Abortion?

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Rape, yes is a reason, but if you are raped, don't wait for months to get an abortion you can go to any emergency room and/or pharmacy (in some areas at least where I live) and get the "day after pill". I wouldn't force any woman to carry a rapists child. BUT here is where women get mad at me. If you get pregnant and the man in the relationship wants the child and will raise it, support it, etc, if the woman doesn't, why doesn't he get a say? He is part of that child. I know it gets difficult because woman have the burden of carrying the child for 9 months, but what if she were compensated? See, that's where I have questions......

Its not as simple as simply taking the morning after pill, even when it is taken within its most effective period of time it is not 100% effective;

"Taken up to three days after unprotected sex (hence the term "morning-after pill" is a bit of a misnomer) emergency contraception has a 95% success rate within 24 hours, which falls to just 58% between 49 and 72 hours";

Ellie Levenson on emergency contraception

I've also heard that it can make women very sick/nauseous and disrupt their periods and stuff.


And with the guy being a part of the question- i think the guy should be made aware that he has potentially fathered a child, but i think what the woman wants is the priority. Its the woman who has to carry the kicking child for 9months, suffering from back pain, constipation and stretch marks, its the woman who has to go through extremely painful and even life threatening labor, which could go on for days and she is likely to sh*t herself during labor and have her vagina ripped apart, its the woman who's going to have milk leaking out of her swollen sore breats with a crying baby with her 24/7 and her hormones all messed up etc.
All the guy does is stick his penis in the woman and thats about as far as his basic involvement goes in making the baby- he doesn't have to sacrifice anything, while the womans sacrifices could scar her for the rest of her life. He could leave the woman and her child anytime he wants, and she could end up left with the child trying to survive off meager child support for the rest of her life.

What do you mean if what if the woman was "compensated" anyway?


Considering that women can very much risk death in labor/child birth, its not something a woman should be forced to do just to make some pro-life activist happy.
My mother died twice during the birth of my brother, he even died once himself, her labor went on for days and in the end my brother had to be delivered by c-section, because it turned out that my mothers hips were fused together and couldn't let my brother out. The doctors told my father that my brother could be seriously brain damaged because of what happened- he was terrified, he had almost lost his wife and his newborn son, only to be told that his son could be brain damaged because of what happened.

In the end, as the years went by my brother turned out that he wasn't brain damaged, but it did greatly effect my fathers relationship with him, since my fathers greatest fear was to have a brain damaged child, so he ended up emotionally distancing himself from my brother quite a lot, and by the time we realized he was normal, it was too late to repair some of the damage done between my father and my brother in their relationship.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

I agree with your above statements that women should take better care of themselves and be more careful. If you choose to have sex and get pregnant you can really only blame yourself.

Cliche I know, but it's the man's responsibility too to not get a girl pregnant or risk passing on diseases.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I just wanted to add, that i think all couples should discuss having kids as early on in their relationship as possible.

I have never wanted kids ever, i don't think i will ever want to have kids. When i first started going out with my man, i brought the subject after about a month of us going out together.
I don't want to have kids, but at the same time i don't want to destroy someone's dream of having kids- so i was very relieved when he said that he didn't want to have kids either. The harsh truth is, that as much as i loved him, if he had said he did really want to have kids at some point in his life, i would have probably ended the relationship and left him, because as said before i wouldn't want to destroy someone's dream of having kids just because i didn't want them, but i wouldn't want to be pressured into having kids either etc.

Looking after a kid on your own is very hard but its possible, but there's no doubt that the most ideal solution is to have kids with a loving partner who is the father of your kids.

Either way though, having kids should be planned far in advance because it is such a life changing commitment. Not just that, but having kids expensive, i remember reading a while back that on average it cost ﾂ≫??50,000's to raise a kid from day one to the day they turn 18years old- thats quarter of a million pounds!
So it takes a lot of money too, and although people in my country can go on child benefits, i don't think it is ideal and i think it should be avoided if possible- IMHO, people should pay for the children they bring into the world will their own money, rather than relying on other hardworking tax payers money to pay for their kids.

I don't think that a woman accidentally getting pregnant is an ideal situation to start thinking about having kids- these things should be discussed way before such a situation can ever occur. To be pressured into making the decision of having kids or not quickly because of the circumstances could easily end up with regrets.

