Abortion: Your Views...

[Clint]

Is there something wrong with homosexuality?

Apparently you believe so, considering that yours is still hidden in the far back of your deep dark closet.

What's step four -- you going to compare me to Hitler?

I wasn't going to, but if you really want me to, I would have no problem doing so.

Just want to make sure that the rest of the members here, that may not be so well-versed in certain subjects, aren't misled by the ignorant ramblings of an imbecilic fool.

How sweet of you.

No, I know that because, like I said before, the majority of abortion supporters are male. Try to keep up, kid.

That can't be right. I'm a male, and you're a male, and neither one of use supports abortion. You'd think that with a statistic like "the majority of abortion supporters are male," at least one of us would support it.

Murder is intentional. Miscarriage wouldn't even be manslaughter or homicide.

Accidental manslaughter.

If you realize that a human embryo is a human, why do you deny it human rights?

Because it has yet to be born, let alone develop.

Tell me, how many times have you been pregnant?

About three or four.

You tried to make a stupid point and got called out on it. I accept your apology.

I wasn't apologizing.

I highly doubt that Hitler himself killed them, and even so, they were nobody you knew, so using your illogic, what's the big ****ing deal?

It was Hitler's plan, so he killed them, and they do mean something to be because they're the grandparents to somebody that I love. It is a big ****ing deal. I accept your apology.

No, just trying to save innocent life. Some people care about innocent life.

Some people care enough to let people decide for themselves what to do with their lives and the lives of their pregnancies.

Has it ever occurred to you that humans are the only ones physically and mentally developed enough to make such changes?

Yes, which is why they do it. Point being, they never had to resort to mass deforestation and the like.

There's more to living off the land than "knowing how to hunt".

That's the coolest thing I've heard in months.

"Fatty-cake" is a military term for things that are bad for you ... cookies, brownies, cakes, pies, candies, etc. Sorry, sometimes I slip up and use words or acronyms that most people don't get.

I don't like any of those things, either. Too much sugar.

... Did you skip over the part of the Fifth Amendment that I posted for you? Double jeopardy has nothing to do with cases, it's about people. Let me show you again.

It's about trial. Trials are cases.

So, I ask: Where in the Fifth Amendment does it ever reference double jeopardy in terms of cases, and not people?

Are there not people involved in cases? If a decision is made in any case, no matter who the case is concerning, that decision then applies to all other cases, hence double jeopardy, not just for people, but also for cases. For example, Roe v. Wade made abortion legalized. If somebody else attempts to legalize abortion, a new argument needs to be made that doesn't echo the original case argument for Roe v. Wade. It can't be the same, no matter what case it is.

If no case can be tried twice, how do you like your racially segregated schools, drinking fountains, buses, etc.? You know, seeing as how the Plessy v. Ferguson ruling upheld "seperate but equal" and was later overturned by the same court ...

A case can't be tried twice, as I explained above.

You pulled the number out of your ass. While it's not surprising that your "memory" is there too, you were, once again, called out on a bogus claim.

No. I pulled it from memory. Just because my memory doesn't serve correctly 100% of the time as yours does (or rather, as your online encyclopedia does,) doesn't mean it's bogus.

Just none presented by you.

That's correct.

Okay, let's get this straight ... I ask for credible evidence, and you repeat the same crap you've been repeating, with no evidence to back it up?

That, too, is correct.

I understand it fully. I just realize that the answer to overpopulation is the slaughter of millions of innocent children.

You could always eat your neighbors. Either way, the solution of overpopulation is murder of some kind, so why not murder humans that don't yet have a will to live?

And most of them turn into drug addicts or prostitutes?

No, they just have problems. It doesn't have to be drug addiction or prostitution. Those are just the examples I used.

Give me some credible evidence that says that adopted children are more likely to be "really ****ed up", or admit that it was a stupid claim and drop it.

I didn't say adopted children. I said children that are stuck in the adoption centers until they're of legal age that don't get the proper upbringing. Learn how to read.

