CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Another abortion debate, but with a little side story :)
SO, this image is being used to promote Pro-life. Which makes me sick. Can you see what's wrong with it? This is an abortion, how they USE to be done, at 23 weeks. That's illegal to even have abortion then in most places, unless the mother's life is in danger.
I seriously think that promotors of pro-life need an education on abortion before they can say anything. This one girl said on this image that She thinks people who have abortions don't know what they're actually doing and that this should be shown to all before.
SHE is the uneducated one. -__-
Okay, my minor rant is over :)
Debate about whatever you want from here. I just think it's sick that they tried to use this to guilt people into being pro-life.
It's definitely dishonest to present this as a picture of abortion in general, and sadly it preys on people who have no better source of information. Most women will not have abortions using this procedure, and their fetuses will not look at all like that. They probably will not even be recognizably human. If a woman went to a clinic, she would at least be told the truth about what would happen to her if she wanted an abortion.
However, D&E;is still in use today although it counts for a small fraction of all procedures. Abortions aren't pretty, no matter how they're done. If you are pro-choice, you may have to accept the fact that they are just tough for laypeople to look at, even suction aspiration. It's not at all a point in favor of pro-life; childbirth and open-heart surgery can turn stomachs, too.
What could we show that you would find acceptable as the picture of abortion. You people do not care about medical facts, scientific facts. IT DOES NOT MATTER IN THE LEAST TO YOU. You want abortion legal…on demand period.
The fact is abortion is the act of KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The heart starts beating around 22 days…..THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Now I know what our laws say…that killing should be an option for women. But tell me….what would you call killing a living human being without its permission? The unborn can't speak for themselves.
It does not matter what the procedure is…it outcome is the same thing. Death to the unborn. It is killing by burning, scrapping, dismembering, vacuuming the child until its dead. That is every abortionists goal. The unborn has to be killed in the womb….not outside. This picture is accurate and shows abortion. Those who are pro-abortion of course would not like this pic….it puts action to reality…it gives a face to what they condone. And what they condone is barbaric.
This is a surgery or procedure that is like none else on earth. Most doctors try to save lives. And abortionists kill lives.
What could we show that you would find acceptable as the picture of abortion.
Pretending pro-life people care about scientific fact is bullshit. Not that it's impossible to be scientifically honest and still be pro-life, but so many outspoken pro-life people and groups who have no problem using misinformation, emotional blackmail, intimidation and deceit to manipulate people into doing what pro-life thinks is right. Pro-choice people don't have to lie, because they don't care if no one chooses an abortion as long as they aren't being lied to or bullied. In fact, I think you'd find most pro-choice people would agree that the fewer people need/want abortions, the better. But being dishonest or cruel is not the way to go about making that happen.
Why are D&E;illustrations so commonly used for pro-life propaganda when D&E;accounts for less than 5% of all procedures? Not because it's an honest representation of what most abortions look like, because it isn't. It's because it's supposed to be scarier and more guilt-inducing. If you show this picture to an average woman who is considering an abortion and tell her this is what her procedure will look like, you are probably lying to her.
(I'm not the one putting the semicolon after D&E;, the website is doing that.)
You want abortion legal…on demand period.
You got it.
The fact is abortion is the act of KILLING A LIVING HUMAN BEING. THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT. The heart starts beating around 22 days…..THAT IS A SCIENTIFIC FACT.
Please show me where I denied that a fetus is a human. Oh wait, I didn't, because I'm not an idiot. Of course a fetus is a human- did you expect me to claim it's a different species? The argument for abortion is sometimes concerned with personhood, not the presence of homo sapien DNA and you're getting the two confused. But I think abortion would still be acceptable even if the government extended legal personhood to fetuses. One human should not use another human as a life support system unless the host is giving ongoing consent. This applies regardless of the age or legal status of either party or the relationship between the parties. If it's in your body and you don't want it there, you have a right to try to find someone who will take it out.
But tell me….what would you call killing a living human being without its permission.
Abortion if it's a fetus, murder if it's not. It's cool how there's two different names for that, isn't it? That's so we don't get them confused.
It does not matter what the procedure is…it outcome is the same thing. Death to the unborn.
Oh shit, really?! Well then call me pro-life! Or don't, because I already knew that. Maybe say some more obvious things.
Those who are pro-abortion of course would not like this pic
I'm fine with it. It's not pretty but it's a fairly realistic representation of an uncommon medical procedure. Medical procedures generally are not pretty. It's the use of it to scare women who won't even be getting this procedure that I have a problem with.
Most doctors try to save lives. And abortionists kill lives.
More obvious things! If there is someone here who didn't realize abortion exterminates a living thing, I'm sure they'll thank you.
I've agreed with a lot of your argument, but I'm particularly disturbed at the part where you say, "One human should not use another human as a life support system unless the host is giving ongoing consent. This applies regardless of the age or legal status of either party or the relationship between the parties. If it's in your body and you don't want it there, you have a right to try to find someone who will take it out."
This line of thinking is rational, but some women would use it to justify promiscuity. I believe in abortion in cases where:
- the mother and/or father are too young to support a child, or the mother and/or father are in a situation that would not be a positive environment for a child (ie, abusive relationship(s), poverty/homelessness, etc.);
- the mother's/fetus's life is at risk,
- the fetus is the result of a rape or incestuous encounter;
- the fetus has a very high chance of developing some debilitating disease/malformation that will make its developing life difficult.
In women who are promiscuous and take no time to learn about/use contraceptives, they should not use abortion as a Plan B. If they are not ready for a child, and plan to have sex, then they should learn more responsibility and practice safe sex, not just assume they won't get pregnant.
Admit you're killing a baby...but again..shit happens..it's your choice.
These pro-lifers then, they better be cranking out a baby every time the female produces an egg..or at least tries. By not fertilizing that egg, you are in fact preventing life to live. Are you a dick? Preventing a life to live...killing a life...whats teh difference? You have the power of God either way.
"The ability to tell fact from fiction decreases proportionally as the desire to believe increases."
The only way to continue belief in "pro-life" arguments from the stances these arguments are taken from on that side, is to distort fact. The greater the need these groups feel to continue their mis-guided belief, the more readily they accept the obviously false... As we've seen consistently with every singe abortion debate ever made on this site.
What did this guy just say? It's a simple choice...are you ok with killing a baby while it's growing in the mother. Sure..."stuff" happens. Move on...just admitt you're killing and say, "I'm pro-choice". You killed 1000 bugs on your way to work, you're a killer anyway...live with it. Let humans decide.
... so far I've seen like 5 of your arguments. I think you might be retarded. Did you bother reading any of what I typed? Your reply is completely off topic.
His mental state is of no consequence. His point is valid. Abortion is ending a human life. Pro-choice condones abortions, therefore pro-choice condones the killing of human lives. You either accept that or you don't.
You have not made any argument for whether or not abortion should be considered morally wrong or not. So even if we were to dismiss his mental state and even if we were to accept that abortion ends a human life (which I wouldn't be inclined to do), we have no reason to believe that abortion is morally wrong.
Pro-aborts have a big problem. They celebrate abortion but don't want the label that goes with it. They don't want people to think they condone killing….
And your right…..they probably feel worse about killing those bugs with their cars…then they do living human beings.
What is false about anything I have posted concerning abortion?
This issue is a piece of cake. Let science and medicine speak the truth. The truth is…from conception that which is in the womb is alive. Most abortions happen after the heart starts beating.
"In the third month, your baby is the size of a small apple and is fully formed. She has grown from 1 to 3 inches and weighs about 1 ½ ounces by month end. Her head now sits on her neck and you can even see the whorl of a hair pattern on the top of her head. Her head is still very large and makes up half the length of her body. Her eyes are moving closer together and her ears are continuing to form. She has taste buds and has developed the sucking reflex. She is beginning to practice her swallowing too. Teeth buds have also begun to form, as well as fingernails and toenails. Her major organs, as well as her sex organs have formed and are developing steadily. Your placenta has now developed and has taken over hormone production."
Most abortions happen around this gestational age. Wow a lot happening eh? It is not just a glob of tissue.
THIS IS FACT. Why can't you pro-aborts just admit it. However barbaric…abortion should be celebrated and should be allowed…however horrendous it is.
You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions. You are blind to what the truth says.
Most abortions happen after the heart starts beating.
And so?
However barbaric…abortion should be celebrated and should be allowed…however horrendous it is.
Even if it may seem horrendous, it does not necessarily imply that it ought not to be allowed or done. All you have done here is simply appeal to emotion and given no logical arguments for your position.
You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions.
Really? Let's think about it then. If a mother is definitely going to die very slowly and painfully if the baby is not aborted, is it more immoral to abort the baby or allow the mother to die a slow and agonising death?
Let me raise another scenario. What if a minor was impregnated by a violent rape and the rapist does not take responsibility for the child? Is it more immoral to leave a defenceless and helpless minor to care for a baby, a constant psychological reminder of rape, or for her to abort? I'm not talking about who you would have more sympathy for, but merely on what moral grounds do you have to say abortion is immoral.
By logic, you yourself have no good reason to be opposed to abortion.
First of all, you further the previous point made about disinformation in how the quote you posted uses 'she' instead of 'they', attempting to personify the foetus further than it should be.
The truth is…from conception that which is in the womb is alive
Every single part of your body can be considered alive, except your nails and hair and a few others, I believe. Cutting off a piece of skin holds no moral issues for you, I would guess, it's a similar idea. Except a foetus will cost thousands of pounds/dollars/euros, will take thousands of hours of time, will restrict you throughout your entire life, cause you to be labelled because of it, and cause you to endure a huge amount of hardship from it. There are reasons for abortion as well, studies have shown that about three quarters of women choose them because of financial reasons, hardly their choice.
