Abortion

[Giordano]

Kill the Fetus!

 

 

I see no problem with abortion. I used to be in the middle, considering both sides, but now, eh, [bleep] it. If women use it as form of birth control every weekend, I don't really much care.

 

Is it a human being? Sure why not, but it doesn't change anything though: people get killed. All sorts of people get killed.

[Assume Nothing]

Kill the Fetus!

 

 

I see no problem with abortion. I used to be in the middle, considering both sides, but now, eh, [bleep] it. If women use it as form of birth control every weekend, I don't really much care.

 

Is it a human being? Sure why not, but it doesn't change anything though: people get killed. All sorts of people get killed.

 

Even though I agree with your conclusion, I don't quite agree with your reasoning. Are you saying that we should kill people, because people are dying all the time anyway?

 

Is doesn't mean ought to be. That's what this thread exists. What ought to be

[Giordano]

No, we shouldn't feel bad about killing fetus because so many other people die. Our reasoning to abort is so we don't have a burden/child negligence/what have you.

 

Guilt and motive are two different things.

 

 

And what ought to be, is the so-called 'future parents' decide. Not some fat bald bastard in Congress or a perverted man at the altar.

[Dheginsea]

Personally I have no moral problem with terminating a pregnancy if the following scenarios have or will occur:

 

Rape/incest

Threat to mothers health/life upon giving birth

Child would be born into a family unable to take care of it/would abuse the child

Single mother unable to care for the child

 

Although if it was just because the lady was pregnant and didn't want the child I would be a bit more iffy about it but I would still have no moral problems with the abortion.

[Giordano]

Although if it was just because the lady was pregnant and didn't want the child I would be a bit more iffy about it but I would still have no moral problems with the abortion.

But wouldn't it fall under the category of

 

• Child would be born into a family unable to take care of it

 

since the mother would treat it as a burden?

[Giordano]

Why not just give birth to the baby and put it up for adoption? I'm pro choice, but I can't help but think that by aborting a child you are simultaneously wiping out the collective accomplishments of its millions of potential descendants.

Birth control does that anyway. There's no point to anything if you're going to ponder the 'what-ifs'.

 

Plus some women don't want to be pregnant for 9 months. Stress, career, social requirements, etc., must come into consideration.

[Riku3220]

Why not just give birth to the baby and put it up for adoption? I'm pro choice, but I can't help but think that by aborting a child you are simultaneously wiping out the collective accomplishments of its millions of potential descendants.

Because there are already plenty of other children up for adoption and the millions of potential descendants have just as much chance of being the next Hitler as being the next Einstein?

[Dheginsea]

Personally I have no moral problem with terminating a pregnancy if the following scenarios have or will occur:

 

Rape/incest

Threat to mothers health/life upon giving birth

Child would be born into a family unable to take care of it/would abuse the child

Single mother unable to care for the child

 

Although if it was just because the lady was pregnant and didn't want the child I would be a bit more iffy about it but I would still have no moral problems with the abortion.

 

Lets say a married couple could afford a kid, they use birth control because they dont want kids (or more kids) would you be against them getting an abortion given that the birth control failed and they dont want kids?

 

 

No i would not be against that, in my post i stated that while i would find it morally acceptable i would find it less acceptable than the other scenarios i listed.

[Giordano]

Isn't taking the "life" part away before they can get it just as bad?

Only if rocks and my pet dog can vote.

 

If we preemptively kill people because they might be Hitler, we won't get very far.

Just as if we preemptively give birth to scores of kids in hopes one of them will become the next Einstein, we won't get very far.

 

@ Giordano - maybe they shouldn't have sex and get pregnant if they lead such stressful lives. (rape cases obviously excluded)

Pregnancy gives you stress. That is what I meant.

[Giordano]

"Only if rocks and my pet dog can vote"

 

Rocks and dogs have no chance of becoming human, a fetus will become a human unless you abort it (disregarding accidents / anomalies).

One thing I've noticed, is that there's many exceptions to abortion. You've listed quite a few already, as did several people in this thread. Why not just admit, different people have different morals and let whoever wants an abortion have it whenever over whatever reason.

