Voices
in
Japan

have your say

What's your stance on abortion?

90 Comments

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

90 Comments
Login to comment

As far as the religious aspect, I consider myself to be a Faithful Christian who has done a lot of wrong things. But, all through my religious life, I have been told that God has known me before I was even born, and that He knows what is ahead in life for me since He is Omnipotent. Saying this, I don’t understand those who oppose the use of abortion on religious grounds saying that it kills the innocent unborn. Accordingly, since I believe that God is all knowing, then I would think that in His infinite mercy those children that will not be born as a result of an abortion will be remembered by Him, and the arguments that the anti-Abortion make that they are forever lost souls does not sit well with me. It seems that we humans have a tendency to put our own limitations on Gods power to suit our needs when we need to, but then can turn around and say that God created everything and that there is no such thing as evolution.

I think that God gives us choices. Either we can believe in Him and His ways or we don’t. We can choose to have an abortion or not, choose to have sex outside or marriage (which is just as sinful) or not. I think it is a personal decision that an individual has to make, and it is really not in my right to tell someone that they can’t have one. If they do decide to get one, I at least want it to be done as medically safe as possible, and I understand the implications of what happens in the case of rape or other medical conditions that make it a life or death situation for the woman. 

But to just have an abortion just as a birth control measure to me seems to be irresponsible.

I wholeheartedly agree. Couldn’t have said it better, you nailed it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am so tired of hearing people pretend it is about a woman's HEALTH.

News Flash: You are not sick when pregnant. No illness is being cured or treated by an abortion. Things worked exactly as they were designed and were put into motion when the woman allowed the man to impregnate her. No miracle or fluke involved. Take a look at a 3rd trimester ultrasound before sentencing that little unborn child to death.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I also believe that it is the parents' decision. Hopefully they would agree but, if not, I think the mother should have the final say. It is her body and she is the one who has to undergo what I can only imagine is a very unpleasant and uncomfortable procedure. Also risking the possibility of not being able to conceive again. I don't think there are many women who have had numerous abortions so it certainly isn't some sort of generally accepted form of contraception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

people who are shocked about 16 year olds having sex need to study some history; the age of consent used to be THIRTEEN in the united kingdom during the victorian era and a great deal of money would be paid for the (guaranteed) virginity of a nice 13 year old wench in charles dicken's london. and 13 if anyone was bothered to bring the crime to court.

at least in terms of sexual morals i don't think much ever changes. far better to legislate for it rather than hope it will just "go away"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the fewer number of abortions the better..right down to zero if possible.

The fewer number of children born into families that are scarcely prepared or equipped to have families, the better. Right down to zero, if that were at all possible.

But that's not the reality of the world we live in, and neither is a re-imagining of a world in which unplanned, unintended, and forced pregnancies will never happen. Stuff happens, and some of it not too pleasant.

Quite honestly, any suggestion that a family should be forced to accept the “consequences” of an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy, as if the birth of the child itself were some sort of divine retribution for sexual imprudence, is as morally abhorrent as murder. Furthermore, forcing a child to suffer the sins of the mother (and father) in order to satisfy a third party’s personal religious dogma ranks right up there with some of the greater irrational religious contradictions in the world, like suicide bombings and genital mutilation.

Personally, I'm entirely against the use of abortion as a convenient method of birth control. There are plenty of ways out there that are far more effective (and no, I'm not talking about the delusional silliness of "abstinence") and far less physically damaging to the woman.

But when it comes to situations of rape or a serious health threat to the child bearer, then there's simply so moral, legal, or rational justification for taking abortion off the table of options. When rape is purged from society and all childbirths are made 100% safe, then maybe we can make some progress in the debate as to whether or not abortion is moral or necessary. But until then, I just don't see it ever going away and I don’t see anyone holding any greater moral superiority in dictating its prohibition than I have in opposing a ban.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion was illegal in the states before Roe V Wade and many women lost their lives trying to have abortions. Then in 69 a group called Jane Collective came about as an underground abortion group.

Ok here is a question, what if abortion was illegal again and a woman was caught trying to have an abortion. Should she be hauled off to jail maybe whipped in public. Or maybe put her on trial for attempted murder.

I am pretty sure what will happen to the doctors under your perfect world. But what should happen to the women who try to have an abortion under your perfect world?

BTW what do you guys think about Spontaneous abortions, should they be illegal also in your perfect world?

Abortion have been happening for longer than religious groups have been trying to end it. Hell they have been around longer than folks have been calling themselves Christians.

Abortion has been part of our civilization since we have walked upright. Hell maybe it was around when we were still apes, who knows.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the fewer number of abortions the better..right down to zero if possible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If both made a decision to have sex then both need to live with the consequences. However if rape is involved it opens up the ball game.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to know, likeitis, that you are promoting underage sexual activity, especially among young girls.

No. I am disagreeing with the definition of "underage", a completely made up term with no basis in anything but overactive imagination and control freakishness.

God help us when we, as a society, declare it right and good for 16-year-olds to have sex.

Its legal in my state!

Why not just hand keys of a bank to abank robber?

Because in that case, someone always walks away sad. Usually when two people have sex, both walk away happy. I admit its not always the case, but I am far more interested in increasing the happiness than increasing the despair. You seem to be more interested in increasing the despair, and yes, sexlessness does that, especially among teens.

