The opinion columns of American newspapers have been buzzing about popular opinion on this ever since Sandra Day O'Connor retired and John G. Roberts Jr was appointed to the Supreme Court.

Questions for consideration:

Are you generally for or against abortion? What are your reasons for it, and what possible exceptions do you allow?

What are the ramifications of continuing legalized abortion? What are the ramifications of abolishing it?

Whose decision is it that a woman should have an abortion in various situations? (hers, the partner's, her parents)

It's a sensitive topic, so please be considerate when posting your opinion so as to be non-offensive as possible, thank you.

I'm generally against. Not because religion says so or anything; I suppose I just like people to be responsible about it. Exceptions. Obviously traumatic and unwanted experiences such as rape are an obvious exception. Also, if the people involved were responsible about using contraception, such as a condom splitting, or the pill not working or suchlike, and the pregnancy really cannot be put down to fault on the parents' part, I genuinely don't have a problem with it. Essentially, I'm against it being used as a form of contraception.

Pass.

The woman's. Obviously the partner and possibly parents should have input. After all, the partner should have half the say as well, but they say to the pregnant mother, and the mother gets the last word.

Are you generally for or against abortion? What are your reasons for it, and what possible exceptions do you allow?

I'm generally against it. I know you're all surprised. For religious and ethical reasons, though I also like to jump on the personality responsibility bandwagon. Abortion is a surgery, one that can have complications be it physical or mental for a portion of woman. You might blame society for this, but as long as it exists, I'd like to see people treat it as a last resort, like any medical procedure hopefully is. heh. Its not as if the people that one would suggest most 'need' abortions seem to be having them anyway, judging by America's foster care system and the physical/sexual abuse rates. Meh.

As far as religion and ethics go, I think the grey areas are extreme and that the issue isn't as clear cut even from a scientific view as people like to pretend. We've debated it often here and we're still not sure what life is qualified as beyond being born. The difference of a nine month old baby an hour before birth seems slim to me. One could argue that deciding it must be a life is a grey area, but I would argue the reverse is true as well. Its just a complex issue that needs to be treated as such.

Lastly, I just don't believe in causing unneeded pain. After the fetus/baby is able to feel pain, I fail to see the point in making its death as agonizing as possible, whatever category you personally assign it too.

As for exceptions, I'm not sure I could make victims of incest or rape have babies. Its horrific anyway you slice it. And obviously, the mother's life in danger.

What are the ramifications of continuing legalized abortion? What are the ramifications of abolishing it?

Er, having lots of abortions as far as I can tell. In America we add some violence and a lot of nastiness between both sides into the mix. People don't seem to be able to disagree politely much at least, let alone compromise in any productive sense.

Abolishing it will likely lead to some illegal abortions or outright defiance from some clinics, ect. There would be more adoptions likely and some good results that way, but I realize that women being desperate is a rather negative consequence.

Whose decision is it that a woman should have an abortion in various situations? (hers, the partner's, her parents)

For me its defined by my belief that the baby is a life in its own right. As such, I don't believe there is a decision to make. Were the baby even a minute old, there would be no legal decision to make by any of the involved parties.

Gah! My fluppin' mouse slipped and I clicked on the wrong option. I meant to click always legal instead of mostly legal.

*beats mouse furiously*

My reasoning for this is thus.

Women who have been raped should have the opportunity to abort the 'results' of that unfortunate experience should they so wish. Imagine, for the woman who has been raped, the child will be a constant reminder of the experience.

Also, even if abortion were made completely legal, I suspect many women would not opt for it. It's a stressful and no doubt traumatic experience. But, nevertheless, that option should be open to women should they so wish to persue it.

Further, should the mother be forced to give birth to a child that could kill her? This is sometimes the case. It is my view that the mother's life is more 'important' than the unborn child's. The mother has relatives, possibly other children, a partner etc who all care for her. If it came down to a matter of the mother's life vs the unborn child's, I would have to say the mother should take priority every time.

I voted mostly legal. If it became as easy as walking into a clinic and arranging a date for it then people would start using it more as a contraceptive than a last resort.

