9 opinions, 20 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
78
9 votes
May 15, 2015

Women should have a right to choose if they get pregnant because it is their body and we cannot dictate what they do with them. In most cases it is safer for a woman to get an abortion than give birth to the child. Especially in the case of women who are sick health wise already and in cases of incest and rape.

To every person who argues that it is selfish, aren't you being selfish for your own belief? If you are personally against abortion, that's fine, but it doesn't mean you should control others lives because in the end you are NOT the one who will be affected. Think of the child first of all. They would be put up for adoption and or in the foster care system. Not everyone can be a foster parent. How many people who preach that adoption should be illegal go out of their way to actually adopt a child? If it were illegal the government would be overwhelmed by hundreds of thousands of new foster children the states would have to support.

Then consider the woman and her family. If they can't afford to take care of the baby they should have the choice to abort. Do we really want to force more kids into poverty? It wouldn't be fair to them or their mothers, especially to mothers who give birth and are forced to give up their baby for adoption because they are too unfit to care for them, but still love and want their children because pro lifers think giving up your baby that you can't take care of is so easy. Or to a woman who was raped and suffered through depression until ultimately killing herself because she couldn't bear to bring her rapist's child into the world.

Abortion should remain legal because if you think about most people who try to argue against this in government are MEN when WOMEN are the ones that are affected. A fetus is only able to live because it is attached to the womb of the mother; therefore, any claim to a "right" to live must necessarily be at the expense of the woman. It is not independent. I believe that after a certain amount of time such as after the first 3-4 months when the fetus is beginning to take human form and eventually move around that abortion should be restricted and limited. Would you rather save an embryo in a petri dish or a crying 1 year old baby?

For every person who argues that abortion should be illegal, are you willing to be responsible for the health of the woman or help take care of her child?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Aug 24, 2015

Abortion, well; it could be said to be both right and wrong.

My view on it;
Let's break it down into simple terms
Abortion is basically "denying" life to what I'd say could be an upcoming being. We all know that giving birth can "kill" you and that it's sometimes painful, unsafe, and all. Nobody sane would like to kill another being or take life away from anyone (as long as there isn't a need or a reason to).
I believe that abortion should be legal for some of the simplest reasons. Because of the world we live in.
Everything has a price, and mainting yourself isn't easy, and mainting a family and a baby/kid isn't easy either. There's a lot of work you've got to do already, and if you're in a bad economic situation or just can't handle raising a kid, why would you even do it?
We all know rape sadly exists, and we all know "protection" can sometimes fail aswell (without having in mind these people that do not care at all). But, let's say abortion is illegal.
We all have rights when we're young, we've all got to learn and experiment - but what happens when we can't fully go through or basic development? If abortion was illegal, what would prevent a kid from having to go through and suffering living an indecent life, with maybe unloving parents, or a horrible home & situation. Lack of money, lack of care, lack of... well, "construction" of yourself.

What I do not agree with is the people going around like "I aborted" / "I aborted and I liked it." and so on, that's absolutely unnecesary, and just as we have to respect others opinions, we don't have to publicly shove it on other's peoples faces or force them into it.
If you abort that "baby", you need to make sure it's early. When it hasn't even grown or developed as a being at all, while it is unconscious, while it cant feel, or think. While it's still in it's completely basic development. Otherwise, it shouldn't be done and the family should wait.
If the family can't handle the baby, they should give it away to a loving family that could handle it and make sure it lives the life we're all meant to live.
There's nothing wrong with abortion itself, what's wrong is the way it can be used in, and the ways people use it in. By this I mean, people should think of way X person decides to abort. If you weren't careful... that's your fault. If it was yet another case of rape, allow it. If they can't handle it, allow it. If it was an accident, allow it. And so on.

It depends on the woman for a limited amount of time. Adoption is complicated, abortion is complicated, and raising a child is also complicated. It's complicated to be safe and avoid it (if you have to) aswell. I may not have the best way to convey this, or not know everything... but this is just what I can think of for now.

