abortion

"I think it's silly to say that abortion is not ok after 90 days but it is ok on the 89th day."

I'd say it's fair if that's the difference between something being considered alive and something not. If something is not alive in the sense of being a child on the 89th day but is on the 90th, that seems reasonable to me.

3 weeks seems a bit quick for a heartbeat to be detected, but maybe my facts are off.

In the end, I don't think ANY law should be so broad and sweeping that it doesn't have room for circumstances. My biggest problem with being against abortion is that it often means there are no abortions allowed ever, under any circumstance; if I understand the Bush Administration's as well as many, many Pro-lifers' views correctly here and that to me is not a policy that doesn't seem fair since there will always be exceptions.

This is also a debate that can spill over into religion and can further the issue by making it much more personal because it can now directly impact one's beliefs.

As well, I've always found this issue in particular to be a really odd one to debate because so many folks will say they believe one thing, but if the situation happens to them, many will act differently. As the saying goes, "Do as a say, not as I do".

Take care all.

It's difficult for me to decided. On one hand, I do value the life of an unborn child. On the other hand, I value liberty. In this instance, it doesn't seem like you can have both.

I think that's the flaw in the abortion debate, the grafting of the idea of liberty on the choice of abortion. It isn't a human right such as water and freedom in fact in all cases liberty is only allowed when it doesn't harm another person why does it differ for the unborn. If there wasn't such a incorrect pyscological seperation between person and foetus then abortion wouldn't be allowed full stop.

I'm pro-abortion. However, I'm also all-for the partial birth abortion ban. I think there should be a line drawn which prohibits the portion after a certain stage, to be determined by people far more knowledgeable than I am, but roughly around the time the baby can actually start to feel things and be considered alive.

A "baby" two months into a pregnancy is no more alive than sperm is(less so, actually, because sperm can actually respond). Should condoms be illegal, because it's killing sperm? It's an absurd notion.

There's no logical reasoning as to why abortion before a certain stage in the pregnancy should be illegal.

I'm in general Pro-choice. It's fine to say put them up for adoption, but not all kids get adopted. Personally, I think that instead of trying to reduce the number of abortions, we should try to reduce unwanted pregnancies. Many an abortion could have been prevented by a condom and accurate information.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Excelsior

i can see your point, but again, to me its killing another person.

---

Hm... I guess, there is the point. What defines a person? What defines a human being? A beating heart? Fully developed organs?

In my opinion a person is defined by awareness, his/her conscience, experiencesm, memories and dreams (there are certainly more factors, i.e. the upbringing...but this is the topic for another thread...). So killing another person would mean in my point of view taking the life of someone who has got at least some of these factors.

According to the embryo I would say, that the 'death line' (sounds meaner than it's meant...) comes with the awareness. When the embryo 'knows' what's going on I would forbid to take its life. The problem is, that still nobody is able to hit this point exactly.

The pro-argument really touching me is, that there are so many children out there, that are wanted. But too many parents can't cope with their 'job' and fail. I don't think, that it's easy to bring up a child and I don't think, that I was able to do so. In my opinion there should be an obligatory education for parents, not just to put a baby's nappy on but to teach values, to handle their problems, to solve conflicts and many things, which parents have to know and often do not know.
What I actually wanted to say: What about the not wanted children? If there was really and incident and you regret it but keep the baby, because you don't want to be a murderer..... your child will feel this. And when I see, that there are still mothers, who kill their baby after birth and put it into the ice box or whatever.... they have to be under great pressure to do such cruel things.

So I think, abortion should be allowed up to a certain limit. I do not know, if anybody read Peter Singer..... he wrote some interesting lines on this topic...slightly radical, but intersting.

What defines life to me is the ability to feel, react. Aborting a two-month pregnancy is no more killing a child than "killing" a sperm or an egg.

I am not for abortions for the "sluts" if you sleep around you should except the consequencies for you actions.

In the case of rape, I can not really think of people whom ask to be raped... so it isn't their action rather an unfortunate circumstance.. however I still lean that in the least we should attempt to persuade them to keep the child.. it could be a good experience.. however some people after being raped are completely unable to cope with a child... particually the child of the one whom raped them...

once again it depends with the person.. so in the case of rape... I am pro-choice... but if you are being a slut and such.. then accept the consequencies of your own choices... please... we already have enough of the "shift the blame" attitude here in America.. when need people to learn that anything they do will have consequences.. whether they are beneficial or not does not matter.

there is a great hypocricy when it comes to this topic especially for catholics and americans.

many americans believe that the death sentence is right. the catholics believe in original sin, so there we aren't killing an innocent maybe we are carrying out the death sentence on the original sin.

ask yourself one question before you disagree with abortion totally.

