Abortion

[Aliath]

Abortion is a perfectly moral decision, and its legality affects every single woman's equal rights as persons under the law. It should never be illegal, and there shouldn't be any restrictions about when a woman can get an abortion, or why they want it; there should be no forcing of a woman to go to counselling; no delaying the procedure like many states in the US do.

 

Access to abortion is a civil right, and to be against a woman's rights, in my opinion, is being against women.

 

Rawr. I agree.

 

Now I'm leaving.

[Iamdan]

 

Did you know that some aborted fetuses are put back in the womb, JUST so they can be aborted again?

I commented on the specific method outlined, the injection method, which is the method that should be used for all abortions in late stages of pregancy. This method has not had any of the problems you report. It is as humane as capital punishment by lethal injection, which is more humane than the killing of as good as any animals you eat are killed.

 

It's the tearing down of a straw-man argument: You could use the propper technique, and the problems do not exist. that is not an issue of abortion, but of medical system.

 

thus, unless you wish to tear down a straw-man, my assertion does still stand: there is no difference between late-term abortion and other abortion, in speaking of the outcome, if the right technique is used.

 

:/

 

I was agreeing with you, and having a go at him.

[Tim]

Their life, their story. We do not have the right to tell others how they should live their life and what choices they can and cannot do.

 

Or to put it bluntly, I don't care. It's their life they can do what they want, but I do support Abortion under some circumstances. (aka, not 15yo girls having sex without condoms for fun, getting pregnant, abort it and repeat multiple times)

[anonymous_user]

What I struggle with on this subject is, when does a developing human actually become sentient i.e. immoral to kill? Would killing an early fetus be the equivalent to killing a plant? I support abortion but I don't support murder and they kind of conflict...

[Iamdan]

^ IMO the main immorality about killing is the effect on their loved ones. The death itself isn't a huge deal. Dying is easy, living is hard. With the fetus it's not really an issue because there is little emotional involvement compared to a person who has been alive for a while.

 

It seems OT is mostly pro choice, against the death penalty and atheist/agnostic. I could have sworn a few years ago it was the opposite.

[Alg]

^ IMO the main immorality about killing is the effect on their loved ones. The death itself isn't a huge deal. Dying is easy, living is hard. With the fetus it's not really an issue because there is little emotional involvement compared to a person who has been alive for a while.

 

It seems OT is mostly pro choice, against the death penalty and atheist/agnostic. I could have sworn a few years ago it was the opposite.

At least the ones that are posting :grin:

We're probably a lot more diverse here, it's just that there are bound to be lots of posters that don't care to debate their beliefs or simply don't care about revealing them to the internet.

[magekillr]

What I struggle with on this subject is, when does a developing human actually become sentient i.e. immoral to kill? Would killing an early fetus be the equivalent to killing a plant? I support abortion but I don't support murder and they kind of conflict...

 

A human is not self-aware or self-conscious until they're around 2 or 3 years old. It's not a person until that happens. However, they are given the rights of person hood at birth, as they are no longer physically dependent on the woman, nor do they interfere with her self-autonomy.

[Alg]

What I struggle with on this subject is, when does a developing human actually become sentient i.e. immoral to kill? Would killing an early fetus be the equivalent to killing a plant? I support abortion but I don't support murder and they kind of conflict...

 

A human is not self-aware or self-conscious until they're around 2 or 3 years old. It's not a person until that happens. However, they are given the rights of person hood at birth, as they are no longer physically dependent on the woman, nor do they interfere with her self-autonomy.

The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human.

[Iamdan]

The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human.

 

we have more than enough functioning humans :/

[magekillr]

What I struggle with on this subject is, when does a developing human actually become sentient i.e. immoral to kill? Would killing an early fetus be the equivalent to killing a plant? I support abortion but I don't support murder and they kind of conflict...

 

A human is not self-aware or self-conscious until they're around 2 or 3 years old. It's not a person until that happens. However, they are given the rights of person hood at birth, as they are no longer physically dependent on the woman, nor do they interfere with her self-autonomy.

The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human.

 

A lot of things have the potential; sperm, eggs, zygotes, clumps of cells...

[Alg]

And that's where pro life comes in.

 

The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human.

 

we have more than enough functioning humans :/

True.

[fakeitormakeit2]

And that's where pro life comes in.

 

The problem people then have is that you would be killing an organism that has the potential to become a functioning human.

 

we have more than enough functioning humans :/

True.

Who are you to choose who can live and who can't live? I believe the right to life is an inalienable right, seeing as how I'm sure you're all aware of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". It is not only listed amongst the three things that is part of the most well known document of US history but it is the first. Furthermore US law is very inconsistent, because if you were to abort a child because you wanted to it is a medical procedure. If a driver were to hit a pregnant woman and kill both her and her child that would be two counts of manslaughter. Consistency would be nice, is it a human life or not?

