abortion

im sure this has been done before, but what are your thoughts on it? personally, i think its one of the most horrible things ever. I personally think that a fetus is a baby, and even if it isnt technically, it is wrong to kill it, because it will be a baby eventually. and maybe there are some cases where it is ok and better, but if i was the fetus, i sure as hell wouldnt want to be killed just because my stupid mother was a horny teenager and had to go get knocked up. and, if i was revived into an adult body, and knew exactly what happened to me, id be extremely pissed off. probably go slit her throat and see how she likes dying.

It is my opinion that what they abort isn't any more of a baby than a sperm or an egg.

Something I don't understand about your view though, a lot of people support abortion only if the mother was raped, or if the pregnancy posed a threat to the mother's health. I don't get that. So, according to that logic, murdering a child is ok sometimes? I mean, if a women was raped and had a child, say the child's 1 now, and she wants it gone. According to the above logic, that would be ok, right? Since there's no difference between a zygote and a baby.

I think that view just shows that even those people know intuitively that there IS a difference between a child an a zygote.

actually, i dont really thinks its right ever. i dont know why i said that above, but i dont. im a little out of it today, sry for spazzing out.

Not even if trying to carry the child to term would likely kill the mother?

well, i think abortion is the same thing as killing a person, so your basically asking me, "is it ok to kill a person to save another person?" and i cant answer that. but, if i was the woman in that position, i would give birth to it, if that would answer your question in some way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Excelsior

well, i think abortion is the same thing as killing a person, so your basically asking me, "is it ok to kill a person to save another person?" and i cant answer that. but, if i was the woman in that position, i would give birth to it, if that would answer your question in some way.

---

But what if BOTH would die? It would be pointless and stupid. Might as well save the mother. By the way, my take is that if the mother has been raped, if it will risk the mother's life, or if the mother is too young to give birth to the child, then that's when abortion is okay. If they're too young, then it may teach them a lesson anyway because probably at least one of their friends will give them a hard time about getting one and it may teach them to use protection next time. But if they're just going around acting like a slut, they don't deserve the priviledge of getting one.

Edit: Just ignore the tiny line in italics please. I didn't really mean what it looks like I meant by it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Terra*Aeris

But if they're just going around acting like a slut, they don't deserve the priviledge of getting one.

---

Then the child is punished with a mother who doesn't want it.

i can see your point, but again, to me its killing another person. and in my opinion, you shouldnt "get the privledge" to kill a person because you were raped or whatever. i mean, its unfortunate, but does that mean your going to kill a person just because its an inconvenience? there are things called orphanages if you obviously dont want a child that you acquired from somebody raping you.

now, if your both going to die, then yes, you might as well save the mother, im sure the baby would want that too if it could voice its opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Then the child is punished with a mother who doesn't want it.

---

But there are adoption agencies where the child could get a mother that would love it twice as much as a birth mother would (not saying that the birth wouldn't love their child just as much, but there are people who want kids, but can't have them and may have been waiting for that one special one)! Besides, if the child was adopted, the mother could say, "I chose you out of everyone" and that would make the child feel special if someone said that.

I'm generally torn on the issue, but I tend to lean toward the abortions for everyone! viewpoint. Sometimes I just don't value human life at all. *shrug*

Then again, I admittedly have a bias against people who are so pro-life. I realized a couple of years ago that this is because, when I was 11, we were driving past an abortion clinic that was in town, and protestors were holding up a six-foot photo of a baby head all bloody and brain scrambled. I totally flipped out, and no matter how many sick things I've seen since then, the fact that I saw that at that age has really traumatized me. smurf those people. Right in the ear. I'm shaking just being reminded of it.

I'm pro choice to a point, but after something like the 4th month of pregnancy, when the fetus can actually be proven to be a life of its own, then I think the child should be born in most situations. If you're going to get an abortion, get it early before any potential life begins to develop in my opinion.

Take care all.

What The Captain said.

I may not agree that people should get an abortion but if they don't believe that life starts until *put in time here* then they should be allowed to do it. We should not legislate our religous beliefs like this at all. I may not agree with it but it is not my right to tell others that they can't do it. They have to make their own choices and live with those choices.

Also it is better for them to have it in place so that it can be administored by pros and not back allies with unsanitary equipment...if any equipment at all.

For the record, as far as I've learned a fetus is believed to be able to feel pain as early as three months into the pregnancy.

Gotcha. How early can a pregnacy be detected?

Take care all.

I'm foggy on the details, but isn't it something like a 3 weeks into the pregnancy that the heartbeat of the baby can be detected?

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

I'm pro-life, but I think it's an extremely hard issue to pick a side on. I knew a girl in high school who had several abortions. And honestly, if this girl had gone through with the pregnancy and kept the baby, she would've been a crap mother. So were those babies better left unborn? I don't know...maybe. I watched the movie Vera Drake last week and just felt entirely conflicted after watching it. It told the story of an old lady who performed illegal abortions on young women who couldn't go through with their pregnancy. "If you can't feed them, you can't love them" - that was the main idea running through the film.


*sigh*

But I can't let go of the fact that these are babies. I don't think of them as a fetus or a bunch of cells, I think of them as developing human beings. And I think abortion, especially in the later stages of pregnancy, is absolutely horrific.

It's all shades of grey. :(

Edit: The Captain, I'm pretty sure pregnancy can be detected 8 days after conception.

"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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr.K

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.

---

*Applause* very well put.

The way the woman became impregnated is irrelevant. Sure, you may frown upon unprotected sex when the girl doesn't want to become pregnant(I sure as hell do), but you can't punish them for it with laws. You can't make laws of pure moral issues.

Sure irresponsible sex is a horrible thing - but it isn't, and should not be, illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Sure irresponsible sex is a horrible thing - but it isn't, and should not be, illegal.

---

Of course, but the killing of human beings for no reason but one's own selfish wants... shouldn't THAT be illegal? Last I checked, it usually is.

Quote:

---

Of course, but the killing of human beings for no reason but one's own selfish wants... shouldn't THAT be illegal? Last I checked, it usually is.

---

I thought it had already been adequately demonstrated that aborting a two-month pregnancy is no worse(and probably better) than killing a sperm or an egg.

I am pro-choice. for it is the mother having the child after all, but there should be little abuse on this privilage, and like previously mentioned a cut off period, like after it has a heart beat (If I remeber correctly, that is in the second trimester, that is when the organs start to develop too). Also, there should be a promotion of safe-sex to prevent unwanted births.

Personally, I am against abortion, for life, is life. But I cannot be blinded by that, and that is why I think the moher should have the choice. The father not as much, for he is not the one carrying the soon to be child.

Also people forgot to mention, what about if you got a karyotype of the fetus, and you knew the child was going to be born with non-disjunction, or another gentic related disease? Or that the father wants, and would take care of the child, whilst the mother doesn't? There are many aspects to it. I think may never be resolved. There are too many points, all valid.

I'm wondering why all the people who say it's ok when the women is raped haven't addressed the issue I brought up in my first post. Why do you think that killing babies is ok sometimes? I mean, I don't consider it a baby, so that's why I think it's ok. But if I thought abortion was killing a baby, I sure as hell wouldn't support it under any circumstances.

Also, it's not a matter of the baby's vs. the mother's rights to me. A sperm doesn't have rights, and neither does a zygote.

Emerald: The reason why people think that a mother should have a right to choose when rape is involved is because the baby was unplanned and forced upon them. You try to look at it from a baby's point of view rather than the mother's.

You can't say you wouldn't do the same, because no one has ever raped you into being pregnant. Try to imagine that the baby is not what the mother wanted, and every mother has a right to choose whose baby it is. Imagine if the child was 10 years old and you had to tell him/her how she came about..."Oh, your daddy raped me." Right. It's probably best the baby not live as a result through rape and an abortion should be had ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I thought it had already been adequately demonstrated that aborting a two-month pregnancy is no worse(and probably better) than killing a sperm or an egg.

---

Not even close. You haven't said anything. If that specific egg and sperm cell was predestined to be fertalized, then it would be wrong to destroy it. If some couple had a sample of sperm frozen for later fertalization because the husband might end up dying from some soon-to-occur event (say, surgery). And the wife planned to concieve with that sperm at a later time, and some bastard destroyed the sperm, then THAT is, so far as I'm concerned, the moral equivalent to murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Not even close. You haven't said anything. If that specific egg and sperm cell was predestined to be fertalized, then it would be wrong to destroy it. If some couple had a sample of sperm frozen for later fertalization because the husband might end up dying from some soon-to-occur event (say, surgery). And the wife planned to concieve with that sperm at a later time, and some bastard destroyed the sperm, then THAT is, so far as I'm concerned, the moral equivalent to murder.

---

There is a very distinct difference between "moral" and "legal," which I feel you are failing to grasp. Some things are obviously immoral, but not illegal.

