UPSB v3
Serious Discussion / Abortion
What do you guys think about it?
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 11:39:23
Yeah, Im pretty knowlegde able about this subject...what do you guys think about it? Do you think its murder, or isn't? Even if it is murder, do you think there are certain cases when its not? Fully contradicting your first answer?
I believe it isn't wrong..
I enjoy starting my long posts with a definition, so that is what I shall do here =D
Abortion = The purposeful interruption of pregnancy with the intention other than to produce a live born infant or to remove a dead fetus and which does not result in a live birth.
This definition was derived from http://kic.kdhe.state.ks.us/kic/gen_def.html , and I thought it suited the word the most. I believe that Abortions are a form of mercy killing, also known as Euthanasia. This, I believe in. ON TO ABORTION
Imagine, if a girl was raped, brutally, and the sperm of the rapist entered the egg of the girl being raped. This would cause the immediate development of an embryo.(Well not immediate, but you guys know what I mean) This embryo, soon to be child, was given to the girl forcefully. She didn't want the child, and everyone ( I think) knows that child birth is painful. Why should she, a soon to be nun or something else that doesn't require a child, be forced to experience the pain of which she never wanted to experience? Its just not right. Yes, there are other options like giving the child to the homeless shelter, but they have already bonded so much whilst the embryo is in the mothers womb, it would make the girl feel SOO terrible...wouldn't it? All that pain and sufferring, and she had to give it away? Imagine if it was a pen, that you took DAYS, MONTHS, AND YEARS TO Wait and make...how would you feel?
Yes, this also goes with teenage pregnancy, but I can't really defend this...If you are going through adolescence...All those hormones in your body acting up, you start to see your body changing, WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU DO BUT TRY IT OUT? I mean seriously....We are humans, we experiement with things...So, if accidents happen, punishments should happen to. That pain of giving birth to a child is kinda OVER UBER hard punishment...when instead, and simple needed, or punch in the stomach should do it( No, I will never ever do this to another person...its bad..) But yeah, I cant defend that as well...
And yeah, thats my penny on what I think about abortion....I know my posts may seem childlike, but I try...I can't really express my thoughts without doing so...I need smilys and stuff...especially on the internet.
But, thanks for reading, and I hope to improve my knowledge with what you guys say 
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 11:50:08
I like the way you use smilies, they are a useful tool.
Onto the topic with five rather unrelated but on-topic statements:
-If a woman is raped or if giving birth to the child endangers the mother's life, then I think abortion should be allowed.
-However, if a woman becomes pregnant of her own accord and then does not wish to have the child, she should have to have that child and care for it and raise it, regardless.
-When giving birth to a child in a hospital of a developed country, one can usually have an injection of an opiate into the spine which significantly reduces the pain.
- Women should not be able to terminate the pregnancy because of the child having a disability or being of unwanted gender.
- Fathers should have no legal say in abortion.
Therefore, in my opinion, abortion is sometimes allowable, but seldom so.QUOTEWow. Zombo even used this as an example of what NOT to discuss...
I'm quite sure that if we discuss sensibly and intellegently Zombo will not mind which topic we are discussing. If discussion becomes 'out-of-hand' I'm sure Tialys will lock the thread. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 13:03:13
hmm, i think abortion shoud be allowed. in any case. that's it.
QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 01:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>- Fathers should have no legal say in abortion.
and why do you think that, if i may ask? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 13:09:56QUOTE (minche @ Jun 25 2008, 09:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>hmm, i think abortion shoud be allowed. in any case. that's it.
and why do you think that, if i may ask?
The father is not the one who is host to the child. It matters only what the woman carrying the child wants and not the father or anyone else.QUOTEhmm, i think abortion shoud be allowed. in any case. that's it.
So if a woman is having an abortion simply because they are too lazy to have a child, that should be allowed? Should abortion be allowed just weeks before the child is born? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 13:16:52QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The father is not the one who is host to the child. It matters only what the woman carrying the child wants and not the father or anyone else.
So if a woman is having an abortion simply because they are too lazy to have a child, that should be allowed? Should abortion be allowed just weeks before the child is born?
so if the woman wants to abort, it should be allowed.
it's just my opinion, i'm not saying i would do it. -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 13:18:47
i have to disagree with this. i believe abortion is wrong. to me..its ending a life that is yet to be borned.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 14:17:05QUOTE (WhiteFang @ Jun 25 2008, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i have to disagree with this. i believe abortion is wrong. to me..its ending a life that is yet to be borned.
yah WhiteFang is right.
its wrong to kill someone.
its the parents fault they have a baby in the first place.
so why kill? -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 14:19:07
the only problem is that if you allow it after a rape then women will be accusing men of rape all the time because some of them dont want to take the responsibility. Also, just wanting to try something out isnt a good reason to use it, i dont think. Anyways, I don't think there is a true right wrong scenario here.
-
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 14:54:56
Just to clarify the rule:
QUOTEMany countries in the world promote freedom of speech, and Canada and the USA are no exception. Although the name Off-Topic (Serious Discussion) may imply that topics other than Pen Spinning are allowed in this forum, for reasons of bandwidth and other circumstances, the UPSB recommends that members refrain from debates/conversations regarding religious, political, controversial (such as abortions etc.)
This was for the old UPSB, so just ignore the part that says such as abortions. Abortion can be discussed so long as you refrain from using a political or religious basis for your arguments (i.e. don't say, for example, "my religious/political view says abortion is wrong therefore it is wrong.") By "controversial", the rule refers to over-the-top threads such as "which torture method is most effective." -
Date: Wed, Jun 25 2008 22:32:39
Pro-choice
Simply its the woman's choice, if its her body let her do what ever the hell she wants. I'm not one to push my belief's on anyone so who am I to say that "No, you are not allowed to have an abortion because I think its wrong." . Really I don't think that it should be an issue its all about personal choice and I think we should leave it at that. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 02:17:23
YES!!!
The world is simply over populated today.
Look at the bright side, global warming will be helped with less people, means less cars in the future. Less demand for products, less demand for factories and shit. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 02:56:12
yea, i agree with mrguy in that there would be fake rape cases everywhere... but @whitefang, how can you end a life yet to be born? is it really a life if it hasn't been born? Isn't birth the beginning of life?
so yea, i'm pro-choice
i highly agree with sangara, i feel that banning abortion is forcing ideals on people, whereas allowing it is simply... letting them be free
but my biggest arguement is that i dont want children being brought into the world by parents who don't want them. Obviously if they want an abortion, they don't want the kid for whatever reason, usually because they're too young to take care of them. In which case, the kid could end up ruining the parent's life. And even though it's the parents' fault, the parents could blame the kid for it, and then the kid would suffer, and i don't think that's right. If i was one of those kids, i'd wish i was aborted...
@ Fresh, can you get abortions a few weeks before? i thought there was a point where u couldn't do it anymore... -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 07:01:45
Can I ask a few questions? Is the freedom of choice so much more overpowering then the sanctity of life? Then, do we consider an embryo to be a living being that has the right to live, or merely a mass of cells that has yet to develop a consciousness?
