Abortion

[footfoot]

Originally Posted by Lugez

So what you're saying is that it isn't human because it can't survive outside with the mother...Ok...Why not take this to a different level? What about all those people in the ICU living off machines? They can't survive off their machines and can't survive the environment. Therefore, they're not human. Right? And if it is 1 week old, you fail to allow possible future development, causing DEATH. In other words - You kill it. Another human being.

This is an invalid comparison. The people on the ICU machines are and have been people with full lawful personhood. A fetus is basically a bunch of cells - part of the mother that needs the mother to grow and live. It is not an independent being. In any event, I was trying to emphasize earlier that I think it SHOULD matter that the mother takes precedence over a bunch of cells that (presumably) have accidentally invaded her body.

( Deeming these cells more important than their living, human host has negative implications for the stem cell research debate as well. Stem cell research could possibly find cures for previously irreparable injuries (eg paralysis) but not if the cells are prohibited from being harvested ).

Basically, I think there is a difference between what people think a woman OUGHT to do (have the baby even if it is "inconvenient") and her right to do what she wants to with her own body.

There is no other situation in which it is suggested a person give up his or her rights based fully on something/someone that does not even exist yet.

It sort of is about convenience. People do it because it's the easy way out. Not saying it makes it easy, but its certaintly the easiest way.

What I'm saying is: there is no easy way out. None. Abortion is not the easy way out. Having the baby is not the easy way out. There is no easy way out. A woman that goes through with the pregnancy has to deal with the emotional baggage that comes with giving birth, having a child forever out in the world whether or not she keeps it, etc etc. A woman that has the abortion has to deal with intense emotional trauma and the social stigma that forces guilt and shame upon a woman. There is no easy way out.

Like I said in a previous post, it's not about the woman's body. It's about the human life that's growing inside her body.

See 2 paragraphs above.

An interesting paper on the topic - which starts with the premise that the fetus IS a person - is Judith Jarvis Thomson's paper which you can find for free HERE.

[Alrex]

Originally Posted by Lugez

So because the baby *might* turn into a criminal, we should kill it? I'm sorry, but this reason is just ridiculous. You'd might as well kill all kids who have bad parents because they *might* turn into criminals. That's essentially the same thing.

The parents shouldn't have babies if they cant get their own shit together. I'm all for abortion if bad parents make the bad decision to have a baby.

[Edited]

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by footfoot

This is an invalid comparison. The people on the ICU machines are and have been people with full lawful personhood. A fetus is basically a bunch of cells - part of the mother that needs the mother to grow and live. It is not an independent being.

Personhood is a flexible concept, and in many jurisdictions it is not the key criteria as to whether people can lawfully be removed from ICU life support. The quality of life and prospects of survival are the key criteria, and in this comparison the quality of life and prospects of survival for most aborted fetuses (which are overwhelmingly aborted based on socioeconomic grounds as opposed to strictly medical grounds) are probably higher than a patient on life support in ICU. It's not necessarily a massive point in the debate but it is worth bearing in mind - as is the scientific fact that the fetus is not a part of the mother. The mother's own immune system regularly attacks the fetus, hence miscarriages.

Originally Posted by footfoot

(Deeming these cells more important than their living, human host has negative implications for the stem cell research debate as well. Stem cell research could possibly find cures for previously irreparable injuries (eg paralysis) but not if the cells are prohibited from being harvested).

Stem cell lines grown from adult cells are thus far proving to be more viable in terms of treatments than those grown from embryonic cells. Embryonic lines retain the risk of rejection and also a heightened risk of teratoma, hence why to date no treatment has been approved involving the use of embryonic stem cells. It is however an interesting aside to the abortion debate and one which warrants consideration.

Originally Posted by footfoot

Basically, I think there is a difference between what people think a woman OUGHT to do (have the baby even if it is "inconvenient") and her right to do what she wants to with her own body.

There is no other situation in which it is suggested a person give up his or her rights based fully on something/someone that does not even exist yet.

Actually there is. In land law there is the concept of restrictive covenants such as easements, which bind a landowner or tenant with regards to keeping certain parts of their land - which are otherwise legally theirs to do with as they wish - open and accessible for a third party. Depending upon the nature of the easement this third party may include persons who are not born or do not exist yet, but the landowner/tenant and subsequent owners or tenants are still bound by it with regards to this future party. That party could enforce those rights against them and if necessary claim damages, even if it relates to activities whic predate their own existence. It's not a direct comparison by any means but it does illustrate the point that abortion is not necessarily an exceptional situation in this regard.

