Forums

ForumsWorld Events, Politics, Religion, Etc.

is abortion ok?

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:06pm

Epic563

Epic563

120 posts

I don't believe in it, because it is a human being. It was the womens fault for getting herself into the situation. She should have made the right choice. Seriously, would you be positive about abortion if you were the child being aborted? I guess for Christians like me it's a different perspective, but a fetus is going to be a human baby, and it deserves to live.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:14pm

calebsi

calebsi

148 posts

There's a certain point up to when we can say the embroy isn't developed enough yet to be qualified as sentient being; it's just a piece of cells, just like a tumor if you think of it. If abortion is immoral, shouldn't cancer extractions be too?

Saying this is like saying killing babies is OK. The baby will grow up to be an adult, just as these cells will.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:17pm

dair5

dair5

2,479 posts

It was the womens fault for getting herself into the situation.

And what if she was *****? Is it still her fault? Besides, even so it's not fair to the child or the mother if the mother cannot or will not properly take care of the child. You can force the mother to have a baby, but you can't force her to love it. So there will be many more children who grow up unloved.

Seriously, would you be positive about abortion if you were the child being aborted?

No, I wouldn't understand what abortion is. And in most cases I wouldn't understand what pain is.

Saying this is like saying killing babies is OK. The baby will grow up to be an adult, just as these cells will.

It's not the same. Babies can feel pain, but early embroys can't and won't understand what is happening, sense anything, or be awake.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:19pm

Epic563

Epic563

120 posts

I guess if she was ***** you can make an exception. I wasn't thinking of that. However I still don't like the idea, but I see where you are going.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:24pm

Avorne

Avorne

3,224 posts

Did you know that quite a sizeable amount of pregnancies terminate themselves before the potential mother would even know that she's pregnant? Should we arrest everyone that miscarries for murder or manslaughter?

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 9:29pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

I don't believe in it, because it is a human being.

Not really. At least, not yet it isn't.

She should have made the right choice

While I agree there should be some form of prevention if you don't want a baby, it doesn't always work. Preventatives can fail. Even condoms, which are the most effective, have like a 99.9% chance to work, which means out of every 1000 women who have protected sex they still can get pregnant. That's still a fair number of unwanted pregnancies.

Seriously, would you be positive about abortion if you were the child being aborted?

I wouldn't have an opinion, seeing as how I wouldn't yet be self aware, no developed brain and all.

but a fetus is going to be a human baby,

It might be one. Miscarriages can happen you know.

Just to be clear on my position: Women should be able to choose if they want to have an abortion or not, it is their body. This does not however mean as some would believe that just because one thinks abortion should be a choice means they also think that women should just go get pregnant to get an abortion or use unprotected sex.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 10:19pm

MageGrayWolf

MageGrayWolf

9,676 posts

Knight

-Personhood-

First off I would like to emphasize that I'm arguing personhood and not life here. If we are to argue life then we should start with sperm, at which point it would mean that even if a child is ultimately produced or not millions are dying.

Let's start with where we are in development. What you're seeing here is a fetus at ten weeks of gestation.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/10-weeks-baby-picture.jpg
All basic structures of a human are present but not fully formed. The heart has been beating for about 4 weeks at this point (not controlled by the brain but by a rudimentary nervous system.) No brain wave activity is yet present. The fetus is likely under 2 inches in length. (A fetus at 13 weeks is usually about 2 inches long.)

Most abortions take place before this point of development is reached. At around a week or two (8-9 weeks gestation) before the point illustrated above, it can usually be determined if the fetus is viable or not to be carried to term. This is why most abortions take place at the 8-9 week stage. As many are not viable, thus could not survive to term and/or could cost the mother her own life if carried to term.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/US_abortion_by_gestational_age_2004_histogram.svg

This point is also well before rudimentary brains waves can be detected which occur around 26 weeks.
"26 weeks or 6 months: The fetus 14" long and almost two pounds. The lungs' bronchioles develop. Interlinking of the brain's neurons begins. The higher functions of the fetal brain turn on for the first time. Some rudimentary brain waves indicating consciousness can be detected. The fetus will probably be able to feel pain for the first time. It has become conscious of its surroundings. The fetus has become a sentient human life for the first time." -Pediatrics, Wisconsin State University

Considering a basic etiological definition of personhood would require consciousness over a period of time. Something that the fetus has not yet developed in the span that most abortions take place. Or another way to put it ;"the state or fact of being an individual or having human characteristics and feelings" -Dictionary.com
This is something the fetus clearly lacks.

The argument of being human starting at conception can be supported by the argument that the individual cells making up the zygote are genetically different from that of the parent. While this may indicate a separate organism, this does not indicate personhood. If we wish to argue that just being a separate organism dependent on the larger organism to survive is a person, then we are left arguing many aspects of individual parts of the human body should be regarded as separate people. This particular grouping unlike those other parts however has the potential to develop into a person. But potential alone can be ruled out as we do with sperm.

Since it was brought up the point at which the fetus has a heart beat doesn't seem like a good point to consider it a person either. This occurs around 6 weeks gestation. The fetus lacks self sustaining viability and even lack basic brain waves. If we are to just go by it having a heart beat, there are many living organisms with heart beat that are not consider to have personhood.

