Abortion; Why?

Tools    





What part of "I don't think it's human" didn't you understand?
If yes, maybe you should read it again so you don't have to ask for things I have allready responded to.
Tell you what...
Your responses are rude and personal. I'm not going to discuss this issue with you if you are only capable of arguing on that level.

Also, despite how clear your own arguments seem to you, they may not always be clear to others which is why I asked you for clarification.

Please keep your comments relative to the topic at hand, personal insults do not help your credibility.


**Edit**
Actually, I think I'm not going to allow you to get away with your comments so easily.

To me human life is always sacred - a feetus is not. That might sound coldhearted, but that's how I feel about it.
How is a fetus not human? Can a fetus grow on a fetus tree? Perhaps one can grow from the ground? A fetus IS human as it requires direct human interaction to produce one. Nothing can produce a human fetus except the union of two humans, therefore a fetus is inherently, absolutely human.

I don't have any clear opinion about when exactly the fetus turns to human. There is a limit for when you're not allowed to do an abortion any longer, and that limit is drawn where it's drawn for a reason I'm sure.
If you are going to argue so steadfastly and so surely then you'd better have solid ground to stand on. At least your position requires a solid belief on your part, not this wishy washy sentiment.

I was just curious since I have a theory that Pro-Lifers often support death penalty. I wanted to see if Yoda did that too. I think criminals deserv punishment too, but death penalty is immoral and unethic.
That's a popular theory, not unique to you. This line of comparison is apples and oranges, the two things are not related whatsoever. Conveniently forgotten again is the victim and the family of the victim. Will you preach to them the immorality of killing? The death penalty is ethical. It's also fair and it is just in most cases. Some people have willingly and knowingly forfieted their own right to breathe by taking the freedom and/or life from another. You support the rights of the criminal on one hand, you're all warm and fuzzy for those who would rather slit your throat than look at you, then on the other hand you condemn a fetus to death:
To me human life is always sacred - a feetus is not. That might sound coldhearted, but that's how I feel about it.
Give me a choice and I'll kill the criminal every time. The criminal made a choice, the fetus did not.

Noone but you yourself has the right to decide what to do with it or take it from you.
Unless of course someone chooses to abort you before you can make this choice.

Or if someone murders you (that someone still has a right to live, though, right, even though he took that life from another?)

Even though I think abortions are tragic and sad, I didn't reflect on the issue wether it's a human or not since it's crystal clear for me that it's not.
It's cloudy at best since you don't have a clear opinion of when a fetus becomes human...to use your own words, of course.



First up: Pidzilla

Well, you think it starts a whole lot earlier than us pro-choicers, so it's kind of hard to even discuss this issue with you since we don't even agree on that.
Not necessarily. The things I'm saying don't require that you believe life begins at conception; they only require that you admit that you don't know for SURE.


Murder and theft are crimes, abortion is not - even if you would want it to be. Sure, you can have an opinion; we all can have opinions. But in the end it's up to the women to decide. It sounds to me like you want to abolish abortions, and that's more than just having an opinion, I think.
I'm not saying it's a crime; I'm simply trying to illustrate why "I'm not a woman, so it's none of my business" is not an argument at all. You don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on this topic. Perhaps you weren't saying that you had to be...but that is easily one of the more common arguments I hear in favor of abortion, and frankly, it's ridiculous.


This kind of contradicts what you say later... Anyway. I believe there's a differance between a feetus and a human being. That's where we have fundamentally different views. To me human life is always sacred - a feetus is not. That might sound coldhearted, but that's how I feel about it.
It only contradicts what I say if you ignore the difference I describe between an innocent infant and a convicted murderer.


No, I'm saying that an abortion isn't the same as killing a child.
That doesn't really matter. Killing someone quickly and painlessly, legally, is the same thing as torturing someone first. You'll just get a longer prison sentence for the latter, most likely. The issue is not about which is worse, but about whether or not you can draw a reasonable, legal line between killing born children, and unborn children. I'm demonstrating that there is no such logical line.


What you are saying here is that the woman's right to decide over her own body is not a valid argument for the pro-choice side. I can't see why. I think it's one of the strongest arguments in this discussion. And ask any woman if she thinks it's an "unsupported opinion". You value the feetus higher than the woman. I do the opposite. It's as simple as that.
You're misunderstanding; first off, I'm not saying that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She can. I'm saying she cannot do what she want's with the baby's body. The baby is clearly NOT part of her body. It is seperate from her in many ways, even early in development.

