Abortion

[Kiriyama]

Wow Fakeit, you just pretty much screwed over any chance of anyone taking you seriously now with that Adolf comment..

 

And you can kill it, it's just against the law. Nothing stops you choosing to do it, but there are generally punishments for wrongdoings.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Wow Fakeit, you just pretty much screwed over any chance of anyone taking you seriously now with that Adolf comment..

 

And you can kill it, it's just against the law. Nothing stops you choosing to do it, but there are generally punishments for wrongdoings.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler.

 

I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset.

[Kiriyama]

Explain why it is the same mindset.

 

I think there is a difference between something that has not yet been born, and something which has.

 

And since when was a Hitler comment in good humour?

[fakeitormakeit2]

Explain why it is the same mindset.

 

I think there is a difference between something that has not yet been born, and something which has.

 

And since when was a Hitler comment in good humour?

If it is solely the woman's choice and opinion, if the ability to reason constitutes a person and woman has the choice to eliminate a human being [or what is growing into what will be a human being, but nonetheless still living] then with those three items used, a mother should be able to kill her child. Because a baby cannot act fully for itself and is without reason [as magekillr said it does not mean they are persons] and is disposable then the same would go for someone mentally impeded. That would then lead to justified euthanasia as one could say, hey its not that bad as we're limiting the population, plus its the person's choice who ever this "thing"(I refrained from saying person purposely) is dependent on. That is a Nazi-esque mindset.

 

And once something begins to grow, is it not living? I have not heard of rocks that grow or carpets that grow. And the difference between being in the womb and outside of it while being birthed is the difference of magma and lava, substantially the same, but their relativity to the earth is different.

 

And a joke is a joke, although an extension of the "disposablity" of subpersons mindset is rather Hitler like. It was a rather distasteful joke now that I reflect on it, but nonetheless I meant it with no malice. I'm surprised though, the current mindset is so post-modernist and "there is no universal set of evil and good" mindset that the mention of Hitler invokes anything other then the opinion of it was his own choice to kill and if he believed he was right, then he was right. I'm not saying that to anyone specific, it's just what I've come to expect nowadays.

[Aliath]

*applauds Fakit.*

 

I didn't see any harm in that Hitler reference. You were making a point, and a good one, too.

[1230abcz]

Wow Fakeit, you just pretty much screwed over any chance of anyone taking you seriously now with that Adolf comment..

 

And you can kill it, it's just against the law. Nothing stops you choosing to do it, but there are generally punishments for wrongdoings.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler.

 

I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

 

 

 

 

I personally support abortion, mainly because I do (somewhat surprisingly, I might add). I don't see there being any one-sided discussion for or against abortion just because it's just one of those things that has no one side.

 

I like to think of abortion on a purely economical perspective. About 15 years or so after Roe vs. Wade, the crime rates all over the US plummeted, even though rates were sky rocketing before the verdict passed. There're literally no other ways to account for the drop in crime other than attributing it to the legalization of abortion. One would assume that, after legalizing abortion, all those aborted babies that wouldn't have been aborted probably would've went into a life of crime, which makes perfect sense. Abortion isn't a light topic, and people don't just go about killing off random babies for fun (heh... dead baby jokes...), so it's almost always done in very rare circumstances, a few being that the mother is probably single, poor, or unable to fend for her child. I'd assume that everyone here can imagine what would happen to the baby in these circumstances. A life of crime isn't a big logical step, and having a tormented childhood also probably doesn't help with growing up in society as a stable adult.

 

Considering this, I'd say it's entirely ethical to legalize abortion. Even though the initial act of killing a fetus might be "overwhelming" to say the least, I don't see how it's any less ethical to give birth to a child that will only end up going into a life of crime. Of course, life is important, and, given the choice, I'd choose a life of crime over no life any day, but that's where the big picture comes in. I certainly don't want go about everyday knowing that the crime rate will only up as the population increases in size and more babies are born into the streets, and I doubt anyone else would, either. If anything, I support abortion just so that there's less crime in the world.

