Abortion

[Fox McCloud]

I didn't like the Obama thread, but once it switched over to abortion it started to get interesting. Then, Pokepop locked it.:frown: But never fear, this thread is entitled Abortion.:thumb:

What say we start this [DEL]argument[/DEL] discussion back up?

I think abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. I know that the embryo(or whatever it is) might not be living when it is aborted, but it exists. One day it will(probably) be a happy, healthy human. Why would killing a very young baby be different than killing an embryo? Neither knows what's going on, and both will end up the same, a grown human. So what's the difference? There is none.

Discuss.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

A challenger approaches!

The central issue is usually what does or doesn't count as a human life. There is no real right or wrong answer here; it's all about what definition one personally uses, and hopefully there can be a societal consensus on that at some point. At the same time, under scrutiny, you can sometimes find that using a certain definition would lead to other conclusions you probably don't agree with.

But enough vaguery.

I think abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. I know that the embryo(or whatever it is) might not be living when it is aborted, but it exists. One day it will(probably) be a happy, healthy human. Why would killing a very young baby be different than killing an embryo? Neither knows what's going on, and both will end up the same, a grown human. So what's the difference? There is none.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what you're using here is the "potential person" argument. You're saying that an embryo will one day definitely be a person (for the sake of argument we can probably ignore the possibility that it actually won't), and therefore, to kill it would be to kill a person.

The issue with this is that it can be extended further. A sperm and an egg will, together, also become a person. So if you kill one or prevent them from meeting, like by using birth control, is that not also like killing the potential person that would be formed? By the above argument, it seems that way. So if we accept the above, we would also need to say that birth control is also murder.

 

[secretsof2113]

To start: Let this be the only warning to keep this thread civil. If this thread gets out of hand, it will be locked, just like the last ones have been. So please, keep it neat, and don't throw bloody punches.


Now, I feel that abortion isn't completely wrong. There are many reasons that it is performed that doesn't make it "bad."

-If a person becomes pregnant, and their own health is put in danger by the baby, why risk both of them not making it out alive? If at least one person is saved from it, I feel that can be a good reason.

-Children should not be forced into the "system." If someone gets pregnant, and they are not able to take care of the kid, they are either going to abort it, or put it up for adoption. While I'm completely for life at this point, why should a child be forced to be placed into the foster care system because they have deadbeat parents that decided not to use protection?

-****-A woman isn't really given a choice in this situation, so they should be able to choose what they want to do. Why rob them of the little control they have in this situation?

Abortion shouldn't be used as the easy way out, like a lot of people seem to make it. There should be some really important decisions made, and many guidelines need to be taken in order for decision to be made.

 

[master of puppets]

It's not a choice, it's a child.
If you aren't smart enough with sex and end up pregnant, then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.
The only time I see an abortion as an appropriate option is if their is strong evidence of ****.
Otherwise, when the sperm and egg cell come together, you've got yourself a person.

Honestly, I see people that consider abortion pretty heartless. It definitely shows a lot about ones character if they were to do/ consider doing something like that. I know its different, but someone who would do something like that is probably more likely to kill a man than someone who wouldn't.
But don't anyone turn that into some kind of extreme literal situation on me. lol

 

[Pidgeotto Trainer]

If the parents don't feel ready for a kid, that 'kid' is probably not headed towards a good life. Say the unfortunate situation happens to two teenagers, no abortion would lead to a tough life for three people. Where as if they do have an abortion, the two teenagers can probably live better lives and still have kids (separate or together) later on when the situation is much better for all three. One situation has 3 tough lives, one has 3 more successful lives.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but basically what you're using here is the "potential person" argument. You're saying that an embryo will one day definitely be a person (for the sake of argument we can probably ignore the possibility that it actually won't), and therefore, to kill it would be to kill a person.

The issue with this is that it can be extended further. A sperm and an egg will, together, also become a person. So if you kill one or prevent them from meeting, like by using birth control, is that not also like killing the potential person that would be formed? By the above argument, it seems that way. So if we accept the above, we would also need to say that birth control is also murder.

Okay. I still diasagree with you. There's a difference between not creating an embryo and destroying one.

