Abortion

[VFOURMAX1]

Abortion is a sticky issue with many sides and opinions and always has been so.

From a personal perspective I do not believe in abortions as a solution and would personally never condone such a decision to be acceptable from my own viewpoint.

The only exception to that would be if the pregnancy or birth posed such a serious health risk for the mother that continuing the pregnancy was reasonably likely to cause irreparable harm or death to the mother .

But yet I do believe in freedoms and also even using or trying to apply a Christian viewpoint in the Bible God has always allowed choice and free will even when involving a persons soul and eternal life or damnation SO WHY WOULD THIS BE ANY DIFFERENT?.

So again I do firmly support a persons rights to make such decisions for themselves, this even goes for the person that chooses abortion as a solution and even the doctors that so choose to perform such procedures.

Again even from a Christian based viewpoint they will answer for their sins on judgement day and as an individual I do not think it is my right to make such life decisions for someone else based solely on my beliefs.

Now I will say without a doubt I am AGAINST ANY GOVERNMENT OR TAXPAYER FUNDS PAYING FOR ANY ABORTION SERVICES PERIOD including the morning after pill or supporting any organization or facility that arranges, finances or performs such abortions as part of their practice or business model.

Personally I think a better answer is birth control applied and used prior to pregnancy but even that should be at the users expense not the taxpayers.

I do support the right to having the choice but at the affected individuals expense not the citizens of the state or country. The person making that choice to have or not have an abortion is the one that should be making that decision even from a moral standpoint.

As a society we want freedoms one hand but yet we seem to demand unreasonable controls on another, this is one issue we have no business to control as what Jane Doe does pregnancy wise only affects her and her family as long she pays for it. It does not negatively affect society as whole.

The problem is government has gone from being a body governing the land creating laws and rules to generally provide an orderly and safe society and country to trying to be societies parents and influencing a persons life choices and economic position.

Charity is for Churches not government but that is a whole different issue and subject.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Charity is for Churches not government but that is a whole different issue and subject.

So only the religious should receive any aid?

Should couples on a low income be able to get help with the cost of birth control if the alternatives are abstinence (from a fundamental human activity) or producing a costly child that they can't afford to give a good life to*?

*That's a complex judgement in itself, but you get the idea

 

[VFOURMAX1]

So only the religious should receive any aid?

Should couples on a low income be able to get help with the cost of birth control if the alternatives are abstinence (from a fundamental human activity) or producing a costly child that they can't afford to give a good life to*?

*That's a complex judgement in itself, but you get the idea

Why should it be the taxpayers money and responsibility to provide other citizens regardless of income level contraceptives to have sex without having the responsibility that their actions could result in?

I could have a heart attack if I eat fast food often enough , should taxpayers pay for a gym membership for me so I will be healthier? Or should it be my responsibility to care for my own needs?

I could avoid the fast food at no expense and the low income couple, well she could keep her legs closed if they cannot even afford to buy condoms!
Damn what a concept, make your choices and actions based off personal responsibility for those actions.

Keying in on a persons income level to provide taxpayer sponsored government aid is nothing more than sending a message why work hard and do for yourself, if you set at home on your lazy ass and pop out a couple of kids the taxpayers will do it for you. Give you a place to live, buy your groceries, free health care for the whole family plus send you a check.

In this country there is no reason that ANY ABLE BODIED citizen cannot learn skills to get a job and support themselves. This government handout BS and the lack of personal responsibility is a big reason this country has the problems today that it does.

 

[Danoff]

Why should it be the taxpayers money and responsibility to provide other citizens regardless of income level contraceptives to have sex without having the responsibility that their actions could result in?

I wonder what you mean by responsibility. A child, for example, is not a responsibility created by sex, it's a responsibility created by birth.

I could avoid the fast food at no expense and the low income couple, well she could keep her legs closed if they cannot even afford to buy condoms!
Damn what a concept, make your choices and actions based off personal responsibility for those actions.