-
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 12:50:47QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jun 25 2008, 10:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>@ Fresh, can you get abortions a few weeks before? i thought there was a point where u couldn't do it anymore...
There is a point at something like 20 weeks after which abortions are not allowed by law (it varies from country to country). Howver, I was asking Minche, since she said no matter what it should be the choice of the women, if an abortion just weeks before birth would be okay by her. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 13:08:23QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Jun 26 2008, 03:01 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Can I ask a few questions? Is the freedom of choice so much more overpowering then the sanctity of life? Then, do we consider an embryo to be a living being that has the right to live, or merely a mass of cells that has yet to develop a consciousness?
I believe that abortions should only happen when necessary. Such cases include when the foetus would endanger the mother's life or when the foetus has a condition that would be fatal or extremely horrible to live with. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 15:38:37
Ugh this discussion come from the same source of stupidity that vegetarians take their:"meat is murder" shit from.
If you ask me, a woman should be able to do whatever the hell she wants to do with her body.
"But abortion is murder!!11!!11". It's an unborn baby and the person who carries it doesn't even want it. Growing a child requires plenty of time, commitment and a stable environment, and if the woman isn't capable of such then she and the baby shouldn't suffer for that because your morals can't stand it for some reason.
In my opinion, if a child can't be properly raised in a proper environment it shouldn't be raised at all. Would probably save the world from a lot of future douche bags.
That's what I think of it >.>
(Said opinion is not to be taken personally.) -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 17:33:14
To begin with, I think parents should respect the choice of a child to be born and to have the parents the child has chosen. But when the parents really feel they are not ready to have the child, I think they could consider abortion. I think parents should make their decision as soon as possible, as the embryo will grow and will feel more during the time you wait. A few weeks before normal conception the child is (almost) the same as a baby that has been born normally. I think that would be murder and be occurred when possible.
And I think the parents should always make the decision of abortion together, unless the father doesn't want to have any contact with the mother anymore. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 18:13:24QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>- Fathers should have no legal say in abortion.QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 09:09 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The father is not the one who is host to the child. It matters only what the woman carrying the child wants and not the father or anyone else.QUOTE (sangara @ Jun 25 2008, 06:32 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Simply its the woman's choice, if its her body let her do what ever the hell she wants.
Why should it only be the mother's choice? Some of the genes of the embryo/fetus were contributed from the father as well, and sometimes the fetus has a different blood type from the mother. How would the embryo exist in the first place without the father's sperm? If anyone should have a choice, the father should have a say in abortion of his own child.QUOTE (WhiteFang @ Jun 25 2008, 09:18 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>i have to disagree with this. i believe abortion is wrong. to me..its ending a life that is yet to be borned.
You're saying that life begins at the moment of conception? IMO, that's wrong because most abortions occur naturally, or miscarriages. Certainly, a cell/embryo that is naturally aborted won't be living. Conception is not a guarantee of life. In fact most miscarriages occur during the early stages of pregnancy, so if an embryo were to survive past the first trimester, it would be a major factor in determining a successful pregnancy.QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 25 2008, 07:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>- Women should not be able to terminate the pregnancy because of the child having a disability
What if you have a child with severe mental retardation, that is going to be life-long dependent? If you put the child for adoption, it's going to cost quite a lot for health care for the child. How many people are willing to take care of someone with severe mental retardation that would cost a substantial amount of their income. I'm not saying you should have an abortion, but at least consider it.QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Jun 26 2008, 03:01 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Can I ask a few questions? Is the freedom of choice so much more overpowering then the sanctity of life? Then, do we consider an embryo to be a living being that has the right to live, or merely a mass of cells that has yet to develop a consciousness?
Most abortions don't go past the embryonic stage of development (5-8 weeks). IMO, an embryo is only the potential for life because there are a lot of situations were miscarriages can occur (poor nutrition, drugs, etc.) before it becomes a fetus. I wouldn't consider a mass of cells/a zygote to be life because it still depends everything from its mother. When it develops a brain, heart, etc., then it would be considered as life.QUOTE (fairy @ Jun 26 2008, 01:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>To begin with, I think parents should respect the choice of a child to be born and to have the parents the child has chosen. But when the parents really feel they are not ready to have the child, I think they could consider abortion. I think parents should make their decision as soon as possible, as the embryo will grow and will feel more during the time you wait. A few weeks before normal conception the child is (almost) the same as a baby that has been born normally. I think that would be murder and be occurred when possible.
If you can't decide to have an abortion within 6-8 weeks of pregnancy, then you had your chance, and should at least put it up for adoption, unless possibly because of a medical disorder.
--
I think abortion is alright under a few circumstances (e.g. medical disorder/possibly rape), but only before 6-8 weeks of initial pregnancy. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 19:45:54QUOTE (ello @ Jun 26 2008, 01:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Why should it only be the mother's choice? Some of the genes of the embryo/fetus were contributed from the father as well, and sometimes the fetus has a different blood type from the mother. How would the embryo exist in the first place without the father's sperm? If anyone should have a choice, the father should have a say in abortion of his own child.
The father does not have the child growing inside of him. He does not have to carry the child nor give birth to it and (naturally) would not have to feed it. Therefore, the father should be without say.QUOTEWhat if you have a child with severe mental retardation, that is going to be life-long dependent? If you put the child for adoption, it's going to cost quite a lot for health care for the child.
How much is a life worth? -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 20:03:47
i think its ok if both the people want to do it or if they dont think that they can support a child. my parents are separated and at times i wish that they had an abortion because it gets really tough for me.
-
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 23:39:53
For all those pro-choice people, if the embryo were to be considered a living human being, would it be right to violate the sanctity of life, just because of the "freedom of choice" that everyone is entitled to? Shouldn't the sanctity of life be held up over other rights?
-
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 23:46:48
I believe it should always be the woman's choice.
"How much is a life worth?" It depends on whom you ask. If you ask a military personnel, it's not a whole lot since they're dispensable units. If you ask a mother, it is worth everything in the world. This is a highly subjective question and should not be treated like there's a universal answer to it.
Besides, if life is universally important, why not save the animals in the world? Can humans save every animal from being eaten by predators? I don't really see any kind of effort being put towards that. Not even PETA would put in the effort. It's this kind of double standard I see that makes me laugh at the question "how much is a life worth." -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 23:50:20QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Jun 26 2008, 04:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For all those pro-choice people, if the embryo were to be considered a living human being, would it be right to violate the sanctity of life, just because of the "freedom of choice" that everyone is entitled to? Shouldn't the sanctity of life be held up over other rights?
Does it breathe on its own? Does it eat on its own? IMO its considered apart of the woman's body until its actually born. So there isn't even the possibility of you trying to make me realize something that you say through a meaningless "what if" question. -
Date: Thu, Jun 26 2008 23:57:25
Thats the point i brought up earlier, when I asked if an embryo was considered living and thus had the right to live. If it does not have the rights to live accorded to it, abortion would be considered ok. However, there are many other factors that govern the abortion process too, such as societal values, personal values, and the circumstances in which the foetus was conceived.
