We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → The Abortion Argument - V2
| 160 | 18546 |
Yes, I realize that this thread already exists - 13 pages and over a month back.
I'd like to remake it, I don't see why an issue such as this should fall from our eye.
This time around I'd like to focus more around the legality and the taboo side of abortion. That doesn't mean we shouldn't still include the aspects of the original thread though.
Should abortion be kept away from the public eye? Or should it be something that we openly discuss?
Should abortion be legal everywhere? Under what circumstances? How could those circumstances be judged to be the right ones? Do we follow the 'lesser of two evils' idea or do we take a separate path?
I personally feel that abortion is a women's choice, if abortion is the best option in a situation then it should be the one that is taken. As a man I really have no say in what a woman does with her body. But what if I was going to be the father of a child she didn't want to give birth to? I'm not sure about those situations - should the father have equal say to the mother?
- 160 Replies
So you use this rule to say people should be treated fairly but you exclude babies so they can be killed?
I would rather die than be unloved by my parents. Plus, it isn't a baby. It's an embryo. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a a human embryo and a dog embryo.
Hm. I see where you got the idea. Majority Rules, but think of the fact that EVERY person, should have the CHOICE to do it or not. If it doesn't affect you, personally, then why care for it? People die every day due to car accidents, are you saying we should have cars only in cities that want cars? No. You know people have died in your city because of car accidents, but do you still want them out? No.
If you want to live somewhere were abortions are illegal, you should have that right unless every town and city has abortions legalized (due to popular demand). You say abortion is a choice, which it is, but murder is also a choice, should that be legalized?
The only difference between murder and abortion is that abortion involved killing a fetus that doesn't even look human before it is born. Even then, many people consider this murder.
The reason why the right to have an abortion should not be national law is not because of moral issues, but because government should not have that much control. We should have a right to control the laws in our towns and cities. If there is a town occupied mostly by Catholics who share a strong belief that abortion is wrong, then a doctor should not be allowed to move into the town and perform abortions when the majority of the people there are against it.
To a larger extent, the same remains true for states. I know plenty of atheists who are against abortion, it's not based off a system of religious beliefs, but off a moral system shared by people as a society.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, if we allow abortion to be decided by local laws, people who live in areas where abortions are illegal can always go somewhere were they are legal and have their abortion done there. That way, the town who's majority apposes abortion has their way, and the girl gets her way by having an abortion. The only downside is that the girl had to work harder to have her abortion.
The biggest reason why it should be up to the town as a whole is freedom to preserve culture. If there's a community of people who wish to live in a cultural area that reflects their beliefs, they should be allowed to live in said area.
Besides, would you kill one man, I'm talking about an actual person, not an embryo, to save one million other men? I sure as hell would.
Depending on the situation, probably not. There's a difference between killing one person to save a million lives, and killing thousands of fetuses to potentially save millions of lives. Not only that, but your question makes it seem as if I was the single person who had to make such a decision. With stem-cell research, people should be able to choose if they wish to participate in saving lives or not. Those who don't participate will not have blood on their hands (which, if I killed that one man or let the million die, the blood would be on my hands).
If a town/city/hospital does not want to get involved with stem-cell research or abortions, they should not be forced to get involved.
True there is a choice, as to what contraceptive you want to use before having sex.
That sounds like a pro-life argument. Either way, it's a straw man.
It's not a person. It is not capable of feelings, it is not capable of genuine though, and can't even comprehend what will happen to it. If it dies, it won't care because it didn't even exist as something that is capable of though.
This is where your code of morality differs from other people. I'm not here to debate if abortion is right or wrong, I'm hear to debate if national law is the answer, which it isn't.
Hm. I understand. You're saying that there shouldn't be a national law against abortion, nor should there be a law promoting abortion? No? The states have the right to choose if they want it or not.
I'm in favour of that. Sorry, I didn't really understand your earlier posts. Politics is the art of compromise, no?
Here is my statement argue this
In all cases except one involving rape, and any situation that could physically endanger the mother, abortion should be made nationally illegal.
Some say "what if she is to young to take care of the child"?
