Abortion....why?

[Use_Imagination_here]

For the life of me I can't decide which side is morally correct. And as I just decided 25 seconds ago, my policy on situations like that is to go with whatever is more practical and beneficial to society in general. And for the life of me, I can't figure out which is. And as I just decided 10 seconds ago, my policy in these situations is to go with what feels right.

So GO ABORTION! WUU!

And I suppose it's probably because christians are a bit dumb. And I have to admit, more idiots are pro life than pro choice.

 

[Thaluikhain]

The child only has it's own life when it's not DIRECTLY dependant on a physical connection to another human for survival. Pregnancies spontaneously abort all of the time, are we collectively responsible for murder for not doing more to stop that from happening? After a child is born, if that child suffers from a chronic and usually terminal illness a mother has a right to declare ADVANCED MEDICAL DIRECTIVES that could involve but are not limited to:

Not feeding the child until it dies.
Refusing medication that is keeping the child alive.
Taking the child off of respirators, IV fluids and other forms of life support.
Giving DO NOT RESUSCITATE orders for the child.

But apparently a mother has NO AUTHORITY to make any kind of these decisions while the child in inside her body and completely dependant on the health of HER BODY for survival.

Exactly...haven't seen it explained this well for awhile.

 

[Truehare]

It's pretty late in the thread, but I will state my opinion here all the same. And no, I didn't read this thread past the first page, so I may well be repeating what others have already said.

First of all, I am not religious. I mean, I am, but I am not Christian. I am a Discordian, and my religion is all about choice and how each one of us sees reality differently from others. But I am still strongly against abortion.

This is why: for me, the moment of conception is really defining, for the simple reason that the new-formed embryo already has all the genetic information that will determine who that person is. Before conception, it's all pretty much in the air, depending on which spermatozoid is going to "win" the race, but when that race is over, the new individual is already defined. It doesn't matter it's just a bunch of cells, those cells are already on a very strict process of evolving into a specific person. And interrupting that process, from where I stand, is the same as interrupting any other life, i.e., it's killing.

And before anyone yells "you are a man, what do you know about the subject? blahblahblah", I was forced to analyze the matter pretty closely at a young age, when my girlfriend got pregnant twenty years ago (we were both sixteen). We both considered an abortion, but decided against it simply because we couldn't live with ourselves if we went through with it. My son is now 19 years old and one of the best things that happened in my life, despite all the hardships I went through while raising him. So I say: if you act irresponsibly by having unprotected sex (like I did), you have to be prepared to take responsibility for the results of your act. Hiding behind the "choice" argument doesn't change the fact that you are killing an innocent person without giving them a chance to defend themselves.

Now, I think that freedom is the ultimate good, and preventing life is removal of all freedom. So abortion should be allowed if the "child" agrees to give all of his freedom to his mother.

I wish I had read your post before writing mine. You put things in such an obvious light that I feel my post is useless now.

Note: In my ramblings up there I didn't consider the matter of abortion in cases of rape or if the mother and/or the child wouldn't survive birth anyway, because those are exceptions, not the rule. Those would be the only valid reasons to have an abortion, in my opinion.

 

[HalfTangible]

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

Wait, let me get this straight for a minute: First you argue that you support the death penalty because the person has made choices that shows they are a danger to society/people, and then you argue that you can't justify murder just because it's better for the species. I hate to say this, but those two arguments directly contradict each other, because the reason death penalty still exists in modern society is to get rid of people 'for the better of the species'.

Ok, yeah, my bad, I should've phrased it better: You can't kill somebody INNOCENT just because it'll help the species.

The thing you don't seem to get here is that the only difference i see between a baby and a fetus is that the latter hasn't been born yet: the fetus is still a human being, it's innocent as a baby. So unless the mother is at risk of death from it (and i mean serious risk) there is no reason to kill the fetus.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

Actually that is not what i said. What i said was more in line (but not exactly equivalent) with postulating that it's wrong to kill people who can UNDERSTAND pain. A fetus is perfectly capable of feeling and reacting to pain, but it can't understand it, and therefore can't understand cruelty.

It doesn't understand WHY but it can sure as heck (by your own admission above) feel pain.

Not to mention that the road to the gas chambers were already paved with fear, terror, despair, hunger, violence (in some cases torture), uncertainty and murder. Even IF we by my definition could excuse the holocaust chambers (and that is a big IF), you can't excuse everything that lead up to it.

I didn't bring the whole camp into debate (i'm not THAT ticked) just the gas chamber. When brought to the gas chambers, they were told they were just going to get a shower.

