Should abortion be legal?

You talking about the first paragraph? Well, I think I was already pretty clear on that. Yes, that was what I meant.

Alright, since the guy is going to the hospital to get treatment for the first time, I am going to assume that he was genuinely seeking help. Now, if he continuously comes back again and again with a slit wrist every time, then we can conclude that he is either masochistic or wasting the hospital's time, in which case, yes, I would bar him from that hospital for a while.
And just to be clear, in the event that he really does get into, say a car accident, he will be admitted as an exception, since then we can be sure that he really does need to be treated.

Hope that answers your question.

Unplanned or unexpected? Just because the chances are lowered doesn't mean it's not there. You consented to having sex knowing that. If you accept that certain things might happen if you do X and then do it anyway, then you have no right to complain.

That's a lot of questions.

Well, firstly, I don't think anyone would be bold enough to ask a friend to "push them down the stairs" since I imagine it would be quite painful, but on the off chance that someone does do that, then yes, they will be held accountable.
And yes, I am against natural miscarriages as well.

My point is that men should be taught to control their desires better, and legalizing aborting is the same as opening an easy escape route for them.

Because they take 'freedom' way too literally to justify their own selfish desires (in this case, sex).

Now, my turn.

Why are you ignoring the initial cause? What was it that got the girl pregnant? (Assume that it was consensual)
Why does the right to do whatever you want to your body suddenly save you from everything? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with that right, but I'm just saying that there's gotta be a limit to it.

 

Ah I see what you mean, and I do agree this does raise many ethical questions. However I would have to see it that in this situation we would have to weigh the cons of each scenario.

Cons for the mother/parents: The pill itself could lead to death but unfortunately its such a small number that this in itself could be removed because every medication has its risks, don't quote me on this but I believe the ibuprofen death rate is actually higher? I don't have the time to look it up on my phone so if you could clarify that it would be great. As for any other cons we could just as emotional distress but this is hard to measure.

Cons for the fetus (If born with a high impact mental/physical disorder or disease): Immense pain if the disease/disorder is severe enough, death at much higher rates, very short life spans, constant procedures to fix the matter, etc.

Then if you want to take into account social cons: Parents can go on being productive, while if the fetus was born they would be useless in many cases to give much to society.

It just seems logically its the better choice, emotionally not so much but it is one of humanity's greatest flaws, but a great strength in itself.

I would have to say this one is primarily left to how you think.

 

I don't have a strong opinion either way, and with that I am forced to go back to my leanings towards being very about personal choice, so yeah I think it should be legal, however that doesn't mean i think it is the best option. I would be much happier if there were absolutely no need for abortions, however the fact of the matter is, birth control doesn't work all the time, Therefore there should be some fail-proof method that can stop an unwanted pregnancy, because I don't think anyone can realistically contest that a Child can really mess up one's life if one is not prepared and able to care for that child properly.

However, I really don't like the concept of late term abortions, the reasoning being if one doesn't want the child, don't make it look more human before it's aborted, although i can see the value of them if there is a justifiable medical reason, what with the rise of genetic testing.

TL;DR, abortions should be legal because they are probably net beneficial, and society needs a failproof backup

 

The woman in questions should have every right to abort a fetus. It is her choice what to do with her body in this case, as abortion is not inherently harmful to the mother. I personally believe that there are better alternatives than abortion (such as adoption) that still allow the potential child the opportunity to live a healthy and happy life. I disagree with abortion, but I see no logical reason it should be illegal.

 

Sperm is more alive then a fetus in the first semester.

 

I'm curious... if we consider a person dead when their heart stops beating, why is it we don't simply consider someone alive when their heart BEGINS to beat (5ish weeks into the pregnancy)?

 

Just a person who chooses to buy illegal drugs a woman who wants an abortion could just as easily choose to get a back alley abortion. Obviously that is highly dangerous, just as buying illegal drugs.

First we have to define consciousness and then we must decide when a fetus becomes conscious, and then we can start making decisions.

The heart isn't even formed at 5 weeks into the pregnancy, it is still going through the cell dividing process.

 

No, abortion shouldn't be illegal. It's crazy to think that just because something is inside of you, it has its own rights. It's not a person yet, why should it be treated like one?


* Insert Pro-Choice propaganda *

I support the legality of abortion in all cases. That doesn't mean I don't frown upon the girl running around having unprotected sex every time just because she can get an abortion later, but I wouldn't say that's justification at all for making it illegal.

 

I understand all of your logic going forth, but this topic gets brought to a whole different level when it actually happens to you. I couldn't imagine being that girl with that decision. Granted, if she was rape, I understand, but the conscious aborting of +1 babies due to stupid, immature decisions? Wow.

 

Absolutely. You should be able to choose to do whatever you want with your own body. And to SuF, I believe that according to the laws, it is perfectly legal to consume illegal drugs (and to be inebriated by them in a non-dangerous situation), but it is not legal to posses them.

 

Alright, well, from this, it means that the cardinal moral issue of abortion you have no problem with. You therefore aren't really arguing the issue of abortion, rather, the issue of accountability.

Getting an abortion for the first time is no different.

You cannot deduce that he is wasting the hospital times given that his injuries remain the same (slit wrist). The injury itself hasn't changed, he's just had the injury more than once. Why for a while?

