Abortion: Your Views...

[Locke4God]

@ Alpha - I can't argue with that. You make a good point. I was just including it as a compromise, and when I say that I mean severe deformities that would require consant attention and are most likely life threatening for the child right from the beginning. But I completely see your point.

[Josh_R]

I am pro-abortion but I do see flaws like the fact that the taxpayers are the ones who pay for these countless abortions, I think it is okay to get one but if you do the cash should have to come out of your pocket and not the taxpayer's...

[Freya]

Oh boy... Kisuke_Hellsing: Why are you pro-abortion? What are your arguments?

In my opinion, there's no pro or con for abortion. It all depends on the situation, on the person and the environment. You can't say that you're FOR or AGAINST abortions. You can't say that for EVERY situation.

I suppose it's been mentioned before, but if a girl was raped, I'd probably say that an abortion is okay. I wouldn't want to give birth to a child of such a person, to be honest. I'm not sure if I, personally, would do it, but I think it's justified in this case.
If anyone is totally AGAINST abortions - how can you say that in this case? It probably wasn't her fault that she got pregnant, so it should be her right to "get rid" of this problem.

If you're just - sorry to say it like that - too stupid to prevent pregnancy... then I wouldn't say that you an abortion is needed. Though you also have to consider that parents who don't want the child will not treat it right...

You see, this is a complicated topic and I can't say what's wrong or right.

The only thing I can definitely tell is... that I wouldn't do it. If I - even by accident - got pregnant, I probably just wouldn't "kill" the child. I can't explain why I want that child to live (though now we could discuss endlessly at which time a child "lives"), it's just that it doesn't feel right. :/

[Josh_R]

You see, this is a complicated topic and I can't say what's wrong or right.
:/

I agree with you that this is a complicated topic..I am pro-abortion when the situation calls for it, I dont think we should be able to tell a person that they can or cannot get an abortion...Like you stated Freya if a woman was raped abortion is okay..I mean it is just my opinion but a person should be able to make the choices they want, I apoligize if I offended you in any way but those are just my feelings...

[Muramasa89]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances, those being such as:

Rape victims.
The birth will kill the mother.
The child will be born with deformities.
The child will be born with life-threatening diseases.
The child cannot be supported by the parents (such as poverty).

If you get an Abortion for the pregnancy being an accident, then I condone it. Be more careful, rather than wasting a future life. I understand even with condoms, the pill, etc, there CAN still be accidents, but those are rare circumstances and can't be helped. But a lot of people think they can go around having unprotected sex then just abort the baby like nothing ever happened.

[Sasquatch]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances ...

Translation: You're okay with abortion. The question with abortion is whether or not the child is a human life. It's a yes-or-no question. If the child is a human life, then it's wrong to end it, period. It's it's not a human life, then it's not wrong to end it. Period. No "certain circumstances", no double-standards -- either it's wrong or it's not.

Rape victims? What makes them special? The mother is carrying a child that she doesn't want. Whether the child is the result of rape or the result of irresponsible sexual habits, it's a child that she doesn't want. Is it alright for a mother to kill her unborn child if she doesn't want it, or is it not?

(By the way, rape makes up about three-quarters of a percent -- that's three out of every 400 -- cases for abortion.)

Cases where the birth will kill the mother are extremely rare and have never been contested. They are also usually not known until it happens. Almost never is a pregnancy encountered that is likely to cause the mother's death if carried to full term.

And if it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby with a "deformity", when does it become wrong? When the child is born, and doctors see the true extent of the "deformity" -- or realize that there is one, something they couldn't see before birth? Or is it alright to wait a few years to give the kid a chance and see how it does, then cut it into pieces and suck it through a vacuum?

Life-threatening diseases? Like I said, either an unborn child is a human life or it isn't. If it isn't, you don't need "certain circumstances" -- if it is, it's wrong, period. Even if you wanted to place limits on it, they would have to be universal. If it's alright to kill an unborn child because they might have a life-threatening disease, then it's alright to kill a five-year-old child because they have a life-threatening disease. Or a fifteen-year-old. Or a fifty-year-old.

What else you got ... when the child cannot be supported by the parents? That doesn't narrow it down at all. First, there's such a thing as adoption -- you know, where a biological parent doesn't have to slaughter their own child, but doesn't have to raise it either. Second, the people who have the most irresponsible sex are the people with the lowest incomes.

All in all, out of the millions of abortions performed in America every year, about one-and-a-half percent are done for health reasons or for rape. That means that 98.5% of abortions are done for convenience.

Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?

While Ragnatoad already addressed the nonsense of your "examples", I have a question for you. If an unborn baby is not a human, why is it illegal to kill them against the mother's will? Why are murderers of pregnant women charged with two murders instead of just one? (i.e. Scott Peterson)

(homage to George Carlin, there...)