 

Also, increasing sex-ed wont do [cabbage]. Teenagers are more likely to follow a trend if it's outlawed (go read a study or something), and something as fun as sex isn't going to go away if kids are taught that doing it will make bad things happen. Humans are instinctively prone to have sex all the damn time, and that's not going to stop. Forcing kids to stay celibate until they're married is a fool's folly, and safe sex doesn't work all the time, either.

[fakeitormakeit2]

Wow Fakeit, you just pretty much screwed over any chance of anyone taking you seriously now with that Adolf comment..

 

And you can kill it, it's just against the law. Nothing stops you choosing to do it, but there are generally punishments for wrongdoings.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler.

 

I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

 

 

 

 

I personally support abortion, mainly because I do (somewhat surprisingly, I might add). I don't see there being any one-sided discussion for or against abortion just because it's just one of those things that has no one side.

 

I like to think of abortion on a purely economical perspective. About 15 years or so after Roe vs. Wade, the crime rates all over the US plummeted, even though rates were sky rocketing before the verdict passed. There're literally no other ways to account for the drop in crime other than attributing it to the legalization of abortion. One would assume that, after legalizing abortion, all those aborted babies that wouldn't have been aborted probably would've went into a life of crime, which makes perfect sense. Abortion isn't a light topic, and people don't just go about killing off random babies for fun (heh... dead baby jokes...), so it's almost always done in very rare circumstances, a few being that the mother is probably single, poor, or unable to fend for her child. I'd assume that everyone here can imagine what would happen to the baby in these circumstances. A life of crime isn't a big logical step, and having a tormented childhood also probably doesn't help with growing up in society as a stable adult.

 

Considering this, I'd say it's entirely ethical to legalize abortion. Even though the initial act of killing a fetus might be "overwhelming" to say the least, I don't see how it's any less ethical to give birth to a child that will only end up going into a life of crime. Of course, life is important, and, given the choice, I'd choose a life of crime over no life any day, but that's where the big picture comes in. I certainly don't want go about everyday knowing that the crime rate will only up as the population increases in size and more babies are born into the streets, and I doubt anyone else would, either. If anything, I support abortion just so that there's less crime in the world.

 

Also, increasing sex-ed wont do [cabbage]. Teenagers are more likely to follow a trend if it's outlawed (go read a study or something), and something as fun as sex isn't going to go away if kids are taught that doing it will make bad things happen. Humans are instinctively prone to have sex all the damn time, and that's not going to stop. Forcing kids to stay celibate until they're married is a fool's folly, and safe sex doesn't work all the time, either.

Godwin's Law is true, but my Hitler reference was directly logically linked so it wasn't irrelevant like some people who link anything perceived as "bad" to Hitler therefore Godwin's Law is irrelevant to my reference as it was not irrelevant.

 

I have been accused of being an elitist and someone who seeks to preserve the wealth for the wealthy, but such generalization that a poor person would logically go to a life of crime is so... I can't even articulate it, it is discrediting all the honest poor men and women who struggle to get by. And ironically, Sotomayor is the exact opposite of your generalization, she went from being poor to a Supreme Court Justice, the ultimate court in our country. And for someone like Oprah who raises out of poverty in turn attempts to help others out of poverty. Abortion effectively eliminates people who could have come out of hardship with the understanding of hardship to eliminate hardship. Wisdom is through experience, not a tome. It is different to read about a genocide then to have been directly effected, for example, by the Armenian genocide. One who was effected would have more zeal to eliminate any future repetitions of this genocide, therefore there would be a safeguard against it as opposed to getting ride of poor people so that there are people less incline to understanding poverty and the problem continues.

 

And the parallel of the legalization of abortion to crime rate decreasing could be coincidental, if you ever take a sociology on the 20th century, you will learn that there were a lot of changes in the 70s and that era, which could easily account for the decrease in crime rate.

 

I do find Sex Ed to be rather useless, I will agree with you on that. That however doesn't justify abortion as a means to eliminate an "inconvenience".

[1230abcz]

Wow Fakeit, you just pretty much screwed over any chance of anyone taking you seriously now with that Adolf comment..

