Abortion

[Dupin]

Saru, I would definitely be interested to see your opinions on religion, as I'm sure it's a topic you've spent plenty of time on, being an extremist Christian homosexual and all.

 

Y_Guy, it's actually a very difficult decision for many mothers. I have never known a mother who aborted to not have a lot of trouble with it. It is, after all, a potential child and a very emotional topic. I find your remark rather callous.

[obfuscator]

Saru, I would definitely be interested to see your opinions on religion, as I'm sure it's a topic you've spent plenty of time on, being an extremist Christian homosexual and all.

 

Y_Guy, it's actually a very difficult decision for many mothers. I have never known a mother who aborted to not have a lot of trouble with it. It is, after all, a potential child and a very emotional topic. I find your remark rather callous.

 

I'm quite sure it is a very difficult decision for many mothers. It doesn't change the fact that many people hold the opinion I sarcastically posted.

[Dupin]

Saru, I would definitely be interested to see your opinions on religion, as I'm sure it's a topic you've spent plenty of time on, being an extremist Christian homosexual and all.

 

Y_Guy, it's actually a very difficult decision for many mothers. I have never known a mother who aborted to not have a lot of trouble with it. It is, after all, a potential child and a very emotional topic. I find your remark rather callous.

 

I'm quite sure it is a very difficult decision for many mothers. It doesn't change the fact that many people hold the opinion I sarcastically posted.

Oh, I'm sure. Those crazy liberals are just popping out dead fetuses left and right. You hardly turn a street corner in Massachusetts without stumbling across a couple making love with no protection on the front steps of an abortion clinic.

 

A life is a life, whatever a person's belief. Anybody who tells you otherwise is probably trolling you - don't mention your pro-life views next time.

[obfuscator]

No, because you're not killing a child.

[Guest Rob]

Just a question here: Does an unborn fetus at the maximum age allowed for an abortion (I can't find an answer that doesn't vary website to website) have a conscience? That is to say, is aware of its existence and have emotions?

[Alg]

Only replying to parts

You say dont punish the kid, but that kid should not have existed in the first place.

This can only really apply to rape. If a mother has consensual sex and becomes pregnant, by all means the baby should exist.

 

Also on an evolutionary sense he who has the most kids is the most successful in nature, so if there was no punishment for rape and no aborting (or in the old days abandoning the rapists baby) would it be in man who no women likes best interest to be a rapist?

...What point are you trying to make here? That rape is evil? That it's good for men to pass on their genes? None of that is being debated.

 

Also if the unborn baby has rights, would a miscarriage then be considered man slaughter?

Miscarriages happen because something went wrong in the development of the baby. It's nature's earliest quality control system. Nobody has control over that. It isn't accidental or negligent, as manslaughter tends to be.

They do, on the other hand, have control over abortions. That's a conscious choice.

 

I dont care if the fetus has a heart/lungs/fingernails, it is entirely Dependant on the mothers blood to care for it, until the day its organs can function on their own without being fed directly from the mother (birth) I dont see it as a human. Also I refuse to budge on this point, so whether or not you choose to respond to this post it wont matter to me.

For the first few years of a child's life it is dependent on its parents for survival. Hell, kids don't really develop mentally until they're like 5. And until said child gets a job and moves out of its parent's house, it depends on said parent for food and shelter. Is it still not a human? Both are dependent on their parents, except one is out of the womb. It's a different kind of dependency with the same result.

 

Another thing would male masterbation/womens monthly periods also be considered murder? -

Men produce millions of sperm cells in a period of time I can't remember. Women menstruate monthly for something like 30-40 years. At that time neither cell is a zygote. A fertilized, developing egg is not the same as an unfertilized egg or a sperm cell. That's basic biology.

 

Christian (specifically catholic) doctrine says anything that stops a baby from being born (birth control or abortion) is evil. So would abstinence itself be the same as you are preventing potential babies from being born? See how stupid this argument is?

For entirely different reasons than you seem to think...

Birth control stops an egg from being fertilized through sex. Abortion kills the unfertilized egg before it's born. Abstinence is just not having sex. No sperm cells are being fired, no eggs are going to be fertilized.

[Guest Rob]

Well, I read a few "why abortion should be illegal" bits. Most of them are saying that because it's a human life, it has value. But here's a scenario, that could very well happen.

 

So, a woman is pregnant and age 25 or so. They're not financially ready to have a child, and the boyfriend has since left. So, if she can't abort it, she can only afford to have one child, who will never have a true father, and probably won't grow up in the best of conditions.