As for valuing a fetus higher than a woman; no, you're just putting words in my mouth there, to be blunt. I don't value a fetus higher than a woman anymore than I value a little boy over a little girl. I don't have labels of value on them. They are both innocent human lives (unless the pregnant mother is a convicted murderer, basically) and they should both be protected as such.


When did I sling mud? I believe that the "live-by-the-book" mentality is more wide spread among the Pro-Lifers than among the Pro-Choicers, wouldn't you agree? (Probably not, but anyway...). Religion is an issue here, because a lot of Pro-LIfers use religion as an argument to support their cause. ("You will burn for this!!")
The little right about "rightwing Christian men" was mud slinging, IMO, but that's not important.

Religion is NOT an issue here unless you make it one. I haven't mentioned God once, even though I strongly believe in Him. What I'm saying does not require belief in God...only believe in the value of human life.


I would not support those things, no. But I don't see what heroine has to do with abortion. You're constantly comparing abortion with crimes like murder, theft, prostitution and drug trafficing. I think that is totally irrelevant and to simplify a very complexed matter. I don't see the argument in that.
I'm comparing them to illustrate a larger point. It doesn't mean I'm saying they are equal. Example: someone says there are too many laws. They should be allowed to smoke pot. They should get rid of all the laws. I say "what about murder?" Naturally, I'm not saying smoking pot is akin to murder...I'm merely using an example to demonstrate why their statements don't jibe.

So, the point here is this: why is the fact that some people will do it anyway an argument to keep it legal? Isn't that true of ANYTHING you make illegal?


Have you had an abortion? Me neither. But I don't think it's very comfortable. I agree that young girls - and young boys too - should be careful and not use abortion in the same way as pills or condoms. But you have to consider what kind of life you're bringing the child into.
There's nothing to consider in 99.9% of cases (at least). Assuming we're not talking about a child who's going to be born with a terminal disease, there really isn't any scenario where you can say that the child will grow up in a enough poverty, or something of the sort, to ever justify KILLING it outright.

I grew up in poverty. My father grew up under an abusive stepfather and an inattentive mother. The world, however, is a much better place with him in it, and he's as happy to be alive as I, or you, or anyone else is.

You can never, ever, ever use poor living conditions like that to justify abortion. If you head down that road...where does it lead? If you take that concept to its logical conclusion, who decides what kind of poverty justifies it? What if the parents are ugly? Of below-average intelligence? Do you really want to bring an ugly, stupid kid into the world? He'll be teased in school!

You see what I'm getting at; there's no end to how far you could take that. It just doesn't hold.


To steal, murder or rape is against the law for obvious reasons. Abortion isn't against the law (at least not where I come from) for obvious reasons. I think standing outside clinics with offensive signs, shouting offensive words to pregnant women, killing doctors and so on is forcing one's view on other people. I don't think following laws is the same as accepting that behaviour.
Notice what you're saying, thoug; theft, murder and rape are different because, in your opinion, they are against the law for "obvious reasons." The obviousness of laws is a purely subjective standard. As disturbing as it is, some people have no problem with theft, rape, and murder. And we (rightly) force our morals against these things on those people.

That's what I'm saying; you're not against people forcing morality on others through laws...we do it every day, and thank goodness for it. You just don't agree with this particular bit of morality.


This also contradicts what you say later on and also what you've said before. Why isn't the life of an unborn child, created during a rape, equally valuable as the life of an unborn child, created during "normal" circumstances?
It IS as equally valuable. I said "part of me" felt that way, and then went on to explain why I didn't think it really mattered. I'm merely more sympathetic to the woman in the case of rape. But in the end, a child's a child, no matter the circumstances of conception.


Yeah, exactly, why not? Since you think a feetus is the same as a newborn baby, for you there is no differance. But as before, it's here where we differ. Pregnancy due to rape is one of several reasons why a woman might not want to have the baby, and therefore should have the right to choose abortion.
Again; I never said it was "the same." Just that, legally, we have to treat them the same. That's a CRUCIAL distinction.


