Should the state prevent doctors from carrying out abortions?
Yes - In all cases
3.7% (9)
3.7% (9)
Yes - Except in extraordinary cases like rape
6.1% (15)
6.1% (15)
No
89.4% (219)
89.4% (219)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Should the state ban abortion?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

First, there was no time, matter or even light. Then there were abortions! They crop up a lot on the escapist in various discussions but I haven't seen polls about them lately. What does the escapist think the state should do about them? Should they be allowed or should women be forced at gunpoint to jump the border fence if they don't want to bring a child into the world with no-one who can take proper care of it?

Personally I favour abortions - I myself was born into a troubled family and would have preferred my mother not to procreate before she had her own life in order. I'm almost 20 and only now does she really pay attention to what I'm doing. I view a foetus to be a collection of cells rather than a person, and I don't believe in souls.

Edit: To clarify - I view the core part of the debate on abortion to be whether or not the state ought to be involved. I've stated my views on the morality of abortion (Namely that I don't hold any value on a foetus as an individual and that the question should be whether one can provide for a new human) and I don't mind discussion on this topic in the thread as I have already taken the liberty to do so.

Digging up an acorn is not the same as felling an oak.

No fetus has any of the self reflective sapience that's required for personhood. Hence the rights of the woman - whom everyone can agree is a person - take priority.

So there should be no restrictions on abortions, except when the procedure is medically unsafe for the woman to have performed.

Women have a right to decide what they do with their own bodies. End of.

But even assuming they did not, banning abortions does not reduce their number significantly, it merely ensures they aren't carried out by medical practitioners, and the woman is deterred from seeking medical aid if something goes wrong. Hell, if a pregnant falls down a flight of stairs she can be charged with it by that logic, and there are people who enforce those rules.

EDIT: Oh, likewise, the state should not seek to make things difficult because they can't ban them. Making women jump through more hoops or politicians telling doctors how to practice medicine doesn't help anyone.

Abortion should be legal...
-until a certain point during pregnancy where a scientifically determined point is where the fetus is developed enough to get 'abortion-protection'. A two week old fetus doesn't get this protection, a 9 month old fetus does get it. I don't know enough about fetal development but this point could for example be the development of the nervous system.
-while it's done by good doctors. I think in the Netherlands you'll have to wait 5 days or something between your first decision and your final 'legal consent'. So you go to the doctor, ask the doctor, you'll get some information about abortion and other options, and if your still certain you want to do it after some time, you can be allowed to do it.

I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

I find it funny that the anti abortion crowd touts a quasi religious argument against it and yet they claim being pro life has nothing to do with religion.

Here's an interesting quizz mainly dealing with abortion, in case anyone wants to do it. It's pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

I have mixed feelings about abortion, but I don't think it should ever be a decision made by the state.

It's not a question about abortion itself, it's a question about belief in the most essential notion of freedom: over your own body and over the most important things about your life. You can't touch abortion without touching that issue, so it becomes a pretty heavy subject.

Unsurprisingly I could never ever find myself in the anti-choice camp because of that. It would be shamefull if I did.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

And why is a mans opinon any less worthy than a females? I understand that they aren't the ones going through it, but you're just dismissing any valuable opinon a man may have. Many men I know are for abortion, pro-choice in fact, so does that mean their opinon is less valid than a woman who is pro-life?

But anyway, I think abortions should be legal and regulated properly. If someone wants one and meets the agreeable standards of requirements(ie the feteus is not to old to be aborted etc) there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Honestly, when you look at the countries that have made abortion illegal, you see appalling instances of women seeking out abortions from non-qualified people, sometimes ending in their death.

TinyDragon:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

And why is a mans opinon any less worthy than a females? I understand that they aren't the ones going through it, but you're just dismissing any valuable opinon a man may have. Many men I know are for abortion, pro-choice in fact, so does that mean their opinon is less valid than a woman who is pro-life?

But anyway, I think abortions should be legal and regulated properly. If someone wants one and meets the agreeable standards of requirements(ie the feteus is not to old to be aborted etc) there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Honestly, when you look at the countries that have made abortion illegal, you see appalling instances of women seeking out abortions from non-qualified people, sometimes ending in their death.

