Young Writers Society

For anyone who is concerned with this topic, read Unwind by Neal Shusterman. In the dystopian future, after a second civil war between pro-life and pro-choice, an agreement is made called the Bill of Life. The Bill of Life states that no child's life shall be touched from the moment of conception. However, from ages thirteen to eighteen, parents can choose to retroactively 'abort' their child. This process is called unwinding. What is really disturbing is that the author has two teenage kids.

Sounds horrible right? Well, it was actually a great book. While the author does not actually take a stance on the issue, it is a very thought-provoking book.

So.I was reading in the papers. Apparently, abortion's legal in India since 1971-ish and it was done in hope to reduce the secret abortions.
But there still exists abortion quacks in villages performing illegal (mainly sex-selective) abortion.

Okay.
Out of curiosity, I'd like your opinions on IVFT (in vitro fetilization treatment)

Because IVFT is being practiced among couples who are unable to fertilize the 2 cells due to some reason.
In this case, when IVF is done - you generally have a few numbers of fertilized (in the sense that the ovum and sperm have fused) cells of which only a few are implanted into the female's womb, to increase the chance of having a baby.
In this case, is it abortion to destroy the leftover fertilized cells?

(You may argue over whether IVF is required, when you can adopt kids etc., but I'd like to see your opinions.)

(And it is purely in case of humans, not IVF for animals.)

I'm against IVFT! Not for this reason... for a different reason, actually. But, this is another good reason for me to be against it!

My opinion on abortion is it's wrong, but it's also kind of right. I don't know, but I do know that I believe that killing a 8(or so) celled organism is equal to a couple refusing to have children in my mind. Okay, that sounds confusing. I don't know when I'd consider human life to begin, but 8 cells seems to little. It's easy for me to say that IVF is wrong and couples who can't have kids should adopt, but I also know I'd want to have a daughter or son who shared my DNA if I could. The fertilized eggs not used would not make me feel like a murderer or as if I had done something wrong.

I've also read in text books that there was 'female foeticide' in those years but I'm yet to find substantial proof for foeticide when there wasn't such technology.

The technology was quite simple, if unreliable: beat or severely knead the woman's belly. You can find portrayals of this act being carried out in Chinese documents in particular. There were also various herbal remedies that could be ingested to prevent implantation or induce miscarriage.

Or, if you're talking about identifying the sex of an unborn child, there were ways, or were to believed to have been such. One method that I know has been statistically verified is extremely frequent/severe morning sickness being an indicator of the fetus being female. There are a lot of other traditional ways to identify the sex of an unborn child, which were probably used.

In any case, birth control and abortions have been around for a very long time, and not always at the woman's discretion. The Bible in Numbers, for instance, lays out the test for a pregnant woman's infidelity which entails having her drink an abortifacient. If the child was carried to term, the woman was proven innocent, otherwise she was proven an adulteress.

Just a little history I figured everyone might find interesting.

As far as IFVT, I feel the same way I do about abortion. I don't like it, but I don't get to dictate what other people do with their lives. I think the world needs more people to adopt children in need of a home, but who is going to say 'I'm sorry but we can't help you have a baby even though we have the technology to.' If a mother really wants to have a child, she should be able to have one with the person she loves. Personally, I would adopt, but it isn't my decision- its the parents'.

Also, when I lived in Utah there was a woman that lived in my neighborhood named Star. This was when I was a baby, and she, my mom, and a few other moms had a playgroup where we would play together while they chatted. Well, one of the moms was having trouble having a second child and was having IFVT treatment because she really wanted to have another baby. When she told the playgroup this, Star said that "You shouldn't be having IFVT because if can't have a baby on your own then it's a sign from God that you shouln't have another one." When I heard that I was apalled. If someone really wants to have a baby they should. I think that saying that if someone can't have a baby then it is a sign from God is ludicris and a cruel thing to say.

I used to be against abortion but I no longer am. It's unrealistic to think that every child will be adopted considering the fact that many people feel the need to give birth to a child instead of adopt one, which I find selfish. Also there are so many people in the world already and many unadopted children that will never be adopted. So basically I think abortion is not murder for the same reasons I believe in spaying\neutering cats. Also the argument that it stops a child from being born and deprives it of life and a future of its own, but by that logic choosing to not have a million babies is the same as killing one million babies.

Prism wrote:Abortion stops unwanted children from entering the world, which I can only interpret as a mercy.

There are those who cannot have their own children, and even some who can and already have a family, who would love those precious children. I know plenty of people who have adopted children into their family, some as their only children, and some in addition to their biological. There is LOVE for those children, whom some may have deemed unwanted or unlovable. (Yes, even those with birth defects.)

^ And yet for some reason orphanages all over the world are bursting at the seams with unwanted kids.

Seen this around, but adoption is an alternatve to parenthood, not pregnancy and pregnancy is a very long, unpleasant, and in some cases, painful process. Pregnancy can even be life threatening. What's more important? A living, breathing human being who already knows they exist and already has emotions and friends and a life, or a bunch of cells that may or may not have a soul that isn't even aware of its own existence.

My view of abortion is simple.

Murder is murder! It's always wrong, no matter what! There are no exceptions to this, and I believe most everyone will agree with me! And abortion in my opinion is murder, the taking of innocent life!
Well, some would argue that abortion is not technically murder, seeing as they don't view the child as alive.

So how do we prove that the child is alive?

Well, for Christians, there is no arguing that abortion is wrong, no matter what the woman wants! It's simply wrong! No matter the excuses, they will be accounted for it!
Women in the bible are 'with child' not 'with fetus'. Child, not dead fetus! Difference!

For the rest of us? Is there a soul in the unborn child? Is there a way to find out?

Well, personally I wouldn't want to take the chance on a guess! Not on that big of a sin! Murder is murder to God! Whether you do it without knowing or not! You take a chance and you lose!

~Black~

Note: The argument that pregnancy is dangerous to a woman is garbage!
The ratio of women who die from cigarettes or alcohol to the number of women who die from pregnancy is ridiculously on the side of cigarettes and alcohol!

I moment of thought or research will tell you how utterly ridiculous this argument is! Women don't go into pregnancy with fear for their life and health do they?

The fact that cigarettes and alcohol (combined?) cause more deaths than pregnancy doesn't mean pregnancy isn't dangerous.

Have some maternal mortality rates from 2010.

EDIT: Also, I missed this gem:

I believe most everyone will agree with me

I think the very existence of most of the posts in this thread disproves that notion, no?