EDIT: Also...so the killing of an egg not planned and set aside for fertilization is perfectly fine? Why? Do unwanted eggs have less rights? It seems to me that with that argument you are arguing for abortion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

There is a very distinct difference between "moral" and "legal," which I feel you are failing to grasp. Some things are obviously immoral, but not illegal.

EDIT: Also...so the killing of an egg not planned and set aside for fertilization is perfectly fine? Why? Do unwanted eggs have less rights? It seems to me that with that argument you are arguing for abortion.

---

First, I grasp the difference between moral and legal. We're not talking about legalities here, in case you forgot... this is pure moral debate.

And killing an egg/sperm isn't necessarily a good or bad thing. But, an unnused sex cell is meaningless. Dies quickly on its own. But, to deny a chance for a life to form, that's wrong (aside from the natural processes).

Quote:

---

First, I grasp the difference between moral and legal. We're not talking about legalities here, in case you forgot... this is pure moral debate.

---

However, you also have to argue the other side. You may think abortion's wrong, but in order to justify that opinion, you must also consider the ramifications of instituting such a legal policy.

I don't believe abortion should be used as a method of birth control for irresponsible people. I believe adoption is an excellent alternative, and I have several friends, and family members, who were adopted.

However, I also believe that I can't force my beliefs on someone else. Personally, I would could not imagine a situation in which I would have an abortion. But I have friends who have had them, and while I understand their reasoning, I disagree based on my own morals. Whether or not it should be legal? I agree with TheAbominatrix. If it were illegal, hundreds of women would become sick, disabled, and dead due to botched, back alley surgery. And do they deserve that for being scared or foolish or irresponsible or because they're victims? I don't think so.

I think abortion is murder. People should give better reasons for killing a unborn baby, particulary woman. It should only be done if the woman's life is threatened, or the woman was raped. The man also should have say into abortion, because he made the child to. I know this brings up the issue of womans rights, but what about the mans? Not trying to be sexiest here, but it takes a man and a woman to make a baby right? Yes thats right, it does. Also if the woman doesnt want the baby why not give it up for adoption?

Thats my thoughts.

Remember the Scott Peterson trial that ended not too long ago? In reference to that--and many other cases--why is it illegal to kill an unborn baby and the mother, but not illegal just to kill the baby? Ol' Scotty was charged with the murder of his wife AND their unborn child. But if his wife had wanted their child murdered and had it done herself, it would be perfectly legal. In fact, if his wife had had an abortion the day before she was murdered, it would have only been a single-murder case, and the death of her baby would go unpunished by law.

I strongly disagree with abortion, the only exception being if the mother's life would be endangered by carrying the child to full term. Other than that--rape, incest, too young, whatever--the mother should carry it until birth, then, if she doesn't want to raise it, put it up for adoption. As for rape, there's always the "morning after pill", which keeps the egg from attaching and it is flushed out with the natural menstrual cycle before it develops.

And TheAbominatrix--you support its continued legalization, if only on the grounds that it keeps mothers from getting back-alley abortions? That's like saying the government should start producing crystal meth, because home meth labs are so dangerous. After all, if it's legal, it's easy to regulate, right? No way.

"Emerald: The reason why people think that a mother should have a right to choose when rape is involved is because the baby was unplanned and forced upon them. You try to look at it from a baby's point of view rather than the mother's."

hey, I'm all for abortion. I'm just saying that those people who say that abortion is wrong because it's killing babies, but is ok if the woman was raped are saying that it's ok to kill babies in some circumstances. That doesn't make sense to me. If the baby was born, it would never be ok to kill it. So if those people really believe that a zygote is a baby, I don't see why it would ever be ok.

"You can't say you wouldn't do the same, because no one has ever raped you into being pregnant."

How about not assuming you know so much about my life? I said I'm for abortion, just that I don't understand that particular viewpoint. Either it's not a baby, and it's ok, or it is a baby, and it's not ok.

I don't think we should kill the children concieved of rape. I say we should kill the rapists, instead. Yep, you heard me... and use them for medical experimentation, too. It should go in this order:

1. Test medical treatments
2. Test things like addiction/withdrawal processes and bone healing ratios
3. Test bullet-ricochette behaviors and such
4. Assuming they survive, put them in a room and rent them out. Also nearby will be rental baseball bats, knives, and pliars. A vending machine will include table salts and condoms.

A grim LOL to the above post.

I personally am pro-abortion despite my religion's stance on the issue. I try to look at it in terms of cold, hard, logical statistics. More people, more mouths to feed, more overcrowding, and so on. Statistically, it makes sense to abort and use the fetuses for research (in order to help mankind).

Ethically, I'm torn. I don't like the idea of killing a child who had no choice in the matter, but if the would-be mother was irresponsible/too poor/whatever, you may as well spare the child the suffering, especially if it's likely to die anyway. (IE, if Mommy's a crack-whore in a bad neighborhood who spends her money getting her next fix, chances are the kid's a goner anyway, so you might as well abort and use the fetus for research.)

I personally don't like it that much, but I think it should be freely available. And for the record, zealous people on both sides of the issue have my contempt. If you don't like abortions, fine--don't get one. Don't try to outlaw them. It's a medical procedue like many others--the only reason anyone's complaining at all is because the unborn child invariably winds up dead. You don't see people crying over the dead sperm when a man gets a vasectomy, do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

hey, I'm all for abortion. I'm just saying that those people who say that abortion is wrong because it's killing babies, but is ok if the woman was raped are saying that it's ok to kill babies in some circumstances. That doesn't make sense to me. If the baby was born, it would never be ok to kill it. So if those people really believe that a zygote is a baby, I don't see why it would ever be ok.

---

I guess it depends how strongly you believe in situation ethics, among other factors. If you're a person who believes the foetus has a great potential to lead a full and fulfilling life, then I'm supposing you will value the foetus' rights at least as equal to the mother's. If you believe that the foetus has no rights, and neither does a sperm or egg, then I'm guessing you'll probably be focusing in on what the mother wants.

If you believe strongly in situation ethics, you may find yourself respecting the rights and potential life of the foetus, but justifying it's death in extreme circumstances. Similar, I guess, to how a human being's life could be respected until that person becomes a murderer - then they are a viable candidate for capital punishment (whether they recieve it or not isn't important - some people would just agree that they are viable). If you think that a foetus' life is as sacred as any human being and that the context is irrelevant, then I'm guessing you'll be completely pro-life and will be thinking of some way to get round the issues of dangerous birth, rape, defects arising in the baby in the womb etc.
I'd say whatever someone's stance is on abortion, there will always be significant complications arising to question it's credibility, and compromises will always have to be made.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Because you're wrong. They might not be alive, but they will become life.

---

Why does it matter what it could eventually become?
That's like saying, everytime I don't have sex with someone, I "kill" an unborn child.
It's the exact same principle. Everytime I use a condom,
I take away the chance from a child, to be able to live a life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

I don't see how someone could be so, well, SELFISH, as to do something like that.

---

Everything you will ever do will be nothing but pure selfishness.
You will only do actions, which are referred to as "nice",
because they make yourself feel better.

Quote:

---

Because you're wrong. They might not be alive, but they will become life.

---

So will an egg. Saying once it's fertilized that it becomes "life" is laughable to anyone who knows biology.

Quote:

---

I don't see how someone could be so, well, SELFISH, as to do something like that.

---

I don't see how someone could be so selfish to force their moral beliefs onto mothers by punishing them with the law for their irresponsibility. Remember - irresponsibility is immoral, not illegal.

its simple

Abortion isnt right or wrong its just something thats all

its not illegal to abort a pregnancy and only psycho catholics go round protesting about it and trying to kill the mother, nothing is wrong with Abortion and shouldnt be classed as murder its plain and simple it's not something you must have but in some cases it is

what if the unborn baby was diagnosed with AIDS or something, would you let it go through or abort it? it all comes down to choice there is no morality or immorality in abortion its one of those things that arent a real big deal except to the person who had or has it

Quote:

---

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

---

A child should not be considered a punishment. That devalues human life.

Quote:

---

Everything you will ever do will be nothing but pure selfishness.

---

True. But I resent the implication that all abortions are done for selfish reasons. A Pro-lifer once said " a woman wants an abortion the way an animal caught in a trap wants to chew off it's own leg." Very few people like abortions.

Quote:

---

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.

---

I'm with you on that. At that point, I say mandatory sterilization.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

They might not be alive, but they will become life.

---

Quote:

---

And the wife planned to concieve with that sperm at a later time, and some bastard destroyed the sperm, then THAT is, so far as I'm concerned, the moral equivalent to murder.

---

Er..... I guess, you're mixing up certain things. What this 'bastard' does, is destroying the dreams of this wife, maybe destroying her life and murdering her mentally (I absolutely don't think, that it's right, what he's doing), BUT he is murdering a potential life. That means: right here and now it is 'only' a sperm. This 'what would be if'-game is pragmatically destructive, because it could happen anything. What, if the sperm would have been useless and the wife would not have got pregnant? Since you can't tell, what will happen to a potential, it is difficult to include it in your judgement.

