What if Abortion Laws were Changed?

Question

What if abortion laws were changed to only allow abortions to be practiced legally only with Medical Doctors consent with evidence that the pregnancy is causing a more significant risk to the life of the mother than an ordinary pregnancy or the child has significant defect that can be seen prenatally and it would suffer in life and it would be compassionate to end that suffering.

Who would argue against that?

I don't believe abortion falls under a womans right to choose- thats where birth control/condoms/depo shot/ (and anything else that prevents conception) fits.

Please no insults- this is my opinion and I'm open to seeing different points of view (no religion bases my opinions).

And please don't use the "what if she doesn't want a child" refrain- that's why every hospital/police station/fire station allows anonymous drop off for unwanted children so they can be adopted.

Answer 1

I would argue against this.  Women have historically ALWAYS had abortions.  Todays methods with doc's are much safer then the other ways.

A woman who doesn't want to carry a child wont.  She will find a way to terminate the pregnancy.

Answer 2

i think ur idea is perfet too bad it will never be made legal

Answer 3

In Australia you can't obtain an abortion without a doctor's consent.  The doctor has to decide whether the pregnancy will cause enough physical/emotional damage to the mother/baby to warrant an abortion, but yeah I think it should be more 'regulated'.  I reckon if abortion was harder to obtain, the amount of unwanted pregnancies would drop significantly.

Answer 4

I wouldn't argue against this.  As for how difficult pregnancy is....9 mos. of discomfort vs.  70+ years of another persons life...... I'll take pregnancy any day.

Answer 5

If the laws changed it would be like it was a hundred years ago, when women would get it done illegally. I understand that you don't believe in abortion, but I think if you are pro life you really can't understand what it would feel like to not want children and be forced to have one. We haven't yet got a contraceptive that is 100% protective yet.

Answer 6

Our nation was founded on the Right to Life!!  No one has the right to decide someones life isn't good enough, and it doesn't give a woman, or a man, the right to say Oh, we created life, my bad didn't mean too!  As for a pregnancy being harmful to a woman, that is a rare thing!  Don't tell me that at 5 months gestation it isn't hard for a woman to be forced into labor, push out the babies head so a "doctor" can jam an ice pick into the back of the babies head, usually, but not always killing it, allowing the woman to finish pushing the baby out and then throwing a possibly dead baby into a trash can where it may continue to suffer for hours! Can you really tell me that labor and delivery is less stressful at 5 months then at 9?  And what about all those poor women who deliver early at 5 months and sit in the NIC Unit for months hoping their baby lives? People are irresponsible and don't want to deal with the end result!!

Answer 7

I think there would be many women AND men who would argue against that idea. I think it is the smartest thing on this topic that could be done legally but there would be too many women who count abortion as another form of birth control. That is the most cruel thing on earth to destroy a life just because you chose to have s*x and weren't prepared for the consequences. Then people, when told that you can always give it up for adoption, always come back with the same thing: I don't want to put them through that, or that would be a horrible life. I'm sorry but, any form of life is better than no life at all. All of you people who say that are just making excuses to make yourself feel better for even THINKING about having an abortion because you "weren't ready". By the way, it's a proven fact that women who have abortions are more likely to have depression because they end up feeling bad later for aborting it. It's a proven fact. I believe that everything has it's consequences. You may call that karma, because that's basically what it is, but I believe that because I am a Christian. Everything has it's consequences, whether they are good or bad. Having s*x can have both, having a baby, or STDs. Having a baby can be both also, depending on if you're ready or not. Now what I was getting at is that having an abortion has a bad consequence. You feel bad for the rest of your life because of it and you will always regret it, whether you aren't ready for it or not. If anyone is thinking about getting an abortion, you better think again, because it's not a very wonderful thing.

Answer 8

This is what it was like before Roe v Wade.  Women could have abortions if they had permission and there was proof that it was a significant threat to her health.  We'd go back to the days of unsafe illegal abortions.

Women who don't want to be pregnant will do anything.  Forcing a woman to carry a child to term against her will is a crime as heinous as rape, possibly even worse, since people don't try to justify rape or make it look like a benefit to society.

As for the right to choose - what about married couples that don't want to have children?  What about the fact that pregnancy is much more dangerous than abortion?  What about the psychological damage that would be caused?  Not to mention the effect on the economy if there was a mass migration of the middle class and upper class to a country where women were not second class citizens.

Answer 9

It wouldn't alter the outcome much if abortion laws were changed as there'd still be women attempting abortions on themselves, often by dangerous means.  When in a desperate situation, a woman will try just about anything.

