Abortion

https://wearesonar.org/2015/12/01/dolphin-vs-human-bodies-not-as-different-as-they-seem/

Which one is the human? Dolphin fetuses also look like humans. So do chimp fetuses.

I dont' understand the point of this argument, but if you want an answer, and admitting those are the right embryo (not a fetus at this point, even for politicians), then an expert would most likely tell you the difference in a second. As for my guess with the poor background I have inembryology is that the left one is human.
Now, I made a guess and what? If I'm right, then debate ends here? I bet all my savings that it will not. Moreover, this comparison is for evolutionnary perspectives: seeing the development of a tail in humans for instance, or legs in dolphins; a similar plan in development and I would say: Fortunately! We share a common ancestor, are both mammals, and a similar organization. Why would be the plan of embryo development be so different when we are so related and share most of our genetic materials?

Should we force other species to carry to term if their fetus looks like ours?

Again, I don't understand this point. If it's true that abortion exist in some species, they generally don't go to the clinic or use a hanger to do so... More than that, if you want to make such a call to nature to justify abortion, then you open a Pandora box: Rape, murder, infanticid, drug use, bestiality all exist in the animal kingdom, but the internet sure does not.

For the rest, I already answered earlier too.

I dont' understand the point of this argument, but if you want an answer, and admitting those are the right embryo (not a fetus at this point, even for politicians), then an expert would most likely tell you the difference in a second. As for my guess with the poor background I have inembryology is that the left one is human.
Now, I made a guess and what? If I'm right, then debate ends here? I bet all my savings that it will not. Moreover, this comparison is for evolutionnary perspectives: seeing the development of a tail in humans for instance, or legs in dolphins; a similar plan in development and I would say: Fortunately! We share a common ancestor, are both mammals, and a similar organization. Why would be the plan of embryo development be so different when we are so related and share most of our genetic materials?

Again, I don't understand this point. If it's true that abortion exist in some species, they generally don't go to the clinic or use a hanger to do so... More than that, if you want to make such a call to nature to justify abortion, then you open a Pandora box: Rape, murder, infanticid, drug use, bestiality all exist in the animal kingdom, but the internet sure does not.

For the rest, I already answered earlier too.

If you don't understand the arguments you make then perhaps don't make them in the future? YOU said something about how they are human because they LOOK human. Well, they aren't the only thing that looks like a human at a certain phase of development. Which is which wasn't the point. The point was the average person can only guess. And that things are not always what they appear to be at a glance.

No. The debate doesn't end because it isn't a debate. You are seeking to assert your authority while taking no responsibility for what you seek to assert your authority over. You are not going to pay hospital bills you are seeking to force women to acquire and if they do not you would have them what? Sent to prison for murder? You have not gotten a visectomy. Why is it her body we should be regulating and not yours? We could pass a law forcing men to get those operations until they are married and ready to reproduce at which time they can have the operation undone. Instead you place all responsibility on the woman while seeking to deny her any of the choice. You do this based on nothing except a personal wish to own and control an autonomous person. You present no evidence that supports your views on how this serves women and society. This isn't a debate. Debates are built on substantive view points built on evidence, and something beyond I want to control other people. I am having a debate. You are having a toddler like tantrum about not being able to assert dominance. Please do learn the difference because it is a massive one.

On the issue of development and evolution I would agree with you. Evolution for the win every time. But again not the issue and not the point. You made a claim that something looked a certain way so it should be treated a certain way. I was merely countering that nonsensical childish argument by showing that something else at a certain point looks like something else but we don't treat it like what it looks like as I have not heard you once say anything about protecting the oceans from pollution for the fetal dolphins proving again you don't even buy what you are selling. You are just a toddler throwing a tantrum making an emotional argument, with no real foundation, while taking no responsibility for the issue, as you try to blame other sovereign people for not being more responsible even as they are taking all the responsibility as we speak while you take none. You sound like a toddler throwing a tantrum. This means soooo much to you, you try to seek to push your view onto others but you won't take or invest the literal 2 minutes it takes to do a google search,. You are like a child having a tantrum. You are not a debator.

If you don't understand the arguments you make then perhaps don't make them in the future? YOU said something about how they are human because they LOOK human.

