Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314924 |
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
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
Main Entry: abor·tion
Pronunciation:
Function: noun
Date: 1547
1 : the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus: as a : spontaneous expulsion of a human fetus during the first 12 weeks of gestation â" compare miscarriage b : induced expulsion of a human fetus c : expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy â" compare contagious abortion
2 : monstrosity
3 : arrest of development (as of a part or process) resulting in imperfection; also : a result of such arrest
Look at definition number two.
So I'm wondering if someone can come up with an argument against abortion that doesn't hinge on defining a fetus as a person/being.
Well I'm wondering how, with all the technology, science, and knowledge that we have in this world, that we can consider terminating a pregnancy and not think of it as killing a child. The fetus even looks like a child only a few weeks along when seen with an ultrasound. That fetus IS going to be a human. A sperm MIGHT become a human, big, big, huge, difference.
Mothering/Parenting is some of the best times of a peoples lives. Sure it is tough sometimes, but they ultimately get more joy out of seeing their child develop and turn into a good adult. Sure the child uses lots of money during it's dependency, but that is a good trade off for 18+ years of happiness. Most mothers love their children, and abortion takes away that future source of love and happiness, ultimately making the parent's life more miserable.
And if they want a baby like you say, then they don't have to get an abortion, but if they don't want a baby they can have an abortion and when they want one they can still make another baby.
Also, abortion, like everything else, has it's risks. The birth control pill RU486 has been known to cause hemorrhaging, other procedures can cause major damage and infections, and in the most extreme cases death. While having a baby can kill the mother, there really is much less to it then abortion, making actual childbirth less risky than abortion.
Even if abortion was not legal woman would still have them(since they did when it was illegal), most people who would preform an abortion are in it for the money you can make and are not to concerned for the wellbeing of the woman, 'back alley' abortions are a lot more risky then any form of legal abortion.
So why go through the trouble of killing off your unborn baby when it could bring you happiness and increase your chance of living? If you really don't want to have a child, just give up for adoption. Also, there may be a link between abortion and breast cancer, making it even more risky.
Like I said, why have a baby in hopes that it could bring you happiness later, instead of having a baby when you know it will bring you happiness. And orphanages are crowded enough, putting a baby up for adoption will not mean it will get adopted, and life as an orphan is not so glamorous.
Even if abortion was not legal woman would still have them(since they did when it was illegal), most people who would preform an abortion are in it for the money you can make and are not to concerned for the wellbeing of the woman, 'back alley' abortions are a lot more risky then any form of legal abortion.
If I was pregnant and I knew that abortion was more dangerous than child birth, I'd probably just go through child birth. Even if I didn't want the kid, I could just give the kid up for adoption.
And orphanages are crowded enough, putting a baby up for adoption will not mean it will get adopted, and life as an orphan is not so glamorous.
I want some proof that orphanages are over-flowing. Also, I would prefer being an orphan on the street than being dead.
Like I said, why have a baby in hopes that it could bring you happiness later, instead of having a baby when you know it will bring you happiness.
Unless the mother can predict the future with 100% accuracy, than she can't know whether she'll be more happy with the aborted child or the child she kept.
All I'm trying to point out is that masturbation and abortion are totally different.
They are different, but not the principle behind why you think one is wrong and not the other.
Like, in order to have an abortion you either need to have sex (two humans of the opposite gender) or artificially inseminate first.
To go back to the poin I made about the fetus, a fetus is merely a clump of cells, and needs a female host in order to survive and grow. Therefore, it cannot become life on its own.
NO. Masturbating, pulling out, and wearing condoms PREVENT PREGNANCIES. abortions TERMINATE PREGNANCIES PREGNANCIES.
Either way you are still preventing a potential child from being born, which is what the whole point of your argument is.
Tell me then, if you don't object to abortion on the grounds it prevents a human being from forming, then on what grounds do you object to it?
Mothering/Parenting is some of the best times of a peoples lives. Sure it is tough sometimes, but they ultimately get more joy out of seeing their child develop and turn into a good adult.
