Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[Pyro]

 

 

Not really.

 

 

 

White 'supremists' thought that blacks were less than human, and therefore their's to do whatever they pleased with.

 

 

 

Abortion supporters think that unborn beings are less than human, and therefore their's to do whatever they please with.

Irelevant.

I'm not sure that you showed how.

That's what the next statement is for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Societies all over the world consider parents to be in full charge of their offspring.

To a degree, yes. Many societies consider abusing/killing your children as unacceptable. Even America does.

True, but there is a difference between a child and an unborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Slavery cannot be compared to it at all.

You still haven't said why not.

I have, see previous statement. Global society has agreed that it's acceptable to put the parent in charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whether or not it is moral, unborn beings are less than human in terms of rights, like it or not.

 

 

 

In most countries, yes, but the purpose of this debate is to determine whether or not they should have less rights, not if they do.

I'm, aware of that, hence my question: What gives you the right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion? Your feelings for taking the life of an unborn? What gives you the right to force her to carry, give birth to, and raise the baby? How is abortion different than day-after pills? As I said I'm convinced that an unborn baby has no self-awareness, so I really don't see how an abortion is different than a day-after pill. You are taking just as many lives. Heck, why is abortion murder if a condom isn't? You're still preventing just as many from being born.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting up small parts of the text to put it out of context is the most pathetic form of debate there is, lets try not to sink to that level shall we? Answer my questions instead ;P

[JohnnySmum]

there is a difference between a child and an unborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is there? The DNA is exactly the same in an embryo/foetus as in a new born baby,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

an unborn baby has no self-awareness

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and you could argue that a newborn baby has very little, if any, self-awareness either. Yet I'm sure that you'd be against killing babies. What's the fundametal difference? Tests show that the foetus is capable of feeling pain and reacts to various stimuli, just as a baby does.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What gives you the right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This can be answered with your own words:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Global society has agreed that it's acceptable to put the parent in charge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Judeo-Christian) society as a whole is responsible for governing what is ethically acceptiable. By your reasoning, society doesn't have the right to imprison others; after all, what gives them the right? The answer is that it's for the good of the people as a whole, and I'd argue that abortion is detrimental to both the individual (the victim being aborted) and society as a whole (less value for human life etc.).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How is abortion different than day-after pills?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it isn't. I know that alot of people will disagree with me on this point, but my stance is that as soon as the sperm has fused with the egg, discontinuing the pregnancy counts as murder. You've got all the genetic material there to create a human, and by all scientific accounts, that embryo is alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heck, why is abortion murder if a condom isn't?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A condom isn't murder because it prevents the sperm from meeting the egg. A sperm of itself doesn't contain all the genetic material required to make a person. Think about masturbation - by the above logic, men would be guilty of 300 million murders everytime they ejaculated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've got alot of respect for you Pyro, but I don't agree on this issue.

[doorbell]

 

 

Societies all over the world consider parents to be in full charge of their offspring.

To a degree, yes. Many societies consider abusing/killing your children as unacceptable. Even America does.

True, but there is a difference between a child and an unborn.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm, aware of that, hence my question: What gives you the right to tell a woman that she cannot have an abortion? Your feelings for taking the life of an unborn? What gives you the right to force her to carry, give birth to, and raise the baby? How is abortion different than day-after pills? As I said I'm convinced that an unborn baby has no self-awareness, so I really don't see how an abortion is different than a day-after pill. You are taking just as many lives. Heck, why is abortion murder if a condom isn't? You're still preventing just as many from being born.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quoting up small parts of the text to put it out of context is the most pathetic form of debate there is, lets try not to sink to that level shall we? Answer my questions instead ;P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since you dislike my seperating your ideas and rebutting them one at a time, I will do it all at once---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean when you say "offspring?" Are you refering to just unborn offspring?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What gives me the right to say what I want to? In my country, I am guarenteed the right to say what I want (within bounds, of course). Thus, my goverment grants me that civil right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

When you tell me not to quote small parts of text, don't sink yourself to my level :roll:

[Theak]

I could launch into a massive explanation as to why I believe what I do but I'll keep it brief. I personally believe abortion SHOULD be allowed and it should be used whenever the parents don't want a child, for whatever reason. Why do I believe this? I believe that human life starts ONLY at birth. Life begins at conception (NOT human life!), but human life is only after birth. Now, we kill things that are alive all the time without thinking about it. We kill and eat plants and animals all the time. Why should a foetus, who isn't human, and shouldn't be considered one until birth, be treated any differently?

