Why I think ABORTION is o.k.

[Narz]

The world wouldn't be the same without Narz.

Aww, thanks. I think.

 

[nihilistic]

Hey, long time no see, nihilistic.

Hi to you too.

Surely you see the problem in citing 'practicality' when the question concerns human life?

Yes, you do have a point. Individual practicality sometimes will upset decency and some other concerns. However, you have to draw the line somewhere.

Drawing that line where you (and your religion) wants it to has problems, including people with other beliefs (or lack thereof) drawing their "moral" line elsewhere. Morever, drawing that line at conception may calm your sentiments but it has very, very many practical problems if implemented legally. If you consider that cluster of cells to e a human at the event fo conception, then any sort of accdent leading to a miscarriage would have to be prosecued as either murder or manslaughter. How do you prosecute the pregnant woman on whether she had "intent" upon aborting or she simply took on too many other real life responsibilities? What about that teenager who jumped up and down all day leading to a miscarriage? Should she be prosecuted for murder? Is there intent? What about the doctor in a fertility clinic that accidentally destroyed an embryo? Is that manslaughter?

Believe me if the new supreme court justices Bush appointed outlaws abortion, or if some amendment passes that outlaws abortion, the resulting chaos will only dwarf that of the prohibition amendment.

 

[JohnRM]

That statement sums up why your religious view is appallingly out iof touch with reality.

.

It has nothing to do with my religious views. Unlike most religious folk, I can think for myself.

 

[PriestOfDiscord]

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? While the umbilical cord is attached, the mother can kill it, but five seconds later when it's cut killing the baby is murder? Why not just say it's not human until you take it home? (Someone actually proposed that awhile ago) Or perhaps when it developes language skills and can say "Please don't kill me". Or maybe when it's an adult; before that it's dependant on the parents anyway. Your position is sickening and insane.

It's far less stupid than making limits like "not past X weeks" or "not past the X trimester" considering how hard it sometimes is to nail down a specific date on such things. Not that it matters, the only purpose of late-term abortion bans are to get the ball rolling on further limiting reproductive rights later on down the line using some equally inane milestone in the pregnancy timeline. And besides, it reflects the simple fact that until the baby is able to live independent of the mother it is simply a parasite in her womb. Nothing but a cluster of unthinking cells.

Well guess what: Because "fundamentalists" don't abort their babies we have more of them: So it's just a matter of numbers; we'll win eventually.

That's before the fetus factories start becoming profitable. Brave New World, here we come!

 

[cgannon64]

Drawing that line where you (and your religion) wants it to has problems, including people with other beliefs (or lack thereof) drawing their "moral" line elsewhere. Morever, drawing that line at conception may calm your sentiments but it has very, very many practical problems if implemented legally. If you consider that cluster of cells to e a human at the event fo conception, then any sort of accdent leading to a miscarriage would have to be prosecued as either murder or manslaughter. How do you prosecute the pregnant woman on whether she had "intent" upon aborting or she simply took on too many other real life responsibilities? What about that teenager who jumped up and down all day leading to a miscarriage? Should she be prosecuted for murder? Is there intent? What about the doctor in a fertility clinic that accidentally destroyed an embryo? Is that manslaughter?

These are problems, yes, but so far your problems seem to amount to these:

1. Others disagree with my moral philosophy.
2. It raises legal implications.

As for the first, well, tough. And as for the second: This problems are not too hard. A teenager too physically active aborts her embryo? Obviously not intent and not even awareness of risk, so, no crime. Etc. etc.

I draw the line at conception because it raises the least moral implications. Draw the line any later, and you may be killing human beings. That is far too great a risk to take.

Believe me if the new supreme court justices Bush appointed outlaws abortion, or if some amendment passes that outlaws abortion, the resulting chaos will only dwarf that of the prohibition amendment.

This is why I'm not an open, agressive advocate of illegalizing abortion. It could cause so many problems that I waver when I consider calling for its ban.

But this raises a whole new problem: What are we to think, when immoral behavior is so entrenched in society that it is intractable? What does that say about us?

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

As long as the umbilical cord that attaches mother to fetus is still attached, the option should be available.

And besides, it reflects the simple fact that until the baby is able to live independent of the mother it is simply a parasite in her womb. Nothing but a cluster of unthinking cells.

Please do a little science research. A fetus at 8 months can certainly live independently of the mother and in certainly sentient. It is certainly not a 'cluster of unthinking cells'. I recently visited a soldier who had an emergency c-section for her 1 pd 2 oz fetus. The baby is doing increadibly well considering the circumstances.

It's far less stupid than making limits like "not past X weeks" or "not past the X trimester" considering how hard it sometimes is to nail down a specific date on such things. Not that it matters, the only purpose of late-term abortion bans are to get the ball rolling on further limiting reproductive rights later on down the line using some equally inane milestone in the pregnancy timeline.