That's making the assumption that children who would be aborted would end up happy children. A big if. The drop in the crime rate in the US in the 90s was due to the fact abortions had been legalised 20 years earlier. This gave women from very low income backgrounds the option to terminate unwanted pregnancies. The children who had previously been growing up in relative poverty and single parent households were 4 times more likely to end up in jail.
This pattern was mirrored in Romania in 1966. Their leader banned abortions in order to increase the birth rate, and as a result, a generation later, crime rates spiked as they had never done before.
Most mothers love their children, and abortion takes away that future source of love and happiness, ultimately making the parent's life more miserable.
That's a big if. Many women who desire abortions are not emotionally or financially able to raise a child effectively, leading to misery for both parent and infant, not happiness.
Even if I didn't want the kid, I could just give the kid up for adoption.
That;s easy to say, being a male, you don't have to go through 9 months of gestation, culminating in an excruciatingly painful experience. Not to mention the fact you'd probably have to give up your job or your place in school to do so.
Really I cannot see anyone being convinced by your argument, when there's so much at stake.
The drop in the crime rate in the US in the 90s was due to the fact abortions had been legalised 20 years earlier.
Or because people stopped using cocaine.
This pattern was mirrored in Romania in 1966.
At this time Romania's debt had also increased greatly (10 billion dollars), also, that was the era the Romanian Revolution occurred.
So I doubt ability to have an abortion has such a great effect on crime rate.
Many women who desire abortions are not emotionally or financially able to raise a child effectively
If they couldn't even afford to buy a condom, then they definitely won't be able to afford an abortion, making it completely irrelevant if abortions are legal or not. And if they were just to stupid to buy one, I truly feel sorry for them.
you don't have to go through 9 months of gestation, culminating in an excruciatingly painful experience
I would gladly take 9 months of major pain over death.
They are different, but not the principle behind why you think one is wrong and not the other.
Yes they are different. At least I try to explain myself and not just state "They are different, but not the principle behind why you think one is wrong and not the other."
Show how a sperm and a fetus are similar?
A sperm in its original condition is inside a testicle, where it is either expelled or dies.
A fetus in its original condition is inside the womb, where it develops into a full grown human.
A sperm and fetus are different masturbation is not abortion.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fetus
Main Entry: fe·tus
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin, act of bearing young, offspring; akin to Latin fetus newly delivered, fruitful - more at feminine
Date: 14th century
: an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually two months after conception to birth
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sperm
Main Entry: sperm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural sperm or sperms
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French esperme, sperme, from Late Latin spermat-, sperma, from Greek, literally, seed, from speirein to sow; probably akin to Armenian p'aratem I dispense
Date: 14th century
1 a : semen b : a male gamete; especially : spermatozoon 1
2 : a product of the sperm whale
A sperm is not a developing human.
Tell me then, if you don't object to abortion on the grounds it prevents a human being from forming, then on what grounds do you object to it?
I object to it because abortion is not a prevention of a child its the termination, death, killing of, a child.
You still haven't answered what it is called when a pregnant woman is killed...
First off, I did already say why. Second, with this logic then what whould happen if a farmer who is growing food is killed is considered murder, so with that logic pulling out a seed is murder.
A sperm in its original condition is inside a testicle, where it is either expelled or dies.
A fetus in its original condition is inside the womb, where it develops into a full grown human.
A sperm and fetus are different masturbation is not abortion.
We know that. Quit using this as an argument. The fact that they both end the potential life is what were trying to say. For an example, lets say there is a bomb at the end of a kids slide that will explode if the kid hits it. The kid injoys the ride, so he goes down often. Masterbation whould be like building a wall in front of the bomb stopping the kid from ever touching it, thus ending its potential to explode for that ride. But with abortion, the bomb was hit and the timer starts going down. So the bomb guys come and dissarm the bomb, thus it never explodes. You may argue that the kid touching the bomb is worse, but its better then exploding and either ruining the life of said kid or killing said kid.
Or because people stopped using cocaine.