[logic-is-overrated]

How are the majority of abortions paid for? Are they paid for personally or are they tax funded?

[unknownmasterofnothing]

 

 

 

A condom isn't murder because it prevents the sperm from meeting the egg. A sperm of itself doesn't contain all the genetic material required to make a person. Think about masturbation - by the above logic, men would be guilty of 300 million murders everytime they ejaculated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well sperm is half the way to a human. And people have less or more than the genetic material needed for a human. So you are killing a human because the sperm has potential for live. Its murder. Its nothing short of murder. Its sick to think that people would allow masturbation to occur. There should be a law against masturbation. Thinking of sperm as less than human is like how slavery was. They thought african americans were less than human. To think masturbation isn't equal to murder, when you think abortion is murder. Doesn't make sense. We also should stop the murder of animals and plants, these are lifes that we are talking about. If we care so much about human life, then other forms of life should be just as important.

[Muse]

 

 

 

 

A condom isn't murder because it prevents the sperm from meeting the egg. A sperm of itself doesn't contain all the genetic material required to make a person. Think about masturbation - by the above logic, men would be guilty of 300 million murders everytime they ejaculated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well sperm is half the way to a human. And people have less or more than the genetic material needed for a human. So you are killing a human because the sperm has potential for live. Its murder. Its nothing short of murder. Its sick to think that people would allow masturbation to occur. There should be a law against masturbation. Thinking of sperm as less than human is like how slavery was. They thought african americans were less than human. To think masturbation isn't equal to murder, when you think abortion is murder. Doesn't make sense. We also should stop the murder of animals and plants, these are lifes that we are talking about. If we care so much about human life, then other forms of life should be just as important.

 

 

 

:lol: This really made me laugh out loud. :P

[Pyro]

JohnnySmum, It could be argued that a newborn baby has very little self-awareness, but it can definatly be assumed it has more so than unborn. Society has a right to do what it has to do to to protect society, and preventing abortion hardly helps society at all. The very definition of murder is the planned killing of a human being, and since a fetus does not qualify as a human being in the minds of society, I fail to see how abortion has more to do with murder than contraception. By doing both, you are preventing a human from being born. The DNA may very well be the same in an adult and a fetus, but it still doesn't change the fact that a fetus is not human yet. As I see it, we can only justify a ban of abortion with one argument: It's unethical. But enforcing our ethical views on mothers seeking to have abortion, could very well be considered unethical in itself. They do not want the baby, and their ethical views allow abortion. Why should out ethical views take priority when we are not the ones concerned?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, while I support abortion, I also believe the ones having the abortion should pay for it themselves, unless for example a rape was involved. Abortion is being used as contraceptive today, and that's wrong IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

doorbell, your freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. When I say "The right to say" I simply meant the right to enforce your views on others, when the issue does not concern you and it concerns them. Besides, moral right and legal right are two entirely different things. And no, when I said offspring I meant both born and unborn.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

How is abortion different than day-after pills?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

it isn't. I know that alot of people will disagree with me on this point, but my stance is that as soon as the sperm has fused with the egg, discontinuing the pregnancy counts as murder. You've got all the genetic material there to create a human, and by all scientific accounts, that embryo is alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a nucleic acid which carries genetic instructions for the biological development of all cellular forms of life and many viruses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remember guys make sure you do no shed any living cells (but you do that quite regually) as that is murder. All cells are made up of DNA which is all the genetic material you need to make a human.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no difference between a skin cell and an embryo in respect to DNA.

[Antega]

I'm only 14, but here I go :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People have free will... Its their choice if they want to kill their baby. However, a true way of looking at it would be asking yourself - if you were told, right now, that your father was a rapist, and his whereabouts unknown, would you say "Oh, mother, why didn't you kill me while I was in your stomach?!!"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I doubt it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Given the chance, I'm 100% sure the child would rather live than die, no matter what his past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But if its just an accident... that's different. Its up to the parents to decide, as I said, everyone has free will. However, I think it should be CLEARLY made that aborting is not a good thing to do. Making it illegal, however, is just stupid. The mother won't care for the baby as much, and she may even abuse it or try to kill it. In which case, its better for the baby to never life at all, sadly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's my view...

