Abortion should totally be 100% legal?

Question

Honestly, abortion is like killing a tuna fish (only I respect a tuna fish more than a fetus, lol!) There's enough children in f***ed up situations. Wouldn't it have been easier if they'd never been made to live through it?

Answer 1

You need some serious help.

Answer 2

Have you ever thought that people might think that about you.

You really should seek mental health care.

Answer 3

I agree with you about abortion being legal, but not in any of the aspects you've mentioned. Fetuses deserve a little more respect than a can of tuna.

I think a woman should have a choice. What if she gets raped? Who wants to bear their rapist's baby?

A lot of children are being raised by unsuitable parents so if a mother is not ready to devote herself to a child...

Answer 4

I am Pro Choice and fully support a woman's' right to chose.

However, ignorant comments like yours do not help the cause (of protecting women's reproductive rights) and only serve to inflame the pro-life movement.

Your comments are also insulting.

I am pro choice - I believe every woman should have the right to examine her resources/situation, have a conversation with her god and make the decision that is best for her.   Just because I may chose not to have an abortion - does not mean I want that right taken from other women. I am blessed to have a good job and strong family network.

As an aside- "the morning after pill" or Plan B is now available over the counter at most pharmacies. It is not an abortion pill. If taken w/in 72 hours of unprotected s*x it reduces the chance of cell implantation by 80%. It is not birth control. Properly used contraception is much better at preventing pregnancy. And at about $50 a pop, Plan B is too expensive to use as birth control.

However, it is excellent for the next morning if you realize you missed a pill, condom failed etc.

The best way to lower abortion rates is through education and the prevention of unplanned pregnancies.

Answer 5

And therein lies your problem:  you have less respect for human life than you do for a fish.  And please hold your criticism of my observation; I am simply quoting your words.

Answer 6

I don't agree with your outlook, but I do think abortion should be legal. First of all, outlaw abortion, and people will still find a way to do it. They'll go to other countries, or go to a doctor under the radar. They'll try dangerous at-home remedies, and possibly endanger their lives!

Everyone talks about how a nation of baby killers can never be a good one. Well, why are we fretting so much about abortion, when we send our young men and women overseas to be blown up and killed? "They have a choice" you say. Maybe they had to join the military because they had no other good options. My point is, if anti-abortionists "value-life" as much as they claim, why do they still support the war, or any war for that matter? Yes, its sad when a child dies, but isn't it worse when someone who lived, affected lives, had friends and family dies? Doesn't thier death affect alot more people than that of an unborn child?

I could never get an abortion myself. Don't think I could go through with it. But I do support a woman's choice to make that decision on her own. Our government should NOT be telling us what we can and can't do with our own bodies.  

Answer 7

Short answer: Not entirely.

Long answer: I have thought about this quite a bit over the years. The wide spread of opinions is incredible, matched only by the passion of the activists on all sides. This is an issue that few people are even able to have a civilized discussion about. Complicating it further is that there are few that hold a black-and-white view of the issue. The majority of people in the US see abortion as a giant grey area with varying degrees of abortion considered acceptable. Very few people hold the position of unlimited abortion access or no abortion under any circumstances. Below is the process I went through to come up with my position on the matter.

First, I asked myself the question at what point does a human being obtain "personhood" and as such gain all the legal and moral protections that status entitles them to? There are some who say that the point of personhood is 28 days AFTER birth, at which point you still should be allowed to abort. In fact, there is a professor of ethics at Princeton University that actively advocates this position. Others say up to the point of birth. These folks, such as Barak Obama, would hold that this type of infanticide as well as partial birth abortion is a reasonable procedure. This is the position that spurred “Born Alive” legislation that says if a woman attempts an abortion and the baby survives, that doctors cannot withhold care and let the baby die on the operating table. Or perhaps just before birth while the mother is in labor. Or 6 months of gestation or 3 months or three weeks. I wrestled with this for a long time.

Then I looked at the issue a different way. Does human life have an imputed value or an intrinsic one? If we say that it is imputed, meaning the value is derived from something else, some outside criteria, then any one of the above positions would be equally valid. We as a society would decide what criteria to select. My problem with this is what criteria do you use? On what basis is a baby at 6 weeks more valuable than a baby at 5 weeks? Is a baby that has not yet developed a heart still a baby? This hit really hard on my wife and I when we lost one of our children. Lynne had a miscarriage a few years ago. When people with strong pro-choice sentiments gave us their condolences, they referred to the fetus as a child, even though she (we named her Grace, even though we do not know for sure if she was a she or a he. It made it easier to explain to the other children what happened and easier for Lynne and I to grieve our loss) was at the same gestational point, 9 weeks, that they believed abortion was merely removing some unwanted tissue of the mother. So, the criteria used is whether or not a child is wanted? If that is so, then why? The characteristics of an object of any sort are not contingent on another person’s belief or perception.

By similar logic, if the value of human life is imputed, it can also be taken away, depending on what some person or group of persons believe that life is worth. So if you happen to be mentally retarded or black or Jewish, it would be perfectly reasonable for you to be killed off for the good of the community if the majority of them believe it. I have a friend who is paralyzed from the neck down and constantly in pain. There are some in the world who would look at her and say that she has no quality of life or that the money and effort to support her would be better used on others. They would have her die due to her handicap. But knowing her the way I do I find the notion that she is without a quality of life to be ridiculous on its face. She is a writer, a painter, and heads up an international charity. I’d call that a pretty good quality of life. So would her husband who married her years after her accident put her in the wheelchair. Thus, the imputed value logic is shown to me to be completely arbitrary. Following any of the “prior to this point it is not human but at this one on it is” positions is likewise arbitrary and is not able to answer the question of personhood.

But consider the proposition that human life has an intrinsic value. That it is valuable simply because it is human life and no other reason. No measure or quantification of the value of it, it is and that is enough. It is sort of like gold. Gold is valuable because it is gold, not because we as a society stood up one day and said, “we are going to make gold valuable”. Gold has an intrinsic value as opposed to an imputed value, such as paper currency. Paper currency is worthless in and of itself. It has value only because we say it has a certain value.

This position then would support a clear line between human life and not human life. With this position, you are a human at the point that you have a unique genetic code. In other words, at conception. Prior to that, there was no “you”. The male and female reproductive components in and of themselves are not a unique genetic code, but merely parts of the donors.  

Answer 8

It is legal, and don't you think s***s would have less morning sickness and problems with they would have used birth control in the first place?  It's pretty readily available.  

Answer 9

Your phrasing is a bit harsh, but yes, I agree that abortion should be legal and it's a good thing that it is. Roughly a third of all women have one at some point in their lives, and most of them go on to finish school and get a good job to raise a family properly, rather than get their lives de-railed and struggle either on permanent welfare or in poverty-level jobs.

Answer 10

I believe in free choice, personally abortion should be for rape victims and medical reasons, but you have a warped sense of values if you are relating a fetus with a tuna fish, it would be alot easier if people would learn to use birth control instead. I agree some people should not have children and by your comparison you are one of them!

Answer 11

The HEARTBEAT begins on the 21st day after conception

The lungs start developing by the first month

Electrical brain waves have been recorded as early as forty days

You still respect a fish more than a baby?