ForumsWEPRis abortion ok?

869 81946
toemas
offline
toemas
340 posts
2,325

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
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

Which abortion types are we discussing?

Personally, I believe all types of abortions should be granted except for partial-birth abortion. I've yet to see a justifiable argument for it.

HahiHa
offline
HahiHa
6,614 posts
20,745

Which abortion types are we discussing?

This has mostly been a discussion on whether abortion in general is morally defendable or not. To be honest, I am not aware of several different types of abortion, or maybe I don't understand what you mean by that.

In our country, abortion is legal within the first 12 weeks p.m. (with some bureaucratic knick-knack), and later if there is a medical emergency. By the name of it, it sounds like "partial-birth abortion" does not really fall in here.
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

It is late-term abortions, which has been illegal in the US since 2003.

Also, when distinguishing, there are different trimesters when an abortion can happen. I suppose I'm asking which trimester(s) are we discussing? First term? Up to second?

09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

Destroy embryos? Absolutely, no ethical problems there. Kill foetuses? More of a grey area. Any case involving a definitely conscious foetus should go to an ethics board to consider how much of a problem it would be to the mother. E.G. who is the father, physical and mental health problems, quality of future child's life.

bluesky4us
offline
bluesky4us
30 posts
115

up until the last 3 months should be legal.
generally it is ok.
all i seem to do is lurk on this site so no one really knows me i will try to back up that opinion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause

why i bring up the word theocracy is because through history.
especially the middle ages.
people would be executed back during those times for it.

why i say that it should have been the end of discussion.

1. people felt so strong about ''gods will'' that they would not do it even to save a mothers life.

2. because that has been something that has been Iligel for thousands of years. if we are going to progress in any why that should be something the is ok and tolerated.

3. this speaks for itself. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
during the time you watch that clock it is like that 50+ people will be born and only 10+ people will die this is not sufficient for the future. the earth can not support lets say 10+ billion people religion Denys fact.

09philj
offline
09philj
2,880 posts
3,160

3. this speaks for itself. http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
during the time you watch that clock it is like that 50+ people will be born and only 10+ people will die this is not sufficient for the future. the earth can not support lets say 10+ billion people religion Denys fact.


There are better ways to reduce populations than that. Anti natal policies, for example.
FishPreferred
offline
FishPreferred
2,818 posts
18,265

why i say that it should have been the end of discussion.

1. people felt so strong about ''gods will'' that they would not do it even to save a mothers life.

2. because


Which, of course, is the worst possible way of trying to end a discussion. The discussion was over until you posted. Furthermore, none of your points really make sense.
The first amendment has no bearing upon this issue whatsoever, as abortion laws do not directly relate to any religion. Why should women ground their decisions upon religion? What about atheists?
bluesky4us
offline
bluesky4us
30 posts
115

sorry for bringing up a dead thread.

atheist i don't know.
maybe

****it video game time no more bigotry.

Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

Everyone (pro-lifers) stops caring about the fetus once it's born, too.

I guess it doesn't matter if a mother feels she isn't fit (financially, mentally, etc) to care for a child. But, oh no...better not have an abortion. Then once she's had the child, no mention of her situation is brought up again.

My ethical concerns lie more in the post-birth situation. Perhaps if our adoption and foster care system wasn't so horrible I'd feel otherwise.

Salvidian
offline
Salvidian
4,229 posts
2,255

Everyone (pro-lifers) stops caring about the fetus once it's born, too.


Ey yo cool it with da generalizations mayng. ;D

I wish communities had the power to and then would practice social contracts more. It would fix so much of this.
twillight2
offline
twillight2
413 posts
13,475

What about atheists?


Oh ye. That was the assumption we needed, as any religion just per-se basis, w/o even the chance of discussion ends the topic.

The question of abortion comes two sided:
- the mental and physical health of the mother/pregnant one (in case of animals)
- the mental and physical health of the unborned.

