Always Always up to a point, later only when the mother's or child's health is in danger or it's a rape/incest Always up to a point, later only when the mother's or child's health is in danger Always up to a point, later only when the mother's health is in danger Always up to a point, later never Only when the health (of either) is in danger or it's a rape/incest or the mother is under age Only when the health (of either) is in danger or it's a rape/incest Only when the health (of either) is in danger Only when the mother's health is in danger Never see voting resultssaving...
6 opinions, 3 replies
Add your opinion:
Preview:
(mouse over or touch to update)
Add your opinion
100
User voted Only when the health (of either) is in danger or it's a rape/incest or the mother is under age.
1 vote
Aug 27, 2015

I dont get why ppl vote "always" so what? when the baby is a fully formed human at 8 months you think its fine to kill it?.Thats just weird man you got some problems.

subscribe
100
1 vote
Sep 28, 2015

In virtually all circumstances, with the appropriate caveat that I'd say that a late-term baby should probably be protected (but that this should be defined by some appropriate biochemical marker).

A baby that is not wanted is an organism that has effectively invaded the mother's body and is taking nutrients and putting her at risk. It is a parasite. Like all organisms, it has certain rights, but it has no right to take up residence in the body of another living creature.

This approach balances the autonomy of the woman with the rights of the baby. My approach would even make it so that any forced abortion or destruction of embryos would be treated as a crime against life not property. An intentional forced abortion in my mind should be treated as murder.

subscribe
67
User voted Always up to a point, later only when the mother's or child's health is in danger or it's a rape/incest.
3 votes
Aug 26, 2015

Yes, up to a point. Where that point is depends, on your point of view. Personally I draw the line at about three months. That would mean a person should have missed at least 3 periods and had time to think about what they wanted to do. I also feel the the health of the mother or fetus or in cases of rape/incest abortion could be preformed at anytime.

The problem I have with most anti-abortion people is that when you really question them their objection it is almost always religious. Personally in my questioning it has always come down to religion, but there may be someone who is anti-abortion who doesn't feel that way because of religion, but so far I have found if you dig it comes down to religion.

You know what's funny, I was involved in a discussion about abortion when an anti-abortion person asked me,

"“Aren’t you glad your mother didn’t abort you?”

"Yes," I answered, "but if it would have made her life better then she should have. It's not like I would have known about it." They really didn't know what to say after that.

BTW I also feel the morning after pill should be free or at a very low cost and available without parental or anyone's consent.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
User voted Only when the health (of either) is in danger or it's a rape/incest or the mother is under age.
main reply
0 votes,
Aug 26, 2015

Awesome view man XD

subscribe
-1
1 vote
Aug 30, 2015

To me it's all about timing.
Abortion is acceptable prior to development of the central nervous system sufficient for pain awareness.

To point: If sperm and egg don't unite, they are just some of the billions of cells that die inside us everyday. Prior to significant development of the nervous system, the zygote or fetus feels no more pain than the multitude of other cells dying everyday. If sperm and egg do unite, it's not magic, it's not a miracle, it's simply the continuation of a very complicated biological process.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Oct 26, 2015

When the doctor and patient agree to the procedure.

There is already a professional in the room, we don't need to grow the government.

subscribe
0
0 votes
Oct 27, 2015

This is one issue where I think people argue around the edges. I will say that I believe the only correct answers are always and never. The middle ground is all equivocation and red-herrings.

The bottom line is that either a fetus IS a human life deserving of the basic human rights or it is not. If the answer to this is the affirmative then abortion for any reason (to me) is immoral. On the contrary, if it is just a cluster of cells like a kidney and not a human deserving of such rights, then why should the Government be involved at all in a medical procedure?

The trouble is that whether the fetus=human or not is very subjective and philosophical, but without such an answer the rest of the debate is meaningless.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
main reply
0 votes,
Oct 28, 2015

Good, but I still don't know your opinion. I understand your deductive reasoning, but when you give this case a deeper look, there's only one logical answer. It's of course "Always". When you look at the nature, every species sometimes reject their young, for very different reasons. We humans are developed enough to not cause any pain to our "young". Telling a woman what she has to do with her body, with her child, and with her life, is a Hitler-mentality, a very nasty thing to do. We still have to live around such people, but it's pretty obvious that 100-500 years from now there will be no "pro-life" personages. Let me remind you that while we were sending our first probes to the Moon, Venus, and Mars, it was still illegal for a black person and a white person to marry in 16 states.

subscribe
::unhide-discussion::
0
0 votes,
Nov 2, 2015

You could make the same argument about killing children after they are born. Again, It all depends on what side of the philosophical fence you sit on with regard to whether a fetus is human enough to deserve human rights. If not, then you are absolutely right. If so, then I'd argue it just as "hitleresque" to kill humans with wonton disregard.

Your comment about "telling a woman what to do with her body" is a red herring and presumes that both sides of the debate agree on the premise that the fetus is just tissue deserving of those human rights. That is not an agreed upon point, so you can't launch off your argument from that precipice.

Bringing the civil rights movement into this is a red-herring and not relevant and trying to play on emotion.

Understand, I'm not disagreeing with your position, just your argument supporting it.

BTW: My argument is simply "I don't know" and I think that is the only valid argument on this issue.

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