Which of these women should not have an abortion

So - all the "pro-lifers" which of the above women in this poll should NOT have an abortion

And just picking "All of the above" is not acceptable unless you tell us why you would be condemning them to face a future that will be fraught and in some life threatening

 

I think they all should have abortions...but that's my opinion and I wouldn't be an insensitive jerk and force them to have abortion just to make me feel good.
I would mind my own business.

 

I’m no pro-lifer but this strikes me as a rather silly thread. Only two of the scenarios presented have any relation to an abortion decision and even they would need a lot more information to determine whether it would be a reasonable or necessary conclusion.

Intentionally or not, you seem to be suggesting that abortion is somehow a valid and complete solution to the various problems you list, despite none of them being identified as being directly relevant to the pregnancy. I don’t think anyone should be promoting the idea that if professionals are presented with women in any the situations you describe, the first question that comes to their minds shouldn’t be “Should she have an abortion?” but “How can we best help her?”.

 

All of the above. Its the cycle of life. What right does one person have to kill someone else who is not purposely trying to harm you?

 

So if a mentally incompetent person is harming you, whether he knows he's causing you harm or not, you HAVE to let him harm you even to death?

NO, you don't.

BORN people , like the women above in the poll, have a right to life

 

They are all relevant to the pregnancy Who else but a pregnant woman would be contemplating an abortion?

If "professionals" are presented with a woman with any of these problems there FIRST consideration is what SHE wants.

Did you note the almost unconscious "removal of women as persons with rights to objects that someone else should control""?

 

Pregnancy is assumed by the question. My point is that the factors listed in the examples have no direct relevance to abortion decisions at all, apart from the two specifically medical ones, and in none of the cases is there (or could there be) anything like enough information to offer an informed opinion on such a difficult and personal question.

That’s obviously a major element in determining how best to help her. It isn’t an element in the question “Should they have an abortion or not?” that the OP posed.

Yes. It exists in the minority views this thread is trying to challenge but it also exists in the flawed manner in which it’s seeking to do that.

 

The correct answer is "all of them" because you phrased the question as "should not" as opposed to "should not legally."

I am morally opposed to abortion but am unwilling to use the government to enforce my personal view.

 

I think the OP is raising the wrong question (albeit in response to others who raise the wrong question in the first place). There will never be a simplistic binary question of “Will I have an abortion or not?”. Every unique situation involves the woman, hopefully with advice and support of others, making a whole range of decisions on the basis of a whole range of information in their particular circumstances. That may well lead to them deciding they want an abortion but not in response to a single, simple question.

I think it’s wrong to present it in this way regardless of what you’re saying the answer should be or who should ultimately answer it.

That wasn’t what I was implying. Professionals (doctors, social workers, police officers etc.) likely to encounter women in the various situations briefly described in the OP aren’t even necessarily clinical and the most immediate issues to address in those circumstances won’t actually be the pregnancy. I guess I made an assumption about the circumstances but the same principle would apply if it’s non-professionals encountering them too (friends, family, charity workers etc.) or even if they’re dealing with their circumstances alone.

The bottom line is that each of those situations, pregnancy included, will be varied and complex and deserving of much, much more than any simplistic yes/no question.

 

First off, a zef isn't a person. Second, anyone has the right to kill anything in their body.

 

But they would harm. In the first case with a very young girl who is homeless a pregnancy makes her far more vulnerable. Not to mention the dangers to her own health as the developing foetus competes for nutrients in her still developing body

 

The correct answer is "None of my business!" What people should or should not do with their own body is not my business.

 

Fair enough.

 

It is none of anyone's business and that really was my point

 

it IS a yes or no question.....................If any of those women in those circumstances described in the poll wanted an abortion they should have one.....their situations do NOT have to be analyzed ....

 

What has "legal" got to do with it? Abortion is legal and even if it wasn't those women would get abortions if they chose to.

 

You can restrain the mentally incompetent.

Why do "born" people have more of a right to life than the unborn? Are unborn less human than the born?

- - - Updated - - -

Way to dehumanize them. Does it make it easier for you to kill someone when you do that?

 

I think the OP raises a valid question. There are those who believe that abortion should be denied in some (or all) of these cases and this is one way to draw out that those who have prejudged the situation and basically do not care about the individuals involved or the challenges they face. Personally I would have preferred the poll to ask which of these women should be denied an abortion (I had to pause for coffee to make sure I parsed the "should not have an abortion" and "none of the above" properly this morning).

I totally agree with your point that "Every unique situation involves the woman, hopefully with advice and support of others, making a whole range of decisions on the basis of a whole range of information in their particular circumstances." The OP is not saying "which of these women must have an abortion." I interpret the OP to be asking "which of these women must always be denied an abortion." Pro-choice advocates would agree with your point (i.e. each woman is in the best position to evaluate her resources and options to make the decision). Pro-life advocates are the ones who tend to disregard the circumstances of the woman and (if they could get away with it) most of them would say no woman should be allowed to get an abortion.

 

correct, just as you can kill them if they are causing you serious injury, the mental incompetent state does not change your right to defend yourself up to and including deadly force.

They don't, both have exactly the same right to life, and just as you don't have the right to injure others without consent neither do the unborn.

 

Just who am I to tell them what to do with their bodies.

 

The fetus is restrained and yet it may continue to do harm. What if a mentally incompetent person (by some chain of events) manages to lock you in a room and seems to think you are his pet. He brings you food and water from time to time, and does not overtly threaten your life... but you have no way of knowing when he will just forget about you and let you starve. Do you have the right to bash him in the head (even if that results in his death) so you can escape?

I would say the unborn are not yet persons because their minds have not yet been activated. The process of birth activates the mind and, at that moment, the process of being a person begins. Before that, the body is just a life-support system being prepared for an active mind, so it does not have any rights of its own.

This was in reference to the term "zef" (zygote-embryo-fetus). These terms are more accurate for an unborn, potential person. Does it make it easier for pro-lifers to brainwash the public when they pretend that the unborn are already persons (e.g. posters with thought bubbles hovering over the fetus)?

 

EVERYTHING

Abortion is a moral issue and individual beliefs on abortion are based on religious foundations.

It is wrong and unconstitutional to impose your religious beliefs on others using the hammer of government.

Abortion should not be illegal except in certain circumstances all of them tied to late term and a viable fetus.

The insertion of the word "legally" changes the response from "All of them" to "None of them" because it changes the question from one of morality to one of legality.

 

I'm not a pro-lifer in the sense that I disagree with legislation banning abortion. But even the most extreme pro-lifers do concede that abortion should be allowed under certain circumstances. Especially in cases of fetal abnormalities or an actual danger to the mother's life.