And this is what I refer to when I said that you contradict yourself. Human life is not sacred to you. You said before that abortion perhaps isn't the solution to a pregnancy due to rape because "it would just be MORE violence...a bad end to an already bad situation". I think it's always wrong to kill. And that goes for the state as well. "It's wrong to kill. If you kill someone - we will kill you." I could go on forever about this, but the death penalty isn't the topic here...
No, you don't think it's always wrong to kill. If someone were attacking your family with lethal force and the only way to stop them was through shooting them in the head, it wouldn't be wrong in the least to do so. But you're right, that isn't the topic here.


Yes, always valuable. There might be situations however (war, self defense, protection of your family etc.) when it isn't always sacred. Why? I can't really explain why. Your life is your given right as soon as you are born. Noone but you yourself has the right to decide what to do with it or take it from you.
Wait a second; as soon as you're born? You don't have basic human rights if you've been in the women for 9 months and are just about to come out? What if your legs are dangling, but your head has yet to emerge? When do those rights begin?


He will have to convince her to keep it. If she won't keep it he will have to convince her to let him take custody of it. If they come to the situation where she won't even let him do that and, for her, abortion is the only option - he will unfortunately just have to accept it. This is however a purely hypothetic and also a pretty unrealistic example without much relevance.
Actually there was a landmark court case recently on this very topic. It's a very relevant issue, IMO.

If you say that the woman has the ultimate final say even if the man wants to keep the child, then logically you cannot support the issue of child support. To say that the man does not have a real, LEGAL say in the future of the child he helped create is to say it's not his ultimate responsibility. And if it's not his ultimate responsibility, why should the woman be allowed to extract money from him if she chooses to have the baby?

You can have one, or the other, logically. But many people support both.


I don't see abortions as killings of humans. I do however consider killings of innocent people as someting to fight, yes. I admit that me saying that wether it's human or not is not the issue was wrong. Even though I think abortions are tragic and sad, I didn't reflect on the issue wether it's a human or not since it's crystal clear for me that it's not.
Right, it's not crystal clear when life begins. I feel pretty strongly about it, but I'm not 100% sure, either.

So, here is my question to you: seeing as how you admit human life is highly valuable (especially that of a defenseless infant), if you don't know whether or not it is a human, how can you justify risking it? Why are you willing to gamble over a million of these lives a year?



Originally posted by The Silver Bullet
Question: is it wrong for someone to believe it something based on gut instinct as opposed to factual arguments that support said beliefs?
Tough call. In general, I'd say it probably is wrong. At the very least, the person ought to acknowledge that they have no real logical reason to believe what they do. They shouldn't try to pass it off as debate, naturally.

That said, I don't believe in a cold, logical world. I think emotions are crucial...you can't even argue logically about things like abortion with what could be construed as an emotional basis (IE: the existence in a higher standard of right and wrong...a belief in morality).


Originally posted by Herodotus
C'mon Chrissly, you can do better than that.
Well, actually, nothing is really wrong with your argument, and what you do write seems to be some of the more logical stuff in this thread. But I was really looking for one of your famous argument posts, pages of great stuff that I can try my best to pick apart simplyfor the sake of argument. So c'mon, to hell with brevity I say, consider this an invitation to really let loose, I'd like to read your opinions on the matter, all of them.
Your wish is my command. The giant-o post is above.

The argument that they will do great things is probably true, but ultimately irrelevant. Abortion is not about the contribution the child makes to society...it's just about human rights and when they begin.

FYI, Silver: abortion is only an "opinion thing" by opinion. It's also a logical thing: if human life is valuable, why can you justify the risk? Perfectly logical question, outside of opinion on God. It only assumes a belief in the value of a human life.



Triple post. I'm sorry.

LordSlaytan

Here's something else for you to pick apart Yoda.
Goody.

You are on the side of an argument that is irrefutable and undeniable; The sanctity of human life.

How can a person debate with someone who is convinced that it is murder? It's not possible.
I don't need you to believe that it is murder to believe that it should be illegal. You only need to recognize that it may be...and that it's a terrible risk as a result. I am not POSITIVE that life begins at conception. I think it does, but I'm not sure...and frankly, I don't have to be. We err on the side of caution when human life may be at stake.


