FRIHOST • FORUMS • SEARCH • FAQ • TOS • BLOGS • COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Abortion...is it wrong?






Abortion...is it wrong?
yes- totally
25%
 25%  [ 10 ]
no-absolutely not
40%
 40%  [ 16 ]
in some cases
27%
 27%  [ 11 ]
unsure
7%
 7%  [ 3 ]
Total Votes : 40

aames_prov356
I was just curious to see what you all thought.
HalfBloodPrince
Murder is murder.
aames_prov356
I agree. I think you know why, but for the benefit of anyone who may come into this discussion, I will state my reasons. Many people say that the baby is but a fetus, not even human yet because he/she is inhuman. I personally believe that the baby is just as human as the rest of us. At four weeks, it has a heart, spinal cord, lungs, etc... and is capable of feeling pain. Even before that, the baby is developing, thus qualifying it as a living being and making the abortion of it murder.
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
I agree. I think you know why, but for the benefit of anyone who may come into this discussion, I will state my reasons. Many people say that the baby is but a fetus, not even human yet because he/she is inhuman. I personally believe that the baby is just as human as the rest of us. At four weeks, it has a heart, spinal cord, lungs, etc... and is capable of feeling pain. Even before that, the baby is developing, thus qualifying it as a living being and making the abortion of it murder.

Show me some evidence that a 4 week foetus can feel pain. (Tip - there is no such evidence).
The most extreme view is that a foetus may be able to respond to stimulii at around 13-14 weeks but this view is contentious and most medical professionals take the view that the foetus cannot feel pain until much later in development. Most professionals argue that the neurological pathways which allow pain to be felt are not developed before about 20 weeks and some argue that even then it is unlikely that the foetus could feel pain as we understand it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4905892.stm
http://homepages.westminster.org.uk/hooke/issue9/robertso.htm
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19970218/ai_n14094324/pg_2
Klaw 2
@bikerman, what do YOU think about abortion

I think that abortion should be allowed. Because:
If a a girl gets pregnant (at very early age) her parents might be not happy with that, and in more extreme cases the girl:
1 is forced to leave the just born child somewhere
2 is forced to mary someone she doesn't want to
3 can get killed
4 get kicked out of the family

Some women do very very dangerous things to themselves, such as using certain kinds of toxics, beating their stomach with something metal etc.

In some cases women can die when they are giving birth.

And last
When a woman gets raped, the child might remind her of that. And i dont think that's very nice.

Besides in the beginning of development the child has no no working brains and cannot be aware of anything, in fact it is then more plant like.
Bikerman
I am pro-choice on the issue. I believe that a woman has the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion. In the vast majority of cases the abortion is, and should be, carried out before 13 weeks and, at that point, I think there is no issue of 'pain' or distress for the foetus. In exceptional circumstances the abortion may be carried out later and although I would like to see this kept to a minimum, I still support the right to choose.
aames_prov356
Quote:
I think that abortion should be allowed. Because:
If a a girl gets pregnant (at very early age) her parents might be not happy with that, and in more extreme cases the girl:
1 is forced to leave the just born child somewhere
2 is forced to mary someone she doesn't want to
3 can get killed
4 get kicked out of the family

5 Some women do very very dangerous things to themselves, such as using certain kinds of toxics, beating their stomach with something metal etc.

6 In some cases women can die when they are giving birth.

7 And last
When a woman gets raped, the child might remind her of that. And i dont think that's very nice.

Besides in the beginning of development the child has no no working brains and cannot be aware of anything, in fact it is then more plant like.


1) the girl is not forced to leave the kid just anywhere(eg: a dumpster or sidewalk) she has the choice to a.) keep it and take full responsibility for her actions. b.) give it up for adoption

2.) though she might end up in a marriage that she doesn't necessarily want to be in, she should have thought of that before she had sex with the guy. she shouldn't have slept with a guy she wouldn't be willing to marry

3.) i have heard of few cases where the girl gets killed.

4.)getting kicked out of the family is the consequence for her actions. consequences are part of life.

5.) beating themselves in the stomach, taking toxins whatever is a choice that the fed government cannot really regulate, whereas not having abortion clinics, they can. those things are injurious to the woman's health, but that is her choice, just like having sex was. if she wants to risk internal bleeding, poisoning herself, i guess that is her choice, though not the best one.

6) in some cases, women can die from having abortions from problems during the procedure or even end up killing themselves out of the guilt over what they did(which does happen)

7) in this case, she doesn't have to keep the kid does she? no. she could give it up for adoption. there are plenty of couples out there that cannot have children and would be happy to adopt.

It wasn't just about pain. My point is that a baby, unborn as it is, is still a human being, just like us and it is murder to abort them. Just because they cannot have thought processes just as we do does not make them any less of a living being. If someone went into-well anywhere-and ripped the brains, no matter how non-functioning they are-out of a vegetable's(not the produce kind) head, it would be considered just as murderous. Never mind that they cannot feel pain at four weeks. In the later, last minute abortions they can and that was my point.
Coen
I am pro abortion. As said by Bikerman, there is no prove the foetus can feel pain or has any understanding of the world around it. It doesn't know it's alive, therefor, it doesn't understand death or it's meaning. If the woman that's pregnant feels she isn't ready or has been raped then abortion is the best option. It's better to prevent harm to the pregnant woman. The foetus isn't alive in the meaning of intellectual life and would therefor not suffer or know it's about to die as it doesn't know the concept of life nor death.
fx-trading-education
aames_prov356 wrote:
I agree. I think you know why, but for the benefit of anyone who may come into this discussion, I will state my reasons. Many people say that the baby is but a fetus, not even human yet because he/she is inhuman. I personally believe that the baby is just as human as the rest of us. At four weeks, it has a heart, spinal cord, lungs, etc... and is capable of feeling pain. Even before that, the baby is developing, thus qualifying it as a living being and making the abortion of it murder.


I would like to know how you define a "human" because if it just having a heart, lungs,.. feel pain then most of the animal are also humans (are you vegetarian?); And I said only most because you put lungs that exclude the fishes Laughing
For me a human is something more than heart and lungs...

I just saw the post above from Coen. It seems that he has a better definition for what is a human.
Nice to see that some people think Cool
HalfBloodPrince
She should have thought about not being ready before she decided to get herself fornicated by some random guy; it was her stupidity and bad choices and now she has to deal with the consequences.

If there's an abortion center available then I'm pretty sure the said woman is living in an area where she will not be killed for getting raped (if that was the case), and can easily put her child up for adoption (if she chooses not to raise him/her as her own).
aames_prov356
Do you even know how they perform abortions? THe actual procedures? If you performed what the abortion doctors do on a grown adult or any other born person on the planet, you would be on death row.
HalfBloodPrince
(I'm against abortion)
fx-trading-education
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
She should have thought about not being ready before she decided to get herself fornicated by some random guy; it was her stupidity and bad choices and now she has to deal with the consequences.


Then the child will be seen as a punishment.
There is no worst solution for the child itself.
HalfBloodPrince
And you can't just simply wipe out the consequences of your bad actions either.
fx-trading-education
aames_prov356 wrote:
Do you even know how they perform abortions? THe actual procedures? If you performed what the abortion doctors do on a grown adult or any other born person on the planet, you would be on death row.


This comparison doesn't make sense at all.
If you would do to humans what children do to the small animals, insects you will also be in the death row.
This comparison is as relevant as yours...
Klaw 2
aames_prov356 wrote:

1) the girl is not forced to leave the kid just anywhere(eg: a dumpster or sidewalk) she has the choice to a.) keep it and take full responsibility for her actions. b.) give it up for adoption

2.) though she might end up in a marriage that she doesn't necessarily want to be in, she should have thought of that before she had sex with the guy. she shouldn't have slept with a guy she wouldn't be willing to marry

3.) i have heard of few cases where the girl gets killed.

4.)getting kicked out of the family is the consequence for her actions. consequences are part of life.

5.) beating themselves in the stomach, taking toxins whatever is a choice that the fed government cannot really regulate, whereas not having abortion clinics, they can. those things are injurious to the woman's health, but that is her choice, just like having sex was. if she wants to risk internal bleeding, poisoning herself, i guess that is her choice, though not the best one.

6) in some cases, women can die from having abortions from problems during the procedure or even end up killing themselves out of the guilt over what they did(which does happen)

7) in this case, she doesn't have to keep the kid does she? no. she could give it up for adoption. there are plenty of couples out there that cannot have children and would be happy to adopt.

It wasn't just about pain. My point is that a baby, unborn as it is, is still a human being, just like us and it is murder to abort them. Just because they cannot have thought processes just as we do does not make them any less of a living being. If someone went into-well anywhere-and ripped the brains, no matter how non-functioning they are-out of a vegetable's(not the produce kind) head, it would be considered just as murderous. Never mind that they cannot feel pain at four weeks. In the later, last minute abortions they can and that was my point.


1. If she has to get rid of it how can she keep it? And of course its true that children can be given away for adoption but in most 3d world countries they end up in a foster home where they are'nt always treated wel. Bet yes living and to exist is better than not at all, (unless your life is a living hell)

2. in some traditions women have to mary the man who raped them. Also girls might decide what is "stupid" but this might be because they had 1 drink too many. But I think more lightly of sex as you do (obviously).

3. Horrible isn't it?

4 (this pisses me of)Do you know what consequences this has? Do you know what that means for a girl; No money, no family, and a baby to look after what can she do??? Give the baby away. Then what still no money nothing. They usually become prostitutes in that kind of situation.

5. They do this because they are scared of the consequences, what their family might do to them etc.

6. Women can indeed die from abortion but how many do die from abortion not a lot. Far less than women die because they are giving birth.

7. True but would you like to giving birth to "a rape child" I wouldn't. And what would you tell the kid? You are the outcome from a rape incident??
liljp617
Depends on what stage of the pregnancy in my opinion and possibly the circumstances of why you're pregnant (making a stupid decision doesn't count as an excuse).

On a side note, I don't think people should say they're pro abortion though Razz Doesn't sound right. Pro-choice is a better use of words...but that's all irrelevant semantics Smile
aames_prov356
Quote:
Then the child will be seen as a punishment.
There is no worst solution for the child itself


If the woman sees the child as a punishment, she can just as easily give it up for adoption
HalfBloodPrince
^ Agreed. She does not have the right to have it killed. Why should the child be deprived of life because of the "mother"'s stupidity?
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
It wasn't just about pain. My point is that a baby, unborn as it is, is still a human being, just like us and it is murder to abort them. Just because they cannot have thought processes just as we do does not make them any less of a living being. If someone went into-well anywhere-and ripped the brains, no matter how non-functioning they are-out of a vegetable's(not the produce kind) head, it would be considered just as murderous. Never mind that they cannot feel pain at four weeks. In the later, last minute abortions they can and that was my point.

So why did you say they can feel pain at 4 weeks then? Was it just a casual lie? You cannot make unsubstantiated and emotive statements like that and expect the rest of your postings to be taken seriously (at least not by me).
You clearly believe that all human life is sacred and I presume you define human life as starting at conception (or do you take the Catholic view and regard even eggs and sperm as 'potential' life and therefore sacred? Monty-Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred' springs to mind).