And.... where does a potential start (jrgen already asked this)? If you see the world as a developing process with many factors cousing consequences and everything flowing, potential started with the very beginning of being itself. So potential is destroyed everywhere to keep the world spinning. But the potential itself can't be hurt, because it is abstract. You can't destroy anything, which doesn't exist. And this abstract potential you destroy, as jrgen said everytime, you're reading a book instead of having sex.

Quote:

---

Other than that--rape, incest, too young, whatever--the mother should carry it until birth, then, if she doesn't want to raise it, put it up for adoption.

---

:( You're raped.... you're extremely depressed, desperate and full of tears. You're crying every night because you can't take the memories. Your life is another one, you don't recognize it... and still every night the tears are comming, the nightmares are comming and every shadow hides the shape of the one, that raped you. And the you realize, you are pregnant. Law forbids you abortion, so you have to keep the baby until the birth. And this child in your growing wumb reminds you every day, every second you feel it within your body of the rape, of the violation you experienced. For 9 month you aren't able to live the shadow of a normal life. You hate this child, it hurts you by pushing you the memories into your mind. Over and over again.

In my opinion it's enough, if a girl has been raped. Forcing her to keep the baby seems cruel to me.

Anxious that really is the only reason I can ever argue for abortion being alright in rape.

And please keep in mind consequences ARE not neccesarily punshiments they are just results from your actions.. denying responsibility for such results is a bunch of BS and needs to stop.

And here is where I will end up argueing against my own view towards rape... The only time you should end a life(any life) is when that life then is hurting you when you have done nothing to recieve such a consequence... much like J.S. Mills "On Liberty".

Anyways if a women has free sex she must be aware that she may get pregent. Thus, she does not have the right to deny the right of life to another.

In rape... as much as I hate to say it, it is once again difficult(although much easier) to justify abortion. Yes you limit the the right of life to another, BUT in many cases that "life" is inhibiting the rights of the mother... so now it is entirely up to the individuals to decide(here I mean everyone will have a different view of what is right here... even if it should or shouldn't be illegal). Personally despite the fact that I am usually for it in such a case is due to the fact that the emotional strain is intense already... and more may push the woman to attempt suicide. Still a cut off point is needed.

Btw on the above... I do not know much about this "morning after" pill... if it is really effective and such.. then abortion for rape in my eyes is also wrong since it can still be prevented... but since I have no knowledge on those pratices I can not be sure how they work, or what thier chance of success is.

Basically you can only violate another's rights when they are already violating another's rights. So therefor such a case is near impossible to debate on all fronts. But I think it is clear cut that the mother is the begining violater in most such cases(the ones who sleep around) thus the right of the child should be protected... as for them.. well they could use condoms.. birth control, and the after morning pill... So there really is no reason for abortions to be neccesary except for in cases of rape(and if the after morning pill is effective as you all make it to sound, even then it would be rare.)

Reason I say rare above is after the incident they may be too emotionally disturbed to be thinking much ahead... thus end up not taking the pill.

Irresponsibility does not give one the right to take another's right away.

Actually, a cocktail of high-dose vitamin C, parsley, and Queen Anne's Lace seed oils are about three times more effective than a condom and birth control combined. Do it right, and you can induce a "miscarriage" in a woman who isn't even pregnant. Not much of a point in that, but it can be done. So, yes, morning after drugs are quite effective.

And a potential life, that is enough to be protected, is ANY life that would come into existence as long as no-one interferes with the "natural" course of events after they go in motion. Condoms/pills are acceptable because they are a prior interference, no different than abstinance or coitus interuptus (pulling out, for those unfamiliar). Some methods are more effective than others, but that's beside the point.

But once that spark has started, no one should have the right to put it out.

Quote:

---

And a potential life, that is enough to be protected, is ANY life that would come into existence as long as no-one interferes with the "natural" course of events after they go in motion. Condoms/pills are acceptable because they are a prior interference, no different than abstinance or coitus interuptus (pulling out, for those unfamiliar). Some methods are more effective than others, but that's beside the point.

---

This invokes what among the medical community is called a "slippery slope." What defines "natural?" Say a man and a woman has sex. The sperm will stay alive in the woman for almost 48 hours. If the woman was killed or beaten before those 48 hours was over, and didn't become pregnant, according to your logic there would be grounds for an additional murder case, because the assaulter interefered with the "natural course" of events which would have possibly resulted in the egg being fertilized. Before you attack me for the "only possibly" reply - consider this, not all pregnant woman give birth to live babies at the end. There's only the "possibility" that a women will carry through to the end once she becomes pregnant.
So again - determining that "life" starts when the egg is fertilized is arbitrary and nonsensical from a scientific, logical standpoint.

Quote:

---

I don't think we should kill the children concieved of rape. I say we should kill the rapists, instead. Yep, you heard me... and use them for medical experimentation, too. It should go in this order:

1. Test medical treatments
2. Test things like addiction/withdrawal processes and bone healing ratios
3. Test bullet-ricochette behaviors and such
4. Assuming they survive, put them in a room and rent them out. Also nearby will be rental baseball bats, knives, and pliars. A vending machine will include table salts and condoms.

---

Thankfully the consitution is there to protect criminals from this sort of stuff.

Like I said, murder by delay. No different than setting up a car-bomb. And if I set a car bomb, and the guy has a heart attack in the driveway before turning on the vehicle, I may not be responsible for killing the dude, but I'm morally just as good as a murderer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by udsuna

Like I said, murder by delay. No different than setting up a car-bomb. And if I set a car bomb, and the guy has a heart attack in the driveway before turning on the vehicle, I may not be responsible for killing the dude, but I'm morally just as good as a murderer.

---

Um...exactly what does that have to do with this subject?

I'm tired, and it's self-evident, so cut the sarcasm, please?

What sarcasm? I didn't see a connection between that little anecdote and this current subject, and was waiting for clarification. Maybe you were responding to someone other than who I thought you were, or maybe your response isn't as self-evident as you think it is. Either way, your logic isn't as "self-evident" as you deem it to be, or otherwise more people would follow it.

It's obvious enough. More simply put, for those who need it: the attempt to kill is, morally (also legally, since that's so important to you) the same thing as killing.

...but when were we discussing attempt? In my example(if that's what you're talking about), the man didn't know the woman had sperm in her, and wasn't trying to kill her baby.

I didnt find it obvious.

I have no beef with abortion within the first few months. I dont think taking a life that hasnt begun is wrong. Taking a life before it begins is abortion. Taking a life in the middle of that life is murder. I cant understand how people can mistake one for the other.

Destai, you get my "Logic" reward. :love:

( :D )

In todays world(at least in the developed countries for sure) there is not a super large chance of the baby being still born(that is the term I am looking for right?)... true it happens.. but we can do an awful lot with our technology.

I know a lady who technically can't have a baby due to the fact that she can't get it to exit the womb.. so anytime she is pregnet she needs a C-section amoung other things. She also happens to have a problem getting her eggs fertilized... and she made a comment before about the wonders of medical science, because she needs so much in order for pregency to insue(she takes a form of medicine to up fertality, as well as has to be super careful while pregnet, also she just had a baby a bit ago, still recovering though.. it is really tough on her.)

Anyways.. I got off on a tangent.. that actually doesn't have much to do with this thread except the fact that we are constantly getting better and better at preserving life... we are also getting better at killing life, unfortunately.

And I am almost tempted to avoid this topic cuase I keep swaying... sometimes I am all for it(very rarely, cause of all the very obvious misuse(it takes an awful lot to justify killing something.. and even more to justify killing a person)), others I am all against, and most of the time I am for it in certian extremes... or if it is really heavily regulated.

Hey!!! I got an idea if you really don't want a kid but love to sleep around, isnt' there a way to permently keep you from having one... you know zilch chance. If you end up wanting a kid later you could just adopt.

Id rather have my own child. I shouldnt throw away being able to give life so I can sllep around. Id rather use a condomn or pay for abortion. You can have an operation like you just described. It can be done on both sexes.

Quote:

---

we are also getting better at killing life, unfortunately.

---

If you're reffering to abortion here, many wouldnt consider abortion taking life as a life hasnt yet begun.

actually in a sense life has begun... I mean goodness sake Cells are a form of life.. they just aren't human life. And anyways I really feel there is no need for abortion due to hte amount of protection there is out htere.. you have condoms, birth control, after morning pills... maybe after after morning pills, etc... but abortion is usually late enough in the game that, I , at least consider it life.

So you may not be killing a "human" when you have an abortion but you are ending a "life form"

Oh boy.. this is one of those posts in which I am completely against... ah well, to balance it out I will give my own insight on why I hold my argument thus.

Irresponsibility is no reason not to accept consequence.. and since I am completely against right now.. not even in rape(after morning pill).

oh yes I said the operation as sarcasm... the sorta sarcasm one of my teachers would use.. hard to see even if you know the person. I was joking... that would be like... a last resort type of thing... I don't believe in taking such a perment action for something short lived or of such a thing as we are talking about now(I say short lived cause I don't think most people sleep around and don't want the resulting children their whole life... or maybe I am just diluded.)

