Abortion issues: Opinion on Abortion
Make your opinions heard by posting your comments on the forum.
News and Politics links
Liberty News Forum - Home
Recent discussion about Abortion on the forum:
Do these rules satisfy anyone?
I was adopted at birth so i think i may have an
interesting perspective on this whole situation. For if my mother
had aborted me i wouldn't be here, but if she had kept me i
wouldn't have had the oppurtunities i've had. (she was only 16
when she had me.)
How about this for a solution. For a woman to have an abortion she must qualify under these circumstances:
1. a victim of rape or some other sexual abuse resulting in pregnancy.
2. the keeping of the child would endanger the life of the mother to such an extent that either the child or the mother would have a low life exptency,
3. the child would have such a low quality of life, (brain dead, etc.) that the humane thing to do would be abortion,
4. the child MUST be before the second trimester or at least still in the embryonic stage.
while there are no doubt exceptions to all of these i believe they offer the best compromise. another addition to this would be that the mother, if under the age of 18 must give the child up for adoption. while this seems somewhat cruel, i believe it necessary. what life would the child have? i am proud of the choice my biological mother made. and i urge all other women in her position to do the same.
Why shouldn't a pre-born have rights? A fetus is just a stage in life like adolescent or senior citizen. A baby pre-born and then moments later is born hasn't changed much other than location. So how can the rights only begin after the location change? We are not talking about U.S. border crossing. Only those that are still stuck in the medieval times think a pre-born isn't living. The Constitution protects life and extends rights to all living, so therefore a pre-born should have rights.
I don't agree with abortion because, as you said, a fetus is a life. I do not think however, that a fetus is protected by the constitution. A fetus isn't technically human as the defining characteristics don't develope untill a certain stage. One such characteristic I would say is consciousness, but that is only my opinion.
If you believe a pre-born or fetus is a life then the Constitution does protect that life. Even non citizens have protections while in the U.S. To say a fetus is living but not human is silly. The characteristic of consciousness doesn't prove life or humanity, nor do the unconscious lose Constitutional protections. There are many in comas or unconscious during heart attacks and accidents but they don't lost their right to live and no one would say they are no longer human.
I wasn't talking about conscious versus unconscious in the sence of whether someone is awake or not. I was speaking about the quality of consciousness or the ability to have knowledge of yourself. Are dogs protected directly by the constitution? How about bears? If not, then niether is a fetus.
I really didn't think you meant consciousness in that sense. That is even more silly. I'm sure an animal knows it exists as much as a few day old human baby does. Animals don't have rights under the Constitution but all humans do. A persons rights are different under many circumstances but a pre-born shouldn't have no rights (particularly fundamental right to life) due to their very young age.
Prove that animals have consciousness. And if they do, why shouldn't they be protected under our laws? I'm not arguing for abortion; all life should be protected.
P.S. - I will ask you to please refrain from insulting my ideas, as that shows weak character on your part as well as a lack of argument.
"lol", the idea of this forum is to
discuss ideas. Freedom was right to "insult" your
comment, because he has a different opinion and wishes to state
it. You have the same right, no? On the other hand, your blantant
attack on his character is completely contradictory to the
(ideal) spirit of this forum.
Now, my opinion. Nobody here is arguing that fetuses are not human. Well, that's not exactly true, but I think "lol" was referring to the definition of human in the eyes of the law. The problem here is that the mother is carrying this life. It couldn't survive without her. In a sense, the rights of the mother precede those of the unborn child. I point to the classic metaphor of a woman and her ruined arm. If it were not amputated, it would become infected and eventually do some damage to her. What if a baby were like that? Is it expected of a mother that she should place her child's life before her own? This is merely one instance, but it is basically what anti-abortion laws are doing. Suppose the mother couldn't support the child? Suppose she isn't ready? These are comprarable to potential physical damage. Ppl who want to abort their own child don't do it on a whim. I'm certain that nearly all of them have good reasons.
Is this your abortion post you wanted me to reply to?
It doesn't interest me to prove animals have consciousness. That sounds like an open ended argument almost like discussing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'm sure animals know they are alive as much as a young baby knows he/she is alive. A young human baby or an animal knows they exist from what they feel, see, hear, etc. If you want to say that isn't consciousness then fine. It doesn't make it a factor in abortion as you suggested it might. A pre-born and a few day old baby isn't different as far as consciousness is concerned.
Animals don't have rights only humans do. The Constitution was made for American humans, not even for non-American humans. If animals created a civilized society humans may have been their pets and food source with no rights.