Sex is not bank robbery. A very poor comparison.

As such, how can you, in one side of your mouth, declare it "modern" and "forward" for 16-year-olds to have sex and get abortions, then, in the next sentence, say we need to regulate sex? You cannot have it both ways, likeitis.

Yes I can. Because "to regulate" does not mean "to ban". I am not kidding you. Look it up. That which is regulated is allowed to happen under controlled circumstances.

and condoms aren't 100% effective, not by a mile.

Not by a mile. This is true. I would say they are effective by "a couple meters". The key is education on proper use. In the event of a suspected failure, there is the morning after pill.

I only encourage abortion as a safety net, nothing more. I do not think it is as "forward" as all that. But certainly going back to the days of women "falling down the stairs" or using clothes hangers in ways the manufacturers had not intended is taking great leap back. I would like for abortion to be a total last resort, and avoided as much as possible. That takes care. It takes work. It takes education. I encourage all three. Abstinence is an encouragement to mental laziness and ignorance and dissatisfaction.

This kind of attitude is what makes a "woman's 'right' to choose" (legalized murder on demand) the law, and to the flames with the consequences.

No way. I always encourage people to be mindful of the consequences. Many women will be wracked with guilt if they have an abortion, and it is one of the many reasons why I feel it should be avoided and they should be counseled before the abortion. But a ban simply WILL NOT WORK. We have been there. We tried that. With this and many other things. In a perfect world abortion would not be necessary, ever. But we do not live in that world. The closest we can get is through diligence, not avoidance of what is good and pleasurable because it might rarely have consequences.

All your way is doing is increasing the consquences. The evidence is there. The only reason you cannot see it is because you refuse to open your eyes because it will break your dream of that perfect world.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee, I have found, having lived in a state that was deemed economically backwards at one time (and in the opinion of many, still declared to be so), that even if and unplanned child arrives, the funds to take care of said child will be there.

I don't doubt a combined reliance on family hand-outs and public assistance would enable most parents to muddle through. By contrast, those seeking to adopt, either domestically or internationally, must demonstrate they have the financial means to raise a child and a suitable home to do it, something verified by a social worker.

I wish more expectant parents would make choices in line with the child's best interest rather than simply hiding behind the "she chose life" slogan as if everything else is inconsequential.

Very nice post, Libertas, you sum things up so well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion it is not anyone but the mother and or father of that fetus to decide if they will keep it. Anyone who would claim that that fetus is a baby really does not know much.

It is funny how many folks would toss out the rights of the woman to save the child. This question brings to mind kooks like

Paul Hill - Murderer

Eric Rudolph - Terrorist

Shelley Shannon - Terrorist

James Kopp - Murderer

Clayton Waagner - Terrorist

Anyone associated with the Army of god - Terrorist

All these folks believed that god was calling to them when they committed their crimes.

These folks needed to be in a nice padded room rather than be walking the streets.

BTW I do not know about anyone else but when I was a 16 year old boy I was having sex with 16 year old girls. So to claim to be shocked is a joke. Sex has been happening for a very long time and by many people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Good to know, likeitis, that you are promoting underage sexual activity, especially among young girls. God help us when we, as a society, declare it right and good for 16-year-olds to have sex. Why not just hand keys of a bank to abank robber? and condoms aren't 100% effective, not by a mile. This kind of attitude is what makes a "woman's 'right' to choose" (legalized murder on demand) the law, and to the flames with the consequences. As such, how can you, in one side of your mouth, declare it "modern" and "forward" for 16-year-olds to have sex and get abortions, then, in the next sentence, say we need to regulate sex? You cannot have it both ways, likeitis.

Betzee, I have found, having lived in a state that was deemed economically backwards at one time (and in the opinion of many, still declared to be so), that even if and unplanned child arrives, the funds to take care of said child will be there.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's murder, except when the life of the mother is in danger.

This is exactly the situation we confront in cases like this woman in Los Angeles who gave birth to eight babies last week. Like many who avail themselves of fertility treatment, she opted to have as many embryos implanted as possible to maximize the odds one would "embed." Yet this cost-saving approach opens the door to multiple births. Having had a friend go through fertility treatment which health insurance may not cover, I know the average in the USA is 2-3 embryos and it most other countries regulations dictate fewer. If the ultrasound reveals multiple "buns in the oven," well doctors may advise selective reduction in the interests of both the mother and the fetus which is allowed to gestate to term.

Arriving at biological parenthood other than the natural way may entail some tough calls. For some selective reduction is tantamount to murder. These are ethical issues that go far beyond the current debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

To me the information which has come to light regarding the circumstances of the woman who gave birth to octuplents last week in Los Angeles reflects just how absurd the debate over abortion has become:

She filed for bankruptcy earlier this year. She already has six older children. Doctors question why so many embryos were implanted in her, a medical issue which is unrelated to her financial situation. While her mother "acknowledge[d] that supporting a family with 14 children would be difficult, but that her daughter felt like she had little choice. "What do you suggest she should have done?" [her mother] said. "She refused to have them killed."