And as an insight to my character for you all. the big reason I am agianst it is cause of irresponsibility, if more americans showed responsibitly I would likely be less rock-like. But with the trend as it is I believe EVERYTHING must be done to stop it.. America is rotting from the inside out... we don't need terrorists or opposing regimes to destroy us.. we'll do it ourselves... and this not accepting responsibility is part of it. So I am HIGHLY BIASED on this.

Quote:

---

actually in a sense life has begun... I mean goodness sake Cells are a form of life.. they just aren't human life. And anyways I really feel there is no need for abortion due to hte amount of protection there is out htere.. you have condoms, birth control, after morning pills... maybe after after morning pills, etc... but abortion is usually late enough in the game that, I , at least consider it life.

---

Its wrong to kill cells now? Well thats certainly far different from murder so Im not concerned about that.

Quote:

---

So you may not be killing a "human" when you have an abortion but you are ending a "life form"

---

Thats debateable. I call it not letting a life form begin.
edit: forget that last point. The term "lifeform" as in a cluster of cells makes me think of a vegetable. Its alive but it doesnt feel anything. When its born or at least in the last few months its alive it takes on some form of life. The way you've phrased it reminds me of the difference between vegetables and meat.

Personally, I don't believe a woman shouldn't have to go through a pregnancy if she doesn't want to. On the other hand, I don't believea woman should use abortion as birth control either. It's just....in a few cases, if a woman is MADE to carry a baby to term, she can grow resentful of the child (And I have seen this.) And what about a young couple who just had a whoops....and just can't afford to have a child? And as for putting the child up for adoption, that's fine. For one or two. But think about the fact that as it stands, thousands of women are having abortions, across North America, not to mention the world. Can I ask, who's gonna take in all these kids? Because otherwise, they'll just be fed to the system, and become bitter and resentful. All in all, there are cases, I think, that aborting the child is far more merciful than bringing it into the world.

Quote:

---

In my opinion it's enough, if a girl has been raped. Forcing her to keep the baby seems cruel to me.

---

Amen to that. For the mother and child.

Quote:

---

Ol' Scotty was charged with the murder of his wife AND their unborn child. But if his wife had wanted their child murdered and had it done herself, it would be perfectly legal. In fact, if his wife had had an abortion the day before she was murdered, it would have only been a single-murder case, and the death of her baby would go unpunished by law.

---

They had to pass a new law (called Laci and Connors law) to pull that off, and Pro-choicers opposed it, because we knew this argument would come up. :mad:

Yeah, don't even get me STARTED on the whole Scott Peterson thing..... :mad2:

hmm.. did I come accross as I thought it was wrong to kill cells? oh shoot that wasn't what I was aiming for... I seem to be hitting off-base here lately.

The cell thing was simply to say that it is "Alive" at least in a biological sense... not human not a person, but life. We end life all the time, for food, for self defense, etc..

You can justify those. Do I think killing an animal, when is not attacking you, your family, or your freinds, and when you aren't going to use it as food, is right? No I don't.

Aborting a baby in many cases is just a sign of irresponsibility.. and not a reason to kill something. And it is not our right to decide whether or not a child would want to be born into poverty or into a not so nice family.

I know several people who have had hard lives... but you know what they are VERY GLAD that they are alive... humans can prosper even in harsh situations... just cause life could be rough doesn't mean we should end that life. Mercy killing can only take place when that person asks you to kill them.

Edited some things.. I really ain't on base today.. I'd best wait till I start hitting better.

different opinions different situations
personally i think that abortions are perfectly alright. yes are horrible and emotionally straining. but how can you say a 14 year old girl is old enough to propally parent a child?
some people can have support off their parents and friends, some have none at all. would you deny a girls childhood because of a mistake and finantial circumstance?
i can understand the against point of view. how old does an embryo have to be before its a baby? they can supposidly feel pain way before the alloted 24 weeks.

abortion should not be used as an excuse to have unprotected sex. it should only be used if all other options have been exhasted,

I myself am against abortion.

I would never do unless I got pregnant from rape.
Then i'd probably do it. Otherwise it would never cross my mind if I should do it or not.

Ya...it's killing an unborn child...but just because they are unborn doesn't mean it's not alive.

They are very much alive inside you...and just the thought of killing something that is apart of you just would be killing a part of yourself. It's a really sad thing. Just think...you got the abortion...then afterwards...just think about if you went through with it and you gave birth...looked into his/her eyes. Just imagining that would make me go psycho for having an abortion.

Quote:

---

abortion should not be used as an excuse to have unprotected sex. it should only be used if all other options have been exhasted,

---

Amen.

ShunNakamura, I appreaciate that you're trying to keep calm and open minded about a subject like this. Its very decent of you.

Quote:

---

Ya...it's killing an unborn child...but just because they are unborn doesn't mean it's not alive.

---

Its as alive as a vegetable. If you leave it be then it will "become" as alive as a human or animal. Thats why an abortion isnt murder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

ShunNakamura, I appreaciate that you're trying to keep calm and open minded about a subject like this. Its very decent of you.

Its as alive as a vegetable. If you leave it be then it will "become" as alive as a human or animal. Thats why an abortion isnt murder.

---

I'm sure you'd disagree...since you are male. You have never had a actually fetus/baby growing in your stomach so I guess it is hard for you to understand. I had taken many classes about babies in general..and believe me...they are much more alive than a vegetable. Never killing a vegetable was murder. Why? Because it's not a real living human being.

A baby inside you...definitely is. That can be considered murder.
For example: When someone kills a pregnant woman...they are not only charged with killing the woman...but also charged with killing the unborn child inside of the woman. There for I prove to you that abortion could be considered as murder, if something like that is considered murder of an unborn child!!!

:ty:

Unfortunately that only happened because people wanted to blame scott peterson for killing his wife, and they wanted to be angry. And because they wanted to be so angry they decided to be extra mean and charge him with the death of his unborn child, even though it could have been legally aborted. Makes NO sense if you ask me. I don't see why people aren't screaming about how unjust THAT was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I'm sure you'd disagree...since you are male. You have never had a actually fetus/baby growing in your stomach so I guess it is hard for you to understand. I had taken many classes about babies in general..and believe me...they are much more alive than a vegetable. Never killing a vegetable was murder. Why? Because it's not a real living human being.

A baby inside you...definitely is. That can be considered murder.
For example: When someone kills a pregnant woman...they are not only charged with killing the woman...but also charged with killing the unborn child inside of the woman. There for I prove to you that abortion could be considered as murder, if something like that is considered murder of an unborn child!!!

:ty:

---

The pregnant woman doesnt concern me when it comes to abortion. Its an object growing inside of you for almost a year that will soon be your child as well as all the reactions its having on your body. Of course its practically alive to you. But again, the pregnant woman isnt the topic here. The phoetus, zygote or embryo isnt as alive as you or I. But eventually it will be.( I havent been over sex ed in a while, what order do they come in again? ) Its not living its life or feeling emotions as people are. The only characteristic that defines its life is its growing. The same as a vegetable. The law still debates this topic as you and I are now so they are certainly no proof of point on abortion. At least on that example. The last four months at least are when it begins to feel alive or "feel" at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I'm sure you'd disagree...since you are male. You have never had a actually fetus/baby growing in your stomach so I guess it is hard for you to understand. I had taken many classes about babies in general..and believe me...they are much more alive than a vegetable. Never killing a vegetable was murder. Why? Because it's not a real living human being.

---

i'm a girl and i agree with nik0tine.
do you know anyone pregnant?do you know what its like to be carrying a child you do not want?
it's a hard topic but abortion is not killing a child. would you prefer to condem the woman to a life she does not want becasue of one night of stupid passion?
i could not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boris no no

abortion should not be used as an excuse to have unprotected sex. it should only be used if all other options have been exhasted,

---

this is one thing I can aggree with. I also can understand many points.. and am having a harder time then usualy trying to make my point. Possibly due to the fact I have been sick since early-mid December, or it could simply be I didn't get enough sleep.

anyways getting over heated in a debate doesn't help at all... it infact can be used against one... so it makes no sense to let a debate get at you..just take a step back and breath.

so let me just say this, Killing a group of cells is not murder, heck it in a sense it isn't even killing. But when you kill enough cells to kill the organism it makes up that is killing, yet it does not remain murder unless it shows human intelligence, after all murder is killing another person.

I ain't sure when a cut off point should be made, but if it is early enough I could easily aggree to it. I am not sure how soon in pregency can be detected, but the lady freind that I mentioned in one of my above posts was detected by the doctor very, very early on, within a week or so, because I distinctly remember her saying that the doctor told she was less then a month pregnet.

If you catch it that early.. then maybe... just maybe it could slide past my scale, as long as it isn't being used as an "excuse to have unprotected sex".