You are confusing me with Oxiu I believe. This make the whole following post a little bit off. However, I'd like to come back on some points:

On this quote, saying that human fetus look human is technically correct, but I would also say factually wrong. Firstly, because a fetus is ~ 9 weeks after conception (7 after fertilization), and is pretty much looking like a baby from this stage onward - it's actually going very fast. Before this point, and as in the link you shared about human vs dolphin, it's an embryo, and it already shows differences between both species early on.

Secondly, because an embryo doesn't look like a human, it is a human and belongs to the species on a genetic perspective.

Now, from my understanding, most people mean embryo when showing such pictures, and person when saying that it's not human. There are also many different things talked about when exchanging... For example, when Oxiu says (I trust you on that, I haven't read all his posts) that a fetus looks like a human, then he most likely talk about a real fetus, whereas your counter argument about dolphins is mentionning an embryo, hence another stage of pregnancy.

I think it's interesting to clarify this point, because it gives a whole new perspective. For instance, abortion are allowed up until 24 weeks in some countries; but looking quickly on internet, most of abortions are performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, hence at the embryo stage. With this in mind, and if look is important, then you would probably have to rethink your argument before 9 weeks; and similarly, if it's important,then maybe there is something to rethink about the allowed delays for abortion...

Debates are built on substantive view points built on evidence

I don't think so. You can base debates on arguments, but an argument is not an evidence. Here, the debate on abortion is mainly ideological and have little to do with any sort of evidence. Calling an embryo a parasite is, as far as I know, not correct (mentionned why in the response to @Miss_Penpal) and only a pejorative grandiloquent term. Same for stating that cells are not alive. Obviously, it also exist on the other side, like stating that abortion is natural and hence shouldn't be stopped because of that.

Did I mistake you with him? I am sorry. I am old and when you hit my age.... Well.... Sometimes you make old age errors. Thank you for letting me know I made that error. It was unintentional and you are right it was directed at him.

Again, correct. I did use an embryo. My point was undeveloped things that Oxiu, believes should have protected status based on crickets, at the expense of women as a result of appearing like a person, is ardently ridiculous. I did use an image of an embryo to make that point.

Correct again! An Embryo, may not look human. Which again goes to my point appearance is not and should not be the standard upon which we base such a serious decision as ending a pregnancy. By his argument an embryo IS a person after all which is why it should be a crime to abort. So resemblance to a person should not be the basis upon which such decisions are made for women by society. The entire anti abortion is predicated on the alleged fact that from the moment of insemination, it is a human baby. So confronting that using an image of an embryo is not confusing the issue in the least. It is confronting the argument head on with evidence that the claim that the appearance of it and the belief that it is a person is not sufficient to base a decision to deny women control of their own bodies. If you don't view an embyo as a person congrats, you seem to be on the right side of that one. I agree.

Oxiu's position, is that abortion is always wrong and should not be legal at any phase. Now, maybe he has the humaness to allow it when the life of the mother is at risk, maybe not. Ask him. But he will tell you even an embryo is a person and has a right to live. At no phase is it NOT a person in his mind. And I was argueing this with him. Or I thought I was.... So to him, it always looks like a person because to him it always IS a person.

I agree. Different countries allow different things. In this country, I recently watched the over turning of Roe V Wade. Much of this country has now lost abortion rights. They are now trying to take the morning after pill. Next stop making birth control only legal for married women who have at least 2 children already. The morning after pill can be found in many western european apothecaries over the counter. Here already you have to go to your doctor and beg for one and he may or may not be too douschy to help you. Up to HIM. Your healthcare decisions are literally up to the government which is headed by an orange escapee from the mental hospital.... Soon to get birth control here you will need a note from your husband to ask the doctor to allow you to have it. That is where this country is headed. This argument isn't just about the life of a fetus. It is also about the life and the value and the equity within society of a woman.

Yes different countries allow different things for women. Why is it up to anyone but the woman and her chosen doctor? It is a personal medical decision. But that said, I am not closed to making it illegal at a certain point unless it is a case of rape or the life of the mother. But it DOES need to be available for a reasonable amount of time for women and the choice must be penalty free.

And here is another point... You are young. So you don't remember the old days when children were the property of their fathers. When *I* was little women still had no right to their own kids in a divorce! The father could demand them and get them and not allow the woman any visitation. You weren't around watching the war over the kids for example that took place when Princess Di and Prince Charles, were fighting for custody. So women must be forced then to bear children that they have no right to even keep historically speaking.