I strongly disagree. Comparing a 9-month old fetus to a one-day old zygote is ridiculous. One has a developed brain and can think while the other is a cluster of cells (a new human, but certainly not the same). Picking a point when the fetus is considered sentient makes absolute sense. (The same rule should be done for the old, sick and severly injured. Sentience is the essense of viable human life.) While some may have the goal of making all abortions illegal, that is not the only purpose. Except when one must chose between the life of the mother or fetus, these are nothing but sanctioned murder. While rare, they should be eliminated.

 

[Elrohir]

Calling pro choice pro death is silly. You could find any opinion to be "evil" in a way. For example, diseases like AIDs, diabetes, alzheimers, etc could have cures if we had stem cells from aborted embryo's. My grandmother has alzheimers, and it's so sad. When she tried to eat a sandwich with wrapping on it, my mom took it off for her, and she didn't know whether to eat the wrapping or the sandwich. So I could call you pro miserable old people and and pro diabetes, and pro AIDs.


It makes me mad that years ago we could have gotten cures for these horrible diseases, but instead we chose to save embryos (which just looks like a piece of string, not a baby) that could be people we never met or got attached to, as supposed to people we know and are very sad they have these life threatening diseases. Everytime I see her and notice how confused she is it makes me want to strangle anti stem cell research people.
Also

It may be silly, but it is the truth. You are for death for babies if they not yet born and the mother wants to kill them. It's that simple. To be Pro-Choice is to be Pro-Abortion, Pro-Death and Pro-Murder.

Yes, instead of having an addled brain they could have had their brains sucked out of their skulls. What an option. Once again, I'd choose to be alive and have a bad life over never getting the chance to live.

Source for what?

You said that most people would prefer being aborted than growing up in a bad home and likely becoming a criminal. I want a source for that; some poll on the subject. And if you can't find one then I must ask you to retract that statement as it wouldn't reflect reality.

It's far less stupid than making limits like "not past X weeks" or "not past the X trimester" considering how hard it sometimes is to nail down a specific date on such things. Not that it matters, the only purpose of late-term abortion bans are to get the ball rolling on further limiting reproductive rights later on down the line using some equally inane milestone in the pregnancy timeline. And besides, it reflects the simple fact that until the baby is able to live independent of the mother it is simply a parasite in her womb. Nothing but a cluster of unthinking cells.

I disagree. I believe the sanctity of life begins at conception simply because that is, besides birth, the only really defining moment in the developement in a child. Any other date would be completely arbitrary. Besides, better too early than too late.

Oh please, don't give me that crap. It's a BABY, not a parasite. It is the next generation of a species, it may not contribute directly to the survival of the mother but he may be instrumental in the survive of the human race, which is so much more valuable.

As for your assertion that a baby is a "cluster of unthinking cells" - that's pure rubbish. Brain activity within an unborn baby can be detected as early as 6 weeks along in the pregnency. You really need to stop reading those propoganda websites and read the facts.

Except when one must chose between the life of the mother or fetus....

That's the one time I would let it remain legal to have an abortion. I think it's kinda the cowardly way out, killing your child so you will remain safe, especially as medical technology has gotten much better over the years and it is highly unlikely that you would die, but that would be her decision.

 

[Own]

I'm not pro death. I"m not evil and wanting fetuses to die. I'm saying, aborted babies can get us cures for diseases. I think people with AID's, diabetes, alzheimers, and other's are more important than a strand of cells. You think the opposite, and that's fine. It's all opinion.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

It's all a question of where to draw the line. At X number of months before birth, a fetus is definitely not human. At some point after birth, it is definitely human. Nobody will argue that killing a month-old baby is not murder (and it definitely is murder).

Problem is, there's no one definite point at which a collection of cells becomes human. Over those nine months, it grows and changes gradually. A fetus born two months premature can lead a completely normal life--but on the flip side, humans are all but incapable of surviving on their own for, at the very least, a few years (and a child all on his own at five years old is going to be pretty miserable afterwards).

Prove the bolded assertion you made.

RE the second bolded portion, please explain when or how these changes in appearance and ability (the two factors you appear to be deciding who it's ok to kill based on) make one group of humans people, and the other group, not-people.

I base my position of erring on the side of not killing people on the truth of the underlined sentence you wrote above. Where there is uncertainty, irreversible action should not be taken. This is the same problem I have with the Death Penalty, people whose guilt has not been firmly establsihed are being executed. Where human life is (or is potentially) at stake, ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION, AND DON'T KILL IT.

 

[FearlessLeader2]

I'm not pro death. I"m not evil and wanting fetuses to die. I'm saying, aborted babies can get us cures for diseases. I think people with AID's, diabetes, alzheimers, and other's are more important than a strand of cells. You think the opposite, and that's fine. It's all opinion.

Oh, oh, I see. So murder is ok as long as someone profits from it?

Well, that's a reasonable position.

 

[Own]

So people dying from AID's, slow painful death's from alzheimers, and people having to get their finger pricked and a shot at 5:00 AM every day is fine as long as an unwanted child is born.

 

[CurtSibling]

So people dying from AID's, slow painful death's from alzheimers, and people having to get their finger pricked and a shot at 5:00 AM every day is fine as long as an unwanted child is born.