Everyone can afford to buy condoms. They get handed out in hopes that people will use them. I'd argue that free condoms are most effective at preventing teenage pregnancy (I have no statistics to back this up) not because teenagers are poor (which they are), but because teenagers are too embarrassed to buy condoms. What if someone you know sees you?!?

Keying in on a persons income level to provide taxpayer sponsored government aid is nothing more than sending a message why work hard and do for yourself, if you set at home on your lazy ass and pop out a couple of kids the taxpayers will do it for you. Give you a place to live, buy your groceries, free health care for the whole family plus send you a check.

This almost seems like an argument in favor of more abortions.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I wonder what you mean by responsibility. A child, for example, is not a responsibility created by sex, it's a responsibility created by birth.

Without sex there can be no pregnancy so it cannot result in a birth period!
Even having sex with the proper protections to prevent pregnancy the resulting chances of pregnancy resulting in a birth would be at best minimal.
So how can you possibly question what is meant by responsibility when it comes to either a pregnancy or childbirth is the direct result of of the participants in the sexual act not taking the needed steps to avoid the pregnancy.

Everyone can afford to buy condoms. They get handed out in hopes that people will use them. I'd argue that free condoms are most effective at preventing teenage pregnancy (I have no statistics to back this up) not because teenagers are poor (which they are), but because teenagers are too embarrassed to buy condoms. What if someone you know sees you?!?

Most people do have options to purchase the products in a store where they do not normally frequent and are not known if embarrassment is an issue.
On the other hand most teenage boys even if they choose the do not know me location actually would see buying condoms as a sort of bragging right to "I am getting laid" which is not an unusual act for a teenage boy.

This almost seems like an argument in favor of more abortions.

No, it is an argument to make people responsible and understand their own actions have consequences they will be paying and responsible for. There are plenty of non welfare receiving citizens get up everyday go and work hard to earn enough to get by and feed their family on.

Why should other citizens that made the same choices get to sit at home and let those working provide for their care and support?
Social welfare programs is really a concept that is not that old age wise in this country and although maybe the original intentions of the programs was good the end results are lazy and generations of families learning to work and play the system all the while complaining
they cannot get ahead!

Simply it is an argument to make people take full responsibility for their own choices whether those choices are good or bad.

 

[Joey D]

Without sex there can be no pregnancy so it cannot result in a birth period!

You can get pregnant without sex. It's not accidental, but a women can get pregnant without a male partner.

 

[Famine]

taking the needed steps to avoid the pregnancy.

Like abortion.

Why should it be the taxpayers money and responsibility to provide other citizens regardless of income level contraceptives to have sex without having the responsibility that their actions could result in?

Do you know what's more expensive than a condom? A child. And when it comes to "taxpayers money", what's even more expensive than that is an unwanted child...

... and the thousand women who die during and shortly after pregnancy each year in the USA.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

taking the needed steps to avoid the pregnancy.

Like abortion.

I do not know what you were taught about the steps of conception through birth but it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an abortion prior to having a pregnancy.
If proper steps were taken to avoid unwanted pregnancies there would basically be very few mainly medically needed only abortions.

Do you know what's more expensive than a condom? A child. And when it comes to "taxpayers money", what's even more expensive than that is an unwanted child...

Again why should Joe taxpayer without having a choice in the matter be saddled with the responsibility of financially supporting the offspring of irresponsible people through taxes taken from him for being responsible?

If charities exist that people can contribute funds to take care of those needs through personal choice that is great but the responsible within a society should not be forced to care for the irresponsible.

Before government welfare extended family and charities funded by private sources distributed the charity to those deemed needy and within their guidelines for help took care of those unwanted children.

 

[Famine]

I do not know what you were taught about the steps of conception through birth but it is IMPOSSIBLE to have an abortion prior to having a pregnancy.

Some would argue that "the morning after pill" is in fact exactly that - an abortion by preventing implantation of a fertilised embryo (which they would argue is already the state of pregnancy).

However abortion is also a method of avoiding pregnancy by... you know... stopping it. I do not know what you were taught about the steps of conception through birth, but it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a pregnancy after you have had it aborted.