The reason I put mostly legal rather than mostly illegal is because accidents happen, like Greeneyes said condoms split and there is no 100% effective contraceptive pill/jab/whatever and nobody who doesn't have major OCD about it isn't going to be on the pill AND use condoms 'just in case' you have to take those risks if you're going to have sex because it's just not reasonable to use every form of contraceptive under the sun... and no doubt it wouldn't be healthy.

I think that more should be put into awareness of the risks involved in sexual intamacy and provision of condoms for those who can't afford them/get them easily. Say for instance you have two 14 year olds living in the backend of nowhere, no bus service and no part time jobs available there could be a condoms by post service or something because the last thing they're going to need is an unexpected pregancy.

I'm rambling now... I'm sure you get my point.

edit
I forgot to say that because medicine is becoming more advanced and children are now able to be born and survive from virtually 20 weeks I think that the cut off should be lowered and in cases where it gets virtually to 24 weeks but there are complications for the mother the best should be done to save the child rather than just aborting.

I suppose I would say that I am mostly for abortion... but I have some very specific opinions on the matter. I don't think abortion should be used as contraception. I believe that it would be the woman's right to choose, but I don't think abortion should be something very commonplace... it's hard to get this into words. I'd prefer if abortion were, as believe said, more of a last-resort thing. But you can't really guarantee that that will be the case. If someone has been raped, or the mother's life is in danger, I would give that a yes. If someone had tried to prevent the pregnancy by using contraception, but contraception failed, I would probably think yes as well. Also, the earlier the better... later-term abortions make me nervous. Basically I think abortion is something that should be used with utmost responsibility, if that makes any sense. I understand both sides of the coin. I think it should remain legal, as well. The only thing about the "parent notification" that bothers me is that if the parents didn't understand their daughter's situation, or prohibited her from having an abortion. Then again, I'm no one to decide that, or even to set limits on what age is appropriate. Yeah, I'll stop before I ramble... I'll dig the rest of this out of my brain later. >_<

edit: aww, thanks Lynn.

I'm go to spam very briefly because I need to say I'm glad gothictheysay posted and she needs to hear it. Yay! It made sense and I'm glad to know what you think. /spam

I opted always legal.

Are you generally for or against abortion? What are your reasons for it, and what possible exceptions do you allow?

I am totally pro - choice. On the legality of it, I don't think there should be any exceptions and anyone should be allowed to have an abortion if they so choose. That's not to say I agree with all peoples reasoning for having an abortion. I just feel that it is not for us to choose what is or is not a good reason - it should be up to the individuals involved. In the case of girls under the age of 16 - they should not be allowed to have an abortion without their parents knowledge. Not consent, knowledge.

Using abortion as a form of contraception or aborting because you partner will leave you, I feel, are unacceptable reasons. However, it is not for me to judge. Although it is not a black and white subject, I feel that it has to be either abortions for all or abortions for none.

Whose decision is it that a woman should have an abortion in various situations? (hers, the partner's, her parents)

If the father is taking an active role then I believe that it should be a joint decision. However, ultimately I feel that the woman should always have the final word. The bottom line is that she is the one that has to carry the child and she is the one that is more then likely to have the most active role in raising that child.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world and I see abortion as a necessary evil.

I replied always legal.

To say that is should only be legal in certain cases is a nice thought in theory, but actually being able to make that happen doesn't seem as resonable. It would be really expensive and time consuming to have a person have to go in and prove that they became pregnant by rape, or incest, or molestation, etc. For this a long with many other long winded reasons that I won't list, it seems more like a viable reason to just keep it legal.

Some people are just not cut out to be parents as well, and perhaps they have an accident and do become pregant. This person may not want to deal with the stress to their bodies that comes with keeping a child full term and then give it up for adoption. Others may not want to take the chance to go through the emotional attachment that comes with carrying a life in their fetus for 9 months and then have to give it up. Perhaps that's not really the best reason to keep it legal either, but it works in my book, if it means that there is not another person out there who is not cut out to be a parent, raising a child that they didn't want in the first place, yet couldn't manage to get rid of by giving it to someone who wants a child but can't have one, because they got emotionally attached to it while carrying it.