 

"Just as if we preemptively give birth to scores of kids in hopes one of them will become the next Einstein, we won't get very far."

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that abortion eliminates a future population that could be great and enjoy life. It's not that I'm hoping for the next Einstein, but abortion removes potential humans' ability to experience life.

And the mother's experience to life?

 

Oh that's right. Life is great if you're unhappy, because you better be damn thankful to your mother for not aborting you. Again, other forms of birth control removes the potential for human life. Take an example of two situations where two couples are having sex, one is using a condom and the other isn't. Everything is in place: sperm is headed towards the egg, whatever is going to happen in the child's future will happen, but BAM. A thin wall of plastic stops one of them.

 

Everything was adjusted so perfectly, life would of occurred either way...but those two bastards murdered what was supposed to be a human one day long from now. Oh the humanity.

[Dheginsea]

"Only if rocks and my pet dog can vote"

 

Rocks and dogs have no chance of becoming human, a fetus will become a human unless you abort it (disregarding accidents / anomalies).

 

"Just as if we preemptively give birth to scores of kids in hopes one of them will become the next Einstein, we won't get very far."

 

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that abortion eliminates a future population that could be great and enjoy life. It's not that I'm hoping for the next Einstein, but abortion removes potential humans' ability to experience life.

 

Yes but that future population could theoretically destroy the earth you really could use that arguement either way.

[Giordano]

Let me add more exceptions to your list:

 

Condom breaks

Pill doesn't work

 

You even said accidents yourself, although in a confusing way (baby shouldn't be born but no abortion to be used, what?)...

 

 

Should the mother still have the kid, when afterall, she and her partner were following your sound advice? It seems unnecessarily harsh to burden her over a stranger's "morals" and a bit of bad luck.

 

Abortion also demonstrates foresight. As in, the baby isn't born yet. If abortion was the chosen pre-planned birth control, then no children would of been born neither, since it was planned and agreed to. The difference between condoms and abortion? 46 chromosomes instead of two 23's.

[Riku3220]

It's not about their achievements, it's about depriving a group of people of the ability to experience life because you're irresponsible.

But allowing said group of people to experience life makes another group of people lose out on a part of their lives.

[Giordano]

"What's the difference between condoms and abortion?" One developing embryo that will become a human unless one of the "three a's" occur, two nonhuman cells that could potentially have a chance of becoming human should they be brought together.

So following the logic of potentially, birth control should also not be used because they have the potential at life, with the chance of coming together being the same as one of the Three 'A's occuring.

 

Doesn't sound contradictory at all.

[Nomrombom]

lolbumpedfornoreason

 

 

I kid. When deciding whether to have an abortion, the male has absolutely no say in the matter at all legally. He cannot make the female get an abortion. However, the male has just as much responsibility towards the child as she does. I just find that a little ridiculous. My first inclination is to let males legally distance themselves, but that could leave women in an even worse position.

[Giordano]

I sounded smart in this thread months ago.

 

I wonder what happened.

[258ForLife]

Pro-Life :thumbup:

 

Abortions should be Banned/Be against the Law. The "Taking of a Life" is Murder :shame: & they should be put in Jail.

[Noxx]

Pro-Life :thumbup:

 

Abortions should be Banned/Be against the Law. The "Taking of a Life" is Murder :shame: & they should be put in Jail.

There is not yet "life" until the child takes it first breath. So how can abortion be murder when there is no taking of a life present.

If you want that banned/against the law then birth-control and condoms should fall under the same category.

[Duff]

You know that many people don't agree that something has to take it's first breath to be considered living.

 

Personally, I find that requirement completely ridiculous.

[Noxx]

You know that many people don't agree that something has to take it's first breath to be considered living.

 

Personally, I find that requirement completely ridiculous.

What's the difference between birth-control, condoms and abortions then? They all prevent life from happening.

You don't see people having issues over condoms and birth-control. They actually encourage the use of it.

[Duff]

Because our generation needs sex and without birth control or condoms, there would be so many irresponsible parents out there unable to raise children. Of course people would support being able to have sex all the time without taking on the responsibility of what it is meant to do. Sex is sacred, and the Church is against separating the pleasure of sex from sex's original purpose: to create life.

