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?
It can also grow up to become a horrible mass murderer. In my opinion, its potential has no value in the discussion as there is no way to know if it will be good, bad or indifferent. It can grow and become a sentient fellow human. It isn't one yet.
Point well taken.
Amusing stance. Overpopulation does not cause animals to eat us, though, so I don't really know what you meant to say there. [quote]Contribute? Food and company, mostly.
What I'm saying is the more populated they get they go into the cities, towns, etc. and they will eat you and could possibly dominate the world 0.0, you don't really think about it like that, but without hunters, it would happen.
FOOD and company. Exactly, FOOD, how do you get the food? Kill it. Who eats children? Cannibalism is illegal allot of places buddy. So you basically contradicted yourself and proved me right there, thanks.
What I'm saying is the more populated they get they go into the cities, towns, etc. and they will eat you and could possibly dominate the world 0.0, you don't really think about it like that, but without hunters, it would happen.
Don't humans work their way into wildlife's living areas a lot more than the other way around? Deforesting and such, compared to rats and other "ests" living off of our waste in the cities? There's not gonna be an abundance of predators large enough to take out humans, because humans take out the areas they use to multiply in beforehand. And not because we calmly hunt down an excess of threatening species. But that's tangential to the topic. Interesting tangent, though.
FOOD and company. Exactly, FOOD, how do you get the food? Kill it. Who eats children? Cannibalism is illegal allot of places buddy. So you basically contradicted yourself and proved me right there, thanks.
I'm a vegetarian, so I'm not contradicting my stance as far as I can see. Not all food obtained from animals require their death (milk, eggs (most animals providing those are treated badly, though)), and I forgot to mention wool... Mankind haven't yet made animals that plead to be eaten, so they don't actually willingly contribute with the meat. We just use them.
Going from that and back on topic: In a way, I can argue that we don't have the right to do things just because we can and they're convenient... Which sounds "ro-life", and probably is, but I do think abortion should be a possibility - albeit a last resort and not just a casual solution that becomes the standard response to an "oops".
Well that would count for the unborn infants too. Some things were just not meant to be, and if you don't think it's fair... too bad. Nothing else is. Why should they be an exception?
If the woman was raped, then she would definitely be allowed abortion because she would be bearing the baby of a man she doesn't love.
But still, Abortion is pretty cruel because your killing a child that can't even think yet, that child could have been a brilliant scientist, a strong weight lifter, or anything the child would have wanted. But no, you killed it, it couldn't even fight back. So honestly, I'm well against it.
If the woman was *****, then she would definitely be allowed abortion because she would be bearing the baby of a man she doesn't love.
A better reason would be that she'd bear the child of a man who seriously violated her. With your reason a one night stand gone wrong (popped condom or too drunk/stupid to remember using it) is the same.
But still, Abortion is pretty cruel because your killing a child that can't even think yet, that child could have been a brilliant scientist, a strong weight lifter, or anything the child would have wanted. But no, you killed it, it couldn't even fight back.
It could have become many horrible things too. Potential greatness is an awful argument, because the potential serial killers that have been aborted, well, it's not that bad a thing they were, is it? Potential can't be proven. It could develop into a fellow human being, but whether it'd be good, bad or just another one in the masses shouldn't make a difference in the abortion decision.
And I don't think disposing of an embryo that is gonna be leeching resources can be compared to killing a baby. It isn't one yet.
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, argumentum ad hominem, argumentum ad misericundiam, post hoc ergo propter hoc, and argumentation from unfair generalisation. Also especially tertium non datur, and perhaps a bit of ignoratio elenchi. I have learned new words. Anyway, these arguments on adoption often seem to end up like a lot of argumentativeness mistakes.
Okay. To argument from an ignoring position (that is, you argue that something is true/false if you have failed to prove the opposite. (All swans are white, because I have seen no other colours)), humiliating argumentation (you are trying to humiliate the opponent instead of actually argue your case), use and unfair appeal to pity (trying to get the opponent or onlookers to feel pity for either you or the case to win them over), argue from a false cause (trying to show a link between cause and effect that isn't there (I ate an apple every day for the last 20 years, and now I have stomach cancer, it must be the apple that caused it)), unfair generalisation (generalisation made from a wrong point, fx), flawed count of conclusions/forgetting the third part (generally it is black/white vision of things, forgetting there can be nuances) and last argumentation from an irrelevant conclusion.
But... Murder disrupts. Murder takes out what is (hopefully) a functioning member of society. It affects the entire social circle of the victim, as well as whoever gained something from the work they did, if any.
Replace a few words in there and you have my view of abortion :P
Abortion disrupts. Abortion takes away the potential from what well became (hopefully) a functioning member of society. It affects the entire future social circle of the victim, as well as whoever would have gained something from the work they were going to do, if any.
Murder takes away the present while abortion takes away the future.
The rights of unborn children are something I've never looked into, can someone elaborate on what is generally considered a right for them and when?
The ultimate question. Well I believe that as son as there some diplodidity going on in the uterus the child earns the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Replace a few words in there and you have my view of abortion :P
Embryos do not have social circles, and are not contributing anything to society yet. But if you want to base your opinion on the subject on what can be and not what is, fair enough. I'll just disagree.
Abortion does not take anything away from the future, it prevents it from ever happening. Something else will happen instead. It is impossible to judge whether it'd be better or worse.
The ultimate question. Well I believe that as son as there some diplodidity going on in the uterus the child earns the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So it's something pretty basic that we disagree on, then. As long as it can't survive outside the womb, it doesn't have any rights of its own in my opinion. I can see the point of your opinion, I just can't agree with it. :/
So it's something pretty basic that we disagree on, then. As long as it can't survive outside the womb, it doesn't have any rights of its own in my opinion. I can see the point of your opinion, I just can't agree with it. :/
This is fair as I can equally see your point. Which is why if there was a definitive answer to your question we would have an answer to the issue of abortion.
Abortion does not take anything away from the future, it prevents it from ever happening. Something else will happen instead. It is impossible to judge whether it'd be better or worse.
Agreed; I just believe that everyone deserves a chance at least. Personally I'm super pro-adoption but that might come from the fact that I was adopted. ;]
Note, as Strop has said somewhere (If I remember correctly): There is no such things as "human rights", there are only norms that at least the Western part of the world has agreed on.
Note, as Strop has said somewhere (If I remember correctly): There is no such things as "human rights", there are only norms that at least the Western part of the world has agreed on.
I usually think of it as "legal rights", as we don't really have any rights beyond what those with more power decide we have. But good point.
Agreed; I just believe that everyone deserves a chance at least. Personally I'm super pro-adoption but that might come from the fact that I was adopted. ;]
I support adoption for sure, I just don't think it's reasonable to force a woman to bear and give birth to a child with laws. If her morals make her decide to carry it even if she knows she'll have to give it up for adoption (or leave it with the father 'cause they broke up or something and he wants it while she doesn't (or any number of other scenarios)), good on her. I just hate the idea of being legally obligated to carry something for 9 months because of an accident, or birth control not working, or even rape.
This is fair as I can equally see your point. Which is why if there was a definitive answer to your question we would have an answer to the issue of abortion.
And the lack of that definitive answer is a major part of why this is even so discussed~ It's kinda funny in some unfunny way, really.
Sidenote: Adoption and abortion are too similar in their spelling.