I do think there are a few people who depend on abortion as their contraception, but they are few and far between. If it were to be illegal it would probably result in the dangerous abortions still taking place, because people who are willing to have an abortion will more than likely still find a way to have it done. When it was illegal in the past, women still had the procedure done, it was just riskier and dirtier, and put the woman at risk of dying of infection or other various diseases. Keeping it legal keeps it in a controlled environment, where yes it may be sad that a life is lost by it, but at least it doesn't have to be the life of both the fetus and the mother.

I voted mostly legal.

I believe abortion should be legal up to the 20th week of pregnancy. After that, illegal except in the case that the mother's life is endangered.

The general scientific consensus is that a foetus develops sentience (that is, a definition of "sentience" that I find satisfactory enough to warrant personhood) at around the 22nd week. Some foetuses develop faster than others, so a margin of two weeks is appropriate.

On "life" and "human": I do not find that "life" or "human life" is a deciding factor here. "Life" is ruled out very easily; all of our cells are alive, plants are alive, amoebas are alive - essentially, having life does not by itself bestow any rights. Neither does "human life"; spermatozoa and ova are human life, so unless we are to argue that male masturbation is mass murder, or that periods are murders, then we cannot use "human life" as the qualifier.

The question lies in at what point we decide which groups of cells (after all, fully-grown humans are just large and complex groups of cells) are people, with rights. The religious may draw the line at ensoulment, when the soul becomes bonded to the physical form. Being a strong agnostic, my line is different: sentience, high-level brain activity involving thought. As stated above, this begins at around the 22nd week of development - at that point, abortion is no longer the excision of a group of cells, but the deliberate killing of a person with rights. Therefore it can only be permitted in an emergency (the mother will otherwise die).

One thing I deliberately have not taken into consideration in my above post is rape. This is because I do not consider the issue a relevant one.

If a pregnancy is beyond 20 weeks, the foetus is increasingly likely to have gained high-level brain functions. It is a person with thoughts and feelings, rudimentary though they may be. The fact that its conception was the result of rape does not at all lessen its right to live. If its mother is a rape victim, then that's terrible and I sympathise. But that does not mean that I can condone the murder of an innocent bystander in order to lessen the mother's hurt. You wouldn't go out and kill somebody to make your depression go away. It is a cure that, morally speaking, is far, far worse than the disease.

I have to agree with Commie when it puts so bluntly. As much as it kills me. >_<

From a medical point of view, a pregnancy isn't considered viable until 24-25 weeks based on a couple factors : if the eyes of the fetus are still fused, or if he/she weighs less than 500gm, the fetus isn't considered viable. This is only based on our hospital policies, and the policies of several other hospitals that have contributed to our policies.

From my point of view, I truly believe in the partial birth abortion bans, but I do believe there needs to be an out clause for extreme circumstances. I battle with myself over this, and it's probably hypocritcal, but I don't think the right to choose should include choosing to end an unwanted pregnancy when the baby is viable - without just cause, such as an extreme risk to the mother. It's hard to say in the case of someone who's been raped, because there is generally ample time in the beginning of the pregnancy to determine whether or not the woman wants to terminate the pregnancy.

I do believe if the father has been an active part of the pregnancy, and/or if the pregnancy was originally planned, the father should have say in what happens as well. But, ultimately I believe the choice rests with the mother, as she's the one who will be most affected physically.

I do not think that abortions should be easy to obtain. I think that it should be difficult. Why? Because it shouldn't be a light decision. If someone is responsible enough to have sex, then they should be responsible enough to deal with the possible consequences. We all know that no meathod of contraception is foolproof, so why treat people like it isn't their responsibility? I know that any system will make mistakes, so I would choose to try to err on the side of life.

im sorry, but i had to put mostly illegal
women who were screwing around should have to give birth to the baby, its their fault, but for women who haved been raped, or know that the baby will die, be deformed, not live long, ect, you should get an abortoin. cause well, i would hate to have a child with a terrible life like that.