P.S. A weak character? lol What an insult. lol You must have a lack of argument having insulted me like that. lol
A new born can't live on it's own either, not even a 3 year old. Because someone can't live on their own, including a very ill or disabled person, it doesn't reduce their rights.
Why jump to saying a mothers rights precede those of the unborn child? There is a rather small obligation to carry a child to birth after having conceived by ones choice. It's a small obligation compared to ending a life. The comparison is between a life and going through a pregnancy; and not a comparison between who lives or dies. Mothers usually wish to go through 9 months for a child. People have an obligation to put themselves in risk to protect another if in that situation. You can possibly be charged with negligence if you "look the other way" when someone's life or body is in harms way. Most agree the law would provide an exception for abortion when the mothers life was at risk. Rape cases may also be an exception if you want to say such a crime voids or trumps a persons right to life. The ruined arm analogy only makes sense in the few cases when the mothers life is at risk and some would say that there aren't any such cases or so few. Only in that case it makes sense to say someone's rights trump another's when the persons very life is in question. Abortion laws aren't putting mothers lives at risk and won't.
Not being able to support as child (or not being ready) isn't anything like physical damage and all babies can be adopted solving those problems. Money shouldn't determine if someone has the right to life or any other superficial reason. There is no good reason to say someone has no right to life when they are an innocent child.
A three-year old child is not a part of its
mother. A disabled grandparent isn't inside a woman's womb. Why
shouldn't embryos have rights? Because they're part of the
mother. My analogy about the arm was making this point. I
actually pointed out myself that it was only a specific case when
a baby threatens a mother's life, but I went on to extend this
analogy to include non-physical threats, such the threat of an
unbearable economic burden. Of course, I believe that any mother
who does not want her child will have more reason than simply
that. It is true that mothers usually wish to go through 9 months
of pregnancy for a child. Okay, there's nobody stopping them.
Don't judge those who do not want their children. I argue that
making a woman carry her child is as oppressive as not letting
them bear children. It is wrong, and contradictory to the spirit
of the constitution. We're all about freedom, no, Freedom?
Perhaps a more convincing argument to you is that making it illegal to have abortions will do absolutely nothing. Look at the UK (or Ireland or someplace where abortions are currently illegal). Ppl who want abortions are usually desperate, as given by the very nature of what they wish to attempt. You don't think that you make a decision like that lightly, do you? They go take a plane or a ship to another country where abortions are legal, and go through the procedure. The only difference is that it's a bigger economic, physical and emotional burden on the mother. Those who can't afford such a trip may attempt something more drastic. Have you ever seen pro-choice billboards with coat-hangers on there? Can you figure out what women are willing to do in order to get rid of their child? have you never heard of ppl so frustrated and frightened that they kill themselves? This talk about "pro-life" does nothing for anybody.
Pro life does nothing for anybody? How conveniently you leave out any mention of the millions of human babies lives killed by abortion. You talk about everyone but the child's right to life.
To say the child is part of the mother just like an arm is absurd. It's as bad as comparing a pre-born child to a wart or mole someone has for 9 months.
Parents have a responsibility to care for a child and 9 months of an inconvenience is small compared to killing a child by abortion.
It's still the woman's choice, gentlemen. Get over it!
Can't woman choose to be anti-abortion? Or is it a choice as long as woman choose to be in favor of legal abortion?
Many women are pro-life. I don't understand why this choice business bothers you so much. Nobody is forcing abortion on anyone! As I have mentioned, abortion has always been available in other countries. But one had to be wealthy enough to afford the airfare and accomomdations. To force (legally) any woman to have to carry a fetus against her will is the ultimate level of slavery. We, who are fighting for Liberty are requesting more freedoms even for women! You men will have to learn to be more careful where you leave your sperm!
The responsibility of caring for a child is slavery Sandy? A mother has the same responsibility for a pre-born or new born. Motherhood equals slavery?
Freedom. The day you can have a baby, we
can discuss this subject. The day you are asked to give 18
years to raising a child, we can debate it evenly. This
abortion issue is not yours to make.
To force a women to give birth to an unwanted child by the U.S. Constitution is slavery! Who are you to want this?
Keep your pants zipped and you won't have a problem.
