Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278548 |
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
An unwanted pregnancy is not a parasitic growth inside the woman.
Actually it does fit the definition of parasite.
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism (parasitism 2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures) -Merriam Webster
1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment. -dictionary.com
Now a more generally accepted term for parasite includes that the parasite contribute nothing of benefit to the survival of the host. Having a child in a way does contribute to the survival of the hosts genetic material. Though if it's unwanted and going to be gotten rid of one way or another it would seem to fail in this role.
It is, as I have said before, entirely the woman's choice
If that could be agreed on there wouldn't be any issue here. Even outside the stage of this topic this can't be agreed on.
I find many arguments, both for and against abortion, to be absolutely absurd.
Amen! You would not believe how many ridiculously terrible parents I come across in my line of work. These kids don't stand a chance at having a happy/healthy life. I work in the social service field and Its really frustrating.
This is VERY questionable.
There are two results:
* A child lives to grow up with crappy parents.
* The child doesn't even get a chance to grow up at all.
I had someone use this argument before, and she acted like abortions are doing these children a favor. Please, to suggest preventing one from living is doing someone a favor is a load of horse crap.
The point I wanted to add to this topic is that the rights of the mother take precedent over the rights of a fetus.
Just as the rights of the mother take precedent over the rights of her children at any phase of their life? This is what we're currently debating, should the mother's rights take precedent over a fetus?
Even the constitution seems to back this up by guaranteeing everyone the right to pursue happiness etc As Long As you are not impinging upon the rights of others.
I want to get back to this one after the next quote.
Being a parasitic growth inside someone else's body certainly impinges on their freedom.
You're saying it's okay to kill a fetus because it infringing on one's right to be happy. However, this can be said for almost anything. When the child is born, should the mother still be allowed to kill her child for being a financial drain?
You're saying that the mother has a right to pursue happiness, but does the child not have a right to life? You said that the right of the mother precedes the right of the fetus, but, I'll say it again, that's what's being debated.
Secondly, with regard to the life of the mother and the mother's safety, consider this: The time in a woman's life when she is most likely to be beaten, *****, and murdered is when she is pregnant. And those at greatest risk are low-income, less-educated, unemployed, teenage women. And, Women who are already in abusive relationships are more likely to have unplanned pregnancies, therefore they are more likely to be those dangerous situations. Therefore, the rights of the woman to protect herself come before the rights of the (not even real yet) potential person.
I believe it's wrong to use the argument that "someone else might do harm if this is allowed." That's like saying mini-skirts should be banned because a woman might encourage a man to **** her (questionable), or that drawing a bomb on a prohpet's head might lead to death threads (confirmed).
You're suggesting that abortion should be legal because pregnant women might be abused. But that's like banning guns and baseball bats because they might be used as weapons. If a woman is subject to abuse when she's pregnant, then we must do what we can to protect women who are in said situations. Obviously the people abusing these women are already performing illegal, criminal, actions. But we can still find other ways, such as educating women how to avoid and escape abusive relationships.
My point here is that, I don't find the whole "A might lead to B, therefore ban A" to be a good argument. If you believe a fetus does not hold the same value as an actual person, then what you said is appropriate. But if you honestly believe a fetus should be considered a human being, what you said means nothing." To a person who believes a fetus to be a human being, you're essentially saying a woman should be allowed to kill her child because the child leavers the mother vulnerable.
If she carries this child to term, she not only bears the medical and physical risks associated with pregnacy, she will then be legally tied to this man for the next 18+ years.
If the woman was forced to have sex, then she was *****. If the woman was too afraid to say no, then she should call the cops for physical abuse and get a restraining order. Either way, the sex was non-consensual, and therefore, is a good argument as to when abortions are appropriate.
--
Now, I'm very critical of opinions on both sides because, honestly, each argument is ignores the one area of disagreement.
*If you believe a fetus is holds less value than a human being, then obviously it will be acceptable to abort a child for a number of given reasons - such as the woman's right to do what she wants with her body, a woman's right to abort for her own protection, or to prevent children from growing up in horrible living conditions.
* If you believe a fetus holds as much value as a human being, then you will find it unacceptable to kill said head for almost any number of reasons - such as killing the child so the mother can be "happy" and avoiding responsibility for her own actions, or killing a child because the mother might be vulnerable and ignorant of how to escape such situations where she is left as such, or killing a child because the child might be unhappy later in life.