Are you generally for or against abortion? What are your reasons for it, and what possible exceptions do you allow?

Absolutely for. I put mostly legal (as opposed to always legal), because I think that a strict legal and social framework needs to be in place to support. Because, while I feel it's a necessary thing to have available, I think it's something that we, as a society, should be working to minimise. Education, education, education. Teach 5 year olds sex ed. Repeat and expand upon that lesson every year, until by the time they're thinking about getting into each other's pants, they're aware of the risks, know how to protect themselves against that, and are aware of the ramifications of unwanted pregnancies. That way, abortion is used less as birth control, and more as accident control.

As for exceptions, not many. Obviously, there'd have to be consent. If the person is metally or legally unable to give consent, consent can be sought from that person's guardian. While I agree that abortions ought to be available to under-16s, I can't get around the fact that they're a minor, and not legally responsible for themselves - if we give them the right to self-determination for getting an abortion, then that invalidates all the arguments for them being minors.
There has to be a time limit (as there is now), as I agree that the line between newborn and 40-week foetus is minimal. I really don't know enough to make an informed decision on when, but it's my gut feeling that current limit is erring on the side of caution.

What are the ramifications of continuing legalized abortion? What are the ramifications of abolishing it?
The ramifications of abolishing it are very simple to me. Lots more unwanted children. And unwanted children are way more likely to be subject to abuse and neglect (I have no proof of this - it's just a gut feeling). And that is simply not worth it. From an overarching societal point of view (apologies if I sound a bit like Goerring banging his eugenics drum), legalised abortion is a good thing. It minimises unwanted babies, which can only be a good thing. It's not like we're in danger of becoming extinct.
The ramifications for abolishing it are pretty nasty. You have a huge number of unwanted babies born. Without wanting to sound too Daily Mail, at worst, these kids, as they grow up, are going to be several orders of magnitude more likely to get involved in drugs or crime - with uninterested parents giving little to no guidance (or worse, beating the living crap out of them on a daily basis because the parents resent the child that they didn't want to have).

Whose decision is it that a woman should have an abortion in various situations? (hers, the partner's, her parents)
Absolutely the mother's. It is her choice absolutely to have an abortion or not. Until medical technology gives men the option of carrying the pregnancy to term, it is absolutely the woman's choice. Even in cases where the father wants the baby, but the mother wants an abortion, that is the mother's choice. Nobody can force her to have an abortion. Nobody can stop her from having an abortion.
At the end of the day, consider the opposite of abortion - conception. There's no legal limits on how or when a woman can conceive. So there should similarly be a permissive policy to how she decides to get the baby out of herself.

More questions:
Is it just the "fault" of promiscuous women who do not use protection, or are women who became pregnant when their contraception failed also at fault?

Does the amount of fault change if the woman is married instead of single?

Also, if the father (sperm donor) of a fetus wants to bring the baby into the world, is the mother obligated to do so? Is the woman obligated at all to inform the father of her decision to abort?

----

I've yet to put my opinion down, so here it is. I'm generally for abortion. I used to be 100% against it back in my fundamentalist days, but only because I logically felt that Christianity and abortion were incompatible. Now that I have no religion, my opinion has shifted.

At conception, and for some time afterwards, a fetus is little more than an indistinguishable mass of cells that happen to have human DNA. It resembles, in some ways, a parasite. A parasite of human creation, of course, but still. Women (and men) should be responsible and avoid conception as best as one can, but obviously there are no foolproof ways of prevention beyond abstinence. I am for abortion because I believe sex is a basic human desire from which one should not need to totally refrain, especially in the case of committed relationships.

Suppose a young married couple, despite using contraception correctly, has the unfortunate luck of becoming pregnant anyway. They are not interested in becoming parents. Should they be forced to bear the child anyway? Or in the case of an older couple, who already have three children and don't want another? Or in the case of a couple in which one person has a high risk of passing a serious genetic defect to their child, and the couple doesn't want to subject the child to that suffering? I can see plenty of good uses for abortion.

