We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → The Abortion Argument - V2
| 160 | 18547 |
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
Correction: Not 0.009% but ~9%. My apologies for my oversight and haste which led to the error, and the requisite double post needed to correct the error.
In my eyes pro choice and pro-abortion are on the same side. Both allow it to go on.
Majority is majority, no matter what way you look at it. The US has a utilitarian government, which more or less chooses the majority.
Have you ever thought that some were repeated offenses? I'm sure most were. If not 1 out of 10 random people you see are burglars.
And P.S. I never used "forcible intercourse" as an example. Murder and burglary was used for the point that the government is in the "regulating morality" business.
Majority is majority, no matter what way you look at it. The US has a utilitarian government
Although this is true to a degree, we rarely view 51% a majority, and if you look at our legal system a jury of 12 has to reach a 100% majority to gain a conviction, so 51% is a far cry there.
Have you ever thought that some were repeated offenses? I'm sure most were.
In order to lend credence to your fallacious argument I did not make that point, but since you make it for me, thank you. In fact it is estimated that ~30% are repeat offenders, which would in fact narrow that margin to barely over 7% of the population, hence widening the gap between the comparison you put forth in correlation to my position.
If not 1 out of 10 random people you see are burglars.
Close. Statistically speaking it would be closer to 1 in 12. However that would be under the assumption that none of them are incarcerated.
I never used "forcible intercourse" as an example.
No you didn't. That argument was put forth by a previous participant in the debate. I continue to use it as it points out that situations in which we KNOW only a miniscule percentage of the population are in support of an action are used in comparison with situations where there is in fact a large percentage of the population in support of it.
The simple fact remains that in cases where government is left to decide morals for it's citizens there needs to be much more than a 51% population in favor of for the governing body to have any hope of successfully imposing it's position.
And regarding abortion there is not that kind of support. And might I remind you that the government has deemed abortion to be a woman's right? Or did you forget about Roe v. Wade back in the 70s?
Morals are what defines crimes. It is totally not out of context. One is a crime, the other is not. One is wrong, the other is right. I don't know how to explain it to you, it's pretty simple.
From a religious standpoint it is wrong... But in this case i think religion is wrong. And im not going to put my two-cents into the above debate, because im not really part of that particular arguement under this thread. Anyways to continue.
To those who said that abortion shouldn't be allowed to happen, your basically saying that if a girl is walking home, gets r'aped, and then finds out shes pregnant a couple weeks later... Your saying that she isn't entitled to abort the baby? She should have to keep it, give birth to it, and have a child that will probably remind her of one the most tramatic and horrifying expereinces in her life, for the rest of her life. Or just end up giving it to adoption, which in turn can end up leaving it with an even worse life?? I dont mean to say that people should use abortion as a way of preventing babies (like a condom), but it should be there for those people who have, and cant afford to have a baby at this time in there lives... (or if the woman was r'aped)
Q: your basically saying that if a girl is walking home, gets r'aped, and then finds out shes pregnant a couple weeks later... Your saying that she isn't entitled to abort the baby
its called adoption have you seen an abortion the insert a spinning blade that cuts and sucks out the babys brain have an adoption its a life they have there place in hell the abortionist murder is wrong and our flipin president is a flipin mex who jjumped over the border and like murder enjoys it turnd down help with the oil spill abortion is wrong and murder if you where aborted and lived by the grace of god you wouldhave hated abortion
but your blind to see that its a horible thing how about you go to youtube and look up an abortion its murder they cant pull the baby fully out because it then would be alive
Then by that argument you sir are a mass murderer. Every day you kill life. Your body destroys a multitude of cells, both from within your body, and that enter your body from the environment. How callous of you to think that you have the right to kill life. In fact by that argument every living creature on the planet is a murderer and should be punished accordingly, since they are wrong, wrong, wrong.
But what you're speaking to is a natural form of death. This arguement has no weight when it comes to abortion because abortions go against the nature of the world.
But what you're speaking to is a natural form of death. This arguement has no weight when it comes to abortion because abortions go against the nature of the world.
Really? Let's look at some medical terms here.
Abortion:
Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo, resulting in or caused by its death.
Miscarriage:
A miscarriage is the spontaneous abortion of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)
Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include:
* Complete abortion: All of the products of conception exit the body
* Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception exit the body
* Inevitable abortion: The symptoms cannot be stopped, and a miscarriage will happen
* Infected abortion: The lining of the womb, or uterus, and any remaining products of conception become infected
* Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not exit the body
May I also point out:
Early after implantation, pregnancy loss rate is about 30% (i.e. this is still before a pregnancy is clinically recognised). After a pregnancy may be clinically recognised (between days 35-50), about 25% will end in miscarriage.- Women's Health UK
Seems like "abortion" is actually extremely common in the natural world. Abortions don't go against the natural world as you say. They go against your morals which, I'm sorry to say, are limited to you and you alone and have no real bearing on the rest of the natural world.
But is it really natural to stick a tube into a uterus and suck a baby out?
Seems like "abortion" is actually extremely common in the natural world. Abortions don't go against the natural world as you say. They go against your morals which, I'm sorry to say, are limited to you and you alone and have no real bearing on the rest of the natural world.
You're twisting definitions to suit your purposes. Let me explain what I mean by the term natural death. That is a death without any human, or artificial interference. If I kill a man, that is an unnatural death. If a man dies from old age that is a natural death. You kill an unborn child, regardless of what stage that fetus is in, THAT is unatural.
Ahh, but if a mothers body rejects an embryo and aborts it then surely that is killing it - which according to you is unnatural.
It would be if the mother is able to control it. But humans don't have the ability to control those things. Nature does.
I was talking about the mothers body without her taking or doing anything to effect it.
You must be logged in to post a reply!