 

However, if the same woman can abort it, she can later on have 3 children, who have a father, and live in a financially stable and happy house.

 

Which one is better? You choose.

 

Edit: Forgive my crappily worded sentences, I'm tired.

[sees_all1]

The church things any pleause in sex is evil but recognizes the act iself is needed for people to exist, thus the compromise.

 

How about you go read the Catechism of the Catholic Church? That way, you won't sound as ignorant as you do now.

 

What im trying to prove - and likely doing a very bad job of - is that unfertilized sex cells are not much different from a fetus and this arguement goes back to how people like to treat each other/what their religion says is right not about human life.

Biologically speaking, two separated sex cells are nothing. When they combine they form a completely new, living entity. Its not potential life, that person is alive. The entire abortion debate boils down to a single question; when are humans given their rights? Arguing about anything else is just being intellectually dishonest.

Abortion proponents absolutely hate that question, because to argue that question they must first acknowledge that a person exists the entire time, and what they're doing is killing that person.

[Faux]

i passed an abortion protest at school today

 

"ADOPTION - THE FRIENDLY OPTION"

[Alg]

Abortion proponents absolutely hate that question, because to argue that question they must first acknowledge that a person exists the entire time, and what they're doing is killing that person.

Actually, there are many that don't approve of late-term abortions, I think. And either way, many pro-choicers claim that the child's rights begin at birth, or that while the child has rights, the mother's supercedes it's.

 

Rather than killing, it could be compared to removing a patient from life support. It's far from a perfect comparison, of course, because rather than preventing a slow death it's preventing a life before it really begins.

[obfuscator]

I actually agree that the mother's right to life supersedes that of the unborn child - which is why abortion is acceptable when the life of the mother is directly threatened.

[Skeptical]

What about when the pregnancy is a simply horrible burden: incestuous, underage rape comes to mind.

[Alg]

What about when the pregnancy is a simply horrible burden: incestuous, underage rape comes to mind.

Or cases when the baby would have a [cabbage]ty, dysfunctional life in general. It's mercy to prevent a child from being born into a life where it would be abused, starved, and hated by its own mother. Especially given the apparently cyclic nature of child abuse.

[sees_all1]

What about when the pregnancy is a simply horrible burden: incestuous, underage rape comes to mind.

 

You're not going to get a different answer from me.

 

 

Let me point out, however, that abortion can be the worst thing for rape or incest. There are stories like this one in Cincinnati -

The lawsuit involves a 14-year-old girl who, unbeknownst to her parents, aborted a child in 2004, conceived after having relations with her 21-year-old soccer coach. Ohio state law requires that parents give consent for a minor's abortion, but the parents say only the coach signed off on the procedure.

http://www.protectcincinnati.org/ProtectLawsuits.html

 

Underage girl, impregnated by her soccer coach. Abortion covers it up and the abuse continues.

[Alg]

Parental notification is a mixed bag. On one hand, it would allow stuff like that to be caught more easily. On the other, a more innocent relationship between minors that results in an accidental pregnancy would not be well received by the parents...

[Skeptical]

Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion.

 

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1883598,00.html#ixzz14wnJ2Wfs

 

She's 9 years old, raped by her stepfather, and will have children. Now, please explain to me how her afterlife will make all of the suffering in this life acceptable, or how the innocence of a soul (an idiotic notion conceived by religion to maintain control of the fearful, uneducated, illiterate masses) justifies the cruelty being inflicted on this child.

[Zierro]

You're not going to get a different answer from me.

 

 

Let me point out, however, that abortion can be the worst thing for rape or incest. There are stories like this one in Cincinnati -

 

http://www.protectci...ctLawsuits.html

 

Underage girl, impregnated by her soccer coach. Abortion covers it up and the abuse continues.

 

The girl not consulting her parents about it is what's covering it up - not abortion. And also that excludes all of the cases where the girl does consult her parents about the rape/affair.

 

Archibishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the coastal city of Recife announced that the Vatican was excommunicating the family of a local girl who had been raped and impregnated with twins by her stepfather, because they had chosen to have the girl undergo an abortion.

 

Society never fails to astonish me.

[Alg]

And again a gray issue is being made black-and-white, where extreme examples from both ends get thrown around, and ultimately ignored, without the thought that perhaps one's side isn't perfect in every way.

[Skeptical]

When something short of 20% of the world is Catholic, it hardly seems like an extremist position.

