Abortion: What's your stance on it and why?

[Elieson]

Fair point.

So it cannot be publicly funded. If I don't get a say so I refuse to pay for something I am not allowed to comment on.

That's not a very Right Wing Nut Job type of response I would've expected, in an abortion topic.

[Nobody]

Fair point.

So it cannot be publicly funded. If I don't get a say so I refuse to pay for something I am not allowed to comment on.

Supposing your country has public health care, would you be okay with abortions done to save the mother's life (and only those) being publicly funded, or do you think those shouldn't be publicly funded either?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Nooooooooooooooooooooobody

[UNLEASH IT]

Fair point.

So it cannot be publicly funded. If I don't get a say so I refuse to pay for something I am not allowed to comment on.

I agree this sentiment, but I still think that abortion should be government funded. So what I'm saying is that we should publicly fund it, but we should also be allowed to comment on it as well.

Edited September 13, 2016 by UNLEASH IT

[Elieson]

Then the woman shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place. We've already mentioned things like rape, but otherwise, a woman can completely prevent herself from becoming pregnant by using condoms, birth control, and just not having sex.

Also uhh just for what it's worth, my daughter was born after somehow conceiving through three forms of birth control, two of which being pharmaceutical. She was given something like .0001% of existing. I fixed your statement by underlining the correct parts.

[Anacybele]

I think it's up to the woman/whoever. It's their body and not yours to make the decision.

It's also the father's child. If he wants to keep the child, he should be allowed to if he's deemed fitting enough to be a father. It's not fair to him if he can't have a kid he wants so much.

EDIT: Elie, I already mentioned that I can let it slide if the birth control actually ended up not working. It's a very rare case that it doesn't. Also, I was trying to say if you did all three of those things at once.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Anacybele

[Life]

Supposing your country has public health care, would you be okay with abortions done to save the mother's life (and only those) being publicly funded, or do you think those shouldn't be publicly funded either?

Let's throw out those cases simply because they are exceedingly rare. Same with rape. Both of those constitute for something like 1% of all abortions (please fact-check me, I'm lazy).

I'm referring to your average "I don't want the kid" cases which are the vast majority.

[UNLEASH IT]

Let's throw out those cases simply because they are exceedingly rare. Same with rape. Both of those constitute for something like 1% of all abortions (please fact-check me, I'm lazy).

I'm referring to your average "I don't want the kid" cases which are the vast majority.

What are the reasons for these aforementioned cases though? If it's due to the mother/parents being unable to afford raising a child, then that's acceptable to me.

[Michelaar]

What are the reasons for these aforementioned cases though? If it's due to the mother/parents being unable to afford raising a child, then that's acceptable to me.

then there are the people who do abortion because they are too lazy to raise the kids

[twice]

It's also the father's child. If he wants to keep the child, he should be allowed to if he's deemed fitting enough to be a father. It's not fair to him if he can't have a kid he wants so much.

You've got a point, but wouldn't it be better to have a child with someone willing enough to go through the whole process?

I get if they talk it over, his views matter too. But I don't think the father should get the final say when he isn't carrying it himself.

[Anacybele]

Let's throw out those cases simply because they are exceedingly rare. Same with rape.

I don't know about rape being exceedingly rare. There have been many rapes on women and likely many more going unreported. Just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen. Women who are raped often are embarrassed or ashamed and afraid to say anything.

[Lord Raven]

then there are the people who do abortion because they are too lazy to raise the kids

The statistics are still important. "Too lazy to raise the kids" is much different than "I am working a full time job and I am unable to raise the kid and provide him with daycare." There's a lot more factors than just "I don't want the kid."

(I still don't think you should ban abortion in either case, because an anonymous survey says that a person got an abortion for that reason, but let's not pretend that's what they'll say at a clinic).