Is is too much to ask someone to behave responsibility, in this case forgo fertility treatment when she already has six children and are facing bankruptcy????? In the event she is in a position to care for more, well then why not adopt from the pool of needy children who have already been born?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe abortion is wrong. I do not support the pro-choice movement. I would have loved to have been able to have given birth to a child. I am very thankful that there was an unselfish woman who decided to give birth to her child. She made me the mother a beautiful son. My son is very aware of his adoption and knows how blessed he is to have two mothers. The mother who gave birth and me.

Not flesh of my flesh, not bone of my bone but still entirely my own. You weren't born under my heart, but in it. (Author unknown)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As humans we are obliged to regulate our lives with a spirit of intelligence. Consciously choosing parenthood, or not is part of that obligation. One lives in hope that the choice to have sex includes some degree of forethought and contraceptive planning. If it does not, or if it fails, safe alternatives should be available to terminate and unchosen pregnancy. Nobody is "Pro Abortion" but sometimes it´s the best choice. Why make it unsafe too?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My stance on abortion?

Con.

My stance on legalization?

Pro.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Even low wage earners can generally afford condoms.

Thanks for a great laugh!

As far as a family "not wanting another mouth to feed", I've yet to encounter a family that DIDN'T welcoem the news of a soon-coming baby.

That's because if they aren't, you wouldn't hear about it. In NY State abortion was legal in the 1960s well before Roe v Wade. I grew up about a two hour drive from NY in a community where most families had 3-4 kids. There were miscarriages from time to time. After I reached adulthood my mother told me in some cases the presumption was the couple, not wanting another child, had availed themselves of the "New York option." That was considered their business, which it was.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What are 16-year-olds doing having sex in the first place, when they obviously aren't mentally, financially, nor emotionally ready to care for a baby, let alone being unmarried?

Welcome to the modern world BT, where 16 year olds are mentally, financially and emotionally ready to have sex because pregnancy is quite preventable thanks to breakthroughs in plastics. Even low wage earners can generally afford condoms.

Please, tell me that we have no right to "regulate" sex,

Actually, I do believe we have the right to regulate sex. I just don't like the way it is being done, nor do I like the suggestions of others.

As far as a family "not wanting another mouth to feed", I've yet to encounter a family that DIDN'T welcoem the news of a soon-coming baby.

That is because the other families know where the abortion clinic is.

And your diatribe about a baby's "conscisousness"? Irrelevant.

You are just too irrational to understand it. By what you are floating, carrots are also alive and should not be uprooted and slain.

To answer your question about adoption, my wife and I haven't adopted a child yet (because we aren't ready, financially, thanks to my current and future uncertain job status), but we have given a lot of money to adoption and single mother aid organizations in the last few years.

Then I hope you are not having sex! Perhaps if you stopped giving your money away to charity, and build up a stockpile just in case, it would be safe to begin enjoying sex again.

we plan to adopt

When you do that, I will salute you. For your charity, I salute you now. But really, this seems at odds with your plans, and especially your sex life, unless of course, you don't have one. That is not good.

Moderator: Back on topic please.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

likeitis - What are 16-year-olds doing having sex in the first place, when they obviously aren't mentally, financially, nor emotionally ready to care for a baby, let alone being unmarried? And if low wage-earning women are so concerned with having a baby and their financial situation being strapped, what are they doing having sex in an unmarried state, as well? Please, tell me that we have no right to "regulate" sex, then try and explain, again, how abortion isn't selfishness nor a symptom and consequence of a selfish lifestyle. As far as a family "not wanting another mouth to feed", I've yet to encounter a family that DIDN'T welcoem the news of a soon-coming baby. And your diatribe about a baby's "conscisousness"? Irrelevant.

To answer your question about adoption, my wife and I haven't adopted a child yet (because we aren't ready, financially, thanks to my current and future uncertain job status), but we have given a lot of money to adoption and single mother aid organizations in the last few years. We aren't just doing nothing. We do contribute as we are able, and when we are financially ready and economically more stable, we plan to adopt. Thanks for asking, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

100 percent pro death. some people were never meant to be born. some people were never meant to have kids.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

While few would want to see rape victims forced to bear children conceived under such circumstances, the number of pregnancies that result from rape is small. Seduction is much more likely to be the culprit. That, in fact, was the way it could have played out for my own mother. When she was 18, her healthy father dropped dead. It threw the family into financial turmoil and emotional shock. There was an older man, whose wife was one of my grandmother's closest friends, who offered his support at a point when the carpet had been pulled out from under her. They only did it once, but that's enough. Had she become pregnant, she could hardly have confided that in anyone in her circle.

Such circumstances drive pregnant women to seek the services of a back street abortionist, since secrecy trumps safety. If abortion were criminalized, the desperate would again be forced to seek them out.

God doesn't raise children, people do. Whether you are a subsistence farmer eking out a living in some impoverished corner of the world or a citizen of a post-industrial country, it takes certain wherewithal to be a parent. Until I see the pro-life crowd addressing the resources required to raise a child to adulthood, as opposed to simply bringing babies into the world, I'm entitled not to take their arguments seriously.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alpha ape I have no idea where you get yor theology from, but as a Christian I certainly have never heard it said of aborted babies that they are "lost souls." For that matter, I have never heard any anti abortionists use such terminology either. As a Christian I believe that all aborted babies go straight into the arms of the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven.

realist that is exactly my point. Anti abortion people use the religious grounds of "killing the innocnet" in their stance against abortion. I believe as you that the souls of aborted children go to God. I have no problems with that. It is with the commercials I see of how they say that in abortion that the child/fetus doesn't have a chance at life is where I draw the line at.

