Abortion

[Dizzle229]

Well, I do think keeping the baby shows responsibility so I'd definitely frown upon one who aborts - since 99% of the time they did have sex knowing the consequences in the first place. As for allowing it, I think we shouldn't limit people's choices based on some cloudy morality issues. Life can be unfair and cold; even to babies but that's just the way it goes.

 

 

 

I don't want to sound like a creep, but I honestly don't see why rape is so bad. People think it's horrible because that's what others taught them, but it's basically just like a wife not wanting to have sex with her husband. Isn't the human body meant to have sex and reproduce?

 

 

 

I hope you're talking about the days when the wife had no say-so about her marriage. But still, I don't get your point. How would you feel if you had a sister and she was raped by a creepy 40-year-old pervert?

 

 

 

I didn't really come out as clearly as I wanted to. I meant that I don't see why rape is so bad IF it's for children and not pleasure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So... you support rape but not abortion?

[1_man_army]

 

I meant that I don't see why rape is so bad IF it's for children and not pleasure.

 

 

 

You are a moron.

[deloriagod]

Abortion is so unnatural. It should not be allowed. If you've been raped at least have the baby and put it up for adoption. In my opinion, a crappy life is better than non at all.

 

 

 

Honestly, I'd rather be dead than live a terrible life.

[RichieMcD]

Abortion is so unnatural. It should not be allowed. If you've been raped at least have the baby and put it up for adoption. In my opinion, a crappy life is better than non at all.

 

 

 

How can you express such an opinion if you don't know what if would be like? No matter how horrible your life is I doubt it compares to the life of a child knowing their whole birth was a mistake, their mother never wanted them and their dad is a sick bastard. Many of us here who think they could imagine living life in their shoes simply can't as we hold no similarities to it.

[silver_wits]

 

I meant that I don't see why rape is so bad IF it's for children and not pleasure.

 

 

 

You are a moron.

 

 

 

he apologised already

[Nadril]

 

I meant that I don't see why rape is so bad IF it's for children and not pleasure.

 

 

 

You are a moron.

 

 

 

he apologised already

 

 

 

Really there is no apologizing for that, the guy essentially said that rape is ok.

[deloriagod]

 

I meant that I don't see why rape is so bad IF it's for children and not pleasure.

 

 

 

You are a moron.

 

 

 

he apologised already

 

 

 

Nobody is going to let him live this down though. And him apologizing doesn't change his opinion.

[silver_wits]

I think [or rather hope] he changed his opinion.

 

 

 

anyways, this was never a discussion about rape.. it's whether or not abortion should be legal or not

[DaN]

 

Ok. Hypothetical situation - let's say you got a woman pregnant and she wasn't ready to bring up the baby. She wanted an abortion, you want the child. Despite her wishes you make her keep the baby. For your sake she has to carry the baby for nine months, and the physical pain of giving birth, which may even kill her. Then the emotional torture of her holding your baby and knowing she'll have to give it up, a situation she'd never have been in if she had done as she wished.

 

Chances are she wouldn't be able to forget about what she had done, however much you say "I'll take all responsibility." I doubt she'll ever be able to forget about her child...

 

 

 

Do you know what its like to lose a child?

 

 

 

 

 

"and the physical pain of giving birth"

 

 

 

This isn't the 1970s any more,

 

I don't know any mothers in my generation who have experienced "pain" in child birth, things are done differently these days of course the traditional option still remains but that's the mothers choice.

 

 

 

Your arguing that it's better to lose the child, than to simply lose contact? Once the child is born if the mother changes her mind it's still legally her child it doesn't automatically get wiped from her past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am against abortion unless in extreme cases, such as rape. The moment the two cells have joined each other, I consider it a potential human being. I honestly see no difference in abortion and killing people in their sleeps. Neither of those currently know they exist.

 

 

 

 

The sperm in a condom is also a potential Human, is it not? (sorry thats probably borderline for this forum.)

 

 

 

Abortion is not the same as killing a living Human, it is still killing but that's the choice of the parents, they have the right to choose whether or not to allow the foetus to develop.

[Dizzle229]

I would love to hear what Goddess would have to say about this.

[Sly_Wizard]

Basically, if a person wants an abortion, they should get one because the child probably will not be wanted by the family.

 

 

 

No. That's little reason to have an abortion. In fact, that reason doesn't even hold water when used by one of the two genders.

 

 

 

Chances are, the baby can be dropped off at a foster home or even in the middle of no where. I mean, would you want a baby to die slowly and painfully of thirst and/or disease?

 

 

 

Death is not preferrable to life. All living things have a predisposition to living. That is, nothing wishes to die (Save those with extreme mental issues).

