Debate Abortion

Therin lies the problem. I'm all for safe sex, but when a woman becomes pregnant, regardless of her feelings on the subject, she should not be allowed to abort. Murder, in most its forms, is the taking or denying of a life for any reason. There are cases when murder can be sanctioned by goverment, but those sanctions only exist as far as public safety. I mean the only time someone may murder another person is in self-defense, in the defense of others, or when war has been declared (at which time, citizens may kill enemy combatants without fear of reprisal from their own goverment, but not other citizens in the enemy camp). Nothing more. A child cannot become a danger to the public until it is somewhat developed after birth.

In addition, a child is their own being whether or not they know it. I believe, abortion under no aggravated circumstances (rape, mother in danger, etc.) should be outlawed, and the right for mothers to commit first degree murder upon her own child taken away.

 

Wait...so do you have problems with parents who kill their children after they are born. There was a story not long ago about how these two parents killed their five year old daughter.
So because of what you are saying thats okay because its their choice to intervene if they choose to.


I'm not sure if thats what you mean but if it is then its disgusting.

 

Aye, sorry, that's not what I meant. After they're born, I have a serious problem with it. Argue with me however much you want to the morals of unborn children, whatever, but once they're born, they are definitely semi-independant, and that's where I feel the line is crossed for killing.

 

Ah. So - a woman has no right to decide the fate of her body, even if she became pregnant in part through her own ignorance? I don't approve of women who have sex irresponsibly... but until a fetus can survive on it's own outside the womb, with or without medical assistance, it is not a seperate entity in the conventional sense. It's part of her body in a way - and if she wants to abort it, well, so be it. Anyone irresponsible enough to see abortion as birth control probably isn't responsible enough to take care of herself during the pregnancy anyway, and wouldn't be a good mother of she kept the child.

Now, IF a woman could get her act together and be a good mother, good for her. I applaud anyone who can take that responsibility and initiative and turn an "accident" into a blessing. But it's no one else's right to force her to carry to term a fetus if she doesn't want to, because it does affect her body. I think that abortions performed for no medical reason should probably have an earlier cap than they do - if you just don't want a baby, you should decide that before it's significantly developed - and there should be mandatory counseling before and after. But you CANNOT ethically tell a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy; it's her body.

Alright. So let's say my emotional, educational, financial, and to some extent physical wellbeing is at stake because I got pregnant too young. So... if I really wanted to get technical, I could argue that having an abortion was self-defense. It's all about how you choose to look at it...

By your definition, then, women who drink during the early stages of pregnancy and cause spontaneous abortions (that the may never know about, especially if they had no clue they were pregnant yet) are guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

EDIT: And, likewise, the morning-after pill would be murder as well, because it prevents the fertilized egg from attaching, therefor eventually killing it. So... if both abortion and the morning-after pill are murder... What are we supposed to do, just accept it if the condom slips or the spermicide cream isn't 100% effective?

Not a viable being. If it can't live on it's own, nor think, it's no better than a coma patient in a permanent vegetative state.

Absolutely a different issue, Raven. Killing a viable, thinking, feeling person is different than terminating a cluster of partly-developed cells that might become a person. Once a baby has lived and started to grow up, no, there is NO justification for the parents to harm that child.

The difference is that most abortions are performed well before the baby's brain has developed, usually before it has much of a central nervous system. It's not a person at that point - it has potential, yes, but it isn't capable of thoughts or dreams or feelings, which are what define us as human - before the brain develops, it's just a vessel.

 

What I am wondering is how the name "pro-choice" was created. I could be wrong, but how it seems to me is that a bunch of people had to do something that was against their beliefs. This lead to them using cognitive dissonance to create some type of reason to make it seem okay, and for them to feel less guilty. So they decided to say that it's a woman's choice to abort her unborn child. This soon became a popular belief, and now a majority of people believe in the freedom of "choice". And we all know that what the majority believes has to be the truth *rolls eyes* (but then again I doubt anyone knows the truth) Some other cognitive dissonances back then were "it's only a blob, so it's okay!" Or even "they can't think for themselves, nor are they close to being human, so it's okay!"

How do we know that it is okay to do this for only those types of reasons? To infer that "a fetus can not think like us, and does not have the same level of development level as us, therefore a child can be aborted if a woman chooses" is invalid! As well, just saying that a woman was raped, therefore she can abort her child does not make sense either. Maybe if the argument went something like "society believes that a woman who was raped may abort her child, a woman was raped, therefore she may abort her child" The problem here is that how can we know whether or not what society believes is the truth. Unless one were to say "it is the absolute truth that a woman who was raped may abort her child, a woman was...etc, etc..."

I don't see how the info content of "a woman may abort her fetus" is fully contained within the premise "she has control over her body." Because the fetus is a seperate entity - it/he/she has a totally different genetic code and identity, even possibly a c.o.m.p.l.e.t.e.l.y different blood type. Also, just because she has control over her body does not mean that she has the right to abort her child. It seems more that she is obligated to keep her unborn child as a mother, but the point of the whole choice thing is that she does have the freedom to do what she wants with her own body. But, what about if the child were a seperate entity? If that were so, then the woman should not have the right to interfere with the right of her unborn child to live. Do the rights of an unborn child override the rights of a mother? And I mean ethical rights, not the norm of society where they have none at all.

 

my feelings on this topic are that abortion shouldn't be aloud because its the same thing as murder your killing a human being :anger2:

 

Just out of idle curiousity... how many of you have adopted children?