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

Yes it is. Abandonment makes a child SUFFER. A fetus cannot suffer until it is at a certain stage of pregnancy.

You just repeated the same point. The one i just said was invalid for a reason you did not address.

Your argument here relies on the inherent assumption that abortion is a problem. That abortion is a problem is an opinion, not a fact.

Was it you or the other guy who said that abortion was the lesser of two evils? I thought it was you =/

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Which in short means that your argument is based upon you defining 'life' as "when a child being given a chance".

I'll assume the quote is a typo because it makes no grammatical sense. Also i don't know what it's saying.

That's about as valid as a christian arguing that a child is given a soul during conception, and it's forbidden to kill a creature with a soul.

At the end of the day, those two definitions are rather arbitrary, and based on personal beliefs rather than science. Most people are as likely to take your point as they are to take the other.

Fetuses are innocent and (for the most part) killing them serves no purpose. Why EARTH would it be okay to kill them? It makes no sense!

 

[HalfTangible]

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

So it's okay to kill a person if they murder someone else (but have every opportunity to turn their life around and use more of that old 'human potential') but it's not okay to kill someone who wants to die because they're suffering a painful degeneration which will certainly result in an undignified death?

Right.

Good for you.

I don't have that much faith in humanity.

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

A baby laying in a street slowly dying of thirst, hunger, and cold is very much different than wiping off a collection of nerves from a human body which feels no pain. If you were given the two above examples (slowly painful death versus painless deletion) when deciding the fate of a child, I'm sure you'd know which to go for. Not that every case of disallowed abortion would have ended with a painful death, but I just wanted to point out a very loose comparison.

Killing someone and leaving them to die is EXACTLY the same.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

You just did. Above. You said that murder is okay when it is for the good of mankind for such people as serial killers. Also, pro-choice isn't pro-murder, again this is a silly comparison. Serial killers do not kill for the good of society, and they do not kill things which cannot feel pain or comprehend suffering.

That was poor wording which i corrected in a subsequent post (please see post 308)

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

By the poster's definition, it's okay to kill people (or potential people) who can't feel pain or understand what it is their losing or the very definition of suffrage itself. Such things that fall into this category are an undeveloped foetus, sperm-cells, and egg-cells. Your definition encapsulates people under anaesthetic and other hysterical examples.

[joke] 1) You now fall under that definition, as suffrage means the right to vote. =P [/joke]

2) I don't care if the thing can't feel pain (though he does say the fetus can) it's innocent and does not need to die.

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

So why are you for the death-penalty? That is cutting your loses and killing human potential for the sake of saving others from suffering. This is precisely the same as killing a collection of undeveloped cells forming an undeveloped human foetus; except you may possibly be saving the potential infant itself from years of hardship and suffering. Using your logic, you're very much pro-choice.

Because you are not even considered for the death penalty unless there is a good chance you'll do whatever crime landed you there again.

It's better to have a life of suffering than no life at all. Loved and lost, and all that crap.

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Are you also against the morning-after pill, in that case?

I dunno. Probably. What's it do?

Also, why once the egg has fertilised? The differences between a living, breathing, thinking baby and the collection of cells forming the first stages of a foetus are far greater than the differences between an fertilised egg and a fertilised egg.

A) That's a dumb point. A dumb, DUMB point. A baby is a fetus after about nine months of development, an unfertilised egg and a fertilised egg exist within a few minutes each other, of COURSE the differences are going to be massive!

B) Because the fertilization of the egg is the first point where a new individual is created. The individual may only be one cell, but before then, the sperm and eggs are technically incomplete cells of someone else's body.

(i should mention that i am a very poor communicator - I could and probably have said something that sounds like something else)

 

[Stublore]

No, the bigot here is you.
Sex is fine, but doing so in order to unintentionally or intentionally have a child and then remove it for some reason is what is wrong. I have a problem with the death penalty, I believe there are some cases worth trying to deal with and others, we need to keep locked away. I'm not a judge and there is no one on earth with the authority to decide whether someone lives or dies.
Bigots stem from little to no intellect, and because of your viewpoints, I'd have to say, you're the bigot here.

Lol, I'm a bigot
And your argument is that women get pregnant to HAVE abortions!
Thank you!!!
Now if that's not bigoted I'm flabbergasted!

 

[TheFarLeft]

I'm not a woman; I can never have children. I don't have a clue what it's like to have a vagina and go through all the bodily stuff that woman go through. Therefore, it is not my place to tell woman what they can and can't do with their bodies. However, if my girlfriend/wife/whatever was carrying a child that I helped conceive, then I would have some say in it, but only a little because I don't have to give birth to it.