I think I mentioned earlier that my biggest problem with abortions is that is being used irresponsibly... and since it doesn't seem to be being regulated it should be removed... My wrestling coach effectively uses such a strategy, it works really well... we all behave ourselves.

and that last sentence was out of context :rolleyes2

So maybe the best way is to threaten complete removal if it is still used irresponsibly.. or at least make hefty fines and punishments if you are caught using it so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boris no no

i'm a girl and i agree with nik0tine.
do you know anyone pregnant?do you know what its like to be carrying a child you do not want?
it's a hard topic but abortion is not killing a child. would you prefer to condem the woman to a life she does not want becasue of one night of stupid passion?
i could not

---

I may be a male but I can immagine how that would be... part of the reason I am usualy for it in the case of rape. I really do waver on this subject, although I always feel that it should be heavily regulated.

oh yes And I guess I'll mirror Destai here,

Everyone it seems is doing a fairly good job of keeping calm, WTG ALL.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Unfortunately that only happened because people wanted to blame scott peterson for killing his wife, and they wanted to be angry. And because they wanted to be so angry they decided to be extra mean and charge him with the death of his unborn child, even though it could have been legally aborted. Makes NO sense if you ask me. I don't see why people aren't screaming about how unjust THAT was.

---

I wasn't using that as an example...that's definitely not the only time a person has been charged with murder of an unborn child...many have that have commited the same kind of crime.

ShunNakamura, Just so we're clear and I dont think you've accused me of thinking so but I dont agree with abortion being used irresponsibly either. I also think theres should be a fine for using abortion to sleep around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

So maybe the best way is to threaten complete removal if it is still used irresponsibly.. or at least make hefty fines and punishments if you are caught using it so.

---

but what about all the people that did have protected sex and became pregnant purely becasue of the condom splitting or the hormone pill/injection not working?
its so hard to find a cut off line for it all.
i think that better sex ed at schools is better.
teen pregnacies are the highest in the UK then they have ever been.
we need a better sex health care servise. i have to travel a fair distance to get to the nearest clinic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I wasn't using that as an example...that's definitely not the only time a person has been charged with murder of an unborn child...many have that have commited the same kind of crime.

---

Well lets see if I can answer it in the mind frame of those who are in favor of abortions and against that particular case. (this will allow me to see If I am actually understanding the opposing side... if I am not, then I should quit till i do... nothing is reached without understanding)

Basically the reason being is that the mother had wanted the child to be born, so therefor not only is the person killing the mother but destroying her dreams. And since we can't arrest people for destroying anothers dreams(well.. you know we might actually be able to :confused: ) we thus charge them with murder of the one intended to be born.

Not to mention the child in many cases has probably past the abortion dead line... ugghh.. I hate how that came out... English, bah humbug.

Anyways for the most part I don't have problem with them bringing an additional murder charge against the murderer... they need to be kept off the streets.. and that will at least keep him tucked up for a longer period of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

ShunNakamura, Just so we're clear and I dont think you've accused me of thinking so but I dont agree with abortion being used irresponsibly either. I also think theres should be a fine for using abortion to sleep around.

---

right, right, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. But I know alot of poeple who would have no problem with it being used irresponsibly. So part of my posts have been me saying what I would otherwise say to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boris no no

but what about all the people that did have protected sex and became pregnant purely becasue of the condom splitting or the hormone pill/injection not working?
its so hard to find a cut off line for it all.
i think that better sex ed at schools is better.
teen pregnacies are the highest in the UK then they have ever been.
we need a better sex health care servise. i have to travel a fair distance to get to the nearest clinic.

---

Id accuse anyone who has had a constant number of abbortion one after the other in a high ammount. It would be hard with the large spaces of time in between to accuse someone of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura:
Well lets see if I can answer it in the mind frame of those who are in favor of abortions and against that particular case. (this will allow me to see If I am actually understanding the opposing side... if I am not, then I should quit till i do... nothing is reached without understanding)

Basically the reason being is that the mother had wanted the child to be born, so therefor not only is the person killing the mother but destroying her dreams. And since we can't arrest people for destroying anothers dreams(well.. you know we might actually be able to ) we thus charge them with murder of the one intended to be born.

Not to mention the child in many cases has probably past the abortion dead line... ugghh.. I hate how that came out... English, bah humbug.

Anyways for the most part I don't have problem with them bringing an additional murder charge against the murderer... they need to be kept off the streets.. and that will at least keep him tucked up for a longer period of time.



right, right, I didn't mean for it to sound that way. But I know alot of poeple who would have no problem with it being used irresponsibly. So part of my posts have been me saying what I would otherwise say to them.
I agree with you. Although im against abbortion a potential life does matter. The people who should have the right to decide are the parent and if someone takes that choice away from them its still denying someone there rights wether the child was to be aborted or not.

---

I agree, a potential life is still important although Im for abortion. The parents have the right to choose wether the life will be produced or not. Someone taking that right away from them is wrong and should be against the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

The pregnant woman doesnt concern me when it comes to abortion. Its an object growing inside of you for almost a year that will soon be your child as well as all the reactions its having on your body. Of course its practically alive to you. But again, the pregnant woman isnt the topic here. The phoetus, zygote or embryo isnt as alive as you or I. But eventually it will be.( I havent been over sex ed in a while, what order do they come in again? ) Its not living its life or feeling emotions as people are. The only characteristic that defines its life is its growing. The same as a vegetable. The law still debates this topic as you and I are now so they are certainly no proof of point on abortion. At least on that example. The last four months at least are when it begins to feel alive or "feel" at all.

---

I know the pregnant woman isn't the topic. Many can prove actually some sort of emotions from an unborn child. Just because it isn't born into the world yet...doesn't mean it isn't as alive as you and me. The babe actually does show emotions when in the stomach. When you first find out you are pregnant...you can't tell if they are showing any motion...true they aren't developed enough, but when developed enough to kick...you can tell they show emotion actually. It's hard to believe...but very true. A baby cannot be compared to a stupid vegetable, because right away it's not developed enough and can't show REAL emotions because they are underdeverloped. It's like saying...baby's that are like 6 months old can't comprehend things, but when really they can. There's are all sorts of people that can remember back to when they were a couple months old. Why? I don't know. But i'm sure if people could go back to remember even when they were a baby in a stomach...they would. They don't change from the minutes they are in the stomach to the next minutes they are born in our world.

They do "feel" though before the last 4 months of pregnancy, and that I know is right.

To end this note though...if someone wants to go and have an abortion...then go ahead..i'm not stopping you. My best friend had one. Even though she regrets it very much now. I don't make your decisions...but this is only based on my opinion!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

A baby cannot be compared to a stupid vegetable.

---

I beg to differ! Both are tasty! Have you ever eaten an aborted baby. I swear...you can't tell the difference. Its almost like a tomato.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I know the pregnant woman isn't the topic. Many can prove actually some sort of emotions from an unborn child. Just because it isn't born into the world yet...doesn't mean it isn't as alive as you and me. The babe actually does show emotions when in the stomach. When you first find out you are pregnant...you can't tell if they are showing any motion...true they aren't developed enough, but when developed enough to kick...you can tell they show emotion actually. It's hard to believe...but very true. A baby cannot be compared to a stupid vegetable, because right away it's not developed enough and can't show REAL emotions because they are underdeverloped. It's like saying...baby's that are like 6 months old can't comprehend things, but when really they can. There's are all sorts of people that can remember back to when they were a couple months old. Why? I don't know. But i'm sure if people could go back to remember even when they were a baby in a stomach...they would. They don't change from the minutes they are in the stomach to the next minutes they are born in our world.

They do "feel" though before the last 4 months of pregnancy, and that I know is right.

---

I stated already in this thread that abortion is ony right within the first few months and eventually the baby will be a living human with in the womb. There organs, body parts and even there brains arent developed or in use early in the womb so yes they are practically vegetables.

I am not 100% sure on my stance on abortion, but I DO know that it should not be allowed after a certain period of time. Why would a woman wait until she is 8 months pregnant to get an abortion? In my opinion, if you don't get the abortion during the first one, two, maybe three months of prgnancy, then you should have to have the baby. Why would a woman wait longer than that anyway? It really doesn't make much sense to me. If someone can explain it, please do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

I stated already in this thread that abortion is ony right within the first few months and eventually the baby will be a living human with in the womb.

---

I already know that...so that wouldn't effect my opinion...even if I didn't really see that you said that.


As for Ed! That is gross...but I know that was a joke..since I know you in real life!

At a certain point it is illegal o get abortion because the child is too much developed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I am not 100% sure on my stance on abortion, but I DO know that it should not be allowed after a certain period of time. Why would a woman wait until she is 8 months pregnant to get an abortion? In my opinion, if you don't get the abortion during the first one, two, maybe three months of prgnancy, then you should have to have the baby. Why would a woman wait longer than that anyway? It really doesn't make much sense to me. If someone can explain it, please do.