I also think that its good to only have kids when you have been in a stable long term loving relationship with someone. Although most people consider a relationship of 6months as long term, i personally don't really think that its long enough to start thinking about having children- after going out with a partner for 6months, you'll know them quite well, but there's always still so much to learn about your partner and experience with them.
Not just that, but the lust hormones that you get when you're in a loving relationship with someone that make you want to have sex with them every hour of the day are very strong for the first year or two, everything is very rosey, but as the years go by you might find yourself not being so horny towards your partner and you may find yourself drifting about from your partner emotionally and physically etc.
In an ideal world, IMHO i think a couple should not consider having kids together at least until they have been going out for 2 and a half years or more- only at this time can you more accurately predict what the future is going to be like between the two of you.

Certainly, i think couple's planning kids before they've even been going out for a year is too little time to be starting planning kids together, which the couple could be stuck living with for the next 18years or more.

Kids can also put a great strain on a couple's relationship- it really saddens me when you see couples having babies to try and sort out their relationship problems in the hope that a baby will bring them closer together or something- this is really rarely ever the case, in fact more than often having children just puts more strain on a relationship, especially if it was already strained or faltering before the child was even conceived.


Hm... i just think that too many people put too little thought into having kids. I think women should have every right to abortion and they should not be emotionally blackmailed or pressured into having children they don't want or are unsure about.

Cliche I know, but it's the man's responsibility too to not get a girl pregnant or risk passing on diseases.

Yeah i totally agree, as they say "It takes two to tango"! If a girl gets unintentionally pregnant, its just as much the guys responsibility/fault as the girls.

 

[yumeitsumo]

I am clueless. When is it possible to get an abortion? Can you get it as soon as you find out that you are pregnant?

 

[Mars Man]

Yes. As far as I know, there are two common points of knowing that one is pregnant. One is when the woman does not menstruate, and a test is done; showing positive. And the other is when morning sickness hits. At these times one can get an abortion.

As far as I know, earlier than either of these is simply not done--due to lack of knowledge.

 

[yumeitsumo]

Yes. As far as I know, there are two common points of knowing that one is pregnant. One is when the woman does not menstruate, and a test is done; showing positive. And the other is when morning sickness hits. At these times one can get an abortion.
As far as I know, earlier than either of these is simply not done--due to lack of knowledge.

That's not the question i was asking. I was asking when one can get an abortion.

 

[Ma Cherie]

I am clueless. When is it possible to get an abortion? Can you get it as soon as you find out that you are pregnant?

It is possible to get an abortion as soon as a woman discovers she is pregnant. Provided she doesn't face barriers that could prevent her from having access to an abortion. If a woman discovers she is pregnant and chooses to terminate her pregnancy she can get an abortion up to 12 or 16 weeks of being pregnant. It depends on what state she lives in and the perhaps the circumstance. The majority of abortions occur within the first trimester of pregnancy.

I hope that answers your question.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Cliche I know, but it's the man's responsibility too to not get a girl pregnant or risk passing on diseases.

Very true. However, the girl could just choose to not have sex if the guy she is with refuses to use protection or take precautions. She could face unfair pressure from the male, which would put the responsibility on the male. Like Tokis-Phoenix says, it does indeed take two to tango. Otherwise, it is rape.

 

[Revenant]

Should they be outlawed because some people have a moral or religious objection? I wouldn't be too comfortable with that.

Being uncomfortable with outlawing something on a religious basis is understandable, but I always saw morality and ethics as one and the same, that is the use of empathy and reason to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed.

 

[Mars Man]

That's not the question i was asking. I was asking when one can get an abortion.

yumeitsumo chan...thanks for the response. I am, a little surprized that you didn't see the answer to your question, which is answered, in the reply I had offered.

I'm sure you'd agree that no one is going to get an abortion unless they are female, and no female is going to get an abortion unless she has reason to believe she is pregnant, and that, finally, no female is going to believe she is pregnant unless there are clear signs that she is.

Therefore, as I had answered, and as Ma Cherie had to repeat (It is possible to get an abortion as soon as a woman discovers she is pregnant) as soon as a woman knows that she has something to abort, in the case that she wishes to (as ought always be up to a certain point) abort, she can abort.

If you had not been asking a question about timing, then could you please rephrase the question?


