Abortion Discussion [split topic]

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

It's not pro whatever Dave wants if it happens to someone else, Goose. I have kids, therefore I had my time of making a choice (along with their mother), and am happy with our choices.

If being pro choice means that a woman can abort for any reason at any time, then no, I am not pro choice. As I said, there should be constraints. But it seems it either has to be all or nothing in this discussion, eh? Don't need to be muddying up court dockets with abortion cases, especially when delaying an abortion is rarely ever a good idea.

So rather than teach our children that there are consequences for their actions, I guess we will let them see that when it comes to unprotected sex, there is nothing to fear, as a quick abortion can make things right again, eh? That's the part I have a problem with. I agree that it's much simpler to say "pro choice, any reason, any time". But it just doesn't feel right to me.

You're not pro choice. Denying a woman that can't afford or doesn't want a baby, the option of an abortion, is not pro-choice. It's pro whatever Dave wants.

If the mother doesn't want to carry the baby, the father can find another woman who does. The baby is not half his until it is actually born.

I already gave you my answer on the "limit", it's up to the woman carrying the baby. She is the one who will have to live with her decision, not you or I.

As for your scenario of the "rape baby", the woman could put her child up for adoption in that case, if she chooses to do so.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Okay, if you'd like me to address your question, I would hope that you could address the other questions raised by members here. Regardless of if you like conversing with those members, they did ask legit questions to this line of discussion.

Now, to be fair it's hard to leave religion out of the equation. Because those on the forefront of restricting a woman's right to choose runs the gamut to common sense all the way to abolishment and locking a woman in jail for murder... and those people are from a host of religious groups and positions. Pro-life advocates that are strictly atheist or humanist are a rarity, but in research they do exist. Do any of you, though not inherently religious as you might claim, believe in God? Because there can be non-religious people (in fact this number is growing) but still hold a belief in God or deity, fate, or some sort of Biblical-style morality. That morality, especially in how they were raised about the world around them may shape their beliefs when it comes to the concept of when life begins. It's a question that's been going on for ages you know, examined by some of the best theologians of old. It kind of got to be a big thing during the time of Martin Luther, because there was always a concern in the Catholic church about when life began, and what to do regarding baptism, or infants who died in the womb or at birth. At what point does a person have a soul, and when was the appropriate time that soul could be innocent and blameless. I won't go into the bigger details of this, but this is still one of the fundamental arguments when it comes to abortion today and it's been hijacked by political operatives seeking to cause great damage. When is a fetus a baby? When is a baby a person? Is a lump of tissue, not having brain function a person? Is the moment of conception a person? Are the egg and sperm virtual persons? Yes these are the questions the religious of that era wrestled with and those of this era do too. Historically speaking there is not a lot said in the Bible about this subject, and it has led (as it often does in religion) for men to invent their own contexts (never really a good thing to do). These days you have Christians that believe all abortion is murder (even in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother), and those who include the ''morning after pill'' into this mix. And you have Christians that believe abortion is murder with some exceptions to the rule. But stuck into this mix per say, are those Christians who believe protection and birth control is an affront and that you should pop out as many babies as you can (an old Monty Python sketch comes to mind here). And whether you do or don't agree with some or all aspects of the other Christians above, it's these individuals who actually make the problem of abortion worse.

