ForumsWEPRis abortion ok?

869 83491
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
Blacksmith

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

  • 869 Replies
GhostOfMetal
offline
GhostOfMetal
695 posts
Farmer

If someone willingly eats raw unprocessed food, knowing the risk of contracting a parasite and does, it must be wrong for them to rid their body of that parasite. Because they must live with the consequences of their actions.


A parasite causes bodily harm via infect. However, pregnancy, while it does, in a sense, cause bodily harm, it is a natural process. If she doesn't want the baby, she can put the baby up for adoption for someone who does want it. the experience and trauma from it, will likely keep her from having another baby she doesn't want. (wow, I'm making this sound like torches. I only mean it as a "I made a mistake and learned from it" from the woman's perspective).
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

I'm not saying abortion isn't the wrong thing to do when it is the result of **** or when the mother's life is in danger. By all means, it is the mother's right to life and pursuit of happiness to abort the child then. However, when she willingly puts herself at risk to get pregnant, that is when it is wrong.

Why is a fetus that results from **** devalued to the point where terminaton is "not wrong"? Isn't it still just as innocent as one from consented copulation?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

"I made a mistake and learned from it"

Imagine if she said that to the child. "Gosh, you were horrible and painful enough. I never want another one. Run along now, little accident. Go to the adoption center. I don't ever want to see you again. Someone else can bear that burden."
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,120 posts
Grand Duke

Parasitic infections are natural processes too, they occur all the time. I don't see a logic behind that argument. Besides, as mentioned, abortion is just changing the odds of a natural process, nothing else.

And 9 months of pregnancy is still just too much to inflict on a woman that does not want it, simply out of punishment. You can't sugarcoat this horrible idea.

GhostOfMetal
offline
GhostOfMetal
695 posts
Farmer

Why is a fetus that results from **** devalued to the point where terminaton is "not wrong"? Isn't it still just as innocent as one from consented copulation?


A child of **** can be a walking talking reminder for the individual of the trauma. This can give emotional instability and cause chronic depression which can lead a number of very bad directions.

As far as her speaking to the child about being a mistake, if she gave him or her up, she would never say it to them because it wouldn't be there.

This whole topic has reminded me, I used to be a firm pro-choice. but it will always be a debate between the child's life and the woman's rights and I guess I've always been between the two sides. My opinion are changing even in the day. The idea of the woman choosing not to have a child is not a bad thing. I just think she should go about an alternate method of doing it.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

A child of **** can be a walking talking reminder for the individual of the trauma.

Based on your model of 'teaching a lesson', a child of pregnancy coertion can be a walking talking reminder for the individual of the trauma. No real difference.

What did the fetus specifically do to deserve death? It's still treating it as a means to an end instead of an end in itself. Unless you're saying a fetus has no intrinsic value, your argument doesn't stand. And if you are saying that, then abortion isn't wrong in any case.
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

A child of **** can be a walking talking reminder for the individual of the trauma.

And if she gives it up to adoption, it's not there anymore. Again, equal to a regular unwanted one.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,120 posts
Grand Duke

A child of **** can be a walking talking reminder for the individual of the trauma. This can give emotional instability and cause chronic depression which can lead a number of very bad directions.

Ah, because NOW you care about the mother. Funny how the way a baby is conceived can totally swap your opinions about the topic. A baby born from **** is still a baby. If you argue against abortion because of the loss of potential life, you should argue all the same in case of ****. No difference.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

A parasite causes bodily harm via infect. However, pregnancy, while it does, in a sense, cause bodily harm, it is a natural process.


The way the body reacts to the parasite is a natural reaction.


If she doesn't want the baby, she can put the baby up for adoption for someone who does want it.


Which ignores the point that the woman is being forced to go through the physical ramifications of being pregnant when it's very much preventable.

I will also paste what I have already said on women not having abortions.

