Support NeoGAF

[BobbyRobby]

A lot of people here agree that if a woman finds out her kid is going to have down's syndrome or some other severe genetic defect, that she has the right to abort.

I'm wondering if the collective would agree that she has the same right if she were to be knocked up from someone of a different racial background, and didn't want to have a bi-racial baby.

Should sex discrimination be allowed? [added thanks to speculawyer]

Or say, down the line that prenatal testing could predict homosexuality, would you agree that she has the right to discriminate and abort the fetus in this case?

Edit: Many have said that forcing a woman to state her reasons infringes on privacy, but should the test even be allowed?

Should any of this even matter, or should a woman's right to abortion be unlimited?

 

[Blearth]

No restrictions

The less people being born, the better.

 

[Vicetrailia]

No restrictions. That's your own personal business.

 

[dinazimmerman]

The less people being born, the better.

In general? Why?

 

[ElFly]

Probably depends on where you are. In my country abortion is illegal anyway. AFAIK in america you can abort by whatever reason, according to roe vs wade.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

I support abortion for any reason in the first trimester. After that, things are a little iffier.

 

[BobbyRobby]

Probably depends on where you are. In my country abortion is illegal anyway. AFAIK in america you can abort by whatever reason, according to roe vs wade.

I don't care if it's legal or not, I am asking if you personally think it should be allowed.

 

[Cat Party]

Simply forcing a woman to specify a reason potentially infringes on the right, so you can't bar people from discriminating in this fashion. But I can and do find such an idea repugnant.

 

[Blearth]

In general? Why?

 

[dinazimmerman]

Traffic jams?

 

[Zona]

In the first trimester sure.

 

[Blearth]

Traffic jams?

Too many fucking people.

Traffic jams
Crowded subway trains
Long lines at the ATM
etc

 

[marrec]

I'm for a woman's right to choose, if that choice is based on ignorance and hate, then I'm all for our right to not like her.

 

[Salmonax]

In general? Why?

Overpopulation, limited resources, crime, etc.

Although it's not true for all countries, in general there are too many people being born. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

 

[Learn2read]

Or say, down the line that prenatal testing could predict homosexuality, would you agree that she has the right to discriminate and abort the fetus in this case?

Would there really be that much overlap between being homophobic to that degree and still being pro-choice?

 

[Omegasquash]

I support abortion for any reason in the first trimester. After that, things are a little iffier.

Roe v. Wade, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[speculawyer]

I'm pretty much for no restrictions. It is a private matter.


But one area that freaks me out a little is sex selection . . . if people abort girls in preference to boys, that is going to fuck up society when you end up with lots of men that can't get laid. Crime & violence go up.

 

[crazy monkey]

Are you from India?

 

[Kalnos]

Why should someone have to disclose a reason to have an abortion? If it's in the correct time frame it's no ones business but their own.

If I was going to be born with down syndrome I would personally rather not be born. As such, I probably would struggle with the idea.

 

[BobbyRobby]

I'm kind of torn. A lot of people have kids because they want to leave a legacy. They want grandchildren. I think a large amount of people would choose to abort if they found out their fetus was gay.

 

[SquiddyCracker]

This is an interesting topic.
It's very interesting how the combination of two things which are perfectly fine on their own, end up invoking some discomfort when put together.

Abortion is legal and available without much hassle in most western countries, as are various tests to measure characteristics such as disorders or genders.
Yet we have some limits in certain countries, I believe the UK for an example has banned or are in the process of banning gender based abortion.

 

[orientalNoodle]

China is getting it right with abortion. Total freedom.

 

[Pagusas]

Traffic jams?

how many people do you think our planet can support? We are at 7billion (or more). What do you think is going to happen when more and more of those people start becoming middle class in modernized countries and wanting all we have here in the US? There simply isnt enough resources in the world to continue the way we are heading. As more people are born, there will be less room for personalized education, eventually (if not already) our ability to be a functioning society of educated people is going to suffer. Drop outs, people who never further there education, all that willl increase exponentially. Socialist countries will be overrun with caring for the people who cant succeed in even a standard life, and the world will become even more divided by the have and have nots.