Again why should Joe taxpayer without having a choice in the matter be saddled with the responsibility of financially supporting the offspring of irresponsible people through taxes taken from him for being responsible?

I'm not entirely sure you've followed the point there.

The fact is that all children cost the taxpayer money already, even those from entirely responsible people who care for the children until they reach whatever point is considered adulthood. Other taxpayers pay less because they have kids. The government spends your money on schools for other people's kids - although that does keep teachers, janitors and school bus drivers in jobs. There's a bit of a list and, yes eventually a lot of those children will go on to become economically active themselves (some won't, and some will die) but the taxpayer spends a lot of money on them over the course of their 18 years (and will continue to do so unless they end up in the top half of wage earners).

The deaths of pregnant women (something the USA is among the worst nations in the developed world for) is also a major downer on the economy, by withdrawing employable adults (always one, usually two because the surviving parent now becomes the main child carer) from the job pool and making them less economically active (except for the bit where their surviving relatives sue the hospital). Outlawing abortion will lead not only to unsafe abortions and increase the number of pregnant women who die, but also force women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term and increase the chances that they will also die.

Unwanted children cost the taxpayer more than those who are wanted (save for those whose parents die within their childhood), but it shouldn't take a moment's thought to realise that.


Using the financial argument - that the taxpayer shouldn't have to foot the tiny bill for contraception - ignores the fact that the taxpayer is already footing the enormous bill for the absence of, and failures of, contraception. Kicking off at the state hurling 20c at rubbers while costing him millions on kids is very much a wood-for-the-trees point of view. The long-term mindset will save Joe Taxpayer's hard-earned, by solving the problem of people taking responsibility for their own fecundity first.

The "responsibility" argument is also an interesting one. It seems to suggest that people should be responsible for their own bodies (yep), their own fertility (yep) and their own children (yep), but yet also often comes down on the side of government being responsible for protecting unborn children by making abortion illegal. Why does government get that very specific responsibility in the steps of conception through birth, but no other responsibility at any point?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

The deaths of pregnant women (something the USA is among the worst nations in the developed world for)

Considering the population of the U.S. as compared to most or the majority of nations considered to be in the developed world then the sheer higher numbers of pregnancies within the population will affect the death rate among women.

I do realize that percentage of population is used to get those figures but that does not change the fact the sheer higher numbers of the pregnancies among a population this large increases the amount of chances for something to go wrong when comparing to thousands and possibility millions of fewer pregnancies within a smaller nations population.

The "responsibility" argument is also an interesting one. It seems to suggest that people should be responsible for their own bodies (yep), their own fertility (yep) and their own children (yep), but yet also often comes down on the side of government being responsible for protecting unborn children by making abortion illegal. Why does government get that very specific responsibility in the steps of conception through birth, but no other responsibility at any point?

You are preaching to the choir here as my viewpoint on government intervention through laws concerning abortion is already well stated in my first post on this this thread.

EDIT, As an example just the states of California and New York in the U.S. boast a higher population figure than the population of all of England.

That does not take into consideration the remaining 275 million additional population within the U.S. as compared to England which is over another 5 times the total population of England.

Many countries labeled as developed have just as small total population numbers to sample as well.

Generally the more times you roll the dice the more times you may roll snake eyes.

 

[Danoff]

Without sex there can be no pregnancy so it cannot result in a birth period!

With a (successful) abortion there can be no (continuing) pregnancy so it cannot result in a birth period!

As has been pointed out you can get pregnant without having sex. But sex is not the only way to avoid birth.

 

[Sander 001]

Texas Pastor Who Backed Anti-Abortion Bill Arrested for Child Sexual Abuse

 

[VFOURMAX1]

With a (successful) abortion there can be no (continuing) pregnancy so it cannot result in a birth period!

As has been pointed out you can get pregnant without having sex. But sex is not the only way to avoid birth.

Quite a bit of difference in effort, expense and even morality issues in initially preventing a pregnancy from ever occurring from practicing abstinence or safe sex than going through an abortion process to prevent the birth of a child.