Like I said, it is s a difficult decision that should not be made casually such as a method of just "birth control." By the way, even on that issue, the Catholic Church believes that birth control is just as bad since it stops the process of creation of another human life. So, by that standard, abortion/birth control should be all grouped together. Yet some catholics disobey the Church and use contraceptives.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's murder, except when the life of the mother is in danger.

Why would that change anything? I could understand you saying that it's murder no matter what but that it's justifiable murder when the mother's life is in danger. But your stance seems to be wanting to have your black and white line and eat it too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Blue_Tiger, how many kids have you adopted, uh, this year? I want to know just how unselfish such a person with such moral standards is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

there can be only one other reason: convenience (read: SELFISHNESS).

Yeah, selfish 16 year olds should embrace motherhood. Unmarried, low wage women should too. And never mind that condoms break. And never mind that even old school pre-abstinence only sex ed was even inadequate in teaching proper use of condoms.

Then we have the selfish family already having difficulty making ends meet with several kids. What is one more mouth to feed? The other kids should be happy to give up a share of their meager rations to a new sibling, selfish brats.

Anyway, this whole thing is a classic example of "give an inch, take a mile". When was your first memory? Do you have any idea that up until that time, you were barely self aware? Even a new born baby is not self aware. If it dies, it never had a clue in the world. Yet even I value that baby and demand its rights, and I barely have a good reason except for pure compassion. Yet you will go all the way back to a sperm cell and an egg cell coming together! Despite the fact they get flushed naturally all the time! Its just craziness!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's murder, except when the life of the mother is in danger. Every other reason is made out of selfishness. When 99% of all performed abortions have been done for reasons other than Rape, Incest, and/or the life of the mother being endangered, there can be only one other reason: convenience (read: SELFISHNESS).

Abortion on Demand is Infant and Baby Murder, and anyone who says otherwise is naiive at best, lying through their teeth at worst....

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion should be available, no government should have the right to tell a woman what she can or can't do to her own body, because a foetus is part of her body. I can't see how a foetus can be considered to be anyone's responsibility but the parents'. We are not OWNED by the government!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Alpha ape I have no idea where you get yor theology from, but as a Christian I certainly have never heard it said of aborted babies that they are "lost souls." For that matter, I have never heard any anti abortionists use such terminology either. As a Christian I believe that all aborted babies go straight into the arms of the Lord Jesus Christ in Heaven.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Some people here have mentioned that Buddhism seems to support abortion. The truth is that in Japan, Buddhist priests and temple make a fortune out of abortion. They charge the poor unfortunate women a small fortune in order to create a little stone idol, in which they believe that the spirit of the aborted baby (not foetus, mark you - at least they have got that right!) lives in the little jizo. They pasy money to the prieat/temple regularly in order to "appease" the spirit of the dead child, so that he/she wont come back to ahunt them for "not allowing he/she to live." To me, this whole business, be it the act of abortion/murder itself and then the people who make money out of it, is totally sick. I talked with one Japanese doctor who told me he performed about 40 live deliveries of babies in his clinic each month, and the same number of abortions. Japanese High School girls regularly club together their pocket money in order to pay for each other`s abortions. What a sick society, both here and in Aemrica, which is a so-called "Chritsian" sociey which has lost its way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I have mixed feelings on this issue. I don’t think that it should be used as a “birth control” method the same way as the pill or a condom or other birth control devices; but I still think that it is within a woman (and hopefully her partner) choice to either have the child or not.

As far as the religious aspect, I consider myself to be a Faithful Christian who has done a lot of wrong things. But, all through my religious life, I have been told that God has known me before I was even born, and that He knows what is ahead in life for me since He is Omnipotent. Saying this, I don’t understand those who oppose the use of abortion on religious grounds saying that it kills the innocent unborn. Accordingly, since I believe that God is all knowing, then I would think that in His infinite mercy those children that will not be born as a result of an abortion will be remembered by Him, and the arguments that the anti-Abortion make that they are forever lost souls does not sit well with me. It seems that we humans have a tendency to put our own limitations on Gods power to suit our needs when we need to, but then can turn around and say that God created everything and that there is no such thing as evolution.

I think that God gives us choices. Either we can believe in Him and His ways or we don’t. We can choose to have an abortion or not, choose to have sex outside or marriage (which is just as sinful) or not. I think it is a personal decision that an individual has to make, and it is really not in my right to tell someone that they can’t have one. If they do decide to get one, I at least want it to be done as medically safe as possible, and I understand the implications of what happens in the case of rape or other medical conditions that make it a life or death situation for the woman.

But to just have an abortion just as a birth control measure to me seems to be irresponsible.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in any developed country, the murder of a pregnant woman brings two murder charges

This surprises me - and to a degree it amuses me (murder of the expectant mother is still murder). I do not believe that this was the case even in the US until a few years ago, and have not heard of it outside of the US. Can you name the countries?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Cancer treatment is unnatural but I highly doubt you would find fault in someone seeking cancer treatment. I doubt the food you put in your body everyday is 100% "natural" so spare me the comments about things being "unnatural".