If you don't like the "potential person" argument, haow about the "you can't prove it's not alive" argument?

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

To start: Let this be the only warning to keep this thread civil. If this thread gets out of hand, it will be locked, just like the last ones have been. So please, keep it neat, and don't throw bloody punches.

We'll see...

Now, I feel that abortion isn't completely wrong. There are many reasons that it is performed that doesn't make it "bad."

-If a person becomes pregnant, and their own health is put in danger by the baby, why risk both of them not making it out alive? If at least one person is saved from it, I feel that can be a good reason.

That's different. Depending on the situation, I think the embryo should be removed.

-Children should not be forced into the "system." If someone gets pregnant, and they are not able to take care of the kid, they are either going to abort it, or put it up for adoption. While I'm completely for life at this point, why should a child be forced to be placed into the foster care system because they have deadbeat parents that decided not to use protection?

I would rather be in foster care than never have lived at all. Even if you do grow up in foster care, that isn't going to prevent you from getting married, having kids of your own and enjoying your life. My sister's best friend was born in Korea to parents that couldn't take care of her. Now, she lives down the street and is a very happy person. Why should they not be given that opportunity?

-****-A woman isn't really given a choice in this situation, so they should be able to choose what they want to do. Why rob them of the little control they have in this situation?

I don't get this part. Which "situation" are you referring to?

Abortion shouldn't be used as the easy way out, like a lot of people seem to make it. There should be some really important decisions made, and many guidelines need to be taken in order for decision to be made.

I partially agree with this. The only time abortion should be used is when the embryo is putting the mother in danger.

1717171717171717171717171717

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe my control+f function isn't working, but I can't find any of the big words that really shape one's opinion on the subject:

"law"

"trimester"

"woman (one instance"/mother"


Anyways, my take:

Abortion should be available to any woman, but there should be stipulations and conditions:

-Usually, minors should have no final say in their abortions; rather, it is the parent/s. The law should be consistent across the books in terms of what minors can/cannot do.

-Third trimester abortion is (in most instances) at best manslaughter, and at worst, murder. If there's one thing our congress has succeeded at in the past 20 years, it's making this obvious. If you don't believe me, then just do a little research...Third trimester abortion should only exist for those whose lives are threatened most by childbirth.

-Second trimester abortion is pretty shaky in my books as well. Many viable babies have been born in this time period.



I would almost call myself a pro-choicer, but beyond choice is _personal responsibility_. In the instances I described above, prospective life should outweigh individual liberty, and in all others, the rights of the woman should supersede the rights of the fetus.

 

[Fox McCloud]

If the parents don't feel ready for a kid, that 'kid' is probably not headed towards a good life. Say the unfortunate situation happens to two teenagers, no abortion would lead to a tough life for three people. Where as if they do have an abortion, the two teenagers can probably live better lives and still have kids (separate or together) later on when the situation is much better for all three. One situation has 3 tough lives, one has 3 more successful lives.

If the parents want to put their child up for adoption, they can. Their problem is solved. As for the child, once again, I would rather be in foster care, than never have seen the world.

I have edited out the link. If you'd like to paste some info from the site, that's fine, but no outside links! (secretsof2113)

 

[secretsof2113]

Fox, the situation i'm referring to is blocked by the sensors, but begins with an R. Something done by force, and a woman doesn't have control over the situation. Sorry if I was vague.

 

[Fox McCloud]

Fox, the situation i'm referring to is blocked by the sensors, but begins with an R. Something done by force, and a woman doesn't have control over the situation. Sorry if I was vague.

Okay. I don't think the woman should be able to get an abortion. She should put him/her up for adoption.

 

[Mew*]

If the parents don't feel ready for a kid, that 'kid' is probably not headed towards a good life. Say the unfortunate situation happens to two teenagers, no abortion would lead to a tough life for three people. Where as if they do have an abortion, the two teenagers can probably live better lives and still have kids (separate or together) later on when the situation is much better for all three. One situation has 3 tough lives, one has 3 more successful lives.