I think there is no good reason to regard an early-term foetus as a human so I take a different view. I base my views on physiology, biology and neurology. You obviously base yours on religious 'truth'. You then try to extend this into a physiological argument by talking, erroneously, about pain. The fact is that you are opposed to abortion whether or not the foetus feels pain so this is a dishonest debating point. Have the courage of your convictions and argue honestly from your religious beliefs.
aames_prov356
Quote:
1. If she has to get rid of it how can she keep it? And of course its true that children can be given away for adoption but in most 3d world countries they end up in a foster home where they are'nt always treated wel. Bet yes living and to exist is better than not at all, (unless your life is a living hell)

2. in some traditions women have to mary the man who raped them. Also girls might decide what is "stupid" but this might be because they had 1 drink too many. But I think more lightly of sex as you do (obviously).

3. Horrible isn't it?

4 (this pisses me of)Do you know what consequences this has? Do you know what that means for a girl; No money, no family, and a baby to look after what can she do??? Give the baby away. Then what still no money nothing. They usually become prostitutes in that kind of situation.

5. They do this because they are scared of the consequences, what their family might do to them etc.

6. Women can indeed die from abortion but how many do die from abortion not a lot. Far less than women die because they are giving birth.

7. True but would you like to giving birth to "a rape child" I wouldn't. And what would you tell the kid? You are the outcome from a rape incident??


!. just saying that she doesn't necessarily have to keep it. the person i was responding to made it sound as if she would be forced to leave her kid on a street corner.

2. like i said before, it was her choice. she had sex with the guy, she made the decision that if she became pregnant then she would have to deal with the consequences.

3.yes it is horrible, i never did say that it wasn't

4. its called a job. hmmm. there are lots of places that accept women. mcdonald's, wendy's....all jobs that pay money, not very much, granted, but they pay and still...i say yet again... it was her choice. she knew what consequences a pregnancy would bring, yet she willfully chose to have sex anyhow.

5. i wasn't trying to explain why women might do this or justify it either.

6. very few women die anymore from childbirth.

7. no, i probably would not particularly like the idea of giving birth to a child that was the result of rape, but i would anyhow. despite the wrongness of how they came to be, they would still be part of me. not only that, but the pregnancy would not have been my or my kid's fault either, so why take it out on them?no, i probably wouldn't tell them about how they came to be unless they asked and were mature enough to understand and handle it, or they were put into the same situation where they would need the information to help them make that choice. That is saying that i kept the child.
Bikerman
A couple of facts for you.
The mortality rate in the US for legally performed abortions is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 (for the year 1998).*
The mortality rate in the US for childbirth is around 17 deaths per 100,000 (for the year 2000).**

* http://www.cdc.gov/mmwR/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5103a1.htm
** http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/publications/maternal_mortality_2000/mme.pdf
aames_prov356
Quote:
So why did you say they can feel pain at 4 weeks then? Was it just a casual lie? You cannot make unsubstantiated and emotive statements like that and expect the rest of your postings to be taken seriously (at least not by me).
You clearly believe that all human life is sacred and I presume you define human life as starting at conception (or do you take the Catholic view and regard even eggs and sperm as 'potential' life and therefore sacred? Monty-Python's 'Every Sperm is Sacred' springs to mind).

I think there is no good reason to regard an early-term foetus as a human so I take a different view. I base my views on physiology, biology and neurology. You obviously base yours on religious 'truth'. You then try to extend this into a physiological argument by talking, erroneously, about pain. The fact is that you are opposed to abortion whether or not the foetus feels pain so this is a dishonest debating point. Have the courage of your convictions and argue honestly from your religious beliefs


No it was not just a casual lie. I did not mean for it to sound the way that it did. I mistyped. Sometimes, when you type things, they do not come out as you the thought that you wer thinking, especially when you stink at typing as much as I do.

I believe that human life is sacred (no I don't adhere to the Catholic belief that you mentioned-infact, I didn't even know of its existence. Very fascinating bit of info I didn't know about.)It's kind of hard to talk directly from my religious convictions when everytime I do, it just turns everyone off and they disregard my statements without response. Telling me I am a silly schoolgirl for believing the way that I do. I already know what others think about Christianity(I am Baptist by the way- I adhere to no part of Catholicism) and do not feel the need to be made fun of any more. However, in a way you are right and that I do need to be more honest in that I do derive many of my views from my relationship with God(not just a religion)
liljp617
aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote:
Then the child will be seen as a punishment.
There is no worst solution for the child itself


If the woman sees the child as a punishment, she can just as easily give it up for adoption

Because we all know how much better that is...yeah they have a chance, but assuming we're talking about the early stages of the cycle, it's hardly killing a human being (obviously depending on your definition of a human being...but biologically speaking, it's not a human in the early stages). I don't know if you've noticed, but people in adoption homes don't exactly often live wonderful, normal lives. I personally would rather not live through a possible 17 years of going from group home to group home and dealing with all the insane troubles within them...
Indi
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Murder is murder.

Yes, it is.

And murder is the intentional killing of another human being against the law (which is what separates murder from executing criminals, or killing during wartime, or killing in self-defence).

And abortion is not against the law.

Therefore, abortion is not murder. QED.
Yantaal
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
^ Agreed. She does not have the right to have it killed. Why should the child be deprived of life because of the "mother"'s stupidity?


what if the condom splits, mother still stupid then?

what if she is raped/ is she still stupid?

there is a million accidental ways.

and i am for abortions, in som ecases people just do not have the rescources to have a child so they shouldnt be forced to do so,
aames_prov356
Quote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
^ Agreed. She does not have the right to have it killed. Why should the child be deprived of life because of the "mother"'s stupidity?


what if the condom splits, mother still stupid then?

what if she is raped/ is she still stupid?

there is a million accidental ways.

and i am for abortions, in som ecases people just do not have the rescources to have a child so they shouldnt be forced to do so,


The mother is not necessarily stupid, but as I have said a million times before, she really should have thought about what might happen in having sex with a man-even with a condom-because as you said the condom could split, it could have holes, etc...she knew the risks, yet she had sex anyway.

If she is raped, she is not necessarily stupid either, unless she put her self in a situation where she might get raped.

about the last thing that you said. Even in the cases in which the people do not have the resources to have a child, they can give it up for adoption. They have the choice to give the child a chance at a better life with another family because they cannot give it to them their selves. Depriving it of its life is a little extreme.
Bikerman
Adoption is an option but unfortunately the number of potential adoptive parents is far less than the number of potential adoptees. In the UK, for example, there were about 60,000 children in care for the year 2007. Of that number there were approximately 2,500 adoptions (4%) with the majority being in short/medium term foster care (71%) and the rest in 'homes'.
Klaw 2
aames_prov356 wrote:

!. just saying that she doesn't necessarily have to keep it. the person i was responding to made it sound as if she would be forced to leave her kid on a street corner.

2. like i said before, it was her choice. she had sex with the guy, she made the decision that if she became pregnant then she would have to deal with the consequences.

3.yes it is horrible, i never did say that it wasn't

4. its called a job. hmmm. there are lots of places that accept women. mcdonald's, wendy's....all jobs that pay money, not very much, granted, but they pay and still...i say yet again... it was her choice. she knew what consequences a pregnancy would bring, yet she willfully chose to have sex anyhow.

5. i wasn't trying to explain why women might do this or justify it either.

6. very few women die anymore from childbirth.

7. no, i probably would not particularly like the idea of giving birth to a child that was the result of rape, but i would anyhow. despite the wrongness of how they came to be, they would still be part of me. not only that, but the pregnancy would not have been my or my kid's fault either, so why take it out on them?no, i probably wouldn't tell them about how they came to be unless they asked and were mature enough to understand and handle it, or they were put into the same situation where they would need the information to help them make that choice. That is saying that i kept the child.


1. Wel you were responding to me and that was not my intention.

2. I started about rape and you say that is was her choice........ wait I always thought that rape wasn't a choice!

3. Well I gave and argument and you confirmed it but. Well just wont have it about this poin then.

4. Yes but kicked out of the family wasn't. She will have no money or not enough. MCdonalds is nice for a kid who doesn't has to pay for his own food and a roof above his head but if you want to life of that... she will have to take on more jobs and then her live consist of working sleeping eating. Nice live.

5. Well what I read you draw a line with abortion and beating yourself in the stomach but there isn't. If you had the choice alowing a girl for abortion or not. And the second one will result in that she will take toxins etc. and the umborn nany will die. What will you choose??

6. But more from giving bith then from abortion! As i already said and i was talking about nowadays.

7. Well this is what we cant take further.

And you keep saying a lot it was her choise to have sex and you think thats enough to spoil her life. Which is a bit harsh I think.

Also abortion about: (is murder.)
Lets take it to an other level, in a very rare occasion baby's are born wich are "braindead" either because the brains have died or because there are no brains. But it is still possible for the body to live (if certain parts of the spine are "intact"). Of course it isn't fed or can't feed itself so docter kill it with an injection or let it die. The body can be kept alive by injecting nutriants but no-one does that. Is that murder too?
In both cases the brain can do just about the same thing.
Bikerman
If you believe that life is sacred then you may take the attitude that abortion is wrong - I can understand that, although I disagree.
Two points arise immediately.
Firstly, is all life sacred? or just human life? Why?
Secondly, at what point do you believe human life starts? Conception? Do you really regard a handful of cells as a human life?

As far as I can tell the opposition to abortion is based on religious grounds (ie I am not aware of any secular organisations that take an anti-abortion position). It is, perhaps, an interesting observation that those who believe in an afterlife are the most vocal opponents of abortion, whilst those, like me, who believe that this life is 'all there is' are more relaxed about it. You might think that it would be the other way around...
Afaceinthematrix
I don't think abortion is right; I do not encourage it. However, I am pro-choice and believe that the woman should have the right to choose.
aames_prov356
Quote:
As said by Bikerman, there is no prove the foetus can feel pain or has any understanding of the world around it. It doesn't know it's alive, therefor, it doesn't understand death or it's meaning.


are you implying that a brain-dead person is not human? they don't have any understanding of the world around them. they don't know they are alive either.
Coen
aames_prov356 wrote:
Are you implying that a brain-dead person is not human? they don't have any understanding of the world around them. they don't know they are alive either.

You haven't read my entire post or at least haven't quoted me on it. I am speaking of intellectual life. And no, a brain dead person is not alive (intelectually speaking). However, brain dead is not a natural state of the body. Cut the wires from the machines and the person dies. Compared to a foetus, which is a natural state of the human being, your example is incorrect. However, I've explained my point. No, someone who's brain dead is not a human in intellectual terms. He doesn't know he's alive so he doesn't know he'll die.
Klaw 2
Medicaly a braindead person is DEAD.
Bikerman
It is a fair question (ie to what extent is 'humanity' a result of the brain's activity?). There are several ways of looking at it - one is the absolutist view that all human life is equal in value. The question then arises what defines a 'human'.
Another view, put forward by philosophers such as Singer is that there is a more 'utilitarian' view of this question. He would distinguish between being human (as a species issue) and being a person. 'Personhood' involves being self-conscious with an awareness of one's position in time and space. In his argument the important characteristic is not species but personhood, and it is this which should be used when considering the right to life.
Whilst I have some problems with Singer's utilitarian philosophy, I am sympathetic to this treatment of the issues in the case of abortion.
biljap
I don’t like it; I think it’s wrong… though I can understand that sometimes there could be reasons why it would be better to do it…
jerredk
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Murder is murder.


