Is abortion wrong?

[Samantha Barnes 3]

Abortion is not wrong to a certain point. Some studies have shown that fetuses develop a consciousness after 3 or 4 months. If a fetus has developed consciousness, it would be wrong to abort it because it is aware of its surroundings.

Is taking away an adult's autonomy wrong?

Yes, it is also wrong to take away an adult's autonomy. That could also be viewed as a different issue. Abortion is wrong after a certain point, but it is still right for the decision of abortion to be left with the person carrying the fetus. Whether they choose to abort or not is up to them, and no one should be able to take that freedom from them. However, an adult's right to autonomy does not diminish the consciousness of the fetus. The adult carrying the fetus should have the right to choose, but that does not always make the action they choose right. Like I have the freedom to punch a stranger in the face, but just because I can does not mean that it is right.

[Belindi]

I'd like to see very good care for every pregnant woman and her foetus, continuing the care long after the baby is born, until the child becomes an adult, then a welfare state cares for the adults.

The pregnant woman needs to be offered every care as she gives birth, very good care for herself and her baby which includes good housing, protection from danger, good food, work opportunity, child care when she needs it, care of the baby's siblings, and good education for the child and siblings until tertiary level when possible. In other words it is immoral for a state not to provide for any woman and her children from before birth until the child is a fully functioning adult.
If these benefits were available there would be few demands for elective abortion.

[Tara D Morgan]

I think it is wrong. If you have sex there is the possibility you will have a baby and if you are not capible of either putting the child up for adoption or raising it, then you don't need to be having sex.
And if you are raped, you can put it up for adoption.
I mean its basically murder isn't it, in another forum there were people upset about the killing of animals, wouldn't the killing of an innocent baby be astronomically worse.
I read this bumper sticker the other day that said

"If its not a baby then your not pregnant"
It just made me think.

It just sounds wrong to me, I'd like to hear other peoples input though.

I take it you have never been raped? If you had been violated in that way and then found out you were pregnant, would it be easy for you to say " Never mind that I am pregnant by my rapist. I can have the baby then put it up for adoption, then move on with life and forget about it all." I'd love to meet the woman who is able to do this. I think the person who has been raped should be able to choose what she does with her own body. She had no choice in the father or whether she wanted to be pregnant. Is it better to get rid of the baby and try and come to terms with what happened? Or give the baby up for adoption and have felt violated for an extra 9 months? I think whatever the woman wants to do should be supported wholeheartedly personally.

[Bertha Jackson]

I believe abortion is a private matter for the woman and man involved. I would never judge a woman who was raped and then found out she was carrying a rapist's child. Myself, I would have the baby and possibly give it up for adoption, but this is not something every woman can do. Other factors that would need to be considered are the mental and physical health of the woman involved. Should a man be involved in my decision? No, it is my body and my life that are going to be affected the most. However, if you are a married couple, and this is your spouse's child, then yes, he should have some say in the decision as long as you are healthy enough to have the child.

[Stoppelmann]

I take it you have never been raped? If you had been violated in that way and then found out you were pregnant, would it be easy for you to say " Never mind that I am pregnant by my rapist. I can have the baby then put it up for adoption, then move on with life and forget about it all." I'd love to meet the woman who is able to do this. I think the person who has been raped should be able to choose what she does with her own body. She had no choice in the father or whether she wanted to be pregnant. Is it better to get rid of the baby and try and come to terms with what happened? Or give the baby up for adoption and have felt violated for an extra 9 months? I think whatever the woman wants to do should be supported wholeheartedly personally.

The pain of rape, both physical and emotional, is not something that many can understand, especially not men, but also women who have never been in the situation fail sometimes to connect. Sometimes it is a feeling of resentment, especially if you have had miscarriages, or have difficulty getting pregnant, and are frustrated with that urge, that desire to be a mother, and see that a foetus is about to be "terminated" as they say. Sometimes it is just the thought of a helpless life being taken.