If "braindead" people are alive, why don't children with brain activity have the same rights?

They're not actually alive. Although it's possible to live without the brain via life support systems, it's impossible to function without the brain. If life support is taken away, the person dies. Hence, braindead is essentially dead in every sense of the word.

The child MIGHT be born with problems. And if it is, it's born with problems. Unless you're trying to argue that it's alright to kill mentally handicapped people, you don't have much of a point here.

So let the child live with pain and suffering for all of it's 75+ years, huh? That sounds like torture to me. If it was an animal, it would be euthanized out of mercy. You don't care enough for human life to do that. You're a hypocrite.

[Govinda]

Sasquatch - Sure. People below the poverty line are already people, and if governments and NGOs start working properly and taking poverty alleviation seriously, they could be elevated. A baby in those circumstances, while still a member of the family, is yet another mouth to feed.

I've been researching a lot about Ethiopia for school lately. There can be families who depend entirely on food aid, and yet have upwards of 5 or 6 children. They say it is their right to. Yet, there is evidence to suggest that Ethiopia's booming population (I would share said evidence but it's only on JSTOR) is one of the factors contributing to their continued starvation. It's more of a case for contraception than abortion, but do you see what I'm getting at - to put it bluntly, abortion in cases like that is stopping a problem before it's begun. It's stopping a baby being born who will, unless there is a radical change, die of starvation within its first few months in horrific pain. Its mother too will suffer, but its mother is already a fully grown person with a right to life.

The right to life is fundamental, but I, like SOLDIER, don't believe that life begins at conception. For the first month or so it is a collection of multiplying cells. All of the government charters and human rights charters aren't against abortion - they're about human rights, not zygote rights. For that reason executing everyone below the poverty line would be fundmentally wrong, but allowing abortions is not. I know you won't agree to this, as you believe that humans and embryos have the same worth, and that is fine. But I maintain that if the baby will have a rubbish life, or if the birth and early life will cause undue stress to the mother, she should be allowed to terminate. It's her baby. If she is desperate, she will go at it with a coat-hangar and a bottle of rum.

And I've already stated my views on adoption. Maybe it's better in America, but here, it really isn't that viable an option. Hardly anyone here puts their baby up for adoption, because they know what kind of life it would have under the system. Like I said, I'd have to keep any potential baby of mine - and it would screw up my life for a while, because I am 19 and selfish - just to keep it out of a broken system. I know there are good parents chasing babies, and I wish them every luck. There are babies out there waiting for them, hundreds of them. Adding more would just overwhelm the system. So many teenage mothers have abortions here, and I have to say that it's right that they do.

[ladysilver]

I am pro abortion, though I personally have 3 children myself and I wouldn't get an abortion I think that young couples (yes couples, I believe the father should be included in the choice after all if it wasn't for the father there wouldn't be a baby) should have the choice. The world can be a very hard place and raising children is one of the hardest things to do. There are alot of people that can not handle the responsiblity or can not afford to provide a decent home for their baby. Alot of women/couples also do not find they have the support of a loving family and/or partner which makes raising a child twice as hard, I don't know what I would have done if I didn't have my partner and my family helping me and my friends always being ready with a cuppa to chat and share the ups and downs. So despite the fact that I wouldn't personally get an abortion, for those women/couples that do choose it I support them and I believe they should have the right to that choice.

[SOLDIER #819]

Not trying to be rude, but one doesn't have to hold a belief in a subject to argue for it. What I'm arguing is that abortion, except in cases where the child and/or mother's life would be endangered if carried to full term, should retain its right to life.

I have absolutely no problems with you not stating your position without good reason. You're not being rude at all.

As I said before, heartbeats develop around 22 days after conception. Brain activity develops at about six weeks.

Hmm... I'm not sure what you mean by brain activity. Again, when I speak of brain activity, I mean activity that can be detected by EEG. That, according to a source like this, happens at around the 3rd month. What is your take on the term?