Yea, you got a point. But it isn't good for a child if it's totaly death but still life at the world. If you abort because you can't give your child food , ... Please don't make childeren. But if you abort because your child isn't well. Than all respect. If you got a child and it can't play , speak , move , eat , drink , ... Thats the worst you can have in your life.
Bikerman
jerredk wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Murder is murder.


Yea, you got a point. But it isn't good for a child if it's totaly death but still life at the world. If you abort because you can't give your child food , ... Please don't make childeren. But if you abort because your child isn't well. Than all respect. If you got a child and it can't play , speak , move , eat , drink , ... Thats the worst you can have in your life.
What point would that be then? Murder it murder? Yes, it has already been pointed out that this is certainly the case - it's a tautology. Abortion is, however, not murder in most western countries.
Murder is the illegal killing of another human as defined by the legislative systems of the country you happen to be in. In the UK, US and (most? all?) other Western countries abortion is not defined as illegal and is therefore not murder.
jerredk
Bikerman wrote:
jerredk wrote:
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Murder is murder.


Yea, you got a point. But it isn't good for a child if it's totaly death but still life at the world. If you abort because you can't give your child food , ... Please don't make childeren. But if you abort because your child isn't well. Than all respect. If you got a child and it can't play , speak , move , eat , drink , ... Thats the worst you can have in your life.
What point would that be then? Murder it murder? Yes, it has already been pointed out that this is certainly the case - it's a tautology. Abortion is, however, not murder in most western countries.
Murder is the illegal killing of another human as defined by the legislative systems of the country you happen to be in. In the UK, US and (most? all?) other Western countries abortion is not defined as illegal and is therefore not murder.


Yea maibi is murder a little bit hard. But it's still taking somebady's life. But that is indeed not murder.
Bikerman
jerredk wrote:
Yea maibi is murder a little bit hard. But it's still taking somebady's life. But that is indeed not murder.
Again it depends on what you mean by 'somebody'. 'Somebody' normally means some person. If you believe that a foetus is a person then I can understand this point, although I personally disagree with it. The question which therefore follows is - at what point does a person become a person? At conception? At birth? What makes a person a person?
tijn01
I am pro choice on the abortion issue. If one gets pregnant and can't look after the baby it is better to have the choise not to have it..... especially considering the current overpopulation of our planet.
Of course it is irresponsible and stupid, but if you make a mistake you should learn from it.... but is it the right environment for a child to grow up???
As for the abortion itself.... Dr's strive to do this in the most human way, I am sure that the foetus does not have the consience to realise or feel what is happening.
catscratches
But it's allright to kill animals? What is it that differ an animal from humans? Is it not the human capabilities to communicate with each other and our intelligence.

But a little un-born baby doesn't have any of those capabilities, then is it a human? Why is it worse to kill a baby than to kill an animal?
redhakaw
we have to touch the real issue here

is it abortion that is questionable
or is it unwanted pregnancy

how do we avoid unwanted pregnancy to avoid abortion?

but to deal with the subject matter, I am also pro-choice, the one who decides and to undergo abortion should also be well informed about how dangerous, painful and life threatening abortion is, and of other means to secure her future and her child's future.
Bikerman
As I posted above, abortion is no more 'life threatening' than childbirth is - in fact significantly less so.
smspno
I don't think I would ever have an abortion (if I were a woman, of course). However, I think that every woman should have the right to decide whether to give birth or not, especially when the pregnancy is a consequence of a rape or when the child is threatened to be born seriously ill (and in many many other cases). What is more, every child should be wanted - i think it's logical that unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted children.
I hate when somebody tries to impose their moral values and worldviews on me, so arguments that it's against Christianity and Jesus Christ's teachings don't impress me much.
Bikerman
smspno wrote:
I don't think I would ever have an abortion (if I were a woman, of course). However, I think that every woman should have the right to decide whether to give birth or not, especially when the pregnancy is a consequence of a rape or when the child is threatened to be born seriously ill (and in many many other cases). What is more, every child should be wanted - i think it's logical that unwanted pregnancies result in unwanted children.
I hate when somebody tries to impose their moral values and worldviews on me, so arguments that it's against Christianity and Jesus Christ's teachings don't impress me much.

In that case why do you qualify your argument? You say 'especially when....'. Either you support abortion unconditionally (ie for any woman who chooses), you support abortion conditionally (ie only in some cases - rape or whatever), or you oppose it unconditionally. Which is it?
HalfBloodPrince
I'll take option C.
Bikerman
Yes, we know your position. It is based on faith. I have no problem with that but I don't think it should be generally applicable unless the generality share that faith.
Indi
Bikerman wrote:
Yes, we know your position. It is based on faith. I have no problem with that but I don't think it should be generally applicable unless the generality share that faith.

And even in that case, it really isn't worth discussion. What is the point of discussion something that is not open to any discussion? All you'll end up with is a bunch of imams sitting around saying "yup, abortion's bad", "yup, pretty bad", "bad, bad, bad", "wait, maybe it's not bad... ha ha, just kidding, it's bad". The sum totality of your contribution is pretty much: "i think abortion is bad because i believe my religion says it is... ok, i'm done. laterz." What more needs to be said, except maybe quoting a verse or two to support your claim if someone says it's not true in your religion (which, no one has, to my knowledge)?
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
As I posted above, abortion is no more 'life threatening' than childbirth is - in fact significantly less so.


let me add words in your sentence

"...legally performed abortions is no more 'life threatening' than childbirth is..."

it is necessary for a woman to know:
1. how dangerous abortion is if done unprofessionally;
2. other means to solve unwanted pregnancy (aside from abortion);
3. and means to avoid unwanted pregnancy

this is what i meant.

I just dont agree with irresponsibility/ignorance and the abuse of abortion.

however, though i'm not a woman, i believe that abortion is more painful than a normal childbirth. or maybe its just me. Laughing
irishmark
The simple fact of the matter is: that you are ending a life by aborting. Feotus or unborn child - whatever you wanna call it, you are ending that life which is killing.
redhakaw
^so if i masturbate and spew loads of semen, am i commiting murder?
AFAIK sperm cells are living organisms
HalfBloodPrince
No, masturbating isn't committing murder because that sperm isn't going to become a baby sitting inside of you (male).

Post-fornication, when the sperm has bonded with the female's egg, then that organism is going to become a human baby. Killing this to-be-born organism vs. releasing your sperm watching porn are different things.
irishmark
redhakaw wrote:
^so if i masturbate and spew loads of semen, am i commiting murder?
AFAIK sperm cells are living organisms


Dont be an idiot! - Thats just stupid. Its when the sperm fertilises the egg that life begins.
redhakaw
irishmark wrote:
Dont be an idiot! - Thats just stupid. Its when the sperm fertilises the egg that life begins.

and try to construct your arguments clearly. I just went along with what you posted Cool
and look, you didnt explicitly identified what type of life. I assume its human life, yes?

funny i just realized, what if the baby was conceived, and that the mother needs to dispose the baby for some health or financial reasons, is it lawful to MURDER the baby.

lets say a woman conceived a baby that carries a very dangerous easily transmitted disease that can end the human race, is it lawful to MURDER the baby?
HalfBloodPrince
redhakaw wrote:
...lets say a woman conceived a baby that carries a very dangerous easily transmitted disease that can end the human race...


I really, sincerely, truly doubt that will happen.

If it does, however, I think I'll change my views. Smile
irishmark
redhakaw wrote:

and try to construct your arguments clearly. I just went along with what you posted Cool
and look, you didnt explicitly identified what type of life. I assume its human life, yes?


Actually i did - i said Feotus or unborn child.

redhakaw wrote:

funny i just realized, what if the baby was conceived, and that the mother needs to dispose the baby for some health or financial reasons, is it lawful to MURDER the baby.

lets say a woman conceived a baby that carries a very dangerous easily transmitted disease that can end the human race, is it lawful to MURDER the baby?

It is lawful as the law allows it. Is it morally right? Tricky question. I would say, even though its incredibly inpractical, that desiease carrying baby would need to live a life protected by a medical scheme so as not to expose the child to others. - It would be a miserable life but we dont have the right to choose wether that baby gets a life or not. Look at all the children born with downs syndrome - some might say that they will/do have miserable lives but it still shouldnt be someone elses choice as to wether they live or not.

In cases where conception has occured through malicious means ie rape or when it is diagnosed that the baby will kill both its mother and itslef then this again is a more tricky point. A life is still a life.
Rape victims often find comfort when their baby comes to term and they then bond with their child. It can be of course be difficult though. In medical cases where death may occur. Even if a Doctor predicts that both mother and baby may die - one has to remember that it is only a prediction and there have been many cases where Doctors get it wrong.

Yes the doctors also get it right but i would stand by the fact that its not a decision that is ours to make. There is no difference between aborting and telling some random person on the street that they have to die because of something that is not their fault.


However in cases where someone has been stupid eneough to willfully have unprotected sex and falls pregnant as a result: They must take the responsibility seriously. It disgusts me when people abort due to inconvinience. It truley is utterly selfish. Before anyone says i'm pointing the finger here - i speak from experience, a member of my own family did this.
redhakaw
here's more thought experiment regarding right to live:

Let's say that Angelina Jolie gets a mental disease that will kill her, and the ONLY cure is that you need to show her your body starked naked in 1 whole month, not only that, but you need to do it in public!!!

will you comply?

you dont want to kill Angelina Jolie, right? Laughing

well i know some pervs will perform the deed....i would Laughing
HalfBloodPrince
You really need to work on your analogies. I didn't even get what you were trying to get at with that one...
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
As I posted above, abortion is no more 'life threatening' than childbirth is - in fact significantly less so.


let me add words in your sentence

"...legally performed abortions is no more 'life threatening' than childbirth is..."

it is necessary for a woman to know:
1. how dangerous abortion is if done unprofessionally;
2. other means to solve unwanted pregnancy (aside from abortion);
3. and means to avoid unwanted pregnancy

this is what i meant.

I just dont agree with irresponsibility/ignorance and the abuse of abortion.

however, though i'm not a woman, i believe that abortion is more painful than a normal childbirth. or maybe its just me. Laughing
I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would a woman have a backstreet abortion if it is legal? This is an argument against making abortion illegal, not about how dangerous legal abortion is.
As for abortion being more painful than childbirth - I really doubt that.
Bikerman
irishmark wrote:
redhakaw wrote:
^so if i masturbate and spew loads of semen, am i commiting murder?
AFAIK sperm cells are living organisms


Dont be an idiot! - Thats just stupid. Its when the sperm fertilises the egg that life begins.