Just something that I was thinking about for some strange reason.

 

But on that note, does a human have to keep their tapeworm? Both a fetus and a tapeworm are parasites (whether you like it or not). Say what you want about human dignity but it's pretty much an even bet you have used, or do use a product which is linked to the abuse of a human one way or another. Even drinking Coke results in this.

Some say "What right do you have to play God with someones life?"

Ok, we won't play God anymore. Doctors, please disconnect all life support equipment, never provide diabetics with their needles, oh and lets also just stop all medical care in general, because those are not natural and do play a role in how long and healthy a persons life is. People are always so frightened to play God... unless it benefits them immeadiately.

 

That pretty much depends on if you think that a five-week-old glob of cells which has no brain development (and therefor no consciousness) and is incapable of sustaining its own life is human. I mean... when an adult's brain completely ceases to function due to illness or trauma, and the person has no ability to survive without machines pumping their blood and working their lungs, they're generally not considered living beings anymore.

Of course, previous arguments on this topic have already been through that several times.

Not me. In my book, 20 is a little young to have a family... for me, at least. Of course, if I ever did want children, I think I'd adopt. Too many kids out there need a family.

*nods* Likewise, let's stop vaccinations for deadly diseases - after all, disease is part of the divine plan, right? And it'd be a horrible shame if we were to eradicate any of them. No more heart transplants for people with congenital heart defects, no more surgery for car crash victims...

The fact is, if you want to take the "God" approach: Humans were granted free will and the intelligence to alter the world around us, for good or ill. I don't think it's logical to assume we would be given the capacity for modern medicine and all it's controversial uses if we weren't meant to use it. In the end, it comes down to a personal choice when you're deciding what fits your beliefs. While I support the right of a woman to believe that abortion is wrong, and choose not to have one, I also believe that the option should remain for those who may want or need one for a valid reason. (I state again, habitual abortions as birth control disgust me.)

 

your kinda right about what i said but i was kinda right too :sad:

 

I suppose following my logic it does mean that :sweat2: Parasites live inside, thrive on the nourishment of, and do not contribute to the survival of their host. The difference is the human part, they may be a parasite but they are a human parasite. I suppose that is another ethical question comparing the rights of animals vs. humans.

 

Human plagues are very annoying (i.e. people). You can see babies crying while you walk the sidewalks... and nobody does nothing. In big avenues, if you take your baby out, it cries and cries and cries and cries and vomits. And in small, hidden streets (the majority), there are no cops. What can be said of uncontrolled humans?

In my opinion, these humans are not beneficial for anyone. Instead, they're disease magnets, and should be exterminated, nipped in the bud. No matter how "cute" they look when they're newborns.

Seriously, though... it's like the story about the crocodile...

Baby crocodiles may make cute pets... but they grow up. >:

Babies may make cute pets... but they grow up. >: May become a serial killer, though!

Though, seriously... oh well... I guess an over-abundance of human life is much, much more of a priority than any animal life. After all... it's okay to kill puppies and kittens when they're born... but when a human mother is incapable of supporting a child? Psh. No, she's keeping that kid damnit, whether she likes or not. >:

That's the way to do it, man.

 

It looks like a double-standard to me. Life is life.

If you're going to kill the filth, then you have to consider all of the filth, in my opinion.

 

But we're not talking about survival of the species here. We're talking about the same species.

And even kids raised in very controversial homes can become great persons. Take Bethoven for example. People could have the tendency to kill... but it's education (and I don't mean "school") that keeps them in place.

 

Of course... because, after all... it's fully incapable of any animal to grow up to become a faithful, loving and incredibly adored pet that some given family would give anything to take utmost care of.

No. Of course not. That's just silly. Because, after all, animals are so much lower than humans. They are, after all, "fude vor volves" (food for wolves), no pun intended.

 

what's so bad about abortion? i mean, of the lady doesn't want the kid, or if there's something wrong or anything, you just have to do it! they're still babies and have like no common sense or anything so what's so bad about it? at least it's better than taking a life of a teenager or another... but they could just have another kid or adopt. that's way easier.

 

my friend has a baby about to be aborted. theres many reasons for her to do so. 1st she has drug and alcohol problems. shes currently not employed. shes on wellfare. she is a real mess right now. plus she doesnt even know who the father is. i hope its not me. theres no way she couldve taken care of herself and a baby. plus her boyfriends abusive. hed probably hurt her and the baby in some way. and if he did that id have to beat him down. but unless she asks me to im not doin a thing. :anger2:

by the way i live in a ghetto. where u have to carry a weapon when u walk to your neighbors house to borrow some sugar. also whats so bad about abortian. its not like u made a big connection with the fetus inside u. plus i dont want to see any more people like me. who dont know there fathers, are connected to a gang, and have crack head mothers. u people dont know at all what its like to grow up in a place like this.

 

It's your fault for being in a gang, not your parents.

You know every aspect of our lives? Impressive.

 

You know that baby could end up being loved by an adoptive family? These people are researched and studied to the maximum to make sure that they can take care of a baby. The people that can adopt the child can lend or give her money as well, and they can find a way to protect her from her boyfriends way.

There is. You live with a child for 9 months who is constantly at your side. When you perform an abortion you could injure your body completely, causing you to never be able to carry a child again, if it is not performed properly. Along with that you can have severe after-trauma.

Before she goes with it she really should try to see it in as many ways possible.

 

im not quite sure but i think u have to have the abortian by like the 3 or 4 month. but i dont remember.