Until a certain point it's just a bundle of cells. I kill cells by scratching myself or hitting my head on something. Yes, an embryo could turn into a person, but that's the keyword: could. There is no way of knowing 100% that it won't die in the womb, from a miscarriage or some other accident. So just because it can be a person, doesn't mean that it will.

And then there's the obvious religion thing... it's just dumb. Religion is so rigid and it's black and white with no exceptions. "This is good, this is bad, you're with us or against us, there is no in-between." The world is more laid back now and issues are becoming more than just black and white, so religion is just pushing people away by being so damn pushy. I'm Christian (I guess), I believe in God, Jesus, Heaven and all that good stuff (not Hell though, because that's contradictory of a loving God), but I also believe that religion is a personal matter and that it shouldn't be shoved into other people's faces. It's a supplement to how you live your life, not a guide to be followed to the letter. It should have absolutely no place in politics or law-making.

Anyways, abortion is not relevant to me in any way. Let the people who it actually affects decide what's best.

 

[Ritter315]

A fetus IS at the very least a fundemental blueprint for human baby, and thus endowed with the right to life. That is the problem pro-choice advocates make. It doesnt matter if the fetus isnt a baby yet, it WILL become one. Seriously, its disgusting the justifications people make for abortion.

 

[Thyunda]

I've not read all nine pages of this thread, but I'm going to weigh in anyway, and if my points have already been argued, feel free to brutally remind me. I suspect you would do anyway.


I'm pro-choice. I'm a pragmatist. There is nothing good that can come of forcing somebody who is financially, biologically or simply emotionally unready to have a child. Denying them that option is ridiculous.

1. Pregnancy is incredibly physically taxing. Some women are biologically unable to handle it.

2. Raising a child is expensive, both financially and mentally. If you can't give the money or attention, then your kid is gonna mess up somewhere along the line. Do you think our chavs in this country come from decent homes and stable families? No, they do not. They come from Council-housed benefit-scroungers of parents, parents who most like justified their pregnancy with 'its my body my choice innit?', a line I have heard so very often. Young girls often want children on a whim, it's a phase that does not last long. However, if it's easy for them to get sex during that phase, then they pretty much will. Then we have underage parents. Though not necessarily a bad thing, the vast majority of underage parents cannot raise a child. There are exceptions, naturally, I can name examples of both sides of the story.

3. I worked with the homeless. I have seen couples literally fighting over their baby. The kid is used as a weapon so very often, it's ridiculous. These are people who had nothing, and yet they still had a kid. And...well...it showed up in the newspapers that the child was horribly mistreated. Same for the girl who wheels her baby around while literally screaming at her Fosters-swigging boyfriend. It's disgusting.

And these are the people that do this by choice. These people did not want a child, they wanted a baby, clearly with no idea what it would entail. Why would you force that on somebody? Why would you force them to bring up a child they either can't or simply don't want to, because you want to push some pro-life agenda? How is it 'wrong'? It's saving two lives at the cost of one potential one. In an overpopulated, fairly shitty country, that's a definite net gain.

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

Personally, I think that it's the fault of religions (as are a number of outmoded ways of thinking people just can't shake, like having a dozen kids).

The reason I say this is because in today's current world we are literally drowning in a sea of people. There are officially more people being born than there are dying (as of a recent consensus my mother said she saw on the news). We are already having huge economic problems, food is an issue in several parts of the world, and there is no longer an survival-based reasons for having a ton of children.

We don't need to compete with other races to ensure the gene-pool survive. There are plenty of people who go their whole lives without having kids because they realize that there's too many gods-damned people as it is and they don't want that extra responsibility. In fact, one of my best friends and his wife made the decision when they got together there would be no kids, and to the best of my knowledge they take the necessary steps to make sure it doesn't happen. I'm not entirely sure what they'd do if an accident occurred, but I wouldn't be upset if they had an abortion.

I know that abortion is, at this point, a serious moral decision for a lot of people. However, my personal belief is that the fetus doesn't even carry a soul right away. The notion that it happens instantly is kind of ridiculous, anyways. Or did people ever stop and wonder why some babies are born fine, but stillborn, or born dead and then come to life suddenly.

Actually, that's deviating from the topic and making me sound strange, so yeah, moving on. I wholeheartedly believe that we have far more children than are necessary.

Now, do I think couples should experience the joy of having a child? Sure, but for gods-sakes keep it to some sorta minimum. We don't need everyone having 5+ kids, and don't get me started on Octomom.