Exactly my opinion too! I think that if the parents are unloving enough and immature enough that they're willing to kill their kid, that kid would have an awful life and should not have to go through it. It's like putting a suffering animal out of its misery.... before it even has to suffer. People with rough childhoods affects their ability to think and parent in the future too, leading to generations of problems. If you look at a lot of the crazed serial killers out there that kill for no reason, they grew up in poor conditions.

But hey, that's just my opinion. You're entitled to yours.

 

[Professor_Chris]

It's like putting a suffering animal out of its misery.... before it even has to suffer.

Well, my dog might get hit by a car one day, so I guess I should go ahead and put it down now before it might suffer.

Terrible, flawed analogy is terrible and flawed.

 

[David's Confused Pokedad]

It's a woman's choice.

 

[Gir]

It's not a choice, it's a child.
If you aren't smart enough with sex and end up pregnant, then you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Obviously. And yet it still happens.

The only time I see an abortion as an appropriate option is if their is strong evidence of ****.
Otherwise, when the sperm and egg cell come together, you've got yourself a person.

No, an embryo. You've got yourself an embryo.

Honestly, I see people that consider abortion pretty heartless. It definitely shows a lot about ones character if they were to do/ consider doing something like that. I know its different, but someone who would do something like that is probably more likely to kill a man than someone who wouldn't.
But don't anyone turn that into some kind of extreme literal situation on me. lol

Oh, of course. Cus when a woman has her insides scrambled and her baby dies, it just makes her feel great and like she wants to kill some more.

I would rather be in foster care than never have lived at all. Even if you do grow up in foster care, that isn't going to prevent you from getting married, having kids of your own and enjoying your life. My sister's best friend was born in Korea to parents that couldn't take care of her. Now, she lives down the street and is a very happy person. Why should they not be given that opportunity?

How many children do you think actually end up like this? My grandmother has been doing foster care for years and I can tell you that pretty much every single kid I have seen go through her home has led a **** life.

It's a woman's choice.

Thank you. I completely agree.

 

[Professor_Chris]

How many children do you think actually end up like this? My grandmother has been doing foster care for years and I can tell you that pretty much every single kid I have seen go through her home has led a **** life.

Maybe she's doing it wrong. At any rate, you said "pretty much every single." That means there is a chance to lead a happy, fulfilled life even after being taken care of by your grandmother. Why should that chance be denied?

 

[Azure Kite]

Ugh...here we go.

The reason a lot of people hate abortion isn't because of religon, its because what kind of laws our Founding Fathers layed out when this country was formed.
They spoke of freedom, of free choice, and people getting to have options. But then you say,

"Well then women deserve to have the choice."

Well what about the kid? Doesn't he/she get a choice? Now tell me, if you hadn't been born, but you had a concious mind and a choice, would you rather have a chance at life, or be non-existent?
Really, IMO, it comes down to whose opinion is more valid and important:

The mother's, or the unborn human being's? And thats what causes the division on this subject.

 

[Polksort]

I didn't like the Obama thread, but once it switched over to abortion it started to get interesting. Then, Pokepop locked it.:frown: But never fear, this thread is entitled Abortion.:thumb:

What say we start this [DEL]argument[/DEL] discussion back up?

I think abortion should be illegal because murder is illegal. I know that the embryo(or whatever it is) might not be living when it is aborted, but it exists. One day it will(probably) be a happy, healthy human. Why would killing a very young baby be different than killing an embryo? Neither knows what's going on, and both will end up the same, a grown human. So what's the difference? There is none.

Discuss.

No one is happy.:biggrin:.

 

[Magic_Umbreon]

Newsflash: the baby does not belong to the mother carrying it, nor was it her alone that made it. Mother + Father = Baby. Not Mother -> Baby. The baby is inside the mother, yes and of course if it is risking the mother's health that is different. But otherwise why should one of the baby's parents suddenly get the right to abort the baby? I don't think any situation where the mother alone has say just because it is inside her is at all fair or justified.

"Rights of the woman" also confuses me. I don't have the right to murder people on the street, but because the mother is only one half of the baby's parents, so gets the casting vote?

What Cyrus said about ctrl+F but for fathers, basically. A whole discussion that seems to be based on the fact a woman makes herself pregnant, no mention of father's rights.

