Abortions

I have conflicted heart with this issue. Abortion is killing another person, I don't care about the 'fetus' and all that stuff right now, I don't think I even want to know, Ignorance is Bliss. The main point is that abortion is killing a person, just like eatings eggs is killing a chicken, it doesn't matter whether it's 'alive' or not. This debate, to me at least, is not a technical issue, but a moral issue.You guys shouldn't talk about if 'it' is alive because it doesn't matter, you're gonna base your judgment on some fact about when 'exactly' it is alive? Your judgment should be based on other facts, if the mother can support it, will it be able to actually live, I don't have a definite Yes or No to this issue, you'd have to present a example to me. If a homeless teen mother were to be pregnant I would hope, for the child, that she would get an abortion, but if it was a spoiled, rich, brat who were to be pregnant, she should have the baby, she would be able to raise it, she has the sources, and the baby might allow her to mature past the spoiled-ness of her life.

for me Under ANY CIRCUMSTANCE abortion should never be the answer. However you look at it you kill a person, unwanted or not you're taking away the freedom of that person to live, in whatever stage of pregnancy that is when you get pregnant it's alive , I don't care what it looks like, when it is created it should be treated as any huiman being would be. An as a lot of people said, there are a lot of things you can do like adoption , etc. I really say no to this

abortions ok with me if u really think u cant give the kid a decent life. otherwise u force them into a ****ed up life

Personally, I do not understand when I, as a man, am supposed to tell a woman how to handle her own body.It is maddening and horrendous that it does happen, but it would be worse still if we as a society allowed ourselves to shift back to the early 1900s mentality in regards to women having to submit their bodies to us men. That would be a moral black eye I don't think I'd be able to recover from.

definitly for, if women can't do what they want of their bodies, then it restrict the personnal liberties (or so I guess)

Against it! Ladies think about this: can you really have a life without thinking what if? or can you live your life knowing your a murderer? Or maybe think risk.

i am pro life. i see abortion as murder. you are terminating a future promising life. lets say, that einstein had been aborted, or maybe jonas salk, would we still have polio? the way i see it, it should be legal only for rape victims, or where the mothers life is in danger.unrelated:to quote anne coulter, i dont see why the liberals are against the death penalty, its just a very late term abortion!

Edited by bombmaniac, 25 March 2008 - 01:54 AM.

You won't know if the child is born with a defect until it's actually born. Don't read into all this tech about predicting births because most are bogus. There are ways of saving a mother if she can't have the baby naturally, it's called cesarian (sp). I was born that way. Mom couldn't have me naturally because I was too big (lol, 8 lbs 3 oz ) so they sliced her open. Yummy eh? Most diseases can't be shown to acutally pass to they child through birth. And what kind of diseases are you talking about? Stop rambling on about stuff that has no revelence or little in child birth. Most diseases don't show until their older, and by then, well, everyone you see know adays has some sort of disease. Should they have been aborted to minimize their pain or stop the spread? C'mon man, jeez!

What the hell are you talking about? There are definitely reliable ways of detecting birth defects long before the baby is born, like amniocentesis. Seriously, I'm starting to think that you just fabricate your own "facts" when you're talking to other people. Are you aware that we are able to test the DNA of the unborn child and check for irregularities? Are you aware that there are certain patterns and signs common amongst defective fetuses that enable us to decide whether or not to perform tests of the child's DNA to make absolutely sure that it is deformed? Also, there are other problems that arise during childbirth other than the child not being physically able to leave the uterus by natural means. An unborn child is essentially a parasite, and if the mother does not have the physiological resources to support both herself and the parasite, they will both die. As for disease being passed from mother to child, any contagious disease can be contracted by the newborn. These diseases in newborns adversely affect it at a much higher magnitude than they affect people who are fully grown and have properly functioning immune systems. For example, if a mother has herpes, her baby is likely to be born blind. (although, this is only caused by contact with the sores and can actually be avoided by cesarean section.) But a multitude of diseases may be passed down, including (but not limited to of course) AIDS, influenza, and most STDs.

Harlequin wins that argument.Personally I'm not for or against abortion per say. I don't think it's right to terminate pregnancies without there being a good reason for doing so (the family not capable of supporting the child and themselves, effectively greatly lowering their quality of life, health issues), but I wouldn't say one shouldn't get abortions. Personally I support the belief that a person is not a person until it has some matter of thought and perception of its environment. If the child is terminated before this stage, I do not consider it a "murder".

