What's new

Right to abortion overturned by US Supreme Court after nearly 50 years in Roe v Wade ruling

Where do you stand on the abortion debate?


  • Total voters
    28

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,977
(CNN)Coinciding with Friday's March for Life in Washington, President Donald Trump's administration announced new measures to support the anti-abortion cause.

Included is a move that may allow states to cut Medicaid funding to reproductive healthcare programs like Planned Parenthood.

Specifically, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a letter to state Medicaid directors rescinding an Obama administration directive from April 2016, which warned cuts to family planning providers would break federal law.

"We are reinstating flexibility for state Medicaid directors to establish reasonable standards and protect program integrity in their own state programs," said Charmaine Yoest, assistant secretary of public affairs at HHS, in a Friday press call.

"It's essential to protect and defend the prohibition of Medicaid coverage from most abortion procedures. ... This is part of the Trump administration's commitment to rolling back regulations the Obama administration put out to radically favor abortion," said Yoest, who formerly served as the president and CEO of Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group.

This development threatens to do more than combat abortion access; it could block birth control access and other preventative care by denying Medicaid patients coverage from the only health care provider they have, Planned Parenthood argues.

"On the anniversary of the historic Women's March, the Trump-Pence administration makes their agenda crystal clear: They are laser-focused on using their power to control women's bodies and lives," Dawn Laguens, executive vice president for Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a written statement.

"They couldn't get the votes to pass it in Congress, so now they are pushing states to try and block care at Planned Parenthood," she said. "Longstanding protections within Medicaid safeguard every person's right to access care at their qualified provider of choice."

Also on the Friday call was Roger Severino, a former director at the conservative Heritage Foundation, where he then spoke out against attempts by the Obama administration to protect transgender patient care. Now he is the director of HHS' Office of Civil Rights.

On Thursday his office introduced a new unit, the Conscience and Religious Freedom Division, meant to protect health care providers "from being coerced into participating in activities that violate their consciences, such as abortion, sterilization, or assisted suicide," a press release stated.

His office laid out on Friday a 216-page proposed rule -- "Protecting Statutory Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority" -- to bolster the mission. It requires, for instance, that providers seeking federal grants certify compliance with conscience-protection statutes.

"America's doctors and nurses are dedicated to saving lives and should not be bullied out of the practice of medicine simply because they object to performing abortions against their conscience," Severino said in a press release. "Today's proposed rule will provide our Conscience and Religious Freedom Division with enforcement tools that will make sure our conscience laws are not empty words on paper, but guarantees of justice to victims of unlawful discrimination."

Ever since the announcement of this new division, there's been speculation about how this idea of "conscience protection" might play out in real life. Could a health care provider who objects to the LGBTQ community deny treatment of, say, a transgender woman who has the flu?

"We want people from all walks of life to be served and to be able to serve so that everybody has an equal seat at the table in the receipt of medical care and the provision of care regardless of their religious beliefs or moral convictions," he said during Friday's call. "The way these conscience claims work is that providers do not deny service to patients because of identities. What happens is providers choose not to provide or engage in certain procedures at all."

A quick word search in the 216-page proposed rule shows that the word "abortion" is mentioned 155 times, while "transgender" does not appear once.

But this gives little comfort to organizations like Lambda Legal, which works on behalf of the LGBTQ community.

"The proposed rule doesn't just protect health care institutions and medical providers who refuse care on religious grounds, it shields anyone who claims a 'moral' objection too," Camilla Taylor, acting legal director for Lambda Legal, said in a written statement. "Health workers would not only get to refuse to provide care themselves; they will be protected even when they refuse to give a patient a referral."
The rule succeeds in "weaponizing HHS's Office of Civil Rights against us," she said. "It turns the Hippocratic Oath into the Hypocritical Oath and violates the most basic tenets of medical ethics."
Other organizations, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, commended HHS' new initiatives.

