The Abortion Issue - Can it be Solved?

Hello everyone, this is for a college project that I have to write on online deliberation - so please participate and help me out!

As everyone knows abortion is a very controversial issue in the United States, and it does not appear to be going away any time soon. Many people tend to be rather polarized on this issue, but there are also the gray areas where it becomes confusing - maybe abortion is acceptable in these circumstances, maybe it should be regulated like this, etc.

• Should abortion be completely legal, or completely illegal?
• Or what are certain regulations or circumstances in which possible laws could/should have exceptions? Age restrictions, health reasons, rape cases, insurance policies, cost, etc?
• Is making abortions illegal a violation of the woman's rights? Or is maybe allowing abortions a violation of the unborn child's life?
• How could this debate be solved?

Please let me know your thoughts!

 

What's truly needed is for intelligent people to find loopholes in Roe Vs. Wade and ban abortion in as many states as possible, but subtly.

 

So you are for making all abortions illegal. Do you feel this is a violation of rights in any way, or there should be any exceptions? Do you think this overall ban would be an unpopular idea and that is why you are for banning abortions "subtly"?

 

Start reading....EVERYTHING that ever needed(or didn't need) to be said about abortion you can find in these threads. Pay attention, I can't name the best posters but study a little and you'll know the ones worth reading...


Oh, and the debate has been solved, ..abortion is legal, the Supreme Court solved it.

 

Thank you for your advice, but unfortunately for this project I must provide screen shots and analysis of me actually being involved in the deliberation.

 

I obviously can only offer a personal opinion on this, but as a mother and grandmother, I think my opinion is as valid as any.

I feel that the abortion issue IS resolved, at least the legality of it.

I do not like abortion, and I find that one of my greatest blessings in my life time has been to never been confronted with the decision to abort a fetus or not to abort a fetus. I honestly do not know what I would have done.

But whatever my decision would have been, I am CONVINCED that it would have to be MY decision, and no one else, except that I would have taken input from my husband since he was an active participant in my life and the life of my children. Still MY decision would have been the one that mattered.

I don't think that abortion should be fully legal, because I don't think it should be used on an on-going basis as a form of contraception. . .A woman having one, maybe even two failure of birth control devices/medication may be okay. . .but if abortion is use instead of birth control, that is not alright.

I also do not think that aborting a late term fetus (unless there is a real danger to the mother, or the fetus has some serious congenital defects) should be "free to all." But I believe that it is still the woman's choice whether or not to go ahead with a pregnancy which she knows will end up either in a very deformed newborn, or in bringing a child to this world who has no chance to ever meet human potential and quality of life. . . Only a woman can decide that.

I believe ANY WOMAN should have access to free or at least low cost abortion, but to reduce the number of abortion, what is even more important is for every woman to have free access to birth control.
The age restriction is a very difficult area, since many of the very young girls who get pregnant do it through incest and how do we morally ask the parents of that young girl to be involved in making the decision when the father (or the brother, or the uncle) may be the ones to blame for the abuse that led the pregnancy?

Obviously a ban on abortion would be violating a woman's right! And, as we have seen through history, it wouldn't put an end to abortion ANYWAY. .it would just put a much greater burden on the poor and the disenfranchised who would need to access early term abortion the most! Wealthy women could ALWAYS travel to a country (or a State) where abortion is legal! Poor or very young women wouldn't have that option, and would resume the horrible "back alley" or "self made" abortions of the past. . .many women would die again.

And, no, abortion doesn't infringe on fetus rights. . .early term fetus have no "mind," no brain stems, and have NO potential for life UNLESS the woman carrying that early term fetus GIVES that potential the the fetus.

In addition, the world population is growing at a rate that is NOT sustainable. Obviously time have changed and "more children" is not "more happy, fulfilled children." It is clear that in culture where children survive infancy and toddler stage, there are LESS births as well. So what we should be focusing on is NOT producing more children, but allowing every child that is born to be WANTED.

