Forums → WEPR → Abortion

Yes, but until conception occurs, they pieces necessary to start life are seperated. It combines at conception, and THEN grows.

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).

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

Honestly I somehow agree with that idea,

Glad we agree a little, Zophia

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.

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.

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.

What about animals? With our current level of technology and development, they're unable to defend themselves. Yet you'll find plenty of &quotro-lifers" out hunting. If its a matter of intelligence, the same argument can be applied. Perhaps deer as a species aren't intelligent enough now to defend themselves, but for all we know we've stopped part of their evolution that could take them to a higher level of intelligence because of our interference. Still, hunting is legal. Although you may think a fetus is more important than an animal, that's because we view ourselves as superior and believe we have more of a right to life because we build skyscrapers and create new technology. If you look at it from another perspective though, we're destroying countless habitats and lives. If we're really being &quotro-life", actually be pro-life.

That may seem like an environmental rant, so I'll pretty much sum it up. Just because a fetus may seem to have a potential future doesn't mean it's life now, and even if it is we have to acknowledge that as a species, when it serves a purpose (or even when its just entertaining...) we're extremely anti-life.

I can agree with abortions for medical reasons or if the fetus would die, and I can tolerate abortions for ****, child problems, incest, etc. But for birth control, I feel the choice was made early on. If this pain was never-ending, I would agree that abortion may be necessary since it can't be passed on. But nine months is not an entire life. In fact, I would say that for the first three months or so, there are few obligations and stresses to uphold.

Firefly:

It is still denying potential life, which isn't really a valid argument, especially not in a court of law.

I don't see how that links in to abortion. It doesn't change anything I have previously stated about why abortion should not be illegal in relation to the individual and the state.

That was in response to Zophia's post

Perhaps deer as a species aren't intelligent enough now to defend themselves, but for all we know we've stopped part of their evolution that could take them to a higher level of intelligence because of our interference.

Didn't see this, sorry.

That's easy to say as a male who's never going to have to experience that. Which is another reason why women should retain the right to choose. It's essential if women are to have gender equality on the baby issue.

I wouldn't call a fetus potential life. It's breathing and has a beating heart during abortion. It may not be conscious, it may not even feel pain, but it's more than an unfertilized egg.

It is still not legally classified as a human being. As such it dooes not deserve the same rights as one. Especially when you consider it cannot survive without its mother.

Evolution takes place over a long period of time dependent on the environment (from what I know of it, correct me if I'm wrong). The fetus is going to become just like any other child in less than a year. Though if it makes you feel better, I don't hunt and I probably never will (maybe with a bi-bi gun).

Which pretty much means our effect on the environment could have destroyed that. It happens through natural selection though, and we do have an extreme impact on that as we eliminate almost indiscriminately, which completely throws it off. Although, on the other hand we're creating an entirely new type of natural selection that focuses on deer being able to evade hunters and cars....

That's part of the problem though. If we look at everything in the short-term, we're going to come first, every time. If we're going to have &quotro-life", we actually need to be pro-life. If a fetus is a life, yet an unintelligent one, why is it protected so much more than animals that are also "unintelligent"? You also have to consider the way we judge intelligence, which I think is a little off. Because we make things, we think ourselves intelligent, yet wouldn't it make more sense to balance lives with nature so we preserve our species and stand a chance of lasting longer? From our perspective we're intelligent, but from an animals we may be the biggest idiots on the planet. Still, I'm getting off topic again, so I'll just end here.

I hate this argument, because you discriminate against my right to argue yet other males can argue pro-choice. It's either only women can argue or males can argue from both sides. And I understand that I never can become pregnant. I could never possibly put a woman in the position of pregnacy unless she was planning to have the child. That is why I remain abstinent. I could fuk girls if I wanted to without any consequences, but I know they will have consequences. This is why I believe abstinence to be the choice, not abortion, well-after the sexual actions were chosen in the spur of the moment.
Sorry for ranting and being rude, but I CAN'T STAND THAT ARGUMENT. No hard feelings

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

Mike412:

That's part of the problem though. If we look at everything in the short-term, we're going to come first, every time. If we're going to have &quotro-life", we actually need to be pro-life. If a fetus is a life, yet an unintelligent one, why is it protected so much more than animals that are also "unintelligent"? You also have to consider the way we judge intelligence, which I think is a little off. Because we make things, we think ourselves intelligent, yet wouldn't it make more sense to balance lives with nature so we preserve our species and stand a chance of lasting longer? From our perspective we're intelligent, but from an animals we may be the biggest idiots on the planet.

You not being able to stand the argument does not invalidate it in any way.

Why do you think women get abortions in the first place.

If men have the right to have sex and then not have to deal with any of the consequences of the baby, then so do women.

@Mike412:
Nice post~

That was in response to Zophia's post when she said:
[quote]Honestly I somehow agree with that idea

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.

I think sex is something to be very, VERY careful about, because it causes pregnancy. Birth contorl and condoms should always be used in sex unintended for procreation, and even then, the couple should be ready to accept anything that might come out of it, because they know it can happen. That's why I choose to abstain. That's not for everyone, but sex is a big deal. If all these red signs are ignored, the choice was made in the past. I hope that didn't sound blunt or cruel, but I couldn't find any other way to really say it

I can agree with abortions for medical reasons or if the fetus would die, and I can tolerate abortions for ****, child problems, incest, etc. But for birth control, I feel the choice was made early on. If this pain was never-ending, I would agree that abortion may be necessary since it can't be passed on. But nine months is not an entire life. In fact, I would say that for the first three months or so, there are few obligations and stresses to uphold.

Depends on way the fetus was aborted.

I wouldn't call a fetus potential life. It's breathing and has a beating heart during abortion. It may not be conscious, it may not even feel pain, but it's more than an unfertilized egg.

The state doesn't have the right to tell the mother she can't kill her child outside the womb under that same principal, because it is her child, and it's her stress. Like I said, it's a little different because she doesn't have to give birth again, but the concept is similar.

This is why I believe abstinence to be the choice, not abortion, well-after the sexual actions were chosen in the spur of the moment.

[quote]Especially when you consider it cannot survive without its mother.

If a fetus is a life, yet an unintelligent one, why is it protected so much more than animals that are also "unintelligent"

People should be able to make their own choices. Women may not want a child, and it is their decision to have the kid and give it to adoption or abortion. Having a child is expensive, if they can't afford it, why ruin your life for it?

Neither can a newborn baby. Problem is, we can't turn a blind eye to an innocent human suffering. With abortion, we can't see the fetus. You can't always go by what the law says is okay now. Slavery WAS okay according to the consitution. We had to add an ammendment to make it all better (plus a little bloody civil war). Hopefully we'll all reach an agreement on abortion before that happens

We conclude that, while foetuses have physiological reactions to noxious stimuli, it does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially not below the current upper gestation limit of abortion. We further conclude that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law.