Typically, you are correct. But frequently the images used and what is discussed is something that isn't actually happening in a desperate effort to manipulate the discussion. Typically women abort during or just after point embryo usually before it even particularly looks like a person, when it looks still more like that dolphin. So again, I fail to see how that image is unaccurate or valid in a discussion of this issue.

Debates ARE opposing arguments. Arguments constructed on evidence. Arguments based on a FOUNDATION of some kind beyond just your personal preference. For example, I do not prefer abortion. Yet I am here argueing for choice because I am convinced by the EVIDENCE in it's favor that it is a better policy that allows for all to do what they think is right. I saw you posting some evidence. You are debating the issue. I appreciate that, even when we disagree. Oxiu, was being a toddler. I can respect someone who debates. Toddlers having a tantrum though? yeh sorry no, at least not in a debate about what my rights should be in relation to the body that belongs to me.

Next, let's talk for just a moment about what happens when society takes abortion away from women or denies them abortion. There is a lovely book every woman should read. Actually 2 books. One of them is The Birth House by Ami Mckay, the other is called The Cider House Rules. History also shows us, that when women can't get legal abortions the need for them does not disappear. So abortions move to back alleys, untrained medical professionals and literal coat hangers. These "operations" historically often killed both the baby as well as the mother. So arguing against abortion because life is important is kind of a ludicrous argument as illegal abortions often provide a 2 for 1 death rate that legal abortion does.

These "operations" historically often killed both the baby as well as the mother.

Welp so you all agree that it comes down to killing a baby then. Nice teamwork! 😛️

Welp so you all agree that it comes down to killing a baby then. Nice teamwork! 😛️

Actually no.... It kills a collection of cells when done within an appropriate time frame. I used that term because it is was one commonly in use.

But nice try Etienne!

What do YOU think of this subject? Or are you like my spouse? No personal view on it cuz it is a thing for women to decide in which men really have no dog in the race as they can't get preggo?

What do YOU think of this subject? Or are you like my spouse? No personal view on it cuz it is a thing for women to decide in which men really have no dog in the race as they can't get preggo?

I have to admit I only quickly skimmed through the replies, I haven't had time to participate in the forum.

As for my opinion, thank you for asking, it turns out @Yue_ posted this question not too long ago in the "true or false" topic: this was my contribution.

Did I mistake you with him? I am sorry. I am old and when you hit my age.... Well.... Sometimes you make old age errors. Thank you for letting me know I made that error. It was unintentional and you are right it was directed at him.

Again, correct. I did use an embryo. My point was undeveloped things that Oxiu, believes should have protected status based on crickets, at the expense of women as a result of appearing like a person, is ardently ridiculous. I did use an image of an embryo to make that point.

Correct again! An Embryo, may not look human. Which again goes to my point appearance is not and should not be the standard upon which we base such a serious decision as ending a pregnancy. By his argument an embryo IS a person after all which is why it should be a crime to abort. So resemblance to a person should not be the basis upon which such decisions are made for women by society. The entire anti abortion is predicated on the alleged fact that from the moment of insemination, it is a human baby. So confronting that using an image of an embryo is not confusing the issue in the least. It is confronting the argument head on with evidence that the claim that the appearance of it and the belief that it is a person is not sufficient to base a decision to deny women control of their own bodies. If you don't view an embyo as a person congrats, you seem to be on the right side of that one. I agree.

Oxiu's position, is that abortion is always wrong and should not be legal at any phase. Now, maybe he has the humaness to allow it when the life of the mother is at risk, maybe not. Ask him. But he will tell you even an embryo is a person and has a right to live. At no phase is it NOT a person in his mind. And I was argueing this with him. Or I thought I was.... So to him, it always looks like a person because to him it always IS a person.

I agree. Different countries allow different things. In this country, I recently watched the over turning of Roe V Wade. Much of this country has now lost abortion rights. They are now trying to take the morning after pill. Next stop making birth control only legal for married women who have at least 2 children already. The morning after pill can be found in many western european apothecaries over the counter. Here already you have to go to your doctor and beg for one and he may or may not be too douschy to help you. Up to HIM. Your healthcare decisions are literally up to the government which is headed by an orange escapee from the mental hospital.... Soon to get birth control here you will need a note from your husband to ask the doctor to allow you to have it. That is where this country is headed. This argument isn't just about the life of a fetus. It is also about the life and the value and the equity within society of a woman.