That depends on how much you value human life. If somebody is "braindead", are they still alive? What if they're just comatose?

That is true. By the 3rd month the fetus may be in a coma-like state. It is possible to argue that the brain has not developed to the point to where "human" consciousness is possible. Or I could say that there is no precedent for such consciousness before entering into this comatose state due to the lack of a developed brain, unlike a comatose patient, making any sort of experience impossible. However, you may be able to render this a falsehood with citations, or just assert the opposite. If you do the latter, we'd be stuck.

Therefore, if I were to assume that six weeks were the proper cut-off period for an abortion, would that bring us to an agreement? A lack of a functioning brain would have me assume there is no reason for it to be living on the "level", if you would, of a human.

I wonder if this would actually bring anything to a conclusion, however. There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding. We both value human life and I think it is fair to assume that the vast majority of those on either side of the debate, as well as those in between, do as well.

The issue is not with how much value we place in a human life, but where this life begins. What distinguishes a clump of cells from the sperm and egg from which they were derived, blood cells, or any other organism on the cellular scale? When and why do we distinguish a "human" from a group of cells? For me, I think that science can answer this question. Whether it's 3 months or 6 weeks, I'm willing to go along with it if it has its proper empirical basis.

The debate's answer has its roots in beginnings. Without proper understanding of the basis behind a person's words we cannot ascertain whether the entirety of the argument holds water. Critiquing one's argument may have merit, but the critique itself does not necessarily advance the critic's stance or goals.

This is why I asked why you are taking a pro-life-esque stance. I believe it is quite relevant.

[Alpha]

My personal views on abortion come from my Catholic belief system; so yes, I am pro-life, but I often question the application of my beliefs, because I find challenging my beliefs to be self-rewarding, and actively inspiring, in contrast to those who are pro-life "'cos it's in the Bible".. yeah so is lots of stuff, but what do you think. Why do you think it's in the Bible/taught at Church/encouraged by the Pope/taught at school? These are questions I wish more 'fundamentalists' questioned from time to time.

I think the most important consideration anyone can make in regards to this sensitive issue is that we do not all share the same beliefs, morals, classifications of what constitutes a 'human being' who is 'worthy of human rights'.

So, while I am pro-life, and think it is morally repugnant to 'kill' what I consider to be the earliest manifestation of a human being, I also do not want my beliefs to impinge on others. I will expand on this in a moment.

Many people consider getting pregnant a 'mistake'; perhaps the condom ripped, or the pill failed for a certain person. However if a child results, how can you consider a living person to be a mistake? A zygote/foetus/child has limitless potential (unless you consider race and class structures to be limits on potential). That 'mistake' in your uterus could be the next Mahatma Gandhi... or conversely the next Pol Pot (way to avoid Godwin's Law of Usenet Discussions [Wiki it for a lol]). Chances are your child won't become a genocidal tyrant, or a world-renown peace campaigner, but they will become a person, and abortion takes away that fundamental right, and that golden opportunity. Each of us on this site was conceived at some point, and our futures had yet to be determined. At such an early stage of our lives, only one thing can actively remove that hope for the future: abortion. So my personal pro-life position is based fundamentally on Church doctrine, but also on my applicationa nd expansion of that.

Abortion has been criminalised in the past. I think in Aotearoa/New Zealand it was decriminalised in the 1970s. This is wrong. Not all people believe that abortion is wrong, and funnily enough, that is alright! If you want an abortion (or consider one necessary), by all means go and get one, I don't want to stop you exercising your right. Sure, I might ask you "are you sure?", but if we do not have similar sentiments, I have no right to prevent you from going.

Another reason that abortion should not be criminalised is that it will still occur. Drugs are illegal, but they are still used. Legal abortions mean they are safer for mothers who decide to get one. For this reason I also believe in the decriminalisation of some drugs, such as marijuana, but that's currently irrelevant.