I believe there are times when there is no other alternative, for example; The woman who is raped, the diabetic who will die if she goes to term, A woman who is much to old to have a child, A young kid who thought all the precautions were taken. I don't like it when women uses it as a form of birth control, my neice has done that three times now, and I hate it. But what can I do to stop her? Vote against pro choice, so the others that I have listed have no more options than unsafe illeagle abortions?
The world is full of awful things, but that doesn't justify more of them. Most of the abortions (over 99%, literally) are not of the highly sympathetic kind you describe.

So, rather, I'd turn it around: do you really think the extreme examples justify allowing the overwhelming majority of cases, which you clearly disagree with?

And what of adoption? A girl has sex. She KNOWS it MAY produce a child. It does. She's too young to handle a child in her life. So give it up for adoption, for crying out loud!



I do believe that the child is alive, I'm not arguing against that fact, Christ I'm not a moron(I just play one on TV). But there are mitigating circumstances during certain pregnancys, that leave no hope for a poor woman, than to have an abortion.
Two things; why concern for the "poor woman" ahead of the poor child? You say it's alive, and yet you justify killing it anyway?

There are tough circumstances, yes. But that is not justification. If you believe it really is alive, then what about killing an already-born child who is a serious financial burden on a single mother? Technically, that should be no different to you...except that in this case, you actually have to look the child in the eyes.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally posted by Toose

Tell you what...
Your responses are rude and personal. I'm not going to discuss this issue with you if you are only capable of arguing on that level.
Ok, maybe my post was overly sarcastic. I spent over an hour writing the respond to Yoda and was annoyed when I got the same questions again. Sorry....

How is a fetus not human? Can a fetus grow on a fetus tree? Perhaps one can grow from the ground? A fetus IS human as it requires direct human interaction to produce one. Nothing can produce a human fetus except the union of two humans, therefore a fetus is inherently, absolutely human.
If a fetus grow on a fetus tree?? Well, biologically, yes of course it's human. You think it's a human as soon as the sperm reaches the egg. I think it's a human as soon as it can live without the support of the mother's body. I don't know when that is so please don't ask me again when in my opinion the fetus becomes a human.

If you are going to argue so steadfastly and so surely then you'd better have solid ground to stand on. At least your position requires a solid belief on your part, not this wishy washy sentiment.
Well, my friend, this ground is all but solid. Why do you think we are debating this matter? You think that it's human, no doubt about it. I think that it's a question that is very hard and complex and that's why I find it hard to give a straight answer to a very unstraight question. I don't see it as just black or white as you do.

That's a popular theory, not unique to you. This line of comparison is apples and oranges, the two things are not related whatsoever. Conveniently forgotten again is the victim and the family of the victim. Will you preach to them the immorality of killing? The death penalty is ethical. It's also fair and it is just in most cases. Some people have willingly and knowingly forfieted their own right to breathe by taking the freedom and/or life from another. You support the rights of the criminal on one hand, you're all warm and fuzzy for those who would rather slit your throat than look at you, then on the other hand you condemn a fetus to death:

Give me a choice and I'll kill the criminal every time. The criminal made a choice, the fetus did not.
You know I could start calling you names now, but I won't.

I would explain to the victim (if the victim is alive) and its family that the criminal is behind bars and will never hurt anybody again. The acts done to them can never be undone and killing another human being will not make things better.

And who are you to say when someone's has used up his or her right to live??

I'm support human rights, you got that right. And you're so childish saying that I'm all warm and fuzzy for criminals. Give me a break. So now it's a matter of choosing between killing a criminal or a fetus all of a sudden? Well, I bet you would kill a hard criminal any day, and enjoy it too. I on the other hand would not hesitate to accept an abortion over accetping an execution. And don't start asking "But what if your mother was killed by...." and stuff like that. This is about what the state should and should not do, not what I would want to do to someone that has hurt someone I love.

Unless of course someone chooses to abort you before you can make this choice.
Yeah, right. Or if someone executes you before you can make this choice.... Come on now.

Or if someone murders you (that someone still has a right to live, though, right, even though he took that life from another?)
To me it's not so much about the murderer's right to live than it is about the state's right to kill.



Originally posted by Piddzilla


You know I could start calling you names now, but I won't.


Oh go ahead.