The two do go hand in hand, Revenant san, though there could (note:could) be a subtile difference in operative element between them...if my memory serves me well. I would take an educated guess and say that nice gaijin's putting those two there, even with the 'or,' is due to morale concepts in the US (for now) being largely judeo-Christian based concepts, thus, in effect, religious objection.

A moral conception based on nature as seen through evoluntionary socio-economical models, as seems to fit better and explain more, is just as you have mentioned there...with a bit of fuzzy edges.

 

[nice gaijin]

Being uncomfortable with outlawing something on a religious basis is understandable, but I always saw morality and ethics as one and the same, that is the use of empathy and reason to determine what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Morals and ethics are indeed related, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not sure what your objection is; was it just the semantics of my last post?

As a continuation of the dialogue: One thing I've noticed about anti-abortion arguments is that they center around the notion that "life begins at conception;" an assumption that is necessary for there to be a 'victim' of abortion with which to sympathize. A fertilized egg does not always lead to a human being, and from a logical standpoint, until a fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, it's not so different from a parasite. Of course I'm not saying that they ARE parasites or that they should be treated as such, but I'm a bit perturbed by the indignation of the "life is sacred" crowd, that seems so much more concerned with the welfare of a collection of cells with the potential to mature into a human than the already mature human in which said cells reside.

 

[Kyoto Returnee]

I am clueless. When is it possible to get an abortion? Can you get it as soon as you find out that you are pregnant?

I believe not.

7-12 weeks into the pregnancy is best, as far as I know.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Morals and ethics are indeed related, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not sure what your objection is; was it just the semantics of my last post?

As a continuation of the dialogue: One thing I've noticed about anti-abortion arguments is that they center around the notion that "life begins at conception;" an assumption that is necessary for there to be a 'victim' of abortion with which to sympathize. A fertilized egg does not always lead to a human being, and from a logical standpoint, until a fetus is able to survive on its own outside the womb, it's not so different from a parasite. Of course I'm not saying that they ARE parasites or that they should be treated as such, but I'm a bit perturbed by the indignation of the "life is sacred" crowd, that seems so much more concerned with the welfare of a collection of cells with the potential to mature into a human than the already mature human in which said cells reside.

Yeah i agree with nice gaijin .

 

[Annubis]

I feel that abortion is a personal choice. I have used the morning after pill once. I was lucky to have free access to it

 

[sabro]

Not that it makes much of a difference to either side of the argument, but it seem that arguing that human embryos are parasites and often don't survive is probably not a good tact to take. It seems like an irrellevant opinion.

I would have to argue that a human embryo is significantly different than a parasite. It has human DNA. It exists in a system designed to support his or her development... and even though not all fertilized eggs develop into adult humans, all humans did begin as fertilized eggs. Not all children survive infanthood, but that is not a good argument to support infanticide. Not all children survive childhood, but that doesn't mean it is ok to off them at some point because they are unwanted, because you can't take care of them... or because they are dependant on you.

 

[Revenant]

Morals and ethics are indeed related, but they are not necessarily the same thing. I'm not sure what your objection is; was it just the semantics of my last post?

Someone clarify the difference between ethics and morality? Dunno, I just thought that since ethics and morality were much the same, that I couldn't see objecting to laws based on morality....

I think as a beginning, one needs to define when human's are regarded as having all the rights to life that we give to adult humans. I mean, is it when they can feel pain? Is it when they can survive on their own? Is it when they can be consciously aware of their own existence? Were one to define it as any of those, their are definite objections to those that make the whole issue quite grey. Abortion is still debated even among secularists due to the whole greyness of the issue, and it's not as if it's just the religious who hold objections to abortion.

To add, is that potential can mean A LOT! I mean, were I to make breakfast out of an endangered specie's eggs, how many people would name that unethical? Quite a few people I'd imagine.

 

[nice gaijin]

Not that it makes much of a difference to either side of the argument, but it seem that arguing that human embryos are parasites and often don't survive is probably not a good tact to take. It seems like an irrellevant opinion.

I would have to argue that a human embryo is significantly different than a parasite. It has human DNA. It exists in a system designed to support his or her development... and even though not all fertilized eggs develop into adult humans, all humans did begin as fertilized eggs. Not all children survive infanthood, but that is not a good argument to support infanticide. Not all children survive childhood, but that doesn't mean it is ok to off them at some point because they are unwanted, because you can't take care of them... or because they are dependant on you.

