Analysis and Solution to the Abortion Issue

[Grave]

Both sides of the argument are pretty passionate about why they want abortion to be legal or illegal. Obviously, both sides have their reasoning for this and neither side is more correct than the other since it is a moral issue.


Let's start out with each side's main two arguments.

Pro Life:
It is a life, and is technically the same as murdering.
Abortion should not be used as a form of contraception.

Pro Choice:
It is a part of your body, and yours to do with as you please.
It should be permitted if it results from rape.



Now, let's argue it.

It is a life, and is technically the same as murdering.

A Pro Choice person will not see the baby as a life. It's technically still a part of the mother. However, if we go as far to say this, a part of it is still the father's and the mother permitted (assuming it is not rape, which we will get to later) it to go inside her. And if we are to say it is murder, there are many types of murder. Since you are most likely not causing the body pain, the most you are taking away is its future.

Abortion should not be used as a form of contraception.

This is generally agreed upon, but if it is a part of the woman's body and they may do with their body as they please to the full extent, it should be okay in any situation.

It is a part of your body, and yours to do with as you please.

As described above, going based on this opinion, you should be able to get an abortion at any time. However, you're also not permitted to kill yourself, and generally discouraged from hurting yourself or cutting off a part of your body. Under this basis, something just being a part of your body does not give you the right to do with it what you please.

It should be permitted if it results from rape.

Both sides generally agree with this as well, however, we're going to set the lines very rough. A Pro Life person might argue that all lifeforms are precious and it is not the baby's fault you were raped. It's the baby's entire future versus a person's discomfort, and the former is more important. There are also better alternatives such as adoption, but a Pro Choice person might argue that it will cause them at least 9 months of anguish.



The solution:
Many factors take place in contraception. Generally, we would like to assume that people think it is a good idea to attempt to have the baby. It's a general positive, and there are very little people, going by our current morals, who would rather have death than life. Keeping life from happening cannot be seen as murder, but other than being born into a society that cannot sustain another human being, having a new human is positive.

Therefore, we want to get the maximum life output, without disturbing the woman's (and often forgotten, man's) right and comfort.


In the case of rape:

• If the mother wants to keep the baby, it is kept
• If the father wants to keep the baby, mother gets punitive damages, and child is placed under foster care

In case of no use of contraception:
[*]Baby must be delivered, as both parties took the risk and must face the consequences.

In case of accidental birth:
[*]If the mother wants the baby, but not the father (with reasoning), mother keeps baby but is assuming full custody, without any child support
[*]If the mother and father want the baby, it is obviously kept
[*]If mother wants abortion, and father does not, baby must be delivered, but father must cover all costs associated
[*]If neither want the baby, it is first put up for foster care if a donation can be met to cover all costs, and aborted if no one wants it

Not following the above would result in possible damages assessed in court by the wronged party, as well as a much lower imprisonment than murder.



The above solution is based on the following assumptions:

• When a man and woman have sex, it's a group effort and the consequences must be shared, as with any engagement
• A birth has costs and emotional distress associated; more-so than an abortion
• Although the fetus is not a fully developed baby and preventing it from growing is not murder, you assume the risks when having sex, just as you assume responsibility for similar occurrences such as your pets having a baby, or feeding your baby even though it's technically not your responsibility (other than as told by law)

Let me know what you think.​

 

[J E Parts]

Simple solution.

Let people have abortions;
People who don't think it is morally right, will not use the 'service'

People who think it is ok, will use the 'service'.

It's pointless people protesting about getting rid of it, because the people who are against it are not forced to have it done, so why should it effect them if people choose to have an abortion.

 

[Galaxy]

Simple solution.

Let people have abortions;
People who don't think it is morally right, will not use the 'service'

People who think it is ok, will use the 'service'.

It's pointless people protesting about getting rid of it, because the people who are against it are not forced to have it done, so why should it effect them if people choose to have an abortion.

The people who protest are standing up for what they call the "babies' unspoken voice" or whatever you want to call it. The baby obviously cannot speak on its own behalf and so others feel like they should take up the child's argument.\

The solution is really not that simple, because it is completely not accounting for a child's right to life, which is one of the biggest arguments. No solution will please both people, because the views are so spread apart, Death or Life. There is no in-between.

I feel the argument really boils down to is an unborn "child" or thing a child, or at what point is this entity considered human?

Responding to the OP

I find it amusing you have used the idea of abortion as a form of contraception. By its definition, contraception is a method or device that is used to prevent pregnancy. Obviously if you are getting an abortion you are already pregnant.

Also some of your arguments are not really that sound. For example, you cannot do as you please with your body. Currently, you cannot have doctors euthanize yourself. Sure, you can kill yourself, but there are limits on what you can have people do to you.