"For more than 40 years -- dating back to the Church amendment of 1973 -- Congress has enacted federal laws protecting rights of conscience in health care," the conference chairmen said in a written statement. "We are grateful that HHS is taking seriously its charge to protect these fundamental civil rights."

How frequently health care providers will file complaints on religious or moral grounds remains to be seen. Over the past eight years, there have been a total of 10 religious complaints filed, Serevino said.
But as of mid-January, 34 complaints have come in this year, which he credits to the new administration.

"Since the election of President Donald Trump and the change in tone we've communicated to Americans that their rights will be respected, their cases will be investigated and treated appropriately," Serevino said. And the spike in numbers show that "the issues are real ... the complainants are there, and that we've opened the doors and let people know that we actually will take your complaint seriously and intend to enforce the law."

http://edition.cnn.com/2018/01/19/health/hhs-medicaid-abortions-conscience-protections/index.html
 
Absolutely anti. You cannot murder an unborn just because of your own idiocy. Is it legal to murder a baby a minute after it is born? Then why should it's murder be legal when it is in it's mother's womb?
 
Last edited:
Depends on the medical condition of both mother and fetus.

Also in the incidence of child born out of rape, congenital anomalies not withstanding life, cardiac diseases of mother which can kill her during pregnancy etc require abortion for the well being of everyone.
 
Absolutely anti. You cannot murder an unborn just because of your own idiocy. Is it legal to murder a baby a minute after it is born? Then why should it's murder be legal when it is in it's mother's womb?

When do you think life begins ?
 
Depends on the medical condition of both mother and fetus.

Also in the incidence of child born out of rape, congenital anomalies not withstanding life, cardiac diseases of mother which can kill her during pregnancy etc require abortion for the well being of everyone.

Pretty much this and I'll add I am okay with it uptil a certain point, I'd say 12.
 
Sometimes people just wanna have fun without caring about the consequences especially when they're young.
 
I can relate such a sick, pathetic incident. It involves the family of my best friend from school.

The story is he is a Bihari born and brought up here in Guwahati. He is a pakka Assamese except that his roots are from Bihar. His elder sister gets married to a guy from Bihar who has lived in Bihar all his life. He is a nice guy overall. But his in laws are devilish.

She gets pregnant. As we all know, it's a heinous crime in India to determine the sex of an unborn baby. But we also know what law and order means in Bihar and UP. The boy's parents managed to bribe a doctor to find out the sex of the unborn baby. Turned out that it was a girl. Those devils forcefully aborted the baby against the will of it's parents. The whole thing happened way back in 2007.
 
Last edited:
Anyways, just a couple of years later she gave birth to a baby boy. They are now happy and have moved over the whole incident.
 
This is actually a tricky question. I am against it generally unless the reasons provided are absolutely compelling. Like rape victims, girl under age, threat to woman's life etc. Hence i believe every case should be looked at individually. This has its own demerits. Extra burden on judiciary. Pregnancy is such a case where people cant afford the judiciary to its own sweet time. The last thing we want is that a judgement comes after the mother delivers the baby.

In an ideal world every hospital should have a department who should look at every case independently and take a call. They should be allowed to do so by law. However, we know the world we live in and how corruption has made us lose conscience. Such departments cant be trusted.

I am afraid a lot of thought has to go into how to regulate the procedure. And yes due to the compelling reasons i mentioned, it cannot and should not be outlawed.

I feel sorry for people who get pregnany because of failure of protection. Poor guys cant even prove it.
 
Last edited:
The moment a baby's heart starts beating in it's mother's womb.

That may be around the six week stage of pregnancy when the foetus is the size of a lentil bean.

So how could you "murder" that can't live outside the mother's body ?
 
I believe in a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, up to the point where the baby can survive outside her.

In the U.K. the limit is set to 24 weeks, though that might be moved earlier if medical techniques improve.
 
I believe in a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, up to the point where the baby can survive outside her.

In the U.K. the limit is set to 24 weeks, though that might be moved earlier if medical techniques improve.