[Res]

Having been pregnant with two planned, wanted pregnancies, I am 100% pro-choice in part because I hated pregnancy; I hated every second, and I WANTED those babies; I can't imagine the damage it does to a person whose pregnancy is unwanted.

If we go by my belief at life beginning at the first heartbeat, I believe somewhere between week 24 and week 27 of the pregnancy is the line, as that is when the heart starts beating. Anytime before that it would be more okay to abort, anytime after that, it wouldn't be. This is mainly going by your stance on abortion though, not really mine. I'm just giving you a bit more info.

Eh? The heart starts beating in the 6th week of pregnancy; are you referring to viability? The youngest baby to have survived was born at 21 weeks, 6 days (although that's an exceptional case, 24 weeks is about the week you start to breathe a little easier when you're pregnant).

Also uhh just for what it's worth, my daughter was born after somehow conceiving through three forms of birth control, two of which being pharmaceutical. She was given something like .0001% of existing. I fixed your statement by underlining the correct parts.

This.

Also, the trouble with 'it should only be legal if x, y and z' comes with proving those statements. It's difficult and traumatic enough to prove rape, which is why I'm also not fond of the 'only in rape' cases, because while I understand the theory, not everyone would be able to prove rape. It'd have to be on a 'they-said' basis.

I don't know about rape being exceedingly rare. There have been many rapes on women and likely many more going unreported. Just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen. Women who are raped often are embarrassed or ashamed and afraid to say anything.

Seriously, all of the dozens of people I know who have been raped, not a single person has reported it to authorities (not just women, either). In addition to shame/embarrassment, there's the desire not to relive trauma, a lack of belief in the judicial system (even when there's irrefutable proof of rape, the victim is still subjected to interrogation; also, see the thousands of rape kits that have never even been processed); there are many, many good reasons why victims don't wish to report rape.

[Life]

What are the reasons for these aforementioned cases though? If it's due to the mother/parents being unable to afford raising a child, then that's acceptable to me.

I don't care what the reason is. It has no connection to life-threatening situations or rape. It is a choice to not have a baby for whatever reason.

Are you telling me that I should pay for someone's social irresponsibility (in the case that they cannot raise the baby feasibly) and not have a say in it because I am not a woman?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[UNLEASH IT]

I don't care what the reason is. It has no connection to life-threatening situations or rape. It is a choice to not have a baby for whatever reason.

Are you telling me that I should pay for someone's social irresponsibility (in the case that they cannot raise the baby feasibly) and not have a say in it because I am not a woman?

I'm not saying that you don't have a say, but rather it costs the state (and therefore you) less to fund abortions than to give welfare to mothers to help them raise their child. If you have to pay for someone's social irresponsibility, as you would put it, might as well choose the cheapest way.

[Life]

I'm not saying that you don't have a say, but rather it costs the state (and therefore you) less to fund abortions than to give welfare to mothers to help them raise their child. If you have to pay for someone's social irresponsibility, as you would put it, might as well choose the cheapest way.

Then I should be allowed to comment on the matter.

My point is that if someone takes the position that it is the mother's choice only to have an abortion (which I am absolutely OK with upholding), then it cannot be publicly funded because my opinion is not considered and I still have to pay for it.

I'm of the opinion that abortion clinics should fund abortions that are life-threatening or rape based. And if they refuse, then that would be illegal and the mother has legal grounds to sue.

It's a sticky position but it is a constant defendable position because both can be proved by medical records. And since they constitute for so few abortions, that is acceptable.