If Christians want to stop abortion, the best way is through knowledge and having the best tools available ensure couples have responsible planning for their sex lives. Contraceptive methods, rape awareness, raising responsible children instead of never explaining to them about sex or supporting them would go a long way. If young women knew they had a support system, I feel they would be less likely to choose an abortion in your ''promiscuity oopsie'' scenario. If we raised young men to take care of the women they choose to partner with. I don't feel young women choose an abortion as a 'quick fix' and if any small percentage do it is largely because they had no education about sex or support from the family to begin with. There's often going to be a lot of other compound factors going on in your scenario. The church and 'good Christians' tell women that children are a near sacred thing, but then abandons them in the trash-heap of sins when they produce one, Scarlet Letter style. It is no wonder in days of old, that desperate women sought abortions in the black market, at extreme risk to their lives. These were not just young ladies who were fooling around, but women who were raped, and women who were married (having already a ton of church sanctioned children of their own with barely money to feed those mouths as it was). Some Christians, politicians especially, don't seem to have an really good grasp on the importance of birth control used for medical reasons either, and individuals like Pence who goes whole hog into 'personhood' (the idea that all eggs are persons!), caused a furor over his desire to restrict even that, fails to realize that women do have medical reasons and require access to those medications and not because they are 'slutty'. In general more and more women are actually needing to rely on birth control for those medical purposes, as the public becomes more unhealthy overall and other conditions may be related.

So to answer your question of when does abortion become murder you'd have to define what constitutes when life physically begins. When do you become you? Does it begin when the brain is fully formed? Does it begin when the baby breathes air outside the womb? Does it begin whenever a soul is formed, a process we know nothing about? Or does it begin at the moment of conception? Every sect of religion may have a different answer. Even a fertilized egg may be expelled during a 'normal cycle' without a woman's knowledge, and thus the potential baby is never formed. Until this is defined the question of abortion is murder is rather a slippery slope. 90% I believe are abortions that are had fairly soon into pregnancy, and those having abortions later into pregnancy seem to be rarities of which specific criteria has to fit. But if you want to define abortions as murder, what makes one more acceptable and another less acceptable to you? If you believe that abortions from rape, incest, and medical reasons are okay.. or even if the couple is married okay, how does it make it any less ''murdery'' (if that's how you want to define it)? Because once you link abortion with murder, you can't un-murder under specific circumstances. If you shoot and kill someone who tries to kill you, you have still killed someone. You may have defended yourself, but it doesn't negate the fact you killed someone before they killed you. If a woman has a miscarriage due to suffering some great emotional stress, has she murdered her own baby or did God murder it? Does a morning after pill taken 24-48hrs after an oopsie constitute murder? Well, to some it seems that way. In Exodus and Numbers I think it's very clear at least, that the Biblical moral laws of the era (of which Christianity attempts and badly fails to draw from) gives clear answer that 'abortion' was not an issue bogged down in theological quandaries and could even be sanctioned in many cases and thus I'd side with that outlook on the moral issue. If an abortion must be carried out because of risk to the mother and is a later term one, is it more of a murder or less of a murder? A word so strong as murder cannot have exceptions here. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the brain dead or those who don't appear that they will recover? Or putting man's best friend to sleep to ease 'suffering'?

This is again why I say a woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose. It is difficult and agonizing, and yes a woman may have regrets either way. You do not get a say, because who are you to judge? It's a decision she must make between her family, herself, her s/o, her god if she has one, and her doctor. The church and government restricting this is damaging to essential liberty just as much as a government that demands a family only have one child and forcibly abort the rest. By the way, my own mother had to make the decision not to ''murder-abort'' me at great risk to herself. I'm obviously alive so that's cool, but I wouldn't blame her in the slightest if she had decided differently.

Btw, this thread has evolved into a vastly different subject than the title, could it be split somehow? We're far from the latest screaming about Hillary emails and the FBI.

Well said Yuna. You have a talent for explaining things in detail and making very good points at the same time.

[Boiler 45,499]

I am pro choice and pro life.

Complex issues very rarely have simple solutions.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Okay, if you'd like me to address your question, I would hope that you could address the other questions raised by members here. Regardless of if you like conversing with those members, they did ask legit questions to this line of discussion.