---

I don't think they let you get an abortion after the third or fourth month! They baby is too developed. Then you'd have to wait and just give it up for adoption.

Quote:

---

I beg to differ! Both are tasty! Have you ever eaten an aborted baby. I swear...you can't tell the difference. Its almost like a tomato.

---

i would say you're sick but it's ed so we all know that you're sick

but thats not very nice :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I already know that...so that wouldn't effect my opinion...even if I didn't really see that you said that.


As for Ed! That is gross...but I know that was a joke..since I know you real life!

---

No joke. The umbrella cord is almost like a string of spagetti. You can just slurp it in and the ambiotic fluid is like spagetti sauce. The head could be considered a meatball.

Im kinda hungry now.... :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I don't think they let you get an abortion after the third or fourth month! They baby is too developed. Then you'd have to wait and just give it up for adoption.

---

you can have an abortion up to 24 weeks
some causes have been after but thats normally if the baby is disabled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

Im kinda hungry now.... :(

---

I WAS going to post that :laugh:

Quote:

---

I already know that...so that wouldn't effect my opinion...even if I didn't really see that you said that.


As for Ed! That is gross...but I know that was a joke..since I know you in real life!

---

actually it does. If the abyies brain doesnt even work then no, it cant feel emotion.

Quote:

---

I WAS going to post that

---

( :D )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

They don't change from the minutes they are in the stomach to the next minutes they are born in our world.

---

actually it has been physcologically proven that a huge chunk of development occurs after birth, those first few days after being born is highly important for a childs future development. True it does develop in the womb.. but there are radical changes very quickly after birth.. before birth the brain is not even fully connected, many of the nuerons finish forming after the birth. I wish I had my text wiht me I could scan the pictures of the complexity before and after birht... there is quite a difference.

This would solve it all for me(the answer is coming, isn't it suspensful?),

If instead of an abortion we could just transfer they zygote to a freezer tube, that way a couple who happens to be sterile could have a baby through a form of transfer.... this would be much better then abortion in my opinion, and could bring happyness to others.

I am certian for this to work it would have to be caught EARLY, thus negating the deadline debate, cause there would be a certian date where it just wouldn't work anymore. Also I ain't even sure If our technology is developed enough to remove a child a few weeks old and store it for future "use".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Destai

actually it does. If the abyies brain doesnt even work then no, it cant feel emotion. ( :D )

---

I know the babies brain isn't developed enough..but I said later on...like about 5 months...it can show emotion inside the womb.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I know the babies brain isn't developed enough..but I said later on...like about 5 months...it can show emotion inside the womb.

---

and by then its illegal to get an abortion.

Dragonfly...you lost. Just give it up. You can't be the super saiyans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

actually it has been physcologically proven that a huge chunk of development occurs after birth, those first few days after being born is highly important for a childs future development. True it does develop in the womb.. but there are radical changes very quickly after birth.. before birth the brain is not even fully connected, many of the nuerons finish forming after the birth. I wish I had my text wiht me I could scan the pictures of the complexity before and after birht... there is quite a difference.

This would solve it all for me(the answer is coming, isn't it suspensful?),

If instead of an abortion we could just transfer they zygote to a freezer tube, that way a couple who happens to be sterile could have a baby through a form of transfer.... this would be much better then abortion in my opinion, and could bring happyness to others.

I am certian for this to work it would have to be caught EARLY, thus negating the deadline debate, cause there would be a certian date where it just wouldn't work anymore. Also I ain't even sure If our technology is developed enough to remove a child a few weeks old and store it for future "use".

---

I'm sure if it were entirely true...I would remember such as that. There aren't that many radical changes. Vision takes a while...and so do many other things. But the point is...is the baby alive or not? Is it abortion or murder. Even though I have no been the one pregnant...i've been by a lot recently have. I have experienced those babies reactions and all sorts. My little brother who has just turned for...my best friend who had a baby two and half years ago...who got an abortion for the second one...then had a baby a couple weeks ago...they aren't the only ones either I have encountered. There are more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edczxcvbnm

Dragonfly...you lost. Just give it up. You can't be the super saiyans.

---

I don't care if we know each other in real life...stop trying to piss me off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

This would solve it all for me(the answer is coming, isn't it suspensful?),

If instead of an abortion we could just transfer they zygote to a freezer tube, that way a couple who happens to be sterile could have a baby through a form of transfer.... this would be much better then abortion in my opinion, and could bring happyness to others.

I am certian for this to work it would have to be caught EARLY, thus negating the deadline debate, cause there would be a certian date where it just wouldn't work anymore. Also I ain't even sure If our technology is developed enough to remove a child a few weeks old and store it for future "use".

---

Hmm.. no direct responses yet, but let me elaborate.

If you get pregnet and don't want to give birth, you go to the hospital, if they can still perform the procedure they perform and store the potential child to be in storage, then later if you end up deciding that you actually do want the child you could remove it from storage.

There could be a certian period of time before it becomes available for others to use, such as a couple years or something... if you don't come back after that time... then I seriousaly doubt you would be changing your mind afterwards.

Anyways this is an odd idea that just poofed into my brain.... must have had too much caffine.

Hey dragonflyex, I thought we just came to a conclusion :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DragonflyLex

I'm sure if it were entirely true...I would remember such as that. There aren't that many radical changes. Vision takes a while...and so do many other things. But the point is...is the baby alive or not? Is it abortion or murder. Even though I have no been the one pregnant...i've been by a lot recently have. I have experienced those babies reactions and all sorts. My little brother who has just turned for...my best friend who had a baby two and half years ago...who got an abortion for the second one...then had a baby a couple weeks ago...they aren't the only ones either I have encountered. There are more.

---

keep in mind the child does develop in the womb and is highly developed before it leaves(at least compared to what it had been), but the changes it has in the days, weeks, months after birth are extrodinary. There is a reason most people do not remember anything up to a certian point. that is cause in many cases the brain isn't fully connected and complex till several years after birth(about age 3 is when it stops building up teh neural connections if I remember right.) keep in mind this is on average, people do develop slower and faster then this at times.

But yes the nueral connections aren't even close to human complexity when the child is born... but the child has enough nueral connections to make many other animal species look unintelligent, so a new born human is generally smarter then an older, say, dog, even if less experienced, and the child still has much more potential.

Quote:

---

If instead of an abortion we could just transfer they zygote to a freezer tube, that way a couple who happens to be sterile could have a baby through a form of transfer.... this would be much better then abortion in my opinion, and could bring happyness to others.

---

I seriously doubt this is possible. If you were to put an already fertalized egg into another woman, what the hell would happen genetically? I am not a biologist, but I am almost certain things would get incredibly SCREWED UP. The child would get an extra dosage of genes or something. The father, the origional mother, and then the new mother who is carrying it. I think things would get out of hand.

Isnt that what they did on friends with phoebe and her brothers triplets?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I seriously doubt this is possible. If you were to put an already fertalized egg into another woman, what the hell would happen genetically? I am not a biologist, but I am almost certain things would get incredibly SCREWED UP. The child would get an extra dosage of genes or something. The father, the origional mother, and then the new mother who is carrying it. I think things would get out of hand.

---

As I said it was WEIRD/odd idea I had at the moment... but if it was possible it would be quite nice.

anyways I know you can fertilize and egg and then transfer it to another person.. but I do not know if you can take a developing zygote and transfer... who knows what weird crap you could get... But we are consistently making progress into these sort of fields.

Totally off topic here, but I have had a smilar wierd idea to this. I have always wondered what would happen if you could manage to get oneself pregnant. I know it's impossible, but if you managed to use the EXACT same genes that the mother had for both the sperm and the egg, what would happen? Would it be a carbon copy of the mother?

Wouldnt it increase chances of disability as thats more likely when the parents are related?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

Totally off topic here, but I have had a smilar wierd idea to this. I have always wondered what would happen if you could manage to get oneself pregnant. I know it's impossible, but if you managed to use the EXACT same genes that the mother had for both the sperm and the egg, what would happen? Would it be a carbon copy of the mother?

---

I think that would work like a clone... same genes, same apperence... but may have different personality.

That is what a clone is afterall... a child with only one set of genes.. so it would make sense that if you got yourself pregnant that it would just be a clone... But that is quite the question... were you thinking of trying it? :tongue:

Nik0tine... actually, the transplantation of embryos has been being performed for over a decade now... on humans, FYI. It's preferable to use a relative to the mother, but not necessary. Surrogate mothers are the layman's term. A fertilized egg of a man and a woman, where the woman herself can't carry the child (several possible disorders), can implant a fertalized egg into another woman, who can carry to full.

Your surrogate needs not even be the same race as the couple, or for that matter, capable of conception herself (as in, past menopause). Generally, that doesn't happen, though. Oh, and as for genes, the only does the child gets is the parent's... no others. Maybe mitochondrial DNA will get affected, but that's not important at all. The mother's own body acts to protect the fetus from interference, which is why mothers with AIDS rarely transfer the disease to their children... until after birth, where blood from the birth can be infected, or breast milk (which will be infected) are exposed to the child.