As an aside, I don't believe in welfare anyway.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

Are you telling me that I should pay for someone's social irresponsibility (in the case that they cannot raise the baby feasibly) and not have a say in it because I am not a woman?

you cannot deem all non-rape/health-related reasons for abortion as "social irresponsibility" very easily

re: "I don't believe in welfare" is not relevant when the context of a publicly funded abortion also tends to exist in the context of welfare

should read up on Res' point on rape in better detail before saying rape should be a reason for abortion. it's not so much as arguing against abortions in rape so much as rape is not only not as easily proven as people seem to think but it's also most likely going to present tons and tons of logistical issues in the end as a result of this. it is generally simpler and better for all parties to apply the same standards universally and indiscriminately.

in other words I honestly don't think you can vouch for "only in the case of rape" in a practical fashion

[Life]

you cannot deem all non-rape/health-related reasons for abortion as "social irresponsibility" very easily

re: "I don't believe in welfare" is not relevant when the context of a publicly funded abortion also tends to exist in the context of welfare

should read up on Res' point on rape in better detail before saying rape should be a reason for abortion. it's not so much as arguing against abortions in rape so much as rape is not only not as easily proven as people seem to think but it's also most likely going to present tons and tons of logistical issues in the end as a result of this. it is generally simpler and better for all parties to apply the same standards universally and indiscriminately.

in other words I honestly don't think you can vouch for "only in the case of rape" in a practical fashion

I'm saying "I should not pay for it but not get a say in the matter".

I've already pointed out that I believe that it should be legal up to a point (end of 2nd trimester maximum). But I don't believe that it should be publicly funded if I can't comment on it.

As for social irresponsibility, I see sex before marriage as being socially irresponsible. I still partake myself because I enjoy it but if I knock up a girl, it is both of our faults and we should pay, not the general public.

In fact, sex without the intent of procreation in general is social irresposibility. I can admit that and I've slept with many women in my adult life. It doesn't change my opinion of sex.

What's the big deal?

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

You're saying "it should only be publicly funded in the case of health/rape" from my understanding.

Either that, or you're saying "it should only be free in those cases" or something. Either way, my point still stands, since it had very little to do with what is funding them, moreso the reasons behind a "free" abortion and why it's tricky to only allow it for rape victims (outside of health). You've addressed nothing about that.

As for social irresponsibility, I see sex before marriage as being socially irresponsible. I still partake myself because I enjoy it but if I knock up a girl, it is both of our faults and we should pay, not the general public.

In fact, sex without the intent of procreation in general is social irresposibility. I can admit that and I've slept with many women in my adult life. It doesn't change my opinion of sex.

okay but don't push that view on the rest of us because not everyone agrees, unless you can justify it as fact it's not relevant to this argument

[Life]

You're saying "it should only be publicly funded in the case of health/rape" from my understanding.

Either that, or you're saying "it should only be free in those cases" or something. Either way, my point still stands, since it had very little to do with what is funding them, moreso the reasons behind a "free" abortion and why it's tricky to only allow it for rape victims (outside of health). You've addressed nothing about that.

okay but don't push that view on the rest of us because not everyone agrees, unless you can justify it as fact it's not relevant to this argument

Free would be the answer.

Do you believe that sex without the intent of procreation is being socially responsible? If so, why?

Also, I never said that rape is why abortion should be legal. Abortion should be legal because they'll happen anyways. There's no reason to waste funds and effort on a procedure that may or may not be biological beneficial to women (an argument I saw recently and since I am not a scientist, I'm not going to refute the science behind it). Rather, make it legal and have it privately funded.

Edited September 13, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Anacybele]

Having been pregnant with two planned, wanted pregnancies, I am 100% pro-choice in part because I hated pregnancy; I hated every second, and I WANTED those babies; I can't imagine the damage it does to a person whose pregnancy is unwanted.

Eh? The heart starts beating in the 6th week of pregnancy; are you referring to viability? The youngest baby to have survived was born at 21 weeks, 6 days (although that's an exceptional case, 24 weeks is about the week you start to breathe a little easier when you're pregnant).

Uh, if you hated pregnancy so much, why do you want to go through it again not once, but TWICE?

And are you sure? I'm pretty sure I was taught differently in school. I had to take some health classes to graduate. But I could be remembering wrong.

[Res]

Uh, if you hated pregnancy so much, why do you want to go through it again not once, but TWICE?