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 00:16:10QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Jun 26 2008, 04:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Thats the point i brought up earlier, when I asked if an embryo was considered living and thus had the right to live. If it does not have the rights to live accorded to it, abortion would be considered ok. However, there are many other factors that govern the abortion process too, such as societal values, personal values, and the circumstances in which the foetus was conceived.
And you said it right there, personal opinion/values, its something we shouldn't press onto other people. So why would we even try? And there is an other side to this what do you think about back ally abortions, maybe someone really has to get rid of their kid? Are you going to waste the mother's life as well? Just another perspective on the "how much is a life worth" debate
.
-
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 00:22:44QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 26 2008, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>The father does not have the child growing inside of him. He does not have to carry the child nor give birth to it and (naturally) would not have to feed it. Therefore, the father should be without say.
The father helped conceive the child, which itself is 50% of the father. The child is as much the father's as the mother's. Why should a father have to pay for child support if the child if it's the mother's solely as you say? Let's say they both partners had consensual intercourse. The mother wants to have an abortion, while the father wants to raise the child. The father does have a right to keep the child.QUOTE (Fresh @ Jun 26 2008, 03:45 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>How much is a life worth?
It's worth more than money alone. If affects the whole society. If such a child outlives its parents, then society would have to take care of the child for life. How many people are willing to pay the child's health care and take care of it? -
Date: Fri, Jun 27 2008 06:37:27QUOTE (Gunblakes @ Jun 27 2008, 01:39 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>For all those pro-choice people, if the embryo were to be considered a living human being, would it be right to violate the sanctity of life, just because of the "freedom of choice" that everyone is entitled to? Shouldn't the sanctity of life be held up over other rights?
Then no, I don't consider an embryo to be a living human being. He's no more of a human then...I dunno..a plant is. Not until it leaves the mother or at a very late stage or whatever.
Like a person said earlier, if someone considers abortion it means they don't want the child, now how well do you think an unwanted child can be raised? odds are in favor of him becoming some sort of criminal/low life.
What if the parent is too young to properly have the baby? That means that not only is the parent's life ruined but most like the child's life won't be great either.
I don't see why because of stupid enforcement of belief these things should happen, just adding to the already vast pool of human scum, all because of "sanctity of life"... -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 01:48:25
I knew this topic would come up.
My opinion is that I think Abortion is wrong.
You see, I know Abortion applies to people who will be in physical and financial danger when having a baby. However, let's say a woman got raped, and got pregnant. She could get abortion right away. Of course, at that time she might think she have done the right thing, even if it was a great stress for her.
Teatime, i absolutely respect your opinion, and i don't mean to attack you at all.
But think about it. You actually destroy a life of a baby. Is it up to the mother to make a fate for this baby, born or not? Who was the wrong in the story above? The rapist? The mother? The baby? Actually i'll change that. Who is innocent?
You all know the answer. The baby.
So what did the baby do? What did the baby do that would have to get him/her killed? No one knows the answer of course. Because the baby did nothing.
No matter what, you can't change the fact that you destroyed a life that might later become a person about tall as you, and do great things for the world.
And how so can you absolutely tell that future of this baby is bad? We have something called operation. It makes it possible for even a 13 year old to have a baby. Of course if both die, both life is ruined.
But would you decide to kill this baby before anything happens? How would you know what happens in future? Just because you PREDICTED something bad will happen, you gonna take away this life if you were in the situation?
Of course, the world is corrupted. There's a raped 12 year old who is too young to have a baby. She needs treatment, but she is awfully poor. So you are basically right. She doesn't have any money to raise the child, nor do we know if she could love the child or not, nor do we know that if this girl could even give a birth to this baby. She is in need of money, and she goes to hospital. She think the government would help her with financial problem, but they just simply pretend they didn't see anything.
So then what? Who's wrong now? People around the young woman that just pretend they saw nothing? Why do people take things as something foreign? There's something wrong right there.
What people don't understand is that a single life could change the whole society. Or even if they do know, they just turn away from something that doesn't directly affect them. So abortion exist because it is justified that people pretend they see nothing when a girl needs help. There is something fundamentally wrong in society that eventually lead to justification of Abortion, no? If we could act and stop crime, abortion would never become a topic put up in debate.
here's a question for you then. What should the Medical Treatments aim for? Destroying a life? or saving life? What for does medical science exist? To know how to kill people? -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 04:22:49
So Dark Angel I have one question for you;
Does something that can't breathe on its own, eat on its own, live on its own have a life itself? -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 04:45:48QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 27 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Teatime, i absolutely respect your opinion, and i don't mean to attack you at all.
I like youQUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 27 2008, 05:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And how so can you absolutely tell that future of this baby is bad? We have something called operation. It makes it possible for even a 13 year old to have a baby. Of course if both die, both life is ruined.
But would you decide to kill this baby before anything happens? How would you know what happens in future? Just because you PREDICTED something bad will happen, you gonna take away this life if you were in the situation?
We aren't really referring to childbirth deaths, we're referring to the fact that an unwanted child probably won't have a very good life... as you said, the baby is innocent, and doesn't deserve to be raised by someone who doesn't want it.
Another arguement I didn't mention is that arbortion, right or wrong, should be a right. Things like murder, ok, murder is bad, you can't murder people. But obviously many people dispute that abortion is wrong, and thus I don't think it's fair for the people that think it's wrong to impose their views upon us; therefore, it should stay legalQUOTE (sangara @ Jun 27 2008, 08:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So Dark Angel I have one question for you;
Does something that can't breathe on its own, eat on its own, live on its own have a life itself?
qft -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 05:21:09
I strongly believe that abortion is not right. Putting aside that I am a girl, I just can't stand to kill someone that deserves to live. I'm not putting my basis to what my religion or belief is....
I mean my main point is...I don't want others including myself to become totally incapable, irresponsible and childish. That's how I view it.... I mean you can't run away from the problem forever that is cowardice.
Besides, I love kids
-
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 06:16:35
Ok so someone wanna tell me why no one will answer my question? Or why people just answer it with a childish remark?
-
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 06:34:57QUOTE (sangara @ Jun 28 2008, 12:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So Dark Angel I have one question for you;
Does something that can't breathe on its own, eat on its own, live on its own have a life itself?
I personally believe that an embryo does not have a life, so it is up to to parents to decide what to do with it. However, IF it were to be considered to be a living human being, then would be morally wrong to violate the sanctity of life by aborting the embryo. -
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 06:43:18
well i think the big idea, and supporter's arguement, is that no, it is not truly living
-
Date: Sat, Jun 28 2008 11:28:38QUOTE (Katantoon @ Jun 28 2008, 07:21 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I strongly believe that abortion is not right. Putting aside that I am a girl, I just can't stand to kill someone that deserves to live. I'm not putting my basis to what my religion or belief is....
I mean my main point is...I don't want others including myself to become totally incapable, irresponsible and childish. That's how I view it.... I mean you can't run away from the problem forever that is cowardice.