If you got that last part from Carlin, I haven't heard it. If you were referring to your "everybody is pro-life and pro-choice, it's for or against abortion that's the issue," that's from a Penn & Teller episode.

[Muramasa89]

Translation: You're okay with abortion.

Thanks for pointing out what I already said for everyone else.

Rape victims? What makes them special? The mother is carrying a child that she doesn't want. Whether the child is the result of rape or the result of irresponsible sexual habits, it's a child that she doesn't want. Is it alright for a mother to kill her unborn child if she doesn't want it, or is it not?

What makes them special? Well. Define special. Just since when did a rapist take the time to slip a condom on before raping the poor girl, then before he heads off, says kindly "Don't forget the contraception!" Carelessness is your own fault. Being raped is not.

Cases where the birth will kill the mother are extremely rare

Said it yourself. Rare; but still liable to happen.

And if it's not wrong to kill an unborn baby with a "deformity", when does it become wrong? When the child is born, and doctors see the true extent of the "deformity" -- or realize that there is one, something they couldn't see before birth? Or is it alright to wait a few years to give the kid a chance and see how it does, then cut it into pieces and suck it through a vacuum?

I suppose I should have maybe elaborated a tad more... A deformity that would affect the child's life substantially. And as you say, "When the child is born", that is way beyond the point of abortion. S/he is safe from abortion then, and if s/he was to be cut up and sucked into a vacuum then that (in the eyes of the Law) is murder. Abortion is murder to some, others don't think so as much. I'm one of those people.

Life-threatening diseases? Like I said, either an unborn child is a human life or it isn't. If it isn't, you don't need "certain circumstances" -- if it is, it's wrong, period. Even if you wanted to place limits on it, they would have to be universal. If it's alright to kill an unborn child because they might have a life-threatening disease, then it's alright to kill a five-year-old child because they have a life-threatening disease. Or a fifteen-year-old. Or a fifty-year-old.

It is different being born with it, rather than living to your examples of fifteen and fifty then recieving it. The child being born with it wouldn't even live to the majority of his/her life.

What else you got ... when the child cannot be supported by the parents? That doesn't narrow it down at all. First, there's such a thing as adoption -- you know, where a biological parent doesn't have to slaughter their own child, but doesn't have to raise it either. Second, the people who have the most irresponsible sex are the people with the lowest incomes.

Yes there is adoption. If only every child got adopted, eh? I did originally only put that point in for lack of a better one, but you've addressed it now anyway. I don't need the means to defend this; I agree with you. To your second point, maybe in your country, though I needn't see a point arguing this after agreeing.

All in all, out of the millions of abortions performed in America every year, about one-and-a-half percent are done for health reasons or for rape. That means that 98.5% of abortions are done for convenience.

Then that goes to show how many people don't care about abortion and think they can simply abort a baby after not giving a crap during sex. I've already said I was against people being careless and having an abortion, you gave me a fact that I was supporting and already knew.

You're giving these circumstances, but then you say it's alright when it's an accident. That pretty much means it's allowed in any situation, according to you. And did you forget about adoption?

I did reply to this before... But before I noticed I was busy replying to someone, so I couldn't edit.
You misunderstand me; I did not say it is okay as an accident.

[Sasquatch]

Thanks for pointing out what I already said for everyone else.

I pointed it out and made it simpler -- you wanted to hide your true beliefs with "under certain circumstances", whereas I simply pointed out that it's a yes-or-no question.

What makes them special? Well. Define special. Just since when did a rapist take the time to slip a condom on before raping the poor girl, then before he heads off, says kindly "Don't forget the contraception!" Carelessness is your own fault. Being raped is not.

And now it matters whose "fault" it was? An unwanted pregnancy is an unwanted pregnancy. It's not the fault of the child, but you're still arguing for the mother's "right" to kill the child anyway.

Said it yourself. Rare; but still liable to happen.

Not in this day and age in most of the civilized world. But way to dodge that argument.

I suppose I should have maybe elaborated a tad more... A deformity that would affect the child's life substantially.

By whose standards? What about people who later become "deformed", by losing a limb or something -- should we be able to kill them too? After all, it would affect their life substantially, and we just don't want to put the poor guy through that.

And as you say, "When the child is born", that is way beyond the point of abortion. S/he is safe from abortion then, and if s/he was to be cut up and sucked into a vacuum then that (in the eyes of the Law) is murder.

Depends on the whim of the mother.

It is different being born with it, rather than living to your examples of fifteen and fifty then receiving it. The child being born with it wouldn't even live to the majority of his/her life.

And once again, you are making a judgment that because you don't think they'd have a long or good life, it should be alright to kill them.

Yes there is adoption. If only every child got adopted, eh?

True, there needs to be some reform with the adoption system. It's such a hassle in the United States that it's easier to adopt a child from another country than it is to adopt from American parents. But that doesn't mean that because it's hard to adopt, we should slaughter children if we think they might not grow up in a home that we might consider "good".

