Touchy subject: What is your stance on abortion?

[punkbass2000]

I don't really have much of an opinion on this subject. That makes me pro-choice, though, I think.

 

[punkbass2000]

And i can say that abortion clinics are MASS murders!

I must say that I can't really believe that you think this. Mark1031 brought up a strong point about this a while back. If you really think the above is true, I can't imagine how all you're doing about the situation is discussing it on the internet.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

Sigh! It doesnt matter whether it is dominated overwhelmingly by men or women,it still not constitute that women is the victim per se in this issue.It effect all of society health on the value of what life is whether your a man or a woman.

Of course it matters who dominates the debate, why should only one side of the argument define where life begins? Either life starts with the sperm itself(thereby making most men mass murderers, far worse than abortion clinics) or after birth itself.

This is nonsense.And i can say that abortion clinics are MASS murders!Or that war is murder or whatever.I am stating that when an act of eliminating life,when the victim[the child in the womb]is voiceless to say anything of the matter.

Why?

 

[Meleager]

Either life starts with the sperm itself(thereby making most men mass murderers, far worse than abortion clinics) or after birth itself.

That's ridiculous.

Sperm cannot become babies all on their own, they require human intervention. Embryos require human intervention to stop them becoming babies.

 

[Fifty]

I'm unsure of my stance on abortion.

On the one hand, I completely agree with the stance that a few week's old lump of cells is hardly a life.

On the other hand, I don't feel like I've heard a good enough (scientific) definition of when a life begins to feel confident, and matters as serious as human life it may be best to be cautious.

In short, I wish someone would put forth a coherent argument as to when precisely life begins.

 

[Elrohir]

Of course it matters who dominates the debate, why should only one side of the argument define where life begins? Either life starts with the sperm itself(thereby making most men mass murderers, far worse than abortion clinics) or after birth itself.

What? As Meleager pointed out, sperm by themselves do not have everything required to make a full human being. There is no reason to consider them human beings, while a "fetus" has everything necessary to become a fully functioning human being. Even I don't consider sperm to have the sanctity of a regular human life, and I'm pretty conservative.

 

[Perfection]

In short, I wish someone would put forth a coherent argument as to when precisely life begins.

Unfortunately such a point doesn't exist. Life is a porgression and so is humanity.

 

[Perfection]

while a "fetus" has everything necessary to become a fully functioning human being.

So a fetus in a vacuum will become a fully functioning human?

 

[Archbob]

I'm for abortion if you are raped or coerced into having sex and get pregnant.


However, if you were just casually sleeping around, I have no sympathy for you and you should not be able to have a abortion because unfortunately, you messed up yourself and you should have to face the consequences. I don't like people seeing abortion as an easy way out for "accidents" that happen during casual sex.

I really believe that if we take about the safety pad of abortion for people who like to randomly sleeping around, it would lead to less of the behavior and lessen many of societies problems like unwanted preganancy.

I don't buy this whole "If sex-ed was better then'd we wouldn't have all these problems". Honestly, sex-ed is taught at every level of school starting in the 5th grade, people just don't listen. It wouldn't matter if you had perfect sex-ed, these things would still happen. People will tend to do stupid crap as long as they think the consequences are not sufficient.

 

[Fifty]

It's important to make the distinction of whether we are concerned with the potentiality for life or the existence of life.

Without some sort of proof of the existence of an "essence" or "soul" of a person that comes into existence when the potentiality for self-aware life exists, I think it would be more prudent to discuss when life actually begins, not when there is a potentiality for life.

 

[Meleager]

So a fetus in a vacuum will become a fully functioning human?

A human in a vacuum would cease to be a fully functioning human.

 

[Der Sensenmann]

That's ridiculous.

Sperm cannot become babies all on their own, they require human intervention. Embryos require human intervention to stop them becoming babies.

OK, I exaggerated a bit, sorry. My point is, at which point does an embryo actually become a life? You say that a just-fertilised embryo becomes a baby, so is abortion actually destroying a baby? (though I agree a late-term abortion would be).