Well, I take it from your name that you are familiar with Ireland? If so then you MUST be familiar with the Catholic church. Take a look at the Catholic position on contraception. Stupid it may be, but one can hardly call people idiots when they get confused by such stupidity.
Bikerman
irishmark wrote:
Rape victims often find comfort when their baby comes to term and they then bond with their child. It can be of course be difficult though. In medical cases where death may occur. Even if a Doctor predicts that both mother and baby may die - one has to remember that it is only a prediction and there have been many cases where Doctors get it wrong.
Have you got any evidence at all for either of these remarkable claims?
redhakaw
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
You really need to work on your analogies. I didn't even get what you were trying to get at with that one...


its really simple if you try to imagine it.
and i never said its an analogy, its a thought experiment that discusses right to live

pro-life enforces that any living human from fertilization until natural death should be respected and has right to life

in my example, Angelina Jolie, as a living human person, has the right to live, but in order for her to live, she needs something undesirable or something that will spoil another human right, in this case, your discretion displaying yourself nude. Laughing

for those who didnt catch the humor: (and to directly give total transparency on the subject matter how it is related to the subject right to live)

A woman gets pregnant because of rape and knows that she will not be able to support the kid unless she will sacrifice her studies and ultimately throw away her life and becomes victim of poverty. it is possible to respect the baby's right to live by sacrificing the mother's right to a better life.
Lets not include adoption as an option
redhakaw
bikerman wrote:
I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would a woman have a backstreet abortion if it is legal? This is an argument against making abortion illegal, not about how dangerous legal abortion is.
As for abortion being more painful than childbirth - I really doubt that.


my point is, abortion should be legal, but should not be something that is openly distributable, but something that should be prevented as much as possible.

I cant stand the idea of an a$$hole impregnating his girlfriend on a daily basis simply because abortion is legal and highly available. if you know what i mean.

Valium has its purposes to treat some illness, but to overdose yourself with it is life threatening, yes?
much like abortion, here is a find:
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/risks-repeated-abortion.html

not all misfortuned pregnant women can afford a "legally professional abortion", some women resort to overdosing, herbal methods and even life threatening methods like letting oneself fall from the stairs. Believe me, i know people who did that, I came from a poor community. and yes, there are backstreet abortionists available, those who are unlicense but can finish the job for a small fee.
irishmark
Bikerman wrote:
irishmark wrote:
Rape victims often find comfort when their baby comes to term and they then bond with their child. It can be of course be difficult though. In medical cases where death may occur. Even if a Doctor predicts that both mother and baby may die - one has to remember that it is only a prediction and there have been many cases where Doctors get it wrong.
Have you got any evidence at all for either of these remarkable claims?


remarkable claims?

Firstly - I volunteered in a post rape support center several years back.

Secondly - if you think doctors getting their diagnosis wrong is remarkable then you may be in for a shocking surprise. Please tell me you arent serious when you think this is remarkable - its a daily occurence. - Think of Cancer victims who have been given weeks to live then have a full recovery. People who are told they will never walk again who have gained full mobility. Or even those cases where it is diagnosed that a baby will die before pregnacy - My own nephew blows that one out of the water. so YES doctors do get it wrong.
Bikerman
irishmark wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
irishmark wrote:
Rape victims often find comfort when their baby comes to term and they then bond with their child. It can be of course be difficult though. In medical cases where death may occur. Even if a Doctor predicts that both mother and baby may die - one has to remember that it is only a prediction and there have been many cases where Doctors get it wrong.
Have you got any evidence at all for either of these remarkable claims?


remarkable claims?

Firstly - I volunteered in a post rape support center several years back.
Evidence, not anecdote. If you were advising raped women to keep their babies, should they prove to be pregnant, then I'm glad you have never had to advise my wife - she would have made quite a mess of you.
Quote:
Secondly - if you think doctors getting their diagnosis wrong is remarkable then you may be in for a shocking surprise. Please tell me you arent serious when you think this is remarkable - its a daily occurence. - Think of Cancer victims who have been given weeks to live then have a full recovery. People who are told they will never walk again who have gained full mobility. Or even those cases where it is diagnosed that a baby will die before pregnacy - My own nephew blows that one out of the water. so YES doctors do get it wrong.
I didn't say doctors never get it wrong. You say it is a daily occurance, I say it is exceptional. In most cases Doctors diagnoses can be trusted - if you have some evidence to the contrary then produce it.
If a doctor (and it would tend to be a specialist, not a GP) makes the diagnosis that the mother's life is in danger if she gives birth, then I would tend to believe that diagnosis. Playing Russian Roulette on the chance that the specialist may get it wrong seems to me to be rather stupid.
Bikerman
redhakaw wrote:
bikerman wrote:
I don't understand what you are getting at. Why would a woman have a backstreet abortion if it is legal? This is an argument against making abortion illegal, not about how dangerous legal abortion is.
As for abortion being more painful than childbirth - I really doubt that.


my point is, abortion should be legal, but should not be something that is openly distributable, but something that should be prevented as much as possible.
Which will inevitably lead to back-street abortions with all the dangers you have already outlined.
Quote:
Valium has its purposes to treat some illness, but to overdose yourself with it is life threatening, yes?
much like abortion, here is a find:
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/risks-repeated-abortion.html
What is that supposed to prove? Abortion, like all surgical procedures, carries a risk - I never said otherwise. What I said was that your chances of dying in childbirth are roughly twice those of dying from the results of a legal abortion. The figures are quite clear and the sources are given in a previous posting.
Quote:
not all misfortuned pregnant women can afford a "legally professional abortion", some women resort to overdosing, herbal methods and even life threatening methods like letting oneself fall from the stairs. Believe me, i know people who did that, I came from a poor community. and yes, there are backstreet abortionists available, those who are unlicense but can finish the job for a small fee.
But you are proposing to restrict legal abortions which will inevitably increase this - is that what you really want?
Indi
redhakaw wrote:
my point is, abortion should be legal, but should not be something that is openly distributable, but something that should be prevented as much as possible.

Why? i have yet to hear a rational reason for why abortions should even be limited let alone restricted or outlawed. Why say abortions should be a limited luxury? What does this gain... anyone? Women have been aborting with concoctions and sharp sticks since the dawn of recorded history - you're not going to stop an abortion if someone really wants it. All you're going to do is kill the potential mother, by forcing her to turn to something less than the modern technology we have available... and for what? Cui bono? (Who gains?)

redhakaw wrote:
I cant stand the idea of an a$$hole impregnating his girlfriend on a daily basis simply because abortion is legal and highly available. if you know what i mean.

If the woman is using abortion as birth control, how is the man the ******?

The anti-abortion folk love this idiotic slipperly slope argument - that if abortion is legal and easily available, women will use it as an "easy" birth control method.

Reality check.

Abortions are not "easy". If you don't want to get pregnant, there are much easier, cheaper and far less risky ways. A condom not only prevents pregnancy, it protects against disease. But, ok, let's say you don't want any kind of barrier birth control because it ruins the fun. Then you can always turn to the pill. But, ok, let's say you don't want to have to worry about pregnancy every day - you want birth control that does not require you to think at all. Well, then go depo. Three shots a year, and that's it. A shot... compared to an abortion... seems an easy trade-off to me. And more and more possibilities are being created. Freaking hell - how is using abortion as birth control more attractive than having your tubes tied?!?! The whole argument is ridiculous.

Anyway, if a woman did use abortion as birth control. What is the problem with that, other than you don't like it? Her body, her choice. Chances are that after the first few dozen abortions she'll end up sterile anyway, and so much the better for the human race.
redhakaw
Bikerman wrote:
Which will inevitably lead to back-street abortions with all the dangers you have already outlined.


like Valium being restricted, leads to drug traffic or illegal perscriptions.

backstreet abortion, obviously is outright dangerous, no questions asked.

abortion when done correctly by a professional is not dangerous, but like you said, all surgical procedures carries a risk, and i've shown some link that says its even riskier if done many times (all surgery is like that), this is the "danger" i'm emphasizing against legal abortion as something highly available.

so what do i mean by preventing abortion as much as possible or should not be openly distributable? if it will endanger the pregnant woman or if there is abuse involved, then I suggest that a form of restriction should be implemented.

Quote:
What is that supposed to prove? Abortion, like all surgical procedures, carries a risk - I never said otherwise. What I said was that your chances of dying in childbirth are roughly twice those of dying from the results of a legal abortion. The figures are quite clear and the sources are given in a previous posting.

why do you rally with this reasoning that because abortion is less painful and riskier than childbirth, and that childbirth is known legal, abortion should also be legal.

is this your point? if yes then I sense a fallacy, it's like saying if smoking cigars is legal even if its dangerous to your health, then heroin should also be legal.

if not then im wrong.

Quote:
But you are proposing to restrict legal abortions which will inevitably increase this - is that what you really want?


nope, I'm restricting legal abortion to protect uninformed women of dangers from backstreet abortion as well as multiple abortions; educate people about other means to solve problems regarding unwanted pregnancy, risk free; and maybe enlighten people that abuse of priviledges and rights that is grounded with ignorance is a moral crime.
redhakaw
Indi wrote:
Why? i have yet to hear a rational reason for why abortions should even be limited let alone restricted or outlawed. Why say abortions should be a limited luxury? What does this gain... anyone? Women have been aborting with concoctions and sharp sticks since the dawn of recorded history - you're not going to stop an abortion if someone really wants it. All you're going to do is kill the potential mother, by forcing her to turn to something less than the modern technology we have available... and for what? Cui bono? (Who gains?)


strawman, who said abortion should be outlawed and advise people to undergo non-medical procedures? what i'm pointing here is that abortion should be controlled and not freely available like buying potato chips in department stores; and if possible, become unnecessary when that time comes when people are well-informed about contraceptives and population and poverty.

Quote:
If the woman is using abortion as birth control, how is the man the ******?

because he knows she can always get abortion so he can fukc-on irresponsibly by not using contraceptives.

Quote:
The anti-abortion folk love this idiotic slipperly slope argument - that if abortion is legal and easily available, women will use it as an "easy" birth control method.

Reality check.

Abortions are not "easy". If you don't want to get pregnant, there are much easier, cheaper and far less risky ways. A condom not only prevents pregnancy, it protects against disease. But, ok, let's say you don't want any kind of barrier birth control because it ruins the fun. Then you can always turn to the pill. But, ok, let's say you don't want to have to worry about pregnancy every day - you want birth control that does not require you to think at all. Well, then go depo. Three shots a year, and that's it. A shot... compared to an abortion... seems an easy trade-off to me. And more and more possibilities are being created. Freaking hell - how is using abortion as birth control more attractive than having your tubes tied?!?! The whole argument is ridiculous.


so if abortion is "not easy" then why make it "easily available"? legality is out of the question, control is my emphasis here.

Quote:
Anyway, if a woman did use abortion as birth control. What is the problem with that, other than you don't like it? Her body, her choice. Chances are that after the first few dozen abortions she'll end up sterile anyway, and so much the better for the human race.


I'm a humanist, but it doesnt mean that i tolerate abused rights.
listen to yourself, its like saying "let those poor people starve to death, atleast they can help in reducing the inflation rate"
nivinjoy
Whatever reasons or supporting factors that you say...abortion is completely wrong and it must be prohibited by law...

Doing murder is a crime and thus this also must be made a highly punishable crime...Killing a small kid Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad (not even a kid,a kid while it is in its earlier stage of formation...!!) is a sin..That's why i said it must be made a highly punishable crime...!!!
liljp617
nivinjoy wrote:
Whatever reasons or supporting factors that you say...abortion is completely wrong and it must be prohibited by law...

Doing murder is a crime and thus this also must be made a highly punishable crime...Killing a small kid Crying or Very sad Crying or Very sad (not even a kid,a kid while it is in its earlier stage of formation...!!) is a sin..That's why i said it must be made a highly punishable crime...!!!