Personally abortion doesn't sit well with me, but you have to look at the issue realistically.

Just curious....I wonder what men would do if the situation was reversed?

Answer 10

If abortion laws were changed, you'd likely see an increase in crime 20 years down the road.  

Wade vs. Roe had far reaching implications beyond giving women the right to decide what happens to their bodies.  The declining crime rates in North America have been shown to be linked to the outcome of that case, and this makes perfect sense.

Giving women the ability to choose when they will have a family has resulted in fewer unwanted children that ill-prepared (whether financially, mentally or both) mothers  could not  or would not take care of.  

A child that is wanted will likely be more loved and cherished than an unwanted child.  

Women who lack the financial means to raise their children will likely be unable to properly supervise them, or pay for childcare and this could lead to a slippery slope into criminal activity.

Rather than turning back the clock, we should be focusing on the welfare of our future.  Enough children are forced into this world only to face dire poverty and limited life opportunities.  This is something we should all be focusing our energies on.

Answer 11

Sorry. Your way would still force women to undergo pregnancy against their will, which is inhumane, repulsive and just plain unconstitutional.

Edit: "Let's not argue about pregnancy being forced on women, it's not a disease."

Spoken like a person who has never been pregnant or can never get pregnant. Pregnancy is hellish on a woman's body.

Answer 12

It sounds like you want women to bear all the burden of possible unplanned pregnancy.  You just wrote in another post--in which you seem to advocate that men be excused from paying child support for children born out of wedlock--that you "don't agree that simply having consensual s*x with a women makes a man responsible for her pregnancy."  And now you say you "don't believe abortion falls under a woman's right to choose."  In my opinion, that's tantamount to saying women alone should be punished for the consequences of extramarital s*x by being forced to continue an unplanned pregnancy and, moreover, that both the woman and her child should be condemned to a life of poverty.  Now, do you really think that's compassionate?

Answer 13

ok so ill probably draw the fire from other women but i am a woman and youre right. pregnancy is not a disease. Its not like cancer. Im 27 and i have no kids yet b/c i know what PREVENTION is. If you choose to have s*x, then youre saying  youre prepared for the consequences. I hope the abortion laws change. because yes women have rights but so should the baby inside that cant speak for itself. If you were in a coma persay and couldnt talk but could hear, YOu knew you were there but youre loved one said ahh well im not prepared to deal with a vegetable the rest of my life, we'll jsut let her die. how would you feel? Babies are beautiful living things as SOON as they are concieved (heart beat=life people) so the bs about not being a 'real' person is c**p. Ive seen it. They haev beating hearts. Adoption is a great thing..use it..so back to origional thing..im all for the reversal of abortion law. Give the babies a chance.they didnt asked to be created.

Answer 14

If abortion laws were to change to where a female could have an abortion ONLY under the terms you listed several thing would happen; females WOULD go back to having illegal and dangerous abortions such as having abortions by untrained people or using coat hangers to rid themselves of the tissue inside of them.

Females would go a head and have these children and they would be neglected, abused, unloved and not properly cared for or they would simply be thrown in the trash. These two actions still happen with abortion being legal.

Since we are talking opinions on abortion here and "seeing different points of view." Females DO get pregnant when on birth control, I did 3 times and if 1 had not resulted in a miscarriage I would have had an abortion due to the fact that I could not afford another child, I was a single, struggling parent as it was and I did not want a child... thus the birth control.

Adoption in the U.S. is not an easy process. It is very expensive with very strict criteria and the foster care and adoption systems are at maximum capacity with children that no one wants due to the cost and other restrictions. People can adopt foreign children much easier and that is what they are doing.

American children are "aging out" of the current system and it is a sad state of affairs. These kids grow up with no family of their own, very little love, a lot of insecurity and most turn to a life of crime or go onto the welfare system because of the children they now have. They are not going to college and turning their lives around. There are exceptions to the rule but we have a broken system that I don't think any child should be in.

So, do you make the very difficult decision to rid your body of unviable tissue that cannot sustain life on its own, do you bring a child into the world and not care for it or bring a child into the world and drop it off at a hospital where it is then put into a government system to grow up without a family and love.... which is the most humane?

Females will continue to have abortions no matter what the law says. Many will die in the process if the law is changed and abortion is made illegal or more restrictive. They have done if for centuries worldwide law or no law.

Answer 15

I really don't find it necessary to limit abortions.  I can't see why anyone would care whether or not some other person that they don't know would have an abortion.  Make the decision for yourself and leave others alone.  Period.