Well why should she not have to pay the consequences for her decision, if i buy a car that i can't afford and i don't pay it off will the gov. say, "sorry car company, tom can't pay it off, deal with it"? no they wont, i will be in serious debt, why is some teenage slut that made bad decisions any better than me?
Another is that it is killing a living thing, regardless to the law, Scientifically the baby is living, that is a fact, while it is in the mothers womb and to a certain developed age.
The argument that states should De-side? Well that's what people said about slavery, "its wrong to own a man" v.s. "Its OK to own a negro"
Now it changed to"it should be ok to kill a baby in the mother" v.s. "it is inhumane to kill a baby in the mother".
Lets play a word game, Lets make each groups name sound the worst and still reflect that groups feelings.
Pro-Life
into
The"we take freedoms away from women" group(i think that would be the worst re-name)
now for the Pro-Choice
how about the "we take scissors and knives and vacuums and mutilate a breathing baby while it is in the mother" group
Which one sounds worse to you?
Pro-life shows the choice but Pro-choice merely states that there is a choice because saying what that choice is is far to harsh to win supporters over.
Lets watch a video of an abortion v.s. the video of a birth, which one looks better to you?
If your into cut up baby all bloody falling out of a woman than its for you.
This is my argument, What is yours?
his is anywhere between 4 to 6 weeks.
wtf? really? Im pretty sure it was 9.... but ok I think I need to do some reading.
wtf? really? Im pretty sure it was 9.... but ok I think I need to do some reading.
I just went by what someone told me quite some time ago. I could be wrong with those numbers. If it isn't 4 to 6 weeks, please do post the right amount of time.
Well, it is wrong to force a woman to conceive a child she doesn't want. Women should have a choice, and there should be no law national law preventing or forcing a state, district, or city to have abortions.
Well, it is wrong to force a woman to conceive a child she doesn't want. Women should have a choice, and there should be no law national law preventing or forcing a state, district, or city to have abortions.
Ok than what if i think it is wrong to make a mother raise an already born child hmm? You have no reasons to back it up, if she doesn't have to have a child in her, why can't a mother say" i don't want to ramie this kid anymore, having him was a mistake"? why can't she just kill her 8yr child? how is that any different? Don't post an opinion without any backbone to it, that is just spam.
Ok than what if i think it is wrong to make a mother raise an already born child hmm? You have no reasons to back it up, if she doesn't have to have a child in her, why can't a mother say" i don't want to ramie this kid anymore, having him was a mistake"? why can't she just kill her 8yr child? how is that any different? Don't post an opinion without any backbone to it, that is just spam.
This little thing I like to call the brain. It is what makes us us. Without it, we mind as well be cabbages. In the fetus the brain is not fully developed nor functional, during the majority of the fetus's time as a fetus anyway. That is what is different from an eight year old child and a fetus.
314d1 that is debatable and will maybe never be resolved
:0 you never told me you were a cabbage!
Lmao that was good nurvan
Also while I am pro-choice, I would like to point out that just because the brain isn't fully developed it doesn't mean it's not alive.
314d1 that is debatable and will maybe never be resolved
:0 you never told me you were a cabbage!
Ha. Ha. Ha.
There are several ways I could think of to test, but they all have a possibility of failing. On that premises, I will have to go with assumptions. Do to the fact that there brain is extremely small, it could not preform basic functions properly. It can not properly observe anything and its thoughts could take no form, even if it had thought.
There are several ways I could think of to test, but they all have a possibility of failing. On that premises, I will have to go with assumptions. Do to the fact that there brain is extremely small, it could not preform basic functions properly. It can not properly observe anything and its thoughts could take no form, even if it had thought.
So, what do you propose we do with those who have already been born but have severe brain trauma?
So, what do you propose we do with those who have already been born but have severe brain trauma?
I do not get what you mean.
How would there thoughts form? Then know no language. They haven't seen any images. There would be nothing there thoughts could take the form of.
The brain is to small at most stages to think any more than a rat can. If that. The brain is simply to small and undeveloped.
You must be logged in to post a reply!