 

And you can kill it, it's just against the law. Nothing stops you choosing to do it, but there are generally punishments for wrongdoings.

My pish posh Hitler comment was all in good humor yet was still relevant as if reason defines a "full" person then mentally handicap people would never be people, and as everyone knows a large practitioner of the implementing of Social Darwinism was Adolf Hitler.

 

I meant when I was speaking about my choice, why the law would restrict my ability to make such a choice when clearly it would just be an extension of the same mindset.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

 

 

 

 

 

I personally support abortion, mainly because I do (somewhat surprisingly, I might add). I don't see there being any one-sided discussion for or against abortion just because it's just one of those things that has no one side.

 

I like to think of abortion on a purely economical perspective. About 15 years or so after Roe vs. Wade, the crime rates all over the US plummeted, even though rates were sky rocketing before the verdict passed. There're literally no other ways to account for the drop in crime other than attributing it to the legalization of abortion. One would assume that, after legalizing abortion, all those aborted babies that wouldn't have been aborted probably would've went into a life of crime, which makes perfect sense. Abortion isn't a light topic, and people don't just go about killing off random babies for fun (heh... dead baby jokes...), so it's almost always done in very rare circumstances, a few being that the mother is probably single, poor, or unable to fend for her child. I'd assume that everyone here can imagine what would happen to the baby in these circumstances. A life of crime isn't a big logical step, and having a tormented childhood also probably doesn't help with growing up in society as a stable adult.

 

Considering this, I'd say it's entirely ethical to legalize abortion. Even though the initial act of killing a fetus might be "overwhelming" to say the least, I don't see how it's any less ethical to give birth to a child that will only end up going into a life of crime. Of course, life is important, and, given the choice, I'd choose a life of crime over no life any day, but that's where the big picture comes in. I certainly don't want go about everyday knowing that the crime rate will only up as the population increases in size and more babies are born into the streets, and I doubt anyone else would, either. If anything, I support abortion just so that there's less crime in the world.

 

Also, increasing sex-ed wont do [cabbage]. Teenagers are more likely to follow a trend if it's outlawed (go read a study or something), and something as fun as sex isn't going to go away if kids are taught that doing it will make bad things happen. Humans are instinctively prone to have sex all the damn time, and that's not going to stop. Forcing kids to stay celibate until they're married is a fool's folly, and safe sex doesn't work all the time, either.

Godwin's Law is true, but my Hitler reference was directly logically linked so it wasn't irrelevant like some people who link anything perceived as "bad" to Hitler.

 

Good job missing the purely comical reference.

I have been accused of being an elitist and someone who seeks to preserve the wealth for the wealthy Cool story bruh, but such generalization that a poor person would logically go to a life of crime is so... I can't even articulate it, it is discrediting all the honest poor men and women who struggle to get by. And ironically, Sotomayor is the exact opposite of your generalization, she went from being poor to a Supreme Court Justice, the ultimate court in our country. And for someone like Oprah who raises out of poverty in turn attempts to help others out of poverty. Abortion effectively eliminates people who could have come out of hardship with the understanding of hardship to eliminate hardship. I was, once again, obviously referring to the general populace. It's fairly logical to assume that mass murderers aren't going to turn into Harvard laureates, but basing an entire system around the ones that do is, at best, idiotic. There will obviously be some of those "Harvard" babies in the bunch, but, in general, if you're poor, in the streets, and with no parents, you're going to have to fend for yourself, and i can name at least a few sources of income for said babies; drug dealing being just one. Wisdom is through experience, not a tome.Word of advice, and nothing to do with the argument itself. I'm not being offensive here, but little things like that make you sound extremely pompous. Best to leave random allusions to the philosophical field outside of a logical debate It is different to read about a genocide then to have been directly effected, for example, by the Armenian genocide. One who was effected would have more zeal to eliminate any future repetitions of this genocide, therefore there would be a safeguard against it as opposed to getting ride of poor people so that there are people less incline to understanding poverty and the problem continues.WTF are you saying here...? You randomly went from Oprah Winfrey to Genocide... I don't see the connection...