People never stopped using cocaine for one thing. For another, in that very same link you posted, here is the theory I was referring to, which I find very convincing:
''Steven D. Levitt & JJ Donohue, as recounted in the book Freakonomics, hypothesised that the reason behind the sudden drop in crime in the early 1990s was due to the Roe v. Wade outcome in 1973 and the subsequent legalization of abortions. The poor and young women who did not want their babies were allowed to have abortions and thus stopped the birth of a generation of socioeconomically disadvantaged children being born into a life more inclined towards crime. The end of the crack epidemic in 1990 coincides with the time when all those born after the Roe v. Wade outcome would have been in their late teens, a time when young men enter their criminal prime. As the years passed, more and more children who would have been born into a life more inclined to crime were simply not there, and crime dropped nation wide. To test for causality rather than correlation, the statistics the authors compiled show that the 5 states which allowed abortions before Roe v. Wade (California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington) had their crime drop earlier than the rest of the country. Also the states with the higher rates of abortion had the larger crime drops and vice versa.''
So I doubt ability to have an abortion has such a great effect on crime rate.
Why exactly? If anything there should be a drop in crime in a time of national unrest where people pull together for a common goal, as seen in WW1/WW2 in all European countries.
At least I try to explain myself and not just state "They are different, but not the principle behind why you think one is wrong and not the other."
If you made any effort to understand what I am trying to explain this would be much easier. As it is, I either must assume you have reading difficulties or are just displaying a juvenile refusal to think critically.
Show how a sperm and a fetus are similar?
Physically, they are different, of course. With regards to this argument, they both have the potential for to become human, and they both rely on other entities to become human. In the sperm's case, they rely on the fertilisation of the ovum. In the fetus' case, they rely on the circulatory and respiratory system of the mother to survive and develop.
You can quote dictionary sites all you like, it doesn't change the foundation of your argument, which I have found to be quite unsound.
If they couldn't even afford to buy a condom, then they definitely won't be able to afford an abortion, making it completely irrelevant if abortions are legal or not.
Where I come from, abortions are available free off the state health service. Secondly abortions aren't that expensive, especially when you consider people will risk going into debt to get one. Thirdly, people don't get pregnant because they can't afford condoms. They get pregnant because they are young and irresponsible, or because condoms break. In neither case should the female involved have to raise a child she doesn't want.
And if they were just to stupid to buy one, I truly feel sorry for them.
If they were too stupid, as you claim, do you really think they are fit to raise a child?
I would gladly take 9 months of major pain over death.
The millions of women who get abortions every year tend to disagree.
I object to it because abortion is not a prevention of a child its the termination, death, killing of, a child.
At the stage at which abortions are legal, fetuses cannot be considered human, let alone be considered a child. Granted we are killing a living entity. However, consider that we kill animals on a daily basis, which have far more developed brains than any fetus. Does that mean we should give battery hens human rights?
If you made any effort to understand what I am trying to explain this would be much easier. As it is, I either must assume you have reading difficulties or are just displaying a juvenile refusal to think critically.
Funny I think the same thing of you. If you just read what I said you would find your arguments unsound.
Physically, they are different, of course. With regards to this argument, they both have the potential for to become human, and they both rely on other entities to become human. In the sperm's case, they rely on the fertilisation of the ovum. In the fetus' case, they rely on the circulatory and respiratory system of the mother to survive and develop.
Your argument is actually nonsensical, in order to have a fetus a sperm is required. I can't understand this illogical way of thinking.
Your argument is actually nonsensical, in order to have a fetus a sperm is required. I can't understand this illogical way of thinking.
So you can't understand that both a sperm and a fetus have the potential to become human and can't become human unassisted?
So you can't understand that both a sperm and a fetus have the potential to become human and can't become human unassisted?
No i do understand that. I was making a more subtle point in my post. FireflyIV didn't argue my point, he called me juvenile and stated I had some inability to read. So I did the same. I was wondering what the response would be. However I find it strange that I can't read yeah I am capable of typing English words and sentences.
A sperm in its original condition is inside a testicle, where it is either expelled or dies.