Your points have been completely countered multiple times in the thread.
Lord Klorel
I am not completly against abortion. I will only accept it when the life of the mother is in danger.
Also when the chance that growing baby not can live in a normal situation. Like that baby in Great Britannia (darn the name escapes me).
How many times have there been CPR on that baby? Sorry that i sounds so cruel, but that child can't have a normal life.
I know it is hard but in such situation i should turn my hart into a stone. Only when the majority agrees into it.
-Neil-
Personally, I believe abortions should be readily and exclusively available in cases of rape or incest, or in the case that it will save the life of the mother. If the mother's life is threatened, the unborn baby is at an even greater threat.
videoguy
then you should support all abortions. obviously in the cases of rape or incest you are ignoring and devalueing the rights of the unborn child, so i dont see how you can differentiate. you are basing your morals on the situation of the conception of the child, not the child's rights
-Neil-
videoguy wrote:
then you should support all abortions. obviously in the cases of rape or incest you are ignoring and devalueing the rights of the unborn child, so i dont see how you can differentiate. you are basing your morals on the situation of the conception of the child, not the child's rights


The line is drawn when abortions simply become another method of birth control. For example, if a woman decides that instead of taking birth control pills or telling her partner to use a condom, she decides whenever she gets pregnant, she will take a trip to the doctor's office to have an abortion. That is abusing a tool that can be used constructively in the case of rape, incest, or to save the mother's life. Abortions are not cheap procedures, so we, as taxpayers and insurance buyers, should not have to pay for other peoples' laziness.

In terms of devaluing the life, there are ways to justify:
- incest: genetic malfunctions are likely to occur as a result of a narrower gene pool.
- rape: the child is unwanted and probably not created with love.
- save mother's life: either save the mother or let die both the mother and unborn baby.
Bikerman
The notion that a woman would consciously choose abortion instead of a birth control pill, condom, coil or other birth control mechanism seems a strange one. Do you know what is involved in an abortion? Is it reasonable to suppose that women would choose to subject themselves to that rather than either use the pill or insist on a condom? I find the notion strange, to say the least.

PS - Indi has already covered this in more detail above.
-Neil-
I also find it very strange. That is why I feel abortion is ethical in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. In the case that it is simply because the mother doesn't want the baby, I believe it is unethical. Instead, have the baby and set it up for adoption. If there are any other circumstances anyone can think of in which an abortion appears to be ethical, I am open to hearing them.
Bikerman
Well, all you have to do is read the other postings in the thread. I, for example, believe abortion is ethical, period. I think the woman has the right to choose what happens with her own body and that over-rides any rights that we may assign to the foetus.
redhakaw
^you make it sound like you're just going to have your ear pierced Laughing
HalfBloodPrince
Bikerman wrote:
Well, all you have to do is read the other postings in the thread. I, for example, believe abortion is ethical, period. I think the woman has the right to choose what happens with her own body and that over-rides any rights that we may assign to the foetus.


But the thing is; in doing so, she's harming the "body" of another "person".

I would only accept abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Not, "oh, my boyfriend's condom had a hole in it..."
redhakaw
^thing is, this fetus is still part of the mother's

therefore, technically in one way, she is still harming herself.
miacps
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
But the thing is; in doing so, she's harming the "body" of another "person".


Body = Tiny mass of dividing cells.

Is it that those cells, after many months, can become a human is why you think abortion is such a great loss? You believe that life starts at conception, right? Just because a sperm cell hasn't made its way to an egg, is the death of that sperm cell not a loss at all? It had potential to fertilize an egg and one day become a human too.

I don't think an abortion is really that much of a loss. Its not a life that has been lost, but a mass of living tissue. There is a huge difference between the two. For instance, if I had been aborted in the womb, would it be a loss? Not really, I just wouldn't have become aware of my own existence. In fact it would have saved me some trouble because life is pretty tough, especially when you're intelligent/aware enough to understand that one day you will again cease to exist.

Thats a nice thought, huh? Wink
redhakaw
^nicely put
liljp617
HalfBloodPrince wrote:
Bikerman wrote:
Well, all you have to do is read the other postings in the thread. I, for example, believe abortion is ethical, period. I think the woman has the right to choose what happens with her own body and that over-rides any rights that we may assign to the foetus.


But the thing is; in doing so, she's harming the "body" of another "person".

I would only accept abortion if the mother's life is in danger. Not, "oh, my boyfriend's condom had a hole in it..."

So let me ask this.

Assume you were having a child, and you had it tested for such diseases as say...cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease. Would you go ahead and have the child, fully knowing that their life is A) Going to be horrible B) Going to be very painful C) Going to be short (in the case of CF) D) Not enjoyable what so ever. With CF, they'll be lucky to live into their mid-teenage years....and it won't be an enjoyable 15 years at all. With Huntington's, it usually kicks in around your 30s and your nervous system deteriorates. Knowing full and well that there's no cure or good treatment, would you go through with the pregnancy?
aames_prov356
Again, doctor's have been wrong.
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.
If you conduct a genetic test on the foetus, the chances of being wrong are miniscule. What are you suggesting? Take the chance that the doctor is wrong, even though the chances are vanishingly small?
There is a chance that if I cross a crowded motorway at peak time that I will make it across in one piece. It's a very small chance, however, and I would not choose to risk it.
aames_prov356
No, I doubt you would risk it. However, many people have been known to kill themselves over some health problem that they may have or may have been tested over(but haven't received the results yet) and the doctor's original prognosis was wrong. Would you risk that?
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
No, I doubt you would risk it. However, many people have been known to kill themselves over some health problem that they may have or may have been tested over(but haven't received the results yet) and the doctor's original prognosis was wrong. Would you risk that?
How is that relevant to this discussion? If someone kills themselves before getting the results of a test what has that got to do with abortion?
I also don't like this use of 'many people'. It strikes me that such phrases are in the same category as 'it is said' and 'many people think'. Such phrases are frequently used when there is no actual evidence to support a claim. I have no doubt that some people may well have killed themselves under the delusion that they are suffering from some serious complaint - whether it is 'many' people or not I could not say (and I'm not convinced you can say either).
Bannik
let abortion happen, there is too many of us here on earth anyways we need a way to keep the population down by any means cause sooner or later its going to bite us in the ass.
liljp617
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?


and yet that lump of cells even with a short lifespan can grow up and find a cure for cystic fibrosis/Huntington's.

plus ask yourself this, imagine you find out that your parents wanted an abortion, on you.
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?


and yet that lump of cells even with a short lifespan can grow up and find a cure for cystic fibrosis/Huntington's.

plus ask yourself this, imagine you find out that your parents wanted an abortion, on you.

I'm pretty sure a person lucky to live till the age of 14 won't find a cure for anything. They'll be too busy getting tubes down their throat sucking out the mucus in their lungs...

Imagine this: You find out your parents could have kept you from suffering your whole life, but chose not to. Or you get thrown into adoption because they didn't want the burden of an abortion on their hands...

My question is yet unanswered. Would you choose to allow the baby to progress and be born fully knowing you would watch your child die a painful death and never really live life at all? I suggest you do some research into cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, or the other many genetic diseases that could be applied to this situation...I don't think people grasp the concept of something like CF.
aames_prov356
Quote:
How is that relevant to this discussion? If someone kills themselves before getting the results of a test what has that got to do with abortion?
I also don't like this use of 'many people'. It strikes me that such phrases are in the same category as 'it is said' and 'many people think'. Such phrases are frequently used when there is no actual evidence to support a claim. I have no doubt that some people may well have killed themselves under the delusion that they are suffering from some serious complaint - whether it is 'many' people or not I could not say (and I'm not convinced you can say either).


I am saying that doctors have been wrong, and people have killed themselves over it. A guy I know of just did last week, and I know of others. How that relates to abortion? Doctors are wrong all the time, over patients that are already born and those that are not. You shouldn't just kill someone (or yourself for that matter) over a prognosis that could or could not be a for sure thing. For crying out loud, I have a brother(actually I have 4 total), that before he was born, the doctors thought that there was something wrong with him (I don't remember exactly which disease it was ) when they did one of those tests. They did more tests later and found out that they were wrong. So yes, doctors have been wrong in these cases. And women go out and abort their babies after learning that their baby might have one of these diseases. What if the doctor was wrong?
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
I am saying that doctors have been wrong, and people have killed themselves over it. A guy I know of just did last week, and I know of others. How that relates to abortion? Doctors are wrong all the time, over patients that are already born and those that are not. You shouldn't just kill someone (or yourself for that matter) over a prognosis that could or could not be a for sure thing. For crying out loud, I have a brother(actually I have 4 total), that before he was born, the doctors thought that there was something wrong with him (I don't remember exactly which disease it was ) when they did one of those tests. They did more tests later and found out that they were wrong. So yes, doctors have been wrong in these cases. And women go out and abort their babies after learning that their baby might have one of these diseases. What if the doctor was wrong?
I defy you to give me a single example of a case where a genetic diagnosis on a foetus was wrong. I bet you can't.
The fact that a GP might make a wrong diagnosis at an early stage is not a major problem - the woman would naturally be then referred to a specialist who would perform a specific test - and the result of that test would be right - in nearly every case. One error could be if someone misinterpreted the test results which could possibly happen. Another potential error is missing a mutated form of the gene being scanned for - this can happen in cystic fibrosis but is very rare and more modern tests look for several variants of the gene. This would, in any case, result in a false-negative test result, not a false-positive.
Basically if a genetic test says that your foetus has cystic fibrosis then you can be pretty sure that your foetus HAS cystic fibrosis.

I don't actually know why I'm defending this position because, as I already said, my position is that a woman has a right to an abortion full stop. She does not need medical justification or reason.
aames_prov356
Quote:
Its not a life that has been lost, but a mass of living tissue.


Doesn't a mass of living tissue qualify as life? Seeming as the word living comes from the word life.
Bikerman
aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote:
Its not a life that has been lost, but a mass of living tissue.


Doesn't a mass of living tissue qualify as life? Seeming as the word living comes from the word life.

Depends on how you define life. Most people would define it in terms such as reproduction, locomotion, respiration etc etc (you probably know the 7 signs of life from biology lessons). The definitions are, however, problematic since they start to break down when considering virii and other forms which are 'borderline'.
In terms of this debate, however, we can be more specific. A kidney is a mass of tissue - is it alive? Yes, in a sense it is. Is it ethically wrong in principle to surgically remove it (for whatever reason)? No, I don't think most people would say so. Adult stem cells are 'alive' but the church has no problems with them being removed and used for medical research. There is very little difference between a group of stem cells and an early embryo.
roxys_art
Bikerman wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Quote:
Its not a life that has been lost, but a mass of living tissue.


Doesn't a mass of living tissue qualify as life? Seeming as the word living comes from the word life.

Depends on how you define life. Most people would define it in terms such as reproduction, locomotion, respiration etc etc (you probably know the 7 signs of life from biology lessons). The definitions are, however, problematic since they start to break down when considering virii and other forms which are 'borderline'.
In terms of this debate, however, we can be more specific. A kidney is a mass of tissue - is it alive? Yes, in a sense it is. Is it ethically wrong in principle to surgically remove it (for whatever reason)? No, I don't think most people would say so. Adult stem cells are 'alive' but the church has no problems with them being removed and used for medical research. There is very little difference between a group of stem cells and an early embryo.


Thank you!