And are you sure? I'm pretty sure I was taught differently in school. I had to take some health classes to graduate. But I could be remembering wrong.

Well, I'm done at two; it's Rezzy who wants four kids. ;)

But I went through it again because I didn't wish for my daughter to be an only child. I can grin and bear it for 9 months.

And here's a link from the Mayo Clinic. Most people will also hear the heartbeat at their first ultrasound, which is typically held between 6 and 12 weeks:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

[Anacybele]

Oh, I misread your sentence, I thought you were saying you planned to have two more kids. My bad.

And I see.

[Lord Raven]

Free would be the answer.

Do you believe that sex without the intent of procreation is being socially responsible? If so, why?

You brought it up, the burden is on you to show me why it is.

Also, I never said that rape is why abortion should be legal. Abortion should be legal because they'll happen anyways. There's no reason to waste funds and effort on a procedure that may or may not be biological beneficial to women (an argument I saw recently and since I am not a scientist, I'm not going to refute the science behind it). Rather, make it legal and have it privately funded.

This is not at all relevant to what I said. I never questioned why you believe abortion should be illegal. I questioned why you're discriminating against any reason for abortion aside from rape/health in terms of funding for all those reasons. Read my post again in that context.

The whole idea is that it's not practical, under any system - be it when it comes to "abortion should be legal but only certain ones should be publicly funded" and "abortion should only be legal in two scenarios" - to discriminate between "rape" cases and every other case, for exactly the reasons that Res stated.

[Rezzy]

I'm pro-life with few exceptions. The first in the case of the health of the mother or in nonviable children who would die preterm or very young. The second is rape. Yes, this is a murky area legally, but it would require either criminal proceedings OR a psychologist/psychiatrist to verify. The latter is a good compromise, because it avoids making the victim go through the legal system, if they don't want to, and they should be getting psychological help anyway, with that sort of trauma, and it would prevent many people from just saying "I was raped" to get rid of an unwanted baby.

I'm pro-life not just in this case, but I'm also anti death penalty. I believe all human life is sacred, and think the decision to end a human life should never be done, except in extreme circumstances. I also think adoption is a very responsible alternative. As I've said elsewhere, I have a cousin who got pregnant about the same time as me, but she was only 16. She's not ready to be a mother, but she's given the baby up for adoption, and I am very proud of her making that decision. I may have also mentioned that my father-in-law and a (different) cousin were both adopted, and were the result of unwanted/unexpected pregnancies.

Both of my children were planned (well we stopped using birth control and got pregnant right away anyway), but I did have one scare before that. I've been sexually active for about a decade, and I had a month where I was late, but nothing came of it. During that time, I had a million thoughts racing through my head, but I was more thinking of how to prepare for parenthood, rather than how to try to shirk my responsibilities.

As stated before, no form of birth control is 100% effective. I've had sex thousands of times, and I've had a condom break on me 3 times. To be honest, one of the advantages of when I was dating other woman was not having to worry about stuff like that. :P

Uh, if you hated pregnancy so much, why do you want to go through it again not once, but TWICE?

And are you sure? I'm pretty sure I was taught differently in school. I had to take some health classes to graduate. But I could be remembering wrong.

Well, I'm done at two; it's Rezzy who wants four kids. ;)

But I went through it again because I didn't wish for my daughter to be an only child. I can grin and bear it for 9 months.

And here's a link from the Mayo Clinic. Most people will also hear the heartbeat at their first ultrasound, which is typically held between 6 and 12 weeks:

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/pregnancy-week-by-week/in-depth/prenatal-care/art-20045302

Yes, you can hear the heartbeat very early in the pregnancy, often on your first visit after finding out you're pregnant.

And yep, I still want to have about 4 kids. This pregnancy has definitely been tougher than the first, though.

[Comet]

i don't believe it's moral to force my beliefs onto somebody else, or anybody for that matter.