Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314983 |
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
thats what we technically are doing....is killing an unborn child and if it is illegal to kill another person then this should also..... it's killing a human being... thats wrong religous or not... if you seriously want to look at it as a choice but its killing a human being and thats wrong any way you do it....born or unborn.....
Incorrect. What a fetus is and what a child is are clearly defined. Calling it an unborn child is nothing more than an attempt to garner sympthy, nothing more, nothing less.
And when your argument relies on getting the sympathy of your audience, it is a weak argument indeed.
For one thing, a fetus is not a person. For another thing, many abortions occur before the aggregate of cells could even be classified as a fetus.
go to abort73 for more info......it is very infomational about what the embryo looks like after an abortion...the baby is mutilated.... and it is wrong...
K first off, places like this are extremely pro-life, therefore very very biased. Pro-life people scam others into not having abortions, telling them lies, and telling people how they will screw up alot more lives than there own by aborting.
Yet these stupid pro-life people are too arrogant to care about other people. They decide to put fate into their own hands and tell others lies to stop them from killing babies. This can include telling uninformed people that the wife can't get pregnant again, that it costs an extreme amount of money, and/or that the wife may die through the process... Pro-lifers are a bit worse than PETA... which on my scale is 9/10 on the too extreme scale.
The fact that people are willing to lie to others in order to protect there beliefs is too selfish. As people we should not tell others they can't abort there babies. It's their life, and it's the realization they have that they can't care for the baby, or the baby will end up suffering.. So using this so called "gun analogy" and put this in perspective. Would you rather be killed quickly with a gun, or torchered for up to a year? Because that's all you will do if there are serious problems with the baby, or the parents can't take care of the kid properly.
For one thing, a fetus is not a person. For another thing, many abortions occur before the aggregate of cells could even be classified as a fetus.
Just as a thought, you are stopping a life either way. Maybe it isn't scientifically killing, but I don't see why we need to discover whether or not it is alive or reason whether or not it is alive to conclude abortion's morality. Either way, a life will not be able to enter this world because it is destroyed by the tools of abortion. I'm not trying to gain sympathy from the audience, and I don't mean to imply that pro choice people are evil. I just couldn't find a better way to say that. Anyway, just a thought.
As people we should not tell others they can't abort there babies. It's their life, and it's the realization they have that they can't care for the baby, or the baby will end up suffering
I feel that the mother's time would best be spent trying to find an adoption center or parents for the child if birth won't affect her health.
So using this so called "gun analogy" and put this in perspective. Would you rather be killed quickly with a gun, or torchered for up to a year? Because that's all you will do if there are serious problems with the baby, or the parents can't take care of the kid properly.
Should we kill the poor and the starving? They only waste everyone's money, effort, time, and pain. And they are in pain right now, aren't they? It would save this country a fortune if we killed everyone that took welfare, everyone that doesn't have a job... they have poor lifestyles AND they cost us too much. Win-win.
If you think this is different than the baby, you're right. These people are in pain, and the fetus only may be in pain once it's born.
[i]Just as a thought, you are stopping a life either way. Maybe it isn't scientifically killing, but I don't see why we need to discover whether or not it is alive or reason whether or not it is alive to conclude abortion's morality. Either way, a life will not be able to enter this world because it is destroyed by the tools of abortion. I'm not trying to gain sympathy from the audience, and I don't mean to imply that pro choice people are evil. I just couldn't find a better way to say that. Anyway, just a thought.[i]
By the same logic birth control is stopping a life, and therefor just as bad as abortion. Its preventing a life from developing too, but is it different only because it starts at a different stage? Even abstinence by this logic would be stopping a life, so I have to say that it doesn't seem to be a truly valid argument if its based on preventing a life from happening.
So how can you stop at just conception? Masturbation is murder! Celibacy is murder! Having sex with only one partner is murder! All of these situations involve you limiting ''otential people'' into coming into being.
no no i understand what u mean Big, but what i'm trying to get at, is we as people shouldn't have the right to tell others not to abort. As much as i hate saying this, i sometimes wish doctors would tell those frequent visitors who keep using abortion as a method to not not give birth; that they can't give them any more abortions. But the thing is, it is not in our right to conquer the rights of another by telling them they can't abort their own baby. It would be like me coming over to someones house and making them not watch their own t.v because it is against my ethics...
