What do you think about abortion

Post Reply New Topic

So does this mean you think Ariel Castro shouldn't be charged with murder then?

Pragmatically, with all the other charges he has a murder charge wouldn't make much difference, methinks. I haven't been following that case

Morally, a forced abortion is a horrible crime against the mother.

*snort*
How long has it been since you attended community college? I had to take out loans for a full load of classes, rent and food, and that was working 24 hrs a week at a fairly well-paying job. You can't afford rent alone on a single, full-time minimum wage job in most cities, much less food, a kid, and classes.

wrt. forced abortion, it's a assault and battery against the mother with major bodily harm.

Pro-choice is to think that forced abortion is a horrible thing that is as horrible as forced birth. Pro-choice is consistent. Meanwhile, so-called "pro-life" claim they think forced abortion is awful, but are completely fine with forced birth.

Anyone against abortion *is* against abortion in the case of rape (consciously or not).

Simply because rape exceptions are useless.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/20 ... work_.html

If you forbid abortions and require rape to be proven before allowing them, you ARE going to force a lot of rape babies to be born.

I consider abortion an unpleasant medical procedure,
but have nothing against it from an ethical "quality-of-life" standpoint.
However, I wouldn't presume to tell anyone else that they should or shouldn't have it,
just as it's for me alone to decide whether or not to have one myself.
So I'm pro-choice, no doubt about that.

I think it matters in this case because I don't think they can push for the death penalty without a murder charge. Not that that necessarily has anything to do with the abortion issue being talked about here, just filling you in in regards to what you said here though.

I think the issue that does matter is whether we can charge him with murder seems to imply within it whether the fetus had the same rights to live as a person. Personally I don't see how someone can say abortions are fine and he should be charged with murder (as opposed to being charged with something else in regards to it). Is there any way to combine those two opinions together and have it make logical sense?

There is an argument about killing in general that says that killing is not wrong if nobody has an interest in the continuation of that life. Like, if someone kills me then it is not wrong just because of the killing part, but because I have an interest on being alive, therefore it is a crime against me. And in general, almost every rational, sentient person has an interest in the continuation of its own life (and euthanasia would be right because the person doesn't have that interest of self-preservation, so a doctor that euthanized someone following their will is not committing a crime). The thing about fetuses is that they are not capable of taking an interest on their own existence because they don't have the neurological capabilities to do so. But their mother does have that capability. If a woman wants an abortion then the doctor who does it commits no crime because she doesn't have an interest. But a forced abortion would be wrong, and quite distressing by themselves without external factors, as miscarrying women (and their partners, too) who wanted their babies would testify.
On top of the loss of the baby itself, a forced abortion would also be at least grievous assault.

A logical argument for saying abortions are right and he should be charged with murder is flakier (I haven't fully developed my previous one yet, it is still flaky ) and as I don't believe he should be charged with murder then I don't have to defend that position. But I could try. Such an argument would take into account the future of the fetus: if a woman wants to carry a baby to term then that baby has a future, and killing him would deprive him from that future, so it's murder. But if the woman doesn't, then it doesn't have a future so it is not. So if it is murder or not is contingent on whether the mother wants the baby or not. Again, it's flaky but I like the exercise~

Another comparison is that I could legally take my pet to the vet and have them put to sleep but if someone else killed my pet against my will it would be a crime. Either way the animal dies but one is a crime and one isn't.

Her body her choice nobody should dictate whether or not she should have a baby for her, all part of the patriarchy and religious indocrination in todays society.

Going back to the original question. This story is really sad. It is human error that caused this woman to abort both foetus's not divine intervention. I'm sure this woman will have it on her conscience enough without feeling that she is being judged in this way.

As for the reason why she went through with the second abortion, well she probably did this because that was what she wanted in the first place. People do all sorts of thing for all kinds of reasons. I don't think it is for us to judge them especially if what they are doing is perfectly legal.

Abortion might seem hideous to some people especially if you are pro life but saving the second child might have been worse in the long term for all parties. Especially if the child was not wanted in the first place.

It is very sad though.

Not all women regret having had an abortion.
And then, I don't view abortion as something wrong.
What if a woman were raped, got pregnant, and couldn't take care of the baby because of any reason? What if the baby couldn't be put on adoption (for any reason)?
The baby could slowly die of hunger if the mother were poor, or could grow up abused, neglected or unwanted.
In this case, wouldn't abortion just be better?

In certain cases abortion is the only option. However, the woman in question only wanted to abort the 'sick' foetus. With this in mind I would think that she would be deeply devastated by the loss of the healthy foetus and with that there may be some regret especially as she had carried them for 32 weeks.

Too add to this; I don't think the article was worded very well, the wording seems bias and is written in a way to provoke an intentional emotional response from anti abortionists. They use the word 'Killed' when it was an abortion and they also use the words 'child, baby and sibling' instead of foetus.

relevant to this discussion: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/0 ... tail=email

Yes, things are always more complicated in real life than in theory and that post makes the point well. However, even if the foetus is perfectly healthy and there are no complications it is still the mother's right to do as she wishes with her body.

When I read things like that, I can't help but think about things like this - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-22763510

It hits very close to home because I also have an autoimmune disease - when you realise how many things can go wrong medically speaking, it's no longer anywhere near as straightforward as either side makes it out to be.

All those points can be easily dismissed from an anti-abortion stance: "Either face those risks or don't have sex".