Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Anesthesia]

I believe full well that life begins at contreception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heheheh, a funny misplacement of words...

[insane]

I would like to ask a few questions to the "pro-life" people out there. (Only applicable to Americans really)

 

 

 

1. Do you believe that abortion is wrong because it is "a sin"?

 

 

 

2. Do you believe it is right to impose that belief on other people who do not share your moral or religious background?

 

 

 

3. Are you aware that one of the base tenants of this country is freedom from religious persecution?

 

 

 

4. Do you see how this might be construed as conflicting?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. No, things are "sins" because they are wrong - not the other way around. Abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible, but murder is, and I guess it's always left up to the person to decide what constitutes murder.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. No, and I don't.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Yes, but if I tell someone to stop murdering people it doesn't exactly make me a religious persecutor. Freedom isn't a right to do whatever the heck you want. I'm going on the assumption that most abortions happen just because the mother doesn't want to deal with the consequences of having sex outside of a relationship where both partners want a child. In cases where hte mother's life is endangered, sure it's okay IMO. But I really don't think that four thousand women each day in the USA have life-endangering pregnancies? There is another reason that these women are aborting, and I can't see the majority of them being legitimate. (the site states that only 5% of abortions are because of rape, incest, fetal abnormalities or women's health problem, 95% are just because the mother doesn't feel like having a kid) Am I forcing my views on people? I'm not sure, maybe you should ask the dead fetus what it thinks. Oh wait...

[Mercifull]

Nice of you to post a "statistic" from such a biased source. Which medical journal did this 95% figure come from? According to the site it was a pro-life charity, I hardly think that these people can be trusted to provide unbiased data. As a research seeing this kind of statistic with no notes as so the sample group/size etc I can quite happy ignore this completely as bogus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally belive that the statistic is FAR inflated from the truth. You cant just say that all the reasons for abortion other than rape or incest etc are simply because the mother "doesn't feel like having a kid" thats absurd. There are incredible financial and social issues involved in having a child. Its not like 9 out of 10 of those women are like "naa i dont really fancy a baby today ill pop into town and get rid of it".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a crazy website full of misinformation and bias.

[insane]

I personally belive that the statistic is FAR inflated from the truth. You cant just say that all the reasons for abortion other than * or incest etc are simply because the mother "doesn't feel like having a kid" thats absurd. There are incredible financial and social issues involved in having a child. Its not like 9 out of 10 of those women are like "naa i dont really fancy a baby today ill pop into town and get rid of it".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Giving the child up for adoption would solve financial and social issues?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As far as the site being bias, please prove the site wrong - it gave more proof than you did.

[Pur304]

Before anyone asks God doesn't send babies to hell in the Christian faith.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone is mentally impacable of concieving (might be the wrong word) good and evil or the ability to actually follow God's will (like a child) then it would be unfair to send them to hell.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is basically baby holacaust. Last time I heard the same amount of babies have been aborted as Jews were killed by the Nazis during WW2.

 

 

 

Coinsidence?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you tell me the difference between a 3 month old HUMAN and a 3 year old HUMAN. It's illegal to kill one but not the other?

[Mercifull]

Unfortunatly it is very difficult to get REAL facts on abortion. At least it is via the internet, I cant exactly speak to someone in Government like i can in England. All of the "Facts about Abortion" sites are all run by pro-life and church groups, all of them seem to quote each other as sources so it is incredibly hard for me to find some valid data to look at and post about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Besides, I am not the one that has to challenge the statistic you gave. I have asked you to PROVE your statistic with reputable sources such as census data, medical journal or neutral 3rd parties.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I have been able to find a few UK research on abortion but not much, unfortunatly I cant access all of the National Statistics records from my home compter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The figure I have are from 2001 and a bit out of date but I do hope you will agree that it is a valid representation. The rates for all women residents age-standardised to the European population for ages 15-44. The crude and age-standardised rates for 2001 are based on

 

 

 

2001 population of 58,789,194 (Census 2001)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I will use the following key for showing statutory grounds.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• [*:1gsdur70]A - the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated;
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]B - the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]C - the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman;
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]D - the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child(ren) of the family of the pregnant woman;
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]E - there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
   
   
   
  or in emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]F - to save the life of the pregnant woman;
   
   
   
  [*:1gsdur70]G - to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Here is a chart showing some stats for you, I am not sure exactly what information should be public so i removed a few bits, sorry. If anyone wants to know this please speak to your local council who will put you in touch with someone who can give you this data.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If i read this correctly there were 176,364 legal abortions performed in 2001, 164,306 of which were performed because the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. Now i'm not too amazing at maths but that equates to about 93% of all abortions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

95% because the parents coudlnt be bothered...? Laughably made up.

