER choice if she wants to take the risk?

2) Psychological trauma does not happen to everyone. In fact, most people feel relieved afterward. There is no correlation between depression and abortion.

3) Sorry, but I fail to see how it's promoting girls to be irresponsible. The girls you're talking about would be irresponsible either way, that's just their nature. A child would not magically make them more responsible.

4) That's assuming that the father doesn't also agree with the abortion, and theoretically the two of them are in sync about what to do. They should have discussed it before having sex anyway. Yes, the situation does suck for the father, but the mother's rights overrule that. Sorry.

5) If the family doesn't like the fact that the girl is having an abortion, that's their problem. It's not their choice to make.
And you know what else tears apart families? Uh, having to take care of a kid because the irresponsible mother is out partying. :\ Sorry, it's not a decision for the family, it's a decision for the mother. If they can't respect her decision... like I said, their problem.

Originally Posted by Fabby

2) Psychological trauma does not happen to everyone. In fact, most people feel relieved afterward. There is no correlation between depression and abortion.

If you amend that statement to say that "there is no greater correlation between depression and abortion than there is depression and birthing," I might be more inclined to agree :)

The first two parts of that statement are fine though.

Has anyone mentioned "selective reduction"?

Take for instance, you are a expecting mother who is going in for a normal checkup. When the doctor checks your baby's heartbeat, he finds more then one. Upon further investigation he finds four, five, even eight babies. The only way for all of them to survive would be to abort a few of the fetuses.

By this time, you have already chose to be a mother, you might even grew affection for your unborn "children" "fetuses".

What would you do?

There are many cases where the women choose not to abort any of the fetuses, taking a risk. Sometimes all the babies survive, sometimes only one dies in utero or during birth. (Usually with multiples the babies do not last the full term, in most cases being born around 25-30 weeks)

Oh lawd I couldn't even imagine having more than two children at once @_@

I'd be upset if I wanted to have a child and was pregnant with two. I really want one natural, one adopted, and I don't want them at the same time D:

I'd probably wind up having both though.

Except if they were girls, then I'd consider reducing xD

But still probably not ._.