Also, I'm reminded a few years back where a woman was raped and the doctor refused to give her that pill which would prevent pregnancy because of his religious beliefs. This is officially where, in my mind, some people have given up their right to choose because they then start choosing for others. It's also another reason that I've come to despise so much of Humanity..

Sorry, sorta ended on a rant, I think I've lost sight of my point... I just get rather upset when I hear about or am reminded of certain things..


EDIT: Thyunda pretty much got my more on-topic points across, without all my pent up rage and frustration at the world at large.


EDIT: Oh yeah, another of those outmoded ways of thinking I mentioned. "Sex is only to procreate." This is a myth and a fallacy. It is known that several animal species actually have sex for pleasure and relaxation (dolphins and a certain type of chimpanzee come to mind).

 

[Thyunda]

A fetus IS at the very least a fundemental blueprint for human baby, and thus endowed with the right to life. That is the problem pro-choice advocates make. It doesnt matter if the fetus isnt a baby yet, it WILL become one. Seriously, its disgusting the justifications people make for abortion.

Read my argument, dude. I think I just covered this point exactly.

 

[Ritter315]

"when half of all pregnancies spontaneously abort" - In a general sense. Thats like saying because some babies die premature ALL babies die die that way. "Do you see the absurdity in this statement now?" -Yes, in YOUR statement.

 

[AngloDoom]

I used 'it' to refer to the fetus/baby, not killing in general, and I don't support assisted suicide. (I support the death penalty because the person has already made choices that (for obvious reasons) show the person is a danger to society and people in general)

So it's okay to kill a person if they murder someone else (but have every opportunity to turn their life around and use more of that old 'human potential') but it's not okay to kill someone who wants to die because they're suffering a painful degeneration which will certainly result in an undignified death?

Right.

Good for you.

I don't have that much faith in humanity.

Neither do I, but it's still a life. You seem uncomfortable killing a baby because it's a baby, a fully-grown individual with life, experiences, and people to miss it seems less important to you than an unwanted, unplanned, and possibly unloved life in future.

You speak as if the 'if' is an absolute truth - that it will happen, it's simply a matter of when. Abandoning the baby is no different than aborting it, doesn't make it any less wrong.

A baby laying in a street slowly dying of thirst, hunger, and cold is very much different than wiping off a collection of nerves from a human body which feels no pain. If you were given the two above examples (slowly painful death versus painless deletion) when deciding the fate of a child, I'm sure you'd know which to go for. Not that every case of disallowed abortion would have ended with a painful death, but I just wanted to point out a very loose comparison.

Killing someone and leaving them to die is EXACTLY the same.

That's a statement, not an answer. Again, you're given the two options: so long as you're a half well-adjusted person you do the humane one. Being shot in the head and dying instantly isn't the same as being shot in the leg and dying of infection. One of the people in the above example suffers more than the other.

You can't justify murder on the basis of 'the species will be better off'. Because that means serial killers should be left out to wander the streets. Heck, probably given medals.

You just did. Above. You said that murder is okay when it is for the good of mankind for such people as serial killers. Also, pro-choice isn't pro-murder, again this is a silly comparison. Serial killers do not kill for the good of society, and they do not kill things which cannot feel pain or comprehend suffering.

That was poor wording which i corrected in a subsequent post (please see post 308)

Fair enough, no argument there.

By your definition, that means it's ok to kill people who can't feel pain (yes, they exist) slowly and the Holocaust's gas chambers were perfectly acceptable, as they killed the people quickly.

By the poster's definition, it's okay to kill people (or potential people) who can't feel pain or understand what it is their losing or the very definition of suffrage itself. Such things that fall into this category are an undeveloped foetus, sperm-cells, and egg-cells. Your definition encapsulates people under anaesthetic and other hysterical examples.

[joke] 1) You now fall under that definition, as suffrage means the right to vote. =P [/joke]

2) I don't care if the thing can't feel pain (though he does say the fetus can) it's innocent and does not need to die.

1) Whoopsie-doodle...I thought that word rung the wrong bells.
2) A foetus can't feel pain until the 28th week, apparently. The 'wiring' from the receptors to the brain just isn't there. Sure, the baby doesn't need to die, but then no-one does. Sure, it's innocent, but often so is the mother and father: should their lives be potentially ruined because another person's views? Why should a woman risk her life for something she never wanted? Does she deserve it?

'Abadonment is worse than abortion' is not a valid point - you can't solve one problem by making another worse.