I don't know how many times I have stated this and it doesn't seem to get through to anyone.
Soulfire
First off, I would like to say that most people who think abortion is wrong were pretty much just spoonfed their beliefs from day 1, and really haven't thought to make up their own mind.

It was said that "murder is murder"..

Then what about self-defense? If you kill someone that is trying to kill you, have you not committed murder, are you therefore going to Hell to burn forever? A Hell that was created by an all-loving God?

It's rediculous.

Although I do not personally support abortion, I do not feel it is my choice to tell someone else what they can or can't do. I think abortions should be very carefully considered and used as a last resort. Using abortion for birth control is, to me, horrible.
eggg
Abortion goes against our inborn instinct, our mammalian instinct to bear and nurture children, that's for certain. It goes against the ancient religious laws which many continue to follow. But it does not conflict with the practical realities of our age. Over-population is a huge, huge, often unaddressed issue. The rice crisis much of the world is currently experiencing is just a preview of the future if our population continues to increase unchecked. When our demand for limited resources outpaces supply, you're looking at immense suffering and, yes, premature death for many of we who were born. It is simply unrealistic to put an effective, safe and humane means of birth control off limits.
irishmark
i wonder how many people who voted in the poll have any experience or have family members with experience with abortion.
MaxStirner
I've come in late on this thread, but reading through the posts, I find my own views more or less confirmed:

Personally, I have major misgivings on abortion and would go to great lengths to find alternative solutions to any problem indicating abortion as the recommended solution, since I would very much try to err on the side of "pro-life". Having said that, I have few (read: none) empiric facts to back this up and would therefore place this decision squarely in a gray area, defined by a number of, mostly contradictory, positions:


  1. The rights of a(n unborn) child: : As so many posts have eloquently stated: this is the grayest of gray areas. We have no way of determining where life begins, and are even unsure if such a point exists, or if the borders between a virus and a human are no more than simply a matter of degree.
  2. The right of the woman's self-determination of her body when carrying a child: Although a bit simpler to define, since one would have to grant this right to any woman as one does to every human being, an adult woman making a conscious choice of allowing for a possible pregnancy (especially with contraceptives readily available), might be construed as some sort of social contract, even if only a moral one.
  3. The rights of a(n unborn) child's human dignity*: Again, a difficult concept, but perhaps not more so than euthanasia, where values such as the "quality of life" play a major role and third parties are often forced to make decisions in the name of those who cannot articulate themselves for whatever reason.


In my opinion, abortion should remain a very personal decision, with the law setting only the most general framework allowing each individual to make her/his decision and society (meaning also but not exclusively the State) providing pragmatic alternatives to abortion.

If this post seems a bit shilly-shally, then it correctly conveys my position.

----------------------------------
* = "human dignity": There is a concept in the German Constitution which begins with the words: "Die Wόrde des Menschen ist unantastbar." (" Human dignity is inviolable"), actually the opening lines of the constitution. It is, as far as I am aware, unique and has constituted the basis of many Supreme Court decisions. It seems broad enough to cover unforeseeable situations and events and precise enough so as not to be misused blatantly.
liljp617
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.
Soulfire
Why isn't the church protesting the millions of cells that die on me daily?

Hmm...
Indi
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?
liljp617
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?

ahhh can't wait to pull that one out the next time I have a discussion with somebody on this topic Very Happy
Bannik
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?


and yet that lump of cells even with a short lifespan can grow up and find a cure for cystic fibrosis/Huntington's.

plus ask yourself this, imagine you find out that your parents wanted an abortion, on you.

I'm pretty sure a person lucky to live till the age of 14 won't find a cure for anything. They'll be too busy getting tubes down their throat sucking out the mucus in their lungs...

Imagine this: You find out your parents could have kept you from suffering your whole life, but chose not to. Or you get thrown into adoption because they didn't want the burden of an abortion on their hands...

My question is yet unanswered. Would you choose to allow the baby to progress and be born fully knowing you would watch your child die a painful death and never really live life at all? I suggest you do some research into cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, or the other many genetic diseases that could be applied to this situation...I don't think people grasp the concept of something like CF.


"There is no cure for CF, and most individuals with cystic fibrosis die young: many in their 20s and 30s from lung failure. However, with the continuous introduction of many new treatments, the life expectancy of a person with CF is increasing to ages as high as 40 or 50. Lung transplantation is often necessary as CF worsens." wiki

with that in mind would YOU kill someone with severe Alzheimer's or someone who is very retarded who wont really live a life whatsoever. or what about someone in a coma, do you think we should be allowed to kill him if we know for sure he wont live.
MaxStirner
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?


and yet that lump of cells even with a short lifespan can grow up and find a cure for cystic fibrosis/Huntington's.

plus ask yourself this, imagine you find out that your parents wanted an abortion, on you.

I'm pretty sure a person lucky to live till the age of 14 won't find a cure for anything. They'll be too busy getting tubes down their throat sucking out the mucus in their lungs...

Imagine this: You find out your parents could have kept you from suffering your whole life, but chose not to. Or you get thrown into adoption because they didn't want the burden of an abortion on their hands...

My question is yet unanswered. Would you choose to allow the baby to progress and be born fully knowing you would watch your child die a painful death and never really live life at all? I suggest you do some research into cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, or the other many genetic diseases that could be applied to this situation...I don't think people grasp the concept of something like CF.


"There is no cure for CF, and most individuals with cystic fibrosis die young: many in their 20s and 30s from lung failure. However, with the continuous introduction of many new treatments, the life expectancy of a person with CF is increasing to ages as high as 40 or 50. Lung transplantation is often necessary as CF worsens." wiki

with that in mind would YOU kill someone with severe Alzheimer's or someone who is very retarded who wont really live a life whatsoever. or what about someone in a coma, do you think we should be allowed to kill him if we know for sure he wont live.


I believe we are discussing two very different subject-matters:

  1. Where does life begin and end?
  2. What situations should permit the ending of a life (one's own or that of another person)?


The first, I belive, is still so unclear to us (see also my previous post) that we have probably generally adopted a reasonable and sensible approach by setting increasingly high hurdles for abortion depending on the duration of the pregnancy and the circumstances involved. Even if this solution is perhaps not perfect, the black & white alternatives of either allowing or prohibiting abortions generally regardless of concommitant circumstances are even less appealing (at least to me) and do not in any way balance out the rights of child and mother.

The other matter has little to do with abortion per se, but rather with suicide and euthanasia. If we accept the right of a person to end his/her own life, then euthanasia seems a natural extension of this right. As in many other situations, it is sometimes necessary for society to make decisions for an individual who, for which reason whatever, cannot make them him/herself. Generally, we are doing nothing else but to attempt to discern how an individual (or we ourselves) would decide in a given situation. Again, we have attempted to solve this problem by setting stringent rules defining when it is addmissable for example to end the life of a terminally ill patient. Even if this person has supplied a will describing his/her wishes, it still remains unclear how this person would decide once the situation is open him/her. All we can do is apply the greatest care to the decision and insure that the rules governing euthanasia can in no way be abused. I admit that this is an inexact process and potential for wrong decisions is certainly present, but then again, the alternatives of categorically allowing or prohibiting euthanasia would not constitute progress.
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
aames_prov356 wrote:
Again, doctor's have been wrong.

Good point. Now back that claim up in regards to testing fetus' for genetic diseases...

Genetic tests are rarely wrong (if you care to prove otherwise, please do so). With that in mind, the question is still on the table. Would you rather a lump of cells that would eventually be a living person (knowingly) be born with a genetic disease such as cystic fibrosis/Huntington's knowing full and well that they're going to be in great pain, live a terrible non-normal life, have dozens and dozens of health issues, and eventually die no matter what, or would you rather this possible future living person not have to experience that for his/her own sake?


and yet that lump of cells even with a short lifespan can grow up and find a cure for cystic fibrosis/Huntington's.

plus ask yourself this, imagine you find out that your parents wanted an abortion, on you.

I'm pretty sure a person lucky to live till the age of 14 won't find a cure for anything. They'll be too busy getting tubes down their throat sucking out the mucus in their lungs...

Imagine this: You find out your parents could have kept you from suffering your whole life, but chose not to. Or you get thrown into adoption because they didn't want the burden of an abortion on their hands...

My question is yet unanswered. Would you choose to allow the baby to progress and be born fully knowing you would watch your child die a painful death and never really live life at all? I suggest you do some research into cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, or the other many genetic diseases that could be applied to this situation...I don't think people grasp the concept of something like CF.


"There is no cure for CF, and most individuals with cystic fibrosis die young: many in their 20s and 30s from lung failure. However, with the continuous introduction of many new treatments, the life expectancy of a person with CF is increasing to ages as high as 40 or 50. Lung transplantation is often necessary as CF worsens." wiki

with that in mind would YOU kill someone with severe Alzheimer's or someone who is very retarded who wont really live a life whatsoever. or what about someone in a coma, do you think we should be allowed to kill him if we know for sure he wont live.

I'm not saying to kill every single person who has diseases of this nature or abort every single baby you know will have a lethal disease and will have an extremely difficult life. The point is, people should be able to choose what they want to do with their life, and in the case of abortion, should be able to choose what to do with an unborn baby's life.

I'm not going to make a direct answer to your question, as I've never been put in that situation and my answer would be based strictly off ignorance. That's a decision one would have to make under those circumstances. I believe if the person who has these illnesses wishes to not live any longer, they should have the right to give up their life. In the case of retardation, if they can't function at all, they have zero enjoyment in their life, they can't eat/drink even remotely normal, etc. I think it is the family's right to make a decision on whether that person should continue suffering for years or have that suffering spared.
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.

Who protects us?
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.

Who protects us?


police
firefighters
doctors
soldiers
politicians
your parents
your grandparents
a simple person who sees you in distress
priest
jackie chan
chuck norris
bruce lee
rocky
your pet dog
your pet cat
your pet hamster (smart)
people who are against abortions or against killing
Indi
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.

Who protects us?

Yes, who are "they" who try to protect us, how are "they" protecting us and what are "they" protecting us from? And who protects corpses? Where i come from we spend a couple days looking at them, crying over them, dressing them up pretty... then we either stick 'em in the ground or burn them to ashes.
liljp617
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.

Who protects us?


police
firefighters
doctors
soldiers
politicians
your parents
your grandparents
a simple person who sees you in distress
priest
jackie chan
chuck norris
bruce lee
rocky
your pet dog
your pet cat
your pet hamster (smart)
people who are against abortions or against killing

I don't see a point :O
Bannik
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Bannik wrote:
Indi wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
I don't really understand how we have different criteria for when life begins and when life ends. Everyone accepts that death occurs when there is no brain activity or heart rate (among other criteria). Why is it that those criteria which we say end life are not applied to beginning life? I can't find the source I read this in and I may be remembering wrong, but there is no EEG pattern of a fetus until something like 27 weeks. If that's correct, then there is no "alive" to be argued up until that point.

An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


there is a difference since we are potential corpses they try to protect us and since a foetus is potentially alive it is also potentially a corpse (like you said) so shouldn't these potential corpses be potentially protected.

potential potential potential.

Who protects us?


police
firefighters
doctors
soldiers
politicians
your parents
your grandparents
a simple person who sees you in distress
priest
jackie chan
chuck norris
bruce lee
rocky
your pet dog
your pet cat
your pet hamster (smart)
people who are against abortions or against killing

I don't see a point :O


as indi said, because the foetus is a potential human being it should be given human rights (human rights in a way mean we are protected by everything i have listed(some are just for the fun of it) and he also pointed out that we are all potentially dead bodies so shouldn't we be treated like dead bodies.