Ayn Rand wants reason and logic to be core of our government and family values. In your mystical background you have been told that abortion is wrong. Sorry! that is an emotional opinion not a logical or reasonable argument. If if the procedure becomes illegal, are you foolish enough to believe anyone would stop having them? Gosh, what about drugs? We have laws against drugs but they are used more today than ever before. Could it be that Americans are just plain tired of having unreasonable laws issued to protect them from themselves. This is America, Freedom! Unless you want freedom for everyone, change your name!!
More woman then men are on the pro-life,
anti-abortion side. Young men, boys, are overwhelmingly
pro-abortion and support it as a way out of responsibility. They
aren't interested in woman's rights. Your attempt to say only one
gender can be opposed to killing pre-born children is sexist on
No one is forcing anyone to have children. People are free to take on the responsibility and motherhood or fatherhood is not slavery, it is a choice they made. Maybe you viewed it as slavery. Amazing you think woman can't control themselves and how many children they have. It is always the man according to you that is responsible for pregnancy. Wonder why you feel woman are so inferior to men. I don't think woman are.
I don't really care what Ayn Rand wants. Rand isn't elected or run the country in any way.
This isn't the medieval times. A pre-born is a life based on common sense of science. Your lame attempt to say that anyone who disagrees with you somehow base their opinions on their faith is another one of your biased slams at religious people, mostly Christians. You sound like an anti-Christian bigot. It also doesn't matter why someone thinks as they do. Religion or no religion. It's called freedom. It is you that oppose freedom and Constitutional rights for young children at the pre-born stage of life.
Freedom. There are no rights for the
unborn! They aren't counted in the census or recognized as
having any value until they are born. This is a religious
problem not a federal one.
Women my age are very pro-choice because we lived through those years when our lives were threatened either by an unwanted pregnancy or by a dirty abortion done in the alley.
In the 50s and 60s many Republican leaders were very concerned over this overly-intrusive action by the government to prohibit the procedure! One of my classmates died when the doctors told her she had a serious health problem. The local hospital refused the procedure and she died a month prior to her deadline date leaving 3 young children to be raised by the father. This triggered a large movement in Hollywood to stop the ban on abortions.
Do you remember the television actress that was out of Texas on a morning children's program who had vacationed with her family in London and was given thadidomid? She had an exray and her fetus was badly deformed and she requested an abortion. It was denied and she flew to Paris for an abortion. This is ridiculous that American wouldn't allow this due to these circumstances.
There are many reasons for abortion to be done which is why so few pro-life candidates ever get elected. It doesn't make them moral but it does keep them legal.
The federal government is not cut out to set our moral laws, just our legal ones. Our moral laws are our own and cannot be legislated. I have no problem with this and worked out my own moral laws years ago and without the federal government guiding me. You should also do this!
This is the basic fault with the Conservatives today, they honestly believe they can legislate all our cultural habits. If they would concentrate on restoring the freedoms found in our constitution, they would be much more popular.
America needs to read and understand the real authority and value of our government. You are asking for too much! I'll tell you what; the day the house and senate can show they are no longer corrupt and can lead by example we might just agree on letting them suggest certain moral actions might be better than others.
Today, they have nothing to offer! These newly-elected conservatives have no respect for the constitution and only want to introduce their own agendas into our daily lives.
People like Ashcroft have no business telling the voters of Oregon how to run their affairs. He was shot down! as he should have been. He, of all people, should be familiar with how our government is run!
He can't trash the constitution fast enough to get us all under control. To my knowledge, not one of the terrorists were American citizens so tell me why are we now under fire to be issued ID cards and undergo ridiculous searches at the airports. Our Mr. Ashcroft has developed a passion for control! He want total control over every single America while ignoring the problems of our open immigration!
With all this mess, there are people like you more worried about abortion than the safety of all Americans. You will never convince me that this isn't faith based troublemaking.
Giving this much control to any leader in WDC is pure undiluted Socialism! This seems to be your desire and it is not shared my many of us.
Please read the constitution and learn what a truly free country America could be if we simply followed it! If you are so emotionally opposed to abortion, then don't have one!
Woman are more on the pro-life side so don't say it's
something woman support. It is young single men that
overwhelmingly support abortion.
How can killing 35 million be compared to the few that break the law and have their child killed by abortion and in the process are harmed? Why doesn't the pro-abortion side care about the even greater number harmed by legal abortion beside all the millions of kids?
It's common sense science and the USSC didn't rule on the science of it because then the Constitution would protect all including pre-born. You keep bringing religion into it because otherwise your arguments are weak. You can only say it's a religious belief and people have different religious views to rationalize legal killing of children by abortion.
Make your Opinions heard click here: Abortion Opinion Forum