Originally Posted by footfoot

What I'm saying is: there is no easy way out. None. Abortion is not the easy way out. Having the baby is not the easy way out. There is no easy way out. A woman that goes through with the pregnancy has to deal with the emotional baggage that comes with giving birth, having a child forever out in the world whether or not she keeps it, etc etc. A woman that has the abortion has to deal with intense emotional trauma and the social stigma that forces guilt and shame upon a woman. There is no easy way out.

On this I am in agreement.

On the subject of the article that you refer to, there is a flaw in the violinist analogy in that the non-consensual element only applies to situations of rape (which according to official sources accounts for c.0.3-1% of all abortions). For the remaining situations therefore the analogy is void. It does make some interesting points but as a whole it falls down on that point.

[her_beautiful_mistake]

@dr2005 - have not forgotten you, but moving in 3 days, so swamped! Will reply at some point!

[bitesize]

I'm pro-choice, nothing against the views of pro-life people, but that's what I am. If I got pregnant abortion would really be my only option right now. After that, adoption ~ but only if abortion was completely impossible. I just don't think it's right to bring a baby into a world that not ready for it ~ and personally, there's no way I could handle pregnancy at the moment. So pro-choice all the way.

[thebigmole]

What I think the pro-life people always miss is this fact: Abortion is a NECESSARY evil.

The FACT is there will never be a time when no abortions are being performed whether they are illegal or not. So the way I see it, if they are going to be done anyway they might as well be done safetly.

[Casey.]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

What I think the pro-life people always miss is this fact: Abortion is a NECESSARY evil.

The FACT is there will never be a time when no abortions are being performed whether they are illegal or not. So the way I see it, if they are going to be done anyway they might as well be done safetly.

This. I am pro-choice, meaning that I feel that a woman has the right to decide what to do with her body, and what she is ready to handle. Some women are just not ready to have a baby. My cousin is fifteen or sixteen, and she's pregnant. Last i heard, she was having the baby, but she's not really ready for a baby. Also, sometimes shit just happens, and you get pregnant, and you really can't keep the baby. I'm not for abortion, and if I know the chance of me having one is slim, but that doesn't mean abortion should be illegal. Having it legal saves lives.

[Rise]

I'm pro life.

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, and when people have sex, they should know that using birth control isn't 100%, and if they do end up pregnant, they need to deal with the consequences and "face the music"..

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Rylan

I'm pro life.

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, and when people have sex, they should know that using birth control isn't 100%, and if they do end up pregnant, they need to deal with the consequences and "face the music"..:hehe:

For the umpteenth time: A child should not be a consequence!
"Mommy where did I come from?"
"Well you came from me after my protecton failed, and I was forced to deal with the consequence, which was you."

[MisplacedDreamer]

I am a little confused as to how you are considering me a hypocrite. Are you suggesting that I should empathize with someone who is saying bullshit? Did I make a senseless comment? I don't think saying I don't give a shit if she is being triggered by anger directed at her because she is saying bullshit and possibly triggering others is senseless. If she is triggered that easily, then she should have been more aware of how others feel. Please, explain it better as I am not getting it judging by your post. Hoping I get it isn't enough as I am not getting it and I like to see your reasoning out in the open.

The date I first joined was around the March of 2005 or 2006.

Amazing I used the word GAP and not Gap.

I learned about abortion in school and I think that its terrible to kill your kids just to be convenient to yourself.

Well, exactly what did you learn? There are many reasons for abortion. How are you reasoning abortion is convenient?

Of course it is. Every time you have sex, you risk getting pregnant or getting someone pregnant. Even if theres a 1% chance that it won't work, you still risk it. Whether you're pro choice or pro life, I don't see how you could think that it's NOT their fault in this case.

It may be the people having sex's fault, but I don't see why that would make a good reason not to have an abortion if they were taking steps not to get pregnant. If people get into an accident while driving their car, people would not expect them to not seek medical treatment because they knew the risks of driving and they caused an accident.

So what you're saying is that it isn't human because it can't survive outside with the mother...Ok...Why not take this to a different level? What about all those people in the ICU living off machines? They can't survive off their machines and can't survive the environment. Therefore, they're not human. Right? And if it is 1 week old, you fail to allow possible future development, causing DEATH. In other words - You kill it. Another human being.

The difference between machines and the mother is that the mother is a person (notice usage of person, not human.) Being a person is not the same as being a human. Genetics isn't enough. Having a heart beat isn't enough. There are people who are removed from life support because they do not have the higher brain functioning. There are people removed because their brain stems are still operating but there is no higher brain functioning. Being a person is more than just having human genes.

Here, you're basically killing another person because he/she doesn't contribute to society. This is exactly what I think is wrong, and we shouldn't kill babies because "the woman will feel better." It doesn't justify it at all. Also, we don't know what the baby will be like in the future...But again, it's not grounds to kill it. I prefer to at least give the baby a chance at life.

A person is more than genetics though. We are not agreeing on what defines a person. Based off of your argument, no one would ever be able to be taken off of life support if their heart is beating even if they are brain dead.

While giving them a chance is nice in theory, but who will take responsibility for the child? There are already enough children who do not have the best opportunities, good role models, someone to help them with their school work, and someone to ensure they are having the best medical care that is possible. I'd rather focus on the children and adults that are already living in poor conditions than to add another person to them and say "We'll we're giving you a chance at life so be grateful."

Like I said in a previous post, it's not about the woman's body. It's about the human life that's growing inside her body.

It is about her body though because the potential human life cannot survive on its own.

[Brandon]

Some people have said that abortions shouldn't be allowed unless the women were raped. To me, I consider this a highly flawed idea:

Let's say that Billy has a one-night stand with Laquisha. Through consensual sex, she ends up getting pregnant. Because she isn't ready to have a child right now, she wants to have an abortion. So she goes to an abortion clinic and the clinic tells her that she could only have an abortion if she was raped. Here's what could happen:

1. Let's say that she really doesn't want to have a child. If she had consensual sex with a man, it would be unethical to call the rape card. Obviously she had consensual sex with the man, and if the man knew she was going to pull out the rape card on him, he probably wouldn't have had sex with her in the beginning. Unless the man has proof that she consented, she might could convince a jury that she was raped and not only be allowed to have an abortion, but she would also get the innocent man put in jail.

This also speaks for any woman. A woman can easily lie to a man that she takes birth control and could convince the man not to wear a condom because "it'll be okay" and she wouldn't "get pregnant." So she can lure a man to have unprotected sex with her, get her pregnant, have an abortion (or even yet she could KEEP the baby and force him to pay child support..but that's an entirely different legal issue ), make him pay the abortion fees and any doctor check ups, and, quite possibly, put him in jail for "rape."

With gender neutrality in justice, it's harder for a woman to call rape, BUT I'm not gonna set that aside when it's possible. This puts men at huge risk. It would grant women WAY too much power that men might as well bend over and take it up the ass. They'd be screwed financially, emotionally, mentally, and they'd be in jail. And there'd be nothing that a man could do about it! When I have sex with a woman, I want to think happy thoughts...not think about all the potential consequences that extend to even beyond pregnancy.

[Imagine]

I need to stay away from this thread. haha, oh well. Credit
[it has some really really good points]

"The unborn is an embryo or a fetus-just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception-not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child."

3a. Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.
3b. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.
3c. From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple but very complex.
3d. Prior to the first trimester, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.
3e. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves.
3f. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.
3g. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is-a human being.
3h. No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is still terminating a life.


17. "'Every child a wanted child.' It's unfair to children to bring them into a world where they're not wanted."

17a. Every child is wanted by someone-there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
17b. There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child.
17c. "Unwanted" describes not a condition of the child but an attitude of adults.
17d. The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
17e. What is most unfair to "unwanted" children is to kill them

(and IMO if it was the case of being unwanted... there are SO many families that would LOVE do adopt, and give the child a good home because they cannot conceive)

That is all.

[The Man And XX Master]

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

I am a little confused as to how you are considering me a hypocrite. Are you suggesting that I should empathize with someone who is saying bullshit? Did I make a senseless comment? I don't think saying I don't give a shit if she is being triggered by anger directed at her because she is saying bullshit and possibly triggering others is senseless. If she is triggered that easily, then she should have been more aware of how others feel. Please, explain it better as I am not getting it judging by your post. Hoping I get it isn't enough as I am not getting it and I like to see your reasoning out in the open.

I'm calling you a hypocrite for two reasons. First, if you use anger to someone for whatever reason and don't care how the person is affected by it, then that goes against the entire idea you were giving before when you initially quoted before. From that post, one of the things you implied was to be nicer to each other, which you certainly aren't doing to that person.
Second, the senseless statement you made was back when you initially responded to that person when you said: "It just sounded good for his or her argument and they just said it". It didn't support their argument, it was just an unfounded statement (which you said and I agree with). It's not a statement though that's meant to back up their argument.

According to what you said initially, the person shouldn't say senseless/unfounded things and be hurtful or cruel. You're doing both. You said the person should learn to use empathy to avoid doing this, hence, why I'm saying that to you. This isn't about whether you should tell bullshitters that they're bullshitting, it's about continuing to go against what it is you recently said people shouldn't do. If you said before that it's fine to call bullshit on bullshitters and not be nice to them, then there wouldn't be an issue of you being a hypocrite but you didn't say that.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Brandon

Some people have said that abortions shouldn't be allowed unless the women were raped. To me, I consider this a highly flawed idea:

Let's say that Billy has a one-night stand with Laquisha. Through consensual sex, she ends up getting pregnant. Because she isn't ready to have a child right now, she wants to have an abortion. So she goes to an abortion clinic and the clinic tells her that she could only have an abortion if she was raped. Here's what could happen:

1. Let's say that she really doesn't want to have a child. If she had consensual sex with a man, it would be unethical to call the rape card. Obviously she had consensual sex with the man, and if the man knew she was going to pull out the rape card on him, he probably wouldn't have had sex with her in the beginning. Unless the man has proof that she consented, she might could convince a jury that she was raped and not only be allowed to have an abortion, but she would also get the innocent man put in jail.

This also speaks for any woman. A woman can easily lie to a man that she takes birth control and could convince the man not to wear a condom because "it'll be okay" and she wouldn't "get pregnant." So she can lure a man to have unprotected sex with her, get her pregnant, have an abortion (or even yet she could KEEP the baby and force him to pay child support..but that's an entirely different legal issue ), make him pay the abortion fees and any doctor check ups, and, quite possibly, put him in jail for "rape."

With gender neutrality in justice, it's harder for a woman to call rape, BUT I'm not gonna set that aside when it's possible. This puts men at huge risk. It would grant women WAY too much power that men might as well bend over and take it up the ass. They'd be screwed financially, emotionally, mentally, and they'd be in jail. And there'd be nothing that a man could do about it! When I have sex with a woman, I want to think happy thoughts...not think about all the potential consequences that extend to even beyond pregnancy.

While I agree that the "except in cases of rape" thing is stupid I don't think your fears have any basis. Let's say that abortion was made illegal except in cases of rape, I believe that it would be as simple as a woman saying she was raped, no conviction needed. After all a conviction would take a while, much too long for the woman to still be able to get an abortion afterwards. Now if they wanted to be really ridiculous and require a police report, easily done, after all a woman can say that she didn't know who raped her. Of course if it was ever found out to be not true then that woman would get in trouble, but I don't see it being found out.

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

While I agree that the "except in cases of rape" thing is stupid I don't think your fears have any basis. Let's say that abortion was made illegal except in cases of rape, I believe that it would be as simple as a woman saying she was raped, no conviction needed. After all a conviction would take a while, much too long for the woman to still be able to get an abortion afterwards. Now if they wanted to be really ridiculous and require a police report, easily done, after all a woman can say that she didn't know who raped her. Of course if it was ever found out to be not true then that woman would get in trouble, but I don't see it being found out.

I see what you're saying, but I can also disagree. If abortions were made illegal and only allowed women who were raped to have abortions, then I'm sure that they could create some kind of court system that dealt with rapes specifically (like some, or most...not sure, colleges have a court system if you plagiarize or something like that). I'm sure things are subject to change and can make it to where the legal system can work like that.

[footfoot]

Dr2005: Letting you know I read your post. I hope to respond when I have more time. But, mostly, you made relevant points - esp on the legalities/specificities.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Brandon

I see what you're saying, but I can also disagree. If abortions were made illegal and only allowed women who were raped to have abortions, then I'm sure that they could create some kind of court system that dealt with rapes specifically (like some, or most...not sure, colleges have a court system if you plagiarize or something like that). I'm sure things are subject to change and can make it to where the legal system can work like that.

I guess but I just don't think it's logical. I mean rape is not only one of the most under reported crimes, but it's so he said she said. There would be too many holes, not only could women accuse men they had consensual sex with of rape, but woman who were really raped might lose their cases anyway, and then they'd be stuck. I think it would just be the worst thing for our justice system to do.

EDIT: Also you are assuming that the rapist gets caught in the first place. While the majority of rapes are committed by someone the victim knows that doesn't mean that the victim sees who attacked them. And what about statutory rape?

[Brandon]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

I guess but I just don't think it's logical. I mean rape is not only one of the most under reported crimes, but it's so he said she said. There would be too many holes, not only could women accuse men they had consensual sex with of rape, but woman who were really raped might lose their cases anyway, and then they'd be stuck. I think it would just be the worst thing for our justice system to do.

That's exactly my point. It's much easier to find evidence when someone commits vehicular manslaughter. They don't get charged with murder, they get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Even though both are involved with killing someone. But rape, you can't always provide evidence that proves you were raped. So really, rape should have nothing to do with whether you should get an abortion or not. It'd just be endless amounts of paperwork and hours dedicated to the court system, and by that time..your baby could be several months old. I'm pretty sure that if you were raped and ended up pregnant, you'd probably want to get rid of the baby as fast as possible (unless by some divine miracle you wanted to keep the baby). Limiting abortions to only women (or even MEN!) who were raped would make the process much more difficult, much more expensive, more time consuming, etc. It just wouldn't work.

[bitesize]

I also think that if we didn't have abortion there would be a lot more suicides.
When I get the option to vote to make it legal in Ireland I'm voting yes.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by bitesize

I also think that if we didn't have abortion there would be a lot more suicides.
When I get the option to vote to make it legal in Ireland I'm voting yes.

Oh there'd be a lot more consequences than that. I remember an episode of Law and Order where this teenage girl got pregnant and she went to an abortion clinic, but it was actually run by pro-lifers that would tell women they were too far along to get an abortion. So out of desperation the girl had her boyfriend beat her until she miscarried. I think that people underestimate how desperate some women get.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by Rylan

I'm pro life.

Everyone deserves a 2nd chance, and when people have sex, they should know that using birth control isn't 100%, and if they do end up pregnant, they need to deal with the consequences and "face the music"..

What if they were raped? Or what if they wanted the baby, but it could possibly kill the mother, or make her severely ill? And I really dont think a child should be a 'consequence,' a child should be brought into this world because it is wanted and it will 'complete the family,' how would you feel if you were a mistake?

[Lugez]

Sorry I haven't been around. First week of school. Running everywhere. Sleep. Blah.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

It may be the people having sex's fault, but I don't see why that would make a good reason not to have an abortion if they were taking steps not to get pregnant. If people get into an accident while driving their car, people would not expect them to not seek medical treatment because they knew the risks of driving and they caused an accident

I'm not saying it's a reason to not have an abortion. I'm saying it shouldn't even be a factor. A baby is coming, whether it's their fault or not.

But to tell you my opinion on the matter, let me word this differently....When you have sex, you ALWAYS risk making a baby no matter what steps you take to ensure that doesn't happen. If you have sex, you're willing to take that risk. If you don't want to take that risk or if you don't understand this, then you probably shouldn't be having sex (yeah i know. shoulda, coulda, woulda. People will do it anyway).

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

The difference between machines and the mother is that the mother is a person (notice usage of person, not human.) Being a person is not the same as being a human. Genetics isn't enough. Having a heart beat isn't enough. There are people who are removed from life support because they do not have the higher brain functioning. There are people removed because their brain stems are still operating but there is no higher brain functioning. Being a person is more than just having human genes.

A person is more than genetics though. We are not agreeing on what defines a person. Based off of your argument, no one would ever be able to be taken off of life support if their heart is beating even if they are brain dead.

The fetus does quickly develop these functions though. A person in ICU may be permanently damaged and can't recover, which is why they are euthanized.

Euthanasia is a different discussion though. They take them off life-support because the person has 0 chance of recovery.

And you know what, let's assume you're right. A heart beat may not be all that is required for a person. However, the MAJOR difference is that a fetus doesn't sit in the mother forever. The fetus will eventually grow into a baby and, perhaps, become a productive member of society after some years.

To go back to the ICU example, aborting would be like saying "Oh, this man is going to recover in 9 months but for the time being he's brain dead...So let's unplug him."

If he's guaranteed to recover in 9 months, then why kill him? You deny that man his future life, whereas with abortion you deny the fetus to even have a chance at life.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

While giving them a chance is nice in theory, but who will take responsibility for the child? There are already enough children who do not have the best opportunities, good role models, someone to help them with their school work, and someone to ensure they are having the best medical care that is possible. I'd rather focus on the children and adults that are already living in poor conditions than to add another person to them and say "We'll we're giving you a chance at life so be grateful."

This is where we think about solutions, and I have the same concerns as you do in the bold part. I'll admit, I think making abortion illegal tomorrow could cause some problems. In the meantime, I would want more resources dedicated to helping the mother raise her child, as well as a better adoption system. I want to eventually encourage mothers to have their children and not kill them.

But like I said before...I believe that no matter how shitty one's life is, they're going to want to keep living anyway.

Originally Posted by MisplacedDreamer

It is about her body though because the potential human life cannot survive on its own.

I believe measuring what human life is by "whether it can live on it's own" isn't justifiable. We're all dependent on something, whether it's food, air, water, etc. Or what about all those people in the hospitals, and those people recovering by those machines that we talked about before, or those who take medicine daily? In the end, us humans rely on alot of things to keep us alive, just like a fetus. Whether or not it can live on it's own shouldn't be a factor in determining what a human life is.

Fact of the matter is: There is life growing in her body, and she needs to take that into account. I sway on this issue alot, but I've always held my ground on this point.

"The unborn is an embryo or a fetus-just a simple blob of tissue, a product of conception-not a baby. Abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child."

3a. Like toddler and adolescent, the terms embryo and fetus do not refer to nonhumans, but to humans at particular stages of development.
3b. Semantics affect perceptions, but they do not change realities; a baby is a baby no matter what we call her.
3c. From the moment of conception, the unborn is not simple but very complex.
3d. Prior to the first trimester, the unborn already has every body part she will ever have.
3e. Every abortion stops a beating heart and terminates measurable brain waves.
3f. Even in the earliest surgical abortions, the unborn child is clearly human in appearance.
3g. Even before the unborn is obviously human in appearance, she is what she is-a human being.
3h. No matter how much better it sounds, "terminating a pregnancy" is still terminating a life.


17. "'Every child a wanted child.' It's unfair to children to bring them into a world where they're not wanted."

17a. Every child is wanted by someone-there is no such thing as an unwanted child.
17b. There is a difference between an unwanted pregnancy and an unwanted child.
17c. "Unwanted" describes not a condition of the child but an attitude of adults.
17d. The problem of unwantedness is a good argument for wanting children, but a poor argument for eliminating them.
17e. What is most unfair to "unwanted" children is to kill them

Just wanted to quote this. Very very good points here.

For the umpteenth time: A child should not be a consequence!
"Mommy where did I come from?"
"Well you came from me after my protecton failed, and I was forced to deal with the consequence, which was you."

So we shouldn't give the child life because his/her feelings may get hurt when they learn they were a mistake? Oh please. I know people who have been adopted and they said "yeah, I was a mistake, mom didn't want me I guess. But I'm here now, see? I'm glad they didn't abort me." They eventually overcome it and live good lives. I don't think it hurts as much as you make it out.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lugez

So we shouldn't give the child life because his/her feelings may get hurt when they learn they were a mistake? Oh please. I know people who have been adopted and they said "yeah, I was a mistake, mom didn't want me I guess. But I'm here now, see? I'm glad they didn't abort me." They eventually overcome it and live good lives. I don't think it hurts as much as you make it out.

We are not deying a child life. We are stoping an embryo from developing into a child, and yes there is a difference. Is an embryo alive? Yes in the same way your kidney or your liver is alive. The ONLY difference is that an embryo MAY become a life, unless something happens. But it is NOT a child ad therefore is not entitled to the same rights as one, and certainly not more rights than girl old enough to have a child.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

We are not deying a child life. We are stoping an embryo from developing into a child, and yes there is a difference. Is an embryo alive? Yes in the same way your kidney or your liver is alive. The ONLY difference is that an embryo MAY become a life, unless something happens. But it is NOT a child ad therefore is not entitled to the same rights as one, and certainly not more rights than girl old enough to have a child.

I can't say this any other way, but you're incorrect. A liver or kidney is not in any way similar to a developing fetus. For one, a fetus is constantly developing and becoming a baby. Just because it is still developing doesn't make it any less than a human.

You can't say that an embryo is not human, but then 1 month later it is. That doesn't make any sense to me. You can't "not be human" for a short amount of time. Either you are, or aren't.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lugez

I can't say this any other way, but you're incorrect. A liver or kidney is not in any way similar to a developing fetus. For one, a fetus is constantly developing and becoming a baby. Just because it is still developing doesn't make it any less than a human.

You can't say that an embryo is not human, but then 1 month later it is. That doesn't make any sense to me. You can't "not be human" for a short amount of time. Either you are, or aren't.

Oh no you're right. And embryo is human that's a fact. Just like your liver or kidney is human. But there is a difference between human and a person, and a fetus is NOT a person.

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Oh no you're right. And embryo is human that's a fact. Just like your liver or kidney is human. But there is a difference between human and a person, and a fetus is NOT a person.

Gonna have to disagree with you here.

All humans are people. All people are human...Saying he's a "human" but not a "person" makes no sense to me.

I could be wrong. I'm willing to see the argument that humans aren't people. Could you explain this further?

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by Lugez

Gonna have to disagree with you here.

All humans are people. All people are human...Saying he's a "human" but not a "person" makes no sense to me.

I could be wrong. I'm willing to see the argument that humans aren't people. Could you explain this further?

Ok I will try. First of all I put A human on the same level as A person. However both of those things are different than being human (note the absence of the article "a"). Now all it takes to be human is having human DNA. So when someone finds a hair it could be human, or it could be from a dog. Your liver is human, your skin is human, and an embryo is human. But there is more to being a person than having human DNA. Things such as communication skills (that doesn't always mean talking).

[hopefaithlove]

[quote=thebigmole;472718]You went to a religious school didn't you? I only ask because you don't seem to know much about abortion at all.


Point 1: please look up the definition of murder, you do not seem to know it.





[quote]
I don't appreciate you talking to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. I've studied and researched abortion for months at a time. I know the meaning of murder and I know that an abortion is murder. Thank you though.

[hopefaithlove]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

Even if the fetus is seriously ill or dead and is affecting the mother's health? If the girl is impregnated from rape she should have to live with the rapist growing inside of her and having the child out of rape? There are reasons for it. Abortion isn't murder because murder as far as I know applies to a person and a fetus is not considered a person in law. Abortion is killing, it's death, it's ending a human's life, all those are true but it is not murder.



I agree, you must be prepared for the consequences but the condom breaking is not their fault. The condom shouldn't break, it's designed not to break, there's quality control to test that it doesn't break but sometimes there are errors. What is your point in that sex is meant to reproduce? Are you suggesting sex should be unprotected?

Condoms break more than people realize actually. You'd be surprised. I know a bunch of people who have had condoms break.

Of course sex is meant to reproduce. And no sex should not be unprotected but it should only happen when a married couple is ready for a baby.

[Imagine]

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

Condoms break more than people realize actually. You'd be surprised. I know a bunch of people who have had condoms break.

Of course sex is meant to reproduce. And no sex should not be unprotected but it should only happen when a married couple is ready for a baby.

..... This..

[Casey.]

Must I really tell you guys to keep this less personal, more of a debate? Debate the subject, not the person. Let's try to play nice, yes? Thank you :]

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by thebigmole

Ok I will try. First of all I put A human on the same level as A person. However both of those things are different than being human (note the absence of the article "a"). Now all it takes to be human is having human DNA. So when someone finds a hair it could be human, or it could be from a dog. Your liver is human, your skin is human, and an embryo is human. But there is more to being a person than having human DNA. Things such as communication skills (that doesn't always mean talking).

So basically, a person is able to make rational thoughts and philosophize, while a human is just our biological aspects? This is what I get out of this, so I'll respond.

I disagree with this. As said before, a liver/skin is not the same as an embryo. The liver helps sustain a human life, while an embryo will eventually grow into a human being. You can say a liver or a piece of hair is human. I'm fine with this. But the problem is that I don't see how an embryo fits in the same category. It's not just another organ like the liver or skin. It's a developing person, and abortion essentially cuts off any future development. This is what I believe is wrong.

Of course sex is meant to reproduce. And no sex should not be unprotected but it should only happen when a married couple is ready for a baby.

I agree....But we need to think realistically here. I hate arguing "shoulds." People are still going to have sex for pleasure, not for a baby. It's just a basic fact of life.

[Xujhan]

Originally Posted by Lugez

So we shouldn't give the child life because his/her feelings may get hurt when they learn they were a mistake? Oh please. I know people who have been adopted and they said "yeah, I was a mistake, mom didn't want me I guess. But I'm here now, see? I'm glad they didn't abort me." They eventually overcome it and live good lives. I don't think it hurts as much as you make it out.

This argument is very fallacious. You can't say that everyone would prefer life to non-life and thus we're obligated to bring life into the world. If that argument held up under scrutiny, then simply being not pregnant would be nearly as irresponsible and selfish a choice as abortion; it's a missed opportunity to bring life into the world.

Originally Posted by Lugez

This is where we think about solutions, and I have the same concerns as you do in the bold part. I'll admit, I think making abortion illegal tomorrow could cause some problems. In the meantime, I would want more resources dedicated to helping the mother raise her child, as well as a better adoption system. I want to eventually encourage mothers to have their children and not kill them.

What specifically is it about killing that makes it morally wrong, in your eyes? We don't condemn all forms of killing, so an argument like that needs to take a step back and examine the reasons for which we consider some types of killing okay and others not, and see how those reasons apply to abortion.

[Imagine]

How come no one wants to quote me?
Did i prove my points well at least? lol

[Lugez]

Originally Posted by Xujhan

This argument is very fallacious. You can't say that everyone would prefer life to non-life and thus we're obligated to bring life into the world. If that argument held up under scrutiny, then simply being not pregnant would be nearly as irresponsible and selfish a choice as abortion; it's a missed opportunity to bring life into the world.

I can say that the VAST majority of people would prefer life to non-life. I really only have experience to attest to this, and can't back it up, sure. If this weren't true though, most people would just commit suicide or have complete disregard for their own safety/not care if they live or die.

And nowhere in my post did I say that people are "obligated to reproduce." That's not what I'm saying. If you don't want kids, that's fine with me. More power to you. What I'm against is denying a life that is already here.

Originally Posted by Xujhan

What specifically is it about killing that makes it morally wrong, in your eyes? We don't condemn all forms of killing, so an argument like that needs to take a step back and examine the reasons for which we consider some types of killing okay and others not, and see how those reasons apply to abortion.

To put it simply: In any situation, I'm against the killing of an innocent life. And I always consider the fetus to be innocent.

But, I understand it's not that simple sometimes. For example, I haven't touched upon what should happen if there is a significant chance that the baby will kill the mother during childbirth. Here, I consider both the mother and the baby innocent. But it doesn't matter, because one life must be chosen. I refuse to decide who is more important than the other. I think the decision should fall on the mother in this case. Yeah, she may deny a child life but she has to save her own ass too.

[thebigmole]

Originally Posted by hopefaithlove

I don't appreciate you talking to me like I don't know what I'm talking about. I've studied and researched abortion for months at a time. I know the meaning of murder and I know that an abortion is murder. Thank you though.

I never said you didn't know anything about abortion. However since the definition of murder is: the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought. Abortion is not a crime, and it is not even the killing of a person, I do not put a person on the same level a a embryo, and neither does the law, and before you start telling me about how a person can be convicted of double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, please look up the laws because they pretty much all only cover that once the fetus is to a point beyond the age abortions are allowed. Because of all of this abortion does not equal murder. Your argument would be much stronger if you said LIKE murder.

Also in response to your other post, you said that sex should only happen between married people who are ready for a baby, I really think you need to think about and then amend that statement. Because you are condeming anyone who does not wish to have children to celebacy, not to mention infertile people, or people too old to have children. Not to mention people who don't believe in marriage, and while they may be in a long committed relationship never want to get married. Also VERY few married couples plan their children. Very few people say, okay now I'm ready to have kids. You just get married and then it happens, and often the couple is very happy and has their child but that doesn't mean they thought they were ready to have children. And what does that even mean? Some 15 year old girls think they are ready to have a baby that doesn't mean they are.

[Rise]

Originally Posted by emma01

What if they were raped? Or what if they wanted the baby, but it could possibly kill the mother, or make her severely ill? And I really dont think a child should be a 'consequence,' a child should be brought into this world because it is wanted and it will 'complete the family,' how would you feel if you were a mistake?

I didn't mean to consider a child a consequence, I just meant that every child should have an equal chance to succedd no matter the outcome.

Not to be sarcastic or anything, but as for rape and etc, thats why they have adoptions/foster homes.

Abortions is just like murder, to terminate the life, the doctors must forcefully remove the baby, body part by body part. I'm sure no one want to die like that?

[Tara.]

Abortions should only be allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

[Rise]

Originally Posted by WOW!USaidSomethingSmart!

as far as I know applies to a person and a fetus is not considered a person in law. Abortion is killing, it's death, it's ending a human's life, all those are true but it is not murder.
I agree, you must be prepared for the consequences but the condom breaking is not their fault. The condom shouldn't break, it's designed not to break, there's quality control to test that it doesn't break but sometimes there are errors. What is your point in that sex is meant to reproduce? Are you suggesting sex should be unprotected?
.

You should stop calling other people hypocrites and back up your facts.

Who are you to say that a fetus is not a living thing?. Do you actually know what your talking about? If a fetus is not a living organism, why dont you tell us what it's called?

If a condom breaks, it's most defintly there fault, if you ever bought a box of condoms, you would see that it states "Helps reduce the risk of pregnancy", no where does it say it prevents it.

Can you prove your theory thats there testing going around for condoms?

Have you every participated in a heated debate? If you did, you would know that you need to back your facts and don't call people names unless you have a valid excuse for ir

[losing touch.]

Originally Posted by Spider*man(girl)

Abortions should only be allowed in the cases of rape or incest.

a lot of people who are raped are too traumatised to report it.. or by the time they have reported it it's too late for them to get an abortion. plus, rape can be hard to prove.

your suggestion would probably cause a lot of women to either make false rape accusations (which could ruin the mans life) or go for some dodgy backstreet abortion. in short.. it wouldn't work.