In my opnion the abortion is total acceptable! Nor all are prepared to have children and many times certain incautiousnesses are highly inevitable
Anyone against abortion: Are you saying that if a girl is raped and becomes pregnant she should keep the child? Anyway, people definitely deserve the choice to do what they want with their lives. The biggest issue here is how do you decide when a Fetus becomes able to think for itself and then the abortion becomes a murder.
if it's for a lame reason someone is aborting, then no. babies are the cutest thing in the world. i have a one and a half month old niece. i can't imagine her not being here in the world. what a decision for the babies to not let them come to the world.
In all honesty, I'm pro-choice. I don't think it's a choice of right or wrong, it's whatever the mother-to-be or not-to-be has in mind. Raising a kid is expensive. Even just HAVING a baby is expensive. Hospital bills, drugs for the procedure, everything. I would rather have a child kept out of the world than have it brought into one of anguish and suffering. If a girl has the resources and money to have a kid and then put it up for adoption, she should. If she doesn't, maybe she should consider abortion.
I'm pro abortion, too. I have medical problems and prescriptions that tend to interact with other medications, which could increase my chances of getting pregnant. It's been proven that simple antibiotics interfere with birth control, so if I go in for a urinary tract infection (random selection there, all women get these eventually), my antibiotic could cause a major problem for me. I'm in a long-term committed relationship, but I have health problems and I don't see myself with a child now. I'm not married, I don't particularly intend to be. Put my situation aside, however... See yourself as a female teenager who has just become an adult and has experienced some sexual encounters; hey! It happens, it's all part of growing up. You've taken your contraceptives, been careful enough, and you'll be on your way to college next year. You get sick with a cold and a sinus infection, and you are prescribed an antibiotic to help you recover. Unfortunately, said antibiotic interferes with your contraceptive, and within a few weeks, your young male lover has broken away from you to sew his wild oats in other fields, and you are left pregnant and alone. You're still within your three week limit, so you opt to take a pill and abort. After all, you have those scholarships, and you want to be a chemist someday. I have no problem with this. It wouldn't be fair to stop where she is to have a child she couldn't properly care for. I have no problem with any woman making that choice to opt out of the pregnancy. The only problem I do have is that I know there are women out there who use NO form of contraceptive and are at the abortion clinic every few months- that is unhealthy! I agree with what is said above about men thinking they should have the final say. It's the woman's body! If a man wants a wife and child, then he needs to put a ring on the woman's finger and a roof over her head before he concerns himself with what she does with her body.I can't blame a woman for choosing not to have a child when she's in an unstable situation, or doesn't want to be tied to the man she slept with. Everyone is different. Everyone has different backgrounds, religions. Everyone has a different body. I don't expect women to give up the freedoms they fought so hard for.
While I agree that it should ultimately be the woman's choice (it is after all, her body) and that the potential father should have no right over his genetic material until it is born, I do find it so uncomfortable that women are so hell bent on denying the potential fathers a say in what happens to their unborn children. While the fathers don't and shouldn't have a legal leg to stand on, it is frankly abhorrent for a woman to completely disregard her partner's opinions before making a decision. And don't get me started on paternity rights even after the child is born, because they're so incredibly biased and unfair. There is no equality in the laws regarding a mother and father of a child, virtually all Western nations invariably favour the mother.
another situation I always bring up in debates like these which makes people very uncomfortable: What if in the doctors office you were told that there was a complication in your pregnancy, and as soon as your baby was born it would suffer two horrible weeks of pain and then die? What would you do? There really are complications like this, and personally I would make that appointment in a hot minute.
Irrelevant, such a complication would be impossible to foresee within the legal time limit for abortion.
I think, when it comes to the government, abortion should be allowed. The important decision is made by the parent(s) - whether they feel that it is morally right to kill the child (if this constitutes killing), or if their financial situation is unable to support the child.
what are you talking about? this happens all the time, and some are detectable within 10 weeks, especially with modern genetic screening. Do you even know what you're talking about?
Ah, I didn't mean you should never ask the father. But if it was a one-night kinda deal or you were in a short relationship with a man that has since run off with other women, I think his opinion on the matter is probably void. However in a committed relationship, asking the father sounds like a good idea.
That's entirely correct, most Western nations do, but we are talking about dangers to the child, rather than the mother. I do know what I'm talking about, clearly more so than yourself. It is entirely impossible to, within the time frame for an abortion, discern such a complication that would cause a child to "live in horrible pain for two weeks and then die". At that age of embryonic development, most internal malformations are impossible to foresee and even the diagnosis of external mutation is hit and miss due to the way in which embryos and fetuses develop. While massive defects in an embryo (such as conjoined twins) are detectable so early, most are not (diagnosing them as potentially fatal would be very hit or miss, never certain), and the most accurate warning a doctor could give at that stage of an embryo's development would be possible future complications, or the high risk of a stillbirth. It is completely and utterly impossible to foresee any complication that could lead to the accurate prognosis of "two weeks horrible pain followed by invariable death". Even problems detected very late in development are never that precise. You may tout the existence of "modern genetic screening" and other procedures, but there is no machine, no method in existence that could possibly make your hypothetical situation relevant, unless you're shaking a particularly morbid magic 8-ball and calling it "modern technology".
Is that slang for "Oh I see now, you're entirely right"? 'Cause if it meant anything else, it was probably as inaccurate as your earlier statement.
Nope. Just calling 'em like I sees 'em. And you're not "entirely right." But nothing short of a few published references is going to sway you, and even then its iffy. And I'm just not in the mood.
You show me just one single reference that proves such a technology exists to make possible an accurate prognosis of "two weeks of pain and unavoidable death following birth" before the 10-week deadline, and I will drop my pants and cartwheel through the nearest maternity ward.
The main thing that I am against is mother's aborting perfectly healthy children. Rape... I think if it is going to bother them that much they should have a right to do it, but we can't just say only victims of rape can have abortions or EVERYONE will cry rape. It is still killing of a human, despite whether it is fully grown or not. I think if the child is going to have a chance of having a defect, has a defect, or can injure the mother during pregnancy it is acceptable. It may be a woman's choice, but what she is removing is NOT her body. You can't place limits on the circumstance unless it is a medical reason unfortunately because it can't be proven.
it is only killing a human in the sense that its human DNA in that cell/those cells. At certain points of gestation, human embryos are an indistinguishable ball of cells, or have gills and tails. They have non-human features. They can't sustain life without support of a mother. You could actually kind of think of them as just a parasite until they form a recognizably human fetus...
It is still going to grow into a human, thus ending the potential life of that particular human. I am not talking about taking the morning after pill, I am talking about the abortions done where you can see a fairly identifiable human shape.