Forums → WEPR → Abortion
| 1508 | 314870 |
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
@Jefferyinspiration:
Well, my sister had a friend that messed up or whatever and ended up getting an abortion, so I wanted to include that also.
Oh it happens, i know it does.
But even if they do get pregnant from fooling around and have an abortion, it's whatever, it's their choice.
I know. That's why I'm kind of mid-way in between it. And if anything, it's more of a responsibility issue. Either way, it causes a lot of problems, it costs a lot of money and an infant dies because of that mistake. It's their choice completely, but that doesn't mean I can't still disagree with it.
In cases of **** or something like that, I think it is ok. But otherwise, I don't think it is that great of an idea. But it is the mother's choice.
BTW, don't tell any of this to my grandma. She would disown me. =P
it causes a lot of problems, it costs a lot of money and an infant dies because of that mistake
The end bit would tie in with the if the baby isn't developed is it really an infant argument. Although i'm totally with you on the cost issue.
Although these figures are 2007/2008
The National Coalition of Abortion providers estimates that the average cost of an abortion performed in the first trimester is around $350, while the average cost of a second trimester abortion grows to about $2,500. The research group Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) estimated that the total annual cost of all abortions performed in the United States is around $980 million.
Ehow.
I know it's different in every country, but America was the quickest cost i could find.
In terms of the morals argument let's keep in mind that the vast majority of western countries have majority Christian populations, this results in a system of government that is run by those with Christian morals, which while not a bad thing, still holds true for Avorne's argument that the decisions is coming not from ones own choices but those of 2,000 year old book.
And to be honest I've heard many arguments for pro-life, but in the end they tend to boil down to,
"I don't support it because it's a sin."
@Jefferysinspiration:
Okay, then a fetus. Either way, the fetus would have developed into an infant, and so on and so forth, if the abortion was avoided. An entire life was abruptly ended because a mother "slept with the wrong guy" or whatever the excuse is; it just doesn't seem right to me.
And to be honest I've heard many arguments for pro-life, but in the end they tend to boil down to,
"I don't support it because it's a sin"
Oh god yeah, you get a lot of anti-abortionists having only one argument and that is 'thou shall not kill'.
It's understandable, that being their beliefs and all, but i think to be truly against it, you need to take a lot more than religion into consideration.
Exactly, I cannot respect a pro-life argument if they're trying to enforce it with religious views in a nation where religious freedom is one of the principles of its founding.
Slightly off-topic:
I was watching a comedian over the weekend who claimed to be anti-abortion, because of the chance of that baby curing cancer or being the next Einstein, etc. However there should be a 22 year late abortion window just in case you can tell that they won't be amounting to anything.
I found that hilarious to be honest.
However there should be a 22 year late abortion window just in case you can tell that they won't be amounting to anything.
Lulz - My brother says this about me all the time :|
I don't think that abortion is murder like some do. Yes you are taking another persons' life but at that young age you aren't taking something from that baby. I mean that it has nothing to loose.
If you are in no condition to take care of the child it's wrong to let it live. If you can't take care of it economically or maturely, the child will just suffer.
Also, if you look at the world we don't need more people living here.
It may sound rough and heartless but the population is growing in a fast pace. A bit too fast actually.
On a side note, wow 1,400 people have commented this thread that is a lot!
If you are in no condition to take care of the child it's wrong to let it live. If you can't take care of it economically or maturely, the child will just suffer.
Not necessarily true. I'm pro choice but the child can be given up for adoption and still have a good life.
Also, if you look at the world we don't need more people living here.
It may sound rough and heartless but the population is growing in a fast pace. A bit too fast actually
Overpopulation s a worrying problem in the world, but babies do need to be born, to keep the human race alive.
Overpopulation s a worrying problem in the world, but babies do need to be born, to keep the human race alive.
Call me thoughtless but population control is a great thing.
Not necessarily true. I'm pro choice but the child can be given up for adoption and still have a good life.
You mean on the slight chance that it isn't shunted into foster care and spends the rest of it's life jumping from home to home?
Not necessarily true. I'm pro choice but the child can be given up for adoption and still have a good life.
We've said it time and time again - adoption agencies would NOT be able to cope with the massive influx of children. They struggle already to find good, stable homes for adoptees.
Overpopulation s a worrying problem in the world, but babies do need to be born, to keep the human race alive.
So? What's your point? There are millions and millions of children born every year to happy/willing/economically stable parents who can take good care of them. Bringing down the total number of births to something more manageable won't destroy the human race - massive overpopulation, however, could do just that given enough time.
Do not feed the troll.
massive overpopulation, however, could do just that given enough time.
If I remember currently, there was a thread a while back in which we established that the Earth with it's current population was well over carrying capacity.
You must be logged in to post a reply!