I would explain to the victim (if the victim is alive) and its family that the criminal is behind bars and will never hurt anybody again.
Early releases happen daily. I have police officer friends that complain that they take the killers off the street then see them again a few years later.

And who are you to say when someone's has used up his or her right to live??
Who are you to say that a fetus isn't human and therefore killing it is not murder?

I'm support human rights, you got that right. And you're so childish saying that I'm all warm and fuzzy for criminals. Give me a break.
Thank you for your assesment of my maturity. I will point out that it was you who began the mudslinging when asked to clarify your opinion.

So now it's a matter of choosing between killing a criminal or a fetus all of a sudden? Well, I bet you would kill a hard criminal any day, and enjoy it too.
YOU drew the similarity if you'll remember, not I.
(I would enjoy it too, BTW. )

I on the other hand would not hesitate to accept an abortion over accetping an execution. And don't start asking "But what if your mother was killed by...." and stuff like that. This is about what the state should and should not do, not what I would want to do to someone that has hurt someone I love.
You're entitled to believe what you wish. I'm entitled to believe that you are dead wrong.

Yeah, right. Or if someone executes you before you can make this choice.... Come on now.
To me it's not so much about the murderer's right to live than it is about the state's right to kill.
Voted into law by the majority as are abortions. By the way did you read my statements at the beginning? I said that abortions are wrong for me and for me only as I'm not qualified to make that choice for others. You can't figure me out, I promise you, so don't even try to put words in my mouth.



I'm ultra liberal on many issues, but I'm in the middle of the road on this one. Most pro-lifers think human life begins at conception while most pro-choicers think it begins at birth; I have always believed that the truth has to be somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Where should the line be drawn? I don't know. I really wish more people could use that phrase more often. Does anyone really know?

The problem with not being on one side or the other on the abortion issue is that you get pounded by both sides. I've actually lost pro-life and pro-choice friends because I wasn't firmly in their camp. I guess it's understandable, since most pro-lifers are fighting against what they think is murder, and most pro-choicers are fighting for what they think is a fundamental right.

I'm especially against late-term abortions. Partial birth abortion is the most horrible operation I know of, and I was absolutely disgusted with Clinton when he vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions that had a life of the mother exception. That decision wasn't about supporting a liberal belief; it was about poilitical stance, and it made me sick to my stomach.

I don't know whether some abortions should be legal or not, but I think we need to be more flexible and logical on the issue. Just acting like it is a woman's right to have any kind of abortion she wants is ridiculous in my opinion.
__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally posted by Yoda
First up: Pidzilla


Not necessarily. The things I'm saying don't require that you believe life begins at conception; they only require that you admit that you don't know for SURE.
I admit that I don't know exactly when it starts, yes.

I'm not saying it's a crime; I'm simply trying to illustrate why "I'm not a woman, so it's none of my business" is not an argument at all. You don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on this topic. Perhaps you weren't saying that you had to be...but that is easily one of the more common arguments I hear in favor of abortion, and frankly, it's ridiculous.
Ok, I don't think that's an argument either and, that's right, I didn't say that.

It only contradicts what I say if you ignore the difference I describe between an innocent infant and a convicted murderer.
Ok. Honestly, I don't remember... I don't even remember what it was that I thought contradicted what.

That doesn't really matter. Killing someone quickly and painlessly, legally, is the same thing as torturing someone first. You'll just get a longer prison sentence for the latter, most likely. The issue is not about which is worse, but about whether or not you can draw a reasonable, legal line between killing born children, and unborn children. I'm demonstrating that there is no such logical line.
Yes, I do think it matters since I don't think abortion involves killing. I don't think killing someone painlessly is the same thing as torturing someone first. You mean that it would be the same to poke out the eyes of the convicted before you put him in the electric char than to just put him in the electric chair? I also think it's absurd and frightening that you don't think there's a line between killing a fetus and an infant child. BUT, if that's how you feel, I understand that you're against abortions.

You're misunderstanding; first off, I'm not saying that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She can. I'm saying she cannot do what she want's with the baby's body. The baby is clearly NOT part of her body. It is seperate from her in many ways, even early in development.
.

?????? Are you serious?? You really think that the fetus could live without and outside the mother's body from day one?? It's a part of her body until it can live without it. Which takes a long while before it can.