But even in the morally shady cases, abortion can be a good thing. Statistically speaking, unwed mothers are less likely to achieve their educational and financial potential. The younger the woman, the more likely she will drop out of whatever school she is attending or take a lower-paying job with less room for promotion to spend more time caring for the child. Arguably, motherhood is a rewarding career in itself, and many single moms do just fine. Unfortunately many other single mothers are barely able to pay the bills - a third in the US are living below the poverty line. That is not good, not for the mother and not for the child(ren). Abortion gives women another choice.

Granted, I don't like abortion being used as a one-stop-shop for ridding women of their products of unsafe sex. I wish all people would try to be responsible. Unfortunately at least half of abortion seekers did not use birth control or used birth control inconsistantly. Just think, the abortion rate could be cut in half if people would just think a bit.

That's all.

Is it just the "fault" of promiscuous women who do not use protection, or are women who became pregnant when their contraception failed also at fault?

Well, I'm not sure fault is the word I want to use. However, most people have sex with the knowledge that pregnancy is a possibility. If I play sports, I know there is a slim chance of injury. It is a risk I willingly take. If I was careless and ignored safety rules (ie women who ignore birth control), I would have brought it upon myself nearly deliberately. If I tried to avoid it, I certainly showed personal responsibility and tried to be safe. I guess what I want to say is while it can be fault as in failing, sometimes there's just natural consequences for our actions. We decide the payoff is worth it and do it anyway, thereby signing it regardless of the risk involved.

Does the amount of fault change if the woman is married instead of single?

Don't see why, unless she's ignoring birth control and then getting upset afterwards, as if she couldn't have done anything differently.

Also, if the father (sperm donor) of a fetus wants to bring the baby into the world, is the mother obligated to do so? Is the woman obligated at all to inform the father of her decision to abort?

Well, if he's willing to take responsibility and has not been abusive, ect, I think she needs to consider his wishes equal to her own. Its his child, not just hers. It took both of them and while its certainly her body, she and he both chose this together(unless she was a victim of rape). It seems logical that they at least try to fix any complications together as well.

I think she should inform the father. Again, provided it is a consensual, willingly chosen relationship, she and he have entered it together. He was involved and would be involved legally if she had the baby. I don't consider this much differently.

Why should she consider his wishes equal to her own? If I wanted a child, I have to spend 5 minutes (less if I'm in a rush) getting myself into a lather, then I take a 9 month holiday, and all of a sudden - I'm a dad. For the lucky lady involved, she has to deal with possible medical complications from her pregnancy, stretch marks, weeing herself, weight gain and her girly-bits literally ripping themselves apart during the 'magic of birth'. What precisely is 'equal' about that arrangement?

As an aside, I'm noticing a couple of different meta-viewpoints so far.

1 : The Absolute, who's opinion is that if you're having sex, you have to be prepated to have pregnancies result from that.

2 : The Sexaholic, who's opinion is that if you're having sex, you shouldn't have to be prepated to have pregnancies result from that, that's what contraception is for, and should that fail, abortion.

Seems like these are mutually exclusive viewpoints coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, and pretty much decide which side of the abortion debate that person comes down on.

In pregnancy and birth? Not a thing. And true, a lot of dads choose not to be involved. My biological one didn't after the divorce. However, as quick as his part was, he paid child support for the rest of his life and was still held responsible to support us. I was thinking of that when I posted. If we legally hold them responsible for support, I think a say is fair. I can see arguments for not equal involvement (such as yours), but he should at least be given consideration.

The aspects of the issue that people are choosing to discuss, I find interesting.