You can get pregnant without sex. It's not accidental, but a women can get pregnant without a male partner.

A female may not need a male sexual partner with today's science and methods to get pregnant but she does still need the donation of sperm from a male donor to have the pregnancy.
And as far as this conversation is concerned with the medical cost of artificial insemination I do not think a person will use this method get pregnant and then get an abortion.

 

[Daz555]

We should also consider that it is effectively impossible to prevent abortion. You can only prevent safe abortion.

 

[Famine]

Considering the population of the U.S. as compared to most or the majority of nations considered to be in the developed world then the sheer higher numbers of pregnancies within the population will affect the death rate among women.

I do realize that percentage of population is used to get those figures but that does not change the fact the sheer higher numbers of the pregnancies among a population this large increases the amount of chances for something to go wrong when comparing to thousands and possibility millions of fewer pregnancies within a smaller nations population.

Generally the more times you roll the dice the more times you may roll snake eyes.

Yeah, that's not how it works. It's not measured by population - that wouldn't make any sense because there's not a lot of the population that does the giving birth. It's measured by births.

In the USA there are 4m live births annually, with a rate of maternal mortality of 26.6 per 100,000. In the EU28 there are 5m live births annually, with a rate of maternal mortality of 16 per 100,000. That means that, annually, 1,064 women in the USA and 800 women in the EU28 die because of complications arising from pregnancy and childbirth. I mean, if you want to do it by population, it means the USA's death rate from pregnancy is 3 per million, and the EU28's is 1.6.

If there is not access to safe, legal abortion, this number will go up as women seek other means to terminate their pregnancy.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

In the EU28 there are 5m live births annually,

So now we are comparing 28 totally different nations combined birth mortality rates to one nation in the U.S.A.

I have no facts to back it up but I would also be willing to bet with the single large population within the U.S. that there will be more of the countries population that will fall under lower economic standards that receive less or no prenatal care than what you will find in the much smaller populations of EU countries where universal healthcare for the population is more normal or standard practice which very well could contribute to the higher birth mortality rates.

When you use numbers and statistics you need to look at all the reasons or differences of why those numbers show the results they do.

Abortion I do feel positive is not a leading contributor to those figures as a terminated pregnancy would not result in a live birth to add to the statistics either in a positive or negative way.

 

[Danoff]

Quite a bit of difference in effort, expense and even morality issues in initially preventing a pregnancy from ever occurring from practicing abstinence or safe sex than going through an abortion process to prevent the birth of a child.

Effort and expense are really up to the individual right? Morality is what this topic is all about, what I'm getting at is that you can't presume that abstinence is moral because it works, because abortion works too (perhaps even better given how bad people are at abstinence). If you want to show that abortion is immoral, you still have your work ahead of you.

A female may not need a male sexual partner with today's science and methods to get pregnant but she does still need the donation of sperm from a male donor to have the pregnancy.
And as far as this conversation is concerned with the medical cost of artificial insemination I do not think a person will use this method get pregnant and then get an abortion.

Interestingly this is pretty far from true - especially in cases of donor IVF. During an IVF cycle a woman will typically have as many as 10 eggs or more harvested for fertilization. Let's say 5 of those successfully fertilize and survive to day 5 for transfer into the womb. And let's say that 3 of those look bad and 2 of them look worse. A doctor might transfer all 3 in the hopes that one of them survives. Now what happens if all 3 of them survive?

It's called "selective reduction" in fertility circles rather than abortion, but multiples in IVF can be reduced down to 1 or 2 for the purpose of birth and that is a fairly common practice. Especially since, for example, carrying 4 to term has a far higher chance of killing all 4.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

a woman will typically have as many as 10 eggs or more harvested for fertilization. Let's say 5 of those successfully fertilize

for fertilization

And what other than MALE sperm is required for the actual fertilization process?
Hence the male donor is still a requirement for a female to achieve an impregnated state.

