Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 315017 |
What my peers here think?
I would like to try and avoid a buch of rabid Catholics and Christians falling back only on the religious reasons and what have you. However, I do not see how that can be dodged.
My view? I'm for it. If a woman wants to get one, it is her choice. Some people seem to act like if one woman gets an abortion, it means that all the rest have to. If the child in question is not yours, butt out.
Also, on a lighter note, I say that abortions should be allowed when kids are up to 18 years old. That would solve a lot of headaches, eh?
- 1,508 Replies
Definatly pro choice, but its also a bit ridiculous when a girl uses it in itself as a form of BC... I've known a girl that has already had three abortions, should put a limit on it.... or at least give em a punch card... get 4 abortions and the 5th one is free :P
Definatly pro choice, but its also a bit ridiculous when a girl uses it in itself as a form of BC... I've known a girl that has already had three abortions, should put a limit on it.... or at least give em a punch card... get 4 abortions and the 5th one is free :P
3??? o.k. that's just plain stupid now. Again contraception people or get your tubes tied.
[/quote] trust me I know... its ridiculous, but she sees nothing wrong with it
Life is always worth living. Trials and challenges may differ from person to person but It is within human nature to overcome. People fight for life and freedom because it is the thing of most worth.
A good deal of the time, when abortion is desirable for the baby's sake, it is because the baby will have to live on heavy life support and be in extreme pain it's entire life. Life is worth living 99.9% of the time, just not when you're living off of machines and always in torturous pain. There are certain things that people can't overcome. And sometimes, those things are bad enough that euthanasia is the best course of action. Most of the time, people can grinenbearit through problems, but there are some that aren't worth living through.
------------
There should be regulated choice in abortion. A person should be able to get an abortion if the mother is at risk, the girl was raped, she won't be able to provide a good life for her child, or the baby would have bad enough medical problems that the child's life would be hell. The mother should need to have a good reason to get an abortion, just like a person should have a good reason to get surgery. But it should be a choice thing.
theres no difference between abortion and walking down the street and killing someone..... SHOLDN'T EXIST
and yes i am catholic.. but thats not my main reason for being against it
theres no difference between abortion and walking down the street and killing someone..... SHOLDN'T EXIST
and yes i am catholic.. but thats not my main reason for being against it
@grounder, please give some evidence to back up your opinion, or prepare to be derisively laughed at from lack of evidence.
hey thisisnotanalt congrats on being an even 900 on this thread, I agree with him and no im not catholic or Cristian, but it shouldnt exist!!!
True, I feel that it shouldn't be practiced, but at the same time, it's not always the girl's fault that she gets pregnant. Especially in rape cases, I think it should be allowed, since she technically didn't want a kid to raise.
There should be regulated choice in abortion. A person should be able to get an abortion if the mother is at risk, the girl was *****, she won't be able to provide a good life for her child, or the baby would have bad enough medical problems that the child's life would be hell. The mother should need to have a good reason to get an abortion, just like a person should have a good reason to get surgery. But it should be a choice thing.
Exactly my point.Like I said before Basically the baby should have the chance to live if it doesn't put the mothers life at risk
I stated in a previous post that abortion would be understandable if the child would for certainty live a painful life. Like live hooked up to machines, If the mothers life was at risk or if the mother was r*aped.
trust me I know... its ridiculous, but she sees nothing wrong with it
How old is she??
I'm utterly against abortion, but only in extreme few cases do I say it's fine. One such is if it's a serious health concern to the mother/baby. Another is if the woman was below 18 and was raped/abused/artificially inseminated against her will. Other than that, i believe that if you are pregnant, and you don't have the money/ support to keep it, put him/her in an adoption center where a healthy life is GUARANTEED.
I'm gonna repost this, seeing as this thread has recently been revived.
The fetus is causing direct, physical harm to a woman, and she has the right to separate herself from anyone or anything which is causing her direct physical harm, EVEN if that person or object cannot continue to exist without her.
If I require your lung to live, I cannot simply take it on the grounds that my "right to life" trumps your rights to self-defense. If I make some attempt to use your lung against your will, you are within all legal and moral right to remove yourself from me, EVEN THOUGH it means my death -- not my lung, not my choice. By the EXACT same token, no fetus is entitled to a uterus belonging to someone.
If the fetus IS human, then it STILL has no right to use the woman's uterus against her will, making the debate STILL pointless. So whether or not it is human, it has NO RIGHT to stay inside the uterus if the woman who OWNS her own uterus wants to be removed from the fetus. She cannot be deprived of that right, as it is the first tenet of ALL self-defense.
To deny women the right to defend herself against unwanted harm being done to her body, then you subjectively value women less than a fetus and award all fetuses the right to an organ belonging to another human being -- a right which NO other form of human enjoys. This is impossible on two measures: sexism and ageism.
Only women have uteri, therefore allowance of the use of a uterus against its owner's wishes is sexist; the rule would therefore have to be expanded to something non-discriminatory, such as "organs." The ageism is showing favoritism towards those who are less than 0 minutes past birth, which is reverse-discrimination, and also illegal; therefore the age limit would have to be expanded -- say, all people who have a specific physical need to live. Now all people are equally represented -- and organ donation becomes compulsory based on the need of another individual in order to live. That is the only legal result from illegalization of abortion.
So it ultimately comes down to two things Logic Vs. morals?
Without justification, abortion can be considered murder to some extent. But if there is a good reason for the abortion, then it is understandable. Also, what zootsuit reposted is interesting, and really the most objective view possible.
-----------
hey thisisnotanalt congrats on being an even 900 on this thread, I agree with him and no im not catholic or Cristian, but it shouldnt exist!!!
And what do you mean by that? I never said I liked abortion, just that sometimes it is necessary. In fact, no pro-choice person would like abortion. That's just crazy. We just think that it is necessary sometimes; it is a sad truth. It kills me inside when people say "ro-abortion" instead of "ro-choice," because that is stupid and no one wants abortion to happen. But sometimes, it needs to.
You must be logged in to post a reply!