What's coming up a lot is whether the pregnant women is "responsible" or "at fault" for her pregnancy. Why is this an issue? If the foetus is not a person, cannot think, cannot feel, is just a bundle of cells, then an abortion doesn't really have any moral ramifications. If a foetus is a person with (if rudimentary) thoughts and feelings, then to terminate it would be murder. In either case, I can't see how the "responsibility" of the woman is relevant - I can only see that becoming a factor if you assign the foetus a sort of half-moral worth, more than an animal but somehow less than a real person. What is the basis for this?

i agree with commiebastard...i think that it shouldnt have to do with whether or not the mother is at fault...instead it should be based on the development of the fetus. as long as the fetus isnt past that 20th week abortion should be legal despite the surrounding circumstances.

if you base it on the fault of the mother and do not allow abortions for women at fault for the pregnancy, there will be so many unwanted children whose mothers cannot afford to take care of them or jsut overall resent them. no one wants a mom who uses the grocery money to buy crack.

I agree pretty much exactly with what Sean said, although I believe ensoulment occurs at the time of sentience -- but that's due to rather unusual theological beliefs concerning what constitutes a soul (ie. self-awareness, personhood -- but then, I've been accused in the past for doing little more than framing entirely atheistic ideas in theistic language). I put "always legal," but I suppose "mostly legal" is closer to the truth of what I believe. Someone above picked mostly legal instead of always legal, so I guess we cancel each other out.

doesn't have major OCD about it isn't going to be on the pill AND use condoms 'just in case'

er... Thanks. I guess I have OCD then. Or, you know, really don't want kids.

(Interestingly, the Church has at various times taught that abortion before "quickening" (when the baby first kicks) is, in fact, acceptable -- although the early Christians were probably opposed to it due to the widespread abuse of infanticide in general in ancient Rome.)

I think that my gut reaction on this one is exactly the same as yours. I know that if I was the man involved, I'd probably be a bit pissed off if the woman in question didn't consult me. However, once I thought about it a bit more, I started to toss up the possibilities.

1 : man and woman both agree whether to abort or not. no problems

2 : man wants abortion - woman doesn't. Clearly there's no morally justifiable way the man can force the woman to have an abortion. So he essentially has no moral right to influence the decision.

3: woman wants abortion - man doesn't. Likewise, there's no morally justifiable way the man can force the woman to have a baby. So he essentially has no say again.


In all cases, the man's opinion is irrelevant. He either agrees with the woman (in which case, he had no input to the woman's decision), or he disagrees, but has no 'proper' means to enforce his opinion. Obviously, I'm painting it in black and white. Of course, I expect the couple of discuss the issue between them - each has the opportunity to persuade the other, but if they're in disagreement, I see no mechanism for the man to get his way, short of by force.

The argument about holding father's legally responsible for support is different. Paying child support is technically only involving the father and the child. The father pays money to the child, via that child's guardian. Abortion on the other hand concerns the mother, intimately.The father's responsibility for child support cannot translate to a right to determine what medical procedures the mother goes through.

Again, we're back to 'at what point does the foetus become a baby again, albeit through a more circuitous route.

As a point of interest rather than as an argument, I just read today that economist Steven D. Levitt claims to have proven a direct causative link between America's legalisation of abortion in 1973 and the huge drop in violent crime in the 1990s. I'd find an article, but I'm a bit rushed right now.

Link here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508

Questions for consideration:

Are you generally for or against abortion? What are your reasons for it, and what possible exceptions do you allow?

What are the ramifications of continuing legalized abortion? What are the ramifications of abolishing it?

Whose decision is it that a woman should have an abortion in various situations? (hers, the partner's, her parents)

First, Legislature (Not Supreme Court) should make provisions of Law reflecting Constitutional Rights in the light of Electorate's generally prevailing wishes and opinions.

Lets have a referendum in which all adult woman in child bearing age would participate. It’s woman’s body after all.

The prime things to consider are “Do you want this child?” Can raise him/her with care and love?”

The mother’s should have the sole right to terminate pregnancy if the fetus is discovered with grave defects. Or if she has been subject to sexual assault or the marriage or other relationship proven to be disintegrating.

I am generally against, simply because I do think that it is murder, to a degree. I do think that a fetus is alive. I also understand that there are valid reasons for an abortion, and that it needs to be decided on a case by case basis.