[Hannibal]

also if you look closly, even withought the flaming, it still gets us no where. No one changes opionons... and there isnt much tot hink about except to yell at other people to change there opions...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I love it when I get to explain my view on humanity's weakness: we can hardly talk to eachother if we're not feeling we are right and others should convert to our point of view. That's just [cabbage]! Discussion is to learn from eachother, not to point a gun / start flaming: "you better agree with me or else...". This world would be damn boring if everyone thought the same about every issue. Go figure and stop flaming please - whether you agree with me or not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On topic:

 

 

 

I'm with Muse, but I have to disagree with this (shortened a bit for clarity):

 

 

 

 

Also a ban on clinical abortion will not stop illegal abortions. People with enough will; will try any method (no matter how horrendous it is) to get rid of the child. Why do you want to inflict more physical and emotional pain on people who are already undergoing a tough time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... however I'm always surprised when logic such as above in bold is used to prove a point; A ban on clinical abortion (which as I stated am not 100% against) will not stop illegal abortions.

 

 

 

Right.

 

 

 

However, cocaine usage is illegal, as well as drunk driving.

 

 

 

Since people still do it anyway, should we just legalize it once again?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DBP is right, and your logic doesn't make sense, that's what I think at least. Drunk driving endangers other people - therefore we have rules for it, whether people still try it is beside the point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cocaine use is illegal. Now this is an important point: people can screw themselves up pretty badly if using cocaine. But it's (to a very slim extent) legal in Holland (I think you're allowed to have a maximum of 5 grams on you or something like that, any more and you need to have a damn good explanation what you're planning on doing with that). Now why is it legal? Exactly because of what DBP said: if it's legal, it's a lot easier to keep a close look at all the users, and treat them when they need it. (please tell me if you don't like me using that acronym, Death_By_Pod, it's just shorter ;)).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cocaine use is not as likely to harm others as drunk driving, if done in an appropriate environment. You're not allowed to use cocaine in the middle of the street, for example, there are special coffeeshops where you are allowed to use it (they usually have extra security / medical treatment rules) and you can do it in your own home (which poses more risk for yourself, but less for others - your choice). Whereas drunk driving endangers all other people / animals / things currently somewhere on the road (or, in some circumstances, some place close to the road ;)).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is not very likely to harm others - except the baby. Now I have to agree that a baby can't feel anything for quite a period of time (and if I can remember correctly, it will only feel something after all the possibilities of abortion have run out (meaning it's not possible without risking the mothers life).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people have the right to decide for themselves whether they 'need' an abortion, but personally (if I were to be a pregnant woman) I'd only do so when:

 

 

 

- Conception was part of rape or incest. Having a child from your rapist / own father is a huge burden - whether you have it adopted or not.

 

 

 

- Conception took place even when using contraceptives, like condoms or whatever. Because then it's not your fault. I've heard stories of people who used a condom, the condom didn't work, she took a morning after pill, that didn't work, and then she wasn't allowed an abortion. She should have, as she didn't want that child at all, and it'd be wrong to force the child on her whatever the case.

 

 

 

- Continuing pregnancy puts the mother's life at stake. I think others covered this topic very well, so I won't do it all over again ;).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Johnnysmum, I think you pretty much disagree with yourself here :?.

 

 

 

If ejaculation without conception is OK, and a woman having her period without getting pregnant is OK too (I think we all agree on this one, don't we ;)), then why is it wrong to have the child aborted when it's a small ball of 4 to 8 cells (I think it's about that when you use a morning after pill). You don't go telling me those 4 or 8 cells have feeling. Ergo, it's not a living being. If you feel that anything which is DNA and can still grow out to a living being should be treated with the respect you have for full-grown humans, then you should consider the seamon and eggs as such, as both still have the possibility to grow into a human. Why would that be any different to the little cells which form after conception takes place?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As to the "the baby has feelings and responds to the outer world" part of your argument (forgive me for not quoting, I'm in a hurry now :(), I agree that it's wrong to abort when the baby has grown to that level (not that I think I have the right to force others to agree with me) - but it's not responding or really 'feeling' when it's less than 20 weeks old. So I'm afraid I can't really see your point, care to elaborate? :)

[JohnnySmum]

why is it wrong to have the child aborted when it's a small ball of 4 to 8 cells

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because that embryo, given enough time, would become a human. I'll illustrate my point another way; people are still put in jail for attempted murder and conspiracy to commit murder, because even if they didn't actually succeed in commiting the murder, they would have if given the chance. Seen the film Minority Report? It's enough that something will happen.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Granted, the embryo doesn't have the same sensory ability as a baby, but if allowed to live, it will do. I'd argue that mothers don't have the right to abort their unborn children because those foetuses will become humans in the future. Any of us would be outraged if our parents had the authority to kill us, and why is it any different for an unborn child?