To accomplish that, we need to emphasize free or very low cost birth control, and. . .in the cases when birth control fails, early term abortion.

And I believe that if a woman has gone through the first 6 months of child bearing, and still chooses to have an abortion, it is NOT a "light" decision, but one that is in that woman's view, a necessity. Most women who reach a 6 or 7 months pregnancy DO care for the fetus. . .or they wouldn't have cared for it for all those months. . .and that abortion after that time are triggered by very valid and overwhelming concepts of health, whether it is the mother's health or the fetus' health.

So I believe that today's law offers a balanced approach to abortion.

 

Very nicely said!

 

You will find here that for the most part the posters are at the two extreme edges of the two stances, there are exceptions though.

To answer you points;

In my opinion I think the supreme court got it about right, the longer the pregnancy goes forward the harder it should be for an elective abortion. That point of viability should be based around the scientific evidence that we have .. ie the chances of a fetus surviving outside of the womb, even with medical intervention, prior to 21 weeks is 0%, if or when our medical know how increases then the viability time line should be reviewed and if necessary changed.

See above for some form of regulations. Abortion should not be withheld from any female of any age and should ALWAYS be a confidential item between the female and the medical staff. Informing parents in my opinion is a breach of the patient - doctor confidentiality. There should be a welfare system that helps the poorest to gain an abortion.

It certainly is a violation of her rights - I find it quite staggering that so many Americans fight so hard to maintain the 2nd amendment but would have no problem with overturning the 14th - I will point you to my earlier answer as to the violation of the unborn rights, in my opinion the point of viability should be the starting point for rights, certainly not conception.

While both sides have extremists it never will be .. I believe that the pro-life people need to climb down from the assumed moral high ground and endorse the only method proving to reduce abortions .. contraception, this should be made freely available, at no cost, to any sexually mature person, and should not be divulged to parents. On the flip side those extremists on the pro-choice campaign should accept that an elective abortion after viability should be illegal.

All of the above are just personal opinions and as such don't hold any power over legislation.

 

Please define for me "the extremes on both sides", meaning please explain to me the viewpoints of both extreme pro lifers and extreme pro abortion people.

Pro lifers do not want to punish women for having sex. They just don't want them to take an innocent life out of convenience, they want them to take responsibility for their actions. Pro lifers have no problem with contraception. If pro lifers were all a bunch of religious fanatics wanting to punish women for sexual immorality, then they would be against birth control. And, yes, some of the religious pro lifers are against birth control. And I disagree with them, despite being a pro lifer myself. But nobody is trying to criminalize birth control.

And even then, their motivations against birth control are not because they want to punish women for sinning, it's because they think it contraception goes against nature/god's plan.

I personally, am not against birth control, it's a woman's reproductive choice, and it should be legal, and it is already.

I'm just trying to debunk this myth that pro lifers want to "punish" women for their sexual decisions. It's simply not true at all.

 

Sorry. .but anytime a comment such as "sinning" enters into a logical debate, I turn off because there is no way "logic" is involved in it!

So called pro-lifers are just focused on the WRONG side of life. . .the side prior to life. If they put as much energy in protecting the childeren born. . .there might be less to discuss about pro-choice to begin with!

 

It is not a myth...
from the extremist whacko:""maybe they should wrap those probes with sand paper before they stick it up there!!!!!!!!!!!!! nice and rough, pro-choicers like that, ..."""" in the "I wish I could stick a wandup a woman" thread...(paraphrasing the title) ""sticking a probe up the woman's hmm-hmmm""" is the actual title and says so much about Anti-Choicers...

to those Anti-Choicers who say they think it's OK to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest but not if the woman enjoyed the sex...that is direct proof that it's punishment they're interested in.


Then there's the FACT that making abortion illegal will make getting an abortion difficult and dangerous...which some Anti-Choicers have applauded...they WANT women's lives to be as hard as possible.....and some have even declared that if a woman dies having an abortion she deserves it.