Then that goes to show how many people don't care about abortion and think they can simply abort a baby after not giving a crap during sex. I've already said I was against people being careless and having an abortion, you gave me a fact that I was supporting and already knew.

You made a post supporting abortion and listing your "special circumstances" where you'd find it acceptable -- not pointing out that the vast, vast majority of cases fall way, way outside your "special circumstances".

You misunderstand me; I did not say it is okay as an accident.

You: "If you get an Abortion for the pregnancy being an accident, then I condone it."

Condone: 1. to disregard or overlook (something illegal, objectionable, or the like).
2. to give tacit approval to
3. to pardon or forgive (an offense); excuse.

The word you were looking for was probably condemn.

[Alpha]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances, those being such as:

The child will be born with deformities.

I just want to point this out.

I don't feel abortion is ever justified, but I also see it as a religious issue, and I don't wish others to impose beliefs on me, so I don't impose mine on others.

I do make one small allowance, however.

How is being born with supposed 'deformities' somehow a licence to prevent/end a life? Should we engage in eugenics in pursuit of the master race? I forgot what happened last time.

I have a severely disabled younger brother, so I suppose this is personal. But there is nothing greater than life, and there are no exceptions to being allowed to experience it. My brother can't talk, hold a pen, or understand anything. But he can be happy, and he can make others happy. Or is that not enough?

[Reverend Red Mage]

I agree. Normally, this isn't a topic I like to even touch with a 10-foot pole.
My stance on it is simple... it should always be a last resort, and should not be outlawed. I know there are a lot of arguments about that, but I think that it shouldn't be reduced to 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'. Everyone is both pro-life and pro-choice... you're either for or against abortion.

The nature of this debate seems to be where to draw the line between fetus and human being. Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?
(homage to George Carlin, there...)

[RagnaToad]

I'm okay with Abortion. As long as it is under certain circumstances, those being such as:

Rape victims.
The birth will kill the mother.
The child will be born with deformities.
The child will be born with life-threatening diseases.
The child cannot be supported by the parents (such as poverty).

If you get an Abortion for the pregnancy being an accident, then I condone it. Be more careful, rather than wasting a future life. I understand even with condoms, the pill, etc, there CAN still be accidents, but those are rare circumstances and can't be helped. But a lot of people think they can go around having unprotected sex then just abort the baby like nothing ever happened.

You're giving these circumstances, but then you say it's alright when it's an accident. That pretty much means it's allowed in any situation, according to you. And did you forget about adoption?

The nature of this debate seems to be where to draw the line between fetus and human being. Personally, I don't think a fetus is a human; if it were, why do we not count it in the census, and why is it that a woman will say, instead of "I have three children", "I have two and one on the way"?
(homage to George Carlin, there...)

1. counting unborn babies in the census is just ridiculous, and I assume you're kidding around about that.
2. People don't call unborn babies born babies, because they are unborn. That has nothing to do with them being humans or not. In your logic, a baby is a human being the day it is born, but the day before, it is not?

[Dimi]

I think depending on the circumstances of the situation that someone can be in, abortion can/can't be okay. I believe that in a situation where you "accidentally" get pregnant while having sex without any form of protection and want an abortion then you're an idiot. Because:

1) Use a condom.
2) Use birth control.
3) If you're that worried about getting pregnant, then just sow your vagina shut and step away from the peen.

Now we all know condoms and birth control aren't always 100% effective in preventing pregnancy, but the chances of getting pregnant are certainly lessened then using nothing at all while having sex.

But if a woman is in a situation where she is raped and it turns out that she is pregnant from something like that then I think it would be okay to get an abortion. Think about it. It's traumatizing enough to go through something horrendous like that but to have a child with someone that forced themselves on you would be very damaging. Not only on the woman but on the child itself.

In a religious aspect abortion may be completely taboo, but I think it ultimately comes down to the situation itself.

[Tiffany]

I don't believe in the "well if it were this case then..." How can one say that? I get that rape is traumatic on the mother. How is that the baby's fault? Did the baby ask for the mother to get raped? I think not. I would never dream of expecting a woman who was raped to keep the child but there is adoption. So what makes the life of the baby who was a product of rape any less important than one that was conceived with willing sex?

As for birth control, it does fail. TRUST ME, I know this first hand! My darling baby girl is the product of failed birth control. I even had the type of birth control that isn't a pill that you take every day (thus having greater room for error). I had the ring that you leave for 3 weeks then take out for one, and it was supposed to prevent conception 24/7.

Well, considering I have a daughter now would suffice to say how well THAT worked. I contemplated aborting her. I'm glad I didn't. She's amazing. However, you do not miss what you did not know. Had I aborted her then life would have gone on as per normal.