[Mercifull]

you religeos pro life people dont seem to understand the psychological consequenses of having an unwanted child. these children are often neglected and even abused. the mother is likely to go into post natal depression. the parents wont bond and both parties will lead a much worse off life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as for adoption. there are already hundreds of children waiting to be adopted already. maybe it would be good for a nice "christian" family to take one of those children in and look after them. it is after all what they preach, time to put it into practice.

 

 

 

what happens when the child tries to find the real parents. imagine searching for 20 years of your life looking for your mother only to find her and she never want to speak to you or hate you or possibly even for her to tell you that you are the result of a rape. the memories will all come back and depression will set in again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we are at a time when we understand both the physical and phcological aspects of pregnancy. its time to embrace that.

[Mercifull]

voting for bush is like putting the bodies of women accross america under the control of one religeous fanatic.

 

 

 

how can you decide what a woman wants to do to HER body. without the body of the mum the baby would never exist, i belive life starts when a baby can life on its own independant of the mother.

[HugATree]

 

 

 

The only exception is if the mother's life would be placed in jeopardy if she continued the pregnancy. Even if a rape results in pregnancy, the woman could always put the baby up for adoption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why insist on taking away the woman's choice?

 

 

 

If you're ever in that situation, you go do that.

[JohnnySmum]

you religeos pro life people dont seem to understand the psychological consequenses of having an unwanted child. these children are often neglected and even abused. the mother is likely to go into post natal depression. the parents wont bond and both parties will lead a much worse off life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That claim is simply not statistically verifiable. Infact, mounting evidence shows the opposite to be true.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as for adoption. there are already hundreds of children waiting to be adopted already. maybe it would be good for a nice "christian" family to take one of those children in and look after them. it is after all what they preach, time to put it into practice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure about the validity about there not being enough homes for adopted children, but I'm sure that many Christians do adopt children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

what happens when the child tries to find the real parents. imagine searching for 20 years of your life looking for your mother only to find her and she never want to speak to you or hate you or possibly even for her to tell you that you are the result of a rape. the memories will all come back and depression will set in again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is blood relation what's really important? Surely foster parents can love a child as much as any biological parents can. It's the same situation with surrogate mothers. What does it matter that someone gave birth to you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we are at a time when we understand both the physical and phcological aspects of pregnancy. its time to embrace that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Indeed, and it is this vast well of knowledge which should dictate the outlaw of abortion; even without Christian views coming into it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

voting for bush is like putting the bodies of women accross america under the control of one religeous fanatic.

 

 

 

how can you decide what a woman wants to do to HER body.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not so much the bodies of the women, but the bodies of the unborn babies that are being protected. Those children have the right to life; Bush's policies on abortion protect this. It sounds more fanatical to me to allow mothers to kill their children than to prevent it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

without the body of the mum the baby would never exist,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't see the significance in the fact that the baby wouldn't live without the mother. The mother wouldn't have lived either if she'd been callously aborted while still a foetus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

i belive life starts when a baby can life on its own independant of the mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You've relied heavily on science during your argument. By all scientific defitions, that embryo/foetus is alive: it moves, respires, senses, grows, can reproduce, excretes and requires nutrition. That's every feauture of life accounted for.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no scientific or ethical base for the justification of the systematic murder of unborn children - abortion.

[meadowmont]

you religeos pro life people dont seem to understand the psychological consequenses of having an unwanted child.

 

 

 

Mercifull, you don't seem to understand the physical consequence of abortion, death.

 

 

 

these children are often neglected and even abused. the mother is likely to go into post natal depression.

 

 

 

If death is better than neglect and abuse, then why is the penalty for murder stronger than the penalty for neglect and abuse?

 

 

 

the parents wont bond and both parties will lead a much worse off life.

 

 

 

The baby will lead a much worse life being alive as opposed to being killed?

 

 

 

as for adoption. there are already hundreds of children waiting to be adopted already. maybe it would be good for a nice "christian" family to take one of those children in and look after them. it is after all what they preach, time to put it into practice.

 

 

 

So my inability to adopt a baby makes it right for you to kill it?