 

 

 

Or, would you prefer the child to go instantly before they even know what happened? There would be no sorrow from the child as they don't know what happened. In fact, at a certain stage, their brain hasn't fully developed enough to give consciousness.

 

 

 

This is ridiculous. I can't remember who said it, but someone (Maybe it was Carl Sagan) argued that, given this rationale, it'd be okay to kill an infant up to to two or so months old given the fact that they were yet to develop an active conscious (Which, in effect, really doesn't kick in until at least you're one years old). I highly doubt you'd agree to killing an infant up to a year old, much less two months old, for the simple fact that it has yet to develop "consciousness".

 

 

 

Another reason would be if a woman wants an abortion, they'll damn well get one, one way or another. They will go back in an alley and use many crude methods for an abortion. On that device, there can be AIDS, Hepatitis, and many more diseases that can be further spread into the main human population which can kill many more people. If not kill them, it will ruin their lives completely. That's if the woman is lucky. Chances are, the woman can get injured severely by doing this and can die.

 

 

 

Okay. I hate this argument.

 

 

 

According to WHO, a woman dies about every 8 minutes due to an illegal abortion, which correlates to 180 women a day, or 65,700 women a year. Approximately, there are about 20 million illegal abortions done per year. This means that approximately .3285% of all illegal abortions end in the death of the women. In other words, 99.6715% of all illegal abortions do NOT in the death of the female. Hell... For what it's worth, the illegal abortion rate has been declining since the late 1930's/early 1940's. Some people like to argue that the number of illegal abortions have been in decline since legalized abortion, yet they ignore the fact that the number of deaths due to illegal abortions have been in decline long before legalized abortions (And even had it's biggest decline in the years before illegal abortions).

 

 

 

 

(Only for the U.S.. Sorry for you folks not in the U.S., though I surmise the statistics would be about the same.)

 

 

 

As you can see, the biggest drops came before RvW. In fact, the drops were primarily the results of an increase in technology and medicine. To assume that making abortions illegal would reverse a trend (Or cause a new, negative trend) that began happening before legalized abortions is asinine and makes little sense.

 

 

 

What do you choose?

 

 

 

Life. Oh, and for what it's worth-- Because I know someone will undoubtedly use the "Life doesn't begin until 22 weeks!" argument-- "Viability" doesn't mean "Life starts here!". Stages of development are fairly arbitrary, because life does not suddenly begin at one stage, with everything before then being nothing. It's a continuation, from a zygote to blastocyst to an embryo to a fetus to a baby, etc..

 

 

 

Oh, for also what it's worth, rights are not, nor can they be, established based on gender. The fact that a woman would ever argue as much boggles my mind, as that's exactly what the early femininists argued against. If you believe that rights should be based on gender, then I'd like to remove the right for women to vote as, obviously, those should only be reserved for men. Obviously. :lol:

 

 

 

If anything, our world is overpopulated at the moment.

 

 

 

This ummm... Isn't true. At all. Currently, the world can house about 3x as many people as it currently holds (More than that, actually) and Africa itself has the potential to provide enough food for the world many times over. In fact, some of the countries with the highest abortion rates (The U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for instance) don't have the highest population densities 168, 48, and 224, respectively. Though, Australia does have the whole Outback thing going on...).

 

 

 

For all of you guys screaming out adoption, you know that there are a lot of kids out there already that haven't been adopted. Really just having a kid only to throw them in adoption, and most likely having to live in foster care for a good number of years, is just wrong. I'd rather people adopt kids already who need a better life.

 

 

 

Funny thing... As it turns out, legalized abortion has had a negative effect on the adoption rate. Pretty freaky, huh?

 

 

 

Honestly, most of the people who are pro-life never had to have an abortion. It's similar to the large amount of people who didn't play RuneScape, but call it stupid.

 

 

 

Wait... Pro-choice males can't have an abortion. So I guess their input is just as invalid as mine, huh?

 

 

 

(Okay. I think I'm done now.)

[DaN]

If anything, our world is overpopulated at the moment.

 

 

 

I have to agree, we are seeing the effects right now. The world cannot support our current population I hate to think of the problems in 20years time. Sooner or later we will have to address the population problem.

[Aneron]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

[DaN]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

 

 

 

But if the child has parents that don't want it, what sort of life is that? We need fewer prostitutes and junkies having children.

[Powman3]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

 

 

 

But if the child has parents that don't want it, what sort of life is that? We need fewer prostitutes and junkies having children.

 

 

 

Just because they want an abortion doesn't label them a junkie or a prostitute.

 

 

 

...Oh, wait, I forgot I was replying to a post from DaN. Silly me.