Rape? Incest... Are you suggesting that the mother suffer the ultimate punishment because she's forced to give birth to an unwanted baby due to the violence that was inflicted on her? Rape victims I don't think ever fully recover from what has happened to them. To suggest that women be forced to have their bodies physically changed forever due to carrying and birthing an unwanted human due to the results of rape is insane. So you care about the unborn fetus but not about the women then??

No baby SHOULD be unwanted but that is not the case. Unlike many other animals humans are not able to fend for themseleves which makes them dependant on others - which makes some unwanted. No one is suggesting death to "unwanted" humans are of age to look after themselves. You are just being silly now with such a comparison.

No need to bring religion into the debate to try and help your opinion and stance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

where did this 'it is my body' stuff come from anyway? it takes little common sense to understand that the additional head, legs, arms, heart.... are not the mothers....

where is the concept of women being a nurturer?

abortion is at best unnatural, and at worst wrong. weigh in the ethicists and apologists but for me to 'end' a life before it is born is outside the bounds of what society should allow.

in any developed country, the murder of a pregnant woman brings two murder charges yet killing a child in the uterus is legal if a doctor does it? how does that schizophrenic concept exist? 'because a wanted fetus is a person' is the answer...

rape? incest? hard choices, rare examples... but should the baby suffer the ultimate punishment?

just a bunch of multiplying cells.... in todays age of the internet, no one should be so naive... I was there to 'see the beating heart' of all my 5 children just weeks after conception. viability approaches 20 weeks yet people clamor for the right to crush the skull of live 8 month babies because the heads are too large too large to be expelled thru the cervix during the 'procedure'.

no baby should be unwanted. there are millions of unwanted walking among us, should they all be put out of their misery? and would that make us a better society?

we suffer the greatest financial challenge the world has ever seen today. perhaps Margaret Sanger and the other progenitors of eugenics were right. lets cull the population before it is too late. why stop at the unwanted unborn? think of the economic benefits of culling all the unwanted born world wide? lets draw a line at an IQ of 130 as the point of economic viability... I would make the cut, would you? but strength can be a virtue as well... only those who can dead lift 100 kilos are strong enough to survive and be a benefit to the gene pool...

in the end, everyone will believe exactly what they want to believe regardless of the facts. however all of us will bear the responsibility of societies actions. God/Buddha/Bhagavan... help us

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with what you have written but I don't think it becomes "human" until it is removed from the mother. That may be early on in the pregnancy due to various reasons or it could be full term. Before then, it is a fetus.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

tmarie -

Yes, as I've posted higher up the thread, the surgical removal of a cluster of cells doesn't bother me. Having carried two babies to term, I can say with certainty that the fetus is a human quite some time before the actual birth. If you ask me to state when the cut-off should be, though, I'm stuck...I don't have the medical knowledge. All I can say is that if it must be done, it should be done as early as possible. I can't imagine anyone wanting to abort a baby they can feel kicking inside them.... If there's any possibility of the baby being viable, there shouldn't be an abortion unless the mother's life is in danger. And even then, if the baby can be saved, it should be.

As you say, if someone knows they don't want to be pregnant, they should know long before they're 6 months gone.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am opposed to the idea of someone telling me what I can and can't do with my body.

I have no problems with late term abortions is the mother's health is at risk. I certainly do think that a late term abortion due to not wanting the unborn fetus is a sign of mental illness with the mother to be honest. Why wait 6 months??

Are you Cleo trying to say that you think there should be a cut off time? Three months? 6 months?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A fetus is a parasite....It cannot survive without the mother's body

So you would be opposed to late-term abortion of a potentially viable baby? (With present technology, that's pushing 6 months, I think)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Pro choice.

All this "it is a human, it should have a choice...." spare me. A fetus is a parasite regardless of how you want to look at it. It leeches from the host and sometimes does kill it. To state that an unborn child is a person is not true. It cannot survive without the mother's body sacrificing for it. I think as a host, I should have the right to decide if I want to carry something to full term or end it.

That being said, birth control all that way. I don't think it is an easy choice to make but I certainly do not like that some people think they have the right to tell me what to do with my body.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People and politicians (in America) are too vague on the issue. They are either completely for or against the issue. Since when can we not have situational analysis of this?

Indeed. The discussion is in the abstract whereas the situation specific. We sometimes think teenage pregnancy is a sign of our reduced moral standards. In fact the rates were just as high in the 1950s, but it was handled differently. To spare their families shame, girls in trouble were whisked off to homes for unwed mothers where they gave birth in secrecy to a child over whose future they had little say. Adoption was the norm and, if the girl was lucky, she could reenter society and some guy who knew nothing of her past would marry her. Needless to say, the burden of maintaining society's standards fell firmly on their shoulders and it must have been very, very hard.

If the guy was in a position to marry you then it was handled that way. Many of those marriages probably worked out fine. One didn't need much education to find a decent job and things like health insurance were not the issue they are today.

Access to abortion changed all that. In today's world, it takes a lot more education to land a decent job. Not to mention, there's far less societal support for early family formation. So I would not criticize either the parents of pregnant teens or the teens themselves in the event they opt for termination. Hopefully it would be impressed upon them there are ways to avoid pregnancy and they should be utilized until you want a child.