I also pointed out that if you agree that we are potential corpses then you have to agree that the foetus is also potentially alive(you cant have one without the other), so at the same time it should be treated like we are. i.e you cant argue that we are potential corpses without accepting the foetus being potentially alive.
Bikerman
Bannik wrote:
as indi said, because the foetus is a potential human being it should be given human rights (human rights in a way mean we are protected by everything i have listed(some are just for the fun of it) and he also pointed out that we are all potentially dead bodies so shouldn't we be treated like dead bodies.
Indi made no such statement. Indi said that IF one accepts that a foetus is a potential human then, by the same logic, humans are potential corpses. Indi did NOT say that foetuses should be given human rights or that they should be treated as human.
Quote:
I also pointed out that if you agree that we are potential corpses then you have to agree that the foetus is also potentially alive(you cant have one without the other), so at the same time it should be treated like we are. i.e you cant argue that we are potential corpses without accepting the foetus being potentially alive.
No, that does not follow.
A implies B is not the same as B implies A.
All men are human. Not all humans are men.
Indi
Bannik wrote:
as indi said, because the foetus is a potential human being it should be given human rights (human rights in a way mean we are protected by everything i have listed(some are just for the fun of it) and he also pointed out that we are all potentially dead bodies so shouldn't we be treated like dead bodies.

Oh definitely not. ^_^

i said that if you want to treat a foetus like a human being just because it might become one, then you should also treat a human being like a corpse just because it might become one. But i said that as a joke because it is such a ridiculous idea. A foetus might also become a serial murderer... so should we treat a foetus like a serial murderer (which in several countries means execution)? Obviously not. Why not? Because that's not what it is - that's only what it might be. It doesn't make sense to treat things like what they might be, it makes sense to treat them like what they are. And a foetus is obviously not a person... it might be one someday, but that is not what it is.

Now, some clever person will likely step up and say that you shouldn't treat a foetus like a serial murderer because the chance that it will become one is exceedingly small. They would say you should treat a foetus like what it is most likely to become - which is an average person. Alright, but then i say a foetus has a less than 100% chance of becoming a person (something could go wrong with the pregnancy)... but it has a 100% of becoming dead someday. So if you are going to treat a foetus like what it will most likely become... bury it, or cremate it.

Again, obviously not. The whole idea of saying that something is the same as what it might become someday is just foolish.

What a foetus is, is a mass of cells that lives as a parasite off of the mother's body; it has the potential to become a human being; it is the offspring of the mother and another person. That's quite a bit there, and certainly enough to come to some intelligent conclusions about the rights of this foetus vs. the rights of the mother (and the other person - the father - incidentally). For example, it tells us that the ultimate responsibility for the decision of whether to abort or not belongs with the mother, not the father and not anyone else. It also tells us that if you kill the foetus without the consent of the mother, you are destroying a part of her body - something you have no right to do (whereas you do have the right to destroy parts of your own body, if you have that urge). But it also tells us that you are doing more than simply cutting off her hand - as bad as that would be - because you are not only destroying a part of her body, you are also killing her offspring, which makes killing a woman's foetus (against her will) a far more serious crime than dismembering her (against her will). And so on. Following the logic this way gives you a reasonable set of rules for how to handle pregnancies from a legal and ethical perspective... but it clearly doesn't rule out abortion.

Bikerman wrote:
Bannik wrote:
I also pointed out that if you agree that we are potential corpses then you have to agree that the foetus is also potentially alive(you cant have one without the other), so at the same time it should be treated like we are. i.e you cant argue that we are potential corpses without accepting the foetus being potentially alive.
No, that does not follow.
A implies B is not the same as B implies A.
All men are human. Not all humans are men.

i'd say this is a case of A implies B therefore C implies D. ^_^;

If i agree that we are all potential corpses - which i do - it does not mean i have to agree that cheese is potential mould, cars are potential wrecks, Tom Cruise is a potential mental patient or foetuses are potential anything. i may agree with those things, but i don't have to just because i agree with the first.

Foetuses are not potentially alive - they are alive. i'm sure you meant they are potentially human. Why sure, yes they are potentially human. But so what? i just had an eyelash fall out. The living cells at the root - given clever genetic engineering - are also potentially human. Did i just commit murder for rubbing my eyes? If you are male, then when was the last time you masturbated? You killed roughly twice as many people as the Nazis in the Holocaust (on average) when you did (and if you didn't masturbate, you killed them, too, by the way). If you are female, were you pregnant last month? No? Murderer.

i do say we are potential corpses, and i do say foetuses are potential humans. But i also say we shouldn't treat people like potential corpses (you want me to bury or cremate you?), and so we shouldn't treat foetuses like potential humans. In fact, i say you shouldn't treat anything according to what it might potentially become - that's not only foolish, it's unethical.
Bannik
Bikerman wrote:
Bannik wrote:
as indi said, because the foetus is a potential human being it should be given human rights (human rights in a way mean we are protected by everything i have listed(some are just for the fun of it) and he also pointed out that we are all potentially dead bodies so shouldn't we be treated like dead bodies.
Indi made no such statement. Indi said that IF one accepts that a foetus is a potential human then, by the same logic, humans are potential corpses. Indi did NOT say that foetuses should be given human rights or that they should be treated as human.
Quote:
I also pointed out that if you agree that we are potential corpses then you have to agree that the foetus is also potentially alive(you cant have one without the other), so at the same time it should be treated like we are. i.e you cant argue that we are potential corpses without accepting the foetus being potentially alive.
No, that does not follow.
A implies B is not the same as B implies A.
All men are human. Not all humans are men.


wow sorry I never mentioned 'IF' but if you read the quote I quoted on indi it also does not have IF in it.

Quote:
An excellent point. A simple extension also undermines the other old favourite of the anti-abortion movement: that because a bunch of cells is a "potential" human, it deserves human rights. i'd have to point out that we are all "potential" corpses - and far more potentially so than a foetus is potentially a human - so should we be treated like dead bodies?


SEEE! as you can see "potential human, it deserves human rights" see he does talk about human rights so no I was not wrong.

also to point out my post was not exactly of the serious nature either so I dont understand why everyone is so picky about it.
and Indi as you said, if you believe that someone is a potential corpse you dont have to be believe anything else is a potential (i.e cheese mold, car wreck) but to be a potential corpse you have to be alive, and now i am tired.



Oh indi please dont hate me for picking your quote and making such a fuss about it, please dont smite me almighty one.
Soulfire
It's ... weird.

I mean, they dialate the cervix and then freaking suck the thing out. If it's too late into the pregnancy, then they use a curve-shaped utencil to scrape the baby off the uteris wall, then vaccum it out.

Seems pretty sketchy to me.
liljp617
Soulfire wrote:
It's ... weird.

I mean, they dialate the cervix and then freaking suck the thing out. If it's too late into the pregnancy, then they use a curve-shaped utencil to scrape the baby off the uteris wall, then vaccum it out.

Seems pretty sketchy to me.

"Thing." If it's just a "thing," does it really matter how they do it? We have very well established criteria to determine if a person is dead...why aren't those same criteria required in order for life to have begun? "Because it has the potential to be a baby and a person"...we went through that a few posts up Smile

And not a ton of people encourage late pregnancy abortions (late 2nd trimester or 3rd trimester). But, it's still the mother's right one way or the other. Using "scare tactics" or showing/implying images of a baby being sucked into a vacuum is a fairly low tactic to pull in a debate.
Sphaerenkern
If you can't care for a child, you should have an abortion in my opinion. Better kill it before it's born - I don't see it as a human before that - than ruin it's life with not caring for it.
However, that's just my personal opinion and I won't take part in the discussion because I think it's mainly about beliefs and religious stuff, not really a topic where you can actually discuss constructively about.
liljp617
Sphaerenkern wrote:
If you can't care for a child, you should have an abortion in my opinion. Better kill it before it's born - I don't see it as a human before that - than ruin it's life with not caring for it.
However, that's just my personal opinion and I won't take part in the discussion because I think it's mainly about beliefs and religious stuff, not really a topic where you can actually discuss constructively about.

There's quite a number of illogical and hypocritical beliefs out there is the problem.
roninmedia
The thing I don't get is at least where I am, most of the ones who are completely against abortion identify themselves as Republicans. The very same Republicans who are also against government welfare programs. A large reason many people get abortions in the first place is they can not afford the costs of raising a child. I'm sure people can attest that raising a healthy child to adulthood costs a lot of money. So you want the children others don't want to have in the first place but will not contribute to raising that child? Even the ones who say they would contribute to that child's welfare, why not take care of the children who are already here who need love and care and not adding to this pool?

Current law in the United States bans third trimester pregnancy. So you're saying at some point in pregnancy, the rights of the child override the rights of the mother. I still think the rights of the mother should extend to the end of her pregnancy. Even if you ban legal abortion, many women will seek to have abortions.
liljp617
roninmedia wrote:
The thing I don't get is at least where I am, most of the ones who are completely against abortion identify themselves as Republicans. The very same Republicans who are also against government welfare programs. A large reason many people get abortions in the first place is they can not afford the costs of raising a child. I'm sure people can attest that raising a healthy child to adulthood costs a lot of money. So you want the children others don't want to have in the first place but will not contribute to raising that child? Even the ones who say they would contribute to that child's welfare, why not take care of the children who are already here who need love and care and not adding to this pool?

Current law in the United States bans third trimester pregnancy. So you're saying at some point in pregnancy, the rights of the child override the rights of the mother. I still think the rights of the mother should extend to the end of her pregnancy. Even if you ban legal abortion, many women will seek to have abortions.

Razz I've heard some funny things in relation to that. The most recent one was when Bush vetoed a bill that would grant healthcare to kids under like age 13 or something. It's like: Let the kids be born, but let them die of illness after they're born! Or we care about a ball of cells, but after that ball of cells is developed we don't give a shit about them.
genchan
I think its wrong... but life is more complicated than dividing it into right or wrong. There are couples who got married because of pregnancy. Some stick together for the sake of the child while others divorce because the chemistry wasn't there. But what will happen to the child? If the cost of bringing a new life into the world is higher, then abortion may be a better way.
TiffanyTerrorXO
I personally think abortion is wrong
I could never kill some thing that cant live on its own.
Especially if i helped create it.

They do have things to help prevent pregnancies so if you don't want a baby USE THEM!

But i do think that if someone were to get raped and ended up pregnant that they could get an abortion if they wanted to.
liljp617
TiffanyTerrorXO wrote:
I personally think abortion is wrong
I could never kill some thing that cant live on its own.
Especially if i helped create it.

They do have things to help prevent pregnancies so if you don't want a baby USE THEM!

But i do think that if someone were to get raped and ended up pregnant that they could get an abortion if they wanted to.

Could you elaborate on your logic behind not killing something that can't live on its own? Would you kill parasites in an animal if it was killing them? Parasites can't live on their own.


And pregnancy preventions don't always work. You're not going to sell abstinence to people either.
TiffanyTerrorXO
liljp617 wrote:
TiffanyTerrorXO wrote:
I personally think abortion is wrong
I could never kill some thing that cant live on its own.
Especially if i helped create it.