[Riku3220]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

 

 

 

But if the child has parents that don't want it, what sort of life is that? We need fewer prostitutes and junkies having children.

 

 

 

Well sometimes it is the opposite. My brother was born when my mom was 16 and he had a perfectly fine relationship with her.

[DaN]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

 

 

 

But if the child has parents that don't want it, what sort of life is that? We need fewer prostitutes and junkies having children.

 

 

 

Just because they want an abortion doesn't label them a junkie or a prostitute.

 

 

 

...Oh, wait, I forgot I was replying to a post from DaN. Silly me.

 

 

 

Before you reply and make yourself look like a presumptuous moron, you should read what your replying too.

[oegly41]

 

The sperm in a condom is also a potential Human, is it not? (sorry thats probably borderline for this forum.)

 

 

 

Abortion is not the same as killing a living Human, it is still killing but that's the choice of the parents, they have the right to choose whether or not to allow the foetus to develop.

 

Sperm can not develop without another organism, hence it is not a potential human. I know it might seem silly, but you have to draw a line somewhere. We know very little about when life starts; for all we know, a "soul" can be connected to the embryo once it is created.

 

 

 

 

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns growing up in a violent culture supporting capital punishment kill people. :P

[Aneron]

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

 

oh well

 

 

 

that said, I think it's absurd to say that a 10 week old baby isn't alive and a 30 week old baby is... they both end up becoming the same thing

 

 

 

But if the child has parents that don't want it, what sort of life is that? We need fewer prostitutes and junkies having children.

 

 

 

If the parents don't want the child, they can put him/her up for adoption... although not pleasant, it would encourage people to be more careful (I know it is not always the fault of the parents, but too much of the time it is). I think most people who grew up in orphanages would say that it is preferable to dying.

 

 

 

 

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns growing up in a violent culture supporting capital punishment kill people. :P

 

 

 

With the help of guns. If you take guns out of the equation, it becomes considerably more difficult. Guns do kill people.

[BlueTear]

Oh, for also what it's worth, rights are not, nor can they be, established based on gender. The fact that a woman would ever argue as much boggles my mind, as that's exactly what the early femininists argued against. If you believe that rights should be based on gender, then I'd like to remove the right for women to vote as, obviously, those should only be reserved for men. Obviously. :lol:

I don't get it. Are you saying a man doesn't have a right to his own body, unlike a woman?

 

 

 

You also need to remember that "what the world can hold" and "how many people at our current standard of living the world can hold". You're probably in the top ten percentile as far as standards of living goes, and keeping starvation at bay may very well be possible for three times our total number - I don't know - but I sincerely doubt your current standard of living would be appliable. Big gap between what can be accomplished when aiming for "not starving" and "awesome quality of life". That's not even touching life expectancy.

 

 

 

And I can't say I understood the point about adoption numbers either. Care to clarify?

[Ginger_Warrior]

Life. Oh, and for what it's worth-- Because I know someone will undoubtedly use the "Life doesn't begin until 22 weeks!" argument-- "Viability" doesn't mean "Life starts here!". Stages of development are fairly arbitrary, because life does not suddenly begin at one stage, with everything before then being nothing. It's a continuation, from a zygote to blastocyst to an embryo to a fetus to a baby, etc..

 

I regard life as beginning when a foetus has a chance of surviving on its own as well as when it gains the ability to feel pain/suffering. Without referring to your own beliefs, what exactly is wrong with that reasoning?

 

 

 

By your logic, you may as well diagnose cancer as a lifeform of its own, and since you're pro-life, protect it with rights. Cancerous cells do have a different genetic make-up than the normal cells of the person concerned, and therefore have their own independent life after all. If someone tries to remove cancer, we can just reply with "You went into the sunlight, it's your own stupid fault", which is essentially the same logic some pro-life demonstrators use.

 

 

 

Not that I'm suggesting far Right-wing politics follows double standards...

 

Oh, for also what it's worth, rights are not, nor can they be, established based on gender. The fact that a woman would ever argue as much boggles my mind, as that's exactly what the early femininists argued against. If you believe that rights should be based on gender, then I'd like to remove the right for women to vote as, obviously, those should only be reserved for men. Obviously. :lol:

 

That has got to be the most moronic reasoning I've seen yet in this debate.

 

 

 

This ummm... Isn't true. At all. Currently, the world can house about 3x as many people as it currently holds (More than that, actually) and Africa itself has the potential to provide enough food for the world many times over. In fact, some of the countries with the highest abortion rates (The U.S., the U.K. and Australia, for instance) don't have the highest population densities 168, 48, and 224, respectively. Though, Australia does have the whole Outback thing going on...).