Yes different countries allow different things for women. Why is it up to anyone but the woman and her chosen doctor? It is a personal medical decision. But that said, I am not closed to making it illegal at a certain point unless it is a case of rape or the life of the mother. But it DOES need to be available for a reasonable amount of time for women and the choice must be penalty free.

And here is another point... You are young. So you don't remember the old days when children were the property of their fathers. When *I* was little women still had no right to their own kids in a divorce! The father could demand them and get them and not allow the woman any visitation. You weren't around watching the war over the kids for example that took place when Princess Di and Prince Charles, were fighting for custody. So women must be forced then to bear children that they have no right to even keep historically speaking.

Typically, you are correct. But frequently the images used and what is discussed is something that isn't actually happening in a desperate effort to manipulate the discussion. Typically women abort during or just after point embryo usually before it even particularly looks like a person, when it looks still more like that dolphin. So again, I fail to see how that image is unaccurate or valid in a discussion of this issue.

Debates ARE opposing arguments. Arguments constructed on evidence. Arguments based on a FOUNDATION of some kind beyond just your personal preference. For example, I do not prefer abortion. Yet I am here argueing for choice because I am convinced by the EVIDENCE in it's favor that it is a better policy that allows for all to do what they think is right. I saw you posting some evidence. You are debating the issue. I appreciate that, even when we disagree. Oxiu, was being a toddler. I can respect someone who debates. Toddlers having a tantrum though? yeh sorry no, at least not in a debate about what my rights should be in relation to the body that belongs to me.

Next, let's talk for just a moment about what happens when society takes abortion away from women or denies them abortion. There is a lovely book every woman should read. Actually 2 books. One of them is The Birth House by Ami Mckay, the other is called The Cider House Rules. History also shows us, that when women can't get legal abortions the need for them does not disappear. So abortions move to back alleys, untrained medical professionals and literal coat hangers. These "operations" historically often killed both the baby as well as the mother. So arguing against abortion because life is important is kind of a ludicrous argument as illegal abortions often provide a 2 for 1 death rate that legal abortion does.

Why it is ridiculus to let the fetus grow and live? Because You told so? It's actually life, with many planned and coded traits, look, etc. You compare it to animal, I don't, because i don't see it equal. It's life that came from me, and the women I was with. And if nothing wrong happen, and if You don't take the right of this human being to live, it's the human with his own future. And this matter for me. And I consider protecting potential life as something better and good, unlike taking the potiential life.

I told You not only about the appearence, but also unique DNA, and the fact that this is human development. And You can't say where is the border between: finally human/not human yet.

Yes, abortion is always wrong. Because why taking someone's life would'nt be wrong and evil? Oh, right. It's better to refuse calling it human, because then, abortion doesn't seem as bad. But it actually is, except You don't care about potential of this life, and it's shocking, because You would allow abortion even in 24 week.

I doubt now You read messages fully. I told in which case I allow abortion to happen, and yes, its still lesser evil, because it's tragedy, that baby inside mother is in very bad condition, or if mother's life is in danger. But that is to mother and father to decide.

You also ignored my question: why, instead of better policy and care, for mothers in hard situation, You talk about free abortion?

And I repeat: yes, it's your choice. You can go to bed, or not. If Yo you do, You take the consequences, and You can't take the life of innocent child, if there is no reason or if by reason You mean: "I don't have money/its uncomfortable". Only few, and specific circumstances.

And of course man have also voice in this topic, because we are the fathers ^ ^

But why not. I personally believe that abortion isn't murder because murder is when you take someones life. Even if a foetus would be a living creature (wich it isn't, it's a parasite) it doesn't have a life. However the mother does and her life or mental health can be safed by removing this creature in her stomach. This foetus isn't a baby you are making an emotional desision where you see a cute baby violentely being murdred. But it is a foetus and as long as it sits in his mother stomach it is sipmly a parisite living trough her. So she can do with her parisite what she wants. Or is removing a tapeworm murder aswell?

Calling it "creature", "parasite" you're only proving it's another being that's not part of his/her mother. Embiology is saying "foetus" is having it's own unique DNA system, killing it is slaying a baby.