A question here, what if she had agreed to have a baby with her partner initially but retracted later? What if Her partner still wants the baby? obviously he has emotions too and it would be injustice to him. There are all sorts of possibilities to consider.
 
Abortion should be OK if the baby is unhealthy or if it is a clear case of rape. If two consulting adults or teens in most cases do not want to take up responsibility while knowing the potential consequences of their actions, than NO. Hiding from your past does no help you in the long run. Abortion because of fooling around creates a laundry list of problems. I remember I gave a speech in class in college (2nd class, 1st task) about it and there were two reactions. Those who couldn’t believe that somebody was saying what I was saying (concept of love in Hollywood, movies, etc and seek permission of parents and do not rush) and those who very happy that somebody was talking about this. The U.S. has the highest ratio of abortion, pregnancy, and birth in teens amongst all the developed nations. It’s because the right say NO and the left say YES. There is no cushion for someone not sure to fit in.
 
I believe in a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body, up to the point where the baby can survive outside her.

In the U.K. the limit is set to 24 weeks, though that might be moved earlier if medical techniques improve.

I dont believe a woman or anyone has a right to stop a child from being born unless the mothers life is at risk or she was raped.

In the UK over half a million are aborted, this is nothing less than mass murder. Its so common, there is hardly any thought by some.
 
Here's the thing. if human beings followed the guidance of God, there would be no reason to abort.
 
A question here, what if she had agreed to have a baby with her partner initially but retracted later? What if Her partner still wants the baby? obviously he has emotions too and it would be injustice to him. There are all sorts of possibilities to consider.

You can't change your decision for MTP according to your mood swings. Ideally, the doctor counsels a lot about the pros and cons of abortion, the procedure and it's complications. Then he/she takes a written informed consent for MTP from both the husband and wife. If 1 partner disagrees, they can't terminate the pregnancy. There are a lot of legalities involved in this procedure.
 
Anyways, just a couple of years later she gave birth to a baby boy. They are now happy and have moved over the whole incident.

Unfortunately, the mindset of the rural areas up north is very tough to change. Illegal abortions and death are very common there.
 
Mothers well being comes first, sadly I also believe it's her choice even in cases it is a selfish reason.

God has given the choice of will to us,so surely he/she expects us to make the decision.
 
Why would the Medical advice from God come midterm? God's guidance is from the onset.

Some underlying cardiac conditions might appear for the 1st time and become worse during the midterm and the last trimester of pregnancy. Cardiac output increases and the heart won't be able to function properly and it fails. There might not be any signs of this during the onset of prenancy.
 
So what's your belief about those who die as a result of going ahead with a risky pregnancy? They've all done something wrong in the past and God has killed them for it?

No. Simple, God's will. No different to a mother dying after a few years after birth.

What is your point?
 
Some underlying cardiac conditions might appear for the 1st time and become worse during the midterm and the last trimester of pregnancy. Cardiac output increases and the heart won't be able to function properly and it fails. There might not be any signs of this during the onset of prenancy.

How about this, in the trimester, a meteorite is destined for Earth, and the worry puts pressure on the mother's heart, cardiac output increases? OR, the husband of the pregnant woman cheats on his wife during pregnancy? Where does this hypothetical idiocy end?

You are basically saying that a child should be aborted in the later stages because the mother isn't up for it.

Stress is the biggest killer, and if we all followed God's guidance, there would be no stress in the scenarios you have described.
 
No. Simple, God's will. No different to a mother dying after a few years after birth.

What is your point?

I've not got a point, just curious over your viewpoint. You stated that a women should follow the guidance of God. If they die as a result of what was determined would be a risky pregnancy that could've been prevented by an abortion then surely the guidance of God wasn't correct?
 
A question here, what if she had agreed to have a baby with her partner initially but retracted later? What if Her partner still wants the baby? obviously he has emotions too and it would be injustice to him. There are all sorts of possibilities to consider.