The birth control pill revolutionized contraception. If you are blessed with a regular cycle, the chances of pregnancy are quite small. Women's empowerment could not have occurred in the absence of a reliable way to regulate fertility. (There's no two ways about this but if you don't believe me, see Revolutionary Road.) And abortion is a back-up.

Sometimes I do feel sorry for men who must go along with whatever decision the woman makes in the event they disagree. But I wouldn't have wanted to live in the 1950s when it was society's standards that would have controlled the outcome rather than me.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

People and politicians (in America) are too vague on the issue. They are either completely for or against the issue. Since when can we not have situational analysis of this?

First and for most, the health of the mother must be guaranteed. So if the mother is physically incapable of having the baby, or would cause death or serious harm abortion should be an option.

Second...In realistic sense, if the fetus is capable of living outside of the mother then at that point abortion should be illegal. And some sources say it is possible for a 20 week fetus to survive outside the womb.

However, I am completely against the idea of an abortion because if I was in a situation where I was having a child I dont think I could, in good conscience, abort the baby.

With that said, compromise on the issue and population control are important too (just look at China and the issue they will have in the coming years from their "baby boom era"). Sadly, I dont know enough on population control to say more on that topic.

But, instead of abortions we should be looking forward to "planned babies", through genetic manipulation, that will have every characteristic we would ever want in our child. Who would ever want to have an abortion then?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am against. Being a kardecist and spiritualist, I believe that from the moment of the fecundation, there´s life there. Abortion is a sad action, and everyone involved in it will have serious problems in the afterlife.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Buddhism in Japan has historically been rather accepting of abortion, the concept being that the spirits of "water babies", as they are know, will quickly be reincarated into wombs of loving families that want them.

There are certainly different ways of interpreting its consequences given Buddhism is somewhat more amorphous than other religions, not to mention there are different schools.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm for pro-choice and abortion is a part of family planning. It's available, so you have to look at your personal situation (if you are pregnant or the mate of a pregnant woman) and evaluate whether it is needed.

In most pregnancies, abortion isn't a consideration, but those situations where rape, incest or a medical emergency is involved and the life and safety of the woman is a prime consideration. < :-)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee,

Buddhism in Japan has historically been rather accepting of abortion, the concept being that the spirits of "water babies", as they are know, will quickly be reincarated into wombs of loving families that want them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's the woman's body, her choice. Keep religious beliefs out of the debate, not everyone believes in a magic sky fairy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: Wouldn't taked long before people realize that babies sex in not the reason you want to publicize (even though it may be the actual reason), so claim other hardships and your home free.

This is certainly what happens. The doctor doesn't ask and you don't volunteer anything. ("Don't ask, don't tell.") But when some bureaucrat examines the demographics, that's clearly what's going on. Where the law has been broken is when the doctor, during a routine ultrasound test, reveals the sex of the in utero child to the mother/parents, illegal in India, enabling them to seek termination for that reason.

Is there a "major" religion that condones abortion.

In the case of Buddhism, while I doubt there's any formal ban on abortion, a woman who opted for one would certainly understand the karmic implications of her choice. Specifically, she has interfered with the death and rebirth cycle. The fetus will be angry for forcing it to remain in some state of permanent purgatory when it should have been reborn. So you must make offerings to it, just as you do to other familial spirits, particularly those who met a violent end in the human world, to keep it happy and prevent it from exacting revenge on your life. In Taiwan there's a temple where offerings are made to what's known as "the haunting fetus."

But among the fertile, there are not that many Buddhists with such a level of devotion in this day and age when they have been exposed, through education, to scientific explanations for natural phenomenon.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Betzee: Wouldn't taked long before people realize that babies sex in not the reason you want to publicize (even though it may be the actual reason), so claim other hardships and your home free.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

free to choose, within 1st 12 weeks of pregnancy. sex selective abortion of the kind commonplace in India etc however I do not approve of.

Finding myself unexpectedly appalled when an affluent, married friend who's a great Mom confided she'd had an abortion for what I considered to be a rather frivolous reason, I confronted the reality that to be pro-choice means you cannot pass judgment on the circumstances of "the decider."

"Well, you're entitled because you're an unmarried teenager with no means to support a child whereas you shouldn't because you're a married woman who is in a position to raise another child in a two-parent family despite the fact you didn't plan for it."

Like lots of freedoms, you may not approve of the specific circumstances of the individual who choses to exercise it, but she cannot be denied the choice simply because someone else doesn't agree with her rationale. It's a private matter for all, marital status and economic circumstances have no bearing on it.

Sex-selective abortion is different from a government's perspective, since most people will be opting to abort the same sex for cultural reasons and that has demographic implications. In that case, abortion may be preventing infanticide or even abandonment. Soooo, the government needs to address the reason parents find rearing that sex, and it's almost always girls, onerous.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Going to go with safe, legal and rare. It should be legal, but it shouldn't be just another form of birth control.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think we need to decrease the population. Abortion is not the answer though, but it is OK as a woman's choice. Why the male-oriented, male-dominated catholic church thinks it has any authority on the matter is way beyond me. No difference from the Taleban saying that women should receive no education, they are all about men. The earth really needs to decrease the human population badly. Can we phase ourselves out?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Personally, against. As a matter of public policy/law, pro-choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, in forming my stance on abortion, which is the topic of this forum, I would have to say that my religion teaches me that it is wrong, exceptions being rape, incest, life of the mother. My religion also rejects conraception which put adherants in quite a spot. Others may accept contraception which in my opinion removes the woman's right to choose argument as the choice has been made. I don't think as civilized people we want to teach our offspring that abortion is an alternative to contraception. So if you are athiest or agnostic, find an athiest or agnostic doctor and don't tell me about it. My Stance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

a "major" religion that condones abortion.