And "self fertilization" happens all the time in other species. They are not (usually) clones. Worms and such can do it, at least. The genetic code is *very* similar to the parent, but usually viable. In humans and other complex organisms, it would (presumably) have the same effect as a disturbing level of inbreeding. Any advanced highschool biology course should teach you this much.

I knew it! "FRIENDS" is never wrong! :D

LOL!!!

A clone is when you only have one parents DNA right? the clone then grows like a normal child.. but just happens to have ... oh shoot nevermind.. I forgot that in this fertalization that you would have to calculate in the Dominate and Recessive genes, meaning that you could have something clone-like, or something different with higher rate of disease... shoot should have thought more on it before posting.

oh well, at least I didn't keep arguing the lost cause.

The "Self-fertilization" that's been mentioned also results in female offspring. Always.

And, as ShunNakamura was saying, it's wouldn't be a clone. There's a high possibility of the offspring having many of the same traits, but it's very unlikely that it all traits would match. Possible, but extremely unlikely.

I always found this an interesting note....

In most states, if you were to murder a pregnant woman and they are unable to save the baby, you are charged with two murders--you took the life of the woman; and you took the life of her unborn child.

In all states, if a mother decides to have her kid killed, she can take it to a doctor and have it done with no repercussions whatsoever.

An unborn child is one of two things--either a) it is a human being, and therefore entitled to all the inalienable rights bestowed upon every human being by our Creator, or b) it is simply a wad of cells, an unviable mass of tissue that has no more rights than a tumor. If it is a human being, killing it is murder. If it is not a human being, killing it is simply a medical procedure.

And that decision--whether or not he or she is a human being--is made solely on the basis of whether that child's mother wants him or her to live.

History gives us dozens of examples, of when people have decided that one class of people or another were not human in order to make it easier to do horrid things to them--none of these examples are good ones.

Although well said, it does not bypass the main point of pro-choicers: when is a mass of cells no longer a mass of cells? I don't think simple conception is that time.

When the brain and possibly organs begin to function.

Some would tell you "When the sperm meets the egg". Although I do, to some degree, agree with that statement, we most certainly cannot ban abortion at THAT early of a stage. That simply borders on the lines of a tyranical theocracy.

if you lower the time of abortion there will be more "black market" abortions. i do not want children now but what happens if the condom splits?? i would prefer to have a safe abortion one that is medically regulated.
abortions will always happen. there is no way to stop a womans choice. you can regulate them and keep them safe for women or ban them and cause many to go ilegally and get hurt or die from the procedure.

again i can understand those that don't like abortions and think that the babies should be born but have you ever been in that situation? could you choose your childs life over yours? if you have a child young without support you've ended whatever dreams you have. you will not be able to be in a relationship (if you are a single mum) work is impossible for the first few years you will have to dedicate yourself to the child for the next 20 odd years. i could not do that unless i was finatially safe.

Also, if you ban abortions,
you will have women attempting abortions at home with a bread knife or whatever they have.

Quote:

---

I seriously doubt this is possible. If you were to put an already fertalized egg into another woman, what the hell would happen genetically? I am not a biologist, but I am almost certain things would get incredibly SCREWED UP.

---

Oh, things do get screwed up. Legally, though, not biologicaly. :D

Quote:

---

you will have women attempting abortions at home with a bread knife or whatever they have.

---

Cocain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jrgen

Also, if you ban abortions,
you will have women attempting abortions at home with a bread knife or whatever they have.

---

PREJUDICE!!! You're saying all women are stupid! You women-hater! D:

:love:

Abortion, in some cases, is necessary, so banning it would be stupid. But going back every other month to get an abortion should be banned; using abortion as birth control is wrong.

I don't know if it's true or not,
but I've heard you get sterile after a few abortions.

A lot of women have problems after abortions--one may screw them up, or it may take a couple. I'm sure some haven't had problems, but some have, and they've been serious.

Quote:

---

But going back every other month to get an abortion should be banned. Using abortion as birth control is wrong.

---

I agree.

Quote:

---

I've heard you get sterile after a few abortions.

---

You don't. statisticly speaking, abortion is safer than childbirth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Luthien Rogue

But going back every other month to get an abortion should be banned; using abortion as birth control is wrong.

---

Although I agree that it's wrong, how would you regulate something like that?

Would it be possible to have more than two abortion in the same year? assuming the egg has to be a certain size for the abortion. I've never ben told how the process works.
EDIT:

Quote:

---

Also, if you ban abortions,
you will have women attempting abortions at home with a bread knife or whatever they have.

---

never mind

i think that whether abortion is "right" or not, depends on the circumstances, i think that its the woman in questions choice, cos at the end of the day, whether she has the baby or not, shes the one that has to live with her choice, either way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

Although I agree that it's wrong, how would you regulate something like that?

---

...Hospitals would keep records to prevent it from happening, just as they keep records for any other procedure.

Destai:

There are ways of aborting the pregnancy immediately after fertilization, so yes, it is possible.

In that case Id accuse anyone who has had several abortions over a given ammount of time as using abbortion to "sleep around".

My point more was, do you think if you support abortion that it's moral to force a 12 year old to be a mom just because she's had too many abortions? I think that's even more immoral than using abortions as birth control.

Quote:

---

I think that's even more immoral than using abortions as birth control.

---

So do I, but allowing someone that young to end up in that kind of posiotion is also wrong. Unfortunatly, there are no easy answers. I think in many cases, the parents should have some acountability.

That's hardly fair. You can't control whether someone has sex or not, aside from barracading them in their room, which I think would count as abuse.

See the thing is, however you may view abortion, its very much a needed practice. And not just medical. I mean, what if a girl gets raped and then gets pregnant. is it right for us to just give her a pat on teh back and say oh well, live with it? No! that would be wrong.

I mean, i hate this argument because in the end, the two sides will never agree. Its always gonna be you either are for it or against it. And neither side will come to any type of agreement.

My thoughts on it, Abortion should definately be illegal after the 2nd trimester. the end.

well actually akira I have changed my stance on this gradually through time.. so saying that nothing will change by debating isn't entirely through.. thatt or I am really special :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

My point more was, do you think if you support abortion that it's moral to force a 12 year old to be a mom just because she's had too many abortions? I think that's even more immoral than using abortions as birth control.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Emerald Aeris

That's hardly fair. You can't control whether someone has sex or not, aside from barracading them in their room, which I think would count as abuse.

---

Well the point would be, one should be responsible for their own actions. If they are warned repeatedly(most parents don't go around telling their daughter to be a "slut"). The hospital would warn them that they can't have so many abortions, etc. That is actually quite lenent... and I could actually aggree with it as long as the deadline and limit were small enough.

So therefor this girl would obviousally KNOW what would happen. Afterall I seriousally doubt birth control efforts would fail that many times in a row... not to mention they could just play abstinence after their last abortion that year till next year or whenever they get allowed another few abortions, just to be safe.

Pretty silly, Irresponsibility is not a reason to kill.

Quote:

---

That's hardly fair. You can't control whether someone has sex or not, aside from barracading them in their room, which I think would count as abuse.

---

Sure you can. Curfews, making sure you know where they are at all times, ect. Granted it's not a perfect situation, but few things are. If you absolutly can't control a 12 year old, theres something wrong.

Quote:

---

My thoughts on it, Abortion should definately be illegal after the 2nd trimester. the end.

---

Actually, unless the mothers life is in danger, (or the fetus severly deformed), it is. As well it should be.

"Well the point would be, one should be responsible for their own actions."

Like someone said before: a baby should never be used as punishment. That's horrible.

"So therefor this girl would obviousally KNOW what would happen."

Girls KNOW what's going to happen already. What is this? Do you honestly think people who know better don't get pregnant? You're being very naive. People get pregnant ALL the time who "KNOW what would happen". I don't even know what to say. It boggles my mind that you believe that telling people not to would actually work. Your idealism is sweet, but it would never, ever work.

"not to mention they could just play abstinence after their last abortion that year till next year or whenever they get allowed another few abortions, just to be safe."

But they wouldn't, because people are stupid and ignorant. Abortions aren't fun already, and in some cases it's still not a deterrent. Some girls are just irresponsible and can't control themselves. Sometimes they think stuff like if you have sex a certain way or at a certain time unprotected you can't get pregnant. Sometimes, I don't know. I know people who have kids who had no reason to not use protection, but they didn't and now they have a kid they don't want. What you're talking about does not reflect reality. It would not happen. And what about those who don't stop? They're punished with a child? "There, that'll show you to make poor choices and have deadbeat parents, 14 year old, raise this baby." No! That is so very very VERY wrong.

"Sure you can. Curfews, making sure you know where they are at all times, ect. Granted it's not a perfect situation, but few things are. If you absolutly can't control a 12 year old, theres something wrong."