OK I'm not 100% sure where I'm taking this, but I will summarise as follows: I am pro-life, but if you aren't, then that is your right, as it is my right to be pro-life. I am not entitled to stop people from getting abortions, but debate around the issue should be sensitive to the differing perceptions people have of life, and alternatives to abortion should be considered before an abortion is taken out (no I did not mention it, but it's relatively self-explanatory).

Peace out, sons of freedom.

[SilkAngel]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

[RagnaToad]

Personally I'm not comfortable with having an abortion or people in my close environment to have one. I don't like the idea of killing a developing human being because it might rumble up your life a bit. (Cause that's what you do.)

But I am a free spirit who wants to function in this liberal, democratic society we call Europe, and there are cases in which it is quite understandable someone would want an abortion. I could go on about reasons, and about how you can't let some people "who have reasons" allow to have an abortion and some people not, but I don't feel like it. There's a difference between not wanting something for yourself, and not wanting anyone to do something. Although some people would actually see the law allowing abortion disappear, I believe there are cases in which it is in the best interest of the traumatic victim of a rape (for instance) to be able to have an abortion. I personally wouldn't mind seeing the law allowing abortion disappear.
BUT I'm not gonna fight it. This topic is different in the way that it involves the life of a future human being, but it is a law nontheless, and it is not plausible to give the right for an abortion to a limited group, because that's not how our society works.

It can be a stinger, like in this case, but the democratic way society works has brought us countless more GOOD things. From what point does "the right thing" stop being the standard? It's up to the will of the (granted, often stupid) masses.

It's a shame that in this world, which revolves solely around money (don't say it doesn't!), people have their future offspring, uhum, "removed" for their own interest.

Power to the people.
If only they weren't all so stupid.

EDIT: Although I don't agree with everything you're saying, SilkAngel:

INDEED, there is BLOODY ADOPTION
Just don't drink or smoke for nine months, don't get kicked in the stomach, put lots of cream on your skin if you're afraid of stretch marks, suffer for about a day and don't day in labour.
Yes, I'm a man, and Yes, that means I don't know what a pain being pregnant can be.

[Alpha]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

Careful, that could be used to condone rape. If God wants everyone who's conceived to be born, then does that mean S/He (God) wants certain people to be raped, as he 'has a plan' for these people (conceptions)? I'm not sure whether or/not I support abortion in cases of conception via rape - it is clearly a grey area, and pro-life campaigners really should slow down and consider the wider implications of a continued pro-life stance.

When I think about it, the greater crime out if rape and abortion IMO is abortion, as I consider it akin to (well, actually) murder. However rape is a very heinous act, and it almost appears that pro-life campaigners give a light sentence to the rapist, and a harsh one to the person who got the abortion. A prime example is the 'Brazilian abortion', whereby a 14 y.o. girl was raped and became pregnant. Despite the fact she was probably going to die if she carried the baby to term, she, as well as her doctor who carried out the abortion, were excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but the rapist was not. A justification for this would be that the abortion was a worse crime from a Christian Catholic perspective, and the punishment for rape would be otherworldly, however it alsmost seems unfair and unjust that this rapist appears to have gotten away from his crime, while this girl, who had already gone through A LOT, had the further shame of being removed from the Church.

Again; rape conceptions are a grey area in terms of the morality of abortion. I tentatively stand by my pro-life stance for the reasons I have outlined above, but it is uneasy. No matter what your stance, however, RAPE CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED on any grounds, ever, even if you argue 'God must've wanted that because a baby was conceived'. Makes you think.

[RagnaToad]

Careful, that could be used to condone rape. If God wants everyone who's conceived to be born, then does that mean S/He (God) wants certain people to be raped, as he 'has a plan' for these people (conceptions)? I'm not sure whether or/not I support abortion in cases of conception via rape - it is clearly a grey area, and pro-life campaigners really should slow down and consider the wider implications of a continued pro-life stance.