It is awful to say, I know. I hate the thought that I contemplated it. However, I had a loving, supportive guy who when I told I was pregnant swore he'd be there for me every step of the way. He has, and then some. Not all women are lucky like that.

I don't think that it is a yes or no answer. I think every case is individual. I also think that unless you've been in the situation to either deal with a pregnancy or contemplate an abortion then you really don't know what you'd do. I never thought I'd contemplate it. EVER. However once I was faced with a pregnancy yes it did cross my mind.

[Alpha]

So what makes the life of the baby who was a product of rape any less important than one that was conceived with willing sex?

You know, I think you've just convinced me.

Abortion is still a choice made by the parents, however, and regardless of whether one sees it in absolute terms, this choice can only be made by the parents.

[ViveLaVive]

Abortion i belive is murder. In some cases, such as rape, or life threatening pregnancy, then i think it is alright.

On the other hand, if someone is pregnant at a young age, say, 16, in any other way than rape, it should not be legal. they made the choice, and it has consequences.

And Alpha, i COMPLETLEY AGREE. killing something because of "deformities" is terrible. on a religious standpoint, i still think that it would classify as murder, but the way the catholic(my religion) church advertises it as 100% anti-god, im actually a bit annoyed. just pull it under murder. Well, thats what most catholics i know do anyway, so its really no big thing.

[GypsyElder]

On the other hand, if someone is pregnant at a young age, say, 16, in any other way than rape, it should not be legal. they made the choice, and it has consequences.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? I remember hearing about a young girl who was about twelve who got pregnant and they were having a hard time trying to figure out what to do. As the girl was so young, her body was not developed enough to bare a child.

I'm still not convinced it's okay to have an abortion if you were raped.

[Govinda]

In cases of rape, the foetus is no more or less important than any other. However, it has a capacity to cause its mother mental harm just by existing, without the mother suffering from any underlying issues. A foetus created that way will be a constant reminder of one of the most traumatic experiences a woman can ever have, for at least nine months, supposing she chooses adoption. The child will have no father anyway, what if she can't support it on her own? She didn't want or choose to be pregnant, and has no reason to be ready for such a massive upheavel. Let rape victims keep their rights.

[Tiffany]

In cases of rape, the foetus is no more or less important than any other. However, it has a capacity to cause its mother mental harm just by existing, without the mother suffering from any underlying issues. A foetus created that way will be a constant reminder of one of the most traumatic experiences a woman can ever have, for at least nine months, supposing she chooses adoption. The child will have no father anyway, what if she can't support it on her own? She didn't want or choose to be pregnant, and has no reason to be ready for such a massive upheavel. Let rape victims keep their rights.

I totally understand what you are trying to say. However, someone doesn't need to be a blood relation to be a father. So, yes... the child could have a father. Be it from adoption or otherwise.

Also, having been pregnant myself... 9 months isn't a long time in the spectrum of life. I didn't want to be pregnant either. I didn't 'choose' it per se, because we weren't trying. That doesn't mean that my daughter isn't any less loved.

Granted, I didn't get raped. However, I have BEEN raped. I just don't think that a baby's life is forfeit because of circumstances beyond its control. I don't deny that it would be hard on the mother. Hell, my pregnancy was hard on ME and I didn't have a situation like that. I just don't see how 9 months somehow trumps 60-70 potential years of life.

I am pro choice though. If a woman decided to abort a baby that is her life and her consequences to deal with. I just don't agree with the whole "All life is precious except for the babies conceived through rape. Sorry kids, your life isn't as important. Better luck next time."

[Govinda]

I see what you, and the others, are saying Tiffany. I would probably agree; I'm in the boat that could never have an abortion personally. I'd feel like I'd killed a little living bit of me. I just don't like the idea of a world where the freedom to choose doesn't exist, is all, where poor women in third world countries who can't afford to feed the children they already have don't have the option, you know?

[Alpha]

That is but one legitimate response, Govinda. As has been argued earlier, keeping a child produced through rape may be a sign of victory over the rapist, that the woman's life was not successfully destroyed.

If one considers abortion akin to murder, then the answer is clear. Rape is a crime, but so is murder.

[Howling Wind]

Don't know if my opinion counts since I'm so young but. I don't really agree with abortion and I don't think I would ever get one. The only time I see abortion as maybe an "OK" is if someone was raped and is younger then 15 or just raped. But... there is always having the kid if you were raped and just put it up for adoption. I know a lot of people who say the same thing I do. There are always more choices then abortion and I don't like the idea of it at all. If I ever got raped or just pregnant and didn't want to raise the kid I would put it up for adoption. Someone who wants a baby could take it and give it a good life. I know abortion is a choice and I have nothing against people that do it when rape is involved but it would never be my choice.

[Copperfire]

I would never get an abortion myself. Even with an unwanted pregnancy.