Besides, I love kids
So a child conceived through rape deserves to live in your opinion? Wow, that's messed up :\
Running away from problems? I don't understand how not wanting to raise a child and screwing up your life in the process is running away from problems. In my opinion it's more like avoiding them in the first place. Your entire phrase here is really unclear, not sure I got it in the first place :X
Dark Angel:
First, I respect your opinion the same way you respect mine
How well do you think a child that the woman considered giving up will grow up? When the child is not wanted then somewhere in the back of the head that will stay...
Besides, it's some situation where you only have to choose one child out of two to live that you can say:"How can you decide which life to end just according to XYZ..", this life hasn't started yet. If there is any point in time where life can be stopped it's here. But this really comes down to whether you think the embryo is alive or not and I don't think that can change through discussion, it's just a matter of perspective and personal opinion.
I'm not sure I understand that verse about the 12 year old girl...the government pretends they didn't see anything? What does that mean really? Do you expect the government to do anything in her power to help a 12 year old pregnant rape victim raise her child? Does that even make sense to you? Maybe I'm just not getting you right :X
Abortion exists to end life that will probably do only bad(Ruin the mother's life, child won't grow up very well etc). But more importantly(maybe), abortion is a part of freedom. Like the person said above, why should people's lives be ruined just because some people think it's wrong? There's probably hundreds of lives that kept going on course because the woman aborted her child and went on with a normal life instead of raising it and probably giving up all her dreams and so on, as well as there are probably hundreds of lives ruined because the woman did not. How many lives blossomed out of the fact that the woman kept the child? Somehow I think that a lot less...
There's no point in arguing about medical science and whether or not it needs to support life, that's not part of the debate...
-
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 09:21:06QUOTE (sangara @ Jun 28 2008, 01:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>So Dark Angel I have one question for you;
Does something that can't breathe on its own, eat on its own, live on its own have a life itself?
So you are basically saying that it is okay to kill them because they don't breathe on its own, eat on its own, and live on its own.
Then think about this: The baby is JUST about to be born, but the baby does NOT breath, eat, and live on it's own, so you consider them not having a life of it's own? Then what happens a second later? The baby is born, they breath, now they can eat (or be breastfed or whatever), and now they have a life of it's own. So in this split second, there's a HUGE HUGE ULTIMATE difference between "Not having life of it's own or not".
Is that what you are saying?
Maybe there are people who can't breathe, and take a external tube to lungs. Maybe there are people who can't eat, therefore they must take injections. And believe it or not, no one can live alone. We exist because others exist, no?QUOTE (Teatime @ Jun 28 2008, 08:28 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Dark Angel:
First, I respect your opinion the same way you respect mine
How well do you think a child that the woman considered giving up will grow up? When the child is not wanted then somewhere in the back of the head that will stay...
Besides, it's some situation where you only have to choose one child out of two to live that you can say:"How can you decide which life to end just according to XYZ..", this life hasn't started yet. If there is any point in time where life can be stopped it's here. But this really comes down to whether you think the embryo is alive or not and I don't think that can change through discussion, it's just a matter of perspective and personal opinion.
I'm not sure I understand that verse about the 12 year old girl...the government pretends they didn't see anything? What does that mean really? Do you expect the government to do anything in her power to help a 12 year old pregnant rape victim raise her child? Does that even make sense to you? Maybe I'm just not getting you right :X
Abortion exists to end life that will probably do only bad(Ruin the mother's life, child won't grow up very well etc). But more importantly(maybe), abortion is a part of freedom. Like the person said above, why should people's lives be ruined just because some people think it's wrong? There's probably hundreds of lives that kept going on course because the woman aborted her child and went on with a normal life instead of raising it and probably giving up all her dreams and so on, as well as there are probably hundreds of lives ruined because the woman did not. How many lives blossomed out of the fact that the woman kept the child? Somehow I think that a lot less...
There's no point in arguing about medical science and whether or not it needs to support life, that's not part of the debate...
1) Thanks!
2) Is it the future that only matters? A future you can't 100% see clear? Okay, it might ruin mother's life and child won't grow up very well, but how far can you say that? How can you predict the future and say just because it MIGHT happen, you gonna just kill them.
3) Okay, i read it again, and i have no idea what i said. let's ignore this...
4) End Life = Kill. Abortion = freedom? You really think so?
5) Ah, there is. You see, long ago, medical science didn't exist, and when people were raped, they were forced to give birth to the baby. Now the medical science exist, people started thinking it is justified to take away a life of a baby under certain circumstances. But why did medical science ever be created? I think it was to save people's life no? Then apply it to the mother. Does it save the mother? yes. But does it save the child? no. Is abortion due to nature? no. Do we have the right to take away a life? No. So should medical science be applied to kill life? No.
I understand how mother would feel when being raped and becoming pregnant. But does that give any right to kill the baby though?
And now, tell you what. Believe it or not, we are weak beings. I checked this from a TV program in Japan (i don't remember the title at all, and it was long time ago, so it's free to believe it or not), but it says that woman who were raped and became pregnant will usually go for abortion. But when they are invited to watch a mother giving birth to a baby and smiles as the mother takes the baby in her hand, they say many mother changes their mind, that they SHOULD give birth to the baby.
Now what do you think the woman will have to feel when they still get abortion? What would be the weight of stress that she destroyed a life?
Why do you think this would happen? A woman wanted to get abortion, but changes her mind. It's because they see the value of life with their own eyes. Before, they don't know how to deal with unwanted pregnancy because they don't understand that value at all. The baby is still inside their womb, and they somewhat think they don't have a life of it's own...only alive because the host is there.
But i think not. As i have said in the post above, unborn baby still have their life. Without properly understanding the value of life, how can abortions be allowed? -
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 15:22:58
I think abortion is wrong. The argument that abortion should be allowed for women who get raped does not make that much sense to me. If you do not want the child you can give the child up for adoption. I understand that child birth is painful but to be honest if you are considering killing someone because you don't want to feel pain then your pretty messed up.
-
Date: Mon, Jun 30 2008 16:27:43QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 30 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>2) Is it the future that only matters? A future you can't 100% see clear? Okay, it might ruin mother's life and child won't grow up very well, but how far can you say that? How can you predict the future and say just because it MIGHT happen, you gonna just kill them.
Amm..yeah, the future is only what matters. MOST chances are it's going to be a messed up life for both, and I don't think that just because you think that a child is alive at the moment of conception and thus shouldn't be killed, both of their lives should be ruined. And YES, if you think about it, most odds are that at least the girl's life will be ruined.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 30 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>4) End Life = Kill. Abortion = freedom? You really think so?
Meh. The idea is that a woman should be able to do what she wants. I don't think that just because you think it's wrong it should be imposed on every girl who doesn't want to ruin her life by having a baby too soon.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 30 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>5) Ah, there is. You see, long ago, medical science didn't exist, and when people were raped, they were forced to give birth to the baby. Now the medical science exist, people started thinking it is justified to take away a life of a baby under certain circumstances. But why did medical science ever be created? I think it was to save people's life no? Then apply it to the mother. Does it save the mother? yes. But does it save the child? no. Is abortion due to nature? no. Do we have the right to take away a life? No. So should medical science be applied to kill life? No.