 

[Volum]

Erm, im "pro choice" but i have a hard time explaining why, its a European thing i guess.

And what is it you Americans and your pro's, your either pro this or pro that. So if im pro choice im suddenly against life then? meh

 

[Meleager]

OK, I exaggerated a bit, sorry. My point is, at which point does an embryo actually become a life? You say that a just-fertilised embryo becomes a baby, so is abortion actually destroying a baby? (though I agree a late-term abortion would be).

I believe that it would be. Since, to me, the only other candidate seems to be birth. One thing I don't understand is how some people believe (I don't know if this includes you) that during the last day of the second trimester that the foetus is not "life" and then on the next morning that it is. Conception just seems to be a much more sensible "line in the sand".

 

[Taliesin]

Anyone who thinks that there exists such a thing as a "human" (and I'm not being trite here) also has to say that there is a point at which a lump of matter becomes substantially a human. I think humans are discrete things. I don't see any plausible point to identify as the moment of substantial change, other than that of conception.

 

[Perfection]

However, if you were just casually sleeping around, I have no sympathy for you and you should not be able to have a abortion because unfortunately, you messed up yourself and you should have to face the consequences. I don't like people seeing abortion as an easy way out for "accidents" that happen during casual sex.

Not many people seem to think of it that way. The think of it as a last chance because they did something boneheaded

I really believe that if we take about the safety pad of abortion for people who like to randomly sleeping around, it would lead to less of the behavior and lessen many of societies problems like unwanted preganancy.

I don't buy this whole "If sex-ed was better then'd we wouldn't have all these problems". Honestly, sex-ed is taught at every level of school starting in the 5th grade, people just don't listen. It wouldn't matter if you had perfect sex-ed, these things would still happen. People will tend to do stupid crap as long as they think the consequences are not sufficient.

People in general don't think of consequences. I don't think abortion changes that. Many people just simply don't think that pregnancy will happen to them. People are idiots and will be idiots no matter what the penalty is, abortion helps them correct thier idiocy.

A human in a vacuum would cease to be a fully functioning human.

So humans don't even meet Elrohir's definition of human!

I think humans are discrete things.

Why do you think that?

 

[shortguy]

I am against abortion in almost all cases. If the mother's life is in danger then it may be acceptable, and I'm willing to consider that it's the lesser of two evils in cases of rape, though I'm not sold on that notion.

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

Abortion is wrong. If I unintentionally impregnated a sexual partner, I would make it clear that I think we should take account for our mistake and raise the child as best we could, regardless of our circumstances. If this was unacceptable to my parter, I'd tell her that I'd be willing to raise the child on my own, and she doesn't have to help if she doesn't want the financial strain that a child would place upon her life. If that still was unacceptable, I'd recommend putting the child up for adoption as soon as it was born. If this still was unacceptable, and the only acceptable option to my parter was an abortion, I'd make it clear that I'd be extremely opposed to it. It would also possibly mark the end of our relationship, though it really depends on at what stage our relationship was.

 

[Meleager]

Why do you think that?

I don't know about Taliesin but I have never heard of part-humans or 3/4 humans.

 

[Taliesin]

Why do you think that?

Leaving aside that I know humans to possess souls, I don't think it is an unreasonable claim to make that there is a real thing called a "human". I'm more than the sum of my matter: I'm me, I'm a person. You could replace each of my atoms, one by one, and T-sub-1 (Taliesin after the changes) wouldn't be importantly (and therefore, I conclude, substantially) different from T-sub-0 (Taliesin before the changes). I would survive the eradication of all my matter. Perhaps you object to the existence of things other than atoms, which would certainly be tenable, though it run directly contrary to an everyday perception of the world. However, I think we can agree that at least humans, and perhaps all animals, are discrete things. Even if you deny that, you're stuck with the problem that our entire social and legal structure rests on the presumption that humans are real and irreducible things, so that in matters of morality and common parlance, it makes good sense to continue to presume it.