All the arguments used on both sides are just completely useless towards people who value the fetus differently.
Personally, I am pro-life. However, I am pro-choice at a political level. The only reason I believe abortion should be legal is because the point in which you decide an unborn child is equal to a person is purely subjective. It's such a gray area within society that I believe the case is "unconfirmed", and may possibly never be confirmed. When something such as abortion is unconfirmed, then I believe the law should lean in favor over freedom.
However, I can fully understand why someone would consider a fetus a human being, and it makes perfect sense as to why they would find it wrong to kill such. Freedom generally ends when it begins to encroach on another person's freedoms (which is very debatable). If you honestly believe abortion is murder, then it would be right to fight to protect said life. [I don't know if this makes me a hypocrite, wrong, or pathetic. I am pro-life personally, but I do not fight to protect the unborn child. Should I? I don't know. I guess I'm too ignorant, or maybe I just believe more people should share my views before they're enforced. I don't know.]
I had someone use this argument before, and she acted like abortions are doing these children a favor. Please, to suggest preventing one from living is doing someone a favor is a load of horse crap.
I wasn't using this as an argument for abortion, but one against RikJimmy's statement that everyone should have at least one child.
Just as the rights of the mother take precedent over the rights of her children at any phase of their life? This is what we're currently debating, should the mother's rights take precedent over a fetus?
No, once that child is born both have equal rights. The difference being that a fetus is a part of the mother's body and is entirely dependant upon it.
You're saying it's okay to kill a fetus because it infringing on one's right to be happy. However, this can be said for almost anything. When the child is born, should the mother still be allowed to kill her child for being a financial drain?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Since abortions are legal, if someone didn't want to have that kid and didn't get an abortion, that means they need to take responsibility for it. So no.
but does the child not have a right to life?
Of course it does. However, up until a certain point which we arbitrarily define based on biological functions, that child/fetus is considered to be a part of the mother's body. Thus the mother gets to make the choice on whether she wants to have that child or not.
You're suggesting that abortion should be legal because pregnant women might be abused.
I don't think that was what he said. He said that during pregnancy women are more prone to being assaulted. Basically a random statistic relevant, nothing more. You're the one taking it a step further and saying he's saying that's why abortion should be legal.
To a person who believes a fetus to be a human being, you're essentially saying a woman should be allowed to kill her child because the child leavers the mother vulnerable.
I consider a fetus to be human. Albeit still developing and unable to live outside of the womb. The argument isn't that the woman should be able to kill her child, but whether she should be allowed to make the choice on if she wants to have said child.
* If you believe a fetus holds as much value as a human being, then you will find it unacceptable to kill said head for almost any number of reasons
All the arguments used on both sides are just completely useless towards people who value the fetus differently.
I lie in the middle of what you stated. A fetus has the same potential value as a fully grown human being. There are key differences though which I have mentioned before. The fact that it is not yet biologically capable of being sentient, is dependant upon the mother and has no existing social attachment mean that it, for all purposes a parasite. Since it exists inside the mother's body, a fully developed human being with social connections and sentience, it is her choice whether to carry that fetus to term.
Keep in mind, I will play devil's advocate here and there.
I wasn't using this as an argument for abortion, but one against RikJimmy's statement that everyone should have at least one child.
My mistake. I was going to backpedal further and pick up more of the debate, but I was tired of typing.
No, once that child is born both have equal rights. The difference being that a fetus is a part of the mother's body and is entirely dependant upon it.
Once the child is born? Would it be okay to abort the child 6 months, 7, or even 8 months after? I suppose you can argue that as long as the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, but that's just one criteria.
There are so many different opinions, even between people who aren't completely against abortion. Where do you draw that line? Heartbeat? Thoughts? Dependency?
The line has to be drawn somewhere. Since abortions are legal, if someone didn't want to have that kid and didn't get an abortion, that means they need to take responsibility for it. So no.
People need to take responsibility for their actions. If you have sex with someone, you should be prepared to take responsibility for what happens.
I don't think that was what he said. He said that during pregnancy women are more prone to being assaulted. Basically a random statistic relevant, nothing more. You're the one taking it a step further and saying he's saying that's why abortion should be legal.
I suppose that's true.
I lie in the middle of what you stated. A fetus has the same potential value as a fully grown human being. There are key differences though which I have mentioned before. The fact that it is not yet biologically capable of being sentient, is dependant upon the mother and has no existing social attachment mean that it, for all purposes a parasite. Since it exists inside the mother's body, a fully developed human being with social connections and sentience, it is her choice whether to carry that fetus to term.