Now, to be fair it's hard to leave religion out of the equation. Because those on the forefront of restricting a woman's right to choose runs the gamut to common sense all the way to abolishment and locking a woman in jail for murder... and those people are from a host of religious groups and positions. Pro-life advocates that are strictly atheist or humanist are a rarity, but in research they do exist. Do any of you, though not inherently religious as you might claim, believe in God? Because there can be non-religious people (in fact this number is growing) but still hold a belief in God or deity, fate, or some sort of Biblical-style morality. That morality, especially in how they were raised about the world around them may shape their beliefs when it comes to the concept of when life begins. It's a question that's been going on for ages you know, examined by some of the best theologians of old. It kind of got to be a big thing during the time of Martin Luther, because there was always a concern in the Catholic church about when life began, and what to do regarding baptism, or infants who died in the womb or at birth. At what point does a person have a soul, and when was the appropriate time that soul could be innocent and blameless. I won't go into the bigger details of this, but this is still one of the fundamental arguments when it comes to abortion today and it's been hijacked by political operatives seeking to cause great damage. When is a fetus a baby? When is a baby a person? Is a lump of tissue, not having brain function a person? Is the moment of conception a person? Are the egg and sperm virtual persons? Yes these are the questions the religious of that era wrestled with and those of this era do too. Historically speaking there is not a lot said in the Bible about this subject, and it has led (as it often does in religion) for men to invent their own contexts (never really a good thing to do). These days you have Christians that believe all abortion is murder (even in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother), and those who include the ''morning after pill'' into this mix. And you have Christians that believe abortion is murder with some exceptions to the rule. But stuck into this mix per say, are those Christians who believe protection and birth control is an affront and that you should pop out as many babies as you can (an old Monty Python sketch comes to mind here). And whether you do or don't agree with some or all aspects of the other Christians above, it's these individuals who actually make the problem of abortion worse.

If Christians want to stop abortion, the best way is through knowledge and having the best tools available ensure couples have responsible planning for their sex lives. Contraceptive methods, rape awareness, raising responsible children instead of never explaining to them about sex or supporting them would go a long way. If young women knew they had a support system, I feel they would be less likely to choose an abortion in your ''promiscuity oopsie'' scenario. If we raised young men to take care of the women they choose to partner with. I don't feel young women choose an abortion as a 'quick fix' and if any small percentage do it is largely because they had no education about sex or support from the family to begin with. There's often going to be a lot of other compound factors going on in your scenario. The church and 'good Christians' tell women that children are a near sacred thing, but then abandons them in the trash-heap of sins when they produce one, Scarlet Letter style. It is no wonder in days of old, that desperate women sought abortions in the black market, at extreme risk to their lives. These were not just young ladies who were fooling around, but women who were raped, and women who were married (having already a ton of church sanctioned children of their own with barely money to feed those mouths as it was). Some Christians, politicians especially, don't seem to have an really good grasp on the importance of birth control used for medical reasons either, and individuals like Pence who goes whole hog into 'personhood' (the idea that all eggs are persons!), caused a furor over his desire to restrict even that, fails to realize that women do have medical reasons and require access to those medications and not because they are 'slutty'. In general more and more women are actually needing to rely on birth control for those medical purposes, as the public becomes more unhealthy overall and other conditions may be related.

So to answer your question of when does abortion become murder you'd have to define what constitutes when life physically begins. When do you become you? Does it begin when the brain is fully formed? Does it begin when the baby breathes air outside the womb? Does it begin whenever a soul is formed, a process we know nothing about? Or does it begin at the moment of conception? Every sect of religion may have a different answer. Even a fertilized egg may be expelled during a 'normal cycle' without a woman's knowledge, and thus the potential baby is never formed. Until this is defined the question of abortion is murder is rather a slippery slope. 90% I believe are abortions that are had fairly soon into pregnancy, and those having abortions later into pregnancy seem to be rarities of which specific criteria has to fit. But if you want to define abortions as murder, what makes one more acceptable and another less acceptable to you? If you believe that abortions from rape, incest, and medical reasons are okay.. or even if the couple is married okay, how does it make it any less ''murdery'' (if that's how you want to define it)? Because once you link abortion with murder, you can't un-murder under specific circumstances. If you shoot and kill someone who tries to kill you, you have still killed someone. You may have defended yourself, but it doesn't negate the fact you killed someone before they killed you. If a woman has a miscarriage due to suffering some great emotional stress, has she murdered her own baby or did God murder it? Does a morning after pill taken 24-48hrs after an oopsie constitute murder? Well, to some it seems that way. In Exodus and Numbers I think it's very clear at least, that the Biblical moral laws of the era (of which Christianity attempts and badly fails to draw from) gives clear answer that 'abortion' was not an issue bogged down in theological quandaries and could even be sanctioned in many cases and thus I'd side with that outlook on the moral issue. If an abortion must be carried out because of risk to the mother and is a later term one, is it more of a murder or less of a murder? A word so strong as murder cannot have exceptions here. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the brain dead or those who don't appear that they will recover? Or putting man's best friend to sleep to ease 'suffering'?