Then there's the slobbering religious freaks who call it murder and condemn and villify these women as evil, they should be jailed..have sandpaper shoved up their vaginas....and you still believe that punishing women has nothing to do with freaks who are against choice???


Start reading ...

 

What the........? with the sandpaper analogy. I'm not familiar with that arguement, and I don't want to hear it anymore, it's strange.

As for your last two sentences, I have some serious rebuttals. You used the coathanger arguement.

However, if the fetus is a person, that arguement doesn't prove to me that abortion should be legal. Argue with me as if you're arguing with somebody who believes that a fetus/embryo is a person, which is what i believe.

50 million abortions happened since roe vs wade. About a million or so, or maybe a little more than a million, per year. That's just to provide some context for the rest of my arguement, and here it goes.

I will quote Christiananswers.net.

The question-begging nature of the coat-hanger argument is not difficult to discern: only by assuming that the unborn are not fully human does the argument work. If the unborn are not fully human, then the pro-choice advocate has a legitimate concern, just as one would have in overturning a law forbidding appendicitis operations if countless people were needlessly dying of both appendicitis and illegal operations. But if the unborn are fully human, this pro-choice argument is tantamount to saying that because people die or are harmed while killing other people, the state should make it safe for them to do so.

Even some pro-choice advocates, who argue for their position in other ways, admit that the coat hanger/back-alley argument is fallacious. For example, pro-choice philosopher Mary Anne Warren clearly recognizes that her position on abortion cannot rest on this argument without it first being demonstrated that the unborn entity is not fully human. She writes that...

the fact that restricting access to abortion has tragic side effects does not, in itself, show that the restrictions are unjustified, since murder is wrong regardless of the consequences of prohibiting it...[1]

Dr. Nathanson's observation is borne out in the best official statistical studies available. According to the U.S. Bureau of Vital Statistics, there were a mere 39 women who died from illegal abortions in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade.[4] Dr. Andre Hellegers, the late Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Georgetown University Hospital, pointed out that there has been a steady decrease of abortion-related deaths since 1942. That year there were 1,231 deaths. Due to improved medical care and the use of penicillin, this number fell to 133 by 1968.[5] The year before the first state-legalized abortion, 1966, there were about 120 abortion-related deaths.[6]

This is not to minimize the undeniable fact that such deaths were significant losses to the families and loved ones of those who died. But one must be willing to admit the equally undeniable fact that if the unborn are fully human, these abortion-related maternal deaths pale in comparison to the 1.5 million preborn humans who die (on the average) every year."

Now, I don't know what to say in regards to the "punishing women for sex" arguement. I'll think of a good way to refute that arguement, and whenever I think of a good arguement against that, I'll tell you the arguement.

 

I will debunk that arguement about "punishing women for sex". It's an interesting and intelligent arguement, and I give you credit for stating your opinion, but I disagree. Here's why.

I will quote Sec, another poster on these forums, who posted this on another thread. He said this.

A: be responsible for having had her night of pleasure and taking care of that which she created

or

B: not want to be inconvenienced or accountable for her night of pleasure and killing the life

 

Read through this thread, :""sticking a probe up the woman's hmm-hmmm""" is the actual title and says so much about Anti-Choicers...
In it you will find a poster who posted ":""maybe they should wrap those probes with sand paper before they stick it up there!!!!!!!!!!!!! nice and rough, """


I'm not lying...are you afraid to see the truth about Anti-Choicers????


"""Argue with me as if you're arguing with somebody who believes that a fetus/embryo is a person, which is what i believe."""


I don't really have to argue, abortion is legal, as it should be...and your religious site is just ..well, religious and religious people should mind their own business, look at their own lives and take care of their own MANY mistakes, and maybe this world would be a better place.

 

Pro-choice - the woman should be able to choose abortion right up to the point of birth
Pro-life - abortion should be illegal in all cases, including rape, incest.
Pro-abortion - No idea as I don't know any pro-abortion people here.