Why can't you pro-aborts just admit it
I think you'll have to look very hard to find someone who is actually pro abortion, I've definitely never met someone who openly admits to that. It's pro-choice.
You are the ones who can't face the facts in the moral debate on abortions. You are blind to what the truth says.
Actually, humans kill thousands of life forms every single second, just because it's seen as morally wrong there is a big issue with abortion. Why should it be morally wrong? Please give me a reason why it is so intrinsically bad to take a life with no emotion?
I would suggest that Pro-Lifer's are not necessarily blind to truth, they see it, they simply ignore the truth of what happens to those who are not allowed abortions. Abortion rates does not change massively when it is outlawed, all that happens is they do it illegally and unsafely. Further, the argument made by Republican candidates is that abortion should be outlawed to protect the 'nuclear family'. Hardly relevant, as typical, married, happy, nuclear families would not get abortions a significant amount of the time. Give me a convincing argument as to why abortion is so bad.
Anyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion…there is no difference. They don't like the label however but its the truth. I just got banned from a place because I refused to stop using the term pro-abort to describe someone who …DOES NOT WANT LEGAL PROTECTION FOR THE LIVING HUMAN BEING IN THE WOMB. This is not a pro-life person. This is a person who even though they might not get an abortion themselves…is willing to sit by quietly while others kill in the name of CHOICE.
THEY ARE PRO-ABORTS. I can just see someone at a Right to Life convention…standing up and saying…." I am pro-life but believe that women should have the choice to kill." They would be laughed out of the room.
There is no difference between someone who is pro-abortion and someone who is pro-choice…they want the same thing….legalized killing.
Cutting off a piece of skin….compared to stopping a beating heart of a human in the womb…..you think is the same thing? Laughable…won't even comment.
You probably no doubt think that killing a bug is the same as killing a human being….hey they are both alive right?
Yes babies are costly. How much did your parents foot the bill for your maintenance? At least your mother allowed you life…and you are here debating and defending the rights of other mothers…to kill, to take away the rights of others. What is it that Ronald Reagan said…it was so true.
“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
Question….I know you are pro-abortion. Do you believe the a woman has the right to kill throughout the entire nine months? Oh I can't wait to see just how many rights you give women….to own their bodies.
Why is abortion bad you ask?
You said and I quote…."I think you'll have to look very hard to find someone who is actually pro abortion, I've definitely never met someone who openly admits to that. It's pro-choice."
What is wrong with owning the label? You tell me what is wrong with being called pro-abortion? Is there something wrong with abortion Ben?
If there is…then why do you support it? If there isn't…why isn't the label ok?
Ok, I'm amazed you're actually being this ridiculous about a simple name.
Anyone who is pro-choice is pro-abortion…there is no difference.
Pro abortion means you want abortions. Pro choice means you want the choice of abortions. There is a big difference.
I do not like that people get abortions. I simply think it's the lesser evil of two, especially when you look at statistics that show that abortion laws don't stop abortions, they just stop safe abortions. This leads to major risks to both the baby and the mother.
It's common for pro lifers to accuse pro-choice supporters of being blind to the facts, when it is they who rarely actually consider the women that they're condemning.
Is there something wrong with abortion Ben?
I think it's bad, I'm asking you why it's so bad. You haven't answered any of my questions, you've simply said that it's bad and that it's the same as pro-abort.
Do you believe the a woman has the right to kill throughout the entire nine months?
Please talk about questions that are actually up for debate, you're wasting your time, attacking something that isn't there.
“Abortion is advocated only by persons who have themselves been born.”
Useless circular rhetoric, sounds clever, but it proves nothing.
And people who are pro-choice want abortions legal. They want laws in place that give the woman the option of killing. And if we had a nationwide vote…and a pro choicer voted…which would he vote…..Pro-choice abortion or no abortion?
So you think abortion is bad…but yet you want it legal so others can do it. LOL
Abortion is taking a life and that is bad. Abortion procedures are inhumane,,,we don't even do it on animals like we do humans.
Nothing is good about abortion.
Now I know why you won't answer the …do you believe the woman has the right to kill throughout her entire pregnancy? Because if you say yes…then wow…you look terrible even to the pro-choicers who use viability as an excuse,,,and if you say no…then you enslave the woman and your excuse that abortion should be legal because its the woman's body and should be her decision….is shot down. What is it….answer the question. I am debating your position on this and need to know. Are you afraid to answer?
It proves that you were blessed with life…..circular or not. The statement Reagan made is true. We are given life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Constitution….but without life we can't have the others. And we deny that which is in the womb the things you and I take for granted.
They want laws in place that give the woman the option of killing.
And there you go. They don't want abortions, they want the option.
So you think abortion is bad…but yet you want it legal so others can do it. LOL
Yes, pretty much. I think religion is bad, but I'd never consider taking it away from people. I think war is bad, but it can still be valid. I think people being a dick is bad, but I think it is their right. There's lots of things I don't like that I would still support. Just as Voltaire said 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it', I feel the same way about abortion.
Nothing is good about abortion.
That's not true.
No, I do not. Without being an expert in biology, I'm leaning towards a 'first trimester' option, to me that seems to be the commonly accepted medical grounds. Makes sense, after that the foetus becomes too lifelike, and the emotional trauma is too great. Also, how could you possibly give her the right the whole way through, when she's in labour, that's ridiculously impossible. A time limit makes sense.
We are given life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in our Constitution
No, you are. I am not American. Please do not assume that everyone you meet on the internet is American, especially when I've written so in my 'about me'.
Yes, but the constitution is a legal document, it can easily be flawed. Just because it's there doesn't make it right, you must verify what you say.
And further, if you did accept it as truth, that only applies to citizens. When a foetus has citizenship, it gains the right to life. To do that, it must be born. So there you go, another circular impossibility, can't gain protection unless it's born, when it doesn't need protection.
So, a baby is just a 'life form'? That speaks to a very sad state of mind. That may be how Hitler justified his games..."they are just life forms after all, and we kill thousands of life forms every second", but that rationalization opens some truly ugly doors.
I am actually pro-abortion but pro-choice will suffice. Human beings are moral agents, moral agents are moral because we are perceivers and valuers, the ability to perceive and value is only possible when we are conscious. it is therefore our being consciousnes that gives us moral agency.
Prior to and independent of our consciousness (and by consiousness, I mean both waking and sleeping levels), our bodies are only able to be classified as human insofar as moral agency is concerned. The term "human-being" really only applies to humans that embody all the distinctions which are sufficient for moral agency. It is only then that we are truly identifiable as human-beings. a hand that is detached is not a human being, an eye, an ear, a heart, leg, etc... these are all just part of the whole, and even when assembled we are not yet a person unless we have the conscious element.
Since consciousness only becomes possible at the onset of the third trimester ~ 26 weeks, it is immoral to kill, what I would then call a child. Prior to consciousness the fetus is a fetus, not having moral agency because it lacks the sufficient condition of personhood. Many people like to think about potentiality arguments with regard to a fetus, that it could become conscious. However, potential doesnt relate to the here and now and are therefore invalid insofar as the moral status of the action (abortion) is concerned.
Potentiality arguments actually are appropriate as justifications contrary to pro-life opinions because they are valid when speaking of a fetus that will not be aborted, this is because it will almost certainly gain consciouness. For females that are too young to be mothers due to their immaturity as humans - generally thought of as anything younger than the age of majority (18) but also could extend to any age since mental and emotional maturity are only related to age in childhood adolescence and young adulthood - the potential life of the child has a 98-99% chance of being very impoverished both developmentally and with regards to being a productive member of society. The potential life will likely suck a lot.
Thus...
If moral agency is not established and the life will likely suck, abortion is the ideal choice. Abortion is an a-moral action (not having moral status) prior to the onset of consciousness. So in light of this people should be having more abortions. I think it is more responsible to abort a child that is unwanted and who's life will probably suck, than it is to not. the notion of responsibility should always be predicated upon the quality of the potential child's life - if its life will likely be impoverished it is irresponsible to have it. "Taking responsibility for the mistake of not using protection" is a bad way to think of it.
Well really, it's they're choice what they wanna do. Not saying it's the right thing to actually do, but it's not our choice. If they don't want the baby, then they don't have the baby. Simple as that. BUT you never know, that baby that was aborted could have been the next president or maybe the next singer everyone talks about.
BUT you never know, that baby that was aborted could have been the next president or maybe the next singer everyone talks about.
Then again, is that a good argument? I could easily flip that around and say, "Thank goodness person A aborted that baby because the baby that was aborted could have been the next Hitler, Pol Pot or Stalin or maybe the next Captain Francesco Schettino that everyone talks about." The problem with such an argument is that we simply do not know what might or might not happen.
1. I've yet to see anyone ask a pro-lifer this question; what if a fifteen year old girl is raped, impregnated, and still in school and her parents are unable to support the baby, while the rapist is never caught?
2. Many abortions take place because a family cannot support the baby, or the baby will have some sort of mental disorder to prevent him/her from living life to the fullest. Tell me, would the baby be better off in a world where society discriminates against the mentally challenged, or better in Heaven where things will be perfect and the baby can be taken care of?
You are ignoring the fact that most abortions are for convenience, not rape or any medical need. The most common reasons women consider abortion are:
Per webmd.com "The most common reasons women consider abortion are: 1. Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.2 Inability to support or care for a child. 3. To end an unwanted pregnancy. 4. To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems. Such defects are often unknown until routine second-trimester tests are done.5. Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest. 6. Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health if the pregnancy is continued.
If the pro-life community were to all agree today that all rape victims should be given abortions (if desired) and then loved without reservation until they are (somewhat) whole again, the pro-abortion industry would give not one inch on their opposition to any restrictions on unlimited abortions. The 'pregnant rape victim' is a red herring, meant only to emotionalize the issue in their favor.