Never said that in today's world the woman has to have relations or contact with the male but that she cannot achieve pregnancy period without the male sperm as part of the process.

If you want to show that abortion is immoral, you still have your work ahead of you.

Immoral and what is deemed acceptable is in the mind or the conscience of every individual and up to that person to make thier own choice.

I have absolutely no work ahead of me on that issue, only to personally hold true to my own beliefs which I have done my entire life.

If you refer back to post #1291 of this thread you can see exactly my position concerning abortion.

 

[Danoff]

And what other than MALE sperm is required for the actual fertilization process?
Hence the male donor is still a requirement for a female to achieve an impregnated state.

Never said that in today's world the woman has to have relations or contact with the male but that she cannot achieve pregnancy period without the male sperm as part of the process.

I was responding to the bit about abortions after "artificial" conception.

Immoral and what is deemed acceptable is in the mind or the conscience of every individual and up to that person to make there own choice.

I have absolutely no work ahead of me on that issue, only to personally hold true to my own beliefs which I have done my entire life.

If you refer back to post #1291 of this thread you can see exactly my position concerning abortion.

I'm just keying off of your posts.

Quite a bit of difference in [snip] morality issues in initially preventing a pregnancy from ever occurring from practicing abstinence or safe sex than going through an abortion process to prevent the birth of a child.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I was responding to the bit about abortions after "artificial" conception.

VFOURMAX1: ↑
Quite a bit of difference in [snip] morality issues
I'm just keying off of your posts.

And how many cases do you expect where someone spends multiple thousands of dollars and possibly months or years in the attempt to get pregnant with child then changes their mind next week and intentionally aborts the pregnancy?
That sounds more like a deliberate **** stirring troll post than a contribution or continuation of the conversation.

Quite a bit of difference in effort, expense and even morality issues

Again quite a difference in the context of the entire single sentence that I originally made that you claim to be quoting when you snip out the main issues and try to make the lesser morality issue the main focus which it was not.
The word "even" before morality should have given you a clue that it was not the issue focused on within the sentence.

 

[Danoff]

And how many cases do you expect where someone spends multiple thousands of dollars and possibly months or years in the attempt to get pregnant with child then changes their mind next week and intentionally aborts the pregnancy?
That sounds more like a deliberate **** stirring troll post than a contribution or continuation of the conversation.

As I mentioned, selective reduction (abortions in the cases of multiples, which happens in IVF cases with some frequency) is a well-recognized and regular practice. It happens because the number of embryos that are growing is beyond the number which have a high likelihood of being delivered in a healthy state. To be clear, selective reduction refers to reducing, but not to zero, the number of currently growing embryos or fetuses in the womb. So for example reducing from quadruplets down to 1.

I personally have gone through the selective reduction question session with a reproductive doctor, and I personally have participated in (with my wife) the transfer of 3 growing embryos during a single IVF cycle (that number was picked out of a specific experience of mine, not thin air). That cycle cost us something like $15,000. How rare do you think it is when you've ended up talking to someone who went down that path?

Again quite a difference in the context of the entire single sentence that I originally made that you claim to be quoting when you snip out the main issues and try to make the lesser morality issue the main focus which it was not.
The word "even" before morality should have given you a clue that it was not the issue focused on within the sentence.

I don't remember claiming what the focus of that sentence was. I'm pointing out that it was a claim you made, and it seems at odds with your position of morality (at least on this subject) being entirely subjective.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

That cycle cost us something like $15,000. How rare do you think it is when you've ended up talking to someone who went down that path?

I have good friends that went through the process for about 5 years so I do know what a couple goes through both emotionally and financially, and yes they did end up being successful. Also I do not think any eggs that were not used were ever considered to be aborted children by that couple to my knowledge.

I guess how you define abortion may have some criteria and in all honesty I really have not or do not give any though or have considered an egg going through a fertilization process in a lab setting and then not used to impregnate the female as an abortion.

My criteria personally I guess would be when a female pregnant within her body with child chooses to end such pregnancy to prevent the birth of a child would define for myself an abortion.

