Facebook Activity



Teen Ink on Twitter

Teen Ink Forums

Lively discussions with other teens
   
ScarletCityThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 7:14 pm

Killing the child concieved does not erase the mental damage done. What's more, in studies done, aborting an unwanted baby may cause more damage than putting it up for adoption! Also, statistically speaking, no one says that the new mom has to raise the child. That's what adoption is for. There are plenty of stories of people who are sucssessful after they become legal adults, dispite never being adopted. 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
ScarletCityThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 21, 2016 at 7:15 pm

Sorry, forgot to tag wolvesandwilderness

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 5:25 am

Lucy-Agnes
 
"Maybe there are risks to pre.gnancy, but these risks aren't hefty enough to justify mur.der!"
 
I'd be interested on your stances when it comes to when the mother's life is at imminent risk. What if carrying the baby to term would likely kill her? Or permanently disable her? Or contribute/cause a debilitating and serious mental illness?
 
"It's natural for women to bear children."
 
Cyanide is also natural. So are plenty of other toxic things. Something being natural does not make it inheritenty a good thing 100% of the time. I get the point you're trying to make though. Pre.gnancy is how we get new lives. It's an important and (often) wonderful thing.
 
"To k.ill the baby because we're afraid for our own safety is the epitome of selfishness."
 
I never said it wasn't selfish. But I will challenge your idea that selfishness is always a bad thing.


""Potential" life? This is an existing life."
 
Technically true. What I mean is that before a certain stage in the pre.gnancy, the foetus is unable to survive without being inside the mother's body. Potential life isn't accurate, but I used it for lack of a better term.
 
"This baby already has his own DNA"
 
True.
 
"and his own soul."
 
[citation needed]
 
"Someday the world will look back on these days of ours and say, "What on earth were we thinking?"
 
I could say the same to you. It's all about perspective.
 
"I care just as much about the mother as I do the unb.orn baby."
 
You choosing the baby over the wellbeing of the mother every time contradicts that. If you cared equally for them both, then a risk:benefit analysis for both the mother and the baby would be the logical choice.
 
An interesting thing is, in Australia (where I live) the risk to the mother's wellbeing does have to outweigh the benefit for an ab.ortion to be carried out. But here we take into account psychological and social risk, which you don't seem particuarly phased by.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
stuntddude replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 12:04 pm

Oh boy, it's this topic again.
 
"I do say think of the baby - the baby who never did anything to deserve this. Is it right to punish him, who has just as much potential for life as anyone, to be punished for someone else's crime?"
 
Fun fact: replace "baby" with "mother" and "him" with "her" in this quote and it becomes even more convincing.
 
"My mom has lived through it five times, and her mom (who's now 90) lived through it fifteen times."
 
[insert Catholic breeding joke here]
 
"It'll be seen as worse than slavery, worse than the Holocaust."
 
Holy shit! You think people of the future will think that valuing a mother above a foetus will be seen as worse than systematic genocide and the destruction of the livelihood and cultures of entire races of people? I'm not sure I want to live in that kind of radically reactionary future!
 
"Ab.ortion isn't just a war on babies - it's a war on women."
 
Calm down there, I wouldn't recommend any pretension to speak for the majority of women who disagree with you quite yet.
 
"in studies done, aborting an unwanted baby may cause more damage than putting it up for adoption"
 
Which specific studies are you citing?

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
deafening-fan replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 1:04 pm

Ok so, I've grown up in a Catholic family (though I now consider myself more of a agnostic nowadays) but I've kept some of the innate teachings of Jesuit priests and theologists taught to me by my mother. And honestly? The denial to a woman the right to choose her destiny is technically a war on women.
Where does the line stop with something considered life? Does every excretion of sp.er.m count as a waste of life? Does every egg not used by the female body considered a waste of life? I draw the line at 24-28 weeks of pr.eg.n.ancy, about 6-7 months. That's when the child begins to recieve stimulus and reacts accordingly. The nerve cells become strong and the child can essentially percieve it's limited surroundings. But to call a f*tus a human is...just not right? Humans ARE a amalgamation of cells, but the cells create a conscious being in the environment. Thats why when someone goes into a vegetative state, they are often let go. It's not neccesarily the body that makes a human, but the conciousness within it.
Just my thoughts on the matter.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Admin. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 2:20 pm

okay so this subject is beginning to worsen my anxiety but i just wanted to say that '[citation needed]' is my favorite burn here on Teen Ink and like. please say it all the time honestly it's so beautiful and it makes me so happy
 