[...] A prime example is the 'Brazilian abortion', whereby a 14 y.o. girl was raped and became pregnant. Despite the fact she was probably going to die if she carried the baby to term, she, as well as her doctor who carried out the abortion, were excommunicated from the Catholic Church, but the rapist was not. A justification for this would be that the abortion was a worse crime from a Christian Catholic perspective, and the punishment for rape would be otherworldly, however it alsmost seems unfair and unjust that this rapist appears to have gotten away from his crime, while this girl, who had already gone through A LOT, had the further shame of being removed from the Church.

That is simply perverse but sadly the nature of the Catholic church and typical for its hypocrisy. The Catholic church has never been a logical institute when it came to judging people, since it is not a court room, but a religion based on a 2 millenniums old book, composed by the Romans.

I'm not here to judge the Catholic Church, but I had to agree with this fragment of Alpha Weapon's post.

EDIT: Criticising the Catholic Church does not equal criticising Christians.

[Chez Daja]

I believe that if God didn't want a person to be born, they would never be conceived. Therefore, I don't believe in abortion weather it is because they were raped, irresponsible or some other stuff they try to say. Adoption is the only option if you don't want your child; not abortion. If the mothers body isn't healthy enough, then they need to look at every possible medical way to get the baby delivered and not just jump to abortion like some women do.

That is one of the most narrowminded, nastiest things I've ever read. How can you even take your own opinion seriously? You think that women who are raped should be forced to have the kid? You think women who have a high risk of dying during labour should have to look at all kind of alternatives, even if they still might die?

I'm fine with the fact that you're religious; that doesn't bother me, but to boarderline condone rape is pretty disgusting.

Here's a news flash; accidents happen. Rape is no accident; therefore it shouldn't even be bought into the equation. Abortions are availble to women in most places for a reason; there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies out there.

Moving on...

Do I believe that women should be made to face up to their mistakes? To an extent, yes. But do I believe an unwanted baby should suffer under parents who don't want it? No, I don't. Women shouldn't have to go through having to give their child away just because people think they should go through with the pregnancy.
If women want to go through with the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption, I think it's a very nice thing to do. But I don't think that women should have babies if they don't want to.

I do agree with some of the things that Sasquatch has said here, but I'm still pro-choice. I'm sympathetic to that possible baby... But I really can't say I'd want to have a baby right now if I made a mistake. You can call that weakminded and nasty, but I know first-hand that accidents happen; even when using sufficiant protection.

[Dr.McCoy]

We will never know FOR SURE whether life starts at conception.
It's a belief of people that varies from a range of different backgrounds/outlooks. Im not a religous person myself, but its something I have never made up my mind on what to believe.

Legislation in the UK will never be passed/amended even discussed due to the moral issues both chambers of parliament avoid
Obviously because there is no right deciscion these people will never be in any position to start a debate about this basically because of the different range of beliefs among those who they govern. Maybe if the Conservatives come into power then maybe. After all they carry old fashioned beliefs, (I think they're considering bringing back the death sentence...)

What if the parent is risk of death if she was to give birth?
If I had a wife or daughter who's life would be at risk because of the baby...
Well, my initial thought would be very mixed, since I dont know what to believe when life begins. Is it right to let someone we KNOW who is alive, to die because of the unsure POSSIBILITY, or belief of absolute certainty that life begins at conception.

Rape...well a woman goes through mixed emotions after this.
Id never enforce any beliefs or arguments against it. I dont think it will be fair. If it was someone I know I guess all I can do is support them in the decision they will make. Last thing I want is to exert more pressure and emotional obsticles. It is a toughy.


I dont think there is no real answer to whether abortion is right or wrong, its all circumstances, situations, beliefs. I have heard stories from people with experience of going through abortion. Humanity itself is such a broad subject. .. thats why the subject Humanities itself is all debates because we know there will never be a right answer for anything because of the different factors. I only say this bit because this is the main reason why I can not truly decide.