Wiki has a reference/link section at the bottom of Religion and Abortion that lists religious groups that support abortion choice - but I believe it is safe to say that no major religion condones abortion without reservation. Some religions support abortions under certain conditions - rape, life of mother, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, my question stands, Is there a "major" religion that condones abortion. (that keeps the satanic religions out of the picture)"

No, there is not. Not that I know of. I can't say that there are even any minor ones that do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

some people think the world would be a better place without religion

I am not sure on this one. Religions allow people to avoid personal responsibility for their own decisions - as they do things In Gods Name, and they sometimes support extremists who inflict pain. They certainly organize to restrict freedoms of others (as in abortions). I suppose I would like to live in a world where religions were unnecessary as crutches for people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Okay, I get the Do unto others thing has a survival aspect as well as a moral aspect. The cases you cite only work in social animals which live in a pack environment. Really has nothing to do with the subject.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Do unto others (aka altruism) comes from biology, and is apparently hard-wired and not only in primates. Read Steven Pinker to learn how animals and birds take note of which of their companions pull their weight, and refuse to help those that don't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JapanHusker:

My piont exactly, If we chose to follow some of our religous tenets and ingone others, might not bother having any at all. So, my question stands, Is there a "major" religion that condones abortion. (that keeps the satanic religions out of the picture)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom: You are certianly entitled to your opinion as am I. I still think that all religions have a basic moral tenet. Whether that is the root source of your own ethics or not depends on the individual."

Well, it goes beyond the abortion issue. I mean, some people think the world would be a better place without religion. FROM now, maybe, maybe not. However, I cannot imagine a world that, from the get go, was totally void of religion.

I truly believe religion begat morals which begat laws. Without those morals and those laws, our world would be even more barbaric than it already is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes indeed - late-term abortion is murder where the law has said so - murder being a legally defined word. But if the law has not defined late term abortion as murder - then it is just a medical procedure. Distasteful no doubt, but not murder.

I think it is pretty obvious some people are disagreeing with the legal definition. Their opinion is that it is murder and it should be recognized as such by the law.

As I often am, I am with Cleo on this one. My opinion is that an abortion should not be performed if a the baby can be expected to survive outside of the womb (unless the mother is at risk). Until then, it is not a baby. It is a fetus. Until then, its up to the mother.

Of course, this would be redefining the word fetus. But I think its fair enough.

And if medical science ever gets to the point that in earlier stages the fetus or embryo can survive outside of the womb, then make it so. All funds for this and later adoption can be handled by the anti-abortion crowd. Except for the mother, who will pay the same amount it would have taken for an abortion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom:

You are certianly entitled to your opinion as am I. I still think that all religions have a basic moral tenet. Whether that is the root source of your own ethics or not depends on the individual.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The piont being that we (as humans) for the most part get our morality from religion."

But is that a BAD thing? I mean, belief in a higher being or not, morals are morals - regardless of where one gets them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

techall

we (as humans) for the most part get our morality from religion.

I do not accept that. Religions tend to adopt the moralities that we as humans have and try to control us in the process. Do unto others does not come from religion - it comes from pain avoidance - and is shared between humans and other primates who do not have religions (that we know of).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

JapanHusker at 01:10 PM JST - 28th January

Yes - it would be very inconvienient (for me) if I needed to be there for every planned abortion.

Cleo

Yes indeed - late-term abortion is murder where the law has said so - murder being a legally defined word. But if the law has not defined late term abortion as murder - then it is just a medical procedure. Distasteful no doubt, but not murder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is a sincere question. I know the catholic church does not condone abortion at any stage although is does in case of risk to the mother's life. Does anybody know of a religion that condones abortion? The piont being that we (as humans) for the most part get our morality from religion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

First of all, the baby does not have a point of view - or at least not one that is remembered

Obviously it doesn't remember anything if it's dead. While it might not be common, I have heard of people who remember being born, and the deliberate killing of a conscious human being is obviously murder.

Ectopic pregnancy is detectable early on; there would certainly be no need to wait until the day before birth. Doing so could threaten the life of the mother and would probably be medical malpractice.

Surgical removal of a bunch of dividing cells, I can accept; late-term abortion is murder, and surely unnecessary.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom at 01:07 PM JST - 28th January need or want since I cannot be there to know which it is, I would leave it to the doctor."

How convenient.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

need or want

since I cannot be there to know which it is, I would leave it to the doctor.
0 ( +0 / -0 )

"– but I would not want to force my views on, and to restrict pre-birth medical procedures for a person who has decided that they need the abortion."

Ummm, not "need" - WANT. The only woman who NEEDS an abortion is one whose life will be in extreme danger if a birth is performed. To terminate a baby's life for convenience is NOT need. It is barbaric selfishness.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

taiko666

First of all, the baby does not have a point of view - or at least not one that is remembered (from my experience).

