Hey guys,
I m writing an essay about the abortions..dont really know how to start:? can you maybe share your ideas about arguments for