This is again why I say a woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose. It is difficult and agonizing, and yes a woman may have regrets either way. You do not get a say, because who are you to judge? It's a decision she must make between her family, herself, her s/o, her god if she has one, and her doctor. The church and government restricting this is damaging to essential liberty just as much as a government that demands a family only have one child and forcibly abort the rest. By the way, my own mother had to make the decision not to ''murder-abort'' me at great risk to herself. I'm obviously alive so that's cool, but I wouldn't blame her in the slightest if she had decided differently.

Btw, this thread has evolved into a vastly different subject than the title, could it be split somehow? We're far from the latest screaming about Hillary emails and the FBI.

You broke my thumb. Hillary abortion promiscuous ex

It's all good dude

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

A very well thought out and intelligent reply, thanks Yuna.

Yes, abortion is just as tied to religion as are many other things that are really nothing more than morals; but religion seems to be how we measure and/or are judged in achieving said morals. I raise my questions not to say abortion is wrong because it is murder; as I said, there are cases when "murder" (if one classifies all abortions as "murder") is ok. I think we all agree on rape being a good reason for an abortion. I could not imagine the mental anguish a woman would have to endure to produce a baby that came about via rape. The act itself is horrendous, and can ruin a woman's life; being reminded of it daily by seeing her child that came from it? Don't even want to think about that.

But as you pointed out, murder is ok sometimes. Self defense. When so ordered by a judge after proper legal action has been taken. So then the dilemma comes in determining if ALL abortions are murder, or if not, when does it BECOME murder? If a woman has a choice to abort the rape baby, but waits 9 months to do so... Is that just as ok as the woman who aborts shortly after the rape? Tough calls, to be sure.

I was raised to think abortion is wrong. Pretty sure if I asked anyone in my family, I would get strong reactions to the idea of aborting a viable baby. But as I have aged, I'd like to think I have more data to go on than just misguided/ancient beliefs. Some religions/cultures see all life as sacred, so taking a life at any point is not acceptable. At the same time, I think bringing an unwanted child into this world can be a bad thing, as Teddy alluded to. Unwanted, can't afford it, drug babies... All of these would become a burden on society eventually. So is it better to adhere to the pro life method and allow these kids to live a bad life just because their parents made bad decision, or is it better to allow the abortion and prevent said horrible life?

Another tough call is the one Teddy brought up about the father not getting to make a choice until the baby is born. That seems unfair as well, if said father wants to keep the child and raise it on his own. Teddy says the baby is half his after it's born. Another way to look at it is that it's half his upon conception. But if that's the case, then would it be fair to ask a mother who doesn't want to endure the pregnancy to do so, only to deliver it and hand it over? I think not. As Teddy said, I guess the father's only choice is to go find a woman who is willing to have said kid for him.

If pro choice means that the woman makes the choice, and not politicians, then I am pro choice. In fact, I am pro choice, because I agree that the woman gets to make the decision. Do I think it is a responsible decision to have unprotected sex then abort on a regular basis? No. But we're not discussing responsibility here I guess. Just where the choice lies. Hopefully abortion is not something that women all over the world are just up and doing because they made a bunch of sexual mistakes. I can't imagine it is an easy decision for any woman to make, certainly can't be a fun procedure. "Hey, I'm gonna go have unprotected sex so I can visit Dr. G next week and have yet another abortion!!" Is probably not on the top of most women's to do list.