I'm confused, he came in with the same injury as before, how does that changed his 'need to be treated'? His injury has remained the same, if you break your arm ten times, the type of fractures and placement of fractures may differ but, you've broken your arm ten times. You 'need' treatment for that, irrespective of the amount of times. What if he got into more than one car accident? Would he not be admitted after the third? fourth? fifth time? Where do you draw the line?

Well, it seems your not against the issue of abortion at all (the pertinent moral debate).

Unplanned. O, to the contrary. How about another example, very (hopefully) similar to this one:

You want to go on a holiday. The doctor says you need to vaccinate yourself as there are foreign diseases in the country you wish to stay. Let's say Hep. A. You get a vaccine, and you then continue on your trip (like everyone else does).

You then get Hep. A. You are shocked as you took preventative measures to ensure the probability of catching the disease were almost nullified. By your own reasoning, that person should have 'no right to complain' and not be treated, correct?

O, I have more scenarios!

How about going swimming. Now, I could talk about sharks and the probability of being bitten by one, but, I'll talk about something else. You go swimming between the flags, as a preventative measure so life guards can keep track of you and assist in the case of an emergency. You're swimming, and all of a sudden, a rip forms. There is NO way to prevent these currents, or forecast them aside from keeping out of the water (they happen spontaneously). Many people die from these currents, and many more would die without lifesavers.

Now, people go into the water with the knowledge of these currents. They, being safe, ensure to swim between the flags which has life savers to protect them. They get dragged out to sea in a rip. What would you do? Would you allow the life savers to rescue them? Would you allow medical aid (assuming yes to above) to be given to them?

Pregnancy isn't?

How on earth can you hold them accountable? Are you going to put them in prison for being pushed down some stairs?

So, you're against the flu? Are you against the existence of tonsils? Are you against the existence of iron ore? Are you against the existence of tornadoes?

Assuming this is for me.

There's a casual line. What was it that created that girl? Why do you stop the casual line at the action of impregnation? Why don't you illegalize all pregnancy and this issue would not exist! Obviously hyperbolized, but, if you want to use cause as your argument, you'll have to say why you stop the casual line at that point.

If you're proposing a limit it would be best to state where you think that limit is and state why with reasoning. There already is a limit on that axiomatic right; 'so long as I don't harm others'. Being ethics, that can be semantically distorted and taken entirely literally, but the simple fact is: It's the girl, it's her body, she can eat grass, she can drink water, she can climb a tree, why can she not take a pill? Why can she not go running to induce a miscarriage? Why can she not induce toxic substances to kill the baby? Why can't she lift weights?

It's like saying to someone who's going into having an Anaphylactic shock that they have no right to use the Epipen because they should control their desire to eat as there is always the chance that their food could contain traces of nuts.

This seems to be a more Utilitarianism viewpoint which I am naturally against, hence, probably why I disagree.

I haven't looked up the death rate for ibuprofen (aspirin?), however, the death rate for abortion is 3x higher than that of regular child birth - http://afterabortion.org/2004/death-rate-of-abortion-three-times-higher-than-childbirth/ If we were arguing from a purely ideological, standpoint, would it not be better to allow the pregnancy, then kill the baby?

I think this is a bit of a red herring. The main question is, do we have the right to force someone to take a pill? In other words, do I have the right to put a gun to your face and force you to abort for the 'greater good'?

Again, the aforementioned point.

For me, I look at the point I've raised. Do we have the right to force someone to do x, for y. If the answer is no, then I think subsequent point assuming an already accepted yes answer are irrelevant. If we say, no, we do not have that right, continue to do so anyway, then I think we would just be barbarians, not a society I would like to live in.

I would agree.


My hands tired.

 

Personally I'm 100% against abortion. Now I'm not saying it should be illegal but I don't think it should be encouraged. Abortion is BAD! Think about how your life would be if your mom would have gotten an abortion instead. Yeah you wouldn't be thinking at all right now...

 

Appeal to emotion. No one that is pro-choice (at least I'd hope) wants more abortions to happen. They simply want there to be the option of one if there is a need for one. Increase the amount and depth of sexual education as well as make contraceptives more easily obtained and there will be less abortions. There are plenty of European countries that show that that is true.

 

Are you kidding? All you really have in this life is your own freedom

 

Meh, that's debateable. I thnk the consentual thing should perhaps be broadened more. Hence why acts like underage sex are illegal, and for good reasons it's that way. It might be your freedom, but there are still many ways to potentially abuse it in a way.

 

Thats the point... Their brain isnt developed enough so only people that are born have somthing to say about it.

 

You'd have never known. That's just one fetus. Think about the thousands of sperm (living sperm, may I add) that you kill in the act of sex or masturbation. They're living too. Neither will remember anything, and neither do they feel any pain (lack of nerves, of course) so what's the problem?

 

Right but the point helps neither side.

 

Again, this doesn't address the morality of the issue.

So you don't believe in sexual freedom, then?

Nobody is arguing for a woman's unconditional ability to abort a fetus; rather, I favor the current system wherein the difficulty of obtaining an abortion increases progressively with the development of the pregnancy.

Alright, but I've never heard anybody claim that abortion is good.

And I also wouldn't be thinking if she hadn't had sex on that particular night.

 

Not Saying Yes or No but it depends. Certain States abortion is legal and certain are not and to do abortion you need to fly to another country.

But the fact is that youre murdering your baby, a living human life. Better that leave the baby with on the front door [of most girl teens do when they become pregnant and dont want a baby] of a nun's house and those ladies will take care of it and maybe it could be on for an adoption.