if you're brother/father/uncle raped you would you have their baby?

i believe alot of people who disagree with abortion after rape have no idea what rape is and don't understand the human concept.

another thing? when is a baby a baby? when the egg meets the sperm? if so is the morning after pill wrong? if it isn't why not? is there a day or time when a baby can not be aborted? what's the difference between the morning after pill and abortion? if the morning after pill is wrong is contraception wrong? if it is wrong to take life at even the most basic stage is it wrong to prevent life?

alot of questions need to be answered before abortion can be delcared wrong

If the being is on the path to autonomy, then it's alive. A fetus may not yet be to the stage of "alive"- but, without interference, it will BECOME alive eventually. So, abortion is still an act of ending a human life. No different then setting a bomb under a car and then waiting for someone to set it off by turning the key. It's a murder-on-delay.

No different than if I were building a house, and someone else came along and destroyed said partial building. Someone still destroyed MY home :mad2:. Abortion is nothing other than murder in cold blood. Now, there exists arguments for justifying murder, even the murder of a helpless victim, but there is no reasonable way to say it isn't murder still.

I am for abortions for everyone.
A child who isn't wanted will not have that good a life.
Of course abortions should be done as soon as possible.
Regularly a fetus being aborted is not more alive then, for example, cancer.
What you kill isn't more human then cancer is
and it can destroy a young woman's(or man's) life just as much as cancer.
People are generally against it because of some religious morals of the sacredness of life.
But how many people do you think would not have to die,
if they were supplied all the money spent for you,
just to be able to post in this thread?
How many people do you think have to die,
to supply you the comfortable life you're living?
I just don't understand why people,
in a world of constant genocides, massmurders and other atrocities,
whine over people "killing" what's not even alive to begin with.

Because you're wrong. They might not be alive, but they will become life. If a cancer was going to grow and become a sentient being, I'd be for keeping it alive... unless it would kill the host, then it needs to die. It would still be murder to kill the sentient cancer, but justifiable homocide.

But, abortion (usually) is nothing more than pure selfishness. Chosing a little bit of basic comfort at the expense of a life... I don't see how someone could be so, well, SELFISH, as to do something like that.

I dont have a clear-cut view on this, but I do agree without a doubt that abortions should be kept legal, if only to keep women out of back alleys, getting ball-point pens and bike parts from being shoved into them, often doing little more than making the baby disabled to an extreme degree, not to mention the pain inflicted on the mother.

My personal beliefs are that, if you arent ready for a baby, you should be taking advantage of the many birth control methods on the market today. Should those fail for some reason, I could see having an abortion. I dont think I would, but I could see the neccesity. I dont think girls who go around having unprotected sex have a right to an abortion, but again there's no way to enforce that.

I do agree with what Raist said. I believe in cut off points, and I also think there should be a limited number of abortions available to a person (dangerous pregnancies aside). I worked in a doctor's office for some time (and my mother has been working in them for most of my life) and saw girls coming in for their third, fourth, fifth abortions. To them it was a joke. I even watched one girl sitting in the waiting room with her mother, waiting to have an abortion (her third), and laughing it up, having a good time like this was a happy trip to the mall. That, in my opinion, is beyond sick.

But, like I said, I cant really draw a concrete line here. I've never been in the situation myself, and I really dont know all the thoughts and feelings that come with this. I dont know anything about when a fetus makes the change from goo to life, and I dont know if it's better to lead a horrible life than to not have one at all.

jrgen I do not follow the bible.. I do not follow any set religion... however killing is killing even if it is in the "pre" stages of life... I personally would be pro-life all the way if it weren't for Rape... which is in my opinion the "only" time it could be easily justified, and even there I am iffy.

I am sorta of ignoring the one that says what if both would die? because with medical science today we can generally avoid such situations... although I guess in such a situation one could justify it.

When it comes down to it, I think just using the word 'abortion' is too vague for an argument of this nature - you need to know the actual situation. It's like asking someone "do you think murder is right?" "Oooh, no, never! Of course not!" But then them saying "oh, but capital punishment's okay though" They're both murder - it's just one TYPE of murder which is considered more justifiable than the other, as udsuna said. Likewise, there is no one type of abortion - they could be needed as a result of unprotected sex, rape etc. There is no one, be all, end all situation in which an abortion is needed. Therefore, I think to tackle this issue you need to think with more fluidity about what kind of scenarios are involved when abortions are requested, and the ethical issues connected with having one and not having one. Who's rights need more attention - the baby's or the mother's?
Addressing the issue solely of "Do you think it's wrong/right to kill a baby after the moment of conception", I'd agree. Then again, I'd also agree with giving a woman an abortion if she had been raped. The sword is always double-edged in my opinion.