But I'm pro-choice, and I believe it's every persons right to make their own choices without interference.

[bahamuts heir]

If the girl is raped and gets pregnant, go for it
if she brought it upon herself, I wouldn't aggree to it, but he'll it's her body.
If she is too young for kids, she is probably too young for sex
want do you think condoms are for?
No offence is meant with any part of my post.

[Crazy Chocobo]

Well, I personally believe in abortion BUT I only believe in it if the Mother of the child knows that the baby is going to suffer it's whole life or have complications. That's really the only time I agree with it. If a Mother accidentally gets pregnant and doesn't want the child but the child is healthy, I would consider it sick if she aborted that child. There are adoption agencies out there where that child could go and they will more than likely grow up living a healthy and happy life. Killing it is just the wrong answer in my opinion in that situation.

Not everybody would agree with me in the way that terminating a child that will suffer it's whole life but that's just the way I see it. I don't mean all disabled children, I mean someone who will REALLY suffer after birth. Would you want to live your whole life like that? There are terrible diseases out there that would not be great to have. Terminating a child which isn't formed properly for some reason isn't good either, let them have a chance at life I say.

I wasn't even going to post in this thread but I did. >< Just wanted to add my opinion about the matter.

[T.G. Oskar]

I definitely am against it. Odd, right? I usually am sympathetic to left-wing ideas, but this is one of the few I don't agree with.

Regardless of the circumstance, it is a life. Even as an embryo, it is a life. It's funny when people who agree with ecology and abortion claim that the planet is alive (not everyone, but at least a few), but don't think the same of an embryo. By the time it's a blastocite, it's pretty much already alive. If it feeds, it reproduces, it grows, and it breathes, it's alive. An embryo, at the very moment it separates into the first two cells, is both growing and reproducing. To grow and reproduce, it must begin to consume both oxygen and aminoacids; it both feeds and breathes. By that point, if you go with that narrow and possibly antiquated definition of life, it's a living being. A living being that will probably grow into a loving and caring child, killed before it even had a chance.

Yeah, I know it sounds cliche and sentimental. But well, it makes more sense than treating an embryo as if it were an object, or worse; trash to be disposed off. It's natural that an unused ovum is disposed at the moment it cannot be used, it was designed to act that way. But when under impregnation, it's hideous to imagine it. Even worse when the fetus is well under development.

Now...how about rape? Well, I still find it stupid to abort under rape. I find more of a heroic act to actually raise the baby despite all circumstances and giving the child a chance to live. It's character development, so to speak; you might eventually find the decision a rewarding experience. As well, you might even shove the fact that, despite the dishonor and the horrible experience, you decided to go on with your life to the rapist. Aborting would probably give the rapist a sense of satisfaction that he did his job; proving him wrong can be difficult, but in the end rewarding.

And what if the baby is born with a "defect"? Now that's just being unfair. That's a challenge, and it's a challenge that most people simply can't handle...or well, they don't think they can handle. Perhaps it's just what they need? Or perhaps they are deluded into thinking they can't. I find a truly worthwhile woman (and man, too...actually, a worthwhile human) the individual who goes the extra mile to raise someone with a genetic "defect". Heck, I'm not going to say that it's "a test from God"; it's just being awesome. And true; not everyone can handle it. But whether it is fair or not depends on your beliefs.

The only moment where I would find a conflict is when the birth may reach potentially fatal consequences. If it's natural abortion (i.e., the fetus was dead anyways), then it makes no sense to keep the corpse. If it's a life-threatening situation (and well, I wouldn't like to be on that spot), I could probably accept any decision. Be it abortion or not. Though, if there's a slight chance, I would take it; however limited it may be. I mean, if you are going to believe that you are the result of a highly improbable (yet occurring) statistic (a one-in 8 billion or something chances of existence), but you don't want to risk it? Sounds pretty illogical to me. But I understand the decision isn't easy to take.

Aside from that little moment, I can't support abortion. Period. I actually find it less of a liberating decision and a femenine right and more of an act of cowardice, driven by ignorance, and restrictive in the end. Sorry if I sound harsh, but this is one of the moments I must, when I feel forced to simply say no. That's my opinion, and I can allow people to have their own opinion about the matter, but I can't feel good without at least making sound statements about why abortion isn't an option. I don't like people changing their ways most of the time, but this is one of the few things I adamantly ignore for terms of personal improvement; I would feel bad if I were to allow people to follow the opinion of pro-choice. I can't force people to change, but at least I wish to make them think about it.

Adoption is an excellent choice. It's still a bit coward, but at least it's the most reasonable way to at least hope you can ensure that life a better future.

