Should Abortion Be Legal?

Abortion should be free on demand, without apology or explanation.

 

SCOTUS did not ban abortion. It ruled that only the states have the power to regulate abortions.
It removed that power from the Federal government, and returned it to the States.
As far as “free on demand”: How about we start with free condoms and oral contraceptives, and make the abortion issue moot?

 

For incest and rape victims??

 

The effect of Dobbs will be the outright banning of abortion in at least 26 states, and Congressional Republicans are talking of instituting a Federal ban. After the midterms, there's nothing to stop them now Roe's been repealed.
In his concurring opinion, Thomas explicitly stated their intent to repeal “all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell”, which will lead (among other things) to restrictions and outright bans of contraceptives.
Thanks for the Republican talking points, though.

 

Choice -free will- liberty-freedom—-
————should always be legal

 

I judge no one, but my belief is that abortion is murder and should not be legal. What a woman does is between her and God, and it is to Him that she must answer. Whatever the circumstances, the child is innocent and its life, I believe, is sacred. Sometimes circumstances do not permit the woman to care for a child, but life begins at conception and no one, I believe, has the right to take that baby's life. If I had been raped and a pregnancy had resulted, I would have the baby. If I could not raise the child, I would offer it for adoption. There is always someone willing to have a child to care for. That is my feeling and belief on the matter.
My daughter became pregnant at age 14 and gave her child to a couple who wanted one but were unable to conceive. Abortion was not even considered. You may feel differently; as I said, the decision must be reached by prayerful consideration. I couldn't ever take the life of an innocent child.

Adding this after noticing something; where the options "like, quote, or reply usually appear, there's something missing.
No 'like' option. Interesting.

 

I feel no woman should be forced by law to complete an unwanted pregnancy. Just as the fetus is dependent on the mother's body for survival it should also be dependent on the mother's will. Yes, make available all other options, set up adoption in advance if that's what she wants, and so on but if she chooses abortion there should be no obstacles to keep her from getting one. As Bill Clinton said, "Abortion should be safe, legal and rare."

 

That its even a question boggles the mind, if one wishes to remove it nothing should stand in the way

 

This is a question that was put to me a number of years ago; whilst particiopating in one of many group discussions I had with a diverse company of sex, creed, colour and faith = t'was a time when debate was considered and not a case of opinions berrated.
.
We talked though the various scenarios, - Rape, known incest / unknown incest, ex-marital affairs (and or their consequences there may be - for others) medical circumstances (harm to Mother and/or child) accidental (be it though busted condom, Pill/other forms of prevention failure or drunken error of judgement)
.
I know of some of these cases where:-

• Girl (15) got pregnant - when trying to keep her siblings from going into care - due to Father left, neglectful Mother (alcoholic spender of money/benefits)
• Girl ('just' 16) got pregnant - from behind - when drunk = father not known
• Women got pregnant - following a night out on the town - wit ha man who; it turned out although distantly, was family relate

And through work employment cases where:

• Girl (- 18) got pregnant - through ignorance (sex education lacking)
• Women got pregnant - following domestic abuse of partner
• Women got pregnant - father died - and family shunned her - leaving her homeless and penniless

and could go on!
Whilst it takes 'two to tango' and any decision should be taken by those who created situation and both bear tan onus of responsibility in the care and welfare that follows a child birth, ALL the above scenarios have a common theme, it is the women who would deal with the physicality of carrying and delivering.
Although it may seem like avoiding the question, IMO, I think each case should be reveiwed on it's individual circumstances with both parties involved in the consideration of the matter - though I can't emphasise enough, there should be the appropriate support networks available and accessible to monitor process and progress

 

At the risk of being pilloried by both sides, let me give you my opinion, since you asked. I'm uncomfortable with viewing this in strictly utilitarian terms--looking exclusively at hardships to the potential mother. We don't do that after then child is born. From what we know, the fetus isn't much different shortly before birth than the baby is after birth. So the question is where to draw the line in determining when the fetus has moral significance or personhood. Roe v. Wade drew it at the point of viability: when the fetus is able to live independently outside the womb. The new law in my state (Oklahoma) draws it at fertilization--even before the mother is technically pregnant (implantation).

I favor the ancient and medieval view espoused by Aristotle and early Christian thinkers that the relevant point in which the fetus becomes the subject of moral concern is at ensoulment, which I take to be the point when it acquires sentience (the capacity to feel) and cognition.(the capacity to think) Both of these require a fully developed brain and nervous system, which seems to develop around the third trimester. For practical purposes, this is similar to Roe in terms of the time frame involved for state regulation.This would seem to take care of the hardshp cases you mention--if they act early enough. It does preclude late term abortions.

 

Life is a precious gift, an honour to have, to destroy it is against everything I believe in. To miscarry is bad enough, you look at the date and wonder what your lost child would be like now, often on your mind, but if it had been your decision how could you live with that ? This is my personal opinion, not meant to upset anyone.

 

I agree and can commiserate, having lost two children to miscarriage. Maybe that experience colors one's feelings on the matter.

 

20 weeks is a bit much to make up your mind, I think.

With all our new regulations on abortion, funny how there is no legislation to support poor families since there will be a lot more of them.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

I cant believe how Americans are being treated at a time with legal pot in some states. This policy just feels like spite.

 

I do think they should be allowed but with much more restrictions such as eliminating late term and greatly shortening the time. Keep track of how Mamy you have. Abortion should always be allowed in case of a crime or medical necessity. Abortion has become far too common and not for the right reason.

 

I am a male and should not assert my opinion on another citizen of this country. I do have some comments however.

1. I think that So Called Christians are not realistic in their insistence of abstinence as a model for individuals who reach the highest point in their sexual health before they reach the age of consent.

2. I have sincere sympathy for young females who get pregnant as teenagers, and their parents abandon them. These girls are forced to give birth to an unwanted child and spend the rest of their lives on welfare and in poverty. In addition he unwanted child cannot get the support necessary to become a responsible adult. Who is at fault? The So called Christian parents will have to explain their judgement to Peter at the gates to heaven.

3. What about the Childs inalienable rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

The over turn of Roe vs Wade is another sign that the US is becoming a failed state.

 

yes. even though in a sense it is murder. because there's too many humans on the planet for the heath of the environment for humans, and which will eventualy result in the species near extinction. kind of like what happens to locusts after they swarm.

the lowering of human fertility, accross the board, without bias nor exception is perferable, along with every means of preventing pregnancy, homosexuality included.
the problem is that while longevity has incrased beyond doubling, fertility has not decreased in proportion. therefor this very harmful increase in human population levels,
that most people don't seem to understand how and why that that is. and loss of species diversity, is part of the threat to humanity's future as a species.

all of the arguments are usually looked at as a moral question on the individual level, but there is this contrary moral question on the species and planetary, biospherical level,
that it would not be entirely honest to ignore.