I would be more than happy answering this question.
1. Rape is a violent crime, a violent act. The rapist should be caught and serve punishment. The woman is the victim for sure. And the child she might be carrying also is a victim. ESPECIALLY IF SHE THINKS TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT AND DECIDES TO KILL IT.
There is always adoption. In most communities there are Crisis Pregnancy Centers that help women in situations like this. Free medical care…etc.
2. What right do you have to presume you know how someone will life and what quality of life the person might have? You have no right. Oprah came from a household that was poor, she was also a victims of abuse. Look at her now. One of the most successful and rich women in the country, in the world.
There is no family…that does not suffer bad things. There are families with drug and alcohol users, families who are poor, divorced…no family skates through life with no trials. Support is an excuse…because there is adoption and there are services that help women who have no money.
How dare you imply that all mentally challenged people be aborted. Wow. Hitler had the same mentality and views as your imply here. My brother in law is mentally handicapped and he brings joy into our lives. ARe you perfect? Maybe you should have been aborted…????? ARE you good looking, a millionaire….problemless? I doubt it.
What you imply here is outrageous. If babies would be better off dead…because they will be in heaven…then lets kill all children…there would not be a population problem is we did this…we would go extinct.
Let me ask you this. Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?
1. Rape is a violent crime, a violent act. The rapist should be caught and serve punishment. The woman is the victim for sure. And the child she might be carrying also is a victim. ESPECIALLY IF SHE THINKS TWO WRONGS MAKE A RIGHT AND DECIDES TO KILL IT.
You have made no argument to oppose abortion here. You have simply asserted without evidence that abortion is "wrong". Whether or not the rapist is caught has no bearing on whether abortion is moral or not.
What right do you have to presume you know how someone will life and what quality of life the person might have?
It seems to me that the scenario he/she gave was very specific and we do know that the baby would have a bad quality of life at birth, making the chances of survival and access to opportunities very slim. Thus, you have no reason to play the sceptic card here.
Oprah came from a household that was poor, she was also a victims of abuse. Look at her now. One of the most successful and rich women in the country, in the world.
This is a red herring.
There is no family…that does not suffer bad things.
Really? This is a hasty generalisation on your part. You have again asserted without evidence.
How dare you imply that all mentally challenged people be aborted
Mentally challenged people cannot be aborted because they have already been born.
My brother in law is mentally handicapped and he brings joy into our lives.
Another appeal to emotion.
Let me ask you this. Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?
Yes I have. Abortion is wrong because it takes a life. The child in the raped woman's body…how is he/she at fault. Why should they lose their life because an act of violence happened to another living human being. Do you think two wrongs make a right? Rape was wrong….but abortion solves and takes away that problem? Its two acts of violence….the rape and the abortion.
Abortion is wrong whether the woman was raped or not.
If you think all life is sacred then how could I think less of the baby whose mother was raped?
Red Herring? It is fact and she has openly talked about her life. Should she have been aborted simply because she had shady relatives…or that they were poor?
Are you telling me that there are families that have not endured sadness, death, dying, troubles? Wow. Nothing bad happened to them. Incredible.
You skipped over cleverly my question let me reword it. Do you think that mentally challenged, physically challenged people should have been aborted? If it is known that they are not normal…and what is normal anyway…..should they be aborted? yes or no
You certainly don't like answering questions when your back is against the wall do you…lmao.
I will against ask the question……Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?
No. But I don't think that abortion is necessarily wrong. It is wrong in some situations, but it cannot be considered to be completely wrong.
Abortion is wrong whether the woman was raped or not.
But you haven't explained why abortion is wrong. Saying that it is wrong because "it takes a life" doesn't say anything because you are making the assumption, without any justification, that taking a life is wrong.
If you think all life is sacred then how could I think less of the baby whose mother was raped?
I don't think that all life is sacred. I don't believe in the sanctity of life. That is merely an illusion. What you are really doing here is ignoring the rights of the mother in favour of the unborn child, whom we don't know will even survive birth or the first few years of its life.
Red Herring?
Yes, it is a red herring. In your previous comment, you haven't asserted how your Oprah Winfrey example supports your argument that abortion is immoral.
Should she have been aborted simply because she had shady relatives…or that they were poor?
Not necessarily. I haven't made a judgement on Oprah at all so don't you dare put words in my mouth.
Are you telling me that there are families that have not endured sadness, death, dying, troubles?
How does that support your view?
Do you think that mentally challenged, physically challenged people should have been aborted? If it is known that they are not normal…and what is normal anyway…..should they be aborted? yes or no
Again, not necessarily. I support abortion only when a foetus can't be confidently said to lack rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness.
Do you think if you went into a hospital nursery full of babies and the nurse told you to pick out the baby whose mother was raped…think you could do it?
That has no relevance to whether the baby should have been aborted or not. Again, you can't abort an born child. That is an illogical statement. It's like asking the question, "Should Person A, who is a bachelor, have gotten married?" The question is wrong by definition. Thus, I don't have to answer questions that are logically incoherent in the first place.
You don't think two wrongs make a right in this circumstance because you champion abortion.
Curious …..what situations is abortion wrong?
I have explained why abortion is wrong. It is not right for anyone to be able to kill something like abortion does…on a completely separate human being. I give it personhood….it is immoral. Taking a life like this is wrong. In war…two sides are fighting. Our servicemen and women sign up to go…they take risks. What risk does an unborn take? How can you possibly compare the two? You can't. War is about protection….how can the unborn fight for its protection?
Well obviously you don't think life is sacred…your pro-abortion. LOL
So if someone killed your little girl or boy….you would not consider their lives sacred, special,….that their lives deserved sanctity?
It would be just Oh well……Ill have another kid.
The mother has rights…she had a right to have sex. She had a right to take the risk. But once a life has started….those rights should be put on the back burner until the child is born…then she also has rights to decide what to do with it. Keep it or adopt it out. Its nine short months…to do what is right…to allow something to live…THAT YOU HELPED CREATE. AFter conception it is a separate human being…this is a scientific fact. A FACT. You propose to kill human beings…you say this is ok.
How barbaric and cold is that?
It should not matter whether the child will make it or not. If it doesn't and dies…then it was meant to be. Abortion is premeditated killing. Nothing spontaneous about it….you hire someone to kill someone…in this case the unborn child in the womb….who was invited in BY THE MOTHER, BUT HER RISK HER CHOICE.
I gee the Oprah example to show that…the argument by pro-aborts does not hold water. Most pro-aborts say abortion is good because……the child might have problems…might grow up in poverty……might face lives trials….
I GOT NEWS FOR YA……WE ALL FACE TRIALS. Oprah did in her life…and she overcame them. She grew up in a home that was not healthy or functional. To kill because you think someone MIGHT FACE A SIMILAR LIFE…is still wrong. So don't use this excuse that abortion would save children from a life….so full of misery that they would be better off dead.
You said this…."Again, not necessarily. I support abortion only when a foetus can't be confidently said to lack rationality, autonomy
and self-consciousness."
Now wait one minute here. Can a newborn baby do any of these? No.
What does a newborn have that it didn't have five minutes before in the womb before it was born? LOL
Are you telling me that you want abortion legal….because the woman has a right to her own body…and THEN YOU TELL HER SHE CANT ABORT IN LATER MONTHS? LOL
I have never made this claim. You are putting words in my mouth.
You don't think two wrongs make a right in this circumstance because you champion abortion.
That is because I don't think abortion is wrong in every circumstance. I think some people have the wrong motivations to abort a baby and/or under the wrong medical circumstances, making some abortion cases morally wrong.
I give it personhood
But the idea of personhood is something that you have not defined clearly. If you want to argue on the basis of personhood, then a baby within the first trimester doesn't even have a brain to speak of. It, therefore, doesn't have the ability to feel, let alone reason, within the first trimester.
War is about protection….how can the unborn fight for its protection?
You are comparing the two wrongly. War is about protecting loved ones and sacrificing yourself. Even if I were to accept that the unborn baby is a person (which is a view that I do not necessarily agree with, as I've explained above), then the unborn baby is also well justified to sacrifice itself to save the mother from a life-threatening illness!
Well obviously you don't think life is sacred…your pro-abortion. LOL
I'm glad you find the abortion debate as something fit for humour. That just goes to show how frivolous you are. What a hypocrite. And, by the way, I don't think human life is sacred and I don't believe in the sanctity of human life. If you think that life is sacred, then you, by logical deduction, should not be able to eat anything that has life (i.e. animals and even vegetables and fruits).
Its nine short months…to do what is right…to allow something to live…
You are obviously ignoring the amount of suffering that the mother has to go through during the nine "short" months. Furthermore, you said "allow something to live", right? If the continuation of the pregnancy threatens the mother, then hypocrites like you will not be allowing the MOTHER to live. If you encourage the mother to die in the place of the baby, are you doing what is "right"?
AFter conception it is a separate human being
It is not. As I have explained, the baby is not a human being within the first trimester. Furthermore, the unborn baby, no matter at any stage, is dependent on it's mother completely for nutrition. In other words, the baby is, technically speaking, a parasite. The Oxford English Dictionary defines a "parasite" as "Biol. An animal or plant which lives in or upon another organism (technically called its host) and draws its nutriment directly from it. Also extended to animals or plants that live as tenants of others, but not at their expense (strictly called commensal or symbiotic); also to those which depend on others in various ways for sustenance, as the cuckoo, the skua-gull, etc." Thus, by definition, the mother has the right to allow or disallow a parasite to receive nutrition from her body AT THE EXPENSE OF HER OWN HEALTH.
How barbaric and cold is that?
Which has absolutely no bearing on whether abortion is moral or not. Or whether it should be legal or not. This is simply an appeal to emotion.