[Darkwave]

See i believe that it is the mothers choice to abort a child because at the time they would don't want to have it but when the time comes to abort a child, they can't go through with it. I have 2 kids and they are the best thing to happen to me.

[Walter Sobchak]

Rape is no accident; therefore it shouldn't even be bought into the equation.

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life. If anything, SilkAngel's belief system is more sensible than those who want to outlaw abortion except for instances like rape.

Has anyone with such a position taken two seconds to think of the consequences of such a law? Thousands, perhaps millions, of women die in countries without abortions by sticking objects inside of themselves to rid themselves of the baby. How hard is it for someone who is willing to risk death to lie about the cause of the conception? Then a young man rots in jail for it.

I find the ID immeasurably amusing. We have a global economic crisis, conflict with North Korea, elections in Iran, and an energy situation in Eastern Europe, but people want to talk about an issue that has already been resolved. Unfortunately, I am being forced into this category as well. Team A and Team B have their marching orders, and they will be damned if they stop and read the damn thing.

[Sasquatch]

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life.

Indeed.

Thousands, perhaps millions, of women die in countries without abortions by sticking objects inside of themselves to rid themselves of the baby.

Not only is "millions" quite a stretch, the logic of this isn't quite right. I'm sure thousands of people die by misusing a lot of illegal substances, or otherwise breaking laws by doing dangerous things, but that is no reason to legalize them so we can make them "safer".

Though, given, that's not what you're arguing here. I'm just bringing up that point.

I find the ID immeasurably amusing. We have a global economic crisis, conflict with North Korea, elections in Iran, and an energy situation in Eastern Europe, but people want to talk about an issue that has already been resolved.

Why don't you make a topic about the other issues? The abortion issue is far from "resolved", as you can see by reading this topic.

[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.

[Clint]

Rape absolutely should be brought into the equation. If someone thinks abortion is murder, it does not matter how the fetus was conceived, because it is still a life.

And where is it anybody's say except for the pregnant woman as to what to do with that pregnancy? It sure as hell matters how she got pregnant. If I was a woman, and somebody raped me, I wouldn't want to carry that monster's baby.

Not only is "millions" quite a stretch, the logic of this isn't quite right. I'm sure thousands of people die by misusing a lot of illegal substances, or otherwise breaking laws by doing dangerous things, but that is no reason to legalize them so we can make them "safer".

That just makes you a hypocrite. You claim to be against abortion because it saves lives, yet even though you know that thousands of adult women die every year attempting to abort unwanted pregnancies themselves, you still don't see their lives valuable enough to even consider the legalization of abortion being ethical. I bet you support the death penalty, too, right?

[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

[Midnight Panda]

i too beleive its murder, if you dont want the kids put them in an adoption centre

[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?

[RagnaToad]

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.

And there's no such thing as adoption áfter birth?
And I could go on forever about how people with an IQ under 120 should be put down. You're being too totalitarian about this.

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.

Wtf has this to do with what I said?

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.

Again, you're being too pragmatic. Don't think I don't agree with all that, but ceasing every opportunity to get rid of one more human being seems kind of stretching it. We should throw shitloads of condoms over all those poor regoins in the world. Yeah.

And I hope you're pro euthanasia.

Also, I'm not trying to say I'm against or for anything. Just having a discussion.

[Midnight Panda]

i agree with ragna toad. if you didnt want the child just use a condom. or when the child is born put it up for adoption. or give it to a nun

[RagnaToad]

i agree with ragna toad. if you didnt want the child just use a condom. or when the child is born put it up for adoption. or give it to a nun

I wasn't necessarily attacking abortion. Just responding to the points Nix made.

And your image of how things should be done is too simplistic. Obviously, no one is going to get pregnant deliberately to then have an abortion.

And giving children to nuns is about the worst idea popping up in this thread so far.

[nix]

And there's no such thing as adoption áfter birth?
And I could go on forever about how people with an IQ under 120 should be put down. You're being too totalitarian about this.


Wtf has this to do with what I said?


Again, you're being too pragmatic. Don't think I don't agree with all that, but ceasing every opportunity to get rid of one more human being seems kind of stretching it. We should throw shitloads of condoms over all those poor regoins in the world. Yeah.

And I hope you're pro euthanasia.

Also, I'm not trying to say I'm against or for anything. Just having a discussion.

I wasn't retorting to your post, just elaborating my thought on the subject.

But in response to the majority of your post now, ask yourself;

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?

Id go with the second option please

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

I'm a greater good kinda guy, and i feel abortion under the right circumstances is a good option in ALOT of cases.

And yeah i would be pro euthanasia, as long as there is absolutly nothing can be done to help the persons suffering. Although that comes down to preference, some people may want to live being crippled from the neck down say, but me... Id wanna take a lethal hit of permy sleep

i agree with ragna toad. if you didnt want the child just use a condom. or when the child is born put it up for adoption. or give it to a nun

This is the intellectual discussion forum, not a place to raise your post count. Piss off!

[RagnaToad]

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?

That is not a fair comparison. It's always one of those two options? That's absurd. I guess every kid that is adopted turns out to be a child molester.

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

You're just ridiculing my point. I'm not going to respond to this.

And yeah i would be pro euthanasia, as long as there is absolutly nothing can be done to help the persons suffering.

Hm, so an old person suffering from a lethal disease should be taken care of by all possible means, but an unborn human being shouldn't be considered to be carried for 9 months and put up for adoption for a second?

This is the intellectual discussion forum, not a place to raise your post count. Piss off!

This

[Padraic]

Abortion is at the hands of the mother/parents. If your old enough for sex your old enough to make smarter desicions. Also if your a teen and its immoral for you to get an abortion isn't it also immoral to be having sex?? don't you have to married before having sex in most religions?? So religious views are just excuses if your not already married. The only times I think that abortions should be alowed is if the mother's life is endangered, if its a dead baby inside or if the mother was raped

[nix]

I know its a hard choice to make, dont get me wrong. I know the child might not grow up to be a psycho, he could have a creative curve and channel it, like good old James Joyce

But i look at the world, and i see alot of wrong in it, and i put my finger down on people being brought up wrong. And i see this overflow of people spilling into the world, some causing havoc and its because they had a harsh up bringing mainly. And i feel with a bit more control over it, we can make this a happier safer world. To make it a place worth being born in, and not just thrown into the world either in a violent uncaring family, or put into adoption where you may or may not get adopted quick.. fingers crossed your not an ugly baby.. An orphanage is not the ideal place to grow up in

You're just ridiculing my point. I'm not going to respond to this.

Maybe not the best way to put it, i threw in a slice of humor. But the point is very valid. A sperm is a living organism, a child one month old is not much different. With the point being, if your against killing a one month old fetus, you should also be against the killing of a sperm

Impossible to do i know, but so will be for catering for people of this world when over populated in a century

Gotta think ahead, its all linked together

[SOLDIER #819]

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.

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 believe he has drawn the line clearly enough and explained why he believes it's appropriate. Isn't it only fair that you do the same? With this particular subject I find failure to do so akin to sitting on a pedestal and lambasting dirty mortals for their ignorance without putting forth any effort to enlighten them. I'm guessing that is not what you intend, but it will probably end up looking that way.

Edit: You're quick, Phoenix. =P

[RagnaToad]

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.

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 believe he has drawn the line clearly enough and explained why he believes it's appropriate. Isn't it only fair that you do the same? With this particular subject I find failure to do so akin to sitting on a pedestal and lambasting dirty mortals for their ignorance without putting forth any effort to enlighten them. I'm guessing that is not what you intend, but it will probably end up looking that way.

Edit: You're quick, Phoenix. =P

So you feel the need to explain what Nix couldn't, in your opinion?

And what is wrong with the way I discuss? What do you mean with 'doing the same'? If you read between the lines, you can see what my opinion is and where I draw the line.

What is your problem...