I think that a woman's opinion on abortion is more important than a man's. It is her body. I find the thought of old men convening and deciding what a woman can and can't do with her body to be laughable. Sorry, just how I feel.

TinyDragon:
And why is a mans opinon any less worthy than a females?

Because a man can't get pregnant, and even rape has very different implications on a man than on a woman, so men are pretty much disqualified from having a condemning opinion on the subject, as it's wrong to pass judgement about what one can't even understand on an elementary level. I mean, even the less elementary and more socially determined (and thus rationally approachable) things such as gender role and implications on life are subject to entire fields of scientific study. It would be wrong to assume one can understand all of that.

The dismissing only applies to opinions prescribing others what to do (anti-abortion) though, because any other way of wording it does justice to one's position of not being able to understand the subject fully.


For example
Suppose a deluded woman stands up and says she doesn't understand dicks, has been able to live without having one for decades, so every man should cut his off.

Compared to a woman who says she doesn't understand her boyfriend, nor men in general.

That first woman stands for the anti-abortion movement in the sense that she passes a judgement about what she doesn't understand and can not experience, and presumes to dictate what everybody else should do.
The second one has the exact same position in terms of knowledge and understanding, but chooses not to pass any judgement over it.

So a woman that thinks abortion is wrong, is more valued than a guy that thinks it is right?

Sorry I'm just trying to get a bead on what people think, cause honestly, it's a subject that isn't just about what women should be able to do with their body, it's also about the child. Since its also about the (possible)child, many different people are going to have their way in, especially since being pro-choice means that everyone has their different opinions of what constitutes what.

I just feel slightly insulted that my opinon doesn't matter as much as a females even though it (from experience) is better formed than many of them. Many women who I have talked to just say, ya I agree or no I disagree, they don't really have any reasons beyond the very basic. In my case, I have talked to a lot of women about the subject and I can tell you what they think, sure I'll never experience it, but my reasons are sound and only come from what women tell me. Hence I feel like my position as pro-choice is very grounded on some logical foundations.

TinyDragon:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

And why is a mans opinon any less worthy than a females? I understand that they aren't the ones going through it, but you're just dismissing any valuable opinon a man may have. Many men I know are for abortion, pro-choice in fact, so does that mean their opinon is less valid than a woman who is pro-life?

But anyway, I think abortions should be legal and regulated properly. If someone wants one and meets the agreeable standards of requirements(ie the feteus is not to old to be aborted etc) there shouldn't be anything holding them back. Honestly, when you look at the countries that have made abortion illegal, you see appalling instances of women seeking out abortions from non-qualified people, sometimes ending in their death.

It's not that their opinion is worth less. It's that if their opinion is as binding, if there's a disagreement between the man and the woman, that will result in the woman either having to go through a pregnancy she doesn't want, or to have an invasive procedure she doesn't want. Those consequences are different for the man, and are widely regarded (rightly or wrongly) as worse consequences.

I've toyed with accepting the idea of a "financial abortion" concept for men, i.e. if the man doesn't want the child then he can be financially absolved from supporting it, but that could be used as leverage to make the woman choose one way or another. Then again, a lot of things surely could be used that way....

TinyDragon:
So a woman that thinks abortion is wrong, is more valued than a guy that thinks it is right?

Only a tiny bit. I could only respect their opinion if they had been raped, or pregnant against their will, and decided not to have an abortion without cultural pressure or social pressure.

Such people don't exist however. The whole anti-abortion movement only has one or two flagship women who didn't have an abortion under extremly heavy social pressure, who for the same reason can't express any negative feelings they have about being forced into that course of action, the rest have no clue what it is about.


As for it being unfair, I don't really think so. There's other situations where the roles are reversed. I also think the same for instance about a woman who'd go 'fighting sports are dumb and should be banned for everyone', conditioned to be learned helpless and never engage in any form of agression, who doesn't understand the element of tension and competition, and will obviously never have tried it herself.

With the added remark that a ton of women are into fighting sports, so the prejudice of someone being opposed to them out of a role of learned helplessness would be even worse.