I'm not so surprised that you latched onto that one statement, but you seem to have ignored the rest of my post... I'll repeat the relevant part.

Of course I'm not saying that they ARE parasites or that they should be treated as such, but I'm a bit perturbed by the indignation of the "life is sacred" crowd, that seems so much more concerned with the welfare of a collection of cells with the potential to mature into a human than the already mature human in which said cells reside.

Please note that I didn't say that fetuses are parasites; in fact, I said just the opposite. If I must elaborate, a fetus owes its development to the person carrying it, and it indiscriminately absorbs whatever is in the mother's body. To illustrate this point, there have even been children born with surgical sponges in their body that were accidentally left in the mother's body during a prior surgery and migrated into the placenta.

Furthermore, its survival is completely dependent on the body carrying it. In this sense, a fetus is not dissimilar from a parasite. Again, I never said that fetus==parasite (though some parents would say that they are parasites until they move out ). There is the obvious distinction that the fetus itself is the product of the mother's own cells, which again brings up the point that until the fetus is able to survive on its own, it is just another part of the woman's body.

Secondly, I think you missed my point when I said that not all fertilized eggs mature into a human. Pregnancy does not occur until a fertilized egg attaches itself to the uterine wall; If a fertilized egg fails to attach to the uterine wall, it gets flushed out of the body. So in this case, is the woman inadvertently committing manslaughter? How can life begin with conception if pregnancy hasn't even occurred?

Lastly, I certainly never tried to make the argument that it's ok to terminate a pregnancy simply because the fetus depends on the woman carrying it. A fetus has the potential to mature into a human, but that does not make it one. Simply put, a fetus is NOT a human being until it is able to survive outside the womb, so I'll thank you to not obfuscate this by comparing abortion to infanticide or murder.

 

[Revenant]

....it is just another part of the woman's body.

Then it is ethical for a pregnant woman to take whatever substances she wishes?

Simply put, a fetus is NOT a human being until it is able to survive outside the womb, so I'll thank you to not obfuscate this by comparing abortion to infanticide or murder.

So what makes it human at this point and not before? Is that just arbritary or is there a particular reason for drawing the line between human and nonhuman there?

 

[nice gaijin]

Someone clarify the difference between ethics and morality? Dunno, I just thought that since ethics and morality were much the same, that I couldn't see objecting to laws based on morality....

I like what I've seen on wikipedia:

Ethics (via Latin ethica from the Ancient Greek ἠﾆ津?津?津?#942; [ﾆ津独津?津家津哉津脆津哉津?#943;ﾆ陳ｿ] "moral philosophy", from the adjective of ἤﾆ津?津?#962; ēthos "custom, habit"), a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct. The major problem is the discovery of the summum bonum, the greatest good....

Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice. Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. "Moral" has a dual meaning. The first indicates a person's comprehension of morality and his capacity to put it into practice. In this meaning, the antonym is "amoral", indicating an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The second denotes the active practice of those values. In this sense, the antonym is "immoral", referring to actions that violate ethical principles.

Personal ethics signifies a moral code applicable to individuals, while social ethics means moral theory applied to groups. Social ethics can be synonymous with social and political philosophy, in as much as it is the foundation of a good society or state.

Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).[1]

and the definition of morality from ethicsscoreboard.com:

Morality: A system of determining right and wrong that is established by some authority, such as a church, an organization, a society, or a government.

I prefer to live by ethics, as it is the philosophy of logically differentiating right and wrong. Personally, I connect the word "morals," more closely with moral codes imposed by institutions, and are neither necessarily logical or based on the concept of the greater good. But that's my personal opinion on the distinction between the two; they are indeed very close in meaning. As for laws based on morals, this indeed is a fuzzy area; Ethics and morals may overlap in the law books, but if the law is based on a religious moral, it might not necessarily be ethical, and without a logical rationale, they'd just be violating the separation of church and state (anti-gay marriage bills, anyone? Don't answer that, or we'll never get back on topic)

I think as a beginning, one needs to define when human's are regarded as having all the rights to life that we give to adult humans. I mean, is it when they can feel pain? Is it when they can survive on their own? Is it when they can be consciously aware of their own existence? Were one to define it as any of those, their are definite objections to those that make the whole issue quite grey. Abortion is still debated even among secularists due to the whole greyness of the issue, and it's not as if it's just the religious who hold objections to abortion.