I understand how mother would feel when being raped and becoming pregnant. But does that give any right to kill the baby though?
Oh come on, at the first bunch of months it's not much more then a bunch of cells. A long time ago, woman got raped and had to give birth and raise children they didn't want, but then again, a long time ago woman didn't do much other then raise children. So yeah, no there have been developments that can help woman avoid that life if they want to.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 30 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>And now, tell you what. Believe it or not, we are weak beings. I checked this from a TV program in Japan (i don't remember the title at all, and it was long time ago, so it's free to believe it or not), but it says that woman who were raped and became pregnant will usually go for abortion. But when they are invited to watch a mother giving birth to a baby and smiles as the mother takes the baby in her hand, they say many mother changes their mind, that they SHOULD give birth to the baby.
Now what do you think the woman will have to feel when they still get abortion? What would be the weight of stress that she destroyed a life?
What a silly argument. So those girls are stupid or something if they smile at a baby that's half of a fucking rapist.
You know what I think the woman who did have the abortion should feel? They should feel relieved for themselves, and pity at these woman who now have to raise a child that wasn't born through love of one person to the other. That's what I think. Not that they "destroyed a life"...life that doesn't deserve to be at the first place.
It's not like getting pregnant is HARD that they need to regret not having the baby...if they want a baby and think they can raise it they can easily do so.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jun 30 2008, 11:50 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Why do you think this would happen? A woman wanted to get abortion, but changes her mind. It's because they see the value of life with their own eyes. Before, they don't know how to deal with unwanted pregnancy because they don't understand that value at all. The baby is still inside their womb, and they somewhat think they don't have a life of it's own...only alive because the host is there.
But i think not. As i have said in the post above, unborn baby still have their life. Without properly understanding the value of life, how can abortions be allowed?
Like we said, it all comes down to whether you think the unborn baby is "alive" or not. I think it doesn't, and I don't think it's that wrong to stop it there, especially if it wasn't planned. I would want to explain why I think the whole destroying a life thing is stupid but I tried to do so at every single post here and I just get blocked by words, and I don't want to offend anyone.
Think this is the last time I post here. I don't think I can make my view any clearer then I already have and I've had enough with the frustration of typing for 15 min so that my points come off well....it's rather tiring =P
That's my view, take it or leave it. <3'z. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 02:11:43
nature has miscarriages... so we take nature into our hands
is that what you're saying is wrong? That we shouldn't use technology to manipulate the laws of nature? Then go flood all the cities that have dams protecting them. Stop eating the food we have genetically engineered for you. Stop going to the doctors, and don't get any vaccines. And get off the computer that you're using to read this
Plus, if i was born to a father who was a rapist and a mother who hated me for ruining her life... i would wish i was aborted -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 10:12:47QUOTE (Teatime @ Jul 1 2008, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Amm..yeah, the future is only what matters. MOST chances are it's going to be a messed up life for both, and I don't think that just because you think that a child is alive at the moment of conception and thus shouldn't be killed, both of their lives should be ruined. And YES, if you think about it, most odds are that at least the girl's life will be ruined.
Really? Just because it's MOST, doesn't justify to kill a person not born yet. Just because it's MOST, you plan to give up right there?QUOTEMeh. The idea is that a woman should be able to do what she wants. I don't think that just because you think it's wrong it should be imposed on every girl who doesn't want to ruin her life by having a baby too soon.
Yea but do you want me to say what i said before all over again?QUOTEOh come on, at the first bunch of months it's not much more then a bunch of cells. A long time ago, woman got raped and had to give birth and raise children they didn't want, but then again, a long time ago woman didn't do much other then raise children. So yeah, no there have been developments that can help woman avoid that life if they want to.
yea but those small bunch of cells become what you call "alive" babies you know.QUOTEWhat a silly argument. So those girls are stupid or something if they smile at a baby that's half of a fucking rapist.
You know what I think the woman who did have the abortion should feel? They should feel relieved for themselves, and pity at these woman who now have to raise a child that wasn't born through love of one person to the other. That's what I think. Not that they "destroyed a life"...life that doesn't deserve to be at the first place.
It's not like getting pregnant is HARD that they need to regret not having the baby...if they want a baby and think they can raise it they can easily do so.
Um, how far can you prove this statement? All life deserve to be if they exist. You deny their life to exist just because they don't deserve it? What do you mean deserve it? So raped mother's baby don't DESERVE to live? huh? What is this?
Maybe they should but most don't. Getting an abortion or not, they will regret it both ways. If they choose abortion, later in life, they will start to feel remorse. Oh sure, i don't know what they would really think when they are injected steroids during their stay in hospital, i'm sure they are in hard decision.QUOTELike we said, it all comes down to whether you think the unborn baby is "alive" or not. I think it doesn't, and I don't think it's that wrong to stop it there, especially if it wasn't planned. I would want to explain why I think the whole destroying a life thing is stupid but I tried to do so at every single post here and I just get blocked by words, and I don't want to offend anyone.
So the split second before being born is not "alive".QUOTEThink this is the last time I post here. I don't think I can make my view any clearer then I already have and I've had enough with the frustration of typing for 15 min so that my points come off well....it's rather tiring =P
i understand, but you got a little too far on some parts...i think.QUOTEThat's my view, take it or leave it. <3'z.
I don't take it, but i accept it. And i won't leave it because this is the debate section. you posted here for a reason no?QUOTE (Shadowserpant @ Jul 1 2008, 11:11 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>nature has miscarriages... so we take nature into our hands
is that what you're saying is wrong? That we shouldn't use technology to manipulate the laws of nature? Then go flood all the cities that have dams protecting them. Stop eating the food we have genetically engineered for you. Stop going to the doctors, and don't get any vaccines. And get off the computer that you're using to read this
Huh? What?QUOTEPlus, if i was born to a father who was a rapist and a mother who hated me for ruining her life... i would wish i was aborted
Yea sure, say as much as you want, but i bet you barely know a single little value of life. -
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 12:17:26QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jul 1 2008, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Maybe they should but most don't. Getting an abortion or not, they will regret it both ways. If they choose abortion, later in life, they will start to feel remorse. Oh sure, i don't know what they would really think when they are injected steroids during their stay in hospital, i'm sure they are in hard decision.
Who are you to say that every woman who aborted will regret it later? I don't get it. You assume that everyone thinks like you that abortion is wrong and that everyone will at some point regret aborting a child, even a child conceived through rape. That's so far off.
And yes, I do think that a child born through rape DOESN'T DESERVE TO LIVE. Jeez I can't believe you think they do. If the woman is willing to raise it properly then it's all the same but if she doesn't want it then I don't see anything wrong in terminating it.QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jul 1 2008, 12:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>I don't take it, but i accept it. And i won't leave it because this is the debate section. you posted here for a reason no?