Istvan:
-snip-

I take umbrage with your poll. The title of the thread is "Abortion, Y/N." Very straightforward, very to the point. Then your poll reverses the question, asking should doctors prevent them, meaning if you are for abortion you answer no and against yes. If you want an accurate reading, you're going to have to take one off of yes and add it to no for me.

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

Despite the fact that a man was needed for there to even be a baby

Istvan:
First, there was no time, matter or even light. Then there were abortions! They crop up a lot on the escapist in various discussions but I haven't seen polls about them lately. What does the escapist think the state should do about them? Should they be allowed or should women be forced at gunpoint to jump the border fence if they don't want to bring a child into the world with no-one who can take proper care of it?

Personally I favour abortions - I myself was born into a troubled family and would have preferred my mother not to procreate before she had her own life in order. I'm almost 20 and only now does she really pay attention to what I'm doing. I view a foetus to be a collection of cells rather than a person, and I don't believe in souls.

The only reason that abortion is even an issue is because of the influence religion still has over many people. Take religion out of the equation and you have no real reason to prevent a woman from having control over her own body (you can give some moral reasons but everyone who looked into the whole biology behind pregnancy knows that, for example, it takes time for a fetus to develop things such as a brain, without which there is no real reason to call it a person).

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

A man should have some say in it. Both the man and a woman had unprotected sex that resulted in pregnancy.
If a woman wants to get an abortion and the man is against it, she should have the last word because it's her body.
However, if a woman wants the baby but the man doesn't, he shouldn't be forced to pay for the baby for the first 18 years of its' life. He should at least have the option to not have anything to do with the baby.

On principle I oppose abortion in nearly all cases. In practice I would accept a stop-gap compromise where abortion passed the beginning of the second trimester is banned except in some extreme cases (like where the life of the mother is in danger). Though I make no secret of my intent to see abortion either banned or rendered obsolete completely someday, the compromise I am proposing is at least a doable start.

Lilani:

Istvan:
-snip-

The title of the thread is "Abortion, Y/N." Very straightforward, very to the point. Then your poll reverses the question, asking should doctors prevent them, meaning if you are for abortion you answer no and against yes. If you want an accurate reading, you're going to have to take one off of yes and add it to no for me.

Pardon me, I'll try to clarify it now, albeit my question was whether or not the government should prevent doctors from carrying it out, which is what the primary debate is these days.

Seekster:
On principle I oppose abortion in nearly all cases. In practice I would accept a stop-gap compromise where abortion passed the beginning of the second trimester is banned except in some extreme cases (like where the life of the mother is in danger). Though I make no secret of my intent to see abortion either banned or rendered obsolete completely someday, the compromise I am proposing is at least a doable start.

I kind of agree with this. I am pro-choice but I think that only early-term abortions should be okay (before the fetus develops neurons, basically, and could be capable of wanting to live). Late-term abortions should only be allowed if the pregnancy is life/long-term health threatening, or in other extreme circumstances.

PercyBoleyn:
I find it funny that the anti abortion crowd touts a quasi religious argument against it and yet they claim being pro life has nothing to do with religion.

Here's an interesting quizz mainly dealing with abortion, in case anyone wants to do it. It's pretty interesting stuff:
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/whosebody/Default.aspx

Results

Your responses during this activity indicate that you should think abortion is always morally justified, even on those occasions it occurs in the late stages of pregnancy. This is consistent with your stated position on abortion, which is precisely that it is always justifed. Overall, your position on abortion seems coherent and well thought out (which, of course, is not the same as saying it is right).

Whose Body Is It Anyway? - Complications and Contradictions

There is a point to make here about your attitude towards spontaneous abortion (miscarriage). It is estimated there are around 1,000,000 miscarriages every year in the United States. Nevertheless, you ranked the issue below cancer and heart disease in terms of its seriousness, and indeed not even in the top three medical problems, which suggests that you do not consider it to be a particularly serious issue. This response actually makes sense (if, as per your instructions, you didn't take into account the upset caused to those people who suffer miscarriages when determining how to rank the various issues). The overwhelming majority of miscarriages occur when a fetus is not anything like developed enough to be sentient. Therefore, in your terms, there is no tragedy in the loss of its life beyond the unhappiness caused to those who care about it (which of course is morally significant, but not relevant from the point of view of this activity).

