Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278398 |
Is abortion ok? I donât think so. The babies that these people are killing is wrong, some people say that itâs not a person that itâs a bag of cells or a fetus and not really human being I have to disagree
Please debate
- 867 Replies
The shedding of innocent blood
same blood as the mother.
because it is morally and ethically wrong
it's neither morally or ethically wrong.
or is it morally and ethically wrong to mastrubate aswell?
plus it is against the laws of the land to kill.
except that abortion is not a kill.
it is aborting a natural process that might turn out to live in the future.
it is not alive in the 1st few stages.
The shedding of innocent blood, and because it is morally and ethically wrong, plus it is against the laws of the land to kill.
Uh huh. You know, a woman on her period is 'shedding innocent blood' and averting potential life. Solution? Keep her pregnant. NOTHING could possibly go wrong with the population!
Also, it is averting potential life if you masturbate. Should we ban this too?
The shedding of innocent blood,
The others have already mentioned.. it depends whose blood you mean, and what you mean by shedding. By that definition, squashing flies becomes a morally condemnable crime while choking a person to death is no problem.
and because it is morally and ethically wrong, plus it is against the laws of the land to kill.
Laws can be changed. Morals and ethics are probably the best reason you gave, although you still have to specify why it is morally and ethically wrong.
Sorry, of course you're right, if it is prohibited in your country to abort then that's a very good reason for individuals not to do it
What I don't get is people who support abortion but not capital punishment. Oh yeah its cool to kill babies but not a grow adult who knowingly committed a crime.
What I don't get is people who support abortion but not capital punishment. Oh yeah its cool to kill babies but not a grow adult who knowingly committed a crime.
A red herring, if an interesting comparison. Most of the opposition that I support in regards to being against capital punishment is that the person may not be guilty and that the entire process cost exceeds paying for life in prison. It's not economical or ethical.
Whereas abortion, it's a developing person inside of another person. If the woman doesn't want that in her, to go through the nine months of pregnancy, social stigma, child-birthing and then recovery, not to mention either raising it or putting it up for adoption, I don't think it's right to force her to do such.
As we have said many times over the course of the thread, there are other reasons involved too.
Whereas abortion, it's a developing person inside of another person. If the woman doesn't want that in her, to go through the nine months of pregnancy, social stigma, child-birthing and then recovery, not to mention either raising it or putting it up for adoption, I don't think it's right to force her to do such.It may be her body, but why does she have the right to destroy life, or the potential for life? If a woman doesnt want children, use protection or stay abstinent. It's not far to that life to say oh yeah i dont want you. As for the death penalty you didnt mention why it was not ethical. You are right about the economical reason, something I think needs to be change (give the convicted 1 chance to appeal). Even if it remains far more expensive then life in prison, money should not be more important then justice.
It may be her body, but why does she have the right to destroy life, or the potential for life?
Because it's growing in her. Because it can't survive outside of her. Because she's the one who has to lug it around. Because of exactly how much of a change it will make.
If a woman doesnt want children, use protection or stay abstinent.
If that fails? If she's *****? If she makes a stupid mistake? If the situation changes? If she finds out that it's going to have severe birth defects that will probably result in its early death? If it's going to have a life-impacting mental illness that will require her to take care of it for its entire life? If its found that a previously unknown of hereditary disease the parents carried was passed onto that child?
It's far too individual. No one should have the right to force a woman to go through with a pregnancy that she doesn't want. It should be her choice. I'm all for contraception and giving the mother options to help raise the child. But if she doesn't want it, well, that's her choice.
It's not far to that life to say oh yeah i dont want you.
That life won't ever know. It isn't aware. At the time for legal abortions, it is not conscious. It has no social attachments. It cannot survive outside the womb. As far as logical thought goes, it is the equivalent of a tumor that will eventually become a member of society if carried to term. I'm not saying it's not human, I'm saying that there's more than enough reason for it to be the woman's choice.
Now, if there were a way to remove the baby without scarring and let it continue to grow somehow if the mother didn't want it, I'd be advocating for that. Abortion is the best option and has no downsides other than the regretful loss of another potential human being, of which this planet could do with less of.
As for the death penalty you didnt mention why it was not ethical.
Because there's always the doubt that the accused is actually innocent, or could have been rehabilitated/contributed to society in some way.
money should not be more important then justice.
Why is killing someone for killing someone else justice? Then you have two dead people instead of one, or more. It doesn't make anything better. Eye for an eye leaves the world blind. Often said, but rarely followed. We want to appease our sense of outrage. Capital punishment is like giving a medal to a dead soldier, comfort for the people grieving. It doesn't actually change anything.