Also, your solution is completely avoiding the main concern, which is whether a unborn entity is a child, human, or not. This question is what needs to be answered. This deciding fact determines whether the killing of the child is murder, or it is simply removing a part of the woman's body. From there the argument continues. If the child is deemed a child, then obviously killing it would be considered murder. However, if it was deemed lawful to do so then it would not be a crime. So that rises another question: Is it lawful to kill an unborn child? Obviously, if the child or thing is deemed not to be human, then the woman should be able to remove her body of this thing.

Questions Needed to be Answered
Is this unborn thing human, does it become human at a certain time of pregnancy, or does it remain nonhuman throughout the entire pregnancy period.

Then based on the above answer determines the other questions that need to be answered.

Human - Is it lawful to kill this unborn child?
Human at a certain point - What point is it deemed a human?
Nonhuman - Can we remove this thing from the body legally?
Nonhuman before a certain point - Can we remove this thing from the body legally?

This also creates further questions that need to be answered such as:
What is the definition of human, etc.

tl;dr
THE ABORTION DEBATE IS NOT SIMPLE!!!

 

[Grave]

Simple solution.

Let people have abortions;
People who don't think it is morally right, will not use the 'service'

People who think it is ok, will use the 'service'.

It's pointless people protesting about getting rid of it, because the people who are against it are not forced to have it done, so why should it effect them if people choose to have an abortion.

Obviously, this wouldn't be a solution. You see, it would be the same as making different generally morally wrong actions legal, on the account that "you're not required to do it." The action will still affect the world.

Let me give you a few examples:

• It's okay if you want to do hard drugs; no one else is required to (I personally agree with this, but it would ultimately damage society, so it shouldn't be done)
• It's okay if I have sex with a 10 year old, if she agrees. It's none of your business; you don't have to do it.
• It's okay if I litter. I should be free to do what I please; other people can be clean if they wish.
• It's okay to kill my pet and eat it, because other animals are often killed, and it's my pet.

Or let me put it this way: other people can still disagree with something you do, even if it does not directly affect them.

The solution is really not that simple, because it is completely not accounting for a child's right to life, which is one of the biggest arguments. No solution will please both people, because the views are so spread apart, Death or Life. There is no in-between.

I feel the argument really boils down to is an unborn "child" or thing a child, or at what point is this entity considered human?

I heavily base my argument on the child's right to life. I do not consider it an unborn child. I do not, however, completely ignore it and label it as a "thing" as that is only what people who want to completely forget that you are essentially preventing a life, that has already began it's development, say.

I find it amusing you have used the idea of abortion as a form of contraception. By its definition, contraception is a method or device that is used to prevent pregnancy. Obviously if you are getting an abortion you are already pregnant.

That was just a popular belief of Pro Life people. Words can be bent to mean several things, especially in gray areas like these. Obviously, it's one side's form of extreme propaganda. Without the use of the word contraception, it can be put this way: people generally should not get an abortion as a means of preventing a baby, without at least using contraception.

Also some of your arguments are not really that sound. For example, you cannot do as you please with your body. Currently, you cannot have doctors euthanize yourself. Sure, you can kill yourself, but there are limits on what you can have people do to you.

Again, that was a popular belief of Pro Choice people, to the extreme.

Also, your solution is completely avoiding the main concern, which is whether a unborn entity is a child, human, or not. This question is what needs to be answered.

I do not believe this is an important question to answer. It leads the entire argument into a circlejerk, as it is currently impossible to say if something in between unborn and born is either solely born or unborn. It would be like arguing if autumn is winter or spring: they are three separate seasons, followed by one another.

This deciding fact determines whether the killing of the child is murder, or it is simply removing a part of the woman's body. From there the argument continues. If the child is deemed a child, then obviously killing it would be considered murder. However, if it was deemed lawful to do so then it would not be a crime. So that rises another question: Is it lawful to kill an unborn child? Obviously, if the child or thing is deemed not to be human, then the woman should be able to remove her body of this thing.

See, even if that, if the child is not deemed to be human, that does not mean it is morally right to do so. It's not just about killing a human. That is one part of the argument. We still kill cows, but do not kill cats, for instance, in the United States. We're also very specific about the pain caused during the process. So, there will be many other factors involved even if there's a line between human and part of a woman's body drawn, which will be very hard to do.

 

[raw Fruit 123]

The protest which is put forward in the name of humanity does not fit the mouth of a generation that makes it possible for the most depraved degenerates to propagate themselves, thereby imposing unspeakable suffering on their own products and their contemporaries, while on the other hand contraceptives are permitted and sold in every drug store and even by street hawkers, so that babies should not be born even among the healthiest of our people.

In this present State of ours, whose function it is to be the guardian of peace and good order, our national bourgeoisie look upon it as a crime to make procreation impossible for syphilitics and those who suffer from tuberculosis or other hereditary diseases, also cripples and imbeciles. But the practical prevention of procreation among millions of our very best people is not considered as an evil, nor does it offend against the noble morality of this social class but rather encourages their short-sightedness and mental lethargy.