And Val, I saw your comment about you not aborting after a rape. Mind if I ask why not? As I said above, I cannot imagine having to deal with the emotional trauma of being a rape victim, and having a child from such would only serve to make me remember it more. Would that not bother you?

Okay, if you'd like me to address your question, I would hope that you could address the other questions raised by members here. Regardless of if you like conversing with those members, they did ask legit questions to this line of discussion.

Now, to be fair it's hard to leave religion out of the equation. Because those on the forefront of restricting a woman's right to choose runs the gamut to common sense all the way to abolishment and locking a woman in jail for murder... and those people are from a host of religious groups and positions. Pro-life advocates that are strictly atheist or humanist are a rarity, but in research they do exist. Do any of you, though not inherently religious as you might claim, believe in God? Because there can be non-religious people (in fact this number is growing) but still hold a belief in God or deity, fate, or some sort of Biblical-style morality. That morality, especially in how they were raised about the world around them may shape their beliefs when it comes to the concept of when life begins. It's a question that's been going on for ages you know, examined by some of the best theologians of old. It kind of got to be a big thing during the time of Martin Luther, because there was always a concern in the Catholic church about when life began, and what to do regarding baptism, or infants who died in the womb or at birth. At what point does a person have a soul, and when was the appropriate time that soul could be innocent and blameless. I won't go into the bigger details of this, but this is still one of the fundamental arguments when it comes to abortion today and it's been hijacked by political operatives seeking to cause great damage. When is a fetus a baby? When is a baby a person? Is a lump of tissue, not having brain function a person? Is the moment of conception a person? Are the egg and sperm virtual persons? Yes these are the questions the religious of that era wrestled with and those of this era do too. Historically speaking there is not a lot said in the Bible about this subject, and it has led (as it often does in religion) for men to invent their own contexts (never really a good thing to do). These days you have Christians that believe all abortion is murder (even in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the mother), and those who include the ''morning after pill'' into this mix. And you have Christians that believe abortion is murder with some exceptions to the rule. But stuck into this mix per say, are those Christians who believe protection and birth control is an affront and that you should pop out as many babies as you can (an old Monty Python sketch comes to mind here). And whether you do or don't agree with some or all aspects of the other Christians above, it's these individuals who actually make the problem of abortion worse.

If Christians want to stop abortion, the best way is through knowledge and having the best tools available ensure couples have responsible planning for their sex lives. Contraceptive methods, rape awareness, raising responsible children instead of never explaining to them about sex or supporting them would go a long way. If young women knew they had a support system, I feel they would be less likely to choose an abortion in your ''promiscuity oopsie'' scenario. If we raised young men to take care of the women they choose to partner with. The church and 'good Christians' tell women that children are a near sacred thing, but then abandons them in the trash-heap of sins when they produce one, Scarlet Letter style. It is no wonder in days of old, that desperate women sought abortions in the black market, at extreme risk to their lives. These were not just young ladies who were fooling around, but women who were raped, and women who were married (having already a ton of church sanctioned children of their own with barely money to feed those mouths as it was). Some Christians, politicians especially, don't seem to have an really good grasp on the importance of birth control used for medical reasons either, and individuals like Pence who goes whole hog into 'personhood' (the idea that all eggs are persons!), caused a furor over his desire to restrict even that, fails to realize that women do have medical reasons and require access to those medications and not because they are 'slutty'. In general more and more women are actually needing to rely on birth control for those medical purposes, as the public becomes more unhealthy overall and other conditions may be related.

