abortion

[udsuna]

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.

[UltimaLimit]

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?

[Dr.K]

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.

[jrgen]

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.

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.

[Raistlin]

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.

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.

[Shoden]

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

[DarkLadyNyara]

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.

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.

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.

[Anxious Heart]

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

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.

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.

[ShunNakamura]

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.

[udsuna]

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.

[Raistlin]

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.

[nik0tine]

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.

[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.

[Raistlin]

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?

[udsuna]

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