[GypsyElder]

Regardless of the circumstance, it is a life. Even as an embryo, it is a life. It's funny when people who agree with ecology and abortion claim that the planet is alive (not everyone, but at least a few), but don't think the same of an embryo. By the time it's a blastocite, it's pretty much already alive. If it feeds, it reproduces, it grows, and it breathes, it's alive. An embryo, at the very moment it separates into the first two cells, is both growing and reproducing. To grow and reproduce, it must begin to consume both oxygen and aminoacids; it both feeds and breathes. By that point, if you go with that narrow and possibly antiquated definition of life, it's a living being. A living being that will probably grow into a loving and caring child, killed before it even had a chance.

Now...how about rape? Well, I still find it stupid to abort under rape. I find more of a heroic act to actually raise the baby despite all circumstances and giving the child a chance to live. It's character development, so to speak; you might eventually find the decision a rewarding experience. As well, you might even shove the fact that, despite the dishonor and the horrible experience, you decided to go on with your life to the rapist. Aborting would probably give the rapist a sense of satisfaction that he did his job; proving him wrong can be difficult, but in the end rewarding.

And what if the baby is born with a "defect"? Now that's just being unfair. That's a challenge, and it's a challenge that most people simply can't handle...or well, they don't think they can handle. Perhaps it's just what they need? Or perhaps they are deluded into thinking they can't. I find a truly worthwhile woman (and man, too...actually, a worthwhile human) the individual who goes the extra mile to raise someone with a genetic "defect". Heck, I'm not going to say that it's "a test from God"; it's just being awesome. And true; not everyone can handle it. But whether it is fair or not depends on your beliefs.

T.G's views are pretty much the same as mine. I don't think abortion is acceptable under any circumstance.

One, either you are irresponsible and didn't want the baby in the first place.I t's your fault and should take responsibility. Why should the baby suffer because you weren't using logic?

Two,the excuse of "I can't take care of it", then don't fool around ,un-protected knowing you can't support a child if it happens.

Three, you were raped, I can understand not wanting it for what ever reason, but you are no better than the one who raped you by killing the child, if not worse.

Four, a birth defect, not everyone can handle it, but getting rid of him or her is the same as saying you're broken and I don't want you because you're not normal. And for people who can't "take care of it" wouldn't that be more of a reason to try? I look up to people who are willing to take on the challenge and succeed. It's that much more rewarding. That is your good deed for life.

When it comes to fatal moments, I guess this might be the only exception I would make, I can unerstand why it would be hard to decide. I would say go with the flow.

Why not have the kid and put him or her up for adoption if you are really aren't capable of taking care it ?

thats my opinion.

[nix]

6 pages on whether one should kill a sperm or not? **** sake people.

Heres how it should be, if a child is unwanted by the person/s that created it, it should be their right to abort it. Nobody else should have a say, are they gonna carry the child for 9 months and then raise it ? No, so why do they have a say?

Birth is not a miracle, it is not special.. no more than you squeezing a turd out of your ass while squating over a toilet bowl. its a genetic reaction, get over it.

We, humans are a virus with shoes. We should look after the millions of hungry/starving/homeless people/children already in the world. Instead of crying and moaning over the death of an unwanted sperm

My opinion however only covers the early stages of pregnancy, if it has a head/arms/legs then yeah i oppose. Little teeny weeny not aware of its own consciousness do whatever ya like

[RagnaToad]

are they gonna carry the child for 9 months and then raise it ? No, so why do they have a say?

no more than you squeezing a turd out of your ass while squating over a toilet bowl.

Instead of crying and moaning over the death of an unwanted sperm

My opinion however only covers the early stages of pregnancy, if it has a head/arms/legs then yeah i oppose. Little teeny weeny not aware of its own consciousness do whatever ya like

1. If that is your argument, a parent can do whatever he/she likes to do with a baby too? I mean, they have to raise it, and if they can't, they might as well dump it next to the road.

2. That's pretty disrespectful towards women.

3. A child growing in a woman's stomach is hardly un 'unwanted sperm'. (I'm starting to doubt if you're being serious...)

4. That's the thing. Where do you draw the line? When it starts developing arm and legs?

People don't want to allow abortions on babies that are starting to look like humans, cause they would have to except that it is murder...

Plus, do you think a small child is aware of its consciousness? Again, by this standard you can kill all babies. They're too young to fear or realise what death is anyway.

[nix]

Yes im serious, i draw a line on my beliefs, that line is just higher than your standard pack of back patting, loving humanity people.

I'm a realist, if a mother and father decide its not a good time to have a baby as it could drasiticaly finacially cripple the family, or if they know they wont be good parents, or if its a baby created through the act of rape, or if someone was in a swimming pool and got unlucky. I could go on forever with the many reasons why it would be best for a child not to be born.

Also id like to add that the absence of a father figure in the early stages of life, from the baby being born till between the age of 5 and 7 when the child begins to develop his super ego is not a good thing.. As many case studies show the absense of a father figure increases juvenile delinquency, and they turn into criminals and it goes on and on and on. Now im not saying all fatherless children are criminals, but most end up troubled.