I would day that society is still so heavily biased towards men that the alleged father should have no say in the matter. It is the woman's body, not his.
 
I've not got a point, just curious over your viewpoint. You stated that a women should follow the guidance of God. If they die as a result of what was determined would be a risky pregnancy that could've been prevented by an abortion then surely the guidance of God wasn't correct?

No, I did NOT state Women should follow the guidance of God. Cite me up. I said if *humans* followed the guidance of Allah. This include Man too. I was not specific to women only.

Let me be blunt. If humans followed the guidance of God, there would be no need for Wanton Sex, and no need for Bast**d children. There would be no need for contraceptives. Rape would not exist. Women and men would be considered equal. These aforementioned points are the primary reasons for abortion.

If a Woman dies while giving birth, this is the will of God. Life goes on. It is no different to a man dying before his child is born.
 
I dont believe a woman or anyone has a right to stop a child from being born unless the mothers life is at risk or she was raped.

In the UK over half a million are aborted, this is nothing less than mass murder. Its so common, there is hardly any thought by some.

Why should it matter to you if she has been raped? Surely aborting the foetus in that situation is still murder to you?

Plenty of foetuses are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body before she even knows she is pregnant. By your definition she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
 
How about this, in the trimester, a meteorite is destined for Earth, and the worry puts pressure on the mother's heart, cardiac output increases? OR, the husband of the pregnant woman cheats on his wife during pregnancy? Where does this hypothetical idiocy end?

You are basically saying that a child should be aborted in the later stages because the mother isn't up for it.

Stress is the biggest killer, and if we all followed God's guidance, there would be no stress in the scenarios you have described.

Stress is a killer but a pregnant woman with certain heart disease are more vulnerable for death. Ignorance is not an excuse when the life of a person is at stake.
 
Stress is a killer but a pregnant woman with certain heart disease are more vulnerable for death. Ignorance is not an excuse when the life of a person is at stake.

You night as well claim a woman should abort her child because mid pregnancy she realised she could not afford a child because her 401K/ISA torpedoed during a market crash.
 
You night as well claim a woman should abort her child because mid pregnancy she realised she could not afford a child because her 401K/ISA torpedoed during a market crash.

I am a doctor and i am talking from a medical point of view. I have expressed my opinions on this topic earlier itself. Don't think i need to explain it anymore.
 
I am a doctor and i am talking from a medical point of view. I have expressed my opinions on this topic earlier itself. Don't think i need to explain it anymore.

As a Doctor you should know that there are no axioms in biology.

Best! :)
 
Why should it matter to you if she has been raped? Surely aborting the foetus in that situation is still murder to you?

Plenty of foetuses are spontaneously aborted by the mother's body before she even knows she is pregnant. By your definition she is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

Taking a potential life or taking a life(in other circumstaces) can be permitted for different reasons. In this case its for the health of the mother. The trauma of being raped and then having to have a child which will remind the person of probably was the worst thing ever to happen to them, is a health issue.

No it's not manslaughter in any form as the mother has made no personal decision(with her mind) but the body has taken it's natural course.
 
I dont believe a woman or anyone has a right to stop a child from being born unless the mothers life is at risk or she was raped.

In the UK over half a million are aborted, this is nothing less than mass murder. Its so common, there is hardly any thought by some.
As I asked another poster - when do you think life begins ?

92% of abortions in the UK occur before 13 weeks. A foetus cannot independently survive outside the womb at this stage.

So you cannot "murder" something that isn't a life yet. That's why the legal consensus is that abortions cannot occur after 24 weeks when the foetus is viable.
 
As I asked another poster - when do you think life begins ?

92% of abortions in the UK occur before 13 weeks. A foetus cannot independently survive outside the womb at this stage.

So you cannot "murder" something that isn't a life yet. That's why the legal consensus is that abortions cannot occur after 24 weeks when the foetus is viable.

This is merely a technicality. Once a woman is pregnant, she will go on to give birth to a human being. Just because it hasn't evolved into anything doesnt mean you are not taking a life.