 

I would oppose abortion if someone decided they just didn't feel like using a condom, and would use it as a method of birth control.

 

But denying it in all cases, or claiming that you have the right to interfere with a woman's body is setting back human rights by at least a quarter century.

[Alg]

And of course that entire 20% holds the same opinion about abortion.

 

On the contrary, interfering with a woman's body is pretty much what abortion is. The whole point of pro-choice is that it's her choice whether or not it gets interfered with. And if she wants to use abortion as an alternate form of birth control, that's her choice. Plus, it's not like you can really tell who would abuse the right. Pro-choice has its flaws, I personally think those are outweighed by its benefits.

 

Either way, someone's rights are being violated. Pro-choicers can say that they're protecting the woman's rights, pro lifers can say that they're protecting the fetus's rights. Someone's rights are going to have to be violated to protect the other's, the debate is about whose are more valuable. You've got pro-lifers at the fringes saying that the woman has no rights, and some pro-choicers saying that the fetus has no rights.

[sees_all1]

The girl not consulting her parents about it is what's covering it up - not abortion.

So the soccer coach threatens to kill her if she tells anyone. Does that make it her fault?

The whole premise of an age of consent is that children mentally cannot make an informed decision about their relationships. She cannot be expected to tell her parents about this, especially if she felt threatened.

 

Here's another - abortion covered up child abuse

A Warren County woman sued Planned Parenthood Friday, accusing its staff of ignoring training and procedures by not reporting her suspected sex abuse when she was a minor, resulting in her being sexually abused for an additional 1½ years.

The suit accused Planned Parenthood and five of its employees of ignoring obvious signs of suspected sexual abuse instead of reporting them as Ohio law requires.

The woman was sexually assaulted from age 13 through age 17 by her biological father, and became pregnant by him, the suit alleges.

She went to the Mount Auburn facility of Planned Parenthood of Southwest Ohio in November 2004 to have an abortion. When questioned by Planned Parenthood employees, the girl told them that she had been forced to do things that she did not want to do, the suit alleges.

That statement, Hurley said, should have caused Planned Parenthood employees to alert law enforcement officials about suspected sex abuse against a minor.

The father was arrested 1½ years after her Planned Parenthood experience, Hurley said, when the girls future college basketball coach became suspicious and reported suspected abuse.

The father was convicted of sexual battery and sexual touching and sentenced in 2006 to five years in prison.

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/planned_parenthood_sued_for_covering_up_rape_of_a_minor/

Tell me that's the girls fault for not reporting it. Its worse than bullying, because its her own father who she cannot get away from. If abortion was illegal, a pregnant girl at the age of 13 would be an obvious sign that something is wrong.

[Skeptical]

An embryo has no more in the way of rights than my sperm cells do, and certainly far fewer rights than that of a dolphin or adult human female. If you want to remove a man's right to masturbate and a woman's to ovulate without a resulting pregnancy, then I'll listen to the "moral case".

 

To those arguing that abortion covers up child abuse, yes I'm sure that in those cases it did. But you're certain that none of the partner-less mothers were sexually abused or raped? Tell me, how exactly does having a child magically provide evidence of rape or abuse? And I certainly don't have a number to provide, but I have to wonder if that child isn't next in line for abuse.

[Saru Inc]

An embryo has no more in the way of rights than my sperm cells do, and certainly far fewer rights than that of a dolphin or adult human female.

 

 

Opinion alert.

 

 

----

 

 

Oh, so you know it's an opinion? So don't state it as fact.

 

 

After all, babies have fingernails. FINGERNAILS.

[Skeptical]

An embryo has no more in the way of rights than my sperm cells do, and certainly far fewer rights than that of a dolphin or adult human female.

 

 

Opinion alert.

 

 

----

 

 

Oh, so you know it's an opinion? So don't state it as fact.

 

 

After all, babies have fingernails. FINGERNAILS.

 

Everything is an opinion; we just choose to use certain tolerances concerning scientific certainty to distinguish truth.

[Saru Inc]

An embryo has no more in the way of rights than my sperm cells do, and certainly far fewer rights than that of a dolphin or adult human female.

 

 

Opinion alert.

 

 

----

 

 

Oh, so you know it's an opinion? So don't state it as fact.

 

 

After all, babies have fingernails. FINGERNAILS.

 

Everything is an opinion; we just choose to accept certain tolerances concerning scientific certainty as truth.

 

No.