And the parallel of the legalization of abortion to crime rate decreasing could be coincidental, if you ever take a sociology on the 20th century, you will learn that there were a lot of changes in the 70s and that era, which could easily account for the decrease in crime rate. When I said there were literally none, I seriously meant there were literally none. It takes just a second to Google the statistics. Here, I'll do it for you

 

I do find Sex Ed to be rather useless, I will agree with you on that. That however doesn't justify abortion as a means to eliminate an "inconvenience". It does, however, make it a necessity, if you take into account my views on the subject.

 

 

I'm responding in situ.. because, for some reason, you have a deep hatred for paragraphs... Lol.

[Iamdan]

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.

 

YOU'RE choosing who lives and dies when you buy lunch instead of donating the money. It's part of every day life, if you can't accept that then you're in for some real disappointment.

What about killing someone in defense? What about someone planning on killing being killed? What about 20 people starving people killing another so they can live?

 

People deserving life is not black and white as you make it out to be. We don't live in a disney movie.

 

War and disease are controllable things. They aren't some sinless population control that aren't influenced by people. Don't pretend there is any real difference.

 

It doesn't matter whether people in foster homes turn out to be successful or not. Foster homes can't be sustained forever, and the earths resources can't currently be sustained forever. Adopt a child yourself, open your own foster home or kindly stop pushing your hypocritical views.

 

As I said earlier, it's easy to tell people to put a kid up for adoption. It's something else to actually give these kids a home.

[Aliath]

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.

 

YOU'RE choosing who lives and dies when you buy lunch instead of donating the money. It's part of every day life, if you can't accept that then you're in for some real disappointment.

What about killing someone in defense? What about someone planning on killing being killed? What about 20 people starving people killing another so they can live?

 

People deserving life is not black and white as you make it out to be. We don't live in a disney movie.

 

War and disease are controllable things. They aren't some sinless population control that aren't influenced by people. Don't pretend there is any real difference.

 

It doesn't matter whether people in foster homes turn out to be successful or not. Foster homes can't be sustained forever, and the earths resources can't currently be sustained forever. Adopt a child yourself, open your own foster home or kindly stop pushing your hypocritical views.

 

As I said earlier, it's easy to tell people to put a kid up for adoption. It's something else to actually give these kids a home.

 

Really, is it? So you know for a fact that everyone who says its best to put your child up for adoption as opposed to killing him/her is a hypocrite and will never adopt a child, ever? You're straying from the debate, you know. This isn't a question of 'if they're going to adopted or not.' It's a question of 'Are they going to have the right to live or not.'

 

Who are you to say a kid is better off dead than not being adopted?

[Romy]

I only read the first 2 pages or so, but I think the point I'm about to raise wasn't suggested before.

 

 

The value of life.

 

On the first page I think it was, someone said the child doesn't deserve death. Deserve? None of us were asked if we even wanted to live, not to mention live the life that were forced upon us (who are my parents, where do I live, next to whom, in which country, what's my family's economical condition and ability to raise the child, etc). Who said the child deserves life? (As a negative issue)

 

That being said, I think the value of life is much lower than what most societies seem to suggest. A murderer would receive the same title whether he killed the head of a mafia organization, or an innocent man, and I think that's wrong down to it's root.

 

You can never know if the child you just gave birth to will suffer a lot in his life, or make others suffer. At times you wouldn't know that even long after these events occured, if at all.

 

 

The other day me and a friend discussed the value of life. He asked me if I think all who live are fit to live, or should even be given the right to. I said that I know my opinion probably isn't very popular, if at all, but I think that no, not everyone is deserving of life. Then he asked me if I'd think any less of him if he killed someone. I answered that I don't easily judge murderers, and only do so if I think their motives are corrupted, and that knowing my friend, if he would go as far as killing someone, i trust the person deserves it. I openly said I wouldn't think any less of him.

What I didn't know, is that he was asking that question more seriously than one would think. He was actually asking for my approval on the actions he's planning. Apparently, he knows of a rapist that receives all sorts of benefits from the law, and basically, even if accused, nothing would really happen to him other than slight incomfort. The only 3 (now is 2) things that stopped and are currently stopping him from doing that, are the person having a family, and the misery he's guranteed to cause if he murders him, the very likely option that he'd get caught, and my approval.

