Abortion: Your Views...

[Yuki-onna]

Well, I think adoption has become better than in previous times. Nowadays there's open adoption, the birth parent can remain involved to an extent of getting pictures and updates, or even participating in parenting. That way, there's a way for the birthparent(s) to keep an eye on the kid.

And there are a lot of reasons to consider adoption. You're young, you're uneducated, you're poor. What can you offer a child? Love, yes. What about education? Nutrition? Safety? Sure, adoption is a gamble. But there are so many requirements needed to be an adoptive set of parents. You can't just say well, I want a kid so...who's up for grabs? You HAVE to have a stable environment and history to prove you could provide for the child(ren). And the birth parents, unless they don't want to, have the power to choose who they want to give the child to.

Adoption isn't easy. Giving up a child is one of the hardest things on earth. He/she's a part of you. Your flesh and blood, and you're giving him/her to people you've only known for a matter of months. It's still a brave decision. You're doing what you think is best for your child: providing a stable environment. That's all you can do as a parent: do the best you can, and hope for the best.


Oh, about sperm/eggs being..."wasted"...I never got that, as you said, seeds/eggs are lost naturally, too. I can't save an egg my body jacked because it wasn't fertilized. Do I need to make sure everyone that gets released should get fertilized? Man. I'd have to get pregnant at 13. And it'd be super tough for guys. They'd have to find about 1,000,000,000 eggs to endow with their genes every month or so. Or everytime they have a wet dream. Sheesh...

No, I think an egg/sperm cell is just that. Not until they're combined, are they actually fulfilling their purpose.

Like braincells.

Too many sniffs of the sharpie, this one.

[Furore]

You HAVE to have a stable environment and history to prove you could provide for the child(ren). And the birth parents, unless they don't want to, have the power to choose who they want to give the child to.

That differs from country to country unfortunately. I have seen a lot of kids in bad families just as the parents thought the money the government would pay them for the child was good.

Unfortunately, government payments aren't enough to properly look after the child in question, let alone be a good cash supply. And there may be checks for people wanting to foster/adapt, if they are they MUST be very easy to get around. I've seen plenty of them in the care of druggies who wanted a little extra government money.

But yeah, chances are it'd differ from country to country. Actually crap like that is part of why I wonder if Australia would benefit from being an Anarcho-capitalist society. Too many government **** ups.

[Saransoah]

As an American, I believe that no human has the right to take away another human's rights unless those rights threatened the rights of another person.

So like I said, once the baby is concieived it should have rights, if for nothing else but because it will change shape into a body. This body is a human, and nothing anywhere should be able to deny this human its rights as long as it does not threaten the rights of another. Destroying a fetus by abortion should be illegal because it is preventing a human being from having rights. You may still say: "The "human" is just a bunch of cells at the time, and therefore is only thus: a bunch of cells that has no rights." This is true, except for one thing: The bunch of cells will become a human with rights, and denying that human those rights by destroying the cells is not only a logical matter but should be illegal everywhere and is the same as destroying a fully grown human or a child human. It does not matter if you were raped so badly that your vagina is sterile or if you are a pregnant man you are scarred for life, you have no right to deny the rights of another human unless that human threatens your right to rights (or right to life)

Now, on an occasion where abortion should be permitted. If a mother is told by her doctors that if she continues to have a baby and does not have an abortion, the baby will survive and she will die, she should be able to make a choice. Because not only does she have the possibility in most cases to create another human baby with rights, she herself has rights that should be protected. Rights balance rights in this situation, and if the mother gives her life for her baby I consider her extremly valient and worthy of paradise in another life, but if she chooses to abort the baby than it should be protected under the law.

Unfortunatly, 100% of the time it is not 100% clear whether the baby truly will kill the mother in dangerous scenarios, so I defeinitly believe that a mother should take the chance and try and have the baby.

Oh yes, and important point I would like to add is that the right to life and the right to have rights(which go together) is the most important right of all, the right to your personal happiness does not outweight another persons right to life, happiness, property, etc etc. This is all assuming that the cells will become a human, and this is true in basically every case...If you can find a case where it is not true than kudos to you and please post.

What should an abortion that should be illegal be punishable by? That is an interesting question.

[Furore]

As an American, I believe that no human has the right to take away another human's rights unless those rights threatened the rights of another person.

So like I said, once the baby is concieived it should have rights, if for nothing else but because it will change shape into a body. This body is a human, and nothing anywhere should be able to deny this human its rights as long as it does not threaten the rights of another. Destroying a fetus by abortion should be illegal because it is preventing a human being from having rights. You may still say: "The "human" is just a bunch of cells at the time, and therefore is only thus: a bunch of cells that has no rights." This is true, except for one thing: The bunch of cells will become a human with rights, and denying that human those rights by destroying the cells is not only a logical matter but should be illegal everywhere and is the same as destroying a fully grown human or a child human. It does not matter if you were raped so badly that your vagina is sterile or if you are a pregnant man you are scarred for life, you have no right to deny the rights of another human unless that human threatens your right to rights (or right to life)

Now, on an occasion where abortion should be permitted. If a mother is told by her doctors that if she continues to have a baby and does not have an abortion, the baby will survive and she will die, she should be able to make a choice. Because not only does she have the possibility in most cases to create another human baby with rights, she herself has rights that should be protected. Rights balance rights in this situation, and if the mother gives her life for her baby I consider her extremly valient and worthy of paradise in another life, but if she chooses to abort the baby than it should be protected under the law.

Unfortunatly, 100% of the time it is not 100% clear whether the baby truly will kill the mother in dangerous scenarios, so I defeinitly believe that a mother should take the chance and try and have the baby.

Oh yes, and important point I would like to add is that the right to life and the right to have rights(which go together) is the most important right of all, the right to your personal happiness does not outweight another persons right to life, happiness, property, etc etc. This is all assuming that the cells will become a human, and this is true in basically every case...If you can find a case where it is not true than kudos to you and please post.

Firstly, well said. That's the type of post that would make me question any beliefs I held differently. I love how you tied the stereotypical view of American freedoms in. Sure, there'd be Americans that felt differently, but the same thing would apply for all kinds of people. Some would be for, some against.

Your argument was slightly flawed in that you mentioned a reason being that the cells would become a body (just in that they aren't already one, and therefore not in possession of the same rights as people with 'formed bodies'), but that flaw was covered by how as a potential human they should have their right to life and future freedoms preserved.

I will however disagree with your sentences on an unborn child's possibility to kill the mother, at least for now. Regardless of the percentage, if there's a high chance the mother will die and she fears for her own life (just say she isn't one of those women who would put their unborn baby's life before her own), shouldn't she be entitled to save herself? I personally feel the decision should be solely the mothers in such a case.

As for the very last sentence or two, I can think of one broad example only at this point in time. What if the child would be born with a condition that would cause them nothing but intense pain and a very brief life regardless of circumstances? Or is destined to be stillborn for whatever reason? Neither may be likely (I personally have no idea), but still, what if? Would the situation warrant a different look at things under different circumstances?

What should an abortion that should be illegal be punishable by? That is an interesting question.

I feel that really depends. If it was seen as a mistake later, the guilt and grief the woman responsible for the abortion may feel may be a great enough punishment. But honestly, the question is quite broad. How developed is the child, what are the circumstances of the parents and their reason for abortion? And I would also consider things such as, will the cells respond to pain if they are at an earlier level in development? Will death really cause them grief in any way?

But aye, good post. It's been insightful.