Calling it "creature", "parasite" you're only proving it's another being that's not part of his/her mother. Embiology is saying "foetus" is having it's own unique DNA system, killing it is slaying a baby.

Uhhuh, what are men doing to take responsibility for their biological junk? Most of the time nothing. So the one with the major and long term commitment, must get to call the shots on this one. Not the one without a horse in the race. If you feel that strongly, are you willing to pay the 30 k for her to give birth? Are you going to pay for half the up keep plus the cost of 9 months of rental space in her body? Are you gonna pay her rent too for the 3 months or more that she must take off work and won't be paid to make sure that baby has a home to go home to? This issue is a hell of a lot bigger than word choice and DNA. This is a major life decision. One some people face without intending to. One some children face as young as 10 years of age. One some women face as the result of a violent horrific act committed against them. This is a decision that can put their life at risk as well as cause long term fall out that can impact their socio economic bracket and lifestyle and plans for the future. I see a lot of men talking about what women should and shouldn't be able to do. I have not heard 1 god damn thing from a single one of you about how you plan to step up to make this less of an issue for the woman. If you are not going to take responsibility for another person's life and welfare, you don't get to dictate to them what their choices are. How does that sound? You in for $300 thousand it takes to raise a baby??? Yeh. Didn't think so. Call me when you grow a uterus and this matter can actually destabilize your life.

Ok you don't like the term parasite. Is Squatter better??? Landlords can evict them. Why shouldn't women be able to?

For me i think it depends if abortion is allowed. So for example if you are a victim and somebody abused you then i think you would be allowed to have abortion. But i also know for example stories that others get pregnant bc they are super careless and they just dont care. And it does not happen one time but with some it happened several times. That is not right i think. But also i think it is not right if they are forced as the mom because she cant take care of herself so how can she be a mom. So i dont know for sure really anymore if abortion should be allowed or not. But there are of course also other cases.

We discussed it also here: https://penpal-gate.net/forum/13-anything-and-everything/9742-true-or-false/20 and you have to scroll to the second half of that page. And i still think that maybe the doctor should decide it. But for a doctor it is also difficult to decide when it should be allowed and not.

We discussed it in our society class and in the beginning it was a nice discussion and people are respectful. But after that people really got agressive or super heavy with the discussion. I did not like that. But we did discuss it.

Abortion after getting abused is never a solution and is one of the worst arguments for abortion. No one should be allowed to remove the baby who's innocent and hadn't influence on the circumstances of how was created. If anyone deserves death in this case this would be the one who abused and propably not always cause there's other ways such as prison. Often it happens that it's the rapist who wants victim to get abortion to cover the tracks of his crime while killing the child.

So you are saying we should victimize a woman every day of her life because a man once chose to victimize her sexually?
We should force her to take care of his baby that was made in a state of pain torture abuse and terror? If you were raped would you want to keep the scars he sliced into you with a knife while he did it? Or would you want plastic surgery to fix your face? I realize these things aren't exactly the same but close enough. Imagine instead of him leaving scars on your face he left them in your mind for the rest of your life and in your body to carry for 9 months against your will? And then the state puts you in prison if you don't adequately care for it? It might be a baby to you, but what might it be for a rape victim? Maybe not a baby? Maybe something else entirely.

We have rape kits to nail these creeps. A baby is unnecessary to that end.

And again so you are going to force this tortured woman to have this baby, ok, lets imagine that it was uncle ed who committed the rape and that the victim is 11. Are YOU going to cover the costs to get her educated to keep a roof over their head? To pay for her psychologist? To cover the medical costs? Higher education so she can one day stand on her feet and raise her child when old enough to do so? And if not, WHY should you get a vote at all? How does this impact YOU personally that you should get a vote on this issue at all?

So you are saying we should victimize a woman every day of her life because a man once chose to victimize her sexually?
We should force her to take care of his baby that was made in a state of pain torture abuse and terror? If you were raped would you want to keep the scars he sliced into you with a knife while he did it? Or would you want plastic surgery to fix your face? I realize these things aren't exactly the same but close enough. Imagine instead of him leaving scars on your face he left them in your mind for the rest of your life and in your body to carry for 9 months against your will? And then the state puts you in prison if you don't adequately care for it? It might be a baby to you, but what might it be for a rape victim? Maybe not a baby? Maybe something else entirely.