So to answer your question of when does abortion become murder you'd have to define what constitutes when life physically begins. When do you become you? Does it begin when the brain is fully formed? Does it begin when the baby breathes air outside the womb? Does it begin whenever a soul is formed, a process we know nothing about? Or does it begin at the moment of conception? Every sect of religion may have a different answer. Even a fertilized egg may be expelled during a 'normal cycle' without a woman's knowledge, and thus the potential baby is never formed. Until this is defined the question of abortion is murder is rather a slippery slope. 90% I believe are abortions that are had fairly soon into pregnancy, and those having abortions later into pregnancy seem to be rarities of which specific criteria has to fit. But if you want to define abortions as murder, what makes one more acceptable and another less acceptable to you? If you believe that abortions from rape, incest, and medical reasons are okay.. or even if the couple is married okay, how does it make it any less ''murdery'' (if that's how you want to define it)? Because once you link abortion with murder, you can't un-murder under specific circumstances. If you shoot and kill someone who tries to kill you, you have still killed someone. You may have defended yourself, but it doesn't negate the fact you killed someone before they killed you. If a woman has a miscarriage due to suffering some great emotional stress, has she murdered her own baby or did God murder it? Does a morning after pill taken 24-48hrs after an oopsie constitute murder? Well, to some it seems that way. In Exodus and Numbers I think it's very clear at least, that the Biblical moral laws of the era (of which Christianity attempts and badly fails to draw from) gives clear answer that 'abortion' was not an issue bogged down in theological quandaries and could even be sanctioned in many cases and thus I'd side with that outlook on the moral issue. If an abortion must be carried out because of risk to the mother and is a later term one, is it more of a murder or less of a murder? A word so strong as murder cannot have exceptions here. How do you feel about pulling the plug on the brain dead or those who don't appear that they will recover? Or putting man's best friend to sleep to ease 'suffering'?

[]bThis is again why I say a woman's right to choose is a woman's right to choose. It is difficult and agonizing, and yes a woman may have regrets either way. You do not get a say, because who are you to judge? It's a decision she must make between her family, herself, her s/o, her god if she has one, and her doctor. The church and government restricting this is damaging to essential liberty just as much as a government that demands a family only have one child and forcibly abort the rest. [/b]By the way, my own mother had to make the decision not to ''murder-abort'' me at great risk to herself. I'm obviously alive so that's cool, but I wouldn't blame her in the slightest if she had decided differently.

Btw, this thread has evolved into a vastly different subject than the title, could it be split somehow? We're far from the latest screaming about Hillary emails and the FBI.

[Teddy B 17,252]

It's not pro whatever Dave wants if it happens to someone else, Goose. I have kids, therefore I had my time of making a choice (along with their mother), and am happy with our choices.

If being pro choice means that a woman can abort for any reason at any time, then no, I am not pro choice. As I said, there should be constraints. But it seems it either has to be all or nothing in this discussion, eh? Don't need to be muddying up court dockets with abortion cases, especially when delaying an abortion is rarely ever a good idea.

So rather than teach our children that there are consequences for their actions, I guess we will let them see that when it comes to unprotected sex, there is nothing to fear, as a quick abortion can make things right again, eh? That's the part I have a problem with. I agree that it's much simpler to say "pro choice, any reason, any time". But it just doesn't feel right to me.

If it's happening to someone else, then it should be their decision. No one should have a say in what a single mother or married couple decide to do regarding a pregnancy.

Being pro-choice can have different meanings for different people, usually the differences are about at what stage of the pregnancy should the woman be allowed to abort. But denying a woman in her first trimester an abortion simply because she may have had what you define as "promiscuous or careless sex", is definitely not pro-choice.

Burdening a woman with a child who is not financially or mentally ready to have a child, is not teaching her a lesson. It's setting both the woman and child up for a lifetime of hurt. I also thinks it hurts the innocent child more than it does anyone else.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Post of the day, right there. It is a VERY complicated issue, indeed.

I am pro choice and pro life.

Complex issues very rarely have simple solutions.

[TBoneTX 45,288]

The above posts have been split from a thread that was derailed by the different topic.

Some noncontributory entries have been removed.

Please remain civil.