Dude it's just figure of speech =P
I don't get what your problem with freedom is. Why do you think it's so wrong to allow a woman to do what she wants? A woman got pregnant by accident and you think that that's it, it's over for her, she has to raise the baby regardless of the consequences it will have? You're enforcing your opinion in a way that may ruin lives, instead of just allowing her to decide for her own.
-
Date: Tue, Jul 1 2008 12:31:18
but somehow, the parents will the one's who's gonna decide. its their baby.
-
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 00:16:41QUOTESo the split second before being born is not "alive".
Yea cuz obviously abortions are performed a split second before the baby is born. That isn't a valid arguementQUOTEnature has miscarriages... so we take nature into our hands
is that what you're saying is wrong? That we shouldn't use technology to manipulate the laws of nature? Then go flood all the cities that have dams protecting them. Stop eating the food we have genetically engineered for you. Stop going to the doctors, and don't get any vaccines. And get off the computer that you're using to read this
Huh? What?
People said we were abusing technology. That was my arguementQUOTEYea sure, say as much as you want, but i bet you barely know a single little value of life.
Explain?QUOTEI think abortion is wrong. The argument that abortion should be allowed for women who get raped does not make that much sense to me. If you do not want the child you can give the child up for adoption. I understand that child birth is painful but to be honest if you are considering killing someone because you don't want to feel pain then your pretty messed up.
People don't get abortions because it hurts... they get them because they don't want to ruin the lives of both the mother and the child. And kids don't LIKE being put up for adoption. Some of them never even get taken...QUOTEI don't get what your problem with freedom is. Why do you think it's so wrong to allow a woman to do what she wants? A woman got pregnant by accident and you think that that's it, it's over for her, she has to raise the baby regardless of the consequences it will have? You're enforcing your opinion in a way that may ruin lives, instead of just allowing her to decide for her own.
Yes, exactly. Even if you think abortion is wrong, i don't think it's fair for you to impose that upon other people -
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 11:45:29QUOTE (Teatime @ Jul 1 2008, 09:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Who are you to say that every woman who aborted will regret it later? I don't get it. You assume that everyone thinks like you that abortion is wrong and that everyone will at some point regret aborting a child, even a child conceived through rape. That's so far off.
1) First, i have never said "Every". To make it clear, and in case i did say it, I'll make it clear now: I will not say "Every", because that is simply impossible.
2) No i don't think everyone think the same way i do.
3) Now it's not far off. Is it clear for you now?QUOTEAnd yes, I do think that a child born through rape DOESN'T DESERVE TO LIVE. Jeez I can't believe you think they do. If the woman is willing to raise it properly then it's all the same but if she doesn't want it then I don't see anything wrong in terminating it.
Jeez I can't believe you think child born through rape DOESN'T DESERVE TO LIVE. No one does not deserve to live. Everyone do. Even unborn babies, because i consider them having their own life. That's why i see a big problem in your statement.QUOTEI don't get what your problem with freedom is. Why do you think it's so wrong to allow a woman to do what she wants? A woman got pregnant by accident and you think that that's it, it's over for her, she has to raise the baby regardless of the consequences it will have? You're enforcing your opinion in a way that may ruin lives, instead of just allowing her to decide for her own.
So you are telling me that babies are "lower class cells", and that born people are much more valuable than those? Where did you start off to be here typing these things? From a baby? or embryo? We are able to have have our own lives because we started off from embryo, no? We can't just choose someone's death or not.
A woman got pregnant by accident and you think she has freedom of doing whatever she want with the "Bunch Of Cells" in her body? Is that how we treat life? Of course, if the unborn baby did something awfully wrong, that's a different story, but at least i don't think the unborn baby did a thing.
You consider terminating the bunch of cells in the womb is okay because I bet you don't understand the value of life. Now do i understand it? No, not at all. But do you? You think you know the value of new life? You think being born is where everything starts off? You think the unknown future is everything?
You think freedom is allowing human, ourselves to judge lives with our own view. But i disagree. I don't believe in God, but that doesn't change the value of life. Value of life can't be explained by words.
Plus, if rape never exist, such problem would never come up. We should stop rape in the first place.
I'll explain this in a way you like to say: Rape ruin the woman's life, and will MOST LIKELY will ruin their lives in the future. But since rape ruins life at the moment it is done, we must stop them first, no?
Of course you might say "Well we can't stop rape, we are humans" or whatever of those excuses, but that only proves that our words and the country's words toward the rapist didn't reach their head. That means WE ARE TOO WEAK to convince the people who wants to rape to stop. It means our words aren't wise enough, and that our actions aren't enough, no?
Don't you think you think ahead too much? before anything, abortion, life, whatever, we should stop rape so issues such as "abortion" wouldn't come up. But we think ahead and go for "If the person is raped, dot dot dot, abortion, dot dot dot" but what the fuck? What's with the "IF"? No, we don't need "IF". If we stop rape, then there wouldn't be such thing as "IF".QUOTEYea cuz obviously abortions are performed a split second before the baby is born. That isn't a valid arguement
You don't seem to get my point. Yes indeed, abortions are performed much before the baby is born, but think about it. WE all started off as embryos, and now we are the way we are right now. That embryo becomes the unborn baby, in time ready for abortion. That embryo becomes the unborn baby split second from being born. That embryo becomes the born baby. That embryo becomes an teenager. That embryo becomes the adult. That embryo becomes old.
Now is embryo still don't have their own life? What would you do if humans are born, let's say in extreme way, 2 years after embryo is formed? In about 10 month, it's already an fully developed human. But just because it's not breathing, and it still have another 14 month to get out of that womb, we are allowed to kill it? Just because it is "young", we are allowed to kill it?
I gave an extreme example so you could understand. Basically, once embryo is formed and is stuck to the placenta, it's already a life right there because that embryo will eventually become us.QUOTEPeople said we were abusing technology. That was my arguement
We are abusing technology. We abuse technology so we can do torture. We will abuse technology, and we will probably eventually be able to clone a human without anything wrong. We abuse technology so we can kill the people who did nothing wrong.
We use technology because we want to let the life go easier, but that doesn't mean taking a life away could.QUOTEExplain?
Then try explaining the value of life.QUOTEYes, exactly. Even if you think abortion is wrong, i don't think it's fair for you to impose that upon other people
Even if you think abortion is right, i don't think it's fair that we are allowed to take away a life that didn't do a single wrong.
This will be the right time to stop for me. It's my opinion anyway. I don't care if you flame it and things, but I'm sure i can't change the way you think the same way you can't. It's because my words aren't wise enough to convince anyone, and neither is yours.
We are all the same at the end.
Love you all
-
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 15:44:22
Oh god, your last post made my head heart so much...
Have fun in your perfect world, where no rape happens and all humans live happily with each other and there are no guns and unicorns run through the streets and the sun always smiles.(with all due respect to your opinion)
Good debate though, if one can call it such. -
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 16:41:41
Meh. One more.
I dont have a perfect world...i just said we should make ourselves some...and in order to do that, everyone must join.
Well at least i dont think i said anything wrong here.
your last sentence is unnecessary... -
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 16:48:07
I just meant that we haven't reached anywhere here which I hate when that happens.
-
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 18:54:36
It's a difficult debate. Through abortion you are denying the gift of life, but life is not an explicit right as much as a value. The degree to which this value is upheld to a large extent determines one's stance on abortion. However, situational factors must also be taken into account, and to this end I have comments for both sides.
Pro-life advocates claim that life is more important than the parents' wishes. Now I don't have the statistics, but I'm guessing the child would most likely lead an empty life, knowing that he/she is unwanted. Is a meaningless existence better than no existence at all? Sure, the baby could potentially become a great person or, more simply, a fully functioning member of society, but I would tend to think the probability is small. If you entertain this possibility, you must also acknowledge the opposite, that the child could resort to drugs and violence, and, at the extreme case, commit suicide. These actions may have justified the abortion. Also, consider deformed fetuses with a truncated lifespan after birth. Would you support abortion in the case that the baby would not reach adulthood? The embryo does not gain consciousness until a certain stage in pregnancy, and in this regard it is less sentient than animals. But we kill animals for food, so unless you are both pro-life and vegetarian, there is a value inconsistency.
While the pro-life side posits that it is impossible to accurately predict the future of a baby, abortionists state that it is better to remove the guesswork altogether. But consider the case of consensual unprotected sex that results in unwanted pregnancy. I could jump off a building, but it's not the act that stops me, it's the consequence. Similarly, you would think that potential pregnancy would stop couples from having unprotected sex. They have full knowledge of the result so it is not a legitimate accident or mistake. Abortion seems like a cop-out in this case, as well as an unnecessary action. I think a better deterrent is forcing the parents to own up to their mistake, which makes others less likely to try the same thing.
Finally, a compromise on abortion is to have it remain legal but discourage it, like cigarettes. Or you can make it more difficult to get the procedure done (e.g. more expensive, parent interviews, etc.). -
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 21:48:23
I find that the central argument in abortion is the value of life.
For ppl against it, life is of absolute supreme importance and is ranked above all. For ppl for it, life is only conditionally of supreme importance, and there are therefore situations where killing the fetus is right.
Therefore, I find this debate linked to many others, such as suicide (if life is supremely important, even the life's owner cannot take it away), euthanasia (life is supremely important, even if meaningless [alt: maybe life is never meaningless]), animal cruelty/vegetarianism (non-human life is also supremely important), capital punishment (life is supremely important, no matter the wrongdoings of its owner), cloning (uniqueness of life is supremely important?), stem cell research (breeding life for the purpose of medical treatment -> you cannot kill a life to save a life) and finally fetal rights (e.g. a woman who mistreats her fetus while pregnant [by smoking, for instance] and by that act kills the fetus [feticide] should be accused of murder).
I think the most important point here when debating is that you have to be consistent. If you consider the value of life to be absolutely important, you MUST adopt the appropriate stance in all of the issues listed above, namely against abortion, against suicide, against euthanasia, pro-vegetarian/anti-animal cruelty, anti-capital punishment, anti-cloning, against stem cell research, pro-fetal rights.
I believe it is because of this extreme, no-compromise, rigorosity that most people are afraid to declare the absolute importance of life and only settle for the conditionally importance of life. Please note that you might still adopt the pro-life stance in any of those cases yet not be pro-life if you can support it with another argument. In other words, just because you are against suicide does not mean you are pro-life. It is not a two-way, "if and only if" logical implication.
If one day, we are able to objectively determine the true value of life, all those issues will be much much clearer. However, I don't think any of those questions can be solved convincingly until we do so. -
Date: Wed, Jul 2 2008 22:59:04QUOTEEven if you think abortion is right, i don't think it's fair that we are allowed to take away a life that didn't do a single wrong.
that doesnt make sense, you're just saying even if i think abortion is right, it's not fair because... you think it's wrong
and what im saying is that it isnt fair to impose that upon everyone, amongst people who don't think it's wrong. I mean how would you feel if a bunch of people said hey you know what, penspinning's wrong, you can't do that. That just isn't fair... it's perfectly legitimate to discourage people from having abortions, but to legally ban it just isn't fairQUOTEThen try explaining the value of life.
and i still don't get what you're saying...
@teatime i dont thin anyone expects an abortion thread to go anywhere, it's just nice to hear the sides -
Date: Thu, Jul 3 2008 13:29:55QUOTEand i still don't get what you're saying...
I was always wondering, but what part of my question do you not get? -
Date: Thu, Jul 3 2008 19:04:05
The part he quoted. But that's the point. Right now the value of life is subjective, which is why the abortion debate can't be solved conclusively.
-
Date: Thu, Jul 3 2008 19:08:43QUOTE (Tialys @ Jul 2 2008, 08:54 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>It's a difficult debate. Through abortion you are denying the gift of life, but life is not an explicit right as much as a value. The degree to which this value is upheld to a large extent determines one's stance on abortion. However, situational factors must also be taken into account, and to this end I have comments for both sides.
Pro-life advocates claim that life is more important than the parents' wishes. Now I don't have the statistics, but I'm guessing the child would most likely lead an empty life, knowing that he/she is unwanted. Is a meaningless existence better than no existence at all? Sure, the baby could potentially become a great person or, more simply, a fully functioning member of society, but I would tend to think the probability is small. If you entertain this possibility, you must also acknowledge the opposite, that the child could resort to drugs and violence, and, at the extreme case, commit suicide. These actions may have justified the abortion. Also, consider deformed fetuses with a truncated lifespan after birth. Would you support abortion in the case that the baby would not reach adulthood? The embryo does not gain consciousness until a certain stage in pregnancy, and in this regard it is less sentient than animals. But we kill animals for food, so unless you are both pro-life and vegetarian, there is a value inconsistency.
While the pro-life side posits that it is impossible to accurately predict the future of a baby, abortionists state that it is better to remove the guesswork altogether. But consider the case of consensual unprotected sex that results in unwanted pregnancy. I could jump off a building, but it's not the act that stops me, it's the consequence. Similarly, you would think that potential pregnancy would stop couples from having unprotected sex. They have full knowledge of the result so it is not a legitimate accident or mistake. Abortion seems like a cop-out in this case, as well as an unnecessary action. I think a better deterrent is forcing the parents to own up to their mistake, which makes others less likely to try the same thing.
Finally, a compromise on abortion is to have it remain legal but discourage it, like cigarettes. Or you can make it more difficult to get the procedure done (e.g. more expensive, parent interviews, etc.).
That's pretty much what I think. It's a great idea to say that people shouldn't have unprotected sex but either way that will happen and you can't stop it, and if they want to abort the child they should be able to do so. A child should never grow unwanted.
As for Zombo's topics, I am definitely on the life is conditionally of supreme importance on every single one of them.(Not that I think that it's ok for a woman to mistreat her fetus, I just don't think she should be charged with murder).