(runs away)
 
-admin

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 2:59 pm

I did a little online research and found that less than 1% of all a.bortions are performed to save the mother's life. I also came across this really interesting quote by a P.lanned P.arenthood worker, back in 1967 when medicine wasn't as advanced as it is now:

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pr.egnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukemia, and, if so, abo.rtion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save, life."


There are certain medical procedures which will almost certainly result in the baby's death even though they are not direct a.bortions. These are morally acceptable, as kil.ling the baby is not seen as a means to an end. 


Even in a case where a direct ab.ortion (not a dangerous procedure) was required to save/protect the mother, I would be against the ab.ortion. Here's why: ab.ortion is direct murder. It's kil.ling a baby who never did anything wrong and deserves a chance at life. Letting the mother d.ie is not murder, it's just unfortunate and really, really sad. Of course we should do anything we can to save the mother's life, even to the point of an oper.ation that would endanger the baby - but we can never directly kill the baby, not even to save the mother.


Still, I think cases where a direct a.bortion would save the mother are so rare they're practically nonexistent. Definitely  not enough to justify a.bortion in general, as that article I read pointed out.
 
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 3:17 pm

Here's information I got from the Project Rachel website. (Project Rachel is an outreach to women who regret their a.bortions.)
Professor Priscilla Coleman conducted a study which was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry on Sept. 1, 2011, entitled "A.bortion and Mental Health: Quantitative Synthesis and Analysis of Reasearch Published 1995-2009." According to this study, women who've had a.bortions are at higher risk for men.tal health problems, anx.iety, depr.ession, alc.ohol use/misuse, mari.juana use, and suic.idal behavior.
 
There are contradictory studies out there, but still. I've witnessed the pain of post-ab.ortive mothers, heard the testimony of courageous women who chose life when it was hardest, seen and touched a beautiful baby boy who might have been snuffed out. A.bortion is never the best choice.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 3:19 pm

stuntddude:
Regarding the Holocaust and slavery -
What could be worse than depriving absolutely helpless human beings who have never done anything wrong of all chance to live? The Holocaust and slavery were awful, awful, awful things, don't get me wrong. But I firmly believe that someday a.bortion will be seen as at least as bad, if not even worse.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 7:13 pm

Admin
 
"i just wanted to say that '[citation needed]' is my favorite burn here on Teen Ink"
 
Hahaha! You have stuntddude to thank for that!

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 7:32 pm

Lucy-Agnes
 
"found that less than 1% of all a.bortions are performed to save the mother's life"
 
That sounds like a pretty accurate stat based on my leve of knowledge.
 
"There are certain medical procedures which will almost certainly result in the baby's death even though they are not direct a.bortions. These are morally acceptable"
 
This is a strange concept. You're aware that some of these procedures will also have risks of severe health issues for the baby if it survives, right? There are worse things than death. And, once again, from the mother's point of view, raising a child that is likely going to have severe problems, or die young is not a particuarly nice fate.
 
"ab.ortion is direct murder"
 
I don't know what the laws are where you live, but here they disagree with you. You may think it's morally wrong, and that is of course your right, but it's not murder.
 
"Letting the mother d.ie is not murder"
 
So, let me get this straight. Your views are:
1) Killing a foetus which cannot survive on it's own outside of the mother is muder
2) Depriving a woman of a medical procedure which could save her life is not murder
 
I don't understand.
 
"but we can never directly kill the baby, not even to save the mother."
 
This brings me back to the "you care more about the foetus than the mother" point I brought up earlier. And you can argue against that all you like, but the evidence speaks for itself. You're choosing the foetus over the mother.
 
