Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278648 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
For you pro-lifers, here are a few things to think about.
1. A young woman is planning to go to college, marry the man of her dreams and have a family. Then one day she is dragged into a alley and ***** by gang members. She becomes pregnant. Is she now forced to give up her dreams to satisfy the pro-life crowd?
2. A woman becomes pregnant. Her doctor tells her she is unfit to have a child due to health reasons. The birth will kill her. In the US, a average of 3,500 woman die every year from childbirth complications. Is the woman forced to forfeit her life for the child? Would you?
If you answered no to both then you need to rethink your pro-life stance. If you answered yes then you need to check your morals. Laws against abortion are way more immoral than the actual abortion itself. For instance, some states in the US allow custody and visitation rights for the rapist. Imagine being *****, being forced to give birth to a kid you dont want, then having to take the child to prison so it can meet its rapist dad. Extreme pro-lifers are disgusting creatures.
I'm sorry, but I still can't believe that this thread is still up. The answer to the OP question is so obvious, but yet we still have a bunch of people who say that the woman has to birth the child regardless of the circumstances. I'll make this as clear as possible.
Pro-life is so focused on the baby that it blatantly ignores the woman carrying it. Not every woman has the ability to care for a child (nor the desire for that matter), but people still seem to think that she should love her little mistake as if she had been planning for this child for years. It has been well established already that prevention is the best alternative to abortion, but bear in mind, this doesn't mean we should practice abstinence. Before all of this religious horsecrap, people were the equivalent of bonabos when it came to their sexual releases. In terms of evolution, abstinence isn't possible. So my question is: why do we expect the woman to not only remain abstinent until marriage, but also to give up all of her ambitions to become the brood mare for whoever decides to "claim" her? Thanks to abortion, people won't have to take responsibility for something that they aren't ready to handle ( financially, emotionally, or any other form).
So I ask those who disagree with this stance: are you a woman? Have you ever raised a child? Unless you have done both of these, then you have no right to make these assumptions.
-Blade
So I ask those who disagree with this stance: are you a woman? Have you ever raised a child? Unless you have done both of these, then you have no right to make these assumptions.
You see? The last part crushes all possible argument, because most of the fools arguing for pro-life are male, or haven't raised kids. It makes me want to repeat what Major Hogan once said: take a pistol, go behind that tent, and blow out what's left of your brains.
in the Decrulation of Independence one of our rights is the right to llife born or unborn so all the babies should live.
I don't know about you, but I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers knew about abortion. So, batten your hatch and look back one the previous 50 pages before saying anything
There has always been abortion, just nothing on the scale today, due to technology making leaps and bounds in the field.
There has always been abortion, just nothing on the scale today, due to technology making leaps and bounds in the field.
Ad it certainly was not as easy, no?
Does easiness actually have any bearing on whether the founding fathers were privy to such an act?
in the Decrulation of Independence one of our rights is the right to llife born or unborn so all the babies should live.
Where does it mention this? It says all men are created equal and have rights. Back then, men meant white and land-owning.
but I seriously doubt that the Founding Fathers knew about abortion.
With how much Ben Franklin did with the ladies, I'd guess the subject came up more than once.
There were laws in England regarding the issue (this was back when sometimes f meant s or other letters, so it seems a bit odd):
"1. LIFE is the immediate gift of God, a right inherent by nature in every individual ; and it begins in contemplation of law as foon as an infant is able to ftir in the mother's womb. For if a woman is quick with child, and by a potion, or otherwife, killeth it in her womb ; or if any one beat her, whereby the child dieth in her body, and fhe is delivered of a dead child ; this, though not murder, was by the antient law homicide or manflaughter."
"atrocious a light, though it remains a very heinous mifdemefnor"
So it was a misdemeanor, but only after movement began, because for them, life didn't legally start at conception.
I realize this is probably preaching to the choir, since (based on a sample of spelling and grammar) the anti-abortion crew isn't likely to do much extra reading...
But I wanted to share this link and this one.
I hope those links work, I'm not that savvy.
These posts help illustrate the hypocrisy in the "rolife" movement. Really they are not pro-life, the are pro-birth.
A genuine interest in reducing abortion would include a massive push for increased birth control. But do we see that from the pro-birth crowd? NO!
Second, If they were, in fact, "ro-life" you would be against the death penalty (different thread), and overwhelmingly supportive of social programs that ensure the health, well-being, education, and quality of life of all children. But the pro-birth crowd are generally opposed to all of those things. They want small government, except for when it comes to regulating a woman's internal organs. I call bullspit on that. To demand that all potential births happen, but to essentially abandon them when they turn into actual people is not pro-life, it is pro-birth!
I also forgot to link this New York Times article from the second link in my last post. Basically, abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal or illegal. The main difference being they are very much safer in countries where it is legal.
So the argument about whether it is morally "ok" to have an abortion is fine, but to outlaw it is harmful to the country and does nothing to save the lives of unborn babies.
in the Decrulation of Independence one of our rights is the right to llife born or unborn so all the babies should live.
Perhaps you would like to point out exactly where it makes this specification on the right to life?
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
There has always been abortion, just nothing on the scale today, due to technology making leaps and bounds in the field.
I would think the number of people in existence today would play more of a factor. There are more people on the planet now then at any other time in history.
Perhaps you would like to point out exactly where it makes this specification on the right to life?
I'm guessing it's in the "I pulled this statement out of my arse" clause, or the "I don't know what I'm talking about" clause.
Both are commonly cited by politicians.
Second, If they were, in fact, "ro-life" you would be against the death penalty
That's not what being "ro-life" refers to. And not everyone agrees with the death penalty.
Really they are not pro-life, the are pro-birth.
This is what it refers to. However, pro-life makes more sense because those who are pro-life, me included, consider the baby/fetus and life. And thus, should not be taken.
That's not what being "ro-life" refers to. And not everyone agrees with the death penalty.
"Pro-life" means you're for life. If you're not for life and you're just for pregnant women not being able to abort, then it doesn't really have all that much to do with life as a whole.
And thus, should not be taken.
Why should a woman have to bear a child she doesn't want?
What if she can't support it?
What if she was *****?
What if she might die giving birth?
What if she was only 14 or 15 years old?
What if the baby had a genetic disease and would die not long after birth?
There's so many situations that I don't see why people are so insistent on blanketing the topic.
This is what it refers to. However, pro-life makes more sense because those who are pro-life, me included, consider the baby/fetus and life. And thus, should not be taken.
What makes you think you have any right or duty to say what a pregnant woman should do? Why should you be able to take away the power of human choice and freedom?
You must be logged in to post a reply!