So i say yes to abortion if you want, put it out of its misery before it develops consciousness.

Adoption you say? Take a look around the world at the children that face misery and starvation daily, i dont see anybody rushing to whisk them off to safety. This is an entirely different discussion in itself right there so im not gonna delve to far into adoption, just know its not the answer.

The human mind is delicate and fragile, we need to start being careful with it. The world is over populated enough if ya ask me and we need to sort out this whole food/air ordeal, think of it in 100 years from now. The population will have drastically increased and if history has anything to show us, were gonna be in a whole world of shit, there are too many of us and we cause alot of damage to the world around us as a collective.

I'm gonna stop here as I keep having to stop myself going to what people would refer to as off topic, but there are reasons why unwanted children shouldn't be born if not necessary, reasons that superceed our feelings and emotions.

But let me know, am i really being too harsh?

[T.G. Oskar]

6 pages on whether one should kill a sperm or not? **** sake people.

Heres how it should be, if a child is unwanted by the person/s that created it, it should be their right to abort it. Nobody else should have a say, are they gonna carry the child for 9 months and then raise it ? No, so why do they have a say?

Again, it seems like a cowardly position. How do you expect to teach a person, or assume a person must assume its responsibilities if it doesn't attend to that? Besides, what if one of the sides opposes?

Also, adoption.

Birth is not a miracle, it is not special.. no more than you squeezing a turd out of your ass while squating over a toilet bowl. its a genetic reaction, get over it.

Ooo, just retorted to Dr. Manhattan there. 2 million sperm, only one (or two, or several, give or take) gets the "lucky" prize. How are you going to expect having any kind of "sexual responsibility" if you are eliminating the one reason why it exists anyways?

We, humans are a virus with shoes. We should look after the millions of hungry/starving/homeless people/children already in the world. Instead of crying and moaning over the death of an unwanted sperm

World Vision. Or adoption, or mostly contributing to end that trouble. You can't peg the idea of "don't bring children into the world if you don't want them" on people that don't have that choice, that wish to have a family but are poor enough to be unable to do so.

Odd that you didn't advocate for self-extermination, Agent Smith.

My opinion however only covers the early stages of pregnancy, if it has a head/arms/legs then yeah i oppose. Little teeny weeny not aware of its own consciousness do whatever ya like

Lawl, disclaimer. Thing is; just how early can a sperm-embedded ovum be considered an embryo, or a living person? You can argue that while on the ovum, or before the blastocyte period, but after...well, it's not as easy as taking it as a joke.

I'm a realist, if a mother and father decide its not a good time to have a baby as it could drasiticaly finacially cripple the family...

Then why not go through contraceptives. Heck, why think of sex...?

[...]or if they know they wont be good parents[...]

Why think about sex, either. It's like buying a puppy because it's cute, but ditching it because it turned into an ugly dog. It's lack of foresight. I can't stop those who don't have it, but makes sense to at least think about it before actually doing it...

[...]or if its a baby created through the act of rape[...]

I think I gave a good reason why a mother should have the child. Call it idealism, if you like. Surely beats being a cynic for anything but defending against world idiocy.

or if someone was in a swimming pool and got unlucky.

So you'll allow abortion over a silly excuse like that? Now that's sillier...talk about being realist...

I could go on forever with the many reasons why it would be best for a child not to be born.

You could have gone with each and every one of them. Not everyone will consider them solid and irrefutable reasons.

Also id like to add that the absence of a father figure in the early stages of life, from the baby being born till between the age of 5 and 7 when the child begins to develop his super ego is not a good thing.. As many case studies show the absense of a father figure increases juvenile delinquency, and they turn into criminals and it goes on and on and on. Now im not saying all fatherless children are criminals, but most end up troubled.

What about single mothers? Responsible single mothers. Or single fathers, as well. Responsible single fathers, that is. Which is what I assume that you speak about fatherless children (or motherless children, too); as well as the slight chance the child ends up trying to make it on its own.

What about uncles? Grandparents? Cousins? ...Godparents? (That's actually the reason why they exist; to take care of their godchildren if their parents are away, as well as teach them religion; though, that's mostly regional at best)

Adoption you say? Take a look around the world at the children that face misery and starvation daily, i dont see anybody rushing to whisk them off to safety. This is an entirely different discussion in itself right there so im not gonna delve to far into adoption, just know its not the answer.

It IS an answer. Every little thing helps. Being a realist doesn't mean being a cynic for the lulz; it means being pretty much on the mid-point of idealism and cynicism.

The human mind is delicate and fragile, we need to start being careful with it. The world is over populated enough if ya ask me and we need to sort out this whole food/air ordeal, think of it in 100 years from now. The population will have drastically increased and if history has anything to show us, were gonna be in a whole world of shit, there are too many of us and we cause alot of damage to the world around us as a collective.

