Abortion discussion

Sarah Long said:I’m not so sure; it isn't exactly a harmless procedure, which is why I thought about having someone monitor you for a few nights... when an abortion is performed for medical reasons, they keep you under 24/7 supervision and stay right by your side constantly...
1,400? That sounds more reasonable, though $200 is still quite a bit... wait, is that actually legal here in the States? (Just asking since I'm not entirely sure)

It's legal, though I fail to see what would be gained by making abortions more expensive. In my view, a dilation and evacuation up to twelve weeks is a fairly straightforward procedure.

Setting aside the psychological weight or any religious debates, I still find myself thinking back to something a gynecologist told me years ago:
every abortion is a step closer to the grave.
If you understand the reality of what that entails, then everything becomes crystal clear, doesn't it? The risks are massive.
That’s why it’s always better to think things through beforehand. Of course, there will always be situations where it’s absolutely necessary, and in those cases, it needs to be done legally in a hospital setting. Why? Because the fallout from an abortion—like infertility caused by complications from an amateur procedure or unsanitary conditions—could go a thousand different ways.
Personally, I'm all for education rather than legal bans. After all, isn't a ban just going to trigger a surge of unqualified hacks instead of actually preventing anything?

Mark Clark2 said:... Deciding to have an abortion is never easy—and honestly, dealing with the aftermath, whether it’s physical or mental, is even harder. That’s exactly why these women don't need some stranger coming in to lecture them or calling them idiots. It’s a lose-lose logic: either they really are making poor choices—in which case, what's the point of explaining anything?—or they aren't "idiots" at all, but simply faced circumstances so overwhelming that abortion felt like the only path. Either way, nobody needs to preach to them; they're already carrying the weight of that choice on their own shoulders.

Man, I tip my hat to you.

Man... it's honestly hard to say what's going to happen next.
And making a choice like this? It's just so heavy.
Mentally and physically, it takes everything out of you. Of course, I’d always go to a professional first... but let's be real, 99% of the experts you talk to are just going to try and talk you out of it.

I am firmly in favor of the right to choose👍

I truly hope I never find myself in such a position, but I can certainly empathate with women who decide to have an abortion.
I don't know—if an unplanned pregnancy were to happen while I was still in college, or perhaps even more critically, if it happened while I was dating someone I didn't see a long-term future with (since I'm really not at a stage where I want a child regardless of the circumstances), I'd probably be considering that option too...

It just feels a bit strange to me that most people here (specifically women like 😲 ) seem to label those seeking abortions as idiots. Honestly, I haven't heard of a single case of spontaneous conception—I mean, we can debate the biblical stories, but practically speaking, 😁)
I am quite convinced that many women who opt for an abortion might not make that choice if the men involved reacted with actual maturity... every abortion weighs on the man's soul just as much as it does on the woman's.

As for those women who already have children and are opting for abortions, 🤔 maybe we should encourage people over the age of 35 who are certain they don't want more children to look into sterilization... perhaps there could even be some kind of guideline—say, two abortions leads to sterilization. 😬

You know, if I’m being completely honest, I’m starting to wonder what the actual point of this whole discussion is when you aren't even allowed to hold a dissenting opinion—like, say, being against Vacuum-abortus. A healthy debate usually thrives on things like mutual respect and basic tolerance... but here, the moment someone speaks up against Vacuum-abortus, they immediately get pelted with stones and verbal attacks. I don't know, you people are certainly an interesting bunch...

Look, abortion isn't just her issue—it’s a man's responsibility too. He carries just as much blame here (and I'm not even counting that part where she lies to him about being on birth control when she's clearly not)
As for people having conflicting opinions? Let them. Honestly, if someone thinks like that, I wouldn't want to be in a relationship with them anyway.
I feel like you can get through almost anything, and to be totally honest, I don't even know what I'd do if I were in that situation... but I know for sure my parents would be against it, even though they've always been pro-choice.

Elizabeth Foster20 said:I'm all in on the right to choose. 👍

🙄 Look, people already have total freedom of choice. We have the freedom to kill someone who's 60 or 15, or even a two-day-old infant. It’s not about whether that freedom exists—it definitely does. The real question is how much that actually lines up with a person's own moral compass. Choice and liberty aren't even part of the debate here. 🙄

It’s a whole different ballgame when someone decides to take a life and the law actually gives them the green light to do it. 🙄 😢

If we're talking about medical necessity—like when a woman's life is actually on the line—then yeah, that needs to be an option. But that's not the kind of thing we're discussing here.

Elizabeth Foster20 said:Pregnancy happens... (I mean, Mary’s being skeptical, but whatever.) 😁)

It just "happened" to her? Please. Everyone else could have seen it coming. 😁

Elizabeth Foster20 said:Honestly, so many women... they wouldn't even act like that if a guy just acted like an adult for once.

Ugh, maybe... but honestly, the choice is always up to the woman. So, who exactly is being called immature here? 🙄

So, what's even the point of this whole discussion? And why on earth is it being posted in the health section?

urbansailor68 said:🙄 but people already possess true choice and absolute freedom... I mean, a person technically has the freedom to kill someone who is 60 or 15, or even an infant just two days old. The real question isn't about availability, but rather how much that aligns with one's own moral compass? In my view, the concepts of choice and freedom aren't even really at issue here 🙄

🤔 I suspect we first need to actually define what we mean when we talk about "freedom of choice" and "liberty"... when I used the term "woman's right to choose," I was referring—as I assume most people do—to the ability for a woman to have a legal abortion upon her own request. You can't exactly go around killing people without facing some sort of consequence (well, maybe in certain parts of the US you could 😠, but that’s beside the point), so clearly, that level of absolute freedom doesn't exist...

