MamboJoel
Cool.
I vote Yes. You guys would be surprised how many youg women have allready done it.
Abortions: yes or no?
- Thread starter Dionysius
- Start date
To answer those who say that no man can ever talk about abortion:
Assuming I never go to prison, I almost certainly will never be raped. I will never experience the trauma and emotional scarring involved. But I can still say it is wrong. It is the same with abortion - I don't need to be a member of a certain gender to say that murder is wrong.
And that is what I see abortion as being. Destroying something with the potential for life - such as gametes, or even a zygote in the earliest stages. But despite what SCOTUS says, at some point the fetus becomes a living humna being. I don't see how a late-term abortion is any worse than infanticide. We might not know the exact moment at which a fetus "becomes" human - the question is perhaps as much philosophical as biological - but we can err on the side of caution.
And as for all these poor, uneducated women out there who are going to be held back because of the child they didn't want to have:
1. Some already have children. These women could probably get more opportunities, and go farther in life, if someone would just euthanize the children they already have. That still doesn't make it right.
2. There are these incredible things called "contraceptives" that help prevent pregnancies. Anyone not willing to be responsible enough to use one shouldn't try and solve the problem through murder.
So like I said, late-term abortions are only justified in cases of extreme medical problems; to deal with rape, perhaps abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but not thereafter.
And look, all my arguments were ethical, but not religious.
Assuming I never go to prison, I almost certainly will never be raped. I will never experience the trauma and emotional scarring involved. But I can still say it is wrong. It is the same with abortion - I don't need to be a member of a certain gender to say that murder is wrong.
And that is what I see abortion as being. Destroying something with the potential for life - such as gametes, or even a zygote in the earliest stages. But despite what SCOTUS says, at some point the fetus becomes a living humna being. I don't see how a late-term abortion is any worse than infanticide. We might not know the exact moment at which a fetus "becomes" human - the question is perhaps as much philosophical as biological - but we can err on the side of caution.
And as for all these poor, uneducated women out there who are going to be held back because of the child they didn't want to have:
1. Some already have children. These women could probably get more opportunities, and go farther in life, if someone would just euthanize the children they already have. That still doesn't make it right.
2. There are these incredible things called "contraceptives" that help prevent pregnancies. Anyone not willing to be responsible enough to use one shouldn't try and solve the problem through murder.
So like I said, late-term abortions are only justified in cases of extreme medical problems; to deal with rape, perhaps abortion should be legal in the first trimester, but not thereafter.
And look, all my arguments were ethical, but not religious.
Simon Darkshade
Mysterious City of Gold
Illegal, save in extreme cases where the mothers life is in true danger. Any other circumstances, wrong, illegal, and punishable by the noose.
This would be accompanied by encouraging real responsibility.
This would be accompanied by encouraging real responsibility.
Paradigne said:
This is a good thing. In fact, I feel the morning-after pill should be made widely available. But if somehow the rape goes unreported (which happens) or something, the woman should have the option of getting an abortion if she does so early in the term.
Just a few of my thoughts...
About the money argument, you cannot comletely seperate money and life. People die every day for the lack of very small amounts of money. I personally have a bit of a problem with the increase in premature babies that are kept alive at the states expence. They (very imature babies) tend to require vast amounts of money over their life times, the sort of money that could be used to save 100's of 'healthy' people.
I belive abortion is a problem, I have seen women who have gone through it have very bad phycological problems afterwards. I do not belive I am in a possition to decide what is the best for them.
[EDIT] "In the case of rape: All rape victems are given the 'morning after pill' during their examination."
Do you consider the morning after pill to be contraception or abortion? I consider it abortion.
Are you aware of what they are like? I have heard they are terible, with systematic sexual abuse and very little mature human contact. If I had to choose for myself now it would be a difficult decision. I would rather a child of mine never existed that had to endure such a place for a number of years.Dionysius said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5109518.stmDionysius said:
About the money argument, you cannot comletely seperate money and life. People die every day for the lack of very small amounts of money. I personally have a bit of a problem with the increase in premature babies that are kept alive at the states expence. They (very imature babies) tend to require vast amounts of money over their life times, the sort of money that could be used to save 100's of 'healthy' people.
I belive abortion is a problem, I have seen women who have gone through it have very bad phycological problems afterwards. I do not belive I am in a possition to decide what is the best for them.
[EDIT] "In the case of rape: All rape victems are given the 'morning after pill' during their examination."
Do you consider the morning after pill to be contraception or abortion? I consider it abortion.
People die every day for small amounts of money, yes. But if it is so important, how about instead of taking money used to care for those who are very sick, and instead spend less on luxuries like computers and whatnot? I mean, it's not like there is an upper limit to how much we can spend to help people.
