Abortion; Why?

I feel I've replied very clearly whereas you are predictably obtuse. That's an honest observation, not an insult. I'm fairly sure at this point you are a troll, though, so I guess I've wasted my time on you.

__________________
#31 on SC's Top 100 Mofos list!!

You're alone in your feelings.

That argument doesn't apply in the case that giving birth could kill the mother, because "an innocent person" would almost certainly die either way. Not aborting in that situation could even result in two innocent deaths, since the foetus could die if the mother does.

Aww,I'll reply you,Yoda and Mesmerized, later,it's not finished

__________________
"Anything less than immortality is a complete waste of time."

I think you're the one who's alone.

You have your own clear point of view, but if you're unable to defend it and can only throw with (extremely) repetitive questions and shallow, unfounded detractions and insults, it might be better to stay away from this topic until you actually can add something meaningful to the debate.

You're acting like a child who gets angry from the moment someone does not completely (or instantly) agrees with him. Maybe you should start acting more mature...
Analyze the differences in opinion so you can advocate your point of view by using proper arguments to win over your discussion partner, instead of calling him names and showing no respect.
You're not doing anyone a favor while insulting people on the opposite side of this discussion, especially not the people who want to defend a similar point to yours by actually using the courteous rules of proper debate.

----------------------------------

That's a delicate one for me. I would definitely never truly judge a woman who has an abortion after she finds out she got pregnant because of a rape. The woman had no choice and never even willingly committed herself to be part of the act that could cause pregnancy, so it's hard not to sympathize with her.

The main PRO-abortion argument that you could use here is that the woman may suffer from severe psychological damage if she is forced to keep the baby of the rapist inside her for nine months and also has to make the decision whether she wants to keep it or not. It's probably even worse when the rape victim in question is an under-aged girl.
So you could argue that some mothers in these cases are also in a sort of (psychological) 'danger', caused by a pregnancy that she could impossibly have avoided, and therefore should be able to have the choice to remove the fetus inside her body that otherwise would have grown into an unbearable burden for her.

The main ANTI-abortion argument is that the unborn child should be given the chance to develop as a human being, regardless of the fact that he/she is the result of a conception that wasn't caused in a morally acceptable way.
The unborn child's existence should not be settled on how it was caused, but on the fact that it is already there and that it's a human life in development. The mother could be supported psychologically and should learn to disconnect her guiltless child from his/her natural father's crimes against her.
The mother could also give birth to the child and let it be adopted to make another (childless) couple's dream come true. She could then find comfort in the thought that she made two people very happy and that she inverted a bad situation to something wonderfully positive and even beautiful. It requires a lot of bravery to do something like that, but ultimately it seems like the right thing to do.

I think the PRO-life side on this matter has a very positive message, but if it's enough to legally forbid a rape victim to have any kind of safe and controled abortion, I personally can't say. The woman is definitely put in a very difficult position, while she absolutely can't be blamed for what happened to her. She is completely defrauded of any choice in this matter and keeping the child will definitely have a lasting effect on her.
Let's say that the legality of an abortion for a woman/girl in that situation seems at least defendable to me.

I do have to point out that this situation is entirely different than all the other cases you have presented me and that I don't know for sure if I should take your "Okay" responses to my arguments regarding those cases as an agreement with my train of thought or just as an ignoration.

__________________
Cobpyth's Movie Log ~ 2019

“Although other animals may be different from us, this does not make them LESS than us”
― Marc Bekoff

Sorry about the off topic post, but I truly believe that animals DO have souls. I don't know how anyone could look at a dog (or a cat, or really, any animal) and say such a thing. If anything, I think we love animals more than we love other people. When a dog gets toward the end of his life, or is in pain, we show him more mercy than we allow other humans. We allow the animal to pass away peacefully, while we force people to live in agony because we "respect life."

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

I just read this, dated 2009...

"A new US study concluded that lack of health insurance may have contributed or led to nearly 17,000 hospital deaths among American children over two decades."

Does this mean all anti-abortion supporters/ Pro Life supporters in the US fully support government intervention to provide the best medical care available to children of the uninsured in the US? - I hope they are just as vocal on that issue, given they believe all children have a right to life regardless of the situation of the parent/s

I bet Obamacare can't come fast enough for Pro Life supporters in the US.

