Debate Abortion

As I said before, It doesn't matter how old she is, it's still murder.

I've already talked about what I think of abortion to save lives.

 

Well then if killing a human is murder regardless of circumstances, then how come you are not outraged at the slaughters in the old testament? Your stance in the God thread seems somewhat contradictory - you disaprove of a humans killing a parasitic entity (as we are -still- not sure whether or not it counts as a human), yet aprove when God eradicates nearly all life on Earth in a global flood (when the Old Testament is interpreted literally).

 

Well, frankly, I disagree. Some girls get pregnant as young as 11 or 12 - and regardless of how that happens, those children shouldn't have 9 months of their lives essentially ruined by the strain of pregnancy. Not to mention the agony of giving up a child after it's born.

Do you know what happens to teenagers who get pregnant? Their lives get put on hold. They become social outcasts; either they drop out of school, leave school to take special courses, or end up with about as much social status as the kids with severe mental disabilities. During the early teenage years especially, popularity is important - more important than it should be, in my opinion - and being looked down on or avoided or called slutty/loose/whatever is psychologically damaging.

Also, for a very young girl, a pregnancy can be physically dangerous. Girls are starting to ovulate much earlier these days than they used to - some start their periods at age 9! A couple hundred years ago, girls were more often in their later teens when they were able to conceive. Just because a child is physically capable of becoming pregnant doesn't mean she is physically, emotionally, mentally, or spiritually ready to endure a pregnancy.

I think we'll all agree that preteens and young teens have no business having sex, especially if they don't know how to protect themselves - but does that mean that they need to be "punished" by a 9-month process that would likely scar them for life just as much as an abortion?

Then, of course, there are the cases of rape, incest, fetuses with fatal genetic conditions or other problems, and great physical risk to the mother. (And by the way - a child who is raped or molested may not be able to get help until it's too late for the morning-after pill. What if it's a family member that did it, and she's not allowed to leave home whenever she wants?)

I also don't know how you can justify calling it murder, if the fetus is aborted early. I'd agree that aborting a viable fetus with normal brain function (a fetus developed enough to survive outside the womb) is not ethical, unless the mother is in imminent danger and there's no other option. But a 5-week-old clump of cells is not a person. It may look a bit like one, but you know what? A very young fetus also looks a lot like a chicken embryo; that doesn't make it poultry. Before the brain and nervous system develop, the fetus does not think, cannot feel pain, and is not in any way viable on it's own.

I also want to point out that much of the depression and agony a woman may feel after an abortion is likely due in large part to everyone guilt-tripping her about it and calling it murder, regardless of the circumstances. I wonder what the correlation is between post-abortion depression/suicidal mentalities and the amount of 'pro-life' verbal abuse a woman has to endure before and after the procedure?

Abortion shouldn't be an easy choice to make - but then again, how much does it really help to make these women feel worse than they probably do already?

 

While I agree in that in cases that involve rape, incest, and pregnancy that involves a direct threat to the mother are viable reasons to have an abortion. I think of it as sort of a justifiable homicide. I think anything short of those reasons, abortion is just plain murder.

I view it like this, if you abort a fetus (regardless of brain activety) that will one day grow into a living child, its the same as holding someone underwater denying them the chance to breath air. In both circumstances, you are denying them life, no matter what way you look at it. Murder is murder is murder.

 

If a teenager has an abortion just because she's worried about social status then I think that is selfish. If her friends are real friends then they will support her through pregnancy.

They had a daycare center at the high school I went to so the teen mother could leave her baby there while she went to class. I think all high schools should consider this.

I have already explained what I think of pregnancy as a result of rape, and abortion to save lives so if you want to reply back dont bring that up.

 

I take it, then, that you don't consider emotional damage to the mother (and child, if s/he is kept and raised in a very poor family situation, possibly with very irresponsible parents) as posing a direct risk? Then again, there are the women who don't feel they can get an abortion for whatever reason, and dump their baby in a garbage can...

Still, I appreciate that you acknowledge there are cases where abortion is justifiable.

And I agree that there are times where an abortion is a very poor choice and a way of escaping responsibility. However, I firmly believe that the option of having an abortion should remain open - there are too many cases where it's for the better.

 

There is always the option of putting their child up for adoption, like my real parents did for me.

 

Stop avoiding my question.

 

The Stranger, I agree with you. Some people dont even think of adoption. With adoption, at least the child has a chance at a decent life.