Huzzah.

Anyway, no, I don't think the state should ban abortion because I believe woman should be able to do whatever they want with their own body.

The state should make abortions mandatory in all cases. I did some research (which you can find here) on the possible social, moral, legal, religious and economical effects of mandatory abortions and I think everyone - no matter their political outlook - would be quite satisfied by it. Really, the plan has no downsides.

Volf:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

Despite the fact that a man was needed for there to even be a baby

It's in my body, not his. He has no more right to my body than someone who donates blood to me.

Kendarik:

It's in my body, not his. He has no more right to my body than someone who donates blood to me.

Indeed! - Question though; Do you feel that the fact that his genetic material is a part of what's in your body entitles you to his worldly possessions?

Seekster:
On principle I oppose abortion in nearly all cases.

Care to elaborate?

Amnestic:
The state should make abortions mandatory in all cases. I did some research (which you can find here) on the possible social, moral, legal, religious and economical effects of mandatory abortions and I think everyone - no matter their political outlook - would be quite satisfied by it. Really, the plan has no downsides.

i agree with this, and anyone who does not get a mandatory abortion shall be publicly executed by the removal of the fetus without anesthesia or modern medical technology. just a hunting knife and some tweezers.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:
On principle I oppose abortion in nearly all cases.

Care to elaborate?

No I don't see any need to considering I did so recently on a topic that is still on the front page at the time this post was made. The question is should the state ban abortion, not is abortion right or wrong.

Kendarik:

Volf:

RedEyesBlackGamer:
I'm pro-choice. Of course, I don't consider a man's opinion on abortion to be worth all that much.

Despite the fact that a man was needed for there to even be a baby

It's in my body, not his. He has no more right to my body than someone who donates blood to me.

When your actions have the potential to affect two other people, it isn't just about you anymore, other people have to be considered as well. You need a man to contribute in order for a baby to be born, so a man should have equal say in the matter.

Also, in regards to your body, it isn't just your body anymore when your diet can potentially lead to the mental/physical illness/disability of another person. The health of other people is something that must also be considered.

Seekster:

No I don't see any need to considering I did so recently on a topic that is still on the front page at the time this post was made. The question is should the state ban abortion, not is abortion right or wrong.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is at the core of the abortion debate.

Volf:
When your actions have the potential to affect two other people, it isn't just about you anymore, other people have to be considered as well. You need a man to contribute in order for a baby to be born, so a man should have equal say in the matter.

Also, in regards to your body, it isn't just your body anymore when your diet can potentially lead to the mental/physical illness/disability of another person. The health of other people is something that must also be considered.

Fetuses aren't people. Also, how would you go about letting the man have equal say in the matter?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

No I don't see any need to considering I did so recently on a topic that is still on the front page at the time this post was made. The question is should the state ban abortion, not is abortion right or wrong.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is at the core of the abortion debate.

Yes but the OP is a question about law not ethics. Law is what you must do, ethics is what you should do.

Seekster:

Yes but the OP is a question about law not ethics. Law is what you must do, ethics is what you should do.

He obviously wanted to start a debate about abortion.

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Yes but the OP is a question about law not ethics. Law is what you must do, ethics is what you should do.

He obviously wanted to start a debate about abortion.

And he got one, so what is the problem?

PercyBoleyn:

Seekster:

Yes but the OP is a question about law not ethics. Law is what you must do, ethics is what you should do.

He obviously wanted to start a debate about abortion.

no he obviously wanted to start a discussion about state decisions on abortion and how it should be done. while he did state he views it as okay, it is not his intent to create a debate about morals.

PercyBoleyn:

Volf:
When your actions have the potential to affect two other people, it isn't just about you anymore, other people have to be considered as well. You need a man to contribute in order for a baby to be born, so a man should have equal say in the matter.

Also, in regards to your body, it isn't just your body anymore when your diet can potentially lead to the mental/physical illness/disability of another person. The health of other people is something that must also be considered.

Fetuses aren't people. Also, how would you go about letting the man have equal say in the matter?

Yes, fetus are not people, but babies are. My comment about three people was more focused towards the future sense.

I would say that if either party wants an abortion, then it should be done.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked