The abortion debate

[Nadril]

 

I think that abortion is murder. after all, why is it legal to kill the baby before it leaves the womb, but once its born it then becomes a crime to kill it? Its a human from its conception. if its not human, what is it?

 

 

 

The only exception i'd say in abortion is in rape. the baby is born because of a malicious crime, not an act of love. other then that, even as an "accident", theres no excuse. don't have sex if you're not ready for the kid. Babies these days are treated as consequences, not gifts. They're "accidents" or even objects that you might not like and throw away. Want the pleasure of sex? go ahead, tiger. Don't wanna use protection? thats fine too. Got a kid because of it? Kill it.

 

 

 

 

 

"Killing" something that can not or has never felt or thought before really is not murder. Yes, it has the potential to become a child, but its the same thing roughly as if someone is wearing a condom. Think about it, the condom is destroying the potential of a child as well, and acording to a lot of you that would be the same thing.

 

 

 

 

 

The fact is, aborting after the period where a fetus starts to feel is murder, aborting before that period is not. It's a fairly clear line to draw.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And why is it that everyone too is automatically assuming that if you use protection = you won't have a kid. Yeah, most likely you won't but as I said before, accidents happen.

[meol]

~So, a thread back from 2004, when the Sith was a mod, and Lionheart wrote leik a nubz.~

 

 

 

The only exception i'd say in abortion is in rape. the baby is born because of a malicious crime, not an act of love.

 

Let's say I'm in a wild party, OK? Both me and this girl that has a crush on me get too drunk, and have sex. The girl gets pregnant and drops out of school because the insults of her classmates and the economic burden a child is. Of course, the mother will unconsciously hate the child because of what he caused to her, etc. The child will have no responsible parent figures to look up to, he won't be loved as he ought to.

 

 

 

That baby wouldn't be the affect of an act of love, would it? According to your argument, why shouldn't the girl get the chance to undergo abortion?

[Powman3]

I do not agree with abortions, but it is the mother's choice in the matter.

[insane]

~So, a thread back from 2004, when the Sith was a mod, and Lionheart wrote leik a nubz.~

 

 

 

The only exception i'd say in abortion is in rape. the baby is born because of a malicious crime, not an act of love.

 

Let's say I'm in a wild party, OK? Both me and this girl that has a crush on me get too drunk, and have sex. The girl gets pregnant and drops out of school because the insults of her classmates and the economic burden a child is. Of course, the mother will unconsciously hate the child because of what he caused to her, etc. The child will have no responsible parent figures to look up to, he won't be loved as he ought to.

 

 

 

That baby wouldn't be the affect of an act of love, would it? According to your argument, why shouldn't the girl get the chance to undergo abortion?

 

 

 

Fortunately for your scenario, this isn't a "become a parent or abort" situation; there are other alternatives. Don't present false dilemmas as good arguments.

[Olbritishchap]

I think it's wrong. It's really the same thing as murder, and if a woman can't handle a baby, put it up for adoption. At least that way the baby gets to live...

[rushrock]

I think that it's perfectly reasonable once you draw that solid line between when a fetus feels pain and when it doesn't. Life isn't so black and white that you can say "Oh, all babies need to live and people need to be more careful." There are lots of complications with everything. So I'm for abortion.

[meol]

~So, a thread back from 2004, when the Sith was a mod, and Lionheart wrote leik a nubz.~

 

 

 

The only exception i'd say in abortion is in rape. the baby is born because of a malicious crime, not an act of love.

 

Let's say I'm in a wild party, OK? Both me and this girl that has a crush on me get too drunk, and have sex. The girl gets pregnant and drops out of school because the insults of her classmates and the economic burden a child is. Of course, the mother will unconsciously hate the child because of what he caused to her, etc. The child will have no responsible parent figures to look up to, he won't be loved as he ought to.

 

 

 

That baby wouldn't be the affect of an act of love, would it? According to your argument, why shouldn't the girl get the chance to undergo abortion?

 

 

 

Fortunately for your scenario, this isn't a "become a parent or abort" situation; there are other alternatives. Don't present false dilemmas as good arguments.

 

Of course there are other alternatives. I'm just trying to revoke the other argument, where the baby wasn't caused by an act of love. Remember you can also put a baby on adoption after a rape.

[ctp080188]

Aww what memories, one of my first ever posts was in this thread, depressing as that post is. Wow I used to type so much better that I do now. And I got insulted hard by a guy called pianofriek wtf.

 

 

 

Lmao at Aarons spelling ahhhahahahaa.

[mrmyk]

I think that it's perfectly reasonable once you draw that solid line between when a fetus feels pain and when it doesn't. Life isn't so black and white that you can say "Oh, all babies need to live and people need to be more careful." There are lots of complications with everything. So I'm for abortion.

 

 

 

I think in most cases that is one of the key debates. However, it is extremely tough to figure out when the fetus feels pain or not.

[NorthernHero]

ABORTION = MURDER

 

the baby is human, and seperate from mother

 

they sometimes have different blood types

 

they have different DNA

 

they can act, and react

 

People like u make me sick. The small thing that is aborted is not human. It's their own decission if they want to keep it or not, people like you shouting around it's a murder just makes the things worse and gives people than don't know it well moral pains. Just mind your own bussiness..

 

And most of the times it's better that they are aborted because the girl is either too young to be mother or has bad money situation or something else that would make the childs live not good.

 

 

 

I quote myself from year 2004 FTW!

[warri0r45]

Wow.. old thread.

 

 

 

Anyway I'm not against it. It's never moved me to uptake the pro-life position.

 

 

 

The interesting thing aside from the moral issues involved is that making it illegal will not stop it from occuring. Far from it, actually. Contraception seems to be the best way to stop it.

 

 

 

http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/200 ... ate.91.pdf

 

 

 

Key stats and observations:

Panel 1: Definitions of safe and unsafe abortion

 

 

 

Safe abortions

 

Abortions (a) in countries where abortion law is not restrictive,* and (B) that meet legal requirements in countries where the law is restrictive.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâà

 

 

 

Unsafe abortions

 

Abortions done either by people lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimum medical standards, or both. These include (a) abortions in countries where the law is restrictive and (B) abortions that do not meet legal requirements in countries where the law is not restrictive.

 

 

 

*Defined as countries in which abortion is legally permitted for social or economic reasons or without specification as to reason, and a few countries and territories with more restrictive formal laws in which safe abortion is nevertheless broadly available.

 

 

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâàSuch abortions are currently too few to be included in these estimates.

42 million abortions occured worldwide in 2003 down from 46 million in 1995.

 

 

 

6.6 million of these occured in developed countries while 35 million occured in developing countries, the biggest decline of the two was from developed countries (down from 10 million in 1995 while developing countries are only down from 35.5 million in 1995).

 

 

 

Abortion rate in 2003 was 29 per 1000 (for women ages 15-44 years) down from 35 per 1000 in 1995.

 

 

 

Abortion rates in developed countries where abortion is predominantly safe (6.1 of the 6.6 million abortions are safe) were 26 per 1000 in 2003, below the world average.

 

 

 

Abortion rates in developing countries where abortion is mostly unsafe (19.2 of the 35 million abortions are unsafe) were 29 per 1000 in 2003, at the world average.

 

 

 

The sharpest decline in abortion rates worldwide from 1995 to 2003 was in eastern Europe where it lowered from 90 per 1000 to 44 per 1000.

 

 

 

Almost half of all abortions in 2003 were unsafe (19.7 million from 41.6 million).

The abortion rate per 1000 women was lowest in western Europe (12), and was also quite low in northern and southern Europe (17ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Ãâ18) and Oceania (17). In these geographic areas, most abortions were legal and abortion incidence had been low for decades.20 Northern America also had a low abortion rate of 21. Of the subregions in which most abortions were legal, two showed continued high rates of abortion: eastern Europe at 44, and to a lesser extent, eastern Asia at 28. Although the rate in the

 

eastern European region has fallen substantially in recent years, it remains higher than in any other region.

The most pronounced change was in countries of the former Soviet Union (principally consisting of eastern Europe, but also including a few countries in northern Europe, southcentral Asia, and western Asia).1,8 Although the magnitude of this decline might be overestimated because abortions were increasingly being done in the private sector and the incidence of such procedures might be underestimated, the reduction in abortion rates did coincide with substantial increases in contraceptive use in the region.21,22 With respect to family planning, the Soviet era was characterised by restricted access to contraceptive services, combined with the availability of abortion services at little or no cost to the woman.23 Since that time, the efforts of international donors and governmental agencies have resulted in improved access to contraceptive information and supplies,21 whereas the cost of abortion has increased in many settings.23 Although abortion rates and ratios in the countries of the former Soviet Union have fallen substantially in recent years, the rates in eastern Europe remain higher than in any other region. This finding suggests the need for continued improvements in and expansion of contraceptive service provision. The widespread preference for small families in this region indicates a high level of need for effective contraception.21,24

Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively (panel 1). The findings presented here indicate that unrestrictive abortion laws do not predict a high incidence of abortion, and by the same token, highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence. Indeed, both the highest and lowest abortion rates were seen in regions where abortion is almost uniformly legal under a wide range of circumstances. Results of previous studies have shown a strong correlation between abortion and contraception use such that, in settings with steady fertility rates over time, abortion incidence declines as contraceptive use increases.26 An analysis of trends in eastern Europe and western and south-central Asia indicates that this pattern is evident in those regions.22

 

Speaks for itself really - blindly bashing dogma and protesting for illegality isn't the way to go, no matter whose ideology it is. It's really.. interesting the attitude of some catholics on this issue - against abortion vehemently yet also against condoms? :-k

[Guest]

The fact is, aborting after the period where a fetus starts to feel is murder, aborting before that period is not. It's a fairly clear line to draw.

 

 

 

Its far from a clear line to draw. Its got a heartbeat the fetus is a living creature. Its killing, abortion (literally its killing) and therefore you could say its 'murder.'

 

 

 

Preventing the birth of a child by using a condom doesn't create a living creature with a brain and heartbeat, which then you don't have to kill.

 

 

 

Unless a child is born from rape, I see an abortion as definitely a wrong thing to do, no matter how old the child (or fetus) is.

[ctp080188]

I can honestly say that none of you are qualified to make a decision until you are in the position yourself. It's not like abortions are fun, and aneasy way out. It's crippling to your mind. It's a terrible decision to make, for those that have them, I'm pretty sure they're all aware that the foetus is alive, and an abortion will diminish that life, and if you decide to have an abortion, that decision will forever stay with you. Regret however, is not a part of my vocabulary.

[NorthernHero]

I am pro abortion.

 

 

 

The thing I don't get, many pro-life people been saying, that otherwise it's not ok but when it's rape the "murder" is suddenly ok. So basically if you get raped you can kill someone inconent? :-k

[warri0r45]

The fact is, aborting after the period where a fetus starts to feel is murder, aborting before that period is not. It's a fairly clear line to draw.

 

 

 

Its far from a clear line to draw. Its got a heartbeat the fetus is a living creature. Its killing, abortion (literally its killing) and therefore you could say its 'murder.'

 

 

 

Preventing the birth of a child by using a condom doesn't create a living creature with a brain and heartbeat, which then you don't have to kill.

 

 

 

Unless a child is born from rape, I see an abortion as definitely a wrong thing to do, no matter how old the child (or fetus) is.

 

 

 

(note that I trail off towards the end so not all of this is necessarily responding to you, eels)

 

 

 

Just curious, would you see killing a fertilized egg as murder? The point is you may see drawing the line in a grey area as kind of nuts but to someone like me, seeing a zygote as a human being with the same rights as a full grown adult would be likewise nuts. I've seen a logical justification for the position of 'conception afterwards is murder because it's a person' yet for me a prime candidate for being a person would be some form of brain function. And yes, people in comas, the mentally handicapped and the unconscious all have brain function. If your EEG (electroencephalogram) reading flatlines, you are legally dead.

 

 

 

But then there's that grey area.

 

 

 

It's a difficult issue, no doubt. For me, the earlier in the pregnancy and the less often, the better (and using it as another form of contraception is just a weak attitude). I personally don't think dictating to a woman that she's morally obliged to carry her child to birth is the way to deal with the issue. As I've said in the above post, I'd be looking at something more pragmatic and useful like contraception.

 

 

 

But as a matter of principle, I've got nothing really against pro-lifers. I just think the whole dogma bashing side of it is a really pathetic way to go and actually plays against them if your aim is to actually limit abortion rates. Like I say, the attitude of some catholics against abortion and condoms is just nuts to me. Likewise, the attitude of some pro-lifers dead against abortion being legal neglects the fact that illegality is not correlated with abortion rate and it overshadows something more likely to help the problem. Both cases of particular dogmas neglecting what I'd consider very important issues.

 

 

 

But then I've got my own personal dogma or lack of opposition (or lack of compassion, to some people) to abortion on a whole. When running a government and forming a law, it's my opinion that neither mine nor a pro-lifers attitudes towards the issue should be taken and the other neglected. Overall, to me data and studies should be the focus of policy making, but that's secondary to some as to whatever moral position you happen to take on the issue.

[amalgam]

pro-choice. no-one has the right to use my body without my consent.

[StrOwez]

pro-choice. no-one has the right to use my body without my consent.

some may argue that a foetus is a potential body and aborting it means killing it without its consent.

 

 

 

I don't really have a stance on abortion but I'm all for sexual education and protection to cut down on it.

[Flame_guy3]

thats really sad, you cant say the bible cant be applied to modern day society because its scriptures like the Bible (Christian), Qu'ran(Muslim), Bhagavat Gita(Hindu) that stops the world from descending into complete anarchy. Every country has been united by religion in some way people argue that people are divided by religion more than united.

 

 

 

I agree you need to allow abortions to let the world be 'free'. But there are certain things that should not be allowed. Therefore none of us can truly be free unless the world goes into a state of anarchy.

 

 

 

We'll never be free because we will always be governed by one power. This one power whether it is elected democratically or has captured the hearts of people through his words and the teachings (holy books) is still one power.

 

 

 

Teachings in any religion and holy book follows the same trend. Trying to supress the brutal, savage nature of man by giving him guidelines in the way he should live his life, make himself happy without hurting others...

[Nadril]

thats really sad, you cant say the bible cant be applied to modern day society because its scriptures like the Bible (Christian), Qu'ran(Muslim), Bhagavat Gita(Hindu) that stops the world from descending into complete anarchy. Every country has been united by religion in some way people argue that people are divided by religion more than united.

 

 

 

I agree you need to allow abortions to let the world be 'free'. But there are certain things that should not be allowed. Therefore none of us can truly be free unless the world goes into a state of anarchy.

 

 

 

We'll never be free because we will always be governed by one power. This one power whether it is elected democratically or has captured the hearts of people through his words and the teachings (holy books) is still one power.

 

 

 

Teachings in any religion and holy book follows the same trend. Trying to supress the brutal, savage nature of man by giving him guidelines in the way he should live his life, make himself happy without hurting others...

 

 

 

Wow, what a load of bull. You actually think that athiests or those who don't follow these religious writings would soon lead the world to anarchy? You actually think that we don't have any sort of 'morals' so that if no one in the world was religious morals would just, you know, go away?

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the facts, ok? Humans have little things called laws. These are not dictated by some 'holy book' and are put into place for the good of humanity. If there was no religion we can still have order, the two don't just go hand in hand.

 

 

 

Does religion teach morals? Yes. But do the two come together? No. Anyone with a good head on their shoulders knows between right and wrong, and can keep up a good moral upbringing even without religion. One could say, for example, that religion really is just causing more seperations between ourselves and more reasons for violence. I'm not saying I think this is true, but saying that it seems to follow some of the same logic.