 

Maybe, but I don't think either of you have addressed the psychological impact on the mother of carrying the baby to term, then giving it up for adoption. That's likely to produce as much guilt for her as abortion - maybe more, since with very early abortion the child never has to feel pain or suffering.

I'm not saying abortion is the only choice, but if you're going to argue, you might consider every facet of the situation. There are times when adoption is more reasonable than abortion, there are times when it isn't. Saying "all abortion is wrong" is just as stupid as saying "all unwanted pregnances should result in abortion." There IS no choice that's right every time.

 

So its easier to kill, or at least deny life to, another being, than to take at least some responsiblity? To me, such a thing is evil. Say I have a son and he has a bad day, and he comes to me and cries. Am I justified in pressing a pistol to his head and pulling the trigger? I mean, he has a whole life ahead of him that is going to have many bad days. Is offering a quick painless death to the child because he mite have problems in the future so bad? I think so. Although he will feel pain and loss in his lifetime, and I too will suffer knowing he will, I will strive to help him through it, or at least send to someone who can.

Like I stated earlier, I think abortion is feasible option in things like rape and such.

 

Yes. Yes it is easier. In light of humanistic morals, it's wrong, but it is easier.

If he was destroying your finances, caused your family to disown you, and ruined your job and education prospects, and ended up damning both of you to a difficult life...

Your comparing an alert sentient human to a non-alert, inactive parasite whose sentience is debatable.

Furthermore, if that is your stance, would you let a cancer patient who is writhing in pain and agony just live on life support as long as possible instead of offering a quick, painless death? While obviously euthanasia and abortion are two different beasts, you can't just generalize and use a bad comparison to prove your position.


And SaiyanChiChi, stop dodging my question. Why is abortion wrong and Gods mass murder in the old testament not? You do, after all, believe murder is murder and murder is wrong, no? This conflict in your believes is... interesting.

 

No, you are NOT justifide. I find that you are more justifide to bring the gun up to your own head rather than that of an innocent child YOU brought into the world and that YOU refused to put up for adoption.

Debatable sentience, maybe. But what is not debatable is that it has the potential to grow into a being of sentience. Refer to my previous post on drowning someone.

I fail to see how that is a bad comparison. When someone is suffering from a terminal disease and the cannot voice their wish to die or to live, it should be up to the closest relatives to make the choice. The difference is that while euthanasia denies continued life, abortion denies the potential of life itself and that is worse by far.

 

Have you ever talked to people who refuse to give up their children? They REFUSE to listen to any rational thought, be it for adoption or abortion. One girl I knew became pregnant and refused to give it up for fear it would hate her forever.

She was 16.

I have since lost contact with her.

And you are STILL running on a bad comparison - current sentient vs potential sentient. Get rid of it -before- it achieves sentience and...

How is that worse? Shouldn't there be a minimum quality of life?

 

I also know a girl who had a child at the age of 17, a mere year older than your friend. Her parents wanted her to get an abortion, but, like your friend, she refused. Guess what? She's a loving, caring, and all around good parent. On top of that, she has the support of her family. Her child has just had his 3rd birthday.

What do you mean? I don't get what you are trying to argue... I think your trying to say its better to deny someone life just because something may go wrong in their life. I could be wrong but please clarify.

 

People shouldn't just exist just because they can. People, especially children, should have some form of guaranteed minimum quality of life, and if this cant be provided (either via government control or adoption), then the child should not be had (accidents happen - condoms break, and if someone cant afford the morning after pill or whatever...)

Besides, sperm has the potential to become a sentient too. Should we create laws preventing men from masterbating?

 

There is a difference. Are you comparing mortal beings to God?

 

But that minimum quality can be had, especially in the States. As for your arguement on masterbation, take into account that only one sperm out of hundreds (thousands even) may fertilize an egg, the rest die. My own personnel point of view is life starts the moment a woman's egg is fertilized.

 

Of course I am, because God, supposedly the source of morality, should be held accountable to his own laws.

He failed the test.

 

In the past, only a small number of children concieved had the potential to live past birth, the rest died. Thus is the miracle of medicine.

As far as my belief is concerned, it's her child. Or their child, if the father is to be included (which he should be). If they feel that killing their child would be better in the long run, that is their choice. It cannot be made by others, no matter how hard you try to intervene. If they feel abortion is wrong, they don't have to do so, that simple.