A fetus in its original condition is inside the womb, where it develops into a full grown human.
A sperm and fetus are different masturbation is not abortion.
I try to make it clear that in both there natural states a sperm and a fetus a far different.
-A fetus is a developing human. as agreed with by Merriam Webster's dictionary (maybe not the best source. Note that it doesn't argue that a fetus IS a human, but it does show a fetus is a developing human by definition which is unlike a sperm, this adds to the difference between killing a sperm and a fetus.)
-A fetus requires a womb to have become what it is, a fetus. Which would lead me to believe that after a natural pregnancy a fetus is becoming a fully grown child. If a fetus were incapable of becoming human in its natural state why would we have a procedure called abortion to destroy the fetus. There is no procedure to destroy sperm because they're not becoming fully grown humans.
-A fetus is a developed embryo and an embryo made of two parts a sperm and an ovum (egg). So destroying a fetus is much more than destroying a sperm.
-Sperm naturally die all the time, wet dreams, masturbation, and EVEN DURING NATURAL PREGNANCY, ONLY ONE SPERM LIVES AND FERTILIZES THE EGG, THE REST DIE. Getting a woman pregnant cannot equal abortion. Fetuses don't naturally die and require a human to kill it, even a female masturbating won't kill a fetus. I see a HUGE, HUGE, HUGE, difference between a sperm and a fetus.
People never stopped using cocaine for one thing. For another, in that very same link you posted, here is the theory I was referring to, which I find very convincing:
But cocaine use did drop after the crack epidemic ended. And the link also said:
"Probably the most important factor [in the drop in crime] was the change in drug markets -- that is, dealers no longer needed to fight over turf for selling the new product, because the boundary lines were now established."
As well as:
"There are four major factors in the drop in crime", he says. "No. 1 has been getting guns out of the hands of kids, No. 2 has been the shrinking of the crack markets and their institutionalization. Third is the robustness of the economy. There are jobs for kids now who might otherwise be attracted to dealing." In last place, Blumstein says, is the criminal justice response, or as he puts it, "incapacitation related to the growth of incarceration."
And I feel as if those four points (especially the one about more jobs) are more convincing.
If anything there should be a drop in crime in a time of national unrest where people pull together for a common goal, as seen in WW1/WW2 in all European countries.
War is different from revolution. Take, for example, the French Revolution. It was very violent, and the people were bickering amongst themselves as what to do and such. I don't think violence all around the country is going to lower crime rate.
Where I come from, abortions are available free off the state health service. Secondly abortions aren't that expensive, especially when you consider people will risk going into debt to get one. Thirdly, people don't get pregnant because they can't afford condoms. They get pregnant because they are young and irresponsible, or because condoms break. In neither case should the female involved have to raise a child she doesn't want.
1) The problem with that is that not everybody is where you're from. That's like saying just because one store is giving out free energy drink samples, stores all around the world are getting the same free samples.
2) Abortions can range anywhere from $300-$5000. That's pretty expensive to me.
3) Which is why sex before 16 is considered illegal, and why one of the most stressed things in sex ed. is abstinence is the only 100% effective way to not get pregnant. And condoms rarely break.
If they were too stupid, as you claim, do you really think they are fit to raise a child?
If they were that stupid, they shouldn't have been having sex in the first place.
The millions of women who get abortions every year tend to disagree.
If someone pulled on a gun on you and said "Live nine months in pain, or die." what would you do? Most people, as they don't want to die, would say they pick the nine months of pain, for the same reason hostages comply to what their captors say.
If someone pulled on a gun on you and said "Live nine months in pain, or die." what would you do? Most people, as they don't want to die, would say they pick the nine months of pain, for the same reason hostages comply to what their captors say.
This had no f***ing relevancy to abortions. Abortions don't kill the mother smart one.
Abortions hold the risk of death, in extreme cases. In this case, the gun is abortion. You don't know if it's actually loaded or not, but it certainly could be. Way to not be able to interpret analogies. >.>
You must be logged in to post a reply!