I feel that the mother's time would best be spent trying to find an adoption center or parents for the child if birth won't affect her health.Carrying a child inside you is bound to affect your health regardless. It may not be in a severe way, but it will affect.
Should we kill the poor and the starving? They only waste everyone's money, effort, time, and pain. And they are in pain right now, aren't they? It would save this country a fortune if we killed everyone that took welfare, everyone that doesn't have a job... they have poor lifestyles AND they cost us too much. Win-win.Honestly I somehow agree with that idea, but the very important thing to note is that they do have a right to their life. Government may choose to make laws that cut the welfare that those people survive on, and they would have to either perish or find a way to continue their lives. (My views may be controversial and are not some I will argue as right as they may still be altered according to whatever views I am currently under effect of. Please do not take offense or pick a fight (arguing is okay ).)
Once a human is out in the world and capable of thinking, it decides on its own how much suffering it is willing to take.
While a baby is still in the womb, actually before it is even considered a baby but is only this preform of human life, it is just a blob leeching on the woman. If she does not want it to leech, she, in my opinion, has every right to seek the help to get it removed.
Only up to a certain age of the fetus, though.
The abortion is a topic that is very interesting. It is involved in both political and religious matters. We all know about the religious one and for those who dont know about the political one. Leaders such as George bush used topics like abortion and gay marriage which has nothing to do with politics in reality to win votes.
Personally i think abortion should be allowed. i mean if a girl of 16 somehow gets pregnant by mistake and finds out a little late, is she supposed to continue her studies. her pride and people's talk would force her to go away or kill herself. Thats not how i want it
By the same logic birth control is stopping a life, and therefor just as bad as abortion. Its preventing a life from developing too, but is it different only because it starts at a different stage? Even abstinence by this logic would be stopping a life, so I have to say that it doesn't seem to be a truly valid argument if its based on preventing a life from happening.
AND
So how can you stop at just conception? Masturbation is murder! Celibacy is murder! Having sex with only one partner is murder! All of these situations involve you limiting ''otential people'' into coming into being.
It's not the same. You stop the forming fetus from being born. Birth control and abstinence stop the sperm from meeting the egg, and therefore do not prevent a life. Abortion destroys the forming fetus, after the egg and the sperm have met.
no no i understand what u mean Big, but what i'm trying to get at, is we as people shouldn't have the right to tell others not to abort. As much as i hate saying this, i sometimes wish doctors would tell those frequent visitors who keep using abortion as a method to not not give birth; that they can't give them any more abortions. But the thing is, it is not in our right to conquer the rights of another by telling them they can't abort their own baby. It would be like me coming over to someones house and making them not watch their own t.v because it is against my ethics...
I understand what you mean too. I often argue in support of most self-rights even if my beliefs are against them (homosexuality, porn, etc). But with abortion, it also affects the fetus. The only reason people ignore this usually is because it is not able to defend itself. My main thinking is that abortion ignores another person's rights too, before they are intelligent enough to know they have rights. Often the argument is that the baby hasn't fully developed, but even after birth, they have not finished growing. If you abandon a baby, it can't take care of itself. If you abandon even a ten year old, odds are it can't take care of itself. The fetus is only different because nobody else can transfer it to a different womb to be taken care of.
Carrying a child inside you is bound to affect your health regardless. It may not be in a severe way, but it will affect.
I understand, but abortions can affect a mother's health too. Maybe not in the severe ways that some radical pro-life groups suggest, but still...
While a baby is still in the womb, actually before it is even considered a baby but is only this preform of human life, it is just a blob leeching on the woman. If she does not want it to leech, she, in my opinion, has every right to seek the help to get it removed.
Like in my above post, I think that while a fetus is more dependent than a human being, a born child cannot survive without leeching onto someone. They just do it in a different way. They need attention, food, to be cleaned up after... but abandoning it just becomes more real.
Personally i think abortion should be allowed. i mean if a girl of 16 somehow gets pregnant by mistake and finds out a little late, is she supposed to continue her studies. her pride and people's talk would force her to go away or kill herself. Thats not how i want it
My school actually has an interesting rule. Any girl that gets preganant is allowed all the time off she needs to give birth, find the child a home, etc. This would probably be a good idea to apply nationwide. It would be a big hassle, and obviously this rule would be abused, but it may well solve a huge chunk of this debate.
It's not the same. You stop the forming fetus from being born. Birth control and abstinence stop the sperm from meeting the egg, and therefore do not prevent a life. Abortion destroys the forming fetus, after the egg and the sperm have met.