Second, a person choosing an abortion and a doctor willing to provide it - literally one day before birth, is in very dire straights. Maybe an ectopic pregnancy, maybe a deformed fetus, maybe just crazy (both woman and doctor). So even one day before birth, I would allow the actual participants the choice.

We can argue over the meaning of life and how wrong it is to murder (the illegal taking of a life) a person (after they have been born) – but I would not want to force my views on, and to restrict pre-birth medical procedures for a person who has decided that they need the abortion.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

TJrandom

An extreme point of view. I don't agree with it but it's more honest than bolierplate blinkered political correctness.

So what's the difference between aborting/killing a baby one day before birth and killing it one day after birth? Especially from the baby's point of view?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my opinion, they the foetus is human and thereby deserves the right to life. No woman has ever giver birth to puppies, chimpanzees, slamanders or anything but a human. If someone has ever heard otherwise (outside of the national inquirer)please let me know.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

A baby is a human before it is born and after it is born. As a human, it has rights before it is born and after. Who speaks for the healthy late term baby ripped from the womb to die a slow lonely death in a cold plastic hospital bin, as its little lungs gasp for air, sometimes for an agonizing 30 or 40 minutes before succumbing to suffocation ? We don't even treat dogs that badly when they have to be put be euthanized! Taking an innocent human life is murder. Legalized murder is still murder. Abortion is murder.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Abortion is an evil ritual. It is the murder of nnocent children. People try to make excuses about it, and call the unborn by various medical terms, like using the word foetus, but the fact is, abortion is one of the worst evils committed by human beings on other human beings. Please dont talk about choice. The choice was made by the man and woman having unprotected sex in the first place, they have to live with the consequences of their actions. They should not be allowed to decide om taking the life of the innocent human being conceived through their lust.

The rights of the unborn are equally as important as the right to life that the rest of us enjoy. Murder is murder. Abortion is a crime against God and also against Man. Take a look behind the scenes in some of the abortion clinics, the absolute waste of human life, the little arms and legs, fully formed, ripped out of the mother`s womb, because the mother and also sometimes the father, are just selfish. If you could even take a glimpse backstage at the aftermath of abortion, or child murder, as I call it, you could never support this despicable act.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Didn't want the first one, why should they get a second, third, etc.?

Maybe because it is Wednesday?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a personal choice. However, abortion used as birth control is widespread and is leaving women unable to conceive in Japan. It is hurting birth rate."

All the better than. Woman like that shouldn't be able to conceive anymore. Didn't want the first one, why should they get a second, third, etc.?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's a personal choice.

However, abortion used as birth control is widespread and is leaving women unable to conceive in Japan. It is hurting birth rate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And women say they want MORE equality and rights like men:

1) Kill the baby in the womb - their body, their right. 2) Kill the baby outside the womb - post partum depression

Hmmm...and when is it okay for a man to kill? Seems like the whole "rights" thing is outta control.

Oh yes, and I love the "if the parents are unwilling/unable to provide for or love their potential child, in some cases its the best thing" argument. Best thing? For who? The PARENTS, not the innocent child. The child didn't ASK to be conceived.

"Better that abortions are carried out in an an approved, hygenic environment than in some back street slum."

Why is that? The baby dies either way. Why not a little pain and punishment to the murderer?

Sick and selfish - all it is.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I won't be having one - but then that is my choice, as it should be for everyone, and in my opinion - under any circumstance and up to actual birth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Freedom of choice baby. At the end of the day, women must have the right to choose.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

free to choose, within 1st 12 weeks of pregnancy. sex selective abortion of the kind commonplace in India etc however I do not approve of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Noone's going to claim it's a pleasant thing to decide, but if the parents are unwilling/unable to provide for or love their potential child, in some cases its the best thing.

I find the whole Freakanomics 'making abortion available reduces future crime' statistics argument a bit distasteful, but it does sum up the sort of life the majority of unwanted children can look forward to.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I agree with Disillusioned.

Abortion is not a good thing, and should be avoided where possible. So should unwanted, uncared-for children. Contraception should be available to all, and in a perfect world there would be no need for abortion.

BUT if a woman wants to end an unwanted pregnancy, it should be her choice. If it has to be done it should be done as soon as possible. The so-called partial-birth abortions should be considered murder. If you know you don't want a baby, you know it when you miss your first period. If you can't make your mind up until you're six months gone, deliver the baby and put it up for adoption.

In cases where a woman doesn't discover until late in the pregnancy that giving birth could be life-threatening (are there such cases?), then it should be a matter to be resolved between herself and her doctor. It certainly should not be a routine procedure for the sake of convenience.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

My stance? Lie on my back and let the doctor get on with the d & c and hope it doesn't hurt too much.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Considering the plight of unwanted children I have to say, "Yes!" Although, a fetis is a life and if euthanasia is illegal, then so should abortion be. It's a tough question that raises concerns about morals, but I believe mothers, and fathers, should have a choice.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

abortion is probably the best example of where progress in "health care" has taken us and will take us even further as less human

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Better that abortions are carried out in an an approved, hygenic environment than in some back street slum.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"the lesser of two evils"

Evil #1: A human being is born.

Evil #2: A human being is murdered.

Decisions, decisions...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Simple. Contraception is a much better way to go. After that you have to pick the lesser of two evils.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites