The Abortion Exception

[Monkey]

i was anti aboriton till i found out my mom had an abortion before giving birth to me, but apparently that was for good reason, something about medical complications

[pwninator]

Originally Posted by Easy-Mack

If there are "grey areas" in your argument, you don't feel "strongly" about it.

Grey areas in the discussion, not in my feeling on the subject. The issue of rape and incest are the areas I am refering to, many feel that these are the main exceptions. Another area, which personally repulses me is women having an abortion after finding out the child will have a disability like down syndrome or many other kind of handicaps.

[Annoyance]

Originally Posted by pwninator

Grey areas in the discussion, not in my feeling on the subject. The issue of rape and incest are the areas I am refering to, many feel that these are the main exceptions. Another area, which personally repulses me is women having an abortion after finding out the child will have a disability like down syndrome or many other kind of handicaps.

That's a parental choice.

It's a personal thing, but having a child with a defect scares the living hell out of me. I want kids in the future, but I can't think of how I'll go through raising a child with down syndrome. I'm just not able to do it.
Plus, those classes don't come cheap. Those short buses, the classes, the extra courses, doctor visits.
It isn't fun.

Granted, some disabilities I think the parents can suck it up. But for others... I just don't want to be a parent and put my own child through torment like that.

[Phoenix]

If we can go and adopt kids from countries like Africa and China, obviously we don't have many available for adoption here.

Excuse me?

I'm not forcing anything on you, stop trying to use that. I'm tellin you how I see it and I am curious to why you are so against it considering that I am not using religion, but rather logic.

You know what pro-life is, right? It's the position that, if someone gets pregnant, you will force the person to have the baby. You are aware of this, right?

Saying that you would never abort is not pro-life, people from both camps can think this. Someone who believes in pro-choice, however, would say that they're not going to force other people to live their lives in a certain way.

How is forcing someone to deliver a baby not shoving beliefs down someone's throat? It's the very definition of belief-shoving!

[Soughtdragon]

Honestly, I don't care. I used to know a girl in my highschool that had multiple abortions almost as a form of birth control, and I didn't care then, of course, neither did she. If she wants to have so many abortions then that is her deal and she'll have to deal with those repercussions, whatever those may be, later, or maybe not, just depends on the person. People can argue forever and it doesn't really solve a thing.

[krexia]

Originally Posted by pwninator

Grey areas in the discussion, not in my feeling on the subject. The issue of rape and incest are the areas I am refering to, many feel that these are the main exceptions. Another area, which personally repulses me is women having an abortion after finding out the child will have a disability like down syndrome or many other kind of handicaps.

Saying things like, "It's okay to abort in cases of rape, but not one night stands," is begging the fundamental question here. That question being, "Is abortion intrinsically morally wrong?"

If it isn't, abortion should be acceptable under all circumstances at the sole discretion of the mother.

If abortion is intrinsically morally wrong, the next question is, "Why?"

Yes, a foetus is living - but taking life isn't morally wrong. We spray spiders in our homes, we wolf down cheeseburgers, we kill countless animals for sport, food, research and more every second of every day, and society at large has no qualms about it. When we say that 'killing is wrong' we're talking about killing human beings; we're the only special case to whom the right to life applies.

So the debate comes down to a question of what constitutes a human being. Some people hold superstitions about 'souls' or other intangible unprovable evidence of humanity, but such ideas can not hold any kind of weight in legal, practical scenarios.

In society at large, a human being is defined primarily by their mind, specifically their capacity for consciousness and sentience. This is why, even in countries that prohibit euthanasia, it's okay to harvest organs from a human body whose brain has been irreparably destroyed. Whole-brain death is legally considered death of the human being, even if their body survives or is kept alive artificially. Without the capacity for consciousness, no human being exists.

"Current neurology suggests that a foetus doesn't possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead." (Source, paraphrased from Michael Gazzaniga's The Ethical Brain).

That is, according to current scientific evidence coupled with societal and legal views of humanity, a foetus is not a human being before about 26 weeks into a pregnancy. Aborting a foetus at 22 weeks is destroying life, but it is not killing a human being.

Given all this, I have to wonder on what basis - other than the entirely untenable position derived from the supposed existence of 'souls' - one might claim that early-term abortion is intrinsically morally wrong.

[stephaknee]

Abortion amendment in health care bills ignites debate over women's medical care - ABC News

Relevant, as it addresses the "abortion exception." Do you think it restricts women's rights?

[Ulti]

Rights have always been limited. At least they will fund abortions at all.