Conclusion; I believe it should be legal under certain circumstances and approval.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
33
main reply
3 votes,
May 15, 2015

I have respect for your argument, but I have to disagree.

1. It bothers me when people say "A woman has a right to their own body." Well, a fetus is not their own body, it is a new human being. The right to life should be way more prioritized.
2. When people compare adoption and abortion and support abortion, I can't understand. Let's say you got an abortion, or an adoption. What would you feel better with having done, killing a baby, or giving it away to a loving family?

I can go on more, but that's just a little input.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
User voted No.
1 vote,
Nov 21, 2015

If abortion was illegal, I would have grown up without a mother. That's the only argument I need. I don't know the details about what was wrong. I don't need to. What I do know is this:

  • A single woman with two children, using protection.
  • The baby had appx a 1% chance of survival.
  • If she had given birth, she had a 0.5% chance of survival or less.
subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
50
2 votes,
May 15, 2015

What would you feel better with having done, killing a baby, or giving it away to a loving family?

Why is it the anti-abortion people never actually adopt any of these unwanted children, and never do anything to help pregnant teenagers? Many times, abortions are done by teenage girls who, if they don't get an abortion, will be thrown out of their house by their judgmental parents. Where are these girls supposed to go? You never see the anti-abortion crowd setting up safehouses to provide room and board for these girls, give them money for college, help them get a new start on life, etc.

subscribe
load further replies (6)
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Yes.
0 votes,
Oct 13, 2015

"What would you feel better with having done, killing a baby, or giving it away to a loving family?"

I find this statement to be a fallacy in regards to the topic at hand. The American foster care is in shambles, and abuse persists in foster care families. The chance that a baby at an orphanage would be adopted to a loving family would be incredibly low, if not impossible.

A fetus is not technically a baby. That's why it's called a fetus. If a mother can legally abandon a baby to an orphanage, why can it not spare the baby the troubles of life by performing an abortion, before the baby gains conscious thought?

A baby, when born, is still developing it's brain. Typically, it cannot start making concrete memories and thoughts until about 30 months.

"A fetus is not their own body". You're right on this one. A fetus is merely INSIDE the woman's body, created by that woman's body. Therefore, the fetus is technically a construct of the woman.

I respect your arguments, but I believe that your arguments could use some work. Abortion for the sake of the woman must be legal if we are to respect the rights of the woman.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Aug 9, 2015

Dependence on another individual does not make anybody less human. Humans are scientifically defined by their nature, and have inherent rights, the most significant of which is the right to life. If the woman cannot support the child financially, then she either should adopt or just not have sex in the first place (if it's rape, which only accounts for <1% of abortions anyway, the latter does not apply).

As for the "selfish/belief" comment, you would never ever ever make that same argument for murder. Ever. Murder is defined as the intentional killing of an innocent human being. Abortion is, by definition, murder.

As for the last point, our society isn't responsible for the health of the people who want to murder someone else, but won't because it is illegal.

subscribe
67
3 votes
May 15, 2015

The real question is not should abortion be legal, it's :

When does life begin and if there is some gap between the the formation of a zygote and what we can categorize as life, is it ok to prevent that zygote to reach that stage with out it being murder.

Blindly Religious people will 99% of the time insist life begins at conception which means they will 99% of the time view abortion as murder.

Rational people aren't so sure about the process but generally are more likely to accept the concept of abortion.

I'm pro-choice up until the point where we can call a zygote a life instead of a zygote and also in the case of danger to the mother, or rape.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
100
main reply
1 vote,
Aug 9, 2015

Scientifically, the zygote is the beginning of human life. Any disagreement with that is a denial of science.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

I agree, but I think that NoOneInParticularMispoke. The real question is not whether or not it is life. By the very definition of cell theory, my dandruff was once "life", as where the millions of microorganisms on that burger I ate for dinner. Life itself is insignificant. What the real question is, is when does a person begin (the below reply says it perfectly).