 

[ghoulman]

Generally, human life is valued above any other by humans. It is likely that other genera and species value their lives above our own. There are some humans who value all life highly and respect and understand the cycle of death and rebirth.

Many forms of life are murdered daily by many types of people. A pro-life woman could be pulling weeds in her garden or have a fly trap in her home. Obviously we need laws in place against human murder for civility but it is hypocritical to consume living/dead matter (essentially live your life) yet be against the pruning of an unwanted child. Yes, aborted children are the equivalent of weeds.

Abortion can prune genetic mutations/unwanted children. Children can be unwanted for a variety of reasons. e.g) financial stability, your location in life. Any reason to abort truly is selfish. However, living at all is selfish in this context. You can live to serve all that lives but you cannot escape death at any stage in your life, be it unto you or others.

Planned adoption is always a route which can be explored.

 

[reddogwwa]

I'm pro-cut the shit. For me its not a matter of whether killing an unborn fetus is right or wrong. I'm about what makes sense for that particular individual. For one I find it rather annoying when people meddle in shit that's supposed to be my problem. Why should "Jane" care if "Lucy" has an abortion, people need to mind their own business. I don't think there are too many "Jane's" in the world who care so much they would adopt "Lucy's" baby...so cut the shit "Jane".

Moral of point one: Worry about yourself

Abortion should always be that woman's choice. If she is willing to live with herself she should have the right to go ahead and do so. After all at the end of the day none of those pro-lifers are going to be feeding, taking care of, putting to bed that little baby. So why should someone else have a say in another persons personal obligations?

Moral of point two: Worry about yourself

I think I could safely say that most of the time the decision for an abortion is not because of one singular generalized reason. You don't know the situation that individual is in. Maybe she was raped, she knows she doesn't have the financial stability to support a baby, or just plain not ready for one....and if that's how she feels it should be on her to make that choice.
You can abort a fetus up until the 3rd trimester...maybe they found something not kosher with the fetus? Handling a severely disabled child is no walk in the park I'm sure.

Moral of point three: Worry about yourself

Yeaaaaa I know my points are pretty much all about minding your own business and are definitely arguable morally wise. So lets talk statistics!

Call me crazy but maybe just maybe aborting a fetus in some situations is the most humane thing you can do for your unborn child if you do not have the means of supporting one.

There are roughly 400,000 orphans in America alone. I'm sure a good portion of them were given up for adoption almost immediately but there are others who were probably subjected to horrible things like abuse and neglect and then were stripped from their parents because of it. But the punishment for them isn't over. Apparently its not unheard of for foster children to be moved around to different locations 20 or more times. That's 20 times uprooting whatever normalcy you have, 20 times being the outcast, 20 times feeling not wanted, 20 times not feeling loved (yea they have social workers, but you can't compare that to a loving parent).

The rest is sited from:

www.ccainstitute.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=25&Itemid=43

Key points from the link above:
- 27,000 youth “age out” of foster care each year
- 40% had been homeless or couch surfed
- 60% of young men had been convicted of a crime
- Children raised in orphanages have an IQ 20 points lower (arguable but I'm sure there is a lot of truth to that point)


http://www.orphanhopeintl.org/facts-statistics/
- children in group care are almost four times more likely to experience sexual abuse than children in family based care.


All those cheery little statistics are just about actual orphans. I didn't even touch how many children live in severely broken homes.

Thats my 20 cents...cheers

 

[0120012345]

If abortion is murder, then masturbation is mass murder.

I don't think I can consider an unconscious, underdeveloped fetus a significant part of society. Of course, the argument "Yes he's not YET significant until you give the kid a chance.". This will be morally incorrect and unacceptable from religious point of views since religious etiquette is a paradox.

The problem is the irrational stand of the society. A friction between opposites. Moral and immoral point in both extremes.

Legal = Abuse
Illegal = will be an unsettled issue forever

Legal = Convenience
Illegal = unsustainability of the child (situational)

Legal = Religion
Illegal = Religion

1. Say the infant is born, from a rich family, grew up to become a successful, significant, famous figure. Parent's background is that they almost had abortion. /Thank God we did not./

2. Say the infant is born, from a poor family, upkeep is poor. Everything is poor, died poor, lived through hell. The child would have probably wished it were not born in the first place.
/Suicide is an option/

3. Irresponsible sex is everywhere. Abortion would be convenient for irresponsible people but may lead to abuse.

4. Rape victims considers abortion as an option

5. Third world countries

The only hindrance I see is the Catholic's opposition. Let's not be deprived of a better world by an irrational group's standards. I can cite more possibilities but everything would be contradictory. I hope I can send out my message rhetorically right. Excuse my linguistic/grammatical flaws if any.

 

[Dracon]

I believe the issue of the fetuses humanity is completely irrelevant. Consider the "violinist argument":

You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him."

Outrageous situation, right? Yet its parallels to abortion cannot be denied. As our very nature demands, humans have, and must always have a right to bodily integrity. That cannot ever be denied.