[smilesammich 10,727]

And Val, I saw your comment about you not aborting after a rape. Mind if I ask why not? As I said above, I cannot imagine having to deal with the emotional trauma of being a rape victim, and having a child from such would only serve to make me remember it more. Would that not bother you?

why not? i know myself. that being said, that's the sort of situation where you don't really know how you'll react until it happens to you. not much a matter of a rape being traumatic (a given) or a child being bothersome (separate your concept of 'child' and 'zygote/embryo/fetus)

Some noncontributory entries have been removed.

pleasure's all mine.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Had a nice, lengthy reply all typed up for ya, and the wifi terminated when I hit sent. *sigh* So for the Cliff Notes version:

I agree with your bolded part, Teddy. Better not to bring an unwanted child into the world, or one who cannot be properly cared for. But I think abstinence would be preferred over abortion. Of course, that does not sit well with the instant gratification crowd.

I got a girl pregnant at a young age. And I married her and took care of both of them. I know taking responsibility for one's actions is not a popular concept in America today. But it's how I was raised.

If it's happening to someone else, then it should be their decision. No one should have a say in what a single mother or married couple decide to do regarding a pregnancy.

Being pro-choice can have different meanings for different people, usually the differences are about at what stage of the pregnancy should the woman be allowed to abort. But denying a woman in her first trimester an abortion simply because she may have had what you define as "promiscuous or careless sex", is definitely not pro-choice.

Burdening a woman with a child who is not financially or mentally ready to have a child, is not teaching her a lesson. It's setting both the woman and child up for a lifetime of hurt. I also thinks it hurts the innocent child more than it does anyone else.

[Umka36 781]

There are time I want to strangle my sons, would that be considered late-term/belated abortion? NM, that would be murder/homicide and everyone can agree that is wrong.

On a serious note, this is too complicated of an issue and I've swung both ways during my short existence. There are valid points on both sides, but it's one of those topic in which people will have to agree to disagree.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Umka36

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Ok, but still a tough call to make. Not being a woman (today), I cannot say how I would feel towards a child born after a rape incident. Not sure my love would overcome, or if I would grow to resent the constant reminder. If you could handle it, kudos to you!

why not? i know myself. that being said, that's the sort of situation where you don't really know how you'll react until it happens to you. not much a matter of a rape being traumatic (a given) or a child being bothersome (separate your concept of 'child' and 'zygote/embryo/fetus)

[millefleur 5,046]

I've only known one woman who used abortion as a regular source of birth control. Not sure exactly how many she had, but let's just say it was what most people would consider excessive. So, down the road later when she actually wanted to have kids in her late 30s, she basically had compromised her fertility and was rendered barren. Even with modern meds and in vitro, she wasn't able to carry a child. She ended up having multiple miscarriages and then the doctors just told her: "Stop trying. You had your chance when you were younger. It's over now. We're sorry."

People will reap what they sow. Yes, the whole thing is sad and even disgusting to most people, but there's a moral price you pay as an individual for choices like those. Guilt will come, people will end up regretting and that is a form of punishment unto itself. Still, that said, I wouldn't force anyone to go through with having a child, and I just don't think it decisions like that belong in the realm of law. The issue is complicated from a personal/philosophical/moral standpoint, hence why the legal standpoint will always be a source of heated discussion and debate.

[smilesammich 10,727]

Ok, but still a tough call to make. Not being a woman (today), I cannot say how I would feel towards a child born after a rape incident. Not sure my love would overcome, or if I would grow to resent the constant reminder. If you could handle it, kudos to you!

well, you couldn't possibly know no what it is to be pregnant either. point being, women have autonomy of their bodies as human beings and this means that men can only have an opinion based on a unrealistic hypothetical, nothing more.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

I had two kidney stones at the same time. Women who have had them and given birth say the stones are much worse than childbirth. So I KNOW.

well, you couldn't possibly know no what it is to be pregnant either. point being, women have autonomy of their bodies as human beings and this means that men can only have an opinion based on a unrealistic hypothetical, nothing more.