Over HALF A MILLION yearly in the UK are aborted. This is a very sick culture imo.
 
This is merely a technicality. Once a woman is pregnant, she will go on to give birth to a human being. Just because it hasn't evolved into anything doesnt mean you are not taking a life.

That's not true at all. Human reproduction is a very inefficient process. 50-80% of fertilised eggs don't implant in the mother's womb.

Of those that survive beyond implantation, another 30% is lost due to "spontaneous" or naturally occurring abortion - which is infact the most common complication of pregnancy.

So murder is a highly misleading term for abortions which the vast majority of are conducted at a stage when all you have is just a bundle of cells.
 
Taking a potential life or taking a life(in other circumstaces) can be permitted for different reasons. In this case its for the health of the mother. The trauma of being raped and then having to have a child which will remind the person of probably was the worst thing ever to happen to them, is a health issue.

No it's not manslaughter in any form as the mother has made no personal decision(with her mind) but the body has taken it's natural course.

But what makes the health of the mother more important than the health of the foetus?

Why do you think the trauma of rape will go away if the foetus is aborted? Surely a baby to love could be a good thing to come out of that horrible crime?

Manslaughter means someone kills someone without malice aforethought. That is to say by no decision with the mind. If a woman’s system expels the foetus, by your definition the mother is guilty of manslaughter.
 
That's not true at all. Human reproduction is a very inefficient process. 50-80% of fertilised eggs don't implant in the mother's womb.

Of those that survive beyond implantation, another 30% is lost due to "spontaneous" or naturally occurring abortion - which is infact the most common complication of pregnancy.

So murder is a highly misleading term for abortions which the vast majority of are conducted at a stage when all you have is just a bundle of cells.

Whatever happens naturally in the body is irrelevant here. Pregnant as in when a baby is on its way. If you know you will definitely have a child, dont kill it, simple.
 
But what makes the health of the mother more important than the health of the foetus?

Why do you think the trauma of rape will go away if the foetus is aborted? Surely a baby to love could be a good thing to come out of that horrible crime?

Manslaughter means someone kills someone without malice aforethought. That is to say by no decision with the mind. If a woman’s system expels the foetus, by your definition the mother is guilty of manslaughter.

The health of the mother always come first because she is living and has a life behind her.

I never said it would go away, i would think it never does. Sure a woman may love the baby even if its from a rape and if she wants to keep it, it's her choice. But many, probably the vast majority wouldn't want a child which came from being raped as they will be reminded regularly of what happened to them.

My definition is when someone makes a decision with their brain, not what the body does as the woman has no control over this.
 
Mrs James strongly disagrees with me on this one and I generally keep it to myself anyway, but to be honest I am very Anti.

If the mother’s life is at risk due to foetus, or if the mother conceived after being raped, then abortion should absolutely be an option on the table and with instantaneous easy access - but aside from these scenarios I just can’t bring myself to agree with it. It IS taking a life away no matter how it gets justified or spun.

Family planning should be worked out very carefully - ideally within marriage, but if not, then within a long-term, loving and super-stable relationship where the parents have co-habited for a while. In these cases, why would you abort anyway? Not due to disability surely? Parents who don’t want to bring up a disadvantaged child are no parents at all.

As for the teenagers and drunkards who irresponsibly mess up then, well - man up, deal with the consequences of your actions, and raise the child. No better way to learn about life I guess.
 
Mrs James strongly disagrees with me on this one and I generally keep it to myself anyway, but to be honest I am very Anti.

If the mother’s life is at risk due to foetus, or if the mother conceived after being raped, then abortion should absolutely be an option on the table and with instantaneous easy access - but aside from these scenarios I just can’t bring myself to agree with it. It IS taking a life away no matter how it gets justified or spun.

Family planning should be worked out very carefully - ideally within marriage, but if not, then within a long-term, loving and super-stable relationship where the parents have co-habited for a while. In these cases, why would you abort anyway? Not due to disability surely? Parents who don’t want to bring up a disadvantaged child are no parents at all.