We have rape kits to nail these creeps. A baby is unnecessary to that end.

And again so you are going to force this tortured woman to have this baby, ok, lets imagine that it was uncle ed who committed the rape and that the victim is 11. Are YOU going to cover the costs to get her educated to keep a roof over their head? To pay for her psychologist? To cover the medical costs? Higher education so she can one day stand on her feet and raise her child when old enough to do so? And if not, WHY should you get a vote at all? How does this impact YOU personally that you should get a vote on this issue at

The state has the means to enforce alimony on fathers who avoid responsibility. And if woman don't wanna raise a child she have lots of solutions that doesn't involve killing child. They can give it to adoption, homes for single mothers, safe haven baby boxes, in very complicated situations, perinatal hospices.

In the USA, men frequently move around and invent ways to scam the system to keep themselves from even paying their pathetic 15%. So that isn't entirely true. And alimony is what you pay your ex wife. Child support is what you pay to care for your baby. But I suppose most men don't view them as different things. Paying is paying and they never seem to want to do it, regardless of weather it supports their bitch X or their baby.

There is a price to pay for giving it up for adoption. It is fine when a man abandons his baby by gaming the system and refusing to pay. Then he smart looking out for himself. But whena woman puts it up for adoption, there is a stigma. She is a bad mother she abandoned her baby to strangers. She made her mistake the problem of tax payers. So if it is HER mistake and he can't be forced to do anything then why should she be forced to have it to begin with? Why shouldn't the choice on that be hers?

Just gonna drop this here for everyone's consideration. This is a story about a real woman and a real family. This woman once laughed and once cried. She once loved and had thoughts and opinions and views.... She is someone's daughter, someone's employee. She was independent, self sufficient, and managing her own life making her own choices................. Until she wasn't. Now, the state of Georgia, is making choices for her. Are those choices even against her will??? I don't know. I am not asserting that they are or aren't. I am asking you, if you can't make choices for yourself who do you trust to make them? Your local government? Or your family? This woman, would probably say her family if she could. Because that is what most of us would say. What are women and what should we be in society? THIS woman, is literally not even a human anymore. The government has decided she is now nothing more than an incubator. Now, I am not gonna sit here and say we should all cheer on abortion. It is always the worst human tragedy. But this, is what happens and what women become when you turn their bodies into property of the state. Ignoring their free will and the wills of those who love them not for the physical entity they are but for WHO they are. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/brain-dead-woman-must-carry-fetus-to-birth-because-of-georgias-abortion-ban-hospital-tells-family Here, this is actually happening. This is REAL. Just stop for one moment to imagine how you might want to be USED by your local government if you aren't able to make personal choices. Imagine, if even in this state, to the government you are not a suffering dying person but an incubator with a heart beat being run by a machine. All of you who talk about the the entitlement's of the baby.... What about being entitled to a mother that can say "I love you."

hello i'm new to this page and i see it interesting about the topic since i surfs mostly my time in learning yet researching about any social issue. and about abortion, imo, The provisions/policies for this medical procedure need to be considered. because abortion steps, even in hospitals, still have the potential to have effects on the women.because you know abortion itself is a medical procedure that 'forces' the fetus to come out of the placenta long before the time of birth. and usually in hospitals, this abortion is more emphasized and is intended for pregnant women whose fetus cannot be saved (died), and needs to be removed because if left it will have a bad impact on the mother. and some country (Singapore, Vietnam, France, Rusia, Norway, Swedish, Netherlands), as far i know they had legalized the law of abortion, but there are still t&c. so it's not 'that free'.

and some of, only focus on namely if there is a medical problem that endangers the mother/fetus/both, then, for rape victims. even USA which said as liberal still hasn't yet legalized the free abortion.