Because it's growing in her. Because it can't survive outside of her. Because she's the one who has to lug it around. Because of exactly how much of a change it will make.An infant child can't survive on his/her own. Someone needs to take care of it. By your logic would be ok to kill that infant?
If she makes a stupid mistake?She will know the consequences of her actions. If she truly doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption and hopefully she would ever make that mistake again.
If she finds out that it's going to have severe birth defects that will probably result in its early death?I'm gonna give you that one because if that child is sickly or is endangering the mothers life then its better to be aborted.
If it's going to have a life-impacting mental illness that will require her to take care of it for its entire life?So because it will have a life-impacting mental illness, it should be killed? Is this nazi germany were eugenics is practiced?
That life won't ever know. It isn't aware.If i slit your throat in your sleep you wont be aware, but that doesnt mean i should kill you.
As far as logical thought goes, it is the equivalent of a tumor that will eventually become a member of society if carried to term.A tumor cant become a human life.
Now, if there were a way to remove the baby without scarring and let it continue to grow somehow if the mother didn't want it, I'd be advocating for that.Adoption is an option. If that woman had consenual sex, she will have to bear those 9 months. Give up the child to an orphanage so he/she can at least have a life.
rehabilitated/contributed to society in some way.Very few murderers contribute to society. Very few.
there's always the doubt that the accused is actually innocentThat is true, and I personally only support it in cases where guilt has been established. Out of curiosity, if someones guilt had been absolutely established and they committed a heinous act eg.(Sandy Hook, Aurora) and we lived in a society where money was not an issue, would you support the death penalty.
Why is killing someone for killing someone else justice?Deterrence for future crimes, the removal of an evil and sadistic person from society, and justice for the family and friends of the victim(s) and the victim(s) himself/herself.
Eye for an eye leaves the world blind.That murderer choose when his victim would die. His victim did not have a choice. His victim did not have a chance to live there life. Why should he.
What I don't get is people who support abortion but not capital punishment. Oh yeah its cool to kill babies but not a grow adult who knowingly committed a crime.
We ca again take this back to personhood. The developing fetus does not have personhood, the mother (the second life involved) does. As such it's up to the mother to make such a choice.
With the criminal we are also dealing with a cognitive agent with personhood. That person might be able to be rehabilitated. Failing that they might function as labor and/or research. The research could lead to a way of fixing what;s wrong with that person that lead to their action, detect or help others with similar problems or at least improve our understanding of how the human brain works.
fetus = not cognitive no personhood
mother = cognitive with personhood, could be negatively impacted by fetus.
criminal = cognitive with personhood and mental problems, could be helped or studied.
Notice what the fetus lacks that the others have?
If a woman doesnt want children, use protection or stay abstinent.
Given the average human sex drive abstinence is an ineffective method, and protection can fail.
the person may not be guilty
About 10% of all inmates who are put on death row turned out to be innocent. This is out of what we caught. So the actual number is likely higher.
This has a nice list of reason to oppose the death penalty.
http://www.nodeathpenalty.org/get-the-facts/five-reasons-oppose-death-penalty
An infant child can't survive on his/her own. Someone needs to take care of it. By your logic would be ok to kill that infant?
It won't die from the mere fact of being out of the womb. Don't intentionally try to distort what I say, please.
She will know the consequences of her actions. If she truly doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption and hopefully she would ever make that mistake again.
"You made a mistake, here, bring a life into the world and go through a crap ton of pain, help overburden the adoption centers and foster care programs. I hope you learn your lesson."
^ How does that help?
So because it will have a life-impacting mental illness, it should be killed? Is this nazi germany were eugenics is practiced?
No, it shouldn't be killed because of that. However, the parents may not be able to deal with that. And by life-impacting, I meant something that makes them 100% unable to care for themselves.
If i slit your throat in your sleep you wont be aware, but that doesnt mean i should kill you.
1) I'm not growing in your body.
2) I would survive if you abandoned me.
3) I have a fully developed consciousness.
4) I have formed connections to people.
Again, please stop trying to distort what I am saying for your own ends.
A tumor cant become a human life.
"As far as logical thought goes, it is the equivalent of a tumor that will eventually become a member of society if carried to term."
Please re-read.
Adoption is an option.
After a long process and then put into an already overflowing system that does not have the resources to care for all of them.
If that woman had consenual sex, she will have to bear those 9 months. Give up the child to an orphanage so he/she can at least have a life.