You are almost certainly wrong as far as most pro-lifers are concerned, they want to stop contraception, they want the only form of birth control to be abstinence, they want sex ed banned in schools etc etc
So what do you call forcing a woman by law to carry a fetus to term if it is not a punishment?

Excuse me .. wasn't it their deity that cursed all woman to suffer pain through childbirth for Eves sin.

Genesis 3:16 - “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe; with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”

apart from that abortion is not mentioned once in the bible, for something so important you would have thought it would have been, I mean god took the time to mention not cutting your hair.

so is an abortion.

go back and read some of the other threads here, then come back and tell me its not about punishment for sexual decisions.

 

I think abortion is destroying a human life, and I think fetuses should be protected (abortion illegal). But I believe that the culture comes first...then the law. If you have a society that does not view life in the womb as valuable---you can not have an effective law protecting it. The same goes for euthanasia, right to die etc. This is one reason why I believe states should decide these issues which allow people to choose and create the society they deem best. Its freedom. Both California and Oklahoma can create laws that align with the values they deem important, even when the values apparent in each state are incredibly different.

This is the reason why I abhor Roe Vs. Wade. Basically a few judges felt they were qualified to decide when human life is worthy of protection. A scary thing. And they decided for all 50 states.

 

And yet none of us have seen any pro-lifers take on the task of picking apart the Roe v Wade decision and refute it. The fact that you don't like it is nothing more than opinion (like how some people hate the 2nd Amendment and some people hate the war on drugs), but to actually refute the whole thing piece by piece is another.

 

A drunk driver who caused a miscarriage (but the pregnant woman live, however she had a miscarriage) was charged with homicide.

Doesn't that prove that abortion laws are hypocritical and inconsistent? Yes, it does. Absolutley.

- - - Updated - - -

Hopefully there are loopholes in Roe Vs. Wade so states can ban abortion.

 

Are you a PSU student too? I am as well, doing the same project!

Anyways, I believe that abortion should be totally legal before the general "viable stage", around 24 weeks. After that is a different subject, and would definitely need to be consider factors such as the mother's health and fetal deformities.

The fact is that a fetus is not viable before 24 weeks - the percentage of a fetus living outside the womb before that is very, very slim. Therefore, you can't consider it a person if it cannot breathe on its own, have its heart beat and sustain itself, and so on.

In the end, it's the woman's body who is carrying this potential life for ~9 months, and thus it's her choice. Things happen, and a woman should be able to know she can continue on with her life without the burden of a child.

 

Abortion should be completely legal, for any reason, and at any stage of pregnancy.
There should be no age restrictions, and I do not support parental notification laws.
Making it illegal is a violation of the woman's rights, her rights are more important than a blob of cells.

The issue can be solved if anti abortions get their noses out of a woman's private life and let her make her own choices.

 

Actually no, all it proves is that you cannot assault a pregnant woman and cause her to miscarry against her will, just like you can't force her to give birth against her will. The decision alone should be up to her.

Calling it a homicide is really pushing it, in my opinion, but we have to realize it is a sensitive subject for people and if the woman wanted to carry to term she already viewed the fetus as her child. Laws like this are unfortunately based more on emotion than they are logic. If they are rewritten so that it is not a homicide but assault against a pregnant woman then I think that would keep them from conflicting with Roe v Wade. Women can keep their legal rights to autonomy and criminals can still be prosecuted for severely injuring pregnant women.

You're more than welcome to look for them.

 

Abortion is a tricky issue. I don't think it's murder, exactly, it's more like some weird form of suicide by proxy, so I think that before a woman gets an abortion, she should be honest with herself to know what part of herself does that fetus symbolize that she wants to kill it?

 

It doesn't symbolize anything....it's a kid she doesn't want...


And it's not a "tricky" issue, it's legal as it should be.

 

Put it to ther people during the next Presidential elections, and no debate or lawsuits allowed for 50 years after the vote is taken and the results posted, let the People of America Descide.