I understand, as you said, my body my choice, every women has right to decide what they did to her body. i truly understand.. but, often people forget that we are not only an independent individual but we are also part of the ecosystem, part of social life, part of society, which, We don't just always follow our ego, but we also need to look after, help, consider the impacts, benefits, and effects that are consciously or unconsciously, directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally to influence surrounds us.

let's say a newborn baby, and he grows by imitating, seeing, demonstrating what is around him. no baby knows immediately what a human is like. if you have ever seen, a baby who grows up with an animal (I forgot what animal), the baby grows up behaving like that animal. not walking with just two legs, but also hands. so from this incident I conclude that animals, humans, nature, and the environment influence each other and do not stand alone and need each other, so we can't only think about ourselves but also people around us

Here, my concern is more about the statement that there is a group of women who are thinking about having an abortion just because of their & their partner negligence, while actually the couple has consent between each other. and I don't think it's only men's fault when a woman is pregnant because of activity that was done by 'both'. cause once again, 'both' have consent to have s3x. and I once had a discussion with one of the abortion supporters, their answer always brought up 'birth control leaks', which it's not over 1% which 0.1% (nexplanon), 0.7 (hormonal ius), 0.8% (copper iud), 0.5% (female sterilization), <1% (oral, patches, or vaginal rings). and I think it is very risky to have a request for abortion policies to be freely legalized even for trivial reasons, because without legalizing it, pregnant because of free sex (even for teenagers) still happening.

which is calculated & detected by data that psychically, 20-70% of individuals in USA have sexually transmitted diseases due to freesex. 20% (STI), 70% (HSV), 70-90% (HPV), 55% (HIV).

81% womens in USA so suffer from mental illness after abortion (anxiety, impulse control issues, anorexia, bulimia, suicidal thoughts, addiction etc) because if you read in the journals, they know abortion = murder. but if you only see the statement in social media, yes they are reluctant to admit it because of prestige

This has spread widely even though free abortion has not been legalized in the USA.

and you know? from the existing diseases because they have the same common thread, namely because of changing partners without first selecting whether the person has a sexually transmitted disease or not. where, humans are truly dynamic creatures, today A, tomorrow it could be B, and the next day it could be C. So, for this abortion, it really needs to be reviewed and researched more deeply, at length and with full consideration, and it cannot be simply legalized just because of the ego of a minority of individuals who selfish enough only think about themselves.

at least if wanna 'have fun', be smart, be clean. remember, before the campaign about free abortion in any country, it is no secret that there are so many teenagers who get pregnant because of free sex. Which, teenage pregnancy has a higher potential for the mother to lose her life. and it's because of they know 'freesex'. and if free abortion collabs with freesex, idk what will happen to world. because each country, in making plans/regulations, cannot cherry pick, but must also consider not only the city, country, but also international, multinational, bigger scale.

so in specific, I only support abortion for those who have health issues (physical, mental) that have the potential to be bad for the mother, fetus or both. Also, for rape victims where consent to having s3x is one-sided. the rest, clean your own mess.

kk because from what I see, most of those who support free abortion come from the circles of supporters of equality, how can you support equality, but also expect a law that actually act of cherry picking? isn't that a double standard? do most of them actually only care about personal interests? I'm a feminist, but from what I've learned, to achieve equality, you don't just have to focus on the interests of a group/individual, but also you need to think 'the whole', whole, not only individually, but also in terms of impact, benefits, short-long term effects, so that the existing campaign is not just a campaign, but can also bring about good changes which exactly good. not a sugarcoat, not a manipulation, not a trick. but real.

cause imo, we may trying to equal things, but, also, there is no such thing as absolute freedom as in we want and we can do this and this as our heart wishes.

or..... is what we ask, actually just a form of selfishness & negligent?

*disclaimer, this is not an invitation for a debate, But please read it carefully and just think about it alone. or it'll be good if you also surfs internet (especially in book, journal, research) by yourself about each statement.*

As this is still a very hotly debated topic, I wanted to ask what you think about it.
I personally think that every woman should have the right to abort a pregnancy. Therefore, I consider laws in countries like Poland to be alarming.
However, I know that many people have a different opinion than I do. I also think that it is very important to talk with people who have a contrary opinion.

Well I think that Abortion is murder, because the embryo is already alive and you are taking away his chance to explore the World.

It's like with bad people - we don't kill them we give them a chance to better themselves.

Everyone here as got a chance, from God. You can't take that chance away from someone, because you're not god.

I'm not sure what my opinion is. I don't question it's perfectly moral in cases of r*pe (at early stages) or medical issues. About pretty much any other situation, I just genuinely don't know what to think, especially when it comes to what its legal status should be. If anyone wants to make their case, I would gladly listen.