[Flame_guy3]

thats really sad, you cant say the bible cant be applied to modern day society because its scriptures like the Bible (Christian), Qu'ran(Muslim), Bhagavat Gita(Hindu) that stops the world from descending into complete anarchy. Every country has been united by religion in some way people argue that people are divided by religion more than united.

 

 

 

I agree you need to allow abortions to let the world be 'free'. But there are certain things that should not be allowed. Therefore none of us can truly be free unless the world goes into a state of anarchy.

 

 

 

We'll never be free because we will always be governed by one power. This one power whether it is elected democratically or has captured the hearts of people through his words and the teachings (holy books) is still one power.

 

 

 

Teachings in any religion and holy book follows the same trend. Trying to supress the brutal, savage nature of man by giving him guidelines in the way he should live his life, make himself happy without hurting others...

 

 

 

Wow, what a load of bull. You actually think that athiests or those who don't follow these religious writings would soon lead the world to anarchy? You actually think that we don't have any sort of 'morals' so that if no one in the world was religious morals would just, you know, go away?

 

 

 

 

 

Here is the facts, ok? Humans have little things called laws. These are not dictated by some 'holy book' and are put into place for the good of humanity. If there was no religion we can still have order, the two don't just go hand in hand.

 

 

 

Does religion teach morals? Yes. But do the two come together? No. Anyone with a good head on their shoulders knows between right and wrong, and can keep up a good moral upbringing even without religion. One could say, for example, that religion really is just causing more seperations between ourselves and more reasons for violence. I'm not saying I think this is true, but saying that it seems to follow some of the same logic.

Has it occured to even THINK for a second where these laws come from?

[Satenza]

 

Teachings in any religion and holy book follows the same trend. Trying to supress the brutal, savage nature of man by giving him guidelines in the way he should live his life, make himself happy without hurting others...

 

 

 

You have a lovely view of human beings.

[Satenza]

Has it occured to even THINK for a second where these laws come from?

 

 

 

I hate this stupid argument its almost revolting.

[Flame_guy3]

Has it occured to even THINK for a second where these laws come from?

 

 

 

I hate this stupid argument its almost revolting.

Satenza stop thinking your some kind of God and higher human being than us. If your gonna stop the 'stupid argument' bring some rational argument of your own if its so revolting. If its almost revolting why dont you stop reading it and get the hell of these forums

[Rebdragon]

Satenza stop thinking your some kind of God and higher human being than us. If your gonna stop the 'stupid argument' bring some rational argument of your own if its so revolting. If its almost revolting why dont you stop reading it and get the hell of these forums

 

But your argument is so self-evidently incorrect that it doesn't even merit a second counterargument, considering you didn't even provide any rational reasoning to counter the first.

 

 

 

As Nadril said, do you seriously believe that religion is the one and only source of all order? Where do you think religion came from? ....possibly the morals already instilled in man before both religion and [complex] law were formed? Why the heck do you think those same morals that lead to laws have to go through the medium of religion? Why can laws and religion not be formed along two different paths, even if they often coexist and compliment each other?

[Flame_guy3]

Laws and Religion follow the same trend of Retribution. Being punished for sins or crimes you commit. Therefore it is rational to think Law came straight out of Religion. However unfair or fair it was.

 

 

 

If you read 'The Merchant of Venice' By Shakespeare you'll see the laws are anti-semittic (sp?) and pro christian. If this isn't based off religion then i dont know what is...

 

 

 

The world is based off Religion. What is Religion? A Person's beliefs.

 

 

 

Someone who is atheist still has beliefs, morals therefore he believes in a higher power who will punish him for doing wrong.

 

 

 

You can't deny that there isn't a higher power if its in logical or not logical to believe so. I'll say it now, i am an atheist but i do know that i am in fear of something. Everyone is afraid of something. And i am fearful of retribution. That is why i will not commit the crimes i have wished to many times.