[Greatsilverwyrm]

It does say physical or mental damage.. lots of things could be chalked up as mental damage.

[Anesthesia]

So the religious right want to ban condoms (as per the other topic) AND abortions? Good move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also the statistics insane posted are highly suspect, produced by anti-abortion activism groups... I somehow doubt they will be unbiased.

[assassin_696]

Abortions should be legal if the mother wants one, before 24 weeks, and only if she wants one. It should always only be her choice, it's her baby. Abortion should never be forced upon anyone.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think it's naive for relgious leaders to talk about abortions being illegal on moral grounds. There are times when abortions are necessary. Any mother wants the best for her child, if she knows then she can't provide for it as best as she can then she might not want to bring it into the world.

[urza1488]

Election aside, I believe this topic deserves it's own thread. (mods feel free to lock if you disagree)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll start: I'm independant on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do not believe abortion should be allowed at ALL.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNLESS!:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is in response to incest, *, or there is danger to the mother's life if she were to continue.

 

 

 

My church believes that those three cases are the only cases where it can even be considered. Congratulations.

[Barihawk]

 

I believe full well that life begins at contreception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heheheh, a funny misplacement of words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew you were going to comment in some fashion, but do you mind elaborating on that?

[Pete_the_Viscous]

Well, it might have been more conventional for you to say "Life begins at conception", for instance, as opposed to contra-. Still, life begins at contraception would be a good slogan for a birth control information service.

[Anesthesia]

 

 

I believe full well that life begins at contreception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heheheh, a funny misplacement of words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew you were going to comment in some fashion, but do you mind elaborating on that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said 'contreception' (contraception) which means PREVENTING conception. I believe you meant that life begins at CONCEPTION, meaning when the sperm enters the egg. It is funny because saying 'life begins at contraception' sounds a bit like a slogan of some sort.

[HugATree]

Before anyone asks God doesn't send babies to hell in the Christian faith.

 

 

 

The bible makes no claim where babies go, and I'm sure you're not the bible god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone is mentally impacable of concieving (might be the wrong word) good and evil or the ability to actually follow God's will (like a child) then it would be unfair to send them to hell.

 

 

 

If you're talking of the bible god, alot of things done in the bible isn't fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you tell me the difference between a 3 month old HUMAN and a 3 year old HUMAN. It's illegal to kill one but not the other?

 

 

 

What country do you live in? I've never heard of legally killing 3 month old babies.

[Pur304]

 

Before anyone asks God doesn't send babies to hell in the Christian faith.

 

 

 

The bible makes no claim where babies go, and I'm sure you're not the bible god.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If someone is mentally impacable of concieving (might be the wrong word) good and evil or the ability to actually follow God's will (like a child) then it would be unfair to send them to hell.

 

 

 

If you're talking of the bible god, alot of things done in the bible isn't fair.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also you tell me the difference between a 3 month old HUMAN and a 3 year old HUMAN. It's illegal to kill one but not the other?

 

 

 

What country do you live in? I've never heard of legally killing 3 month old babies.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. God's judgement is fair, and it's quite obvious he isn't going to do something like that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. If you're referring to the Old testament (which in almost ALL cases people do) then yes he was harsh, but there is such a thing as tough justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. You can kill a 3 month old human, it's called a foetus. And it's called abortion. In all cases the living being is human yes? So why is it right to kill a foetus but not a born child?

[jak722]

My opinion...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Absolutely NO abortions past the 2nd Trimester.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Otherwise, its a woman's choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AND THEY BETTER BE RESPONSIBLE ABOUT IT TOO! :evil:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No "Ooops! I got pregnant cuz me and my partner were too stupid to use contraception!" sort of crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Im not particularly religious, but thats just absolutely disgusting. :x

[Barihawk]

 

 

 

I believe full well that life begins at contreception.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heheheh, a funny misplacement of words...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I knew you were going to comment in some fashion, but do you mind elaborating on that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You said 'contreception' (contraception) which means PREVENTING conception. I believe you meant that life begins at CONCEPTION, meaning when the sperm enters the egg. It is funny because saying 'life begins at contraception' sounds a bit like a slogan of some sort.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Haha, thanks for the correction. Yeah, this morning I was not exactly playing with a full deck. I had a really shoddy night of sleep.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are times when abortions are necessary. Any mother wants the best for her child, if she knows then she can't provide for it as best as she can then she might not want to bring it into the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate to say it, but I have to. She doesn't have to abort if she cannot provide for the baby. The world of adoption is not exactly as glamorous as a normal life, but its better than never seeing the light of day, isnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am completely opposed to abortion unless it's in the case of rape (the woman did not make the decision to have the child) or in cases when the mother's life is definately known to be in danger by the pregnancy.