So she has sex on her lunch break when she goes to school. You can't possibly argue that this is going to work. You have to know where she is? She could lie. She could runaway. Who knows! There is no garantee. It completely baffles me that you believe this. You can't teach a child 100%. It's IMPOSSIBLE. You're right, there IS something wrong if you can't control a 12 year old, but it's not necessarily wrong with the parents. Some children/people are just bad. It's in their nature, and you can't do anything about it. Personality is 50% nature and 50% nurture. Parents are only accountable for their child's actions to a certain degree. I don't think it's reasonable to apply that to this.

Quote:

---

There is no garantee. It completely baffles me that you believe this.

---

I didn't say it was a garantee, and I didn't say it was always the parents fault. But they do have some accountability for their children. This is a hard enough issue to debate without my points being misrepresented.

Quote:

---

Some children/people are just bad. It's in their nature, and you can't do anything about it.

---

I'd debate that, but this isn't the place.

"I didn't say it was a garantee, and I didn't say it was always the parents fault. But they do have some accountability for their children."

If accountibility doesn't imply complete fault, what does it mean then? If you're suggesting to make it law, you're saying that it's always their fault. Laws work in black and white. There is no grey area. That's why holding parents legally responsible for stuff like this is a bad idea.

Alright now I am not saying that it is punishment in that sense. I am saying it as the fact that they just simply did not listen. Punishment that I would look at is that if they break the rule, let them get the abortion and then make them sterile. THAT would be punishment. This is simply letting nature take its course.

Now as for not controling the child. My sister has been cause alot of trouble, mother suspects her of sleeping around. and she disappears from time to time. My sister is now fairly under control, although unrurly. Why? My parents brought in the police, have called juvie, and will put her in a correctional facitly if she doesn't get her act together... and now she is behaving fairly well, even if she won't speak to mother.

Usually when you use accountable it means full fault. But both the word "some" and the fact that their is a thing called partial responsibilty can mean that it isn't complete fault.

As for laws. Laws should never be black and white. Each and every case is different thus, laws shouldn't be black and white.

"Alright now I am not saying that it is punishment in that sense. I am saying it as the fact that they just simply did not listen."

I dunno what you're talking about here.

"Punishment that I would look at is that if they break the rule, let them get the abortion and then make them sterile. THAT would be punishment. This is simply letting nature take its course."

No, I think sterilizing young teens for poor judgement is a little horrible and excessive, to put it mildly.

"Now as for not controling the child. My sister has been cause alot of trouble, mother suspects her of sleeping around. and she disappears from time to time. My sister is now fairly under control, although unrurly. Why? My parents brought in the police, have called juvie, and will put her in a correctional facitly if she doesn't get her act together... and now she is behaving fairly well, even if she won't speak to mother."

That doesn't always work. Short of locking children up, children are going to misbehave and rebel.

"Usually when you use accountable it means full fault. But both the word "some" and the fact that their is a thing called partial responsibilty can mean that it isn't complete fault."

Not when you're dealing with law! It doesn't work like that.

"As for laws. Laws should never be black and white. Each and every case is different thus, laws shouldn't be black and white."

Well, they are. That's just how it works. That's why you have to be careful with what you think is wrong, and what you think should be illegal.

Well I wasn't saying we should sterilize them.. that would be excessive. I was using it as an example of a punishment. Because it is obviousally a punishment there. Allowing irresponsibility isn't the way to deal with it. It must be dealt with.

As for black and white laws.. most laws aren't black and white.. there are always loop holes, there is always another way to interepret. or at least there are in many cases.

And as for the punishment. I guess that is just how one looks at it. To me it isn't punishment... because the law, or what not didn't get her pregnant, She is the one responsible for that(and her Boyfreind or whomever she slept with). The law is just refusing to allow her to kill something, not a punishment, just a meeting of circumstances.

I think that abortion is murder personally. But I would prefer to start by making abortions less necessary, rather than jump up and down and scream "That's evil!!!!11!!" I think the first thing would be to make adoption a more viable option -- by encouraging couples to adopt rather than seek fertility treatments or adopting from china.

That's one thing I wish more pro-lifers got. They're always ready to say "don't have an abortion", but they don't ever seem to address the cause of the problem -- namely that a girl, usually under 18 and not married (There are exceptions of course), in the heat of the moment had sex with her boyfriend, possibly while drunk. At that point, you have a kid who if she keeps the baby at home won't be able to live very well on their own. She probably won't be educated beyond high school, and may even have to drop out entirely, and therefore she'll have some low-paying job and try to raise a baby on her own. Other than abortion or adoption, that's going to be her life. So either you find a way to make the girl's life better, or to make adoption more attractive, or accept that some people will be desprate enough to make the choice to abort the baby.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I think that abortion is murder personally. But I would prefer to start by making abortions less necessary, rather than jump up and down and scream "That's evil!!!!11!!" I think the first thing would be to make adoption a more viable option -- by encouraging couples to adopt rather than seek fertility treatments or adopting from china.

That's one thing I wish more pro-lifers got. They're always ready to say "don't have an abortion", but they don't ever seem to address the cause of the problem -- namely that a girl, usually under 18 and not married (There are exceptions of course), in the heat of the moment had sex with her boyfriend, possibly while drunk. At that point, you have a kid who if she keeps the baby at home won't be able to live very well on their own. She probably won't be educated beyond high school, and may even have to drop out entirely, and therefore she'll have some low-paying job and try to raise a baby on her own. Other than abortion or adoption, that's going to be her life. So either you find a way to make the girl's life better, or to make adoption more attractive, or accept that some people will be desprate enough to make the choice to abort the baby.

---

I often come across what you suggest alot. But the sad thing is that adoption would be a viable choice. but it can never be the answer on its own. See, alot of people just throw adoption out there like its that easy. But it really isnt. Its not that easy to adopt somone. And then there are the other factors. Let me begin to break them down.

First off, now say all these women that would have gotten abortions now go full term and have babies and give them up for adotion. The number would be in the millions ( it was estimated at 1.365 million abortions in 1998). Now, instead of 1.3 million abortions you now have 1.3million babies put up for adoption. Now thats basically 1.3million orphans(at least until they get adopted).

Now it was estimated in 2000 that 1.4 million children were adopted. But the studies dont and cant tell you how many children arent adopted every year, but its safe to assume that there are more children that dont get adopted that accually do get adopted every year. now add another 1.3million a year. Adoption rates are declining, so you can see that the number of kids not getting adopted would increase while adoption rates continue to decrease.


Then there are the other factors, Alot of people want young kids, health kids, and kids of their own race. And since white people are really doing the most adopting here comes another problem. Most people dont want older kids(11+yrs old) because they are really already set in their ways. People arent too quick to adopt a child with a disability. and since most people who adopt want a child of their own race, and most people adopting are white, you can see where minority children fall short. You know, i could really go deeper into all of this, But i wont. All im really tryingto say is that. There is really no one answer too this. You need to have adoption as an option and you need to have abortion as an option.

Quote:

---

If you're suggesting to make it law, you're saying that it's always their fault.

---

Please quote where I suggested making a law.

Quote:

---

As for black and white laws.. most laws aren't black and white.. there are always loop holes, there is always another way to interepret. or at least there are in many cases.

---

Exactly.

Quote:

---

That doesn't always work. Short of locking children up, children are going to misbehave and rebel.

---

I don't "rebel", as you put it, and it's not due to being locked up, and it's not due to "nature". I have always had a great deal of freedom, but I knew that if I screwed up, I would loose that freedom. That's life. :mad: And by the way, if parents don't have the responsibility to try to keep their kids from ruining their lives, then they also don't have the responsibility to feed, clothe, or house them. :rolleyes2 I realize parents can't be expcted to be infallible, but if they can't take care of their kids, then they shouldn't be parents.

Concerning Abortions, what I find very interesting is the imagery that has been utilized.

Since technological advancements have allowed people to transcribe soundwaves into visual image, anti-abortion groups have utilized these images in their favour.

One extreme example is the use of a sonnogram in a court case where the sound waves were spead up in order to simulate the cry.

Anti-Abortion movements are thus trying to give a voice to a being that can't speak. They are leading the viewers to the assumption that the child within the woom is capable of conciously detesting.

I think that when we as concious people analyze abortion we should avoid relying on photographic "truths" to establish a point. Up until these recent technological advancements, people were unable to see the actual fetus... these new technologies that actually allow us to see the fetus give promote ideas of the life. However, they eliminate the eye from seeing the individual with whom the child is in.

Furthermore, anti-abortion movements have given the fetus a voice and morality with out investigating the values and ideologies of the culture and the woman to who the child is embeded in. This is very difficult for me to grasp because we as people form values from outside experience, we become people from living.

here's my 2 cents. abortion is wrong.... what? i said it was only 2 cents not $2.

but seriously, "if you don't do the crime you won't have to do the time" so to speak. if you don't have sex, you don't have children. coincidence? i don't think so.

from the time of conception that is a human being, just because it can't see and can't say "mommy please don't kill me" doesn't ammount for anything.

there... you got $2 worth, are you happy?