And I should point out that I feel that if a woman has an abortion because the father refuses to provide support, he is at least 50% responsible.
As far as the morning-after pill; it prevents a zygote (fertilized egg) from implanting in the uterus. In a way it is abortion, but of a few-celled organism and thus justifiable. Still, it would be better to develop a pill that prevents conception (which actually occurs hours or days after intercourse) in the first place.
And I should point out that I feel that if a woman has an abortion because the father refuses to provide support, he is at least 50% responsible.
As far as the morning-after pill; it prevents a zygote (fertilized egg) from implanting in the uterus. In a way it is abortion, but of a few-celled organism and thus justifiable. Still, it would be better to develop a pill that prevents conception (which actually occurs hours or days after intercourse) in the first place.
Samson said:
1.oh for heavens sake, man, has it occurred to you that the entire social
services people are NOT pedophiles? even ONCE? no? oh well.
and you would wish a child dead rather than in a foster home? odd.
the 1st sentence applies to foster parents as well. i suppose the odd time...
but not ALL the time.
2.so... what? throw `em ought of the cribs?
3.i am as yet unsure on that area...
Very true. I would fully support any move that would allow more of the poorest people in this world to live.Eran of Arcadia said:
However there was a statement earlier in this thread (I have only just got through it all) allong the lines of "you would have an abortion to save money!!!!". I was pointing out that this is a logical position. I would rather spend 10,000 GBP on saving 100 africans than keeping 1 poor and disabled child alive.
I quite agree.Eran of Arcadia said:
There were those who put the line between no rights and full rights at the point of conception. I belive this is logically consistant, any point between this and birth is arbitary.Eran of Arcadia said:
As conception occurs in a fairly protected environment I belive you would need a very toxic cemical to prevent it, not many people are going to want that rather than a hromone that has signifivcantly lower risks.
Actually, there was a thread talking about how sperm can detect certain chemical signals - that's how they find the egg. So all we need is a stronger signal to send the sperm somewhere else away from the egg.
If you scratch your skin, separating it from your body, this skin will die if not nurtured. But, with nurturing, it can be turned into a person (using variants of cloning technologies).
Is it immoral to intentionally create and kill a clump of cells that could be turned into a person? I don't think so. Scratching your skin (on purpose) is just that.
And let's talk about 'you'. Pretend you're in a car accident, and we need to cut a portion of your body off to save you. The cut portion would die, but the remaining portion would live. If we had the choice between cutting off your head or your hand (the body would live either way), which would you prefer we cut off?
I'll assume it's your hand you'd prefer. Why is that? Why do you ascribe a higher status to your head than your hand? I'll posit that it's because of your brain - you could lose almost every part of your body and remain 'you', but if you lost your brain, you wouldn't be 'you' anymore.
This is why I think neural function is essential to being a person.
All I have to go on is the personal tesomony of people who have lived through the foster system in the UK. Of course there are good foster parents, but I cannot recal them saying that ANY of the large foster houses (those totally dedicated to foster children) did not have sexual abuse problems.Dionysius said:
I see a difference between not existing and being killed. I am not going to have kids until I am fairly confident of being able to fully support them.
As far as a choice between death and that life I only stated my opinion for myself, and said I was not sure.
The obvious way is to abort seriously disabled children unless the parents are able and willing to support them.Dionysius said:
I would not support any cooersion in this case, but equally I would not support making it illegal for women to make this choice.
Are you sure? I belive the cost to the NHS of each seriously dissabled child is many tens of thousands of pounds.Dionysius said:
There are many people in the world who die of the lack of 100 GBP. I seem to remember the cost of getting hydration therapy to 1 peoson who would otherwise die of diarrhea is around 10 GBP.
I do not have time to look up links ATM.
I have heard that treatment for potentially fatal diarrhea is less than $.50; the problem is in distribution, since most of the countries with such health problems have them because of lack of infrastructure and whatnot.
I think we probably agree mostly.El_Machinae said:
Can you say at what point their is sufficent neural activity to become a person? Would any such definition include some arbatry level?
You could say the formation of the neural crest, but then there is not much actually activety going on then.
You could say the the first point where there is action potentials pressent, but that is going to be very early, probably before most abortions happen now. Is it really significant anyway (plenty of action potentials in your hand).
Any time after this is going to be arbatory because you say at this point there is not enough activety, but after this point there is.
Where would you draw the line?
1. Who is they in your answer? It was residents of the homes in mine.Dionysius said:
2. The mother (with the father if he is around). You are putting yourself in the oposite possition. Who are you to do that (to decide to spend money on this child and let many other people die)?
Samson said:
When a woman has an abortion, she hardly turns around and gives the money she would have spent on a child, to save lives in Africa or something.
Similar threads
- Poll