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
May 15, 2015

You're close to identifying the lynch-pin of the arguement, though I'll take it a step further, and point out that the argument is about when a human becomes a "person". Relatively early in embryonic development, the embryo is undoubtedly "alive" and "human". However, the pro-abortion argument is that there is something missing from that embryo that prevents it from being considered a "person". The most commonly sited condition I've seen being the ability to feel pain.

However, I do not make the rape and incest exceptions to my anti-abortion stance. The conditions of a human's conception should not negate it's rights.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 9, 2015

So when, in your opinion, does personhood begin? A beetle can also feel pain, yet is it a person?

(Obviously this is intentional provocation for a discussion/debate. But please consider it not an attack an invitation that you can decline without shame if you so wish. I feel obliged to warn you, getting into this debate with me usually involves responses upwards of 15,000 words on both our parts.)

subscribe
50
2 votes
May 15, 2015

Life starts at the point of conception, whether you believe in God or not. By allowing abortion, we are allowing murder to occur, simply because someone does not want the "burden", and we are dividing ourselves into a double standard nation. If I shot a pregnant woman I would be charged with two murders, not just one. I can't understand why abortions aren't considered a murder. The fact that a woman doesn't want the child doesn't take away the value of life of her unborn child. There is always adoption.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
main reply
0 votes,
Jun 7, 2015

And what if my mom had gone to term? The fetus had a less than 1% chance of survival. If my mom had gone to term, the same would have been true of her.

Are you saying a woman should sacrifice her life and leave two children motherless to give birth to a fetus with next to no chance of survival?

It broke my mom's heart to have an abortion, but she saw the alternative as worse.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Aug 9, 2015

When the choice is between the mother's right to live and the baby's right to live, I could see one justifying an abortion.

subscribe
50
User voted No.
2 votes
Jun 7, 2015

If my mom hadn't gotten an abortion with her third child, I wouldn't have a mother.

Should it be illegal to abort a fetus with a less than 1% chance of survival, when bringing it to term will almost certainly kill you and leave your two children without a mother?

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Aug 3, 2016

Well, in that case, I think it will never be condemned. no complaints. Wish the health to your mother!

subscribe
-2
2 votes
May 15, 2015

Yes, for all the wrong reasons. I simply don't want MORE undesirables being born. And I do think it's murder, but I'm willing to let those that are irresponsible have their way.

subscribe
-2
User voted No.
2 votes
Jan 3, 2016

Abortion has turned into our national blood sacrifice to Satan. Since Roe vs. Wade in 1973 over 57 million unborn children have been murdered in their mothers belly. And now we can kill them after they are born.

numberofabortions.com/

subscribe
-2
2 votes
Jun 20, 2016

God gave us the life, and who we are to deny someone the opportunity to live!

subscribe
-1
1 vote
May 15, 2015

It is, isn't it?

It's funny that killing people is so arbitrary for the government... you can kill this person but you can't kill that one. Go over there and kill lots of people, but don't kill any over here.

Yeah... inconsistent is the government I believe in.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Aug 9, 2015

The right to life is the greatest right one can posses, as no other right exists without it. The woman does not have the right to end the life fetus, because the fetus is its own person (that is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, not an opinion). The fetus' right to live supersedes any right the woman may have, except her own right to life (i.e., if the birth will kill the mother, abortion can be justified). The fetus is as much a human as you or I, and you cannot justify killing it anymore than you can justify killing a 1 month old baby. The mother does not have the right to choose death for another human being.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted No.
main reply
0 votes,
Aug 4, 2016

I am always so relieved to see when people take the time to include the exception of abortion to save the woman's life. Far too many people seem to think that if there is any chance of the fetus' survival, no matter how slim, the mother should take the risk and go to term. I may not fully agree with your side of the argument, but I highly appreciate you including the exception.

subscribe
Add your opinion
Challenge someone to answer this topic:
Invite an OpiWiki user:
OR
Invite your friend via email:
OR
Share it: