Abortion and why it's wrong

I've said my piece earlier in this thread. But I've read every post since. Clearly, no matter how logical, the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers. So to the latter group I pose this:

Let's say you get your way and abortions are outright banned. What do you have to say about the inevitable increase in crime, poverty, suicides, abused children, abused spouses, increased natal and maternal deaths, strain on the already over-capacity world population, increased amount of unpaid child support, increase in teenage pregnancies resulting in births, increase in single struggling mothers without support systems, increase in illegal and much more dangerous abortions, additional strain on the healthcare and welfare systems, increase in children born severely deformed/defective, increase in infant and child mortality? There would probably be even more negative long term results, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Do you have any thoughts on any of this? Or do you think is God going to magically prevent all that from happening because you 'saved the babies'?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
well, surely the government will intervene long before it got that bad!!
ya know take measures to ensure that those who are deformed are not allowed to be carried to term, enforce some kind legislation to ensure that the population is stays within manageable means, and in the case of a threat to the mother's life ensure the baby is aborted for the mother's safety... regardless of weather she wants to risk it or not!!!

it's not a matter of weather there is a choice or not,
it's a matter of who should be making it!
the mother with the counsel of her doctors.
the father's and husband's of the pregnant women,
or...
the monstrosity we call the gov't with it's rigid, non-yielding policies.
it's the mother's body, she is the one who more than likely has the strongest emotional bond to the baby and it's her health that is being being put at risk. I think it should be her choice!

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
doublepost for some reason, sorry

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

So, what you are saying is that in order for people to have a say on whether abortion is right or wrong, people have to take responsibility for the ACTIONS OF ANOTHER. In most cases those actions are "irresponsible", not talking about rape, but about the women who get pregnant because they did not use a condom and simply wanted to have sex without considering the real possibility of getting pregnant, and then deciding to end another life.

BTW, another "right" that has been given to those women who want to abort is that everyone else has to pay, through Obamacare" for the abortion of those women, without the consent of those people who have to pay the health insurance to cover the abortion of others... Once again proclaiming that the rights of women who agree with abortion as a right come first than the rights of others, including other women who do not agree with most abortions and do not want to have to pay insurance companies for the murder of babies...

When we are housing murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves and the like in our prisons, providing them with food and shelter, a college education, medical care...and in many cases, wages and other perks, who do you think pays for that? When people can get their own TV show with everything they could possibly want or need for absolutely no other reason than their ridiculously large amount of offspring, do you think none of that comes out of your pocket? When single moms who didn't opt for abortion have multiple children on EBT and medicaid, who pays for that?

We live in a society where the less fortunate (and often, completely undeserving) are helped out by the more fortunate, and it has been that way all along, so complaining about contributing to an out-patient, ten minute procedure that costs a few hundred dollars at most is a rather lame argument. I don't like the fact that my hard-earned dollars are helping to pay for the upkeep of rapists and child killers, or paying to feed other people who are perfectly capable of getting off their asses and working like the rest of us yet simply choose not to, but that is the way our government is set up and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon.

Since when is the right of some people more important than the rights of others who disagree with a certain moral point of view?

Why don't you pose that question to yourself? Because that is exactly what you are supporting here. I'm guessing that the unbelievable irony of you even asking that question has escaped your notice entirely.

originally posted by: xizd1
Abortion is murder. Doesn't matter how or why you rationalize the decision, it is murder.
The baby has rights too.
A woman has the choice, just as a gunman pointing a weapon at some one's head has a choice.
It is terminating a life, plain and simple.
That is my opinion, you are welcome to your own.
It is still murder.

Simply stating that does not make it so. It's your opinion, not a fact.

The assumption that you seem to make is that as soon as sperm and egg meet, voila, we have a new person. That most certainly is not true. Any abortion that takes place in the first 8 weeks after conception terminates an incomplete embryo, not a person. Bones start to harden in roughly the 12th week and up to that period most of the necessary connections in the tiny brain haven't formed yet and the sex of the foetus is not yet visible. After the 12th week, we might say we have a more or less complete tiny human being, but it is totally incapable of sustaining itself. With a lot of machinery and luck we now can keep a 24 week old foetus alive outside its mothers womb, therefore abortions may not be done after the 23rd week.

But that's theoretical. No mother, nor doctor, wants to terminate a 6 month old pregnacy. Apart from the emotional / ethical issues, it simply is a more dangerous procedure, which endangers the mother too. So, in practice this only happens if there are medical conditions that make it the better option. An example might be if a blood test shows there is a very large possibility of spinae bifida or Down and then additional tests show that the child indeed has a severe case of either or both. In such cases, if there is no doubt that the child will be born with a severe handicap the parents migth decide to terminate the pregnacy still (but not after the 23rd week). This is a very difficult decision to make and it is not done lightly, believe me.

Now, let's check the facts. On average, Dutch woman that abort their pregnancy do so in the 7th week. 95.2 % have their abortion before the 12th week. This leaves just 4.8 percent of women that abort somewhere between 12 and 24 weeks, and all of them have good medical / ethical reasons to do this.

So, your "murder" takes place on a lump of cells, not capable of thinking, breathing, still no sex, no bones. With all due respect, but that's not murder. That's an abortion.

On a final note: in my country most of the 30.000 abortions that take place each year were caused by failing anti-conception. Stupid asses that think that withdrawing is a good method to prevent pregnacy. Condoms that leaked. Femdoms that shifted. Stuff like that. So, these people did not want to have a baby to begin with, they tried to avoid it, but it went wrong. They then go to the doctor, mostly as soon as the day after and take care of things. You can call that "murder", I call it "a blessing to society". And, as one of the posters here pointed out, it worked: the numbers show that in countries like mine, where abortion is legal, crime rates dropped. So, in fact, abortion may have prevented many, many murders committed by unloved, hated children.

Thank you. Just trying to give a perspective. And yes, it IS just a theory until someone is actually faced with making the decision themselves.

Like I said, I am pro choice and still am after my decision to keep my child. I don't "hate" abortion. I just couldn't make that choice myself. And believe me, I will forever be more careful in the future when it comes to having sex. With my ex, we weren't trying to conceive but we definitely weren't making any effort not to. And it surely didn't surprise me too much when he gave his opinion on the matter since he has 3 other kids he hardly has any contact with. He may have told me once that I should get on the pill and I didn't. Does that leave all fault on me? No. He was perfectly capable of refusing sex with me or putting on a condom.

If I had gone through with an abortion, he wouldn't have even been able to help pay for it. Maybe he would have gone with me maybe not, I'll never know.

the thing about abortion is its right and it's wrong in so many different ways. People will always have their personal opinions. If a woman who is raped and gets pregnant wants to abort, I say go ahead. I know for me it would be very hard to raise a child that will forever remind of getting raped, probably bring on resentment or a type of hatred just because the baby belongs to my rapist. Does that mean if it were to happen to me I would get an abortion? Not necessarily, because I have never been through that. My point, you never truly know how hard it is until you go through it yourself. And that goes for MEN as well. People keep saying men don't really have an opinion on the matter but they do. It's their child just as much as it is the woman's. The problem with my ex was that he simply did not care. How can you give an ultimatum like that to someone who you claimed to love for so long? Idk. I'm ranting again...


a reply to: Blue_Jay33


He has his reasoning behind his decision, I have mine. I don't hate him for it. It's his choice to take no responsibility. And it's my choice to take all the responsibility. This baby wasn't created on an accidental drunk night with a stranger. It was created through something I considered very intimate with someone I loved very deeply.

Like I said, people will have their opinions no matter what. So debating this subject is pointless IMHO.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We all have the right to choose. As I stated, a murderer holds a gun to your head and can choose to pull the trigger or not. This is where personal beliefs and morals come into play. It seems to me that abortion, just because you don't want to be pregnant, has become acceptable. It's not.

a reply to: xizd1

But it's ok to have that opinion, but there are many reasons why a woman would want to get an abortion. Yes, there are a large portion that do it for selfish reasons, but we should STILL give them the choice. It is just safer that way. Plus, as I've pointed out earlier in the thread, in countries where it is legal, the abortion rate is lower than in countries where it is illegal.

a reply to: ForteanOrg

If you will re-read my post, I said it was my opinion, so I'm not sure what you are going on about. Killing a lump of cells, such as your heart, is murder.

a reply to: xizd1

I think it's pretty safe to say that every women who had an abortion did so because they didn't want to be pregnant, it's gets a little cloudier once we delve into why she didn't want to become pregnant. once we start looking into the whys, well we find that some of the reasons are quite acceptable!

originally posted by: eletheia

Medical/health insurance is for all to have if they need it. It is not up for

discussion with any one other than the doctor and 'patient'?


As termination (the correct term for the procedure) IS legal

the woman concerned does not require the permission of any one who does

not agree with HER CHOICE


You and other 'anti's' have no right to try and force your views on another

she will be well aware of the other side of the argument. YOU ARE ALL

LOUD ENOUGH IN YOUR VIEWS AND CONDEMINATIONS

LOL!!!... Look at the irony in that statement!

First of all, perhaps you should learn to read what people actually type.

Note that i wrote, if a woman wants to have an abortion it should be HER RESPONSIBILITY AND HER CONCIENCE who pay for that decision...

I never said that it should be banned. But those who want to do it, all responsibility should LAY ON THEM...

What I am against is this view that since it is "the new right" of those women who want an abortion" that it somehow is "their right" for "strangers who disagree with abortion" to have to pay for the abortion of those women who want to have one.

If anyone wants to impose their views on everyone else are those who want everyone else to pay for abortion, even if they disagree with it due to moral or religious views.

So yeah, it seems the irony is lost on you.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: ladyvalkyrie
well, surely the government will intervene long before it got that bad!!
ya know take measures to ensure that those who are deformed are not allowed to be carried to term, enforce some kind legislation to ensure that the population is stays within manageable means, and in the case of a threat to the mother's life ensure the baby is aborted for the mother's safety... regardless of weather she wants to risk it or not!!!

I'm not trying to be a smart ass, and I have agreed with you 99% of the time so far on this thread, but:
1. No one can say how mild or severe an uptick on all those mentioned categories would be. But there would be an uptick for sure of all the nastiness I listed. Beyond a doubt. Certain. Period.
2. The government will intervene? Lol! Have you forgotten what website you're posting on? It already is bad and if abortion were banned across the board- like a lot of the (unable to get pregnant so it's never going to be an issue for them) men on here would love to see- then all of these things would increase even more. See 1. above.
3. Ensure those who are deformed are not carried to term? But not according to the woman, according to the government's guidelines? Because they have an impeccable track record so far. Totally efficient, logical, intelligent. Ensures the population stays within manageable means? Like they've done so well at thus far? Are we talking eugenics now, or forced sterilization, or more-than-one-baby penalties like in China? Because in my opinion those are all worse than abortion.
4. Concern for the mother's safety and the safety of the baby? You can see how well that works out in the staunchly anti-abortion countries. Totally preventable deaths of pregnant women. 10 year old rape victims forced to give birth.
5. Post 20 week abortions are an extremely small percentage of the whole and are pretty much always due to medical issues so severe that abortion is the safest route. Yet legislation is getting pushed through as we speak to ban it altogether.
* After my 2 emergency c-sections I am pretty much banned from attempting a natural birth. But every c-section I get exponentially raises my risk. Plus, I'm not getting any younger. So, let's say I found myself with a planned pregnancy. A much wanted, much awaited child. But at 21 weeks I go in for a sonogram to find out the baby's sex, all excited and ready to start loading up on cute baby stuff. But I find out the fetus has no kidneys and no chance of survival past birth. I would be devastated. I would get a second or even third opinion. But if all the doctors agree with the prognosis, I would want to abort. Not go further in the process. Not risk a major surgery of a birth. Not damage my body any further, or deplete nutrients and fluid. I would want to recover physically and emotionally so that I could try again for a healthy pregnancy. Technically myself and the fetus are not in immediate danger, so I wouldn't fall under the 'to save the mothers life' category. But due to legislation in effect, I would be forced by the government to carry to term and risk my own life- with 2 children to raise with no help from their fathers- so that I could essentially birth a dead baby.
6. My question was in regards to blanket banning of the procedure. If only abortions past 20 weeks were banned there would mainly just be an increase in maternal deaths, natal deaths and children born with severe congenital defects.

Once again, I'm on your side here, I'm not trying to argue with you. Just some food for thought.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

first of all are you sure that the insurance has to cover elective abortions or are you griping about the abortions that are covered because of medical necessity? or are you complaining about the birth control that you perceive as causing abortions?
I could be wrong but I find it hard that you tax money is paying for elective abortions, weather or not it's included in the insurance coverage I couldn't say for sure since they changed it so much with obamacare and I am a person that well, no matter what they do , I will not be able to afford it so well..they can take it and well do whatever they want with it. But as far as the birth control or abortions when medically necessary, I am sorry, they are paying a nice chunk of change for their policies and it they feel that reproductive health is a major item in that plan that they want, it should be considered just as much a valid item to include in insurance than any other treatment that is covered, regardless of religious beliefs!

originally posted by: ladyvalkyrie
I've said my piece earlier in this thread. But I've read every post since. Clearly, no matter how logical, the Pro-Choicers are never going to sway the Fetuses Are More Important than Women-ers. So to the latter group I pose this:

Let's say you get your way and abortions are outright banned. What do you have to say about the inevitable increase in crime, poverty, suicides, abused children, abused spouses, increased natal and maternal deaths, strain on the already over-capacity world population, increased amount of unpaid child support, increase in teenage pregnancies resulting in births, increase in single struggling mothers without support systems, increase in illegal and much more dangerous abortions, additional strain on the healthcare and welfare systems, increase in children born severely deformed/defective, increase in infant and child mortality? There would probably be even more negative long term results, these are just the ones off the top of my head. Do you have any thoughts on any of this? Or do you think is God going to magically prevent all that from happening because you 'saved the babies'?

Come on God fearing Pro "Life"ers....I'm waiting for an answer. Not one peep out of you on the inevitable repercussions, I see.

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

hey like it or not that is the three choices I think society has....
the one I prefer is that we make birth control easily available and abortions the decisions of the doctor and the women.
if we ban abortions well, it will go underground and quite frankly it wouldn't take long for women to lose their spot in the workplace due to family responsibilities and well there'd still be abortions but they'd be less safe, illegal, and well, not so much the decision of women as it would be of the men who is providing her the funds. so instead of women willingly making the choice, they would be force to accept the decision of the man with the financial power.
the third option, well if things got back enough I do think the gov't would have to step in, and we'd have to put up with their rigid unyielding policies that half the time just don't make any sense, which is why in those countries where they have banned abortions we always hear the horror stories of young kids being force to carry twins!

but, there's no way we are getting rid of abortions, they've been around since the beginning of time and will for a very long time. but I really think some really don't want to get rid of them, they just can't stand the idea that the decision is in the hands of women.

originally posted by: xizd1
a reply to: ForteanOrg

If you will re-read my post, I said it was my opinion, so I'm not sure what you are going on about. Killing a lump of cells, such as your heart, is murder.

I'm "going on about it" because it is important. Murder is the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. In case of an abortion we neither have a human being (yet), nor is it unlawful to end that pregnancy if it is done before the 24th week. Hence, you're simply lying.

My "going on" also contained a line of reasoning, an attempt to explain to you that even in countries where the law forbids abortion, it still is not murder: an embryo is not a human being. If you did nothing, there would be a chance it turned into a human being, but like an egg is not a chicken so an embryo (before the 12th week at least) is not a human being.

You're absolutely free not to have an abortion might you get pregnant. But you're not free to simply label it "murder" if others decide to abort their pregnancy. You can say "I would never do this, I think women that do this make a mistake". But labeling it "murder" is an outright lie.

originally posted by: tigertatzen


When we are housing murderers, rapists, pedophiles, thieves and the like in our prisons, providing them with food and shelter, a college education, medical care...and in many cases, wages and other perks, who do you think pays for that? When people can get their own TV show with everything they could possibly want or need for absolutely no other reason than their ridiculously large amount of offspring, do you think none of that comes out of your pocket? When single moms who didn't opt for abortion have multiple children on EBT and medicaid, who pays for that?

Do you even have any idea who was it that started this trend of having murderers, rapists, etc get free tv, free internet, free education, etc, etc, instead of getting the death penalty for murder, and rape among other hinous crimes?...

What am I asking, it seems obvious that you have no idea how this "trend" started and who was it that asked for it.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
We live in a society where the less fortunate (and often, completely undeserving) are helped out by the more fortunate, and it has been that way all along, so complaining about contributing to an out-patient, ten minute procedure that costs a few hundred dollars at most is a rather lame argument. I don't like the fact that my hard-earned dollars are helping to pay for the upkeep of rapists and child killers, or paying to feed other people who are perfectly capable of getting off their asses and working like the rest of us yet simply choose not to, but that is the way our government is set up and it doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon.

We used to live in a society in which people would give out of FREE WILL to others in need. Now, people are even forced to pay for the murder of innocent babies/fetus even if they don't want to participate in such horrible act.

There is a big difference between giving out of free will, which used to work just fine, and FORCING people to pay for abortion of women they have never met. Or paying for free tv, internet, and education of murderers, and rapists among other serious criminals in the name of "re-educating criminals to become good citizens", which btw it seems to be lost on people like you who was it who begged for this and implemented it.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
Why don't you pose that question to yourself? Because that is exactly what you are supporting here. I'm guessing that the unbelievable irony of you even asking that question has escaped your notice entirely.

Could you enlighten me how is it that millions of people who do not want to be FORCED to pay for the abortion of OTHER WOMEN equals to trying to impose our views on the pro-abortion crowd?...

The ones trying to impose their views on others and want to even force others to comply with such views even if people disagree is the pro-abortion crowd.

BTW, yes there are pro-choice people who also want to impose their views, but it is not the majority.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Nobody is being forced to pay for other people's abortion.

And, as has been pointed out again and again, to claim that abortion is murder is a hyperbolic lie.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
Could you enlighten me how is it that millions of people who do not want to be FORCED to pay for [...]

In all societies you're not free to choose what you do - and you're not free to choose for what you have to pay. That will never change.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse



First of all, perhaps you should learn to read what people actually type.

Note that i wrote, if a woman wants to have an abortion it should be HER RESPONSIBILITY AND HER CONCIENCE who pay for that decision...

Responsibility and conscience is not valid currency to pay for anything ...

This forum covers people in many countries, so obviously there will be

some anomalies between countries.

Here in the UK. every employed person pays into the system and

our Health service is free to ALL. There have even been cases of

'breast enlargement' which I personally don't want to pay for, but hey!

that's the system.

I never said that it should be banned. But those who want to do it, all responsibility should LAY ON THEM...

I am sure every woman who has ever had a termination has thought about

it long and hard, and taken full responsibility for their decision ... and for

those in the UK it comes FREE as part of the Health Service.

What I am against is this view that since it is "the new right" of those women who want an abortion" that it somehow is "their right" for "strangers who disagree with abortion" to have to pay for the abortion of those women who want to have one.

This is certainly not a *new right* ... The abortion act was passed into law

in 1967 nearly 50 years ago!! And as mentioned above no strangers have to

pay for it.

If anyone wants to impose their views on everyone else are those who want everyone else to pay for abortion, even if they disagree with it due to moral or religious views.

Like I have already stated 'every one else' is not paying,

BUT others who disagree due to moral and religious views

NEVER CEASE TRYING TO FORCE THEIR VIEWS ON TO OTHERS