__________________
"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death" Auntie Mame (1958)

No, it seems like people care so much about the unborn, but once it's born, it doesn't really matter anymore.

I'd love to be proven wrong.

I'm sure they are all busy painting their pro Obamacare plackards as we speak!

Well, i don't care about Obamacare per say, I mean that is kind of a trainwreck...but I think that we should definitely care about the ultimate fate of these children that people insist MUST be born at all costs. But once they are, it seems like the usual "I don't want to have to pay for other people to live" selfishness takes over. Everyone seems to be in it for themselves and themselves alone, unless it comes to fetuses, then they care SO MUCH about other people. Seems...awful.

@Michael T: What's your source and how did they come up with that result? Did they create an alternate universe where the USA suddenly has a different health care system?
I don't believe that's an objective figure from an objective source.

@Monkeypunch: I don't think the fact that a person wants to give every child a chance at life automatically assumes that he also has to pay for all those children's upbringing. That's a pure non-sequitur fallacy.

Call me ignorant, but I've always steered away from the abortion debate purely because I feel my input would be mostly meaningless and of no value. It's a very sensitive, delicate, and personal issue. Perhaps one of these issues that is only really understood by those who have personally experienced its impact and ramifications before. It may sound doltish, but everything I say would feel unwarranted and empty. It's too detached an issue for me to ponder unless I have personally felt its effects. I'm speaking with bias here, of course, as I know somebody that went through an abortion, and by having numerous discussions with her, it is only this conclusion that seems fitting.

my point was that pro lifers care so much about fetuses, but once they're born, the caring stops, doesn't it? Why? Why is a fetus more important than a poor child? Children starve all the time in our country, and this is not as important as a bundle of undeveloped cells? Really?

There are three things wrong with this. First, it doesn't stop, because pretty much everyone supports basic child welfare programs; don't confuse being against the constant expansion of entitlements with being against any kind of government support, period.

Second, the belief is that these programs hurt more in the long run, or at least help less than the alternatives. You can disagree with this, but it means there's nothing contradictory here.

And third--and I think this one's the most important--it's not saying a child is "less important" when it's born to put more emphasis on stopping it from being killed than to support it afterwards, because death is irrevocable, and life is a basic human right, while economic support is neither.

This logic is pretty busted. Since when does basic healthcare = "the best medical care available"? Total non-sequitur. And this should be insanely obvious, but I guess it has to be said anyway: people oppose Obamacare because they think it's going to make healthcare outcomes worse overall. Your argument only makes sense if you first imagine they agree with you about the law's efficacy in both the short and long-term.

And this is without even getting into the obvious distinction between the state having a Constitutional obligation to protect our lives, but not necessarily provide health care. Let alone the precise combination of benefits this particular law entails, most of which go well beyond mere life-saving care, so even if someone did support what you're talking about, they wouldn't necessarily support Obamacare.

I can keep going if you want, but this feels like enough.

In any case, the mother is never killed. In extreme cases where a child is born, the mother might be seriously injured to the point of death. She is not killed, she merely dies a natural death. Her skull is not crushed, her spinal column is not cut with scissors, her innards aren't sucked out through a tube not unlike the manner in which a child is killed by abortion. The mother commits the ultimate sacrifice by giving her life so that her child might live. This is called love which is something seriously lacking in today's culture. Can you understand that? The simple truth of the matter is that it is always a grave injustice to kill an innocent person.

You are proven wrong by the fact that there are way more laws protecting already born human beings than unborn human beings.

You're just messing with word definitions there. "Seriously injured to the point of death" is just a sort of euphemism, is it not? The mother's death could possibly be more painful than the baby's death in a properly-done abortion, could it not?
Also, I recall having heard about the existence of abortions done through pills/chemicals - not involving any physical contact at all.

Oh, I forgot the most important response of all: all of those claims about healthcare, even if they held together, would be arguing that certain pro-life people are hypocrites, not that they're wrong. It's a textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.

I'm pretty sure everyone here understands and follows that. Applying that to your point does not really strengthen or support your particular stance.

Both pro-choice and pro-life supporters know this already.

__________________
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake!
-Daniel, There Will Be Blood