Again, this is completely ignoring the woman's right to choose what happens inside her own body. To something that is unable to live outside of her and is completely dependent upon her. To something that is not fully developed into a person and has no consciousness.
Out of curiosity, if someones guilt had been absolutely established and they committed a heinous act eg.(Sandy Hook, Aurora) and we lived in a society where money was not an issue, would you support the death penalty.
I would need to know more about why he did what he did.
Deterrence for future crimes,
Because people sure have stopped committing crimes in places where people are put to death regularly.
the removal of an evil and sadistic person from society,
Are they really evil? Or are they ill? I'm not excusing that they did what they did, but it's deeper than good and evil.
If you want to start a capital punishment thread, be my guest. We're getting off topic.
She will know the consequences of her actions. If she truly doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption and hopefully she would ever make that mistake again.
That's still forcing her to go to go through a process that can negatively impact her well being.
Deterrence for future crimes,
"The South, where 80 percent of all executions take place, has a higher murder rate than the North." -From the link I provided earlier.
I would like to ask why are so many anti-abortion advocates so anti-women's rights?
An infant child can't survive on his/her own. Someone needs to take care of it. By your logic would be ok to kill that infant?
it's not an infant, yet. she still has the right to kill it, and by all means she should if she doesn't want it. you can't kill an infant, but the fetus is free game.
She will know the consequences of her actions. If she truly doesn't want the child, give it up for adoption and hopefully she would ever make that mistake again.
do you know how many girls are up for adoption right now in china? millions of girls are up for adoption in china because the family wanted a boy as the first born. there are too many babies on this earth right now in china alone, so why should we add even more stress to the world's food, water, electricity, and oxygen supply just because your god demands multiplication?
I'm gonna give you that one because if that child is sickly or is endangering the mothers life then its better to be aborted.
what happened to your zeal? you said the mother has to live with her mistakes even if it kills her, so what is different here? maybe god is only obsessed with beautiful babies.
Is this nazi germany were eugenics is practiced?
there is a difference between eugenics, and american abortion. eugenics forced the mother to have the children, judged the "arian level" of the child, and then banned her from having any more should she birth a child with any defect. this system, however, gives the mother plenty of options, won't restrict her from aborting on her own will, and will let her have children again. these systems are more or less opposites. nice use of pathos rhetoric though.
If i slit your throat in your sleep you wont be aware, but that doesnt mean i should kill you.
it isn't alive to begin with, so therefore your statement is invalid.
A tumor cant become a human life.
essentially, a tumor and a fetus are a mass of cells. until both become to great to control, they can be removed accordingly.
Adoption is an option. If that woman had consenual sex, she will have to bear those 9 months. Give up the child to an orphanage so he/she can at least have a life.
already went over this. look at china.
Very few murderers contribute to society. Very few.
wouldn't that prove the system, however little result, can work? all it needs in order for it to be better, is more support.
(Sandy Hook, Aurora) and we lived in a society where money was not an issue, would you support the death penalty.
in most cases like that, the gunman kills himself already, so it wouldn't really matter.
Deterrence for future crimes, the removal of an evil and sadistic person from society, and justice for the family and friends of the victim(s) and the victim(s) himself/herself.
if the person is insane, then this is a flawed view. there is no such thing as deterrence from insanity, so killing an insane person to prevent insane people from being insane is just as irrational as the insane person's perspective.
That murderer choose when his victim would die. His victim did not have a choice. His victim did not have a chance to live there life. Why should he.
because "an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind."-Ghandi.
for future reference, I don't really care how death penalty plays out, but I can argue for both sides.
-Blade
you can't kill an infant, but the fetus is free game.
It would be best if there was no fetus to abort to begin with though, just adding.
just because your god demands multiplication?
He has yet to mention religion, so I doubt his reasons are that.
what happened to your zeal? you said the mother has to live with her mistakes even if it kills her, so what is different here? maybe god is only obsessed with beautiful babies.
Chill. He hasn't mentioned anything about religion. You're the one being zealous.
there is a difference between eugenics, and american abortion.
Eugenics is the belief that only those with the 'best genes' should live/reproduce. What you mentioned is one small part. He used the term correctly, except he was basing it on the assumption that I was saying the abortion was justified in the case of a child being 'lesser.' Which I wasn't saying, I was only giving one more reason in addition to others.
it isn't alive to begin with, so therefore your statement is invalid.
It is alive. It isn't conscious or fully developed, however. There is a distinction to be made.
@kasic-
sorry. I got a little carried away there. thanks for correcting me.
-Blade
You must be logged in to post a reply!