So why are you for the death-penalty? That is cutting your loses and killing human potential for the sake of saving others from suffering. This is precisely the same as killing a collection of undeveloped cells forming an undeveloped human foetus; except you may possibly be saving the potential infant itself from years of hardship and suffering. Using your logic, you're very much pro-choice.

Because you are not even considered for the death penalty unless there is a good chance you'll do whatever crime landed you there again.

It's better to have a life of suffering than no life at all. Loved and lost, and all that crap.

That's easy to say, but what about a life that lasts three days of being in a blanket and left in the cold?

My argument is based on this: that individual life begins when the egg is fertilized, not when the baby is born, or when it can start feeling pain. Birth control doesn't kill a fertilized egg, it prevents the egg from being fertilized at all.

Are you also against the morning-after pill, in that case?

I dunno. Probably. What's it do?

It basically prevents the fertilised egg from implanting and as such developing. It's a form of emergency contraception taken after sex that is used if contraceptive measures were not taken or had taken and failed during the actual sexual act.
Wait, so your view is every single accident in sex should have resulted in a child the parents should be forced to raise?
When I was seventeen a condom I used broke during sex. I noticed after, and my girlfriend and I rushed to the chemist and got the morning-after pill to prevent pregnancy. Are you saying that, if you were in the same situation, you would have forced the girl to quit her education, given up your own education and gone into a job, all for the sake of raising a child you don't want and never intended? Are you seriously suggesting that?
What about people who are raped, or condoms sabotaged? Both of these can occur and do occur, should the women in this scenario once again risk their ACTUAL life for a theoretical one?

Also, why once the egg has fertilised? The differences between a living, breathing, thinking baby and the collection of cells forming the first stages of a foetus are far greater than the differences between an fertilised egg and a fertilised egg.

A) That's a dumb point. A dumb, DUMB point. A baby is a fetus after about nine months of development, an unfertilised egg and a fertilised egg exist within a few minutes each other, of COURSE the differences are going to be massive!

Why is this point dumb? A human embryo is just as similar to a dolphin or a pig when it's first formed, but I'm sure you wouldn't care if a farmer used an abortion method on a pig.

B) Because the fertilization of the egg is the first point where a new individual is created. The individual may only be one cell, but before then, the sperm and eggs are technically incomplete cells of someone else's body.

A human embryo is, by it's definition, an incomplete set of cells too. A fly is more alive than a 1-3 week old embryo. I know this is, in your eyes, killing an innocent: but it's not alive. It doesn't even fit the requirements of being alive until around the 23rd week after conception: while abortion is performed before this stage. It is just as much murder as wearing a condom: the foetus is not alive by scientific definition and so abortion is a preventative measure, not an execution.

(i should mention that i am a very poor communicator - I could and probably have said something that sounds like something else)

I wouldn't be that hard on yourself; I got the message plain and clear with no difficulty.

 

[Ritter315]

"Suddenly the statement lacks the theatrics present in the absolute and inaccurate original statement" - A fetus will become a human being (although most would contend that its ALREADY a human being and its development stage doesnt contest that) if it doesnt die. By that arguement, abortion is still killing a human being.

 

[Baby Tea]

And as for:

TL;DR: Because it's easier to judge or disapprove than to help or show compassion.

That's a pretty uneducated position.
There are tons of pregnancy support centers, all run by Christian groups, that help women going through unplanned pregnancies, or who are coping with the regret of abortions. I know of about 4 just in my area. These places offer a place to stay, food, diapers, everything to help these women. They are certainly doing what Christ taught, and they are all over the place.

Yeah, there are judgmental Christians. It shames and infuriates me all at once.
But we aren't all that way. Not by a long shot.

It's not an uneducated position, and I wasn't limiting that observation to Christians. The sort of reactionary and venomous sentiments about abortion that the OP referred to are hardly limited to any one group, but IMHO they tend to spring from the same well (i.e. a lack of compassion and empathy). Christ was big on "love thy neighbour", and plenty of people - Christian and otherwise - do not heed that central principle in commenting on abortion. The very existence of the support groups you mentioned shows this delineation, potentially because of the very factors mentioned in my comment and their ability to take the harder path.

I share your indignation with the graceless characterisation of Christians as all being like the fundamentalists. I agree that the support centres you refer to are a better reflection of the Christian ethos and principles than the dogmatists or the political zealots. I'm just as furious about the inaccurate prostitution of a faith for political purposes. Our agreement in regard to the pro-life/pro-capital punishment inconsistency seems to support that. My abbreviated point was about the reason why some people rail so vehemently against the "evils" of abortion - not that having a given faith predetermines this outcome.

Well spoken!
I stand corrected.