 

[ZAKtheGeek]

Okay. I still diasagree with you. There's a difference between not creating an embryo and destroying one.

Yes, there is, but not in terms of preventing a person. An embryo and a sperm and egg pair have very similar personhood potential, so I don't see why cutting short the potential of one is really different from cutting short the potential of the other.

If you don't like the "potential person" argument, haow about the "you can't prove it's not alive" argument?

Well, you'll probably need to elaborate. What do you mean by, "alive?" Obviously it's alive, but so is the blood in my veins, yet killing off a bit of it is hardly murder. If by "alive" you mean "a person," then I believe I already wrote about that. There's nothing to "prove;" there is no absolute truth to be discovered. It's just a subjective concept.

Ugh...here we go.

The reason a lot of people hate abortion isn't because of religon, its because what kind of laws our Founding Fathers layed out when this country was formed.
They spoke of freedom, of free choice, and people getting to have options. But then you say,

"Well then women deserve to have the choice."

Well what about the kid? Doesn't he/she get a choice? Now tell me, if you hadn't been born, but you had a concious mind and a choice, would you rather have a chance at life, or be non-existent?
Really, IMO, it comes down to whose opinion is more valid and important:

The mother's, or the unborn human being's? And thats what causes the division on this subject.

Well, it's a pretty far-out hypothetical. The fact is that a fetus does not have any semblance of a conscious mind, at least early on in the pregnancy.

This is just my personal view now, but as I see it, humans are mental beings, and therefore what makes something a human is having a human mind. Obviously we don't understand the mind that well, but we know for sure it comes from the brain, so clearly if something doesn't have a developed nervous system it can't possibly have a brain and, as I see it, is not yet a person. Note that this is a conservative guess on my part; I'm assuming a developed brain automatically gives rise to a mind, when in reality there could very well be a gap in between the physical capacity for a mind and its actual presence.

But to answer the hypothetical question, if I were aborted as an early fetus but you gave me a consciousness to evaluate the situation with, I'd feel the exact same way as if my parents had used birth control or didn't have sex in the first place. Nobody ever seems to consider the potential people that never were due to those things. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean that not having sex at every possible opportunity is immoral? If we have to consider the hypothetical opinions of pre-empted people, then yes, we'd have to say they are.

 

[Azure Kite]

Yes, there is, but not in terms of preventing a person. An embryo and a sperm and egg pair have very similar personhood potential, so I don't see why cutting short the potential of one is really different from cutting short the potential of the other.


Well, you'll probably need to elaborate. What do you mean by, "alive?" Obviously it's alive, but so is the blood in my veins, yet killing off a bit of it is hardly murder. If by "alive" you mean "a person," then I believe I already wrote about that. There's nothing to "prove;" there is no absolute truth to be discovered. It's just a subjective concept.


Well, it's a pretty far-out hypothetical. The fact is that a fetus does not have any semblance of a conscious mind, at least early on in the pregnancy.

This is just my personal view now, but as I see it, humans are mental beings, and therefore what makes something a human is having a human mind. Obviously we don't understand the mind that well, but we know for sure it comes from the brain, so clearly if something doesn't have a developed nervous system it can't possibly have a brain and, as I see it, is not yet a person. Note that this is a conservative guess on my part; I'm assuming a developed brain automatically gives rise to a mind, when in reality there could very well be a gap in between the physical capacity for a mind and its actual presence.

But to answer the hypothetical question, if I were aborted as an early fetus but you gave me a consciousness to evaluate the situation with, I'd feel the exact same way as if my parents had used birth control or didn't have sex in the first place. Nobody ever seems to consider the potential people that never were due to those things. Does that mean birth control is immoral? Does that mean that not having sex at every possible opportunity is immoral? If we have to consider the hypothetical opinions of pre-empted people, then yes, we'd have to say they are.

Lemme get this straight. You say a human is only human once it has a human mind? Well what do you consider a human mind? A while before birth, the baby has no human mind, but when the baby comes straight out of the womb, it does have a human mind? Or do you mean a human mind is one that is intelligent, and can make its own descisions? The child won't have a mind like that for quite a while after birth. So until this time, you could still kill the child because its not human, because is has no human mind. Is that what your saying?