The argument that we are killing babies really often comes off as nothing more than an emotional plea. We aren't dealing with the imagery that is being conjured up in such a statement.

We aren't dealing with this.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Happiness.jpg/320px-Happiness.jpg

But something closer to this.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v205/reggiekrh/patten_pig_human.jpg?1281158303
(One is a human fetus the other is not, care to figure out which you are calling a person and which you are not?)

To sum it up in simple terms I will quote 314d1.
"Sperm= Potential human

Egg= Potential human

Fetus= Potential human

None have a brain enough to be able to think, feel pain, or anything that will make them a person... If it is taking away potential life that is wrong, then warring condoms is also wrong or even just not having sex." -314d1

-The costs and rights-

The argument against abortion often ignores the rights of the mother. We do have to consider that any such rights to the developing fetus has a direct affect on the mother.
"Until the fetus is viable, any rights granted to it may come at the expense of the pregnant woman, simply because the fetus cannot survive except within the woman's body. Upon viability, the pregnancy can be terminated, as by a c-section or induced labor, with the fetus surviving to become a newborn infant." -wiki
When considering human rights applied to a fetus, at what point do we consider the rights of the woman who will be forced to carry the fetus to term?

Another thing to consider is that adoption services are already over crowded. "Out of 4,242 foster homes, 16% of foster homes are over their licensed capacity even though 52% of foster homes are under their licensed capacity. There are currently 62 foster homes with more than 10 children." -source
To make abortion illegal would cause an influx to this system of over a million children a year. This could have an impact on the over all quality of life for those in such a system and would cost millions a year more in taxes to support. This isn't even getting into the resource demands as they grow up or the ones who stand no chance at a normal life due to severe mental and physical problems.

On the point of if abortion is right or not I would like to quote Moegreche from a earlier thread on this topic.

"No one actually thinks abortion is the "right" thing to do

Instead, here's how we need to think of the 2 extremes:
Pro-Life (PL): Abortion is never morally permissible, therefore abortions should not be allowed to be performed legally.
Pro-Choice (PC): There are cases in which abortion is morally permissible, thus abortions should remain legal.

Notice that PC here is not suggesting that abortions are the morally correct choice - only that there are situations in which a mother who gets an abortion should not be morally blamed.
There are some within the PC camp who say that a mother should be able to do with her body what she will, and that any abortion should be allowed (with or without caveats).
This all-out version of PC doesn't seem right to me. Clearly, abortion shouldn't be used as a means of birth control. But what is really at issue here? Is it the fact that the mother in this case is having her fifth abortion? Or is it simply we feel the mother to be morally blameworthy by not using other means of contraception?
My suggestion is that it's the latter interpretation that makes more sense. After all, it's not really the number of abortions that we take into consideration - it's the circumstances of needing the abortion. Consider a woman who's having her fifth abortion because she doesn't like how condoms feel versus a woman who's having her fifth abortion because that's the 5th time she's been r-aped.
It's hard to hold the latter woman morally blameworthy for having the abortion, at least compared to the former case. So it's not really about the number of abortions - or really the act of the abortion at all. As I said, it's about the circumstances that make having an abortion in the first place.

This is why I reject the extreme notion of (PL). Intuitively, it seems like we need another premise to get to the conclusion that all abortions are wrong. This premise would presumably have something to do with an inherent right to life possessed by all humans, or even all living things. It would likely also need to defend premises that could define an unborn fetus as living.
Not only does a moderate version of (PC) seems more palatable, but the extreme version (the only version) of (PL) seems too hard to defend.
" -Moegreche

Further information to consider.
Abortion arguments side-by-side
A World Without Abortion

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 11:05pm

partydevil

partydevil

5,097 posts

i hope this is not covered in the long post befor me that i didn't read. (or have to read because i'm oke whit abortion)

And what if she was *****? Is it still her fault? Besides, even so it's not fair to the child or the mother if the mother cannot or will not properly take care of the child. You can force the mother to have a baby, but you can't force her to love it. So there will be many more children who grow up unloved.

not only that but if you make/keep abortion illegal. then their will be people that try to do it themself whit sometimes the worst endings.
example: the mother is not unknown whit drugs. and she does not want a baby because she doesn't want any1 to have a druggy mother. and believes that the childs life will go to waste if it comes on earth altho it go's the right way and she is clean of drugs for nearly a year already it's still a mess she is in. but she can't have a abortion. still she does not want the child. so for the entire remaining 8 months she will use cocain, heroin, alcohol, smoke, eat fast food, etc again.
in the hopes that the baby will not survive and will be born dead.
but that does not happen and her baby is disfigured and mentaly paranoid. she basicly ruined her own life and that of the child. because religious groups want to force their own believes upon every1 by laws like these.

(true story. happens a few 100 times a year in the usa.
source: discovery channel docu.)

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 11:16pm

EmperorPalpatine

EmperorPalpatine

4,977 posts

she basicly ruined her own life and that of the child.

She could simply put it at the front door of a government building and it's not her problem anymore.

 

Posted May 19, '12 at 11:22pm

Kasic

Kasic

5,572 posts

She could simply put it at the front door of a government building and it's not her problem anymore.

Yes, because overburdening the already overpopulated world and government with yet more children and people to take care of, which in turn in the future will require more resources and a job, is such a great idea.

 
Reply to is abortion ok?

You must be logged in to post a reply!