 

To tell you the truth, I know of 2 victims of his doings, and am certain this guy does not deserve to live. At all. I'd kill him myself if I could.

 

Personaly, if my life were those of rediculous suffering, I'd never want to be born.

 

 

What I'm saying here is, basically, that anyone thinking of abortion is not to be judged. They may not be ready to raise the child, they may understand that giving him/her birth is not something of good nature (because of the life the child is probably guranteed- a certain, very "unpleasant" road of life), they may not be able to provide for the child, and they simply may not want the child.

 

 

The only case I'm undecided about, is late-abortion. The child could be born with problems despite the abortion, and pretty much gurantee beyond doubt a life of suffering. On the other hand, I think all I said up the posts applies here aswell.

I'm still not sure.

[Faux]

I could list a few who should've been aborted

 

Serious: I think abortion is just the easy way out for most people. You had sex, and yes you make babies when you do that. There is no 100% form of contraception and that's the result of your decision to have sex.

 

Obviously, rape victims / health-related things are a different case. But come on, majority of the women who get abortions do it because they're not ready for it.

[Iamdan]

Really, is it? So you know for a fact that everyone who says its best to put your child up for adoption as opposed to killing him/her is a hypocrite and will never adopt a child, ever? You're straying from the debate, you know. This isn't a question of 'if they're going to adopted or not.' It's a question of 'Are they going to have the right to live or not.'

 

Who are you to say a kid is better off dead than not being adopted?

 

Don't put words in my mouth. It's fairly well known that foster homes are overcrowded, filling them up more is only going to cause more problems.

 

The question isn't specifically 'are they going to have the right to live.' You're just twisting the question, you need to look at the whole picture.

 

What are the parents supposed to do with the child? Force it to grow up in a family that doesn't want it? Leave it on the street? Adoption does not solve the problem of an unwanted child, when the child is just joining many other unwanted children. How about making a better suggestion?

 

The fetus isn't missing out on much. It has no memories and no emotional attachments. Just because it has greater potential than sperm, doesn't mean it's any more important in the big scheme of things. Unless humans are dying out, which they definitely aren't. I already rebutted your 'handicapped person' argument and I'm still awaiting a reply.

 

So far I've answered all of your points and you've answered basically none of mine.

[Romy]

I could list a few who should've been aborted

 

Serious: I think abortion is just the easy way out for most people. You had sex, and yes you make babies when you do that. There is no 100% form of contraception and that's the result of your decision to have sex.

 

 

So, parents not capble to provide for their child, aren't mentally prepared, are underaged, single parents, or simply unwilling to raise a child, should just meet the consequences? Just not let abortion pass because it's "the easy way out"?

 

 

Personally, I don't think I'd want to be born to parents whom never wanted me, and decided not to go for abortion for reasons I don't see as valid, such as not wanting to settle for "the easy way out"...

 

 

Your argument doesn't hold much meat when it goes down to being rational about it.

[Aliath]

What I find odd is that people believe that teens aren't responsible for the child, if ever they get pregnant, just because they used protection. They believe pregnancy is a "side-effect" of sex, and that you can't blame them for doing it. Right.

 

As for "a few who should have been aborted", that's just wrong. You'd rather kill a murderer at birth rather than change the events in his life which shaped him to be who he is?

[qeltar]

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?

I've seen people make this point a few times. It's really rather spurious.

 

The issue, as I said before, is not whether or not a fetus is alive, but whether or not a woman has the right to self-determination. The woman has the right to abort because it is her body. Someone else does not because it is not.

 

If I decide to get a nose piercing, that's my choice. If you decide to give me one against my will, that's assault and battery. There's nothing inconsistent about allowing abortion and also making it a crime to kill a fetus.

[fakeitormakeit2]

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?

I've seen people make this point a few times. It's really rather spurious.

 

The issue, as I said before, is not whether or not a fetus is alive, but whether or not a woman has the right to self-determination. The woman has the right to abort because it is her body. Someone else does not because it is not.

