|
|
Post by mina on Aug 12, 2010 7:37:15 GMT
jason If you look at the statstics, it's like less then two percent of all women are raped or die from childbirth. To found your argument for abortion on 2% is like making a stand with one gaunt. Most women are perfectly fine with the abortion until either they have a child or someone close to them does, then it dawns on them OMFG what did I do? Another fact for you, 1/3 women in a room will have a abortion. 33%, yet only 2% are from extrenous circumstances. chew on that one. Most abortions are because people simply do not want a baby. They are stupid, have sex, and then just get to throw out a life because we are liberal. (Just so you know, this topic is touchy for me( therefore I will seem passionate). I could have easily ended up a abortion with a different mother, my father could have too(he is adobted.) I have serious medical issues, I am VERY glad that my mom didn't throw me away when she found out.) Most science also shows that a baby is alive almost from day one. It has all the qualities of life, and when they take them even at the 2 month point, they kick and breathe. What defines life to you? Is it able to think? I don't remember thinking very clearly at 1 year of age. Is it moving? babies in the womb move. I am seriously pro life, and I know the stats. Those babies are alive, it is just easier to say they are not. That way when the women goes in for her fifth abortion, she isn't considered a killer. After all, what's worse than killing a child. It's killing a child and then dehumanizing it by saying it's not alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reaper on Aug 12, 2010 9:12:49 GMT
well this topic certainly lives up to the name of the thread.
My views on abortion are as follows. I wish it didn't exist. Too many people today find that sex has fewer consequences than it use to. Want sex but don't wanna deal with the diapers that come after? No problem, just kill it. that will solve all your problems... -_-
I do recognize it's advantages if it was used only to save the life of the mother, but then again, that's not the only way it's used these days...
|
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 12, 2010 9:23:23 GMT
The thing is, those 2 percent have a voice too.
Imagine if you were annihilated. Of course, most... people like that don't have the common courtesy of wearing condoms, and let's say that for the moment, you aren't taking the pill for whatever reason (this is assuming you're female of course. Males get annihilated too, it's just as scarring, but the long-term consequences aren't as bad). Now, aside from the obvious risk of STDs, you also have a good chance of being pregnant at this point. Imagine walking into the clinic and asking for an abortion, before learning that it's been banned because a group of moral guardians decided that life is sacred from day one.
You have to imagine the practical issues here. If a child is going to be miserable because his/her parents are poor, or dying of an STD, or because the child itself has the STD, then why have it? It doesn't matter if the kid will die in childbirth if it starves to death a month later. It doesn't matter if the kid died in the womb if it's going to be abandoned on the side of the road if it makes it out.
And then there's the woman too. Why should she have to go through the pain of pregnancy and childbirth before she's ready, especially if it's after a (please do not swear),? Why should she be condemned to that for a child who's nervous system doesn't even begin developing until 3 weeks after the fact?
EDIT: Aargh, swear filter. I assume you can guess the missing words (why is it filtered to be "annihilated"? That doesn't have anything in common with that word).
|
|
|
|
Post by wormwood on Aug 12, 2010 14:17:56 GMT
I think it's interesting that the false dilemma of killing the baby or being forced to raise it, keeps coming up in this topic. For people who don't want to raise a child, there is still the option to adopt out the baby.
Speaking of "choice," Given a choice between going to live with another family that wants a child, or being painfully scalded to death in-utero, I'm pretty sure most babies would tend to choose the adoption route.
The only reason people are currently allowed to choose to kill their unborn children is that those children never get their say in the matter.
Imagine if it were legal to kill other people simply because they were inconvenient. Try applying the we can't afford another mouth to feed argument to a five year old, and see how far that gets you.
Unwanted infants come into existence largely through irresponsibility, and allowing people to kill innocents to further dodge their responsibilities is stupid.
In circumstances where there is an unusually high probability of the pregnancy causing the mother's untimely death, abortion should still be allowed but never mandated.
The issue of birth defects is another sticky one. How many people would have pulled the plug on Stephen Hawking before finding out about his unusual mental prowess? There are a great many people doing amazing things and contributing to society, who would have seemed hopeless monsters in their cradles.
|
|
|
|
Post by mina on Aug 12, 2010 23:34:15 GMT
2% should never allow the majority to do anything. (NEVER) If they want to allow raped women/unhealthy women abortions guess what that means 98% less abortions, even the conservatives could live with that.
As for the unhealthy baby being a problem, who are we to say a retarded child is less worthy of life then me or you? We have no right to say that they are more problematic. Otherwise dumb people should be aborted too because they cause huge problems. And guess what? MORE DUMB PEOPLE THAN RETARDED PEOPLE ARE ALIVE!
And then your pain argumen? That is (please do not swear) (please do not swear). We have so many good pain meds out there that it could be a frikin cake walk. And despite the 2% stat I gave you, you still insist on arguing from a barely there stat. At least give up the rape/unhealthy ground and argue from the it's a women's choice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 12, 2010 23:51:55 GMT
Alright. It is the woman's choice. As I said, higher brain functions don't begin until 27 weeks in, so up until that point the baby is nothing more then a plant. The brain doesn't even begin developing until week 8 (or 6 weeks after fertilization), and the heart starts beating another week later.