They do have things to help prevent pregnancies so if you don't want a baby USE THEM!

But i do think that if someone were to get raped and ended up pregnant that they could get an abortion if they wanted to.

Could you elaborate on your logic behind not killing something that can't live on its own? Would you kill parasites in an animal if it was killing them? Parasites can't live on their own.


And pregnancy preventions don't always work. You're not going to sell abstinence to people either.


Yeah your right.
i mean i wouldn't be able to kill a harmless thing that couldn't live on its own.
well i haven't had any trouble with pregnancy preventions yet...knock on wood.
it just depends on what your using.
liljp617
TiffanyTerrorXO wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
TiffanyTerrorXO wrote:
I personally think abortion is wrong
I could never kill some thing that cant live on its own.
Especially if i helped create it.

They do have things to help prevent pregnancies so if you don't want a baby USE THEM!

But i do think that if someone were to get raped and ended up pregnant that they could get an abortion if they wanted to.

Could you elaborate on your logic behind not killing something that can't live on its own? Would you kill parasites in an animal if it was killing them? Parasites can't live on their own.


And pregnancy preventions don't always work. You're not going to sell abstinence to people either.


Yeah your right.
i mean i wouldn't be able to kill a harmless thing that couldn't live on its own.
well i haven't had any trouble with pregnancy preventions yet...knock on wood.
it just depends on what your using.

Even if it was for the good of both you and the "thing?"

Again, I bring up the point of knowing your child will be born with an eventual terminal illness such as cystic fibrosis, Huntington's, and many more. There are multiple tests that can be done before birth to determine if a fetus has an illness of this nature. If you knew they were going to be born with something like CF and they were most likely going to lead a pretty dang bad health life, would have to have tubes stuck down their throat to suck mucus up, would most likely die at a fairly young age, etc., would you still feel so terrible about having an abortion of this "thing."

Are there circumstances where you think an abortion would be a better option than allowing the pregnancy? If so, what are they, and why do those specific situations suddenly change the picture? Killing this "thing," is killing it no matter what, right?

I emphasize thing mostly because I find it odd people oppose abortions when they refer to the fetus as a "thing." But that's irrelevant Razz
fpwebs
Many people argue on the discussion of abortion and every single one of those arguing individuals have their own opinions and their own ideas on whether abortion is ethical or not, and I also have my own views on the topic.

The Argument:
Is abortion ethical?

My Opinion:
Many people would consider abortion murder, and yeah that is understandable considering the technicallities of the subject. You are technically killing a human being, however that human being is not living as such (as a cell, it is alive, but not as an actual human being).

I believe there should be a stopping point to when you do an abortion. (whenever the cell becomes an actual human)

In the case of medical reasons I think that abortion should be mandatory so long at it protects the child holder (a mother is sickened by the child, and an abortion would solve the problem).

Honestly speaking, I believe that it's really just a woman's choice to abort a baby or not, even though I'm sure that if the woman who carried by child wanted to do an abortion I would only be upset because I didn't get to see the baby (I may somehow convince her to allow me to take care of the child if she is unwilling or unable to take care of the child) but I am absolutely supporting the choice that they should have. Considering it's technically more the woman's child than the man's since she is the one carrying it, it should be her responsibility in the outcome of the child, however that doesn't mean that a man can state his output if such is needed or wanted.

The Outcome of an Aborted Foetus:
I think that for the children who has already been aborted should be sent to research for study. Even though it's illegal what is really wrong with it? Considering they are already dead and there is nothing else that we can really do with them, why not submit the aborted foetus' to research of some kind?

Conclusion:
Abortion should depend on the child carrier, but if the child is aborted then it should automatically go to scientific research since there is nothing else that we could use the child for.

-fpwebs
Bikerman
fpwebs wrote:
Many people argue on the discussion of abortion and every single one of those arguing individuals have their own opinions and their own ideas on whether abortion is ethical or not, and I also have my own views on the topic.

The Argument:
Is abortion ethical?

My Opinion:
Many people would consider abortion murder, and yeah that is understandable considering the technicallities of the subject. You are technically killing a human being, however that human being is not living as such (as a cell, it is alive, but not as an actual human being).

I believe there should be a stopping point to when you do an abortion. (whenever the cell becomes an actual human)
And how do you propose to make that distinction? At what point do you believe that a foetus becomes a 'human being'?
Quote:
In the case of medical reasons I think that abortion should be mandatory so long at it protects the child holder (a mother is sickened by the child, and an abortion would solve the problem).
Are you sure you mean that? Mandatory? What if the woman wished to keep the foetus?
Quote:

Conclusion:
Abortion should depend on the child carrier, but if the child is aborted then it should automatically go to scientific research since there is nothing else that we could use the child for.
So, assuming that we agree that the aborted foetus is not a human being (in which case the word 'child' is probably not a good choice) then you maintain that the state should have the right to control what happens? How does this fit in with the argument that the foetus is technically the woman's? Surely, in that case, the woman should have the right to decide what happens to the aborted tissue?
Poetsunited
abortion itself isn't wrong, its more a question of when to use it... here in belgium the law is strict its allowed if you do it before a specific time... so you don't really kill a person yet, its still not really living...

I hate it when people say, abortion = murder, because put urself in this situation... a teenager had sex for the first time with her minor boyfriend and she gets pregnant... as a 'child' themselves they most likely can't really provide a good youth to the child...

So the child would end up neglected, maybe mistreated, for something he/she didn't do...

So i'm pro abortion, under circumstances not just as a form of birth control
Soulfire
Here's why I am Pro-Choice.

The first argument is basically rights of the unborn vs. rights of the mother, but since the unborn does not already have a place in the economy, a family, etc. .. I would say the rights of the mother trump those of an unborn fetus, which is, simply a sack of cells for at least a short while after conception.

Life does not begin at conception, but the potential for life begins at conception.

If you are against abortions, and you get pregnant, don't get one.

But don't force your morality on the rest of us.

Seriously, keep your religion out of my government.

On the flipside...
I find it slightly hypocritical that there is such thing as "fetal homicide", and that is a murder charge. To my knowledge, it's not imperative to know how far along the fetus is, it's still murder. How is there "fetal homicide", but then abortion is alright.

Seems contradictory.

Don't get me wrong, I am still pro-choice, and I think the other laws might need alteration, if anything.
Indi
Soulfire wrote:
On the flipside...
I find it slightly hypocritical that there is such thing as "fetal homicide", and that is a murder charge. To my knowledge, it's not imperative to know how far along the fetus is, it's still murder. How is there "fetal homicide", but then abortion is alright.

Seems contradictory.

Don't get me wrong, I am still pro-choice, and I think the other laws might need alteration, if anything.

An excellent question, actually.

The difference lies in the fact that the mother of the dead foetus (assumedly) intended to carry the foetus to term. It's still not a human, but the fact that the mother intends that it become one makes all the difference.

Why? Because in the law there is a provision for protection of potential items and revenue, if you can reasonably show that the potential item or revenue would have become a complete item or real revenue had it not been interfered with. The value of the item for the purposes of the damages done is extrapolated based on what is a reasonable assumption for what its value might have been. The amount of revenue considered lost is based on reasonably expected earnings.

For example, if i started writing a story and then someone came along and took it while it is still unfinished and published it (in its unfinished form), i could sue them for damages of lost income based on what i might reasonably have earned were it to be completed and published by me. The value for this potential income calculated is determined by the judge based on a number of factors. Whatever value the judge calculates for me, it would be a hell of a lot higher if the author who was robbed was, say, J. K. Rowling, instead of me, simply because even if i write the next Lord of the Rings, i could probably never hope to make as much as Rowling would if she sneezed in a napkin and published the smear.

The same logic extends to other things, like if i was building a house or a car and you came along and destroyed it before it was complete, it would count as destruction of property, not destruction of potential property, and i could sue you for damages based on the potential value of the item, not simply the cost of its parts. In fact, if i bought a custom car from someone that i intended to use to make money with, and it was being delivered to me and i had not paid for it yet, and you destroyed it, i could sue you for the money i was unable to make even though i hadn't bought the car yet (but i couldn't sue you for the value of the car itself, because i had not paid for it). There is lots of tricky legal crap involved with proving your claim on the (potential) item and the reasonable expectancy of the money you might make, and thus, your rights to sue... but once that is established, it's suin' time.

So when you kill the foetus of a mother who was planning to carry it to term, you have literally destroyed their potential daughter. Yes, you did not kill a human being, but the potential value of what you stole from that woman was equal to the value of a human, because if the mother does intend to have the child, chances are very, very high nowadays that she will. In theory, without the foetal homicide clause, the mother could sue you for the expected value of what you took from her, just as with anything else, be it potential story royalties or a potential car. But that just gets wonky because what is the value of a human being - a child, someone's offspring? You can't put a realistic price tag on that, so, instead, they do the next best thing... they say the expected value of a wanted foetus is a child, and you have taken that potential value away from the mother, which is equivalent to the a priori murder of their child. Thus, foetal homicide.

So why is this different from abortion? The answer is simple. The expected value of a wanted foetus is the value of a human child, because a wanted foetus will - under reasonable assumptions - be a human being eventually. The expected value of an unwanted foetus is... nothing... because the foetus will not become a human being (under reasonable assumptions). Therefore, the abortion doctor that performs the procedure is not killing a potential human being... because the foetus doesn't have that potential from the moment the mother says "i want an abortion".
fpwebs
I think that the question if abortion is wrong should be based on the personal circumstances. For instance, if the child has a disease i do not think the person should have an abortion. Lol. However, if the person was going to be born into poverty then i would consider saving everyone and the welfare system that trouble. But ultimately it is up to the mothers choice. If you are dumb an get pregnant the child shouldnt have to die because of your poor mistake. Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad
liljp617
fpwebs wrote:
I think that the question if abortion is wrong should be based on the personal circumstances. For instance, if the child has a disease i do not think the person should have an abortion. Lol. However, if the person was going to be born into poverty then i would consider saving everyone and the welfare system that trouble. But ultimately it is up to the mothers choice. If you are dumb an get pregnant the child shouldnt have to die because of your poor mistake. Twisted Evil Evil or Very Mad


So sparing others and the welfare the system from having to care for another individual is more important than a 5 year old choking on his/her own mucus to death (cystic fibrosis)? That's kind of interesting :O It's okay to, as you say, "kill the child" to keep the system from having to care for another person, but it's not okay if you know the fetus (and potential person) has a deadly disease for which there is little hope of a cure in the near future?

That's one of the most odd stances on the issue I've seen Very Happy

Perhaps some other examples would be better, yes?

Anyway, it's not a child Smile Not by legal or biological definition. In this discussion, it's important to label things correctly and precisely say what you mean. A child != fetus. A child != a potential individual person. You really can't use "child" in the way you did as it's not a child by any formal definition (at least not that I'm aware of).
Related topics
Abortion: Yes or No?
Ethics of abortion
Abortion
Ok a little help for a semi-beginner
UK scientists clone human embryo
Optimization is spelled wrong
The downfall of american society
disguised as freedom
Babies for sale on eBay tentacle
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Wrong number leads to drug arrest
Is the death penalty wrong?
SEARCHING FOR MR. GOOD-WAR
What is wrong with FTP???
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Philosophy and Religion

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.