I don't know, on either count. Abortion has only been legal for 32 years, and I don't think that's long enough to really notice the complete implications of it. And I cannot speculate as to what would happen if it was made illeagal. I don't think that it would be the same as if it had never been legal, I do think that there would be undesirable consequences.



While I hope that the woman's partner is always involved, and in agreement, which ever decision, I think that ultimately, it is the woman's choice. If it was anybody elses, then they could force her to have an abortion, I think that the mother should be the one making that decision.



I believe it is the child's body, not the woman's. Besides, it affects men too, so we cannot ignore their voices.



Or, is the child alive, and thus abortion would be murder? If the fetus is a living being, then we cannot ask these questions to deal with its life anymore than we ask those questions about the elderly, or the severly disabled.

Well, it is alive as a matter of biological fact. The question is whether it's a person.

And that's where it becomes very difficult to define. I think that any blanket definition is going to, at some point, be morally 'wrong'. Because of that, I choose to be wrong more on the side of life, rather than death.

I am generally for abortion. There are so many dangerous or unplanned situations that make abortion a necessity. However, there should be a 20-week cutoff point unless having the baby would kill the mother or had a good chance of doing so. This has been said before, but the fetus begins to become sentient at 20 weeks, and it's a person.
Continuing legalized abortions would mean less unwanted children and less lives ruined because women who weren't ready for children had babies. Abolishing it would send us straight back to coat-hanger abortions in alleys, with the risk of dangerous infection or death. Definitely a bad idea.
The woman should always have the final say. No one has said much about parents, so I suppose I will. If a girl is under 18, she should have to consult her parents to hear what they have to say, but the ultimate decision would be hers. If she is over 18, she wouldn't have to consult parents. Some parents would make their child abort or carry the child based on their own biases if they had the choice. This could endanger the mother or force her to go against her own decision, which could either burden her with a child or leave her emotionally wounded, depending on whether *she* wanted to keep or abort.
Overall... I'm in favor until we get past 20 weeks. Then, only if the child would kill the mother by being born.
Ok, that was long. Time for dinner.

I'm generally for abortion; in my opinion there are already too many unwanted children in the world and while yes the foetus is technically alive it could not exist without the mother - it is ultimately the mother's choice and one which cannot be made for her. If abortion was illegal women would find other ways (see "coathanger in a back alley" from Astarael).

On the other hand (and excuse me while I play Devil's Advocate with myself for a minute) - I think the restrictions on abortion after 20 weeks should be tightened considerably. Consider the case in October 2002 of a British couple who attained an abortion on the grounds of serious handicap well into the sixth month of pregnancy for a cleft palate! To me that is cruelty - if a child isn't wanted fair enough it's the womans choice. But if the couple want a baby then decide to get rid of it and try again for one a little more perfect...not on in my book.
But that doesn't mean the right to abort should be taken away just that she shouldn't be able to cop out by saying it was solely medical - she should face up to her vanity.

I'm sorry if that came across a little garbled I'm in a rush, I'll come try make more sense later.

i have lots of opinions about abortion. (and why i think it should most DEFINITLY be legal.) but ill keep this one short and sweet.


if abortion is made illegal, women will hurt themselves to get them; using hangers, throwing themselves down stairs, going to unclean doctors...etc.

if a woman who doesnt WANT her child keeps him/her (especially by force), the child will either grow up in a home where their mother probably (but not necesarily so dont bother pointing it out) will resent/not want them; OR in orphanages, fosters homes etc; OR if they are lucky, will be adopted.

it should be a CIVIL RIGHT that a woman has a right to choose something like this. after a certain amount of time it is clearly unacceptable. (unless they find out that the baby will die anyway, have some horrible genetic disease, the mother will die if she gives birth...etc)

but within the first 2-3 months, the woman has the RIGHT to choose.

p.s. i think that by the age of 16 a girl should be able to get an abortion without her parents consent, just because enough girls of that age are having sex.

p.p.s. if it is decided on a case-by-case basis, you can be sure that it wont be organized at all, and plenty of people who needed one will be denied one, etc.