It's a woman's choice to want to have a child or not (and I'm pretty sure childbirth still hurts with painkillers). If the child is an unintelligent, unthinking embryo, I don't think it gets a say in the matter simply because it isn't actually alive yet. I do agree that fetuses are alive, but in the Embryo stage, abortion is perfectly fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thlaylie on Aug 13, 2010 1:11:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Aug 13, 2010 5:24:15 GMT
Okay, Mina. Let's say abortion is outlawed except for extreme circumstances. I'm assuming that victims, and life threatening pregnancies would be some of the extreme circumstances. Would accidents be a part of those circumstances? Say a condom breaks, or the pill is ineffective. Would they have to prove that is was an accident and not them being stupid? Every abortion would have to be a court case, by the time it gets through, the baby is born. There would be such a back log of cases, what would be the point? And you are going to put a responsibility that they are not ready for, nor want, onto them.
Okay, they could put them up for adoption. There are already so many children out there waiting to be adopted already. We would be flooding an already strained system. There are also people who just don't care enough to even sign a few papers, so they abandon the child just anywhere. If they were one of the stupid people, would it not have been the same if they just had the abortion?
|
|
|
|
Post by theridon on Aug 13, 2010 5:42:22 GMT
Where does one draw the line? Masturbating is technically killing babies, each sperm is a potential for life.
At what point is a fetus considered a human being?
Also, what Jason said-there are already too many unwanted babies that need a home. We have too many people as it is. If they aren't going to get proper care as they grow up, it's the mothers responsibility to get rid of it, preferabbly as early as possible. Abortion is usually illegal in the later quarters of pregnancy I believe anyway, I think that is sufficient.
However, people who are irresponsible with their pregnancies irk me to no end. They go around having sex and getting pregnant and then killing off their baby when they realize "oops, I'm pregnant". With todays technology such as condoms and birth control pills, there is no excuse for "unexpected" pregnancies. And taxes going toward abortion operations, don't even get me started.
I know there are cases such as (please do not swear), but the VAST majority of the time it could have been prevented, and it's stupid to have the publics taxes go to some idiotic teenager who couldn't just keep'm crossed.
Also, what is this Julio thing?? I don't get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jason on Aug 13, 2010 7:55:38 GMT
~Every sperm is sacred, every sperm is good. If a sperm is wasted, God goes on a tirade. ~ lol  |
|
|
|
Post by wormwood on Aug 13, 2010 14:04:23 GMT
Potential isn't actual. There are a great many things that have potential, but until catalyzed by another force are nothing. A full gas can, a book of matches, and a house, are an arson by your definition, but until someone comes along and physically juxtaposes all those elements to make it such, it is no arson. In most cases, a mans body breaks down and reabsorbs unused sperm routinely.
There are also huge numbers of people waiting to adopt those children. The bureaucracy involved is the problem niot supply or demand. In the US, the racially discriminatory policies of the adoption agencies often prevent white couples from adopting non-white children. There are plenty of would-be adoptive parents being thwarted by the system currently in place.
|
|
|
|
Post by salamut2202 on Aug 14, 2010 8:45:22 GMT
If the child is an unintelligent, unthinking embryo, I don't think it gets a say in the matter simply because it isn't actually alive yet. just to make the point that each cell could be defined as a living organism, the fact each cell of that bundle has human chromosomes and the fact within that within 7 weeks the foetus has functioning neurons and a beating heart does that pathetic bundle of cells count as life, count as a human and is it really practical to use "it's just a bundle of cells" argument half way through the first trimester ? |
|
|
|
Post by Enigma on Aug 14, 2010 9:06:25 GMT
Okay. It is technically alive. So are trees, yet we cut them down without a second thought. We step on bugs every day without feeling any remorse for them. We kill animals for sport that are more intelligent then the fetus at that stage.
What about the pill? Some pills work by preventing the fertilized zygote from penetrating the uterus walls, and it is flushed out during the next period. This is similar to what happens when you abort the embryo later on. Is that zygote human yet?
I think that something isn't human until the brain begins conscious thought. You may think different, but I'll walk away with that.
|
|
|
|
Post by salamut2202 on Aug 14, 2010 11:25:29 GMT
1. i'm against all sports that involve the slaughter of animals.
2. i'm also against extensive logging, every day 6 species go extinct.
3. you said embryo. that's developed neurons and beating heart buster.
i believe all life is sacred and although i'm more progressive then other buddhists (i'm not a vegetarian for example) i things must only be killed in the quantity that we need it. if you can help it take an option that isn't abortion because not many cases need dead babies.
|
|
|
|
Post by wormwood on Aug 14, 2010 12:33:55 GMT
I've met plenty of unintelligent, unthinking people. trying to use those criteria is a dangerously slippery slope. Who gets to be the arbiter of your mental qualification to be worthy of life?
|
|