 

[apana]

The only issue that arises is with gender. You need an equal split and so you can't have people being told the genders of their kids in societies that see women as less valuable.

 

[Deified Data]

The rights of women to their own bodies should be unlimited. So long as the child is part of a woman's body, she should have the right to abort. For health. For Down's syndrome. For racism or aesthetics. Abortion should be an option until mother and child are seperated.

 

[frankie_baby]

Abortions as i said in the other thread be if for if you want a kid or not, not for if you want this particular kid

 

[zoku88]

Overpopulation, limited resources, crime, etc.

Although it's not true for all countries, in general there are too many people being born. Things fall apart; the center cannot hold.

That's an allocation of resources problem and not really a population problem.

There is more than enough of almost anything for anyone.

 

[Mudkips]

I'd be far happier in a world where unwanted children don't exist.

Proposing limits on abortion due to race/sex/sexuality/disease/whatever is proposing unwanted children be forced upon people.

 

[frankie_baby]

The rights of women to their own bodies should be unlimited. So long as the child is part of a woman's body, she should have the right to abort. For health. For Down's syndrome. For racism or aesthetics. Abortion should be an option until mother and child are seperated.

So you'd be ok with week 39 abortions?

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The rights of women to their own bodies should be unlimited. So long as the child is part of a woman's body, she should have the right to abort. For health. For Down's syndrome. For racism or aesthetics. Abortion should be an option until mother and child are seperated.

Irrespective of how far developed the pregnancy is?

 

[FillerB]

Pregnant women should have the right to abort within the first trimester for whatever reason they damn well like.

 

[Deified Data]

So you'd be ok with week 39 abortions?

Yes.

Irrespective of how far developed the pregnancy is?

Yes. Either a woman owns her body all of the time, or never.

 

[ChubbyHuggs]

I'm for abortion of any reason, the world is becoming overpopulated.

 

[Pagusas]

I'd be far happier in a world where unwanted children don't exist.

Proposing limits on abortion due to race/sex/sexuality/disease/whatever is proposing unwanted children be forced upon people.

I think we all would. But thats part of a utopian dream thats not going to happen. The best we can do is further the research of birth controll to make it 100% effective, and supply it for free or near free prices to all that want it.

If the church wants go get rid of abortions, that right there is the #1 to help it. Yet they are agains that to.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

Yes.

How do you feel about a mother killing her week old child

 

[zoku88]

I'm for abortion of any reason, the world is becoming overpopulated.

I don't think you can point to a single symptom of current "overpopulation"that is not due to the failure to properly allocate resources.

 

[Omegasquash]

Yes.

I'm in agreement with you to a point, but fetal viability is an argument that's always brought up. Wonder what your thoughts are on that.

 

[Gaborn]

Should any of this even matter, or should a woman's right to abortion be unlimited?

It shouldn't matter but there shouldn't be restrictions on abortion in those situations.

edit: that is, that should not be the reason for a restriction. I think the line should be if the fetus would be viable outside the womb.

 

[Deified Data]

How do you feel about a mother killing her week old child

The child is a seperate entity at that point.

In my view, everything prior to birth is fair game. It's an extreme opinion but anything else leaves my argument open to semantic nit-picking.

I'm in agreement with you to a point, but fetal viability is an argument that's always brought up. Wonder what your thoughts are on that.

Viability is a common consideration. That said, if an infant is attatched to a woman and shares that woman's blood and nutrients, if the fetus must be removed via an operation that could result in injury or death, the mother should reserve the right to terminate that pregnancy at any time.

 

[frankie_baby]

Yes.


Yes. Either a woman owns her body all of the time, or never.

You are just sick

 

[orientalNoodle]

Yes.


Yes. Either a woman owns her body all of the time, or never.

Technically the baby is not a part of the mother's body. The babyis a separate living organism attaching to the host or mother...kinda like a parasite.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Yes.


Yes. Either a woman owns her body all of the time, or never.