As for the teenagers and drunkards who irresponsibly mess up then, well - man up, deal with the consequences of your actions, and raise the child. No better way to learn about life I guess.

Im sure you know of girls who did have their baby in these circumstances but then we have another problem, the epidemic of young single mothers. There are now complexes where single mothers live, some claim to be vulnerable but it's mostly due to them not having the needs to provide after their partner has decided not to be a father.

A poster mentioned guidance of God. God suggests, you get married at a youngish age and before this do not have any physical intimate relations. This simple and old age way of living will save society having to abort babies, reducing single mothers, reducing STD's etc . People claim humanity has advanced and it has in many areas but when it comes to the family model its breaking down.
 
Its a very difficult question and one that has been at the forefront of Irish politics since the death of Savita a couple years back, a referendum is due to be held this summer on the question.

Im conflicted. I dont like the idea of abortions and in an ideal world they would not need to occur. But we dont live in an ideal world and women do become pregnant through abuse, rape, assault or pure accident.

With this in mind and knowing that its very cruel on both mother and child to force someone to carry and birth a baby that will never truly be loved, I am in favour. I would rather it only be available in cases of rape, fatal foetal abnormality or a threat to the mothers life if the pregnancy continues, but ultimately a woman deserves the right to bodily autonomy, even if I find the idea of people using abortions due to being too careless to prevent conception reckless and irresponsible.
 
I'm firmly pro-choice.


Parents can decide if they want to conceive the baby or not. Also some times the baby is conceived out of rape or the doctors inform the parents that the baby has severe deformities which may effect their quality of life when the grow up.


However, there has to be a limit to when you can abort the child. If you are thinking about abortion after six months when the baby is almost completely formed then you are taking a life and I'm firmly against it.
 
I think it's horrible but sometimes the best choice so I would have to say I'm pro.

Raising a child can't be easy. And some people just are not fit to be parents. The sleepless nights, an extra mouth to feed, the sacrifices you have to make, the amount of money you spend on them, all the stress when they're in the teens etc. Sometimes abortion is the most sensible thing to do, but people should use contraception if they don't want children because abortion is still horrible and ideally should be avoided if people practice birth control. And abortion should be done as soon as possible where necessary, so the foetus suffers the least possible pain.
 
The health of the mother always come first because she is living and has a life behind her.

I never said it would go away, i would think it never does. Sure a woman may love the baby even if its from a rape and if she wants to keep it, it's her choice. But many, probably the vast majority wouldn't want a child which came from being raped as they will be reminded regularly of what happened to them.

My definition is when someone makes a decision with their brain, not what the body does as the woman has no control over this.

OK fair enough on your definition.

But by saying that the life of the mother is more impoortant than the life of the baby of the mother is in distress, aren't you saying that one human life is more important than another - sort of abortionist-lite?
 
I'm firmly pro-choice.


Parents can decide if they want to conceive the baby or not. Also some times the baby is conceived out of rape or the doctors inform the parents that the baby has severe deformities which may effect their quality of life when the grow up.


However, there has to be a limit to when you can abort the child. If you are thinking about abortion after six months when the baby is almost completely formed then you are taking a life and I'm firmly against it.

Even after fertilization this become a life so time is illogical thing to decide about though american medical ethics say that it can be done in first trimester but debatable in last 6 months.
personally for me and according to pakistani law its crime until and unless it endangers mother life.
so personally in my medical practice i will go by pakistani law which i think is right.
 
Should not be done except in case of danger to the mother life.Thats it.

What about cases where the protections or contraceptives proved faulty or ineffective? I am afraid such couples are doomed??
 
What about cases where the protections or contraceptives proved faulty or ineffective? I am afraid such couples are doomed??

Then the couple have to take responsibility ,after all it were them to do it.The human life is important right from the first second of fertilization.
 