 

If I decide to get a nose piercing, that's my choice. If you decide to give me one against my will, that's assault and battery. There's nothing inconsistent about allowing abortion and also making it a crime to kill a fetus.

Actually what you mentioned such as the nose piercing being your choice only pertains to you. You obtaining the nose piercing and wearing it does not hurt anyone else. And plus the argument "it's my body I can do what I want with it" isn't fully valid either because if one were allowed to do what only effected them, then why is it illegal to attempt do certain drugs, attempt suicide, etc. Now for the part were you can't pierce someone else's nose without their consent, you don't have the consent of the would-be child to abort it. It is sad that we treat our offspring like mere possessions.

 

And to 1230abcz I am going to refrain from wholly responding to your response. You spoke with decency until, you know, (1) you accused me of being pompous, when having wisdom of a subject would unquestionably be an advantage to find a solution (philosophy is relevant to all subjects so it wasn't a random allusion, Oprah lived in poverty therefore she had wisdom of poverty therefore she whole-heatedly tries to prevent it), then (2) you mark my commentary as irrelevant, the part were I spoke of genocide I was saying just like Oprah knew poverty and worked against it, someone who knows genocide first hand would work to prevent one, (3) On the last three responses or so you lose all decency and make snide, pompous, condescending remarks. For instance were the "WTF", "Here I'll do it for your" and "you must have a hatred of paragraphs" quite necessary? You're own audacity taints your personal credibility.

[D Jay99]

By aborting a child you kill something that could potentially become a human. And guess what? You can create another one of these potential humans by just having sex another time. When the mother is actually ready.

That would create a different child, yes. But it's all chance anyway, so as long as you don't abort babies because they have some kind of handicap you don't actually change anything, except your own life (not having to raise a baby, which generally makes it a lot more pleasant if you're not ready for the baby) and the baby. Since babies are random anyway, the 2nd change doesn't really matter.

 

I don't see the problem with abortion, as long the mother didn't have unsafe sex out of free will and then resorts to abortion as some kind of last resort. But it is of course pretty hard to determine whether the mother had unsafe sex out of free will or not, so I guess we should just let the mother decide.

I also think we should draw the line between abortion and murder at 30 weeks (?) or something, when the baby is actually able to survive outside of the womb by itself. You have like 3-4 months to think about aborting or not anyway so if you haven't decided by then it's your own fault.

[Romy]

What I find odd is that people believe that teens aren't responsible for the child, if ever they get pregnant, just because they used protection. They believe pregnancy is a "side-effect" of sex, and that you can't blame them for doing it. Right.

 

As for "a few who should have been aborted", that's just wrong. You'd rather kill a murderer at birth rather than change the events in his life which shaped him to be who he is?

 

Except neither option is applicable, so discussing which is better is pointless.

 

However, abortion of a child would necessarily gurantee he's not going to be a murderer. I'm not saying that as a suggestion to kill all babies if anyone took it that way, I'm saying that as a point to why one option would be better.

[Saru Inc]

I checked the first two pages of the Off-Topic section, and didn't see anything related to this.

 

So, I think the title is self-explanatory; what do you think about this? Now, please, keep this polite even if you feel very strongly about this subject.

 

I believe late-term abortion is wrong, because the fetus is usually viable at that stage. There are even cases of the baby surviving and growing up with serious problems. As for everything else, I'm just undecided.

 

 

Uhhh... How does the aborted baby survive? Throw it in the trash if you aborted it... Unless I'm missing something?

 

I'm not sure how I feel about abortion, while it's easy to jump on either side of the fence with the arguments of: (life) "it's a soul, it has life, it feels pain, give it up for adoption if you don't want it, etc." or choice: "it's the mother's right to do so\it could grow up in a life of poverty etc." I think I'm a little bit of both. While I do see it as acceptable to abort the baby if you're growing up\living in a very poor country\location, and you know there's an easy chance your baby could contract a disease. Also, foster homes\adoption centers a lot of the time really are dirty and disgusting, and the kids are treated horribly by the foster parents. However on the other side, I do think that not only does every child have a chance to live, but I don't think it's the mother's right to abort even if it is her body. All I wanna say is I'm glad I'm not a woman.