Be it through abstinence or contraceptives... It's mostly a point of showing just how important is sex, not the joke that gets shown through us by TV and the Internet and whatnot. That's mostly giving permission to those who think of sex as entertainment to be irresponsible. Not everyone does: oddly enough, most of the people who are Pro-Choice aren't promiscuous or irresponsible people; these are people who have careers and solid lines of thought. But they're defending a choice for others who don't even care for what reasons they defend abortion to rub it the wrong way with their irresponsibility.

In short: don't defend abortion for the sex-crazed youth. Do it for something perhaps a bit more valuable, even if I and most others here don't agree with your position.

But let me know, am i really being too harsh?

No. Bits of comedy aren't so bad every now and then. It surely lends to a less tense discussion

Would you rather see a child come into the world unwanted, to be abused, have a harsh life and grow up to be a rapist/child molester/ murder?

Or would you lean more towars the "unwanted tadpole not yet conscious child" be stricken from the record book before been even entered into it?

Hey deadbeing, you want a mass?
Catholic: nothing, but it would certainly had loved it while alive.
Christian: nothing, but it certainly wouldn't since it doesn't believe on it.
Nihilist: nothing, because it ceased to exist.

...kinda silly, but it's an empty question. It doesn't allow other options, nor it seems it will accept those who probably are capable of getting in. Not everybody will think like you, actually. Just like the three dead people; who can't answer jack but whom you might guess their answers.

If you think killing a "child" thats not even a month old and hasnt developed much at all is murder, then i suggest we put a hold on masterbation too. We shoot 2 million sperm each load, and if thats the case everybody on the earth is a hitler

Then I suggest we put a hold on sex as well. Only one of 2 million sperm gets the lucky shot; perhaps two or even three. The other 1,999,997? They also die. Or, when you have wet dreams.

Also...doesn't the brain and the ear organs develop the fastest?

Still, that's a pretty decent way to put it. If you think of sperm as a living organism, it makes you think the importance of sex.

Also, didn't you lost the discussion? Godwin's Law has been invoked, and the corollary is inflexible.

There's something about this discussion that bugs me, RagnaToad. (Phoe)Nix is clearly stating his point of view while you only criticize it. When he questions your view you attempt to render the inquiry invalid either by saying that you haven't stated your opinion or that he's just "ridiculing" you. It's great that you're attempting to inspire thought, but this isn't really a debate. It's a critique.

Isn't that the point of a debate? Making the other kneel before you and accept you're right? Perhaps it can open a bit of thought if the debate is left inconcluse (as it always does), but if you beat the other through the discussion, it's pretty evident that there's nothing to think about.

I don't think that Phoenix, nor a large portion of people who take a similar stance, think they are murdering children here. An "unborn child" is just that, unborn. There is the consensus that "they" (which are not actually "they"), as a human being, have not yet come into existence. There is a sentimentality that is riddled throughout our language and it is easy to get lost in it, but it truly only expresses the POTENTIAL for life and not life itself. It is impossible to end what has not begun. That is why he feels that conception alone does not make it human and can likened to sperm, I believe.

I'm not part of that large portion of people. Nor those who have accepted a faith. Nor those who believe on an idealist philosophy. I'd rather go for "a certain portion of the population", though. There's still no consensus, since there are still people that defend the need of a fetus to exist; there would be if there was no people to defend the other position. There's a rising trend, or perhaps a sizeable amount of support to the idea that fetus aren't living creatures. There's also a sizeable amount of support as to why they ARE. With normally solid positions, but still going through subjective bias and sentimentalisms (or don't tell me that appealing to the rage of rape isn't sentimentalism? The holier-than-thou aren't the only ones that use the weapon...)

It seems like a reasonable way to look at it, but think about what the person really believes. Can the sperm reproduce on it's own? Can the sperm feed? Can the sperm grow, outside of the ovum? I'm not sure whether the sperm has cellular respiration, but I can concede that one. It can be debatable right from the moment of conception to, perhaps, the moment where it is considered a multicellular organism. If you want to risk it and do it because you don't feel it's bad, I can't do more than give a warning (friendly or not). If you want to play safe, then stop it before it even begins. The way you like, actually. But after it happens? It's not going to be the easy choice.

I might sound idealist or perhaps a bit cliche'd, but it's a valuable point, just as Nix made the sperm point: how do you really know the impregnated ovum isn't already a living organism by that moment? Just as much as how do you know sperm isn't a living organism and not an organ of your body, or a bodily humor. 1,999,997 sperm unused doesn't seem like mass murder; more like working as intended. One ovum lost without fecundation isn't murder; it's working as intended. One impregnated ovum? Debatable. One blastocyte? Even more debatable. One fetus? I dunno, but that would seem like murder.