But I think that ideally, we should want life to flourish, but that means no rape and no abortion. So obviously, we are not in a perfect world, and for that reason alone, we must be patient with each other, and add the next foetus to be aborted among the huge number of atrocities that we were unable to prevent. Above all, we need to mourn our situation, whether the destitute mother in desperation, the brutally oppressed women, the starving children, the child soldiers, the men crying in the trenches of war, or the sick and the dying.

[LuckyR]

I believe abortion is a private matter for the woman and man involved. I would never judge a woman who was raped and then found out she was carrying a rapist's child. Myself, I would have the baby and possibly give it up for adoption, but this is not something every woman can do. Other factors that would need to be considered are the mental and physical health of the woman involved. Should a man be involved in my decision? No, it is my body and my life that are going to be affected the most. However, if you are a married couple, and this is your spouse's child, then yes, he should have some say in the decision as long as you are healthy enough to have the child.

An excellent description of autonomy, whose removal I personally think is more "wrong" than abortion.

[Carter Blunt]

Is abortion wrong?
No, it's not erroneous.

Is it okay?
Don't know how to ask it.

Yes, I'm a troll.

I honestly wouldn't care if you abort the entire human race out of existence, I'm more concerned with the living beings that are already here. Veganism first, then I'll worry about abortion. I don't take anyone seriously who values a zygote over a fully developed individual.

The only problem I have with pro-choice, is the ones who wanted to take away other people's choice to refuse experimental vaccines, without losing their livelihood.

[LuckyR]

Is abortion wrong?
No, it's not erroneous.

Is it okay?
Don't know how to ask it.

Yes, I'm a troll.

I honestly wouldn't care if you abort the entire human race out of existence, I'm more concerned with the living beings that are already here. Veganism first, then I'll worry about abortion. I don't take anyone seriously who values a zygote over a fully developed individual.

The only problem I have with pro-choice, is the ones who wanted to take away other people's choice to refuse experimental vaccines, without losing their livelihood.

Just to clarify, you believe business owners shouldn't be able to choose the rules that govern employment within their business?

[Carter Blunt]

Just to clarify, you believe business owners shouldn't be able to choose the rules that govern employment within their business?

Should they be able to force them to get tattoos or a microchip, or take drugs, or get an abortion? No.

[LuckyR]

Just to clarify, you believe business owners shouldn't be able to choose the rules that govern employment within their business?

Should they be able to force them to get tattoos or a microchip, or take drugs, or get an abortion? No.

Your use of the word "force" baffles me. You're acting like folks have a right to employment with a particular employer. That's not the case.

[Carter Blunt]

And I disagree that I should have to sign my life over to an employer. What I do off the job is my own business, and what I put in my body is my own business. The idea that I should either be a guinea pig, or go hungry, is flat out unacceptable.

[Carter Blunt]

To be clear, I'm not against requirements for tested, proven vaccines. I'm against government mandated FORCE to take EXPERIMENTAL vaccines. And I'm against employers coercing those under their authority to risk their health.

[LuckyR]

And I disagree that I should have to sign my life over to an employer. What I do off the job is my own business, and what I put in my body is my own business. The idea that I should either be a guinea pig, or go hungry, is flat out unacceptable.

That might make sense if there was only one employer. Yet there isn't.

You act as if working on the job doesn't entail taking on risk to oneself. Taking on health risks while working is routine, always has been, always will be.

[LuckyR]

To be clear, I'm not against requirements for tested, proven vaccines. I'm against government mandated FORCE to take EXPERIMENTAL vaccines. And I'm against employers coercing those under their authority to risk their health.

Your use of the word "coerce" is not standard, every job has certain expectations to be employed. Every worker has the right to decide they don't want to subscribe to those expectations. Thus no-one is "coerced".

[Carter Blunt]

Your use of the word "coerce" is not standard, every job has certain expectations to be employed.

That's not coercion, that's just called "the job description". If you hire someone to test jump parachutes and they don't want to wash the dishes for you, tough luck.