Either way you are preventing life from forming, so for this to be a valid reason, it has to be applicable in any scenario, if this would be turned into law.
Should we kill the poor and the starving? They only waste everyone's money, effort, time, and pain. And they are in pain right now, aren't they? It would save this country a fortune if we killed everyone that took welfare, everyone that doesn't have a job... they have poor lifestyles AND they cost us too much. Win-win.
If you think this is different than the baby, you're right. These people are in pain, and the fetus only may be in pain once it's born.
That's not the point of the argument. The point of the argument is that the poor and the starving have the right to choose for themselves whether they want to die or not, not to have that choice made for them by the state.
To me it comes down to what has been mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Does the fetus have rights? Maybye, I don't know. But more than that, does the STATE have the right to deny any woman a great deal of her freedom, as well as financially, emotionally, and socially burden her with a child she may not be willing and able to care for? Do they have the right to subject them to the physical agony of childbirth? Do they have the right to confiscate thousands of hours of her time that she will spend raising the child?
As for advocating killing the poor and starving because they leech off the rest of us, unless you would be willing to have the same standards applied to you, you shouldn't really be advocating it. Either that or you're ressurecting the old Nazi asocial policy, which is pretty barbaric.
Either way you are preventing life from forming, so for this to be a valid reason, it has to be applicable in any scenario, if this would be turned into law.
Yes, but until conception occurs, they pieces necessary to start life are seperated. It combines at conception, and THEN grows.
To me it comes down to what has been mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Does the fetus have rights? Maybye, I don't know. But more than that, does the STATE have the right to deny any woman a great deal of her freedom, as well as financially, emotionally, and socially burden her with a child she may not be willing and able to care for? Do they have the right to subject them to the physical agony of childbirth? Do they have the right to confiscate thousands of hours of her time that she will spend raising the child?
Couldn't this be applied to a regular child that a mother doesn't want anymore? Obviously circumstances will be different, but children still cost a great deal of freedom financially, emotionally... you wrote the rest, just read that (dont feel like re-writing it).
As for advocating killing the poor and starving because they leech off the rest of us, unless you would be willing to have the same standards applied to you, you shouldn't really be advocating it. Either that or you're ressurecting the old Nazi asocial policy, which is pretty barbaric.
No, I wasn't serious, that was sarcasm. Of course I don't want that policy enacted for anyone. The only reason I couldn't throw this argument back at you was because your mother decided not to abort you (I know that's been said before, no need to argue that you wouldn't care because you wouldn't have acknowledged your existance). I was only saying that because the poor and starving suffer as much as child MAY suffer when it's born. I'm not a Nazi
I understand, but abortions can affect a mother's health too. Maybe not in the severe ways that some radical pro-life groups suggest, but still...That's true, and they can go wrong, and it is in general a bad idea to get to the point where you want to get an abortion.
I would NEVER argue abortion as a way of avoiding pregnancy (aka like condoms and birth control pills should be used). That is the most stupid way of behaving.
Abortion is not something people should go "oh woops, I think I got pregnant, oh well, off for another abortion". It is NOT. It can give deep emotional scars and is a memory the woman who chose it will carry with her for the rest of her life.
However, it is a good alternative to have. If you really do not want this baby and do not want to go through those nine months after which you could give it up for adoption, and you know you do not wish to give your baby away if you had it - it is good to have the OPTION. The choice. Without the choice you're forced to deal with something you may no be ready to at all.
But it is a pretty tough choice.
Like in my above post, I think that while a fetus is more dependent than a human being, a born child cannot survive without leeching onto someone. They just do it in a different way. They need attention, food, to be cleaned up after... but abandoning it just becomes more real.I agree. And then again I don't, because kids don't leech onto someone and crave all their nourishment from that one single person. A baby can be passed on to someone else if it is necessary. It shouldn't be necessary, but if it is it can be handled.
And abandoning a baby is not the same as aborting a fetus.
Couldn't this be applied to a regular child that a mother doesn't want anymore? Obviously circumstances will be different, but children still cost a great deal of freedom financially, emotionally... you wrote the rest, just read that (dont feel like re-writing itAs far as I know there are not any laws against putting such a child up for adoption. You were comparing this to states having laws against abortion, right?
The state does not dictate that she MUST keep her child.
You must be logged in to post a reply!