It should not matter whether the child will make it or not.
Then, whether or not the child is aborted or not should also not matter to you. Pro-choice advocates are simply campaigning to legalise abortion and allow parents to make their own informed decision. They do NOT promote abortion, simply the legalisation of abortion. If you can't see the difference, then you're an idiot.
Abortion is premeditated killing.
And so is sacrificing the mother in order for the child to live. If the mother's life is threatened by the pregnancy, by not aborting the child, you are also premeditating the killing of the mother. Thus, by your standards, you face a paradox. I am appalled by how people can call themselves "pro-life" when they say that the mother's life doesn't matter as long as the baby is not aborted. This is hypocrisy of the greatest degree.
Most pro-aborts say abortion is good because……the child might have problems…might grow up in poverty……might face lives trials….
I am not a "pro-abort". I am pro-choice, as I have explained the difference.
So don't use this excuse that abortion would save children from a life….so full of misery that they would be better off dead.
You are using poverty as the epitome of suffering and misery. Thus, you are attacking a straw man. Poverty is nowhere near the suffering that some of these children who have been "allowed to survive" face.
You said this…."Again, not necessarily. I support abortion only when a foetus can't be confidently said to lack rationality, autonomy
and self-consciousness."
Now wait one minute here. Can a newborn baby do any of these? No.
Of course it does. It has autonomy and self-consciousness. But then again, even if I agree with you, by saying that a newborn baby can't have such experiences, it still has no bearing on whether abortion is moral or immoral. Thus, your statement here is irrelevant to the debate at hand.
Are you telling me that you want abortion legal….because the woman has a right to her own body
The short answer is "yes", but the long answer is "no". Congratulations, you have proven that you at least have some level of intelligence.
By having sex, one acknowledges the possible repercussions of that act. Primarily being 1) being impregnated and 2) getting an STD.
By having sex, one realizes it might end up Ina pregnancy. No form of protection is 100% effective. So anyone having sex should be able to have the responsibility of having a child.
Why should the irresponsibility of the patents result in the death of the fetus? It is life. It is human life from a few hours after conception when the gander has become a zygote with the DNA addition of the father. The killing of human life is not a fair outcome for someone not at fault for anything.
Why should the irresponsibility of the patents result in the death of the fetus?
First, I doubt that you can call the use of contraception "irresponsible". The fact that the contraception failed to prevent pregnancy does not mean that the parents were irresponsible, they were merely unlucky.
Second, your other premise is the the zygote is a human life. According to the OED, a zygote refers to "A body of living protoplasm, as a cell or cell-nucleus, formed by the conjugation or fusion of two such bodies in reproduction; a zygospore, or any germ-cell resulting from the union of two reproductive cells or gametes." While I admit that the zygote is "alive" in that sense, it does not have human rights because a zygote is not a sentient human being.
doubt that you can call the use of contraception "irresponsible".
No. But contraception is not 100% effective. Even with protection, the parents are fully accept g (or rationally should be) that a pregnancy is a possible outcome of their...activities. So to have sex, even with protection, one should be ready to accept the potential outcomes, however unlikely.
Second, your other premise is the the zygote is a human life.
Human=homo sapien. A zygote has the DNA of a homo sapien. It is obviously alive. You are too smart to argue that it is dead. Life is a scientific definition for our proposes so it is inappropriate for you to cite the OED.
a zygote is not a sentient human being.
Did you think I wouldn't notice your clever addition? It is a human being (organism). You can't argue against that.
So to have sex, even with protection, one should be ready to accept the potential outcomes, however unlikely.
Even if that is the case, I doubt that you can suggest that parents who use contraception are "irresponsible".
A zygote has the DNA of a homo sapien.
It possess the DNA of a homo sapien, no doubt. But it is not a homo sapien.
It is obviously alive. You are too smart to argue that it is dead.
Didn't I say that I agree it is alive?
Life is a scientific definition for our proposes so it is inappropriate for you to cite the OED.
You are committing the genetic fallacy here.
Did you think I wouldn't notice your clever addition? It is a human being (organism).
Yes, it is a human being and I don't argue against that. But is it sentient? In other words, does it possess rationality, autonomy and self-consciouness?
I doubt that you can suggest that parents who use contraception are "irresponsible".
If they are not prepared for the consequences, then yes.
It possess the DNA of a homo sapien, no doubt. But it is not a homo sapien.
Wel...? Don't leave me hangin'.
Didn't I say that I agree it is alive?
You added a "technically" in there which expressed hesitance and some doubt. But this is a good start. We are human life. Apparently we are stuck at the human=homo sapien part.
You are committing the genetic fallacy here.
Haha. Get it? "Genetic" fallacy...? No...ok. Puns aside, how? For example, the colloquial definition of a "theory" and a scientific definition of a "theory" are completely different. I don't accept your givens to be true.
In other words, does it possess rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness?
Irrelevant. I have no interest in arguing the difference in morality between two identical organisms whose inly difference is mental and physical development.
If they are not prepared for the consequences, then yes.
You seem to be using 'prepared for the consequences' in a way that implies the only way to be prepared for an unwanted pregnancy is to allow it to go to term. Abortion is a way of dealing with the consequence of pregnancy, and is in itself a consequence that someone might be prepared for.
If they are not prepared for the consequences, then yes.
But to declare them to be irresponsible, by your own definition of what irresponsible parents are supposed to act like, would be presumptuous.
You added a "technically" in there which expressed hesitance and some doubt. But this is a good start.
"Technically" does not necessarily imply hesitance and doubt. I used it in the sense of "by definition".
Apparently we are stuck at the human=homo sapien part.
No, we aren't. A zygote may be alive, but it is not a homo sapien.
For example, the colloquial definition of a "theory" and a scientific definition of a "theory" are completely different.
Which has no bearing on whether the OED's definition is true or not. I can give thousands of definitions from the OED which is very much inline with the scientific community's. You raised the example of "theory". According to the OED, a "theory" refers to "A conception or mental scheme of something to be done, or of the method of doing it; a systematic statement of rules or principles to be followed" or "A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." Tell me, which of these two definitions are not inline with the scientific definition?
Irrelevant. I have no interest in arguing the difference in morality between two identical organisms whose inly difference is mental and physical development.
Then this debate isn't for you. Rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are the characteristics that sentient beings are supposed to possess, and this is not exhaustive. The concept of sentience is one of the bedrocks of the abortion debate. If you are not willing to address this issue, then you shouldn't even be debating here in the first place.
But to declare them to be irresponsible, by your own definition of what irresponsible parents are supposed to act like, would be presumptuous.
How so?
"Technically" does not necessarily imply hesitance and doubt. I used it in the sense of "by definition".
semantics...
No, we aren't. A zygote may be alive, but it is not a homo sapien.
How does human not equal homo sapien scientifically?
I can give thousands of definitions from the OED which is very much inline with the scientific community's.
And I can give many that are not.
Rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are the characteristics that sentient beings are supposed to possess, and this is not exhaustive
I thought you would have thought this out more. If we go down this road, the argument will distill down to a passing match about whether or not mental development makes one more a person or human than one of lesser mental capabilities.
The mere fact that they were using contraceptives (correctly, of course) means that they were being responsible because their intention was not to have a baby and to avoid the choice of an abortion in the first place. If the contraceptive fails by no fault of their own, then it is not their fault! You can't accuse them of being irresponsible if the contraceptive fails in this manner. That would be like blaming the Haitians for the immense damage caused by the earthquake because they were "irresponsible".
semantics...
Hey, you were the one who wanted to play this game ;)
And I can give many that are not.
Therefore, you are committing the genetic fallacy. Because whether or not the definition comes from the OED has no bearing on whether the definition is true or not. I haven't seen you challenge the definitions I have quoted, so I'll assume you don't have a problem with them.
If we go down this road, the argument will distill down to a passing match about whether or not mental development makes one more a person or human than one of lesser mental capabilities.
Wasn't it you who told me in a personal message that one of the scenarios where you think abortion could be permitted is when the baby is grievously mentally challenged? I am well justified to go down this road.
If the contraceptive fails by no fault of their own, then it is not their fault!
What? Of course it is their fault. They CHOSE to have sex. They KNEW no protection or form of contraception is 10% effective. If it fails, don't blame the contraceptive. They knew there was a chance that it could fail. Yet, knowing this AND knowing the fact that they would not be prepared should it not work, they still had sex. They put pleasure before the consequences and that is their failing.
That would be like blaming the Haitians for the immense damage caused by the earthquake because they were "irresponsible".
That is an awful analogy. A better analogy would be if the Haitians had placed thousands of tons of high explosives on the fault line and blew them up and were surprised there was an earthquake.
I haven't seen you challenge the definitions I have quoted, so I'll assume you don't have a problem with them.
The definition you gave was not a scientific definition. Yes, there are scientific definitions, but that is irrelevant because you chose to ignore them in favor of an inappropriate one.
Wasn't it you who told me in a personal message that one of the scenarios where you think abortion could be permitted is when the baby is grievously mentally challenged?
Nope. That is a lie. I said serious defect. By that I mean anything that would in all likelihood result in the child's death. It is perfectly normal for a child's brain to develop. That is not a defect, that is immaturity.
What? Of course it is their fault. They CHOSE to have sex.
Just like how the Japanese chose to settle in Japan. If there's an earthquake and many people die or are injured in any way like the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, is it their fault? Your entire argument fails if we apply the same standard to any accident.
The definition you gave was not a scientific definition.
So how would you define a "scientific definition"?
I said serious defect.
Effects on rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are all defects.
By that I mean anything that would in all likelihood result in the child's death.
Which is exactly the same position I am arguing for, if you have even bothered to distill my previous arguments. Therefore, I don't understand why you are rebutting me.