Ah, I think that could be the very tip of the root.
*tips king onto its side*
So to make it short, you say thet when the seaman touch the egg BOOM its not the mother desicion anymore? She HAVE to born it so this piece of meat can evolve into a baby?
In some Commentaries of judisem, it says that at the age of 5 mouths the fetus is not allowd to be aborted, and he is considered as baby. some other bann it at all. Even that im a atheist, i agree with that. after this age you cant do abortion. mainly because you cant without risking the mother.
And about the Sex thing. Have you ever forgat something importent, for school for say, or for work? Ever did a foolish thing, when you know its foolish, but yet you did it, like drinking a hot coffee, when you know its hot, but yet you cant handle it and have to drink it? Im sure you did, and if you didnt your a bad liar.
When most people do sex, they dont think. Its not like "hello guy. we are going to have a sexual intercurse 1 hour from now, be prepered". Its mostly come out of lust, in a matter of secondes. So sure, most use condoms and remmeber to use them and use them properly. but in some cases they dont. SO what you gonna say? "tough luck, you will rise the baby and you will enjoy it?"
Or a family who already have kids, you gonna tell them "well, go live in a shack because there is a new member coming up? just because you dont feel well with that a cell is being pulled out of the women body?
abortion is not only for stuiped new jeresy teens. Its for families who cant handle a new baby, for young couples who are not ready yet. So you say "you will have the trauma of birthing an unwanted child and giving him away so the fetus may become a kid?"
The question is not "keep the parents happy or the baby happy. its vruel and evil to say that. The question is "to bring the couple kid to the world or dont?". They dont have to, they can dont do that and they can stop it at any time. When a baby is out in the world, he his An independent entity, supported by his parent/s. WHen he is 7-9 mounths, he his already 'living', and its better to birth him then risk the parents so much just to birth a dead child. below it, its not so hard, the cell is just a cell and as hard it might be to agree with that, its mostly the best option when a couple is not ready yet.
There was on the news in Israel a story, this week, about a couple. the girl got pragnent. his parents discovered it and demand her to do a abortion. they were 17 each. When they got to the hospital, an organization who claim to be 'feminist" started to talk to them about not doing so, read for the girl in the bible and say how it can ruin her life and so on and so on. They both got confused and Depressed, so they decided to suicide. the cops stoped them befor the boy shot himself {he stole a gun from his father - [gun control...]}. he aimed at the girl, who got cold feets and yelled she want to live. he started to shot on the cops {they were vulenteers of hte ATV unit}, so they shot back and hit the boy. Now the girl is gonna do a abortion, as she cant go to "real life" as a single mother. It wont let are live properly as an idenepndence person.
The main covering by the media is about the shooting. but now it seems that the main 'anger' is against that organization, called "afrra", who is against abortions.
And as i said so many times befor - NoName, will you feel the same if your girlfriend, or even just a random girl, will got pragnent? Think about it. This moment you are being told. will you agree to keep the baby?
There are so many different opinions, even between people who aren't completely against abortion. Where do you draw that line? Heartbeat? Thoughts? Dependency?
People are going to draw that line differently, I would draw it at brain activity.
If you have sex with someone, you should be prepared to take responsibility for what happens.
Yes, you should. But youth is not always responsible and there are such things as accidents as well. Contraceptives, while effective, can fail on rare occasions.
So to make it short, you say thet when the seaman touch the egg BOOM its not the mother desicion anymore? She HAVE to born it so this piece of meat can evolve into a baby?
I have to agree this is the more...curious part about the anti-abortion side. The argument is that it's aborting something which will likely grow to be a fully developed human. Following that logic though, every time a woman ovulates a "otential human" is lost as well.
it says that at the age of 5 mouths the fetus is not allowd to be aborted,
I personally think anything longer than 5-6 weeks (as I fall into the brainwaves = person area) is irresponsible. It takes 3-4 weeks to be 100% sure of pregnancy. Two weeks to make that decision (and really, that decision should already have been made ever before getting pregnant) and to get an abortion if required/wanted.
Any time past that would only be in cases where carrying the pregnancy to term would be very harmful to the mother.