For instance, I fail to see why you (and others holding this specific view) assume, as a baseline, that it's somehow more moral to bring a child into the world only to abandon them in a dumpster 👎 than it is to undergo an abortion?

By the way, I should mention something rather intriguing (at least, it seemed interesting enough to me 😁)... a few months back, there was this massive feature article in the papers regarding Vacuum-abortus, which included an interview with a psychiatrist—I can't recall his name, though he's a regular on those late-night talk shows about sexual health and such—who suggested that women who opt for abortion tend to be far more psychologically stable than those who choose to put a child up for adoption..

Elizabeth Foster20 said:For example, I don't get why you (and everyone else holding that view) assume it's somehow more moral to give birth just to dump the baby in a trash can👎 than having an abortion.

...wait, where did I even mention leaving a kid in a trash can? 🤔

Elizabeth Foster20 said:...who said women choosing abortion are way more stable than those who choose adoption?

Maybe I did say that. Because even if the pregnancy or the kid wasn't planned, nature basically ensures that "love for the child" kicks in during and after the pregnancy... so by that logic, a mother who carries to term but then abandons her own kid would be the "unstable" one. Makes sense.

urbansailor68 said:Medical abortions are a necessity when a woman's life is on the line, but that isn't the specific issue being debated here.

So, what is your stance then—is an abortion only justifiable if it’s a matter of survival for the mother? Where do you draw the line regarding fetal malformations, or perhaps cases where the pregnancy is the direct result of sexual assault?

Betty Bennett10 said:Do you think an abortion is only justified if the mother's life is at risk? What about cases involving fetal malformation, or, say, when the pregnancy is the result of a rape?

Yeah.

I don't think it's justified in cases of fetal malformation or when the pregnancy comes from a rape.

urbansailor68 said:Exactly.

In instances involving fetal malformations or pregnancies resulting from sexual assault, I don't see it as a justifiable exception.

It’s a more logically consistent position than what most people hold, I suppose. Though, if you’re operating under the premise that an abortion is murder, then you’re essentially equating the unborn—whether embryo or fetus—with a born person. You’re effectively placing the life of the fetus on the exact same plane as the woman carrying it, which means their lives are equally "important." By that logic, even if the mother's own life were at risk, an abortion would still be considered murder.

Betty Bennett10 said:...so in that case, their lives are just as 'important'—meaning if the mother's life is at risk, an abortion would still be considered murder.

Yeah, it's murder, but you're saving at least one life instead of two.

urbansailor68 said:Sure, it's killing someone, but you're at least preserving one life instead of two...

I’m still not entirely sure I follow your logic here: are you saying an abortion is only justifiable when both the mother and the fetus are at risk—essentially, when continuing the pregnancy would result in two deaths and stopping it saves the mother? (I have to admit, I struggle to even conceive of a medical scenario where that actually plays out)

What happens if a woman develops something like cancer during her pregnancy, and she requires treatment that would inevitably damage or terminate the pregnancy? In a case like that, would an abortion be considered justified?

Betty Bennett10 said:I'm still not totally following: you're saying an abortion is only okay if both the mother's and the baby's lives are at risk—basically, where continuing the pregnancy would kill them both, but ending it saves the mother? (Honestly, I can't even wrap my head around what kind of medical situation that would actually be.)

I guess one example is when a pregnant woman has major heart issues or high blood pressure, and carrying the baby to term—let alone actually giving birth—could literally kill her. I don't know, maybe someone here is actually a doctor and can give a better example.

Betty Bennett10 said:What if a woman gets diagnosed with cancer or something else during her pregnancy, and she needs treatment that would either harm or end the pregnancy? Is an abortion justified in that case?

To be honest, I’ve never really thought about that. Not sure what I'd say.🙄
🤔If it's a fast-moving disease, like she'd die before the pregnancy even finishes, then you'd have to go with the treatment and just deal with whatever happens next.
I don't know... I think I'm for the mother getting treated...

But now you've got me thinking about another thing I don't really have a solid take on: childbirth. Like when you have to choose between the mother's life or the baby's—those cases exist, at least in movies. 🙄 In that scenario, the baby is already capable of living on its own. Still don't have a real opinion on that one either.🙄

urbansailor68 said:Actually, your line of questioning has just pushed me toward another dilemma where I don't really have a firm opinion: family—specifically, when you have to choose between the life of the mother or the child (it happens, at least in movies 🙄). In those scenarios, the child's capacity is limited strictly to survival. I honestly don't have a stance on this either 🙄

The "smart" OB-GYNs would tell you: the mother comes first.

shadowfalcon33 said:The "brilliant" OB-GYNs would probably argue that the mother is the priority.

So, what’s your take on it?

Betty Bennett10 said:And what would your take be?

Child.

urbansailor68 said:Exactly.

If we're talking about fetal malformations resulting from a pregnancy caused by rape, I don't see how that justifies keeping it.

I just read an article about a woman who refused an abortion despite medical complications—something about an ectopic pregnancy where the embryo didn't implant in the uterus correctly. It ended in tragedy for both her and the baby. To me, those kinds of radical stances just don't make sense.