It is perfectly normal for a child's brain to develop.
So what? That was not my point. What I said was that I will not stop any mother and/or father from deciding to abort their unborn if they do so within the first trimester because the brain of the fetus hasn't even been formed yet.
Your entire argument fails if we apply the same standard to any accident.
It is not an accident. It is the sole purpose of sex naturally. You continually present the child as an accident. This means you have a knowledge of biology equivalent to that of a 4th grader in middle America. Or. You are knowingly stating lies to further an unfounded point out of lack of an actual argument. The sole purpose of sex is to produce offspring. By making it a pleasure activity, you corrupt its true purpose. Now this is fine as long as one is prepared for that stupid, implausible. far-fetched, unlikely, ludicrous scenario where... what is actually supposed to happen happens. Protection and contraception help reduce this likelihood, but it is not 100% effective.
So how would you define a "scientific definition"?
I think we may be getting away from the point...
Effects on rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness are all defects.
And none of which are usually fatal.
Which is exactly the same position I am arguing for
However, you go beyond cases were the baby will die anyway to all cases. I am on the side of life. If death is the result in either case, why put the parents through unneeded trauma? And my argument of choice falls apart in cases of rape, thus, it is my only other exception.
That was not my point.
An immature brain is not a defective one.
What I said was that I will not stop any mother and/or father from deciding to abort their unborn if they do so within the first trimester because the brain of the fetus hasn't even been formed yet.
Hence my point that it all distills down to a meaningless argument.
It is not an accident. It is the sole purpose of sex naturally.
You are attacking a straw man. I did not say that having a baby was an accident. I was saying that the failure of contraception was an accident. The failure of contraception might not lead to pregnancy, no matter how high the probability. If you were to argue this point, you would be going down a very slippery slope. Furthermore, an appeal to nature is hardly a cogent argument.
The sole purpose of sex is to produce offspring.
I think that you'll find yourself to be wrong there.
Protection and contraception help reduce this likelihood, but it is not 100% effective.
But that is not the fault of the people using the contraceptives.
I think we may be getting away from the point...
Nope. I don't think so. I won't let you back away from your own challenge so easily.
And none of which are usually fatal.
You are attacking another straw man argument. I've never claimed it to be fatal. It doesn't have to be fatal to be bad or wrong. The point is that if an organism lacks rationality, autonomy and self-consciousness, it is no more than a mechanical machine that can be terminated without such an act being considered morally wrong.
However, you go beyond cases were the baby will die anyway to all cases.
I admit that. But you haven't actually posed any significant challenge to me on those cases.
An immature brain is not a defective one.
Did I even make that point?
Hence my point that it all distills down to a meaningless argument.
Right. This is purely an assertion without justification.
2) Your analogy fails as it is being compared to a straw man.
You are attacking a straw man here again. I said that the failure of contraception was an accident, not pregnancy.
They knew it is possible and they are at fault for ignoring all the possibilities.
By that same standard, you are also pushing the blame of the damage caused by the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake completely on the Japanese. If you have the audacity to claim that, I would say that you have less knowledge of Geography that my 5 year old nephew.
How does human not equal homo sapien?
I don't believe that was what I said. Homo sapien is a species of animals. To be human, one must also possess personhood. According to Dr. Mianna Lotz from the Centre of Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics at the University of Melbourne, whom I've had the pleasure to meet recently, "Personhood is generally defined in terms of the possession of characteristics and capacities such as consciousness, ability to reason, self-motivated activity, communication, and possession of a concept of the self."
I am only in favor of abortion in cases where it would be fatal.
Conversely, even when the effect of an action is fatal, it doesn't necessarily mean that the action itself was wrong.
I have indeed. They new the consequences. They ignored them.
That is an extremely feeble argument. How can someone ignore unforeseen circumstances?
Abortion is a medical procedure that should be between a woman and her doctor. Abortion has been practiced since the beginning of time, one way or another. It was only illegal in the USA for 70 years before it was made legal, again. Before it was made illegal, it was routinely done by doctors (if you were rich) or midwifes or sometimes, the pregnant woman, herself. Legal abortion makes it safe for the woman, who is oftentimes a mother several times over already. No one story is the same an being pro-choice is not the same as being pro-abortion. I have never heard any woman say they wanted to have an abortion without much agony and thought beforehand. Also, I see none of the bible thumping do gooder prolifers adopting unwanted babies or even offering to give a overwhelmed woman a hand up. The poster of this question is correct in saying that the prolifers need an education and update about pregnancy. Besides, if you are religious and it's against your religion, don't have one. Leave everyone else alone. As for your tax dollars paying for abortion, you don't want them paying for housing, education and food for the families with too many kids, either. None of us get to say where our tax dollars go. That's why we elect officials to do that for us. It's called a republic, folks!
Per EHow.com..."The are five methods used when performing an abortion. The first is called Manual Vacuum Aspiration and can be used early in the pregnancy. The doctor inserts a thin tube into the woman's uterus and sucks the embryo out with the syringe attached at the end of the tube. The second, Suction Curettage, is the most common kind of abortion and can be performed later in the pregnancy. The doctor must stretch the cervix with rods, due to the size of the baby, and then inserts a plastic tube that is connected to a suction machine. Once inserted, the baby's body is and suctioned out in pieces. The third is called Dilation and Evacuation and is considered a second trimester abortion. At this stage, the baby is too big to be broken apart by only the use of suction. Seaweed rods are inserted into the woman a day or two before the procedure to stretch her cervix. The doctor will use forceps to pull the fetus out of the woman. A looped knife called a curette is used to scrape remaining fetal parts out of the woman's body. The fourth method is called a Dilation and Extraction, and can be through full term. This procedure takes three days, and during the first two, seaweed rods are used again to stretch the cervix. The doctor will then use an ultrasound to locate the baby's legs, taking them with forceps and pulling every part out with the exception of its head. He will then make a cut into the baby's skull, suctioning out its brains which, makes it easier to pull the baby out of the woman's body. Finally, there is the development of RU 486, an abortion pill. Early in her pregnancy, a woman is given a pill in the doctor's office to abort the embryo and is sent home with 2 to 3 pills to be inserted vaginally. This will induce stomach cramps and expel the embryo.
Abortion is a disgusting thing. That's a fact. Performing unnecessary surgical procedures on people is a waste of time and valuable resources that could be put to better use elsewhere.
I don't think unnecessary abortions would be so commonplace if the fact of how disgusting they are wasn't hidden. The sheer magnitude of unnecessary abortions performed these days reflects the gross irreverence for life that is so pervasive. I'm not pro-life in the sense that I think abortions should be outlawed, but I am pro-life in that I see nothing wrong with working to reduce public acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control. I think that someone who claims to be a medical professional who performs procedures that are clearly unnecessary should be ashamed of themselves, and shunned by their peers.
Pro-life is the way to go, but how are we going to pay for this baby is the main question. Check out my debate on whether or not we should then auction off the parents organs to pay for this unwanted baby if they can't afford they baby. They believe in pro-life, but will let it starve...lol..unless yo'ure going to pay for the baby?
I see nothing wrong with working to reduce public acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control.
A little public shaming never hurt anyone, right?
I know we've been over this before and the conversation got to be too much for me to keep straight as much as it was interesting, so I'll try to keep this focused. You speak as if your definition of the 'unnecessary' is the one that matters. I'm sure you understand that many people actually getting abortions consider it absolutely necessary...and without understanding their circumstances, you're advocating public hostility towards their choice. What qualifies you to decide what is necessary and unnecessary for strangers, and what social punishment they should receive if they don't obey your standards?
Is it in dispute then that abortion causes disgust?
A little public shaming never hurt anyone, right?
Embarrassment and progress go hand and hand. Be my friend embarrass me. :)
You speak as if your definition of the 'unnecessary' is the one that matters.
How dare I speak as if what I think matters!?
I'm sure you understand that many people actually getting abortions consider it absolutely necessary...and without understanding their circumstances, you're advocating public hostility towards their choice.
If it's necessary it's not really a choice, is it?
What qualifies you to decide what is necessary and unnecessary for strangers
I can't decide what's necessary. Something is either necessary or it's a choice.
what social punishment they should receive if they don't obey your standards?
Well my standard, should I be able to persuade people to adopt it, is that a surgical procedure should not be undertaken unless there is a clearly established health benefit to be gained from it being carried out.
I'd like "doctors" who perform surgeries that don't play a role in maintaining or restoring health to be recategorized as hacks.
If you mean disgusting as in 'gross to watch,' then we're in agreement, but that doesn't turn an opinion into a fact.
How dare I speak as if what I think matters!?
More than the thoughts of people actually faced with getting abortions?
If it's necessary it's not really a choice, is it?
If by necessary, you mean something that logically follows and literally cannot be other way, then even your 'necessary' abortions are not necessary. No medical procedures are 'necessary.' After all, people can always 'choose' to let themselves die slow, painful deaths.
I can't decide what's necessary.
You already have. Unless you did actually mean necessary in the logical sense, you've decided 'necessary' means 'necessary to prevent the mother from suffering death or serious injury.' An abortion could be necessary to restore the mother's health a pre-pregnancy level, necessary to maintain a lifestyle that enables a mother to support her existing children, necessary to preserve the mother's mental health, necessary to allow the mother control of her own reproductive life, or necessary for any number of things you've decided are less important than not getting an abortion.
I'd like "doctors" who perform surgeries that don't play a role in maintaining or restoring health to be recategorized as hacks.
Things that would make doctors hacks according to you:
Correcting birth defects such as extra fingers, tails, or deviated septa
Cosmetic reconstructive surgery for accident victims
All exploratory surgeries
---
Things that wouldn't:
Abortion (unless you can show me that pregnancy does not reduce the mother's health from its pre-pregnancy level, thus making abortion a procedure that restores health)
If you mean disgusting as in 'gross to watch,' then we're in agreement, but that doesn't turn an opinion into a fact.