People are going to draw that line differently, I would draw it at brain activity.
in my country it is 12 weeks max. and only in special occasions 15 weeks. all after the 15 weeks have to be done by court or it must be a serious direct health issue for the mom.
but over 75% is done whitin 8 week befor the brain activity.
and sofar i know do most countries whit abortion use this guideline.
I have difficulty saying this in other words. I think there is a big difference between
Has anyone seen what the recent Tea Partiers have to say about abortion and ****? It's disgusting. Todd Adkins and Rochard Mourdock don't deserve and are not fit to lead people if they claim pregnancy from **** is God's Will. It is frankly, insulting and messed up.
Has anyone seen what the recent Tea Partiers have to say about abortion and ****? It's disgusting. Todd Adkins and Rochard Mourdock don't deserve and are not fit to lead people if they claim pregnancy from **** is God's Will. It is frankly, insulting and messed up.
God's Will covers: Death, destruction, r@pe, poverty, starvation, and racism. I'm sure there's a good reason.
Yeah, right. Never mind.
It is, for all practical purposes, a tumor. Potentially malignant too btw.
When is a tumor EVER a good thing? Pregnancy, when intentional, is a blessing. To compare a baby fetus to a tumor may quite possibly be the most irrational comparison I've witnessed someone say.
I've commented on here before and I still do believe it's wrong. It may not be murder, but it's just a small step down from it. If a young woman is mentally unstable to care for a child, then don't have sex. If you're aware of the worst case scenarios of having sex, whether using protection or not, and you still decide to do it, then man up and take responsibility for your actions.
Did you guys know that your taxes go towards keeping abortion clinics running? Think about that for a minute. Your hard earned taxes is being pumped into a facility which condones taking a life or a "fetus" as some of you may call it.
I am reminded of Nazi Germany. The Jews were guilty of being Jews, and were, according to the Nazis, worthy of death. Likewise, the babies in the womb are guilty of being babies in the womb, and are, according to the parents and some people in this forum, worthy of death.
I would say abortions ARE murders. I don't understand how people can rationalize abortion being okay. I don't understand how something is not a human being simply because it is currently relying on another human being. I mean, really, why not just say killing a newborn is okay? It eats from its mother, it can't get around anywhere without its mother, it can't do anything without its mother (or some sort of caregiver) so what is the difference between a newborn and a baby still in the womb? Abortion completely disgusts me.
To compare a baby fetus to a tumor may quite possibly be the most irrational comparison I've witnessed someone say.
Like I said, from a practical point of view. A fetus does everything a tumor does except faster than most.
If a young woman is mentally unstable to care for a child, then don't have sex.
If this was a perfect world, that would be the most sensible thing, no? Except, people aren't perfect. It's quite frankly naive to think that people aren't going to have sex if they don't want a child.
Did you guys know that your taxes go towards keeping abortion clinics running?
They also go towards school, emergency response, roads and other such things. What of it?
which condones taking a life or a "fetus" as some of you may call it.
Fetus, baby, whatever you want to call it. A developing person. Word choice really doesn't matter.
The Jews were guilty of being Jews, and were, according to the Nazis, worthy of death. Likewise, the babies in the womb are guilty of being babies in the womb, and are, according to the parents and some people in this forum, worthy of death.
Nice strawman. No one is condemning unborn children to death for their simple existence. No one is advocating willy-nilly on the moment abortions because of a failure to think ahead.
What we're saying is that it should remain an option for when it is necessary. A 16 year old girl is 99.99% of the time not the best candidate for a mother. Someone who can barely make ends meet cannot support a child. A **** victim should not have to carry to term their rapists baby if they decide they don't want to. I could go on like this for a while.
I don't understand how people can rationalize abortion being okay.
Read the thread then, I've clearly outlined how and why in a rational, logical way that accounts for all viewpoints and how it is not the same as murder.
I don't understand how something is not a human being simply because it is currently relying on another human being.
It's a potential human. Not yet developed, unable to survive outside the women, sentience yet established and a part of the mother's body.
I mean, really, why not just say killing a newborn is okay?
Because a newborn is able to survive on its own (relatively speaking). It's able to interact with the world. It has a functioning brain and other biological systems.
so what is the difference between a newborn and a baby still in the womb?
The difference is, one is developed, the other not. One is 100% dependant and inseparable from the host body and is unable to survive if taken out of that environment prematurely.
Abortion completely disgusts me.
And that's your choice. That doesn't mean you get to make it for everyone else.
You must be logged in to post a reply!