 

As I've said in another thread, let war and disease trim down the excess populace, not our own choosing, against our own set of code. And for the argument that the poor will have horrible lives, I scoff your generalizations. Oprah Winfrey, Sotomayor (although I do not like her, I must admit, she is well accomplished), Mozart, Vivaldi, Vincent Van Gogh, Ella Fitzgerald, Abraham Lincoln, Rosa Parks, Sojourner Truth and Harriet Tubman to name a few of the poor who strove to be great, and their names are now household words.And for those who say adopted kids lives are horrible think about Babe Ruth, Steve Jobs, John Hancock and John Lennon.

[Alg]

Is the right to life inalienable if the population can barely be supported as it is? There are 7 billion people vying for limited resources. If not abortion then birth control should be strongly encouraged for that reason. And morality blurs a bit when it comes to harming one to benefit others...

[Aliath]

Thank you, fakeitormakeit. I couldn't have said that any better. :)

[fakeitormakeit2]

Is the right to life inalienable if the population can barely be supported as it is? There are 7 billion people vying for limited resources. If not abortion then birth control should be strongly encouraged for that reason. And morality blurs a bit when it comes to harming one to benefit others...

Birth control, such as a condom, wouldn't be murderous like abortion at least because a zygote has not started to form and develop. Since there is no organism present and growing it wouldn't be the selection of who lives and who dies. But immediately at conception you start the formation of an organism which you should not choose to abort it unless it has a direct and large chance of killing its mother as well as dying, otherwise we are hypocritical as our right to life would only be a "sometimes right". With that mindset and with the demand for limited resources in mind then we should start euthanizing the fatally sick and old people as well as those who consume resources but do not provide for society, which is just ridiculous. Necessity is the mother of invention, and we will find our ways out of situations, so eliminating people with the possible solution only slows down our political and social evolution.

[EarthySun]

Is the right to life inalienable if the population can barely be supported as it is? There are 7 billion people vying for limited resources. If not abortion then birth control should be strongly encouraged for that reason. And morality blurs a bit when it comes to harming one to benefit others...

Birth control, such as a condom, wouldn't be murderous like abortion at least because a zygote has not started to form and develop. Since there is no organism present and growing it wouldn't be the selection of who lives and who dies. But immediately at conception you start the formation of an organism which you cannot choose to abort it unless it has a direct and large chance of killing its mother as well as dying, because with that mindset for limited resources then we should start euthanizing the fatally sick and old people as well as those who consume resources but do not provide for society, which is just ridiculous.

 

But in such a society, when using birth control, you certainly aren't choosing who lives and who dies. What you're doing is choosing who lives.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Is the right to life inalienable if the population can barely be supported as it is? There are 7 billion people vying for limited resources. If not abortion then birth control should be strongly encouraged for that reason. And morality blurs a bit when it comes to harming one to benefit others...

Birth control, such as a condom, wouldn't be murderous like abortion at least because a zygote has not started to form and develop. Since there is no organism present and growing it wouldn't be the selection of who lives and who dies. But immediately at conception you start the formation of an organism which you cannot choose to abort it unless it has a direct and large chance of killing its mother as well as dying, because with that mindset for limited resources then we should start euthanizing the fatally sick and old people as well as those who consume resources but do not provide for society, which is just ridiculous.

 

But in such a society, when using birth control, you certainly aren't choosing who lives and who dies. What you're doing is choosing who lives.

Not necessarily. There is a chance that a child is not even created if you have sex (not to mention abortion targets one already growing organism while birth control methods other then "flush pills" target un-united key and lock mechanisms to initiate the possible formation of an organism in which only one of millions of sperm will be picked if successful). Planned Parenthood is an example of family planning which does not use a physical contraceptive and does not pick who lives and dies. It is geared towards reproduction but there is a low chance of the formation of a zygote.

[magekillr]

This is not about life or death, it is about a woman having control over her body. Why does a non-sentient being, who is not self-aware or self-conscious, have rights to her body?

[Aliath]

This is not about life or death, it is about a woman having control over her body. Why does a non-sentient being, who is not self-aware or self-conscious, have rights to her body?

 

Because he/she is her responsibility. Because she had sex.

 

Pregnancy isn't a "side-effect" of sex that you can just get rid of. When you have sex, you accept that you might get pregnant.

 

And a fetus is just about as "sentient" as a born baby.

 

When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned.

 

In my opinion, abortion is a last resort. It should never be your first option.