YES.


Also, things change. Maybe a woman finds out something really bad about the father and no longer wishes to spread his genes. She needs to be able to abort at any time.

I'd probably draw the line at breathing, just like the religious used to, before they started cribbing from science.

 

[mr Miller]

The child is a seperate entity at that point.

In my view, everything prior to birth is fair game. It's an extreme opinion but anything else leaves my argument open to semantic nit-picking.

Uhh you realize there is no genetic difference between an unborn fetus 1 week from being born, and a week old baby, right?

From the moment of conception a genetically unique new life is created. This is how we draw the distinction between jerking off into a sock and killing a fetus; the semen, or the unfertilized egg for that matter, has the exact same genetic makeup of the man (or female,) but, a fetus is genetically unique.

Your argument works if you want it to work I guess, but scientifically it is simply unsound.

 

[zoku88]

Technically the baby is not a part of the mother's body. The babyis a separate living organism attaching to the host or mother...kinda like a parasite.

As such, he's saying that she should be able to remove the "parasite" that is occupying her body.

That's really just semantics, though.

Uhh you realize there is no genetic difference between an unborn fetus 1 week from being born, and a week old baby, right?

From the moment of conception a genetically unique new life is created. This is how we draw the distinction between jerking off into a sock and killing a fetus, the semen, or the unfertilized egg for that matter, has the exact same genetic makeup of the man (or female,) but, a fetus is genetically unique.

Your argument works if you want it to work I guess, but scientifically it is simply unsound.

Pretty sure the genes are the same almost the entire way (except the very beginning.)

His argument is that because it's "occupying the body" "connected to the body" or wtv, that the woman should be able to abort it. It has nothing to do with conception or when "life begins".

The argument is similar to an argument I've read before that is very well articulated. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[Deified Data]

You are just sick

If you look at it from the perspective of terminating infants, perhaps. I look at it through the lens of preserving the rights of women.

 

[Meus Renaissance]

The child is a seperate entity at that point.

In my view, everything prior to birth is fair game. It's an extreme opinion but anything else leaves my argument open to semantic nit-picking.

So for you it's not a matter of whether its a "child" or "foetus", "alive" or not, but whether or not it's still in the womb irregardless of everything else. It's not so much as extreme as just a pointlessly stupid opinion - it makes no sense by any measurement of rationale or ethics. I wouldn't even categorise it as a Pro-Choice position, it's just so out there lol

 

[Count Dookkake]

You are just sick

No u.

 

[LowEndTorque]

is going to have down's syndrome or some other severe genetic defect, that she has the right to abort.

knocked up from someone of a different racial background, and didn't want to have a bi-racial baby.

I'm 100% pro choice, but this comparison made me lol for some reason.

Spoiler

not that genetic defects are a laughing matter though. I'm a terrible person

 

[Omegasquash]

Uhh you realize there is no genetic difference between an unborn fetus 1 week from being born, and a week old baby, right?

From the moment of conception a genetically unique new life is created. This is how we draw the distinction between jerking off into a sock and killing a fetus, the semen, or the unfertilized egg for that matter, has the exact same genetic makeup of the man (or female,) but, a fetus is genetically unique.

Your argument works if you want it to work I guess, but scientifically it is simply unsound.

Which is still dependent on the mother. That "new life" can also be viewed as parasitic. The right of the host is still most important. I hear what you're saying, but it needs to be put forward that there are other shoes to stand in, here.

 

[Gaborn]

If you look at it from the perspective of terminating infants, perhaps. I look at it through the lens of preserving the rights of women.

How about putting it like this. A woman has the right to "evict" a fetus at any time, that is, induce pre-mature birth. If that means that it dies because it's not viable that's fine, but if it's passed the point of reasonable viability the fetus has the right at a shot at living.

It seems to me that a woman's right to her body does not give her the right to kill ANYTHING in it at all whatsoever. The issue is that there is something living off her body. You can believe she has the right to get it out but NOT believe she has the right to use deadly force prior to it's leaving of it's own biological determination.