Why I think ABORTION is o.k.

[Elrohir]

How hard is it to use common sense in this scenario? Would you want to have drug dealers, murderers, crack heads, etc. living next to you? Yes or no?

I would rather have crack heads and drug dealers living next to me than execute them before birth and they committed any crime. So if not having them live next to me means I must have the blood of millions of innocents on my hands then yes, I would want them living next to me.

As you have posted several times and refuse to retract your statement or provide a source, I am declaring a victory over that portion of the debate. Most people would not rather be aborted than grow up in a bad home.

Im glad it did.

Aren't we all.

Preferable to having your (Not yours) disturbed child grow up and become a drug addict, then kill my properly raised kid, and possibly even more kids. And even better, me and everyone else paying for the support of this kid who will only grow up to be a danger to society.

So why don't we just execute everyone who commits a violent crime? That would make a whole lot more sense, as many criminals work their way up from assault or robbery to murder. Would you support that?

I doubt you would. I know I don't, that would be unjust. And if executing people for violent crimes that do not kill people is unjust, then how more morally reprehensible is it that we kill babies who have committed no crime other than existing?

Im glad to see you would be such a good parent, but can you account for all the others who would be forced to raise a kid that they are not prepared to raise?

That was a Family Guy quote, by the way. I was attempting to add a bit of dry levity to the debate, which obviously failed.

If you aren't ready for a kid then you aren't ready for sex. Why is that so hard to understand? If you don't want to raise a kid keep your legs closed. Excuse the vulgarity, but it's really that simple.

 

[Atlas14]

I doubt you would. I know I don't, that would be unjust. And if executing people for violent crimes that do not kill people is unjust, then how more morally reprehensible is it that we kill babies who have committed no crime other than existing?

The "babies" you refer to would have no nervous system, no brain, very basic organs, and before week 6, the "baby's" heart is not even beating. Big difference from your "people who commit violent crimes" that we both agree should not be executed. These "babies" would experience no pain, no knowledge of their existance, it would not even matter one way or another to them. It would matter to the woman who has to support the child she was not prepared for. It would matter to me, and most others who have would have to support this child.

That was a Family Guy quote, by the way. I was attempting to add a bit of dry levity to the debate, which obviously failed.

Sorry. I watch Family Guy, but only the same re-runs every weekend, which amounts to about 3 different episodes I've seen.

If you aren't ready for a kid then you aren't ready for sex.

Try enforcing this.

If you don't want to raise a kid keep your legs closed. Excuse the vulgarity, but it's really that simple.

I agree. But then again, there are millions more people who either don't care, don't understand this principle, or are not smart enough to realize the consequeces of their actions. It is easy to tell kids to "keep their legs closed", but you can't really enforce it. Kids will be kids.

 

[Elrohir]

The "babies" you refer to would have no nervous system, no brain, very basic organs, and before week 6, the "baby's" heart is not even beating. Big difference from your "people who commit violent crimes" that we both agree should not be executed. These "babies" would experience no pain, no knowledge of their existance, it would not even matter one way or another to them. It would matter to the woman who has to support the child she was not prepared for. It would matter to me, and most others who have would have to support this child.

First, you're wrong, babies develope nervous systems and brains very early in the pregancy. Second, it doesn't matter, human life is paramount to human whims.

Give the baby of for adoption, but don't kill him. How can you honestly believe killing your baby is better than letting someone else raise him? That's despicable.

Sorry. I watch Family Guy, but only the same re-runs every weekend, which amounts to about 3 different episodes I've seen.

Yeah, it was kinda an obscure quote. It was really random too, some guy with a belt telling Peter how to disciple his kids....

Try enforcing this.

I agree. But then again, there are millions more people who either don't care, don't understand this principle, or are not smart enough to realize the consequeces of their actions. It is easy to tell kids to "keep their legs closed", but you can't really enforce it. Kids will be kids.

I wouldn't try enforcing that, it wouldn't be practical. And I can't keep people from doing the wrong thing all the time, that's not my job.

So we can trust them to "Just say NO to drugs", but we can't trust them not to have sex? That's ridiculous, despite what many people would have you believe, kids do care what their parents think and I believe generally would be a lot less promiscuous if they were not encouraged to by their parents and teachers.

 

[Own]

Ok, this is my last post in the arguement, maybe. This is a matter of opinion. Here are your different opinions here:

Pro-choice- Abort an unwanted "embryo" (notice how I didn't say "child" because it isn't one, it's a string of cells) that nobody had gotten to know, love or gotten attached to, and use it's thousands of cells to help research possible cures, saving 1000s of people.

Anti-choice- Force a woman to keep her unwanted child or to put it up for adoption/foster care, and likely it won't get parents, because adopted children are not on demand, and it will become dangerous to society.


Another point I should make. Somebody said something along the lines of "a woman who aborts her child for her own safety is cowardly." Here's why I disagree. If the woman wanted a child really badly, she would've tried to have another. If she had let the baby live, the one she would have had instead of that baby would never exist, so that could be called "murder."

 

[Erik Mesoy]

So we can trust them to "Just say NO to drugs", but we can't trust them not to have sex? That's ridiculous, despite what many people would have you believe, kids do care what their parents think and I believe generally would be a lot less promiscuous if they were not encouraged to by their parents and teachers.

There exists an innate sex drive. There does not exist an innate drug drive.

 

[Atlas14]

First, you're wrong, babies develope nervous systems and brains very early in the pregancy. Second, it doesn't matter, human life is paramount to human whims.

Not before week six. Take a look: http://www.wprc.org/fetal.phtml
It does matter because the developing embryo does not even know it exists, could not feel pain if you poured battery acid on it, and so a humane abortion would mean very little at all to it. If it does not matter to the embryo, does not matter to the woman having the abortion, why should you be so concerned as to say the woman can't do that? It is not your choice, and nothing is being hurt, because to become hurt, that would imply even the slightest feeling of pain or knowledge of being "hurt", all of which the pre-6th week embryo cannot feel.

Give the baby of for adoption, but don't kill him.

If someone is willing to adopt the baby, then that should be the woman's first choice. But it is still the woman's choice.

How can you honestly believe killing your baby is better than letting someone else raise him?

I don't. That is why I would never want my gf/wife to have one (an abortion). Forcing the woman to go through the pain of pregnancy if she desparately does not want to or physically cannot go through it is wrong. Nobody has the right to force the woman to go through childbirth if she has other legal options available. If plenty of people are willing to adopt these babies, then go for it. This only works efficiently assuming there are more couples looking to adopt than there are pregnancies.

So we can trust them to "Just say NO to drugs", but we can't trust them not to have sex?

Yes. As Erik Mesoy said, sex is a natural drive human beings have and in many cases it is unhealthy to "repress" this drive in certain ways. Drugs however are a lifestyle choice, and we can "trust" people to say 'No' to them.