As for valuing a fetus higher than a woman; no, you're just putting words in my mouth there, to be blunt. I don't value a fetus higher than a woman anymore than I value a little boy over a little girl. I don't have labels of value on them. They are both innocent human lives (unless the pregnant mother is a convicted murderer, basically) and they should both be protected as such.
Ok, well, that's your opinion and I don't agree with it at all.

The little right about "rightwing Christian men" was mud slinging, IMO, but that's not important.

Religion is NOT an issue here unless you make it one. I haven't mentioned God once, even though I strongly believe in Him. What I'm saying does not require belief in God...only believe in the value of human life.
"Him"?? God's a black, lesbian woman, didn't you know?? All I'm saying is that issues like this would be easier to discuss if everybody agreed to leave religon out of it. Unfortunately that's impossible since a lot of people (not you) can't do anything without bringing religion into it.

I'm comparing them to illustrate a larger point. It doesn't mean I'm saying they are equal. Example: someone says there are too many laws. They should be allowed to smoke pot. They should get rid of all the laws. I say "what about murder?" Naturally, I'm not saying smoking pot is akin to murder...I'm merely using an example to demonstrate why their statements don't jibe.

So, the point here is this: why is the fact that some people will do it anyway an argument to keep it legal? Isn't that true of ANYTHING you make illegal?
That's not my argument to keep it legal, that people would do it anyway. Not at all. I think it should be legal because I think it's the women's right. I do however prefer safe legal abortions to unsafe illegal abortions.

There's nothing to consider in 99.9% of cases (at least). Assuming we're not talking about a child who's going to be born with a terminal disease, there really isn't any scenario where you can say that the child will grow up in a enough poverty, or something of the sort, to ever justify KILLING it outright.

I grew up in poverty. My father grew up under an abusive stepfather and an inattentive mother. The world, however, is a much better place with him in it, and he's as happy to be alive as I, or you, or anyone else is.

You can never, ever, ever use poor living conditions like that to justify abortion. If you head down that road...where does it lead? If you take that concept to its logical conclusion, who decides what kind of poverty justifies it? What if the parents are ugly? Of below-average intelligence? Do you really want to bring an ugly, stupid kid into the world? He'll be teased in school!
I have never, ever, ever used poor living conditions to justify abortion. But unplanned pregnancies can lead to disastrous conditions for the child, wouldn't you agree? Do you think that I think that a lot of people would have been better off dead or aborted? That's absurd. And I didn't even think the word "poverty".

You see what I'm getting at; there's no end to how far you could take that. It just doesn't hold.
Well, I think it holds. Why do you think women have abortions in the first place? Because of all the love they are willing to give the child? Because of that they want the child too much? Abortion is a selfish thing, but it has to be. The woman doesn't have to think of anybody else than herself in that situation.

Notice what you're saying, thoug; theft, murder and rape are different because, in your opinion, they are against the law for "obvious reasons." The obviousness of laws is a purely subjective standard. As disturbing as it is, some people have no problem with theft, rape, and murder. And we (rightly) force our morals against these things on those people.
Well, the obviousness of laws against murder etc. isn't exactly a subjective standard. Is there any country in the world where murder is allowed? Find ten and they still don't represent the whole.

That's what I'm saying; you're not against people forcing morality on others through laws...we do it every day, and thank goodness for it. You just don't agree with this particular bit of morality.
No, I don't and I don't see the similarity between forcing anti-democratic views on people and following laws that have been shaped in a democratic process.

It IS as equally valuable. I said "part of me" felt that way, and then went on to explain why I didn't think it really mattered. I'm merely more sympathetic to the woman in the case of rape. But in the end, a child's a child, no matter the circumstances of conception.
Hmmmm.. Make up your mind.

Again; I never said it was "the same." Just that, legally, we have to treat them the same. That's a CRUCIAL distinction.
Ok, than we have agreed on that a newborn baby isn't the same as a fetus. I think that settles a lot of questions, but you don't. Dead end.

No, you don't think it's always wrong to kill. If someone were attacking your family with lethal force and the only way to stop them was through shooting them in the head, it wouldn't be wrong in the least to do so. But you're right, that isn't the topic here.
You're right. I wouldn't hesitate in that situation, I think. So YES I don't think it's always wrong to kill.

Wait a second; as soon as you're born? You don't have basic human rights if you've been in the women for 9 months and are just about to come out? What if your legs are dangling, but your head has yet to emerge? When do those rights begin?
Is this REALLY relevant to the discussion?? Are we talking about abortion of a 8½ months old baby or a 6 weeks old fetus?? It's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

Actually there was a landmark court case recently on this very topic. It's a very relevant issue, IMO.
Yeah, I wonder why that case was so recognized.

If you say that the woman has the ultimate final say even if the man wants to keep the child, then logically you cannot support the issue of child support. To say that the man does not have a real, LEGAL say in the future of the child he helped create is to say it's not his ultimate responsibility. And if it's not his ultimate responsibility, why should the woman be allowed to extract money from him if she chooses to have the baby?
You're drifting further and further away from the topic... As soon as the man puts his penis inside the woman's vagina he has full responsibility of his actions. And if that lovemaking results in a baby he has full responsibility to take care of his child. Now, we all now that it's the mother who's going to bear the child and she has the right to decide on her own if she wants to bear it. If both men and women got pregnant it would be another thing.

Responsibility is one thing. Making the decision is another thing.

I can't believe you're making this a money issue...

Right, it's not crystal clear when life begins. I feel pretty strongly about it, but I'm not 100% sure, either.
Ok.

So, here is my question to you: seeing as how you admit human life is highly valuable (especially that of a defenseless infant), if you don't know whether or not it is a human, how can you justify risking it? Why are you willing to gamble over a million of these lives a year?
Listen, I know wether it's a human or not. It's exactly when it becomes a human I'm not sure of.

Finally, wouldn't it be better if we concentrated on the well-being of the millions of kids that actually were born than on the ones that never weren't?



Originally posted by Yoda
Triple post. I'm sorry.

LordSlaytan


Goody.
Sorry...

Two things; why concern for the "poor woman" ahead of the poor child? You say it's alive, and yet you justify killing it anyway?
You said it yourself, life is full of hard choices. If you're so hot on saving these unborn children, then go offer to adopt some of them. No disrespect intended.
__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."



Im a believer that abortion has both its rather negitive effects but in certain situations it can be needed. If I had a wife and there were complications I would order an abortion immediately, why risk two lives when one can survive. Silver (for once) I don’t believe is heartless and actually does have a valid point here, destiny (if it exsists) we wouldn’t be able to change because if you believe in destiny than you really don’t believe in free will, as our future OR the babies death would have already been "planned" but like matt said the baby isnt born with the cure of cancer he has to discover it in time.


Abortion will always be one of those topics that not everyone will agree on, but me personally can see both sides of the fence and neither side is any better than the other. I hope never to be put in the position of choosing whether my baby lives above my wife/lover/whatever but should i have to play god, i would seriously consider terminating the pregancy.

Abortion: a double bladed sword



I am having a nervous breakdance
To Naisy...

You're right it is a tough and tragic situation in any case. But you should at least have the choice even if you know what you will choose.



Originally posted by firegod
I don't know. I really wish more people could use that phrase more often. Does anyone really know?
I know when it comes to myself and my own feelings on an issue. It's clear cut to me. I can't tell others what to think and feel, I only know that I think it's wrong and I don't have any doubts about it.


Originally posted by firegod
I don't know whether some abortions should be legal or not, but I think we need to be more flexible and logical on the issue. Just acting like it is a woman's right to have any kind of abortion she wants is ridiculous in my opinion.
I'm in a quandary as usual. I absolutely believe abortion is wrong so I'm pro life, right? I also absolutely believe that it's not my business or my place to make life altering decisions for others. If abortion became illegal then some women would do things illegal and unsafe and it's not fair to impose that on them either. So I'm pro choice...right?

I'll probably do what I always do when discussing weighty issues... head for the garage, crack open a cold one and shut the fukk up.



Lol. I hear you. I guess I feel pretty much the same way, except for late term abortions when the mother's life is not in danger. Absolutely repugnant.



Yeah, well I don't have to tell you how I feel about that.

I AM going to crack open a cold one tonite though. My grilling skillz have been called upon and I cannot roast the flesh of departed livestock without a good stout ale or two.