 

 

 

what happens when the child tries to find the real parents. imagine searching for 20 years of your life looking for your mother only to find her and she never want to speak to you or hate you or possibly even for her to tell you that you are the result of a rape. the memories will all come back and depression will set in again.

 

 

 

Again, if you think death is better than depression, then you would think that the ideal anti-depressant "medication" would be a loaded gun.

 

 

 

voting for bush is like putting the bodies of women accross america under the control of one religeous fanatic.

 

 

 

how can you decide what a woman wants to do to HER body. without the body of the mum the baby would never exist, i belive life starts when a baby can life on its own independant of the mother.

 

 

 

So toddlers arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t alive?

[doorbell]

i belive life starts when a baby can life on its own independant of the mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do premie ICU's count as mothers? If not, studies indicate that a 'fetus' is potentially viable at 20 weeks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most infants require the care of an individual, even after birth.

[doorbell]

Abortion and Suicide

 

 

 

Contrary to popular opinion, a British Medical Journal study found that:

 

 

 

A total of 421 women had had their first abortion or first unintended delivery between 1980 and 1992. Among married women, those with a history of abortion were significantly more likely to be at high risk of clinical depression compared with those who delivered unintended pregnancies.

This study compared the depression rate between women with unintended pregnancies who chose to abort, and those who chose to deliver the child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/ ... urcetype=1

 

 

 

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/ol ... b3424.html

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Pete_the_Viscous]

I'm fairly sure that Merc meant that the baby can "live" independant of it's mother. A baby that is breathing, can eat, and, most importantly is NOT connected to the mother by any physical tubes/whatever, is, in a sense, independant, as, if you take it away and dump it on a big pile of food/puddle of milk, it'll live. (I mean, if you do it so that it can't drown, or anything.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not that any of that is important, as, a baby that's unborn, but ready to be born could instantly become "independant," if you rip it out and shove it in one of the afformentioned places.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I personally don't have a problem with abortion, if it's at a time when the child couldn't survive, were it to be born, there and then. In that case I'm all for the adoption, orphanage thing. It's like euthanasia, though, in that I won't say that 100% of the time I'd go these ways.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edit: misspelled "sense." Whoopsie.

[doorbell]

I'm fairly sure that Merc meant that the baby can "live" independant of it's mother. A baby that is breathing, can eat, and, most importantly is NOT connected to the mother by any physical tubes/whatever, is, in a sense, independant, as, if you take it away and dump it on a big pile of food/puddle of milk, it'll live. (I mean, if you do it so that it can't drown, or anything.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most infants need to be fed, i.e they need someone or something to assist them.

[insane]

 

 

Both raped mothers and the babies of the rapists are more likely to commit suicide than other people.

 

 

 

Stats from the ODPM 2000 (sorry you cant access this data its for goverment ppl only)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do raped mother commit more suicides then people who have been raped and had an abortion or just not people who have been raped? Also why not let the kid decide for himself whether he/she wants to live better to let them be born and commit suicide then just kill them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So if sombody commits suicide thats straight to hell right? But if a baby is aborted they go to heaven. Eternal happiness.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to play the religeon card ;)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you want to play the religion card perhaps you should learn about religion. Instead of criticizing it and saying you don't believe in it, when you base your opinions on atheist propoganda and assumptions.

[doorbell]

Which religion card were you trying to play, anyway? It definetly wasn't atheism or humanism.

[Panix]

I'm with Pyro on this. Pretty everything he/she, I agree with.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you don't believe in abortion, I don't believe you should close that option for people who do believe in/need it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And for the people who think would say illegal drugs or drunk driving should be legal too by my reasoning, I'd just like to say that some of us are actually responsible in our partying. I've used methadone (something some people believe is no different than taking heroin) 5 days out of 7 before and although I woke up with small withdrawal back pains, I never robbed my work to get more money to score a fix. :roll: I hit the garage with my first car more times than I've ever hit ANYTHING when I'm drunk. :lol: Although I can see why there is laws about driving while intoxicated because it still isn't a good idea and most people aren't that responsible. I'll stop drinking before I get too inebriated to function.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comparing slavery to abortion is like comparing murder to theft.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh yeah, and to the people who said stuff like "it's up for the woman to decide" or "I can't say anything besides I'm a guy," that's bs. Unless a woman can make the kid herself, the man has a 50% say in it.

[djscoobsta]

ummmm i think its the mother choice some females arnt ready for the responablity