We may use cookies to help customize your experience, including performing
analytics and serving ads.
Learn More
Forums → WEPR → Abortion: Right or Wrong?
| 637 | 68725 |
This topic is based upon your personal opinion on whether abortion is wrong or right. I personally believe that it is wrong, and have many reasons for it. You may challenge me if you wish, but please make sense!
- 637 Replies
Aren't most aborted fetuses donated to science anyway?
That may be true, but I have not dug deep into scientific study of aborted eggs, or scientific study of donated eggs, either.
Giving birth to a child you can't take care of properly, is also, pretty useless.
Then the mother can give it to someone who CAN take proper care of the baby.
And about the overpopulation subject: that does not make abortion any more right. Besides, before abortion was legal overpopulation wasn't an extreme problem. All of a sudden that is brought into the debate.
If abortion were made illegal or if it weren't available, mothers who don't want a baby would much more often stop taking the risk of pregnancy.
Therefore, is overpopulation REALLY logical in this discussion?
No, condoms are worn over the penis to stop the sperm from entering the woman. Also, they are typically equipped with spermicide, a drug which kills sperm. I might also add that sperm is human life, ergo condoms kill human life.
Sorry, that was an error! What I did mean was that it was worn to keep the sperm cells from entering the woman's body.
Sperm is not human life until it joins the egg cell of the mother and conceives; therefore condoms do not kill human life, they kill cells.
So that particular point was incorrect.
And therefore, condoms are not wrong because they only prevent human life from conception; they do not kill human life because sperm is not human life.
Then the mother can give it to someone who CAN take proper care of the baby.
I don't think adoption is the most popular way of getting a baby, its not people are lining up at orphanages, and that the orphanages are shutting down due to lack of orphans
If abortion were made illegal or if it weren't available, mothers who don't want a baby would much more often stop taking the risk of pregnancy.
Outlawing abortions just push expectant mothers in to more underground, non-regulated "back alley abortion clinics" where they have a higher chance of them dieing along with the baby.
Therefore, is overpopulation REALLY logical in this discussion?
Orphan overpopulation, yes.
Sperm is not human life until it joins the egg cell of the mother and conceives; therefore condoms do not kill human life, they kill cells.
Your views on when life starts are not shared by everyone, sperm cells are just as human as fetus's
Then the mother can give it to someone who CAN take proper care of the baby.
And about the overpopulation subject: that does not make abortion any more right. Besides, before abortion was legal overpopulation wasn't an extreme problem. All of a sudden that is brought into the debate.
If abortion were made illegal or if it weren't available, mothers who don't want a baby would much more often stop taking the risk of pregnancy.
Therefore, is overpopulation REALLY logical in this discussion?
Or the people who CAN take care of people could CARE for the thousands already up for adoption instead of the tens of thousands more that would be introduced. Yes, overpopulation is logical to this discussion....
The people will just end up getting unsafe illegal abortions or strive for miscarriage. They could also put the baby in over crowded adoption centers, also not a good thing.
Sperm is not human life until it joins the egg cell of the mother and conceives; therefore condoms do not kill human life, they kill cells.
So that particular point was incorrect.
And therefore, condoms are not wrong because they only prevent human life from conception; they do not kill human life because sperm is not human life.
Fetus are also only potential human life. There is a good potential that the baby could have a miscarriage. Abortion is also only preventing potential human life. As I have said before, a fetus is only one step closer than a sperm and egg.
Then the mother can give it to someone who CAN take proper care of the baby.
adoption homes/ whatever are crowded as is... sure lets deny this kid of real parents! or maybe no parents at all! YAY!
And therefore, condoms are not wrong because they only prevent human life from conception; they do not kill human life because sperm is not human life.
i aree, but there's nothing wrong with it to begin with unless you consider the 'seed', the sperm, to be the work of god or as a person.
And about the overpopulation subject: that does not make abortion any more right. Besides, before abortion was legal overpopulation wasn't an extreme problem. All of a sudden that is brought into the debate.
your kidding right? regardless of abortion, overpopulation is a HUGE problem to modern earth and in the future. look at China and india, they have massive populations, and in china they have a massive workforce and a 1-birth law, as noted in another thread. it is quite difficult to supply all of these with a good paying job, which is why they must accept a very low-paying one.
China is just an example, and also look at Japan. Japan has a large population and suffers from severe population overcrowding. it just simply isn't possible for such a small island to both have enough housing for such a large population and the land to grow food for it.
And therefore, condoms are not wrong because they only prevent human life from conception; they do not kill human life because sperm is not human life.
You keep going on and on about human life but have yet to give a definition. I provided you several times with what I believe constitutes human life, why don't you do the same. That way we can debate from eachother's perspective instead of you stating opinion, me posting facts, and you trying to disprove them. That cycle isn't a debate hon, and if you just want to espouse your personal opinions as fact without offering up your definitions and actually debating then I have no reason to keep talking to you.
oh, to add to that, overpopulation also leads to large-scale poverty, as exhibited in parts of China and India.