I'm generally against the idea of life is always above everything and we shouldn't kill anything, ever. It's a narrow headed approach to everything..we shouldn't kill animals 'cause they are alive? Animals kill each other, it's the way of nature. We are carnivores in our physiology and I see no reason to go against that. Criminals shouldn't be killed? A person took life, sometimes even more then that(maimed the body or some such, a clear proof of viciousness and insanity), I see no reason why he shouldn't suffer the same fate of at least dying, and so on and so forth. -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 00:52:47
yea... it's nature
people die, things die
and soooo many more people are dying from other things you could be worrying about -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 12:50:53QUOTE (Teatime @ Jul 4 2008, 04:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's pretty much what I think. It's a great idea to say that people shouldn't have unprotected sex but either way that will happen and you can't stop it, and if they want to abort the child they should be able to do so. A child should never grow unwanted.
As for Zombo's topics, I am definitely on the life is conditionally of supreme importance on every single one of them.(Not that I think that it's ok for a woman to mistreat her fetus, I just don't think she should be charged with murder).
I'm generally against the idea of life is always above everything and we shouldn't kill anything, ever. It's a narrow headed approach to everything..we shouldn't kill animals 'cause they are alive? Animals kill each other, it's the way of nature. We are carnivores in our physiology and I see no reason to go against that. Criminals shouldn't be killed? A person took life, sometimes even more then that(maimed the body or some such, a clear proof of viciousness and insanity), I see no reason why he shouldn't suffer the same fate of at least dying, and so on and so forth.
Of course, what i am saying is about abortion. I don't care if you find me ironic or contradicting, but i support executions. Hardcore criminals should be killed, but that's because that guy did something wrong.
Im talking about the innocent unborn baby though...that's another story...
just to add...so no one mistakes me. -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 15:27:31
so you're not consistent with your notion of the value of life? thats not good.
you said that unborn babies shouldn't be killed because they _might_ turn out to be genius or whatever:QUOTEWhat people don't understand is that a single life could change the whole society.
hardcore criminals _might_ change their life and become good citizens too.
because the possibility is there, you cannot kill a criminal. -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 15:42:30QUOTE (Teatime @ Jul 4 2008, 06:08 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>That's pretty much what I think. It's a great idea to say that people shouldn't have unprotected sex but either way that will happen and you can't stop it, and if they want to abort the child they should be able to do so. A child should never grow unwanted.
As for Zombo's topics, I am definitely on the life is conditionally of supreme importance on every single one of them.(Not that I think that it's ok for a woman to mistreat her fetus, I just don't think she should be charged with murder).
I'm generally against the idea of life is always above everything and we shouldn't kill anything, ever. It's a narrow headed approach to everything..we shouldn't kill animals 'cause they are alive? Animals kill each other, it's the way of nature. We are carnivores in our physiology and I see no reason to go against that. Criminals shouldn't be killed? A person took life, sometimes even more then that(maimed the body or some such, a clear proof of viciousness and insanity), I see no reason why he shouldn't suffer the same fate of at least dying, and so on and so forth.
im totally agree ur opinion
human are just one type of animals which like to kill each other only -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 15:49:03QUOTE (Zombo @ Jul 5 2008, 12:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>so you're not consistent with your notion of the value of life? thats not good.
you said that unborn babies shouldn't be killed because they _might_ turn out to be genius or whatever:
hardcore criminals _might_ change their life and become good citizens too.
because the possibility is there, you cannot kill a criminal.
Indeed...i am mistaken...only if we knew how... -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 19:34:50QUOTE (song @ Jul 4 2008, 04:42 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>im totally agree ur opinion
human are just one type of animals which like to kill each other only
Many humans kill other animals. Many animals kill members of their own species. * shrug *QUOTEso you're not consistent with your notion of the value of life? thats not good.
you said that unborn babies shouldn't be killed because they _might_ turn out to be genius or whatever:
QUOTE
What people don't understand is that a single life could change the whole society.
hardcore criminals _might_ change their life and become good citizens too.
because the possibility is there, you cannot kill a criminal.
One could say however, all life has value, until an act is done to de-value it. i.e. An unborn child's life has value, because it has nothing to de-value it. However, a criminal has committed an act to de-value his or her life and so is expendable. One can say that acts either do not affect the value of life, or decrease it, in this way, a criminal can never be of worth. -
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 19:39:24
so your saying some scientist/doctors are criminals? (im against abortion btw)
-
Date: Fri, Jul 4 2008 23:54:15QUOTE (Zombo @ Jul 4 2008, 08:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>so you're not consistent with your notion of the value of life? thats not good.
you said that unborn babies shouldn't be killed because they _might_ turn out to be genius or whatever:
hardcore criminals _might_ change their life and become good citizens too.
because the possibility is there, you cannot kill a criminal.
owntQUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jul 4 2008, 08:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Indeed...i am mistaken...only if we knew how...
what?
-
Date: Sat, Jul 5 2008 00:25:16QUOTE (Mats @ Jul 4 2008, 03:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>One could say however, all life has value, until an act is done to de-value it. i.e. An unborn child's life has value, because it has nothing to de-value it. However, a criminal has committed an act to de-value his or her life and so is expendable. One can say that acts either do not affect the value of life, or decrease it, in this way, a criminal can never be of worth.
where do you draw the line of devaluing, why should only the acts of the child matter?
you could always argue rape has already devalued the life of the child, as is unwanted pregnancy, as is pregnancy in nefast conditions (poor, irradiated environment, war-torn, etc)
and you could also argue that the baby's acts as an unborn child (needing to be fed, etc.) imposes physical demands on the mother which brings her misery, etc. which devalues the baby's life.
and also what about future actions. if you can predict that the child will be up to no good in the future, does that reduce his value too. same as, if you know someone has murderous intents, wouldn't you try to stop him/her before s/he commits the deed.
once you talk about "de-evaluation", you open a whole new can of worms. this is why pro-life supporters will not think of such things and unconditionally support the supreme value of life.
if you do talk about de-evaluation, then please do provide arguments as to what counts as de-evaluation and what not. you can't escape this. you can't conviently bring devalution to support your claim without thinking it through. -
Date: Sat, Jul 5 2008 07:38:52QUOTE (Dark Angel-REX @ Jul 4 2008, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>Of course, what i am saying is about abortion. I don't care if you find me ironic or contradicting, but i support executions. Hardcore criminals should be killed, but that's because that guy did something wrong.
Im talking about the innocent unborn baby though...that's another story...
just to add...so no one mistakes me.
In this case, hard core criminals violate the social contract in which they were bound to, in the sense that they commited murder/something serious, and thus forfeit their right to live.
So should we be the one to put an end to the life of an innocent person? Even though it may be conceived under special circumstances (eg. rape), is it morally right to take away the life of an embryo that was unfortunate enough to be conceived through rape? The embryo has not done anything wrong, and yet we claim to have the right to violate the sanctity of life by aborting it?
Maybe I should not treat this issuse if it was a matter of "morally right/wrong", because if we define the embryo to be a living human , it is thus entitled the right to live and no one can forcibly take away it's rights. -
Date: Sat, Jul 5 2008 23:05:57
Gunblakes, knows how to explain better...that's basically what i was tryiing to say...