Then the couple have to take responsibility ,after all it were them to do it.The human life is important right from the first second of fertilization.

Yes they have to take responsibility for the mistakes of the manufacturers i reckon. Sad but true.
 
In some cases it’s acceptable when you got no choice..

But if someone aborts because it’s a girl then it’s pathetic and that sick person does not deserve ever to raise any child..
 
Even after fertilization this become a life so time is illogical thing to decide about though american medical ethics say that it can be done in first trimester but debatable in last 6 months.
personally for me and according to pakistani law its crime until and unless it endangers mother life.
so personally in my medical practice i will go by pakistani law which i think is right.

What if the mother had rubella in the 1st trimester or has consumed some teratogenic drugs? What about rape pregnancies? And pregnancies in mentally unsound patient?
 
What if the mother had rubella in the 1st trimester or has consumed some teratogenic drugs? What about rape pregnancies? And pregnancies in mentally unsound patient?

according to the law and our religion it should not be aborted. and i think rightly so ,like will you will kill someone beacause he is mentally ******** or having a serious illness.no..
 
according to the law and our religion it should not be aborted. and i think rightly so ,like will you will kill someone beacause he is mentally ******** or having a serious illness.no..

Another point is, will the parents love an unwanted child? What conditions will he grow up in? Will the be fair to the kid himself? What to do about it?
 
according to the law and our religion it should not be aborted. and i think rightly so ,like will you will kill someone beacause he is mentally ******** or having a serious illness.no..
What if a mother is poor and can't afford anything and she is raped? How is it fair on her?

What if a married woman is raped? The child be condemned to a completely disastrous childhood.

Abortions should be legal till first trimester. If events happen outside the control of a human.
 
Another point is, will the parents love an unwanted child? What conditions will he grow up in? Will the be fair to the kid himself? What to do about it?

This is another issue if the parents do not love him he can be taken care of.and that should be done by the government.
 
Another point is, will the parents love an unwanted child? What conditions will he grow up in? Will the be fair to the kid himself? What to do about it?

Like you know child abuse whether physcal ,mental should be reported and law has to take action.
 
The body of a woman belongs to her and only she can decide whether she wants to carry on the pregnancy.

Also if a couple dont want a responsibility it cannot be forced upon them.
 
Strongly pro choice. At no point should anyone other than the woman carrying a fetus have a say on whether or not she gets to abort it or not if she wants to.
 
It is a very subjective debate just like death penalty or mercy killing.

In case of a woman who gets pregnant due to raped or an underage pregnancy it is totally justified.

Lean towards pro choice but there could be a lot of abusing the system with this as well.
 
Strongly pro choice. At no point should anyone other than the woman carrying a fetus have a say on whether or not she gets to abort it or not if she wants to.

What about husband / partner of the woman? Does it not affect his life massively as well?
 
This is another issue if the parents do not love him he can be taken care of.and that should be done by the government.

Even if the government takes care of the kid, wont it still be injustice to the kid? Because the govt. forced the parents to keep the kid and forced the kid to be born into such a life where nobody loves him? What kind of childhood will he have?
 
Pro abortion up until a certain point, it needs to be decided by the larger community when a foetus can be considered to have legal rights as a human being.

Besides we already have too many humans, do you guys want to destroy earth in the next hundred years with your non aborted babies over populating it??
 
What about husband / partner of the woman? Does it not affect his life massively as well?

It might have an emotional impact but IMO the husband/partner's rights end where the woman's right to autonomy over her body begins so while it may be a bitter pill to swallow, such is life.
 
Overall anti with few exceptions.... if you really don't want to get pregnant then there are whole raft of preventative measures available pre and post sexual activity.

1. Life of mother has precedence over the baby.
2. Cases of rape/incest
 
I dont believe a woman or anyone has a right to stop a child from being born unless the mothers life is at risk or she was raped.

In the UK over half a million are aborted, this is nothing less than mass murder. Its so common, there is hardly any thought by some.