[qeltar]

Actually what you mentioned such as the nose piercing being your choice only pertains to you. You obtaining the nose piercing and wearing it does not hurt anyone else.

Different issue. I was only pointing out that there is no inconsistency in making it legal for you to do something to yourself while making it illegal for someone else to do it to you, not whether or not it should be legal to do it to yourself.

 

And plus the argument "it's my body I can do what I want with it" isn't fully valid either because if one were allowed to do what only effected them, then why is it illegal to attempt do certain drugs, attempt suicide, etc.

Those things should not be illegal in a free society. They are illegal because of busybodies, control freaks and religious nuts.

[Saru Inc]

Actually what you mentioned such as the nose piercing being your choice only pertains to you. You obtaining the nose piercing and wearing it does not hurt anyone else.

Different issue. I was only pointing out that there is no inconsistency in making it legal for you to do something to yourself while making it illegal for someone else to do it to you, not whether or not it should be legal to do it to yourself.

 

And plus the argument "it's my body I can do what I want with it" isn't fully valid either because if one were allowed to do what only effected them, then why is it illegal to attempt do certain drugs, attempt suicide, etc.

Those things should not be illegal in a free society. They are illegal because of busybodies, control freaks and religious nuts.

 

That seems a bit extreme.

[Distracted]

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?

I've seen people make this point a few times. It's really rather spurious.

 

The issue, as I said before, is not whether or not a fetus is alive, but whether or not a woman has the right to self-determination. The woman has the right to abort because it is her body. Someone else does not because it is not.

 

If I decide to get a nose piercing, that's my choice. If you decide to give me one against my will, that's assault and battery. There's nothing inconsistent about allowing abortion and also making it a crime to kill a fetus.

Actually what you mentioned such as the nose piercing being your choice only pertains to you. You obtaining the nose piercing and wearing it does not hurt anyone else. And plus the argument "it's my body I can do what I want with it" isn't fully valid either because if one were allowed to do what only effected them, then why is it illegal to attempt do certain drugs, attempt suicide, etc. Now for the part were you can't pierce someone else's nose without their consent, you don't have the consent of the would-be child to abort it. It is sad that we treat our offspring like mere possessions.

 

 

Doing drugs is more than just affecting yourself. (I'm talking hard drugs, not weed or stuff like that). The thing is, even if you're wealthy, you'll harm others or break some law to be able to get your fix, and it's just inevitable if you get addicted to drugs, which is why even if it's your own body it's illegal: it'll end up harming others. And the sad truth is that many suicides fail. 1 million people succesfully commit suicide in a year, while about 20 to even 30 million people fail at commiting suicide (worldwide). Thing is, most of the people that fail at committing suicide will have some kind of handicap after. This just ends up making it harder for both the victim and those that need to take care of the victim, so like taking drugs, it'll influence other people too.

 

Now, a fetus can't give you consent, because it's not a self-conscious person. Also, minors aren't allowed to take any legal decisions even after birth, they are deemed legally immature so they're parents take their decisions for them.

[Romy]

And the sad truth is that many suicides fail. 1 million people succesfully commit suicide in a year, while about 20 to even 30 million people fail at commiting suicide (worldwide). Thing is, most of the people that fail at committing suicide will have some kind of handicap after. This just ends up making it harder for both the victim and those that need to take care of the victim, so like taking drugs, it'll influence other people too.

 

That's not the reason suiciding is illegal though...

[Distracted]

And the sad truth is that many suicides fail. 1 million people succesfully commit suicide in a year, while about 20 to even 30 million people fail at commiting suicide (worldwide). Thing is, most of the people that fail at committing suicide will have some kind of handicap after. This just ends up making it harder for both the victim and those that need to take care of the victim, so like taking drugs, it'll influence other people too.

 

That's not the reason suiciding is illegal though...

 

Probably not. But I was demonstrating how suicide isn't just something you do to your own body, it goes further than that.