Outlawing abortions just push expectant mothers in to more underground, non-regulated "back alley abortion clinics" where they have a higher chance of them dieing along with the baby.
Even then, it is the mother's fault if she dies because she took the risk. It was her option.
And when there is a risk of dying along with the baby, and when abortion is illegal, abortion percentage would still most likely go down by A LOT.
If the mother, then, must have abortion in this way, as I said, smart mothers would not even take the risk.
Fetus are also only potential human life. There is a good potential that the baby could have a miscarriage. Abortion is also only preventing potential human life. As I have said before, a fetus is only one step closer than a sperm and egg.
Why are you talking about fetus? A fetus is created AFTER the father's sperm joins the mother's egg cell. I am talking about when condoms kill sperm.
Think of it this way: The sperm is one half, the egg is the other. When they join, it creates a whole, and that is when conception occurs. Before conception, neither the egg or the sperm are human life yet.
So, killing sperm is not killing human life.
sure lets deny this kid of real parents! or maybe no parents at all! YAY!
Would you rather they be dead? I would rather not have parents than be dead.
BTW, when I say "overpopulation" I am referring to orphan overpopulation.
You keep going on and on about human life but have yet to give a definition.
Human life begins when conception occurs.
It may not be human life in your opinion, but I think that it is human life. At the very least, it will be human life in the future.
Human life is not senses; it is not having a brain, sight, smell, hearing, feeling... It is when the baby is forming in the mother's womb.
Even then, it is the mother's fault if she dies because she took the risk. It was her option.
And when there is a risk of dying along with the baby, and when abortion is illegal, abortion percentage would still most likely go down by A LOT.
Damage to a person is not usually the bases for a law, and just because it goes down does not mean it will be eliminated, their will always be desperate people who will go through any means to be rid of their pre-baby.
Why are you talking about fetus? A fetus is created AFTER the father's sperm joins the mother's egg cell. I am talking about when condoms kill sperm.
In the same way you turn 20 after you turn 17, it happens in that order but not immediately, a fetus is created 9 weaks after fertilization, not on contact.
Would you rather they be dead? I would rather not have parents than be dead.
They would not care if they were dead, or able, but yes, lots would rather be dead, and lots commit suicide.
Human life is not senses; it is not having a brain, sight, smell, hearing, feeling... It is when the baby is forming in the mother's womb.
What makes it a human? What makes us human, and not just another animal? Our brain capacity, to name one thing.
Even then, it is the mother's fault if she dies because she took the risk. It was her option.
And when there is a risk of dying along with the baby, and when abortion is illegal, abortion percentage would still most likely go down by A LOT.
If the mother, then, must have abortion in this way, as I said, smart mothers would not even take the risk
But some potential mothers do, in other countries. Why make it illegal and put these people in danger?
Why are you talking about fetus? A fetus is created AFTER the father's sperm joins the mother's egg cell. I am talking about when condoms kill sperm.
And I am speaking of when the fetus is aborted. Neither is a person. One is just a little closer to being human than the other.
Think of it this way: The sperm is one half, the egg is the other. When they join, it creates a whole, and that is when conception occurs. Before conception, neither the egg or the sperm are human life yet.
So, killing sperm is not killing human life.
Think of it this way. When the parents have sex, they are getting the leggos. When the fetus is a fetus, the leggos are being put into place. Neither is a house yet, one is just a little closer to being complete.
Would you rather they be dead? I would rather not have parents than be dead.
You can't be dead if you were never alive.
It may not be human life in your opinion, but I think that it is human life. At the very least, it will be human life in the future.
It MAY be human life in the future, same as a sperm cell or an egg cell.
Human life is not senses; it is not having a brain, sight, smell, hearing, feeling... It is when the baby is forming in the mother's womb.
Any life that is worth anything has to have conciseness. The senses are also important, though less so. That is your definition of what makes a "human" but it isn't the definition shared by many others...
You can't be dead if you were never alive
I'm pretty sure if something has growing cells, it is alive
Anyways, whether the fetus is 'human life' or not doesn't matter, we all know it is going to be human life and destroying it denies that to-be-human of life.
I'm pretty sure if something has growing cells, it is alive
You could say that the cells are the mother's, not the fetus's.
Anyways, whether the fetus is 'human life' or not doesn't matter, we all know it is going to be human life and destroying it denies that to-be-human of life.
A condom denies life as well.
You could say that the cells are the mother's, not the fetus's
yes, but if it were, then the fetus wouldn't exist. you refer to the fetus as something, meaning it obviously must be some type of thing, and then you turn around and say its the mother's. i know you said 'you could say', but just pointing that out.
well clearly it is not the mother's as the cell's DNA i half the father's ( one cell splits it's DNA in half, and then splits, similar to cell splitting but downgraded...) and the other half is the mother's, the egg. so no, it couldn't belong to the mother's body if it had different DNA, as then it wouldn't be identical to the mother's cells.
A condom denies life as well
And what's your point. I never said that it didn't.
You must be logged in to post a reply!