I can't fathom why in your belief system it is okay to kill the foetus via a treatment for the mother's health (say, chemotherapy), but it's not okay to a.bort it.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Admin. replied...
Mar. 22, 2016 at 8:22 pm

Okay, sorry, no. As a Je.wish person, you never compare anything to the Holocaust. Not even other genocides.
 
Do you know what the Holocaust was? Over eleven million people were murdered. I don't care whether you think abo.rtion is killing babies.
 
I will stand up when my fellow liberals call Trump Hitler, and I will stand up now.
 
Comparing anything to the Holocaust that is not the actual Holocaust is anti- Semitic.
 
Comparing abo.rtion to the Holocaust and saying it is worse? That's just... I really, really hope you didn't mean to do that or that your finger slipped or something, because that is disgusting.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 23, 2016 at 1:39 pm

Jubilex:
 
We're getting into sort of complicated moral ground here, and I understand if my stance doesn't make sense. :( Here's the principle I'm making my choices on: the ends do not justify the means, and one may never commit a direct evil in order to bring about a good. Does that make sense? So I can't ever commit a mur.der in hopes of saving someone's life. If in saving someone's life I happen to risk someone else's life, that's morally acceptable.
 
As for a.bortion being mur.der - it doesn't matter what the laws say. In the United States, where I live, there are relatively no restrictions on a.bortion. (It varies state by state - I think for the most part partial-bi.rth a.bortion is against the law now, and maybe some late-seme.ster a.bortions, but you're allowed to get an a.bortion here for practically any reason.) The state doesn't decide what's right and wrong, nor does the opinion of the majority - slavery was seen as perfectly acceptable for a long time. The state justifying a mur.der doesn't make it right, just makes the whole case much sadder.
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 23, 2016 at 1:56 pm

Admin:
 
Recognizing Hitler's extermination of Je.ws as one of the very worst things that ever happened makes me anti-Semitic? Ow.
 
By comparing a.bortion to the Haulocaust, I was in no way condoning the awful, horrible atrocities the Nazis committed. I was simply emphasizing how bad a.bortion really is. Exterminating 11 million Je.ws, Catholics, and hom.ose.xuals just because they were Je.ws, Catholics, and hom.ose.xuals (and whoever else Hitler persecuted) is as bad as it gets. If anything can be worse than that, though, it has to be exterminating 53 million people and saying it's okay because they're so tiny and undeveloped.
 
A glance at the a.bortion industry will show how worthy modern America is of being compared with Nazi Germany. Margaret Sanger, the founder of P.lanned P.arenthood, said herself that she was trying to exterminate the black race. And what about the way P.lanned P.arenthood was caught selling baby body parts last summer? Have you ever seen pictures of dead babies thrown into garbage cans? Heard the horrible stories of babies born alive after a b.otched a.bortion and left on a table to die? What about the women who have died during a.bortion procedures? Make no mistake about it: we are living through a national genocide that's at least as dark and creepy as the Holocaust, because we didn't learn our lesson from the Holocaust.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Mar. 24, 2016 at 12:23 am

A.bortion's nowhere near the Holocaust- a.bortion is, while apparently not painless, not years of physical and psychological torture. Worse than the Holocaust? I almost laugh at that.
Where does 53 million come from? How is killing tiny, underdeveloped people 'worse' than murdering both children and adults, therefore cutting off their potential children and families in addition to just straight-up murdering them? If women die through procedure, how many may have died because they were denied the procedure?
Call Sanger a monster. I'm right behind you. Compare Sanger to Hitler. I whole-heartedly disagree with you, as, apparently, a considerable number of others here do.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 24, 2016 at 4:59 am

Lucy-Agnes
 
I disagree with your moral stance, but I understand where you are coming from.
 
Oh, I know that the law is not a way to judge what is moral. I'm not suggesting that at all. The point I'm making is that mur.der is a legal term.
 
The term you may be looking for is "unwarranted killing". Or even killing in general.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 24, 2016 at 5:24 am

Lucy-Agnes
 
"What about the women who have died during a.bortion procedures?"
 