I believe it's quite possible to have an ethical objection to abortion depending on one's definition of when a fetus becomes a human being. The problem is that people have different definitions of what makes us human. Personally, I would prefer limiting abortions to the first trimester, but this is because I think the woman should be able to make up her mind within a month or two of discovering that she is pregnant. This is just a personal opinion, but again, when it comes to the legality of it, having an opinion does not give me the right to impose it on others.

To add, is that potential can mean A LOT! I mean, were I to make breakfast out of an endangered specie's eggs, how many people would name that unethical? Quite a few people I'd imagine.

Eggs (as in the ones we eat) are by definition unfertilized eggs, unless if you were having a Bald Eagle Balut... but I think your point would be better illustrated a different way.

 

[nice gaijin]

Then it is ethical for a pregnant woman to take whatever substances she wishes?

If she intends to carry the baby to term, it would not be ethical for her to take substances that could harm the fetus.

So what makes it human at this point and not before? Is that just arbritary or is there a particular reason for drawing the line between human and nonhuman there?

This is generally where the discussion hits a dead end, as everyone has their own opinion of when being "human" begins (refer to my previous post, sorry for the double-post, I write too slowly).

 

[Revenant]

Thanks for the definitions. Had I more time, I would've looked them up myself, but I find very little time to get on the net these days. My precious net sessions have become short these days.

I understand where you're coming from. I still don't quite get the rational of a child that can survive outside the womb as having human rights, and those that aren't yet born as not having those rights.

My point was that the embryo and fetus aren't just a part of the woman's body. Mother and the unborn have different DNA, and the unborn does have some rights to protection. Dunno, it seems odd that we would protect the unborn from harmful substances, but not from intentional termination.

This really is a dead end though, as no matter how well thought out a position may be, there will always be a hole/holes of inconsistency in arguments either for or against abortions.

 

[Mavrek]

In my opinion abortion should be allowed in special circumstances . Otherwise it should be prohibited .

 

[sabro]

Nice Gaijin, you miss my point. What I said is that your arguments are pretty much a rhetorical dead end. What ever you assume my position is, I wasn't arguing either for or against your position on abortion, only that your tact leads to an untenable position. I would caution you not to assume you know what I would think about anything without asking.

... and if a fetus is not a human being, what is it?

Seems like semantics to me....


(Although I should say that I stand corrected... you did say a fetus is "like" a parasite, not simply a parasite. I would argue that my teenagers at home are also like parasites, but that is also irrelevant.)

 

[Haruspex]

The human is a life form right? Just like any other. So that means the fetus is human from the very beginning, since it belongs to the "human" animal sub-breed. I don't see why there would be a moment from which it is considered to be a different creature, but don't misunderstand me, im not against abortion at all, imo stage matters little.
If life protection is such a good thing, start by protecting those already born.
Its not unethical to use synthetic fertilizers, to mess up the genes of our food, to pour filth in our rivers, to offer poor medical treatment to people, but its unethical to spare a child from unprepared parents, and the parents from an unwanted child.
Just think about it, what kind of relationship will those parents have with their children?
If the money we spare by doing abortions can save the life of at least one person an week, I say it was worth it.

 

[sabro]

Well my point, whether you support abortion rights or not, is that much of the rhetoric does not assist the discussion. It doesn't seem relevant that a fetus is not somehow "like a parasite" in any important way pertinent to the argument. The fact that a human life begins, like all mammal life, in a state of dependence on the mother can't possibly be used to justify abortion. Also the fact that not all fetuses survive to be born... again seems irrelevant. It also seems strange that we should argue whether a human fetus is human or is alive.

What are are debating is whether this fetus has any kinds of rights... or we could debate issues of viability, that fetuses that are viable outside the room should have rights or not... or should the state be able to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. It is a debate about competing rights, about life and privacy, and choice and much of the rhetoric doesn't really add to the debate.

Societies outlaw all sorts of behaviors for all kinds of reasons. We don't suddenly legalize something because if we make it illegal people will continue to do it anyway.