--------------

Let's discuss first the less thought through part of the mother:
- pregnancy can be dangerous to health anatomically. Eg. the unborn is not in the womb, pregnancy causes fatal level of blood pressure, or similar healthcare problems.
Face it: not all problem is solvable currently, and not all problem worth solving. Than abortion shall be supported.
- giving birth can be dangerous to health. Of course there is always the medical interaction to circumgo this, but what if someone is eg. anti-bloodtransfusion (a famous religious prejudice!). What if we know giving birth naturally would kill even both the pregnant AND the baby AT the time of earily period of pregnancy?
- what if the pregnant's lifestyle is not fit to have children, wether it is the blame of the pregnant (eg. drug abuse) or not (eg. poor family with already too many in the househuld)?
EVEN if you'd consider an institute for the newborn, you must understand taking away an actual child can be much more harmful for the mental health of the parents than an abortion on something what is not to be considered a living being.
- what if the pregnancy is the result of trauma (eg. rape!)?

-----------

Of course there is the problem of size of population, but let's mention the NATURAL ABORTIONS instead.
A LARGE number of potential pregnancies end in natural abortion, or even the egg not being fertilised. Did you give a thought to this?

If you look at the demographic of the anti-abortioners, seems the supporters for them come from fundamental (majorly christian) sects, and their argument is the same way false-based, like the very same people's anti-gay movement (where they literally support killing people for being gay by quoting the Bible).

---------------

Let's take a look after all on the unborn itself:
- in the early phase it is just some cells, than something without self-awareness, independent of the look (hey, did you too see that airplane into clouds, and the picture of Jesus in the *** of that dog?).
- the to-born thing can be effected by lethal, or seriously troubling defections. Do you want someone make a full pregnancy and birth-giving to a child what died in the very early phase of pregnancy? Rly?
Or you really want to be carried out "children" with no head, no bones, intestines being inside-out?
Or you really not at all(!) consider what life would wait on a person with dog-like IQ, no ability to move, 24/7 need of care of others?

----------------

Finally talk about the result of carrying out all pregnancy to the human evolution!
There are attributes that passes by genes and hinder you. That is no question. Some hundreds, or at least thousands years ago someone with the need of glasses would be eaten soon, or die of starvation, but preserving people with bad eyes did cost low, and provided a lot of minds and workforce with no particular drawback inside the society. I mean who cares if you can't hunt if we have another hundred hunter, but lack someone who makes clay pots, or can make a microscope, or come up with blueprints for a nuclear plant?
NOW imagine that we keep in life every child-to-born who by genetics do not have a functional heart? Oh, we can do an organ-transplant, but this trait gets inherited. If there is other is no factor what'd prevent them passing out this trait to their offsprings one will produce let's say 2 for the next generation. 4 for the next after. And so on, until there'll be no child who'll born with a functional heart. And we don't have so many organs for transplant to save them all. So you'd choose to abort a fetus - or kill a child?
Asherlee
offline
Asherlee
5,065 posts
1,175

Ey yo cool it with da generalizations mayng.


It was more of an exaggeration.
Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,299 posts
16,400

my philosophy is a woman should decide on religious grounds to decide or not to have in abortion.


So this meshes pretty well with your thoughts on the constitution. One might think that Congress couldn't pass a law in which a woman sought an abortion for a religious reason. But, of course, Congress has passed laws forbidding plenty of things that may be religiously motivated.

The main thing, however, is that the moral status of abortion does come down to religion. It's a big question in applied ethics, and plenty of great philosophers have presented compelling arguments for both sides. This is the part of the discussion I find interesting.

In short, the moral standing of an act should be assessed from an ethical point of view - not a religious one.
bluesky4us
offline
bluesky4us
30 posts
115

yes this is why i brought up the constitution.
no one should want any laws on this
it should be a right not the state or the governments decision.

Moegreche
online
Moegreche
3,299 posts
16,400

yes this is why i brought up the constitution.
no one should want any laws on this
it should be a right not the state or the governments decision.


I think we're having a misunderstanding. What I'm saying is that the permissibility of abortion can be determined without religion ever entering the picture. So the constitution doesn't really matter - at least in this one respect. (There may be other aspects that can be drawn out, but I don't know.)

Personally, I believe all types of abortions should be granted except for partial-birth abortion. I've yet to see a justifiable argument for it.


One of the most famous pieces of philosophy on abortion, by Judith Jarvis Thomson, argues for a conclusion that's in this neighbourhood. I found a pdf of (one of the versions of) the paper here if you're interested.
Showing 781-795 of 869