It's just a tad more deep seated than an opinion. Disgust can be evoked without visual stimulus or having formed anything like an opinion. For example with extremely foul odors. An odor that is in fact disgusting to some, others may find that they can tolerate. The fact that some people build a tolerance and can endure without experiencing disgust doesn't make it any less factual that the smell is disgusting.
More than the thoughts of people actually faced with getting abortions?
If someone feels like they are "faced with getting an abortion" when they really aren't, perhaps thoughts like those I express will be considered more weighty than those expressed by people like you who as I see it are advocates of abortion as a form of birth control.
If by necessary, you mean something that logically follows and literally cannot be other way, then even your 'necessary' abortions are not necessary.
True, there are always other options, though they may not be immediately perceivable. I don't use the word necessary in such a manner as to retard recognition of the possibility of better options. Obviously earlier on some things were thought to be necessary that were later proven not to be.
After all, people can always 'choose' to let themselves die slow, painful deaths.
No they can't, not always. :)
Anything we deem to be necessary is representative of a decision we've already made...it's a specific conclusion we've come to in that other possible courses of events are excluded from consideration.
You already have. Unless you did actually mean necessary in the logical sense, you've decided 'necessary' means 'necessary to prevent the mother from suffering death or serious injury.'
The only reason abortions are performed is that we don't realize better alternatives. It's not that the alternatives don't exist, it's that they are not sought out with enough diligence. If you want to use logic so strict that it renders the use of the term "necessary" pointless, I'll have to agree that no medical procedures are necessary. You could however submit to common sense and realize I was referring to a determination of necessity made by a licensed medical professional.
Things that would make doctors hacks according to you:
Correcting birth defects such as extra fingers, tails, or deviated septa
Cosmetic reconstructive surgery for accident victims
All exploratory surgeries
Sorry, I left out "improving". I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that those type of surgeries have health benefits. I think you're straining at gnats here.
Things that wouldn't:
Abortion (unless you can show me that pregnancy does not reduce the mother's health from its pre-pregnancy level, thus making abortion a procedure that restores health)
There are countless factors that come into play when considering the overall health of a person, and I may not be able to convince you, but there are plenty of occasions where pregnancy and childbirth result in a stronger more healthy woman. If the burden of proof was on you, I suspect you would have trouble showing that abortion restores health to a pre-pregnancy level.
It's just a tad more deep seated than an opinion...
I don't want to spend a lot more on this because the I'd be getting tangled in semantics and it's not actually a sentiment I disagree with, but that something is disgusting to you only a fact if you specify that. Disgust is subjective no matter how widely it is shared.
Perhaps in the mind of someone considering one when there are better options.
What makes an option better than abortion? Who has the authority to place someone else's reproductive options in order of goodness?
Anything we deem to be necessary is representative of a decision we've already made...it's a specific conclusion we've come to in that other possible courses of events are excluded from consideration.
How do you know other options weren't given fair consideration and discarded?
The only reason abortions are performed is that we don't realize better alternatives...
First, I am willing to operate on whatever definition of necessary you are using. You used it once in one way, and once in another way. If we've established you're not using logical necessity, that's fine.
I don't think it's fair to claim people who seek abortions do so because they haven't been diligent in seeking other options. What are you using to support this claim? Why can't abortion simply be the best option, even if the mother is not a rape victim or in danger of dying?
Sorry, I left out "improving". I'm sure you wouldn't dispute that those type of surgeries have health benefits. I think you're straining at gnats here.
They have a neutral impact on physical health. So they do not maintain, restore, or improve health.
If you want to include mental health, I wouldn't argue these procedures have no impact, but I think this still excludes abortion. Using guilt or shame to influence a woman into keeping an unwanted pregnancy would be harmful to her mental health- do you think this is true?
I may not be able to convince you, but there are plenty of occasions where pregnancy and childbirth result in a stronger more healthy woman.
As it is a difficult experience, I don't doubt makes some women stronger. It could also break her or ruin her life if she can't deal with it, or if her life simply has no room for the resources pregnancy requires. There is probably a reason abortion correlates so heavily with poverty.
I don't think it's the job of society to shame someone who chooses not to take a more difficult path, mainly because they have a way better idea than anyone else if they can actually handle it or not. You and I are both in situations that we could undoubtedly complicate by taking on more responsibilities or demands, but we haven't because we're aware that we have our limits and everything will suffer if we overextend ourselves. Is that unacceptable?
If the burden of proof was on you, I suspect you would have trouble showing that abortion restores health to a pre-pregnancy level.
An abortion performed without complications will not damage a woman's health and abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. It's a faster way than pregnancy to return to a pre-pregnancy health level.
The most common emotions reported after abortion are relief and happiness. A negative impact on mental health is rare. It would be rarer still if abortion was not stigmatized and if no women were ever pressured into an abortion they didn't want.
"The most common emotions reported after abortion are relief and happiness. A negative impact on mental health is rare. It would be rarer still if abortion was not stigmatized and if no women were ever pressured into an abortion they didn't want."
I want to take issue with what you said here.
How do you know what women feel after abortions? You have no clue whatsoever and neither do the professionals. I talk here from experience, one who knows who has gone through this.
Most women suffer silently if they have had abortions. This is not acceptable table talk at the dinner table or any table for that matter. Not many woman I know want to talk about what they did…who wants friends and family to know they killed a family member? No women do not report it…they don't talk about it. They try to FORGET IT.
This is not so easy. Last Sunday was Right to Life Sunday and our pastor gave a sermon on this. I can only imagine how many women were sitting there who had had an abortion and were suffering. Its why most pastors won't even touch the issue. Lets not make women feel bad. Lets hide it.
I work with a group Silent No More. We minister to women and families and friends who are suffering from abortions. Abortion affects not just the woman but her family…that is if she tells them she had an abortion. I have worked in this field for over ten years…and the stories and tears I have seen…is unbelievable.
Do not say women do not suffer. That is propaganda that pro-aborts, that Planned Parenthood wants people to think. If you asked the majority of women however if they think about it…regret it you would be shocked…that is if they had the guts to admit again they had one.
Its funny isn't it that…the most performed surgical procedure in America…and we don't talk about it. How many women tell family and friends…hey can't meet for lunch going to get an abortion.
Go back to my previous post and find the part where I said something to the effect of the following: "No woman has ever experienced any negative emotions after getting an abortion."
If you can do that, your response won't have been mostly a waste of time.
How do you know what women feel after abortions? You have no clue whatsoever and neither do the professionals.
You wouldn't have to ask this if you read the source I provided. How did researchers reach the conclusion that most women feel relieved after an abortion? They asked them. They administered surveys to women who underwent abortions and asked them to explain how they felt about the process. 76% said they felt relieved. The data doesn't agree with your stance, learn to deal with it.
I talk here from experience, one who knows who has gone through this.
You know people who have regretted abortions, so it's impossible that most abortion patients are okay with their procedure? This is blatantly biased. Your subject group is heavily skewed: women who are happy with their abortions obviously won't come looking for abortion healing so they're not nearly as visible to you. It's fallacious to assume your experience is representative of everyone's.
For the women who do feel guilt or depression: how much of that is owed to the prevalence of the idea that they should feel terrible for getting abortions? If family and/or society is unsupportive or hostile to women who choose abortion, or if they're even perceived that way, doesn't it make sense for at least some of them to be negatively impacted by that?
I really hope you don't bring your accusatory and condemning attitude to your interactions with women who are struggling with their abortions.
I don't want to spend a lot more on this because the I'd be getting tangled in semantics
Fair enough. Really though I have this inclination to point out that what we call facts rest on subjective judgment, so I threw the word around loosely trying to illustrate that.
What makes an option better than abortion?
How about for starters it's likelihood to promote a culture of responsibility as opposed to the avoidance thereof.
Who has the authority to place someone else's reproductive options in order of goodness?
A hospital, A government, A trusted consultant.
How do you know other options weren't given fair consideration and discarded?
By noticing that accidental pregnancy invariably begins with a lack of consideration for, and discarding of smarter options. In general, abortions are the gross finale of a series of poorly considering ones sexual options. Sexual arousal, intense enjoyment, and climax can be achieved just fine while opting to avoid coitus and instead participating in mutual masturbation, oral sex, toys and other diversions. But that requires too much effort, heck demanding the use of a condom is for plenty of people, too much to ask. We'd have such a better situation if people would only have sex (I'm referring to the kind pregnancy results from) with partners they have seriously vetted as being worthy as partners in procreation. If cheap thrills weren't an acceptable substitute for genuine intimacy we'd be on to something. Abortion would be no where near as common. End of digressive rant.
You used it once in one way, and once in another way.
I went back and reread my posts. I don't notice myself doing what you claim. I try to be clear, and lay myself open to scrutiny. If you don't think it would be nit picking, by all means help me understand my misuse of a term.
I don't think it's fair to claim people who seek abortions do so because they haven't been diligent in seeking other options.
Well look there...we disagree...maybe....how about not all of them but a great deal of them then?
What are you using to support this claim?
I hope you find my rant above relevant and it gives you something to thoughtfully consider/refute.
Why can't abortion simply be the best option, even if the mother is not a rape victim or in danger of dying?
Well it's just my opinion, but the best way for a pregnancy to conclude is with the birth of a healthy baby.
They have a neutral impact on physical health. So they do not maintain, restore, or improve health.
If you want to include mental health, I wouldn't argue these procedures have no impact
Since I can't draw a clear distinction between physical and mental health (And I don't suspect you can either), I'll take that as a carefully worded concession. :)
Using guilt or shame to influence a woman into keeping an unwanted pregnancy would be harmful to her mental health- do you think this is true?