So reducing the amount of fertilized eggs not to be implanted within a lab would not meet the level for me anyway to be considered an abortion.

Your mileage may differ in that respect.

 

[Danoff]

I have good friends that went through the process for about 5 years so I do know what a couple goes through both emotionally and financially, and yes they did end up being successful.

I guess how you define abortion may have some criteria and in all honesty I really have not or do not give any though or have considered an egg going through a fertilization process in a lab setting and then not used to impregnate the female as an abortion.

My criteria personally I guess would be when a female pregnant within her body with child chooses to end such pregnancy to prevent the birth of a child would define for myself an abortion.

So reducing the amount of fertilized eggs not to be implanted within a lab would not meet the level for me anyway to be considered an abortion.

Your mileage may differ in that respect.

I was actually referring to reduction in the womb. Literally the woman is pregnant with quadruplets, or triplets, and reduces to 1. That's generally what's referred to as "selective reduction". The process of not transferring fertilized embryos from the petri dish is referred to as... well I don't think it has a name. It's just not using all of your embryos. Those embryos can be frozen and transferred later (often called an FET for frozen embryo transfer) or discarded or donated to science or donated to another couple hoping to conceive.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

I was actually referring to reduction in the womb. Literally the woman is pregnant with quadruplets, or triplets, and reduces to 1. That's generally what's referred to as "selective reduction". The process of not transferring fertilized embryos from the petri dish is referred to as... well I don't think it has a name. It's just not using all of your embryos. Those embryos can be frozen and transferred later (often called an FET for frozen embryo transfer) or discarded or donated to science or donated to another couple hoping to conceive.

Getting into another can of worms which I will refrain from getting sucked into other than making the statement I am not really sure personally what my feelings are on man and doctors manipulating the reproductive and life cycles in a lab or doctors office to begin with.

Enough going on in this world than to add in yet something else to worry about and that in my way of thinking has a lot to do with personal choices until or if it reaches a point where it is a negative aspect on society as whole.

Again my choices or feelings are my own and do not go to the point of thinking that others should follow in those same directions. Perhaps if my having a child had of been a problem then perhaps my views on the matter would be different. That is something I will never have an answer to.

 

[Danoff]

Getting into another can of worms which I will refrain from getting sucked into other than making the statement I am not really sure personally what my feelings are on man and doctors manipulating the reproductive and life cycles in a lab or doctors office to begin with.

Enough going on in this world than to add in yet something else to worry about and that in my way of thinking has a lot to do with personal choices until or if it reaches a point where it is a negative aspect on society as whole.

Again my choices or feelings are my own and do not go to the point of thinking that others should follow in those same directions. Perhaps if my having a child had of been a problem then perhaps my views on the matter would be different. That is something I will never have an answer to.

That's fine, I just wanted to point out that it is fairly regular for people to pay a bunch to create embryos only to have to turn around and abort them if they get pregnant with too many at the same time.

It only gets messier too. Ectopic pregnancies for example. This is a non-viable pregnancy that occurs in the uterus, but which contains a developing embryo none-the-less. Generally these are terminated immediately as an emergency procedure to avoid the loss of an ovary.

It does seem to be a bit of a conceit of the pro-life side that this topic is cut and dry, with bright lines. The reality is the biology is messy, and if there is a hard choice to present you with, it's going to present you with it.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

That's fine, I just wanted to point out that it is fairly regular for people to pay a bunch to create embryos only to have to turn around and abort them if they get pregnant with too many at the same time.

I will say that again the majority of time in the public when the subject of abortion , abortion clinics, taxpayer involvement we are not talking about the results of a lab or doctor fertilization process that has cost thousands of dollars to initiate to begin with but the person that has become pregnant through more normal conception means and for whatever reasons does not want the child and wants to medically end the pregnancy.

I will say when I became a dad it was a woops moment and not a planned event but at no time was abortion ever considered or even suggested as a possible solution and I and the mother were fairly young (of legal age mind you) and I was not married to the mother.

