Forums → WEPR → is abortion ok?
| 867 | 278277 |
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
I think the only morally objectionable part is that some women use it as a means of birth control.
Why would it be morally objectionable? Radical feminists view it as a showing of how women can have total control over their own body, claiming it as an essential part of not suppressing their rights.
Am I playing Devil's Advocate? Who knows? Morality is not a partner I want to do the tango with so often.
My philosophy:
Don't like abortions? Don't get one.
Don't like gay marriage? Don't get one.
Don't like having other people's beliefs forced upon you? Don't force your beliefs on other people.
Sorry for gay marriage off topic but it's a big deal too and I hate it when people think that they should control what other people do in their lives.
As long as it doesn't interfere with your life, or other peoples lives, why should you worry about it?
Don't like having other people's beliefs forced upon you? Don't force your beliefs on other people.
for the other 2 i can agree whit. but this 1 doesn't count.
if you don't say your own believes then it isn't sure other will not try to tell you theirs.
'Life starts at conception'
- Life started over three billion years ago. In direct line from parents to offsprings, there is no anorganic phase. Unless you define life as SkywardStriker05, in which case there's no problem to start with.
'How can you justify abortion?'
- By advancing the importance of therapeutic abortions:
"An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; prevent harm to the woman's physical or mental health; terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of premature morbidity or mortality or be otherwise disabled; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[11][12]" (wiki)
'It has potential to become a human being'
- Murder is "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another" (Oxford Dictionaries). So legally, if it's not yet a human being, there is no murder.
'But it would have become a human'
- Probably not. "Only 30 to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[17]" (wiki)
'But it cannot speak for itself'
- Then it cannot speak against itself either.
- Do you put the non-opinion of a cell mass above the opinion of a mother or a doctor (who can evaluate the risks)?
'You're still terminating a potential life'
- Linking back to the first point, so is masturbation and celibacy since single gametes (ovules and sperms) are live cells too.
If you burn down the frame of a house that's being constructed you will still have destroyed any chance of that exact house ever again existing. Just because it wasn't a house then doesn't mean it ever would be.
It wold be like the owner of the property the house is being built on who already has a house built there stopping the construction. Either because they simply don't want that house on their property and/or because it's construction puts the current house that's there at risk.
One has to put into consideration the human that already exists into the equation as well. Far to often anti-abortion forgets about the preexisting consciousness solely focusing on the potential consciousness and often forgetting about it again once it's born.
It still has the potential of becoming a human, and undeniably will become a human. Yes there's a natural chance it will miscarry but that's part of nature itself. Saying an intentional abortion and a natural miscarriage are essentially the same is absurd. You might as well be justifying murder because some people die of natural causes, therefore killing someone is just the same.
As you pointed out it is not a sure thing that the embryo will grow into a human. 1 in 5 pregnancies end in miscarriage usually before the 12th week. (If you believe in God having influence over naturally occurring deaths, this would mean God is responsible for far more abortions than all the one preformed by humans combined and preformed further out then most done by humans.)
But even so the very act of producing that one life killed millions of potential humans in that process.
It doesn't matter if it's not human then, it will be.
might be...
Its like making new immigrants immune to the law because they aren't citizens yet.
Poor analogy as even immigrants have achieved personhood.
Then it's not even murder. An embryo has no heartbeat, no brain function, so therefore it's not alive, so you're not killing anything.
Have to disagree, it is most definitely alive. Though it does lack personhood.
Why would it be morally objectionable? Radical feminists view it as a showing of how women can have total control over their own body, claiming it as an essential part of not suppressing their rights.
I've heard of some women who plan to have an abortion ahead of time instead of taking precautions to prevent getting pregnant in the first place. I will agree that this is an abuse of a necessary system. But I don't think it's enough to shut the system down.
i think only in cases of r@pe, abortion is okay or if the (couple) or (family) can't provide for themselves and there would be baby.And i think Pro-abortion peoples{under any circumstance)view would change if they were the fetus being aborted.
i think only in cases of r@pe, abortion is okay or if the (couple) or (family) can't provide for themselves and there would be baby.And i think Pro-abortion peoples{under any circumstance)view would change if they were the fetus being aborted.
this kinda reminds me of a george carlin quote: "why do we care about the sanctity of life? because we are alive...therefore the view is biased from the beginning."
in this case, it isn't alive yet, and the fact that we are defending a blob of organic matter is rather ridiculous. in fact, this reminds me of another carlin quote: "Pro-life is really anti-woman" (the entire routine is on this link. there is a lot of offensive language, but please bear with it).
we shouldn't care about a blob of organic matter until it shows signs of life. if there is a brainwave pattern, then it shouldn't be touched. any other time is a load of religiously biased bull-****.
-Blade
And i think Pro-abortion peoples{under any circumstance)view would change if they were the fetus being aborted.
Pro-abortion is something of a mislabel. Being for the processing to be left legal is not saying that one is pro-abortion. Nor being against it being legal makes it pro-life.
in my opinion, the reason contraception and abortion are around, is that people don't want to deal with responsibility, simple as that.
In my opinion, the reason contraception and abortion are around, is that people don't want to deal with responsibility, simple as that.
Your statement is conflicting.
It is being responsible to use contraception when you don't want to have a child. Calling people who use condoms irresponsible isn't correct.
If the woman wants to abort, no one has the right to stop her. If she doesn't want to abort, no one has the right to stop her. It's not the man's choice, she's the one who's gonna go through childbirth. She's the one who, largely, will have to take care of the baby. You have no right whatsoever to cut off her option of bailing out. It's why I dislike Ireland, as do most Irish. They have to go over to the UK to abort.
Abortion is up to the woman who is pregnant.
That's right, lads. I'm a guy who supports the women. Eat it.
I believe abortion is wrong because the fetus is already developing. But, despite being christian I believe that contraception is okay.
It is being responsible to use contraception when you don't want to have a child. Calling people who use condoms irresponsible isn't correct.
there is a reason it is called sexual reproduction.
I believe abortion is wrong because the fetus is already developing.
Say I'm making a sandwich. I either originally wanted the sandwich. But then, I decided I didn't want the sandwich and that I wasn't hungry. Or maybe, I am allergic to bread. Either way, I can't support this sandwich for the ways that it was intended.
Pro-Life: Eat it anyway, you're opinion doesn't matter. Eat the sandwich, because if you don't you're committing a crime against the sandwich, it could be a sandwich but then you're stopping it! The consequences don't matter! Eat it!
Pro-Abortion: Throw it out, put the bread back, make a painting out of it, do whatever, you started making the sandwich. It's your choice.
Which one makes more sense? The sandwich has the same amount of brain cells as a fetus. Decide.
there is a reason it is called sexual reproduction.
In case when you want a child, yes. But the act itself should only be labeled copulation, as it only has a certain chance to lead to reproduction. Also, 90% of the time people have sex is for pleasure, not for reproduction. So, using contraceptives is definitely responsible.
I believe abortion is wrong because the fetus is already developing.
Usually you abort while it's still an embryo, or a foetus up to the 12th week.
Something you also forget is that it might be a cell mass in development, but the mother is an already developed human who has a life, life which will drastically be altered by the pregnancy. Whose well-being do you put first, that of the adult human or that of a vaguely animal-like cell mass without brain?
You must be logged in to post a reply!