I dont like the idea of abortions thats like killing someone

i personally think that abortion is not right, im against it... why? well most abortions are product of immature sex, so if ur having sex, u should at least be responsible in case of pregnancy

An unborn child is essentially a parasite, and if the mother does not have the physiological resources to support both herself and the parasite, they will both die.

Untrue; the human body has a natural self defense that will, in a case like that above, terminate the life of the fetus by essentially cutting off the fetus' nutrition supply and as a result the mother will have a miscarriage.I've read a number of replies in this thread, and most of them are a little off. There have been some very good ones, however.Before I go on, I would like to say that I am pro-life, i.e. against abortion. Furthermore, I am now preparing to take care of a child due to an unwanted pregnancy. My girlfriend (who is also pro-life) is pregnant with my child. I still have one more year of college left, and she is going to start graduate school this coming August... which is when the baby is due. Now, where to begin...First, I think, a clarification on what exactly a fetus is. Biologically, a fetus is a living organism. There is no debate about this; a fetus is alive. At 17 days the fetus has its own circulatory system developed and it has its own blood type. Just one day later the heart starts pumping. There are some more developments before this next one, but I'm just skipping to the big landmark here... At 6 weeks the fetus' brain waves can be detected. The fetus is now thinking.To be honest, I think going into more detail would be overkill. It has been established that the fetus is not part of the mother's body, so any argument of the form "its the mother's body..." should be discarded as invalid.Second, there should be clarification on what the whole abortion debate is on:Those who are pro-life argue that the killing of a fetus is destroying a human life.Those who are pro-choice argue that a fetus is not human.Note that there is no debate on what abortion is: the termination of an organism.If anyone wants to debate me on what abortion does, I have no problem explaining it to them, but I can promise that no one can win.Finally, I will go into a popular pro-life argument that is very clever; however, before I do that I will give a short thought-experiment:Is it morally acceptable to terminate life support on someone who has slipped into a coma when everyone has absolute knowledge that he/she will wake up after nine months?Now here is the long argument:Clearly, a fetus is a alive and the killing of the fetus is abortion, so therefore abortion kills something. If the fetus is human, then certainly it follows that abortion is murder; if the fetus is not human, then it follows that abortion is not murder. Now our argument can be represented as:Either abortion kills a human,or abortion does not kill a human.Indeed, that is what our argument is about; consequently, there must be doubt on whether or not a fetus is human.Putting everything above together, we get four statements. Note that these statements are the only possibilities.1. The fetus is human, and we know it.2. The fetus is human, and we don't know it.3. The fetus is not human, and we don't know it.4. The fetus is not human, and we know it.Case 1 is easy enough; if we know that we are killing a human then abortion is murder of the first degree. Case 4 is also simple; if we know that we are not killing a human then abortion is perfectly fine and legal and morally acceptable. Unfortunately, both cases must be thrown out since there is debate on the issue; obviously we don't know that a fetus is human or not since we are still arguing about it.So it seems the only cases we need to think about are cases 2 and 3.In case 2, we are killing a human without knowing... an accidental killing, if you will. Therefore abortion must be considered to be manslaughter. If I shoot a rifle randomly into a bush in a park and I happen to kill someone who was hiding in there, I would be charged with manslaughter. If I fumigated a building without making sure that there was nobody inside, and, unfortunately, there was somebody inside, I would be charged with manslaughter. Certainly I did not intend to kill anyone, but I did. And I will be put in prison because of it.Therefore case 2 leads us to conclude that abortion is manslaughter.In case 3, we are not killing a human, but we don't know that. Is abortion fine under case 3? Well, think about what we are doing... I shot my rifle into a bush in a park and did not kill anybody. I fumigated a building without getting an all clear, but I got lucky and there was no one inside. What crime did I commit? Criminal recklessness. I was unsure that my actions, which could easily kill someone, would not result in someone's death. I would be tried and convicted of criminal irresponsibility.Therefore case 3 leads us to conclude that abortion is criminal recklessness.Since we have already admitted that the only possible cases that exist today are cases 2 and 3, we must also admit that abortion is a crime. Consequently, we should convict all those who commit abortion and abortion should be ruled as illegal until further knowledge is gained on whether or not a fetus is human.

Personally, I'm pro choice. Abortions have been shown to keep the crime rate down (Source: Freakanomics), and they let people who aren't ready to be parents not carry the burden of a child. I believe if you don't want to have an abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE. Don't infringe on other peoples lives just because you don't like it. Thats like protesting a gay marriage just because you aren't gay. Since the abortion doesn't affect you in any way shape or form, I don't think third parties should have any say on it at all. I also think the only reason they are banned where they are (I'm stateside) is because we live more in a theocracy than anything. If you think its wrong, please explain why you think its wrong, and likewise if you agree with me.

Well said. A lot of the taboos or controversial topics are usually deemed so because they go against what religion dictates.

a chick getting pregnant is an act of god and the baby was ment 2 be born on the other handRAPE is in no way an act of god and if a baby was concived by a rape she has every right to terminatebut you do have to remember its still killing a child you may not know them yet but it is a person

Most pro-lifers use "it goes against god" as an argument, which is ridiculous. What right do you and your religion have to decide other people's lives? If you want to believe in whatever you want to believe, that's up to you - don't force your beliefs on other people. Most religions have this thing called "free will". Deal with it.

Against it! Ladies think about this: can you really have a life without thinking what if? or can you live your life knowing your a murderer? Or maybe think risk.

That's so ridiculous and unfounded. Look: Once the egg and sperm hook-up, the fertilized egg still has to travel down to the uterus, which takes about a week. Often, the fertilized egg just keeps going and gets flushed out of your system with your menstrual cycle.So what now? Does life really begin at conception? You pro-life folks are basically saying that any women who's had more than one period is a serial killer.

Edited by Avalice, 30 March 2008 - 03:37 AM.

I am both for and against abortion. I would go for it if I were to be raped, but if I were in a loving relationship and I got pregnent, I would be against it.

Most pro-lifers use "it goes against god" as an argument, which is ridiculous. What right do you and your religion have to decide other people's lives? If you want to believe in whatever you want to believe, that's up to you - don't force your beliefs on other people. Most religions have this thing called "free will". Deal with it.

Any informed pro-lifer uses an argument that appeals to general moral beliefs held by the majority of the population. In this case, we argue that if you think murdering someone in cold blood is morally wrong then you should think that aborting a fetus is morally wrong. Of course, if you think killing people is fine, then there is no ground on which we can argue.The argument against abortion does not appeal to religion. Anyone who claims otherwise has never spoken to an informed flag carrier for the pro-life side.Also, some more clarification:It is not possible to be both for and against abortion. You either oppose it outright or you support it in certain (if not all) cases. IF YOU ARE AGAINST ABORTION THEN YOU AGREE THAT ABORTION IS MORALLY WRONG IN ALL CASES.I have yet to read a response to my post, nor have I read any compelling arguments supporting abortion.

Isn't that ironic, I haven't read any compelling arguments against abortion. ;D

Isn't that ironic, I haven't read any compelling arguments against abortion. ;D

So you haven't read my post on the previous page, then?

have read most of replies in this Topic. Yes, have read recent posts. Same old "blah blah."

Edited by Avalice, 02 April 2008 - 01:17 AM.

am against , belive that killing a human life, no matter how new wrong should be abolished. What point of abortion? What we kill babies just because someone doesn't want be responsible?

So, Avalice, I have noticed that, while you throw off my arguments as the same old "blah, blah," you have not only failed to counter my arguments, but you have not contributed anything worthwhile to the topic at all.Are you really in a position to make those claims? If you can't counter it, then just say so. I run in to arguments I can't counter all the time. It is normal. Be constructive.

I truthfully couldn't care less...........really

Yeah, I'm for abortion. At least I'm consistent, whereas the majority of the "right-to-lifers" seem to be for the death penalty.I believe the right to an abortion is somewhat akin to the right to choose your own religion. Whether a fetus is a life is a gray area. Everyone will have a different opinion, and no one has the right to force a decision on someone else with a different opinion. It is a choice with backing on either side.In an odd way, one can compare a fetus to a virus. It is a debate whether a virus is alive, whether it truly fulfills the scientific requirements to qualify for life. In the end, it's an opinion with facts that can be interpreted in any way you see it.