Of course.

Because the church cannot convert any of these results into new recruits.

A poor child in a christian orphanage is easy prey for conversion...An aborted foetus is not.

The current indoctrination given to the anti-abortionists is geared to gain more numbers for their particular sect.

Expansion is the reason, pure and simple - All the talk of 'mercy' is whitewash.

.

 

[blackheart]

You said that most people would prefer being aborted than growing up in a bad home and likely becoming a criminal. I want a source for that; some poll on the subject. And if you can't find one then I must ask you to retract that statement as it wouldn't reflect reality.

Use some common sense here instead of hiding behind statistics that can be easily manipulated to show a favorable image towards either sides. Most people would prefer other people to NOT be criminals.

 

[blackheart]

Where human life is (or is potentially) at stake, ERR ON THE SIDE OF CAUTION, AND DON'T KILL IT.

Let us ban executions of criminals for fear that they may be innocent. Let us ban war for fear that we may hit civilians. Let us ban sending troops to protect the defenseless for fear we may kill the men murdering them (Sudan, Rwanda, etc.)

 

[newfangle]

Let us ban executions of criminals for fear that they may be innocent.

That's seems like one hell of a good reason to not kill criminals.

Let us ban war for fear that we may hit civilians. Let us ban sending troops to protect the defenseless for fear we may kill the men murdering them (Sudan, Rwanda, etc.)

Fetuses generally aren't in the habit of murdering people.

Oh, for the record I am pro choice, but I hate to see bad arguments.

 

[blackheart]

Fetuses generally aren't in the habit of murdering people.

Oh, for the record I am pro choice, but I hate to see bad arguments.

I didn't say they do. Just responding to FL2's argument of erring on the side of caution. Absurdity for absurdity.

 

[newfangle]

Erring on the side of caution is certainly not absurd in many cases! Especially in your first example.

 

[Elrohir]

I'm not pro death. I"m not evil and wanting fetuses to die. I'm saying, aborted babies can get us cures for diseases. I think people with AID's, diabetes, alzheimers, and other's are more important than a strand of cells. You think the opposite, and that's fine. It's all opinion.

First, there is very little evidence that suggests using dead babies for medical research really helps at all. Second, it doesn't matter if it does - deliberately killing innocents isn't justifieed, even if you could be sure that there would be a positive result somewhere down the line. Which you can't be of.

Unit 731, a part of the Japanese army back in WW2 did experiments on Allied soldiers. They did everything from exposing them to highly contagious diseases to cutting them open while alive to see what a humans tolerance for pain is. Now I don't doubt that they learned a great deal about human physiology - but at the cost of 3,000 POE'd lives it was not worth it.

Because the church cannot convert any of these results into new recruits.

A poor child in a christian orphanage is easy prey for conversion...An aborted foetus is not.

For crying out loud....if we were looking to win souls we would let you go ahead: Most Christians believe that there is an Age of Accountability, before which someone cannot truly choose to accept or reject God, so if they are killed will be accepted into Heaven. The exact age is disputed, but regardless of what it is it is agreed that it is long after birth. So if we thought only of trying to get as many souls into Heaven as possible we would encourage abortion - but we also have to think about the rights and wrongs committed in this world, and stop as many wrongs as we can.

Don't be so cynical.

Use some common sense here instead of hiding behind statistics that can be easily manipulated to show a favorable image towards either sides. Most people would prefer other people to NOT be criminals.

Oh? That wasn't a statistic? Imagine that. Could you please retract your statement that most people would rather be killed before birth than not have a good family? I would appreciate it.

 

[blackheart]

Oh? That wasn't a statistic? Imagine that. Could you please retract your statement that most people would rather be killed before birth than not have a good family? I would appreciate it.

No, I won't. Instead, I give you a challenge to find me a statistic that disproves what I said. Otherwise, use your common sense.

 

[Atlas14]

First, there is very little evidence that suggests using dead babies for medical research really helps at all.

Stem Cell Research, are you aware of its medical potential? Any "lack of evidence" is because it is so severely restricted right now as far as funding and access to quality stem cells.

The favorable environmental and crime-limiting outcomes of abortion tend to outweigh, at least in my books, those of outlawing abortion completely. As I've said before, if you are immoral enough to even consider an abortion, then you should not be raising a child. End of story. I grant you that not every one of these children will grow up to be disturbed individuals who turn to drugs, crime, and murder, but clear logic tells us this is the most probable outcome. It is not even necessarily the idea of "pre-crime" but if the woman and man are both willing to have an abortion, where the "child" has not even developed a near complex nervous system, and the embryo can humanely be aborted, I say go for it. Why should you or I care about their humane decision? Does it affect you, or anyone else in any negative way? Not really. It will, in the long-run, potentially give your children and their children more living space on earth, less taxes being paid to support children of parents too stupid to wear a condom, potentially less starvation on earth because less people to feed, and less people blaming their mass-murders on their disruptive childhood and mentally instable parents.