[insane]

So the religious right want to ban condoms (as per the other topic) AND abortions? Good move.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think that the religious want to ban condoms (aside from die-hard Catholics). Most Christians I know believe that sex is something to be enjoyed by a married couple - not only for procreation, but also, just to be enjoyed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And Merc - that's fine, I'll take your word on those stats. What do you think about this?

 

 

 

Do you think it is bias?

[Guest GhostRanger]

Otherwise, its a woman's choice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If its ONLY the woman's choice about whether or not to have an abortion - it should ONLY be the man's choice about whether or not he wants to pay child support to the baby he might have wanted to abort (but had no say in). Agree?

[dwarfie76]

Ah, there's nothing like a good abortion debate.... well except maybe an "Is there a God?" debate or anything to do with Politics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's an interesting argument. If you are against abortion and take the line that all human life is sacred on anything other than theological grounds I'd be very interested in hearing the arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Without the overriding say-so of a supreme being I find it very difficult to be anti abortion. If my conscience can allow me to kill a cow just so I can enjoy a hamburger, it must allow me to allow someone else to kill a fetus so that they can live their life in the manner of their choosing. My head tells me that there is nothing inherently morally or ethically wrong with abortion, but my heart and stomach tell me otherwise. But then I'm a happily married, thirty year old man with two happy, healthy children and a vasectomy lined up. I've never been and most likely never will be a thirteen year old rape victim. I can't say how I'd feel if that was the case.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

2. If you're referring to the Old testament (which in almost ALL cases people do) then yes he was harsh, but there is such a thing as tough justice.

 

 

 

Right.. Killing kids in the OT is justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. You can kill a 3 month old human, it's called a foetus. And it's called abortion. In all cases the living being is human yes? So why is it right to kill a foetus but not a born child?

 

 

 

A 3 month old human is a baby thats already born, not many people work their age from the time of their conception.

[Mercifull]

Was it not the Pope (not sure which one) that said that a foetus is not human until 40 days after conception?

[Death_By_Pod]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pain.htm Has a collection of rulings and history about what stage a foetus can feel pain, and guess what its not 7 weeks; most modern findings are around 20-28 weeks (about 26 avg.), the time after which <1% of abortions are made. I would say before this point the foetus doesn't have any other substantial sensory inputs and hence would have very little sense of self (sentience). The foetus is basically automation; nourishment goes in, waste goes out and has little mind of itself. Calling it a child at conception is just as bad as calling sperm potential life and making it illegal to use contraception to stop the sperm, both have little resemblance to what we consider a human being.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am completely opposed to abortion unless it's in the case of * (the woman did not make the decision to have the child) or in cases when the mother's life is definately known to be in danger by the pregnancy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For you and everyone else that has this opinion, where does this stop; itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty arbitrary allowance. Would it be allowable to abort a foetus if the couple actively use contraception but still managed to conceive a child (contraception isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t perfect)? This is similar to forced penetration since the child was conceived against the will of both parents, they both made conscious efforts to stop it but the contraception failed. This couple should be treated just as fairly as the abuse victim, neither are at fault.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I hate to say it, but I have to. She doesn't have to abort if she cannot provide for the baby. The world of adoption is not exactly as glamorous as a normal life, but its better than never seeing the light of day, isnt it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ThatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s a pretty grand claim; you have no idea about adoption do you? Do you think a mother would just give up the child, stone cold and not care about it? How about all the emotional trauma associated with voluntary giving up a child that you created? WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this be grounds for abortion because it is not mentally and emotionally healthy for the mother to give birth and adopt out?

[frogact]

Was it not the Pope (not sure which one) that said that a foetus is not human until 40 days after conception?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The pope is not God. He has no right to make such a judgment. Life is what it is, life.

[insane]

WouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t this be grounds for abortion because it is not mentally and emotionally healthy for the mother to give birth and adopt out?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion isn't exactly physically healthy for the fetus... I'm not trying to be a smartalec, but would you really tell an adopted child that it would have been better had he been aborted?