 

If you're calling for an even distribution of food so the world can sustain more people (i.e., rationing), I'm all for it. Maybe I'm being judgemental, but I can't see you as the Communist type though.

 

 

 

Funny thing... As it turns out, legalized abortion has had a negative effect on the adoption rate. Pretty freaky, huh?

 

...and? Was there a point in there that I've missed?

[scootlaboot]

 

I think it's funny that generic republicans claim to be pro-life, yet refuse to do anything to keep guns out of the hands of criminals

 

 

Guns don't kill people. People with guns growing up in a violent culture supporting capital punishment kill people. :P

 

 

 

With the help of guns. If you take guns out of the equation, it becomes considerably more difficult. Guns do kill people.

 

A gun is a tool, a tool for killing aka weapon but still a tool, it does not move/ act on its own. It is not alive. A gun is harmless unless it is used by a human. And then if you want to get into technicalities, unless you rifle butt or pistol whip someone, only bullets cause actual harm. A gun is no more than a sophisticated housing mechanism for a bullet if you think about it.

 

 

 

Guns do not kill people, husbands that come home early do.

 

 

 

On Topic: Really can't think of anything haven't said before but I would like to kick the *** of the guy who said he supported rape.

[issy2]

"Babies are living humans from the start, therefore abortion is murder and is wrong."

 

 

 

Hypothetical situation -

 

Let's say you have an elderly grandparent. Their quality of life has been deteriorating for a while now. They are incapable of looking after themselves and a massive emotional and financial strain on their family and friends. Their life has gone past the stage of being able to enjoy it, and yet they are physically still alive, although unable to understand much of what is going on around them.

 

 

 

Would you really keep them alive? They are probably in great pain and their life now doesn't mean much. If you would - think about it. Isn't it best to just let them go? If a horse breaks its neck would you really force it to stay alive, no matter the quality of life they'll be able to have?

 

 

 

It's the same kind of thing really - quality of life must always come before the life itself. You should never sacrifice an unwanted life for the sake of a 'life' - how do you know that life is going to be worth living? How can you call it morally right and justifiable to keep someone alive, no matter how this will ruin the life of a intelligent, sensitive and feeling woman? That woman is worth so, so much more than a little bundle of cells. It disgusts me that some people would choose to ruin a womans life for the sake of something that is at the time so worthless.

 

You know I would still support abortion even if there was solid proof that a few-weeks-old babies can feel pain. Another hypothetical situation - if you witnessed a car crash, and there were two people in the car, and you only the opportunity to save one, what would you do? Let them both suffer? I hope not.

[venomai]

Sperm can not develop without another organism, hence it is not a potential human.

 

An embryo and fetus cannot develop without a mother... hence it is not a potential human? :lol:

 

 

 

One's dependence on another individual (or a device) to stay alive should be no grounds for whether or not we classify them as a "human."

 

 

 

A gun is a tool, a tool for killing aka weapon but still a tool, it does not move/ act on its own. It is not alive. A gun is harmless unless it is used by a human. And then if you want to get into technicalities, unless you rifle butt or pistol whip someone, only bullets cause actual harm. A gun is no more than a sophisticated housing mechanism for a bullet if you think about it.

 

 

 

Guns do not kill people, husbands that come home early do.

 

I've never understood this argument. Is it some sort of weak attempt to justify the right to bear arms? Or is it a general statement that a gun -- like all other man-made 'tools' (medicine, nuclear missiles, etc) -- requires human interaction to serve its purpose? If the latter, what relevance does it serve in the gun control debate?

 

(Sorry to digress...)

 

 

 

I think most people who grew up in orphanages would say that it is preferable to dying.

 

Of course, if the person had died, they would have no concept of life (let alone life in an orphanage) and therefore couldn't really judge whether or not they would prefer it to death.

[Aneron]

I think most people who grew up in orphanages would say that it is preferable to dying.

 

Of course, if the person had died, they would have no concept of life (let alone life in an orphanage) and therefore couldn't really judge whether or not they would prefer it to death.

 

 

 

That's like saying that if a person is hit on the head, gets amnesia, and temporarily forgets the concept of money that it's ok to rob him.

 

 

 

I think that it's impossible to escape that fact that abortion is taking a life. It's taking a life that isn't hurting anyone (as I said before, adoption if you don't want to raise the child), and has just as much right to live as everyone else.

 

 

 

I don't think that anyone in the right mind would ever choose life over death, so we have no right to make such a decision for them. Just carry your baby to term and if you don't want to take responsibility for what is 99% of the time your fault, put your child up for adoption. There is no reason to kill him/her.