[magekillr]

This is not about life or death, it is about a woman having control over her body. Why does a non-sentient being, who is not self-aware or self-conscious, have rights to her body?

 

Because he/she is her responsibility. Because she had sex.

 

How is it her responsibility? She has a responsibility: to control her own body, and that gives her the right to have an abortion if she so chooses. Let me guess: you're a man.

 

Pregnancy isn't a "side-effect" of sex that you can just get rid of. When you have sex, you accept that you might get pregnant.

 

And you accept that you have control over your own body.

 

And a fetus is just about as "sentient" as a born baby.

 

This is demonstrably false. A fully born baby isn't even self-conscious or self-aware. A fetus is less of a person than most fully born mammals.

 

When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned.

 

In my opinion, abortion is a last resort. It should never be your first option.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter unless you're a woman, it is her decision over her body.

 

Let me ask you this: if her fully born child, let's say of 10 years old, required her body for 9 months to live. Why should she be FORCED to have her body used to allow that child to live?

[Aliath]

Because its her own child. But that's her choice, I guess.

 

Your opinion doesn't matter unless you're a woman.

 

Are you a woman? Do you know any more than I do what pregnancy is like? What makes your opinion any better than mine?

 

This is demonstrably false. A fully born baby isn't even self-conscious or self-aware. A fetus is less of a person than most fully born mammals.

 

So if its not self-aware its okay to kill it. Applying that logic, killing babies because they could potentially be unhappy or an inconvenience to the mother is okay.

[OldJoe]

I won't contribute much to the discussion, but i'm all pro abortion. It's her body, and if she wants to keep it or not, is up to her.

However, i don't think it should be used as a "morning after solution". When it reaches that stage (mostly teens), they need to have proper education about birth control.

[qeltar]

There's a simple reason why the abortion debate is never-ending. It represents one of the few situations in our lives where two fundamental rights are in direct conflict. These are the right of the fetus to live and the right of the woman to self-determination.

 

People line up as "pro-choice" or "pro-life" based on which of these rights they feel take precedence. I believe it is undeniable that a developing fetus is a life, and you cannot honestly claim to value all life equally if you support abortion. I belive it is also undeniable that denying abortion rights to women means denying them the right to manage their own bodies, and you cannot honestly claim to value liberty and freedom if you oppose abortion.

 

Compromise solutions inevitably end up favoring the woman's right to a certain degree or up to a certain stage of development, and the fetus's right after that. This is my personal position.

 

There's one potential technological solution to the problem, which is inventing the ability to remove a developing fetus from the mother's body and incubating it externally. We're quite a ways off from that so far, but there's no medical hurdles I'm aware of that should preclude it.

[magekillr]

When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned.

 

I missed this. Does that mean the law is right? Do unborn fetuses get counted in a census? Does your birthday start at conception? That's a foolish argument to make.

 

Are you a woman? Do you know any more than I do what pregnancy is like? What makes your opinion any better than mine?

 

I am not a woman, but I also don't try and take her rights away. My opinion doesn't matter when she makes her choice; it should be ALL HER choice and opinion. My opinion on the matter, just like yours, is ultimately moot.

 

So if its not self-aware its okay to kill it. Applying that logic, killing babies because they could potentially be unhappy or an inconvenience to the mother is okay.

 

No, you cannot, as fully born babies are given the rights of persons. This doesn't mean they are persons, however, they have the rights of a person.

[fakeitormakeit2]

When you kill a pregnant woman, you get charged with her murder and that of her unborn child, as fakeitormakeit mentioned.

 

I missed this. Does that mean the law is right? Do unborn fetuses get counted in a census? Does your birthday start at conception? That's a foolish argument to make.

 

Are you a woman? Do you know any more than I do what pregnancy is like? What makes your opinion any better than mine?

 

I am not a woman, but I also don't try and take her rights away. My opinion doesn't matter when she makes her choice; it should be ALL HER choice and opinion. My opinion on the matter, just like yours, is ultimately moot.

 

So if its not self-aware its okay to kill it. Applying that logic, killing babies because they could potentially be unhappy or an inconvenience to the mother is okay.

 

No, you cannot, as fully born babies are given the rights of persons. This doesn't mean they are persons, however, they have the rights of a person.

So when do you truly become a person? At the age of reason? What if one is mentally [developmentally delayed]ed, then one is never a person? Thank you Adolf.

 

An impractical of counting fetuses in the census would be that 1) there is a possibility of miscarriage, 2) you cannot determine an exact conception date.

 

Hypothetically if I was a mother and I decided my child was too much to bear financially, then why can't I kill it before its age of reason? It's my choice, my opinion and my life. My child is holding me back.