 

Strictly speaking, there is no difference between birth-control, condoms, or abortion in my view. I don't believe in any of them, as does the Church.

[Noxx]

So that would make you (and the church) against male and female sterilization too? Which essentially is also the same as condoms, birth-control and abortion.

[sees_all1]

So that would make you (and the church) against male and female sterilization too? Which essentially is also the same as condoms, birth-control and abortion.

 

I really don't want to get into this debate again, I believe everything I've written is still in here.

Anyhow, if you're interested in why the Catholic Church teaches what it teaches, you should take a look at Theology of the Body and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Also the collection of views tend to make more sense than any one individual view. There's less hypocrisy in the teaching than some might lead you to believe.

[Nomrombom]

Because our generation needs sex and without birth control or condoms, there would be so many irresponsible parents out there unable to raise children.

 

Yes, exactly. This is why we also "need" abortion. Maybe they were drunk, or stupid, or tried to pull out, or the condom broke, or any combination of those. Abortions have saved countless numbers of children from having to endure terrible quality lives. There are people who, if abortion was illegal, simply have their baby in secret and kill it. What if having a baby endangers the safety of the mother? What if the baby is going to be born deformed and will have extremely poor quality of life? What if the mother is a prostitute addicted to cocaine and the father is a random guy who hired said prostitute? What if the mother/father have little money, no way to have the child cared for, and no jobs?

 

In addition, "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). " This is from wikipedia, but all the online dictionaries I checked say this in different words. Murder must be unlawful to be murder, and therefore abortion is not murder in the United States.

 

A question - who gets to define when something is living? Nox, how can you say it's only alive when it breathes? Duff, how can you say it IS alive at whenever you do? Is the definition of human life different than that of simple "life"? And why can we kill things like chickens, cows, bacteria, germs, and goats (and even people under many, many circumstances) when they are fully developed and aware of what is happening, but not a fetus which (under proper procedure) does not feel pain, does not know what is happening, cannot think, and cannot see beyond lights/motion?

[Duff]

Because our generation needs sex and without birth control or condoms, there would be so many irresponsible parents out there unable to raise children.

 

Yes, exactly. This is why we also "need" abortion. Maybe they were drunk, or stupid, or tried to pull out, or the condom broke, or any combination of those. Abortions have saved countless numbers of children from having to endure terrible quality lives. There are people who, if abortion was illegal, simply have their baby in secret and kill it. What if having a baby endangers the safety of the mother? What if the baby is going to be born deformed and will have extremely poor quality of life? What if the mother is a prostitute addicted to cocaine and the father is a random guy who hired said prostitute? What if the mother/father have little money, no way to have the child cared for, and no jobs?

First off, I was thinking more along the lines of 'stop having sex if you aren't planning on having a baby.' If our generation had some self control, we wouldn't be in this problem, tbh. And to the rest of that paragraph, I'm sure you could find succinct answers somewhere else. Look into it yourself. I know the Catholic Church has answers for those questions.

 

In addition, "Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with "malice aforethought", and generally this state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such as manslaughter). " This is from wikipedia, but all the online dictionaries I checked say this in different words. Murder must be unlawful to be murder, and therefore abortion is not murder in the United States.

How can you even say that when laws are not universal? Are you meaning to tell me that because the law doesn't find raping and killing a woman who has had an affair somewhere in the Middle East murder, that it isn't? You are basically saying that the laws determine our morals, and that is far from the truth.

 

A question - who gets to define when something is living? Nox, how can you say it's only alive when it breathes? Duff, how can you say it IS alive at whenever you do? Is the definition of human life different than that of simple "life"? And why can we kill things like chickens, cows, bacteria, germs, and goats (and even people under many, many circumstances) when they are fully developed and aware of what is happening, but not a fetus which (under proper procedure) does not feel pain, does not know what is happening, cannot think, and cannot see beyond lights/motion?

God gave us dominion over the rest of the earth. That's why we're allowed to kill the things you said (except for people). There are exceptions though, because caring for God's creation is one of the key themes of Catholic Social Justice. And it sounds like you're making your own assumption as to whether the fetus can be considered living or not. Who are you to make this call?