Abortions, Pro life or pro choice

Why does she have to live with the consequences?

Can't say anything...

She shouldn't have to live with the consequences, for the babies sake. There's adoption! There are so many people out there who cannot have children of their own and would love to adopt a child.

"Why does she have to live with the consequences?"

Because 1 she should not be having sex and 2 if she is having sex maybe a baby will make her think before she ends up with an incurable sexually transmitted disease. If she ends up pregnant then that shows she is not using protection. How does life start at birth? The baby breaths and needs food to grow and be healthy from the time that is it concieved. It has all the things we have in our bodies so how is it possible that it is not a living thing until it is born?

So it's really about more about punishing women for behavior that society deems immoral rather than the life of the fetus.

Gotcha.

For some reason, nobody ever mentions men. Why don't they have to live with the consequences? Yay double standards!

Yeah good point! I'm a male XD but yeah I would deserve a consequence we should get to help with the baby or jail or community work at least XD ok I'm being a bit harsh now but rasing a baby isn't any easy

Yep, I think that men should at least financially support the woman until the baby comes to term. It's not really about punishment, but taking your share of the responsibility. It takes two people to make a new life!

yeah I think there has to be a law for that, raising a baby isn't simple the girl has to be helped

"The baby breaths and needs food to grow and be healthy from the time that is it concieved. "

The baby does not take it's first real breath until after it is born. It gets it's oxygen via the mother's blood. It does not need food, either, as it gets it nutrients from the mothers blood.

There are so many people out there who cannot have children of their own and would love to adopt a child.

Wrong. They all want an infant. A newborn. A baby. THey don't give a crap about the 8 year old girls or the 16 year old boys. They want a perfect, day old newborn. That's why there are waiting lists a mile and a half long for infants, yet 90% of the kids I see on a day to day basis in the foster care system age out at 18 with nowhere to go and no one to call family.

People should be much more concerned with THOSE kids rather than a 5 week old zygote that has no feelings, no pain and no being.

If she ends up pregnant then that shows she is not using protection

Wrong. It showed she either did it and failed OR she didn't use any. My husband is an "oops" baby. A product of a failed tubal ligation 18 years after his mom got her tubes tied after the birth of their 3rd child. My husband is #4. His yougner sister is #5. TWO babies even AFTER using birth control AKA a tubal ligation.

Sin is a religious stance that I can understand. I would also love to see people avoid the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. But here in the states, kids are getting older faster and there isn't the parental guidance that their should be. There isn't the teachings that there should be. There isn't the resources there should be.

I think preventing pregnancy should be a bigger concern. If there isn't an unwanted pregnancy then there isn't an abortion. Does that make sense?

I think more people (here anyway)should be thinking of avoiding the problem in the first place. Then the arguing about the mother's rights wouldn't be needed near as badly.

Don't you think that if a girl has to face her mistake and go through labor and delivery, even if she gives the baby up, maybe she just might think twice before laying down to do it again?

This post contains content of a mature nature. You must be Signed in or Registered to have the option to view this content.

And may I ask where you got this "medical evidence"?

The Geneva Convention defines the time of birth as the time of fusion of the sperm and the ovum and not at birth. I don't think it is without any medical support.

And that's relevant how?

What's under contention is the personhood of the fetus.

The evidence for the first paragraph is freely available anywhere online. Just search prenatal development or fetal development and you will be able to see the point at which heartbeat and brain activity starts. I think I actually got that from pregnancy.com, but you can find it at about a million places online.

As for the findings of the judiciary subcommittee, that is also freely available online. Just search for the 1981 Human Life Bill or 1981 senate judiciary subcommittee and you will find the part that I just quoted up there. (Did you think I just made that quote up?)

Do some research of your own. Have you ever been taught in a biology class that life begins at birth, and not before? I haven't. Because no biology professors believe that. It's silly. Are you arguing that personhood has more qualifications that just being of the human species and being alive?

Um...I used to major in biology, so I do know a little something about fetal development. In fact, the 6 week thing has been debunked a long time ago. It was based on pretty dubious scientific evidence in the first place. If you want to know more about it, let me know.

You're missing a crucial point: the fetus lacks the physical capacity to experience consciousness. Why do you think that "brain death" is the legal definition of death?

Well, it depends on what is meant by brain function. Lots of people say babies do not have "brain function" until 22-24 weeks, because they tend to mean frontal lobe activity. However, the cerebral cortex, which is what separates us from animals, begins forming and growing and developing neurons at 6 weeks. It looks like the EEG thing has been debunked though. I apologize for that. Misinformation.

Lack of development is NOT the same as brain death. Fetuses develop so fast that they feel touch around 6 weeks, be able to move by 8 weeks, produces 250,000 neurons a minute by 10 weeks, and feel pain around 18 weeks (if not before). If you abort a baby before then, you are essentially cutting them off at the pass. It is not the same as killing a human vegetable who has nothing else to live for (even though I don't think that should be done either unless it is in the most humane of ways - in other words, not by pulling their body apart with a vacuum).

I'm not merely talking about brain function, but sufficient brain function resulting in the subjective experience of personhood.

The cerebral cortex may begin begin growing at 6 weeks, but it is not developed sufficiently at that point in time for the fetus to be sentient. Without that, then the fetus in question cannot function like a human BEING, but is equivalent of broccoli or a lower mollusk, except with human DNA.

By the way (going back to your original post), nobody is arguing that people whose bodily functions cannot work properly without artificial assistance is not alive. But the difference between an iron lung patient and a fetus is that the former does not need to use somebody's body to live. However, the fetus' right to life is in direct contention with the woman's right to control her own body. What if the iron lung patient was required to be hooked up to another person in order to survive?

gender is decided and the child has a genetic code that is unique to it and will never be reproduced again? Did you know the heart starts beating only five weeks after fertilization?

Did you also know that during that time, certain cells and genetic characteristics have to "commit suicide" per se in order for the fetus to form properly? That's right -- some of the cells that are already living kill themselves on purpose!

Heck, there are many complications from childbirth too, including death!

How presumptuous of you to assume that all women experience "the mental torture of having killed her own child". I know plenty of women who were perfectly happy with their decision.

But there are more mothers who are more happy and who have lived longer after giving birth to many children and suffered while bringing them up.

That's hard to prove either way, but it's irrelevant anyway.

Every woman is different. They will each have a different subjective experience with pregnancy and will come to a different conclusion.

IMO it's pretty patronizing to assume that banning abortions is for the woman's own good. It's saying that adult women can't make their own decisions.

"There are many medical complications involved in abortion, like possibility of losing the ability to give birth again. Also the mother suffers the mental torture of having killed her own child, a rare thing even in nature where the mother try all out to protect her baby."

Complications during abortions are rare, and it is also possible to lose your reproductive abilities after giving birth. Furthermore, trauma after abortion is incredibly rare, whereas post traumatic stress disorder is quite common after birth.

Finally - mothers in nature kill or neglect their young all the time. Have you ever owned rodents? They'll EAT their young for no reason at all. I've seen fish do the same thing. Many animals will drop a kid on the ground, then walk away and let them starve or freeze to death. Nature is anything but protective and cuddly.