Draw a line in the sand please. At what point does a fetus become 'human?' Since it requires humans to concieve another human I should think that this argument is academic.
It's a human as soon as it has a human form, in my opinion. How do we know when it thinks? Just because it doesn't know what's going on, doesn't mean that we have a right to kill it. If you put a knoose around a toddler's head, it wouldn't know what's going on. Does that mean that we should kill it? No.

I'm tired. I'm back early, but I'm tired. I'll see everyone tommorow!
__________________
"I bet one legend that keeps reoccurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye."



To Naisy...

You're right it is a tough and tragic situation in any case. But you should at least have the choice even if you know what you will choose.
naturally you should (and you do) have the choice, but there is no point in arguing whether it is right or wrong, whether its murder or justified, because there will NEVER be a time when we will all agree on it. Its just a fact of life.

You decide in your own mind is it killing or not, i doubt anyone would feel 100% ok with aborting their own child but it still comes down to the 'parents/guardians' and thats all their is to it, this is a pointless arguement because neither side is wrong or right, the only point in this entire thread is to hear the ageless arguements or both sides. Nothing here will mean all that much.



I am having a nervous breakdance
Originally posted by Naisy


naturally you should (and you do) have the choice, but there is no point in arguing whether it is right or wrong, whether its murder or justified, because there will NEVER be a time when we will all agree on it. Its just a fact of life.

You decide in your own mind is it killing or not, i doubt anyone would feel 100% ok with aborting their own child but it still comes down to the 'parents/guardians' and thats all their is to it, this is a pointless arguement because neither side is wrong or right, the only point in this entire thread is to hear the ageless arguements or both sides. Nothing here will mean all that much.
Well, personally I think that when there's an issue with two so strong opposite views on that issue, that's when you really should discuss it. When someone think that abortion is murder I have to protest against that statement and speak my mind since I think it's outrageous to call it murder. And if my girflriend had to go through an abortion (which I know she would never do), with all the physical and mental pain that it brings with it, I promise you, I would punch the first person in the head that calls her a murderer.

Pointless argument? Uhuh... never...



Originally posted by Gracie


It's a human as soon as it has a human form, in my opinion. How do we know when it thinks? Just because it doesn't know what's going on, doesn't mean that we have a right to kill it. If you put a knoose around a toddler's head, it wouldn't know what's going on. Does that mean that we should kill it? No.

I'm tired. I'm back early, but I'm tired. I'll see everyone tommorow!
Hello Grace
Good to see you back early. Good points you've made. I hold the unpopular opinion that a baby is a human at conception. To me it's as simple as that. It takes two humans to make one, therefore it's human, cut and dried. Anyone who says it's not is glossing over the truth to make themselves feel better. As I said before, much to my regret, I've been through the whole process. I've watched it with my own two eyes and felt the gravity and weight of my own actions over the course of years. Maybe some can gloss it over and convince themselves that what they've done by getting an abortion is the right thing. I only have sorrow in my heart over my own experiences.

I can hear Chris groaning but I have to say it. Unless you've been through it you don't really know. Most times I agree with him, one does not need experience in something to have an opinion. In this case though, I think it's necessary.



Originally posted by Toose
I hold the unpopular opinion that a baby is a human at conception. To me it's as simple as that. It takes two humans to make one, therefore it's human, cut and dried. Anyone who says it's not is glossing over the truth to make themselves feel better.
I don't know about that. Glossing over the truth to make myself feel better is something I don't think I do, yet I claim that human life does not begin at conception. I dunno. I think you're stretching a bit on that one.



Ok Fire.

You're a scientific and very intelligent guy. How can something that requires two humans to make not be human?

I'm not being facetious, I really don't understand the theory and I hear it voiced a lot.

In any part of science you would disagree with that. I think you would tell me that when 2 parts of hydrogen are mixed with 1 part of oxygen you have water... every time. I could go on but I think you will see what I'm getting at. I just can't get past the part that it's a human egg, fertilized by human sperm and is therefore inherently human. There's no waiting period, no suspended animation where this egg decides what it will or will not become. It's always going to be human...there's no chance it will become anything else.

BTW, I was probably talking about myself when I said:

"Anyone who says it's not is glossing over the truth to make themselves feel better."

It's what I did.