This is an interesting topic of discussion actually. The rate of death during (and within 42 days of) termination varies a little depending on what procedure is performed, how late in the preg.nancy it is and the mother's other co-morbidities. For this reason, overall figures give a limited picture of what mortality rates mean, but they do at least give you absolute values.
 
In Australia, the mortality rate of termination is less than 1 in 100,000. Of course, this value is skewed as 90% of terminations are done within the first 14 weeks of gestation and this period carries the smallest risk. The mortality rate after 21 weeks (these make up <2% of all terminations and are only ever performed under extenuating circumstances) is 12 per 100,000.
 
There are two interesting things about this data:
 
1) In countries where termination is illegal or not regulated, those figures skyrocket.
 
2) The overall mortality rate of preg.nancy in Australia is 7.1 per 100,000

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
JubilexThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 24, 2016 at 6:02 am

Lucy-Agnes
 
One more thing I want to bring up. Apologies for the multiple posts.
 
"According to this study, women who've had a.bortions are at higher risk for men.tal health problems"
 
One of the pros of having access to academic search engines is that I can look up studies people quote to me.
 
It's an interesting read and has some strong points about it. Largely that it's massive. 22 combined studies, nearly 900,000 participants overall and 140,000 of those had a termination of preg.nancy.
 
The main problem I have with its conclusions are that whilst the rates of mental illness post termination were significantly higher than those in women who had given birth, when compared to the general population and the population of women who delivered unplanned babies, there was no statistically significant difference.
 
This leads me to conclude:
 
1) Abor.tion does not actually increase the risk of mental illness. If it did, you would expect the rates to be much higher than those in the general population (and even then it would be difficult to prove causation ran in the abor.tion to mental illness direction, rather than the other way around), and definitely higher than the women who carried unplanned preg.nancies to term.
 
2) Giving birth to a pre-planned baby appears to have a protective effect on mental health (or that women within that group are generally less likely to have mental illnesses regardless of them having children).
 
3) Carrying an unplanned preg.nancy to term does not have a statistically significant effect on mental health within the parameters tested in these studies (as this group's rates did not differ significantly from the general population).

Of course, these are generalised figures and don't account for any individualised factors.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 24, 2016 at 1:52 pm

wolvesandwilderness:
I understand that the Holocaust had horrors of its own, horrors which (I hope) have never been repeated even in the a.bortion industry. However, a.bortion has its own horrors, too, and quite frankly it's pointless to argue about whether the Holocaust or a.bortion is worse.
53 million is actually an understatement. I looked it up. The number of a.bortions in America alone since Ro.e vs. W.ade is now up to 58,838,396, based on current statistics. Worldwide, there have been 62,958 today already, and the number goes up every second. Even if a.bortion isn't as physically painful as the Holocaust, these numbers are even more massive than the 11 million Hitler killed. Killing tiny, underdeveloped people IS murdering people, therefore cutting off their potential children and families in addition to just straight-up murdering them. The fact that the person is underdeveloped shouldn't make any difference, any more than a person's skin color or religion or nationality or s.exual orientation should make a difference. And I think we've already adressed the fact that mothers' lives are very very rarely, if ever, saved by a.bortion.

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread
Lucy-AgnesThis teenager is a 'regular' and has contributed a lot of work, comments and/or forum posts, and has received many votes and high ratings over a long period of time. replied...
Mar. 24, 2016 at 2:01 pm

Jubilex:
 
I really admire the way you do your homework and come back with statistics. :)
 
I understand it's not very common for women to die from the a.bortion, but it does happen. I was simply using it as an example of how a.bortions aren't always "safe," even for the mother. A.bortion, like pr.egancy, carries risks.
 
Whether or no mental health problems are more prominent in women who have had ab.ortions, the fact remains that many, many, many women are scarred for life by their a.bortions. I've heard some of the stories, and they are heartbreaking.
 

Reply to this Thread Post a new Thread

Launch Teen Ink Chat
Site Feedback