Here we are now decades later and I have a wonderful daughter, two grandchildren, one grown and one getting ready to graduate high school and a new great grandchild that never would have existed if that woops moment had been aborted!

Personally abortion was never a thought that crossed my mind even though I was not sure I was ready for the responsibility of fatherhood. I did make sure I did not have any more woops moments though! lol!

I do wonder how many people that go through the choice of having an abortion find themselves years later regretting making that decision?

 

[CyborgGT]

Interlude for laughs, since no one's going to change anyone's mind on a subject like this anyway...

 

[Danoff]

I will say that again the majority of time in the public when the subject of abortion , abortion clinics, taxpayer involvement we are not talking about the results of a lab or doctor fertilization process that has cost thousands of dollars to initiate to begin with but the person that has become pregnant through more normal conception means and for whatever reasons does not want the child and wants to medically end the pregnancy.

I will say when I became a dad it was a woops moment and not a planned event but at no time was abortion ever considered or even suggested as a possible solution and I and the mother were fairly young (of legal age mind you) and I was not married to the mother.

Here we are now decades later and I have a wonderful daughter, two grandchildren, one grown and one getting ready to graduate high school and a new great grandchild that never would have existed if that woops moment had been aborted!

Personally abortion was never a thought that crossed my mind even though I was not sure I was ready for the responsibility of fatherhood. I did make sure I did not have any more woops moments though! lol!

I do wonder how many people that go through the choice of having an abortion find themselves years later regretting making that decision?

Are you thinking carefully about whether any of this actually matters to the question of hand? The question being the morality of abortion.

For example, the amount of money spent does not influence whether it is moral to abort. Your personal satisfaction with your decision also doesn't influence whether it is moral to abort. Someone else's dissatisfaction does not influence whether it is moral to abort. For example, I know someone who was dissatisfied with their decision to take a new job, and later had regrets. That doesn't make it immoral to take a new job.

I get that you're not trying to determine an absolute morality for abortion, but these examples aren't what I would call broadly applicable. They're the types of examples that can be made about any choice.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Your personal satisfaction with your decision also doesn't influence whether it is moral to abort. Someone else's dissatisfaction does not influence whether it is moral to abort.

Since what is considered an ethical or acceptable moral standard will vary among different individuals as it is somewhat based off of a persons beliefs or personal feelings or viewpoints on the subject then yes, opinion and acceptance of certain decisions with abortion firmly fitting into being one of those subjects.

There is no line which defines right or wrong on the subject other than the line of what a person believes for themselves whether it is right or wrong or moral or immoral.

The exact reason that the government and lawmakers should not be involved in my opinion. One side says life begins with conception, another a heartbeat, one side says life begins at actual birth show me a black and white line that definitively defines that issue without leaving an argument for those that have a different belief.

So yes belief and personal satisfaction is what defines which side of the morality issue you find yourself on regardless.
Morality, conduct and ethics is not always a black and white line that leaves no room for interpretation.

moral
[ mawr-uhl, mor- ]
adjective
of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

 

[Danoff]

Since what is considered an ethical or acceptable moral standard will vary among different individuals as it is somewhat based off of a persons beliefs or personal feelings or viewpoints on the subject then yes, opinion and acceptance of certain decisions with abortion firmly fitting into being one of those subjects.

There is no line which defines right or wrong on the subject other than the line of what a person believes for themselves whether it is right or wrong or moral or immoral.

Do you think there is a right or wrong when it comes to murder of an adult?

One side says life begins with a heartbeat, one side says life begins at actual birth show me a black and white line that definitively defines that issue without leaving an argument for those that have a different belief.

Since when is "life" important? We kill living things all the time. Mosquitos, trees, bacteria, mass-murdering humans, people in a persistent vegetative state, old dogs, dogs without homes, cows, pigs, fish...

"Life" is neither here nor there in this question.

So yes belief and personal satisfaction is what defines which side of the morality issue you find yourself on regardless.

I'm pretty confused about how personal satisfaction can determine morality, even if morality is subjective to the level of the individual.