It isn't murder, because you cannot kill something that isn't alive.
FYI, the medical definition of beginning of life, is the exact opposite of the medical definition of beginning of death : involving brain function. If you have brain-waves, you are alive. if you do not have brain-waves, you are dead. Doesn't matter if your heart is beating or not.

So when a woman is aborting a foetus that does not have a brain function, she is removing something that is IDENTICAL to a tumor at THAT stage : a mass of fast, differentiating cells, which have no brain function and therefore, is not alive.

It is a woman's right to choose what to do with the foetus, since it is inside her own body. If humanity laid eggs like birds, then you could argue that the choice is also the father's (since then, the father could 'sit on the egg' and bring it to fruition and thus, have equal claim to maternity of the child).

Also, i find it ironic that people who are anti-abortion, are not exactly going around adopting each and every orphan kid out there. It sends the message that anti-abortionists don't ACTUALLY care for the suffering or well being of children,its just an ideological point for them, thats it.
 
Another point is, will the parents love an unwanted child? What conditions will he grow up in? Will the be fair to the kid himself? What to do about it?


To be fair, there is always open adoption process- where one can give up the child to be adopted by a childless family.
 
It isn't murder, because you cannot kill something that isn't alive.
FYI, the medical definition of beginning of life, is the exact opposite of the medical definition of beginning of death : involving brain function. If you have brain-waves, you are alive. if you do not have brain-waves, you are dead. Doesn't matter if your heart is beating or not.

So when a woman is aborting a foetus that does not have a brain function, she is removing something that is IDENTICAL to a tumor at THAT stage : a mass of fast, differentiating cells, which have no brain function and therefore, is not alive.

It is a woman's right to choose what to do with the foetus, since it is inside her own body. If humanity laid eggs like birds, then you could argue that the choice is also the father's (since then, the father could 'sit on the egg' and bring it to fruition and thus, have equal claim to maternity of the child).

Also, i find it ironic that people who are anti-abortion, are not exactly going around adopting each and every orphan kid out there. It sends the message that anti-abortionists don't ACTUALLY care for the suffering or well being of children,its just an ideological point for them, thats it.

Poor reasoning imo. Of course a baby is not formed fully but the process of life has begun. You are killing a future life form, a human being and one that is your own child.
 
It isn't murder, because you cannot kill something that isn't alive.
FYI, the medical definition of beginning of life, is the exact opposite of the medical definition of beginning of death : involving brain function. If you have brain-waves, you are alive. if you do not have brain-waves, you are dead. Doesn't matter if your heart is beating or not.

So when a woman is aborting a foetus that does not have a brain function, she is removing something that is IDENTICAL to a tumor at THAT stage : a mass of fast, differentiating cells, which have no brain function and therefore, is not alive.

It is a woman's right to choose what to do with the foetus, since it is inside her own body. If humanity laid eggs like birds, then you could argue that the choice is also the father's (since then, the father could 'sit on the egg' and bring it to fruition and thus, have equal claim to maternity of the child).

Also, i find it ironic that people who are anti-abortion, are not exactly going around adopting each and every orphan kid out there. It sends the message that anti-abortionists don't ACTUALLY care for the suffering or well being of children,its just an ideological point for them, thats it.
You can't jump off a bridge and than decide halfway to go back up. One hand washes the other.
 
Poor reasoning imo. Of course a baby is not formed fully but the process of life has begun. You are killing a future life form, a human being and one that is your own child.

The process of life having begun doesn't make it alive. If you want to extend 'process of life has begun' to non-living clumps of cell, well the process of life has begun when you start producing sperm. Ergo, when you have a wet dream, you are killing millions of 'would-be babies'.
Each time a woman has a period, she is 'killing a future baby of hers' - the only difference between her egg and a blastocyst, is the # of cells, that's it.

The line is very precise and sharp: It is not a living entity, until it has a brain function. It is not an independent living entity, unless it is capable of living without direct biological dependency on another living organism.
 
Back
Top