"Asking a woman to carry to term is asking that she risk her own life in the process. From 95-2000 one fifth of all maternal deaths (700,000) were the result of unintended pregnancy.

in the US there are about 1,370,000 abortions a year. 2008 statistics had 24 out of every 100,000 births result in the mothers death. 2004 report had an infant mortality rate of 679 per 100,000. (without abortion we could likely expect that number to be higher)

But for the sake of argument let's use those numbers. That would mean without abortion we would have about 329 women die when it could have been avoided. About 9,302 of those children that would have been aborted would die anyway during birth. That would mean about 28 of those women "taking responsibility" would die along with the child they are trying to give birth to. When instead they could have prevented it in the first place.
"

Another thing to keep in mind is the cost. With out abortion and just adoption, we would be increasing the number of unwanted children going into the adoption agency by the millions. Adoption services as is are already over burdened. The end result would be a burden to the tax payers and countless children living poor quality lives. and that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of the finial issues involved tot he community as a whole.

Finally making abortion illegal would only bring back back ally abortions. This would mean just putting the mother in far greater danger than she would have been in if she were allowed to have the operation done legally.

But apparently the mother's life is of no value compared to that of an nonthinking, likely unfeeling fetus that might develop into a person and will likely given the odds be a burden to society as a whole.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,168 posts
Bard

I just think she should go about an alternate method of doing it.

what is wrong whit a pill that makes their body break the egg naturally, starting the menstruation phase?
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,427 posts
Jester

North Dakota's legislature approved an amendment to their state's constitution defining legal personhood at conception. It still needs a public vote to be added.

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,498 posts
Blacksmith

'"If we can determine that a seed is the definition of a plant, then we can certainly decide that an embryo is a human," said Republican representative Dan Ruby, a supporter of the proposed state constitutional amendment.'

Because this is a tree....

http://ladyonthecoast.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/acorn.jpg

I have to wonder by what criteria are they using to define this personhood at conception?

danielo
offline
danielo
1,776 posts
Shepherd

Bevause the main voters body of the republicans dont need abortions.

Reton8
offline
Reton8
3,050 posts
King

'"If we can determine that a seed is the definition of a plant, then we can certainly decide that an embryo is a human," said Republican representative Dan Ruby, a supporter of the proposed state constitutional amendment.'

Because this is a tree....

I have to wonder by what criteria are they using to define this personhood at conception?


Is there not a difference between a zygote (fertilized human ovum) and a seed?

The seeds (of the tree or plant) will remain seeds indefinitely. The seeds have to be planted, receive water, and other proper nutrients before they will grow into a tree (or whatever type of plant it may be). [Also, in nature, seeds usually have to travel and end up on the proper growing material before they will start growing.]

The human ovum is fertilized in the environment in which it will grow into a baby child, unless there is a miscarriage or, unless the ovum is fertilized in a laboratory (ovum and sperm separated from human counterpart beforehand). [I understand that not all fertilized ova truly develop. Natural causes can stop the process, but there would be no need for an abortion at that point.]

I cannot imagine a scenario in which the (human) zygote would stay a (human) zygote indefinitely. After (non-laboratory) conception The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child.

If I was forced to compare human abortion to plants seeds, I would consider it more similar to finding good soil, tilling it, planting the seed, giving the seed water and fertilizer and then digging the seed out of the ground to throw away or something. The earlier the abortion term the earlier the the person digs the seed out of the ground after planting it.

---------------
I suppose that one could point out that in my paragraph I say, "The (human) zygote is going to develop and will be a child." Which would seem to indicate that it is not human. I would disagree.

How do you define what a human is? Should it be done by how looks? If I look like a human than I am a human. Should that include statues of humans? What about humans that don't have arms or legs? What about humans that have severe deformities? Should they not be human because they don't quite look it?

Some people are mute and others can't see. Are they not humans? Children are still developing (similar to the zygote) should children not be considered humans based on the fact that they haven't reached a certain stage?

So the human zygote, which is developing and alive and in a short time reach a other stages and will resemble a baby, will swim around and kick in the amniotic fluid, and will be feed by direct connection with it's mother, that is human enough for me and completely human for me.
HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
7,120 posts
Grand Duke

So the human zygote, which is developing and alive and in a short time reach a other stages and will resemble a baby, will swim around and kick in the amniotic fluid, and will be feed by direct connection with it's mother, that is human enough for me and completely human for me.

Sperms, egg cells and zygotes are of course all human by their genetics, but that's no argument. They're not conscious beings yet, so whassamatter?
Showing 601-615 of 869