No more so than using guilt or shame to influence a parent to take better responsibility for their child(ren). My thoughts tend toward how people are pressured into abortions, even when they don't want them, with statements like "it will ruin your life" etc.. Abortion is propagandized as a way to insure scholastic, professional or financial success, and it's made to seem like getting pregnant is necessarily a detriment to those aspirations. In general do you think more pressure is exerted to promote abortions or to discourage them?
There is probably a reason abortion correlates so heavily with poverty.
- No doubt - It's a sign of the deepest sort of poverty to make a decision to abandon responsibility for our own species while they're in the earliest stages of development. Even miscarriages are due to poverty.
I don't think it's the job of society to shame someone who chooses not to take a more difficult path, mainly because they have a way better idea than anyone else if they can actually handle it or not.
Having serious doubts about our ability to handle parenting alone is normal and healthy. But if it's wrong to use shame to get people to take responsibility for their actions, it's even more wrong to use it to encourage them to abandon them. Besides shame is a great motivator, and no one can make someone feel shame without their permission right?
An abortion performed without complications will not damage a woman's health and abortion is one of the safest medical procedures. It's a faster way than pregnancy to return to a pre-pregnancy health level.
Thanks for sharing your subjective opinion. :)
A negative impact on mental health is rare.
How did you learn that?
It would be rarer still if abortion was not stigmatized and if no women were ever pressured into an abortion they didn't want.
Who is pressuring women to get an abortion when they don't want it?
Is it in dispute then that abortion causes disgust?
Even if it does cause disgust, there are still two logical fallacies with this line of argument. First, it doesn't cause disgust to everyone. And second, any appeal to emotion is irrelevant to whether something is right or wrong.
I never made the claim that no one was able to view abortion without disgust. Heck some people can stand by while horrible things are done and not get the slightest bit upset. I need help because I'm failing to see where I've committed a logical fallacy. Break it down for me if you please. Treat me like a 3rd grade student.
I'll grant that an appeal to emotion isn't a rational way to demonstrate whether something is morally wrong or right, but frankly, I rather you but out unless you'd like to discuss how to (not just how not to)logically establish whether something is wrong or right.
I rather you but out unless you'd like to discuss how to (not just how not to)logically establish whether something is wrong or right.
There isn't any easy way to establish whether something is "right or wrong". But, a judgement on whether something is "right or wrong" is a judgement based on moral duties. However, any judgement as such should be supported by arguments that fulfill both truth conditions.
If its so disgusting then why do you want it legal so people can do it? You stand in the same line as they do if you want it legal. There is no moral difference. You simply do not want protection for the unborn. How is this pro-life?
You state abortion is disgusting and that its gross irreverence for life…
You can't' be both. You can't want abortion legal and then claim your pro-life .
IMO people have a right to receive treatment from whomever they choose, without restrictive legislature, or an invasion of privacy.
Since opinions like mine are a distinct minority, and I don't expect radical change any time soon, I am stuck arguing for the improvement of the quality or justness of laws that address issues beyond what I consider to be the proper domain of public legislature in the first place.
Take as an example marriage. I don't like paying taxes for judges to hear cases about marriage, child support etc..
I did NOT say that abortion is a gross irreverence for life. I said "The sheer magnitude of unnecessary abortions performed these days reflects the gross irreverence for life that is so pervasive."
I believe that there ARE cases where the decision to perform an abortion is made with the best interests of the mother in mind, and with fair consideration of her situation, and what can be accomplished with the doctors current skills. I believe abortion should be something a woman is..to paraphrase Zombee..."faced with", not something she seeks out.
On the other hand....
I really don't think it's the business of government to disturb the privacy of doctor/patient relationships, or to make restrictive laws concerning an individual's choices for medical treatment. Such laws ARE in place however, so I'll talk about how I'd like them to change, since it appears they won't just go away.
I am pro-life in that I think abortion is an ugly thing that shouldn't be encouraged when it's clearly avoidable. I don't have to agree with the approach of outlawing abortion to identify as pro-life. Wanna know something sure to baffle you? I'm also Pro-Choice..
You are pro-abortion in every sense of the word. You just don't like to think of yourself in those terms. It implies something not nice.
You oppose legal protection for unborn children. If you wanted protection you would be pro-life.
That is not the case. What gets me are the people like yourself who say abortion is gross and ugly…..yet sit back and do nothing about changing law…..BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT THE LAW CHANGED.
And you impose it, whilst opposing that for the mother. In most developed countries, people have the option to choose what they want, not be told what they want and have it forced on them (or at least that's the idea).
You repeatedly fail to see how those supporting pro choice do not like abortion, they simply support the choice of it. Simply because it's bad doesn't mean it should be outlawed.
For example, all conflict is bad. But that doesn't mean that without conflict, we'll all be happy. Debate is a form of conflict, if instead of talking about issues would we be happier?
I am antichoice abortion. I am also antichoice drugs…and rape….and child pornography. You can also add..anti selling body parts,selling organs also abortion for the purpose of selling fetal body parts. All these are laws that prohibit people from doing things that most would not hurt anyone else. But we still have them on the books.
are you pro-on all of these?
If not then you enslave someone from doing something with their body. So you are anti-choice. So why do you fault me for being antichoice abortion?
I believe that science established the fact that the life in the womb is a separate human being from its mother. It does not share organs…does not have the same finger prints…etc. It is simply using the space to grow. It did not ask to be there it was invited by its mother. It was her body also that invited the sperm into the space where conception took place. She is the one who knew what could happen….when she had sex. She took the risk. She should be responsible for what happens. It was her risk and fault…not the unborns.
I am forced everyday to do things I don't want to do. I hate seat belts…but I am forced by law to wear them. And texting in the car. Who should have the right to stop someone from doing this if they are careful. Its their phone…its their car. THEY TAKE THE RISK JUST LIKE THE WOMAN DOES WHEN SHE HAS SEX. We all live by rules many we don't like. I do not like abortion.
I do not fail to see anything…I see things crystal clear. Anyone that opposes protection for the unborn is pro-abortion. Pro in the sense THEY WANT ABORTION LEGAL….WHICH MEANS BABIES DIE. That is not pro-life…even if they would never get one themselves. I go to conventions and seminars with Right to Life. If you stood up and said….."I am pro-choice but I am against abortion"…you would be laughed out of the room. It simply can not be.
Can you be pro-choice and sit back and allow your neighbor to abuse his children? Could you have been pro-choice and allowed slaves like they did in the South? Could you have been pro-choice and turn your head at what Hitler did to those he marched into the ovens?
I am not happy. I am not happy with positions here because they are barbaric and cruel and cold. For me its like looking into the eyes of evil.
Debate is a way of changing hearts as well if someone is open enough to examine their position. Try it…..
I am also antichoice drugs…and rape….and child pornography. You can also add..anti selling body parts,selling organs also abortion for the purpose of selling fetal body parts. All these are laws that prohibit people from doing things that most would not hurt anyone else. But we still have them on the books.
are you pro-on all of these?
How is this relevant to the debate at hand?
I am antichoice abortion.
Wait. You're against women and/or parents having a choice, but you are pro-abortion now? Or that you want abortion without giving people a choice?
It is simply using the space to grow.
Not only that. The unborn fetus also uses it's mother's body for nutrition.
It did not ask to be there it was invited by its mother.
And thus, the mother has the right to uninvite it.
I do not fail to see anything…I see things crystal clear.
If you say this, that means you're deluded.
Anyone that opposes protection for the unborn is pro-abortion.
Again, short answer is "yes", long answer is "no".
That is not pro-life
You aren't pro-life as well if you will not allow a mother, whose life is threatened by the pregnancy, to abort the baby.
"I am pro-choice but I am against abortion"…you would be laughed out of the room. It simply can not be.
You're myopic and deluded.
Can you be pro-choice and sit back and allow your neighbor to abuse his children? Could you have been pro-choice and allowed slaves like they did in the South? Could you have been pro-choice and turn your head at what Hitler did to those he marched into the ovens?
No. I am pro-choice but I do not condone abuse, slavery or genocide.
I am not happy.
I don't give a damn.
I am not happy with positions here because they are barbaric and cruel and cold.
So what? That says nothing about whether or not they ought to be done.
Debate is a way of changing hearts as well if someone is open enough to examine their position.
I would say the same to you, but I realised now that you're myopic, closed minded and intolerant of the beliefs of others.
I only support abortion if the mothers life is in danger and if the fetus is young. And if the baby is deformed but if it is for no good reason then I don't support it.
Here we have a picture that the pro-abort side DOES NOT WANT SHOWN. It factually is true and this is how a later term abortion happens. It happens the same way however in earlier abortions…the baby is just smaller. But never the less body parts still are dissected and torn from the fetus alive…until it is dead. So this is the face of abortion…FACT.
What gets me is this. Most everyone here I presume is pro-choice. Why?
They believe that the woman should have the rights to her body and that its a personal decision that only she can make. She should not be burdened by carrying something she does not want…and she may do this for any reason. Abortion should be legal so that if she decides to kill her baby she can.
So why does this picture…upset pro-aborts/choicers? If they embrace abortion for all the right reasons….then what is so wrong with it?
Is killing a living human being bad? No says the pro-choice side. Why the emotion from this side for being called pro-abortion? Is there something your not telling us? Certainly you don't advocate something you find immoral..right?
If abortion should be legal…because its the woman body her decision. Then how many of you would agree that even late term abortions like this….are ok?
LOL
How many of you would want to enslave her in later terms just because you find late term abortions repulsive and wrong. The baby looks more like a baby….and gee, just tugs on your heartstrings doesn't it…..sigh.
I don't want it shown because, unlike what you said, it's false. Abortion is NOT done like that anymore. Nor is it done this late unless the mother is in danger. Look it up.
And this picture is not gross to me, or disturbing. It's fake, and it's a ridiculous way to move people to be pro-life.
No pro-choice person has a problem with the picture itself, just that it's false.
Also, of course it would "tug on your heartstrings" the later a fetus is in term the more it is responsive. I don't have a problem with getting rid of a clump of cells in early abortion.
But you are wrong…it is you just don't hear about it. And if you are pro-choice then…what is the problem with it? Do you not want to be put on the spot during the Super bowl if someone in your group says wow…who could be for that? Then you would have to say well I condone it…I am pro-choice? Or you could sit there and hide your opinion and just agree so you don't look bad.
I don't have to look it up. Have you ever heard of Tiller…the doctor that was killed for doing late term abortions? He did them like this as do clinics all over the country. YOU DONT HEAR ABOUT THEM BECAUSE THEY HIDE IT…IT IS ILLEGAL. It is done. Last year alone two late term abortion clinics were shut down…one in LA and one in New Mexico. It is done and you are very naive if you think it isn't. And as I said…..is there something wrong with abortion Saurbaby? If you are pro-choice it should be legal because your position stands on the fact that no woman should have to carry something if she does not want to do it. That would enslave her. So if she wants an abortion say at eight months….it should be ok.
The picture is accurate and true. You yourself said in this post…."Abortion is not done like that ANYMORE." Which….LOL implies that you know it was done and the picture is accurate.
Did you know that in that tiny clump of cells…22 days after conception when most women don't even know they are pregnant…the heart starts beating. Yea…in that blob you think is nothing.
It is not accurate. They don't use, the only word I can think to describe them, tongs. They use a vacuum now.
And I actually don't have a problem with any abortions. I just don't like that they use something that's illegal, and it is almost everywhere, though like everything illegal it's doesn't mean it doesn't happen, to convince people to change their minds.
I don't honestly care if it's alive or not, it's a burden, usually a complete accident and we're over-populated as it is. So abortion is a good choice in my opinion.
They don't use, the only word I can think to describe them, tongs. They use a vacuum now.
A vacuum? oh that's alright then. Much less barbaric ;)
it's a burden
If having a child would be burden, then having sex is a terrible idea. Just sayin'. There is no way to be 100% sure that sex will not result in impregnation, so (assuming conceptuality), both parties should be prepared for all possible outcomes. Don't ya think?
usually a complete accident
Haha. It would take massive amounts of illicit drug use to be an accident ;) (I don't know that from personal experience so don't you be gettin' any ideas). Sex is intentional. In nature, it is meant to result in fertilization. It is not an "accident," it is what is supposed to happen.
Since you haven't disputed my other arguments on the other end, I shall simply respond to this one.
If having a child would be burden, then having sex is a terrible idea.
Which says absolutely nothing about abortion is morally right or wrong.
Sex is intentional.
Obviously, sex involves two parties. Thus, your idea of whether sex is intentional or not would depend on whose perspective you are taking.
In nature, it is meant to result in fertilization. It is not an "accident," it is what is supposed to happen.
Again, you are misconstruing what can be considered an "accident". Just because it occurs "in nature" doesn't mean that it is not an accident. An earthquake could be natural. And it could be natural for buildings to collapse during an earthquake event. It could even be that the debris of the collapsing buildings kill people and cause other loss of property. However, does it necessarily mean that it is not an accident.
Since you haven't disputed my other arguments on the other end, I shall simply respond to this one.
Which ones?
Which says absolutely nothing about abortion is morally right or wrong.
Why should someone be killed for anther person's mistake?
Thus, your idea of whether sex is intentional or not would depend on whose perspective you are taking.
From either perspective (with the exception of rape). Thus, people should be held responsible for their actions. In this case, that means raising a child.
The entire purpose of sex is for fertilization to occur. It isn't an "accident" at all. It is deliberate and intentional.
An earthquake could be natural.
An Earthquake isn't the fault of the people liven near it. That is a terrible analogy. They are not bringing an earthquake upon themselves as they are with sex.
Why should someone be killed for anther person's mistake?
Is the fetus a person?
The entire purpose of sex is for fertilization to occur. It isn't an "accident" at all.
You are misconstruing my words again. I said that the failure of contraception was an accident. I didn't say that the pregnancy was an accident.
And even if I were to allow you the concession that the accident wasn't an accident, that simply doesn't say anything about whether or not abortion is morally wrong or not. To say that it is wrong because the pregnancy wasn't an accident would be to commit the genetic fallacy.
An Earthquake isn't the fault of the people liven near it.
This is exactly why you are never coming near refuting my arguments. An earthquake wasn't caused by the people, that's true. But where the people lived was the choice of the people. If you put the blame on the parents for an unwanted pregnancy, it would be equivalent to blaming the people who died in an earthquake that resulted in loss of lives and property even though there are aseismic measures and evacuation plans put in place.
Abortion is still occasionally performed like this and it's not always purely for reasons of the mother's physical health. This isn't always what it looks like but sometimes it is. That it's hard to look at doesn't make it any less wrong or right.
In the end, it is a choice. And unless you are going to chain her wrists and ankles, she will get an abortion if she truly wants to.
I am a little bit of both. Hence, I am Pro-Both. However, that phrase implies that i am a "little" for each individually. Kinda funny...Pro-Both. I AM PRO-BOTH!!!! lol :D
Well. Anyway. If a woman gets rape, i believe she has a right to get an abortion if she wants to get an abortion. However, at the same time, my nerves are hit because an abortion is the killing of an unborn child. I don't care if it is dead or alive, the "thing" will soon be a child. And i find that unfair for the child but FAIR for the woman.
If an adult woman had CONSENSUAL sex, regardless if the pregnancy was an accident or not, the woman is still responsible. Don't be stupid. It seems retarded to say "oh the pregnancy was an accident." I say, "who cares. You had sex. You should had known better."
But what if we are talking about children? Or what if the woman didn't really know that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy? Ultimate stupidity is possible. That is a different story. I think it is FAIR for them to get an abortion but not FAIR for the child.
It is a choice. And when abortion was illegal the majority of women had their babies. Less women got pregnant because they knew that abortion was really not an option…it was hard to find illegal abortion clinics and doctors that would perform them. So they thought twice about having sex. Now abortion is an option and many women use it as birth control.
You can't be both. You either want abortions legal…or you want protection for the unborn and want it illegal. One thing your not…Pro-life…not if you want abortion legal. Thats like child abuse. Looking away you know its wrong but its your neighbors right to do it. Do you help the children no.
Now rape is a serious violent act and it is wrong. But that which is created is still a child, innocent at that. It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped. So the rape is one violent act…and abortion is the next. The mother chooses to violently end her childs life.
I have known people who have used birth control but still got pregnant. Accidents happen…but, you still are taking the risk…because no birth control is 100% effective…..unless you get fixed. We live in a sexually active society. If more women are keeping their babies because they are not looked down on by society anymore. More couples live together today than get married. TV, radio, magazines, movies…..in general foster the idea that if it feels good it can't be that bad. We are a sexual society and we celebrate the deviant. Kids know about sex earlier than ever today. So I highly doubt that if women have sex they don't know what can happen. Accidents happen…and women know that.
It is sad that what you morally disagree with you don't have the guts to stand up for. So you help to paint a bullseye on every child who is conceived in its mothers womb.
You can't be both. You either want abortions legal…or you want protection for the unborn and want it illegal.
This reveals the simplicity of your thoughts. You can be both. There are good reasons to believe why abortion should only be legal within the first trimester only.
Thats like child abuse.
This is a textbook example of a false analogy. A fetus is not the equivalent of a child.
It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped.
Yes it does. There have been studies of how the children of rape victims are negatively affected in terms of their psychological development, especially if there is a missing parent.
We live in a sexually active society.
We have always lived in a sexually active society. If our society is sexually inactive, the human race would have been extinct by now.
More couples live together today than get married.
I don't see your point. Married couples live together. And you can choose to live together first and get married later. It has no bearing on whether abortion is right or wrong.
We are a sexual society and we celebrate the deviant.
And who is "the deviant"?
Kids know about sex earlier than ever today.
That's good! I'd rather have my kids know about sex earlier and learn how to protect themselves than to be ignorant and cause unwanted pregnancies due to a lack of knowledge.
It is sad that what you morally disagree with you don't have the guts to stand up for.
I can say the same about you. What you are positing here are feeble challenges. So feeble, in fact, I wonder if your heart is even in this debate.
Firstly, just because abortion was illegal up until the early 70s does not mean women weren't having it done. It's an archaic procedure - the earliest recorded abortion was in Egypt, 1550 BCE. And they'll continue to do it in the future. You just need to get over it. Secondly, you can be both. You can believe in abortion under the right circumstances.
"It makes no difference to the child whether the mother was raped. So the rape is one violent act... and abortion is the next."
Could you be anymore heartless? The mother never asked to be victimized, so if she chooses abortion, it's more of an act she was forced into, not one she decided upon of her own volition. Why wouldn't you call the man who raped her a murderer, in essence? And let's consider for a moment the victim decided to keep her child - what do you think she may one day tell him/her when they continually ask where their father is? "Honey, you were a mistake and your father brutally raped me in a dark alley somewhere?" Yeah, kudos for Father of the Year! In this case, he would have victimized two people instead of just one.
"No birth control is 100% effective... unless you get fixed."
Are you honestly suggesting people not have sex from fear they might get pregnant? Go shout that in the town square, see how many agree. I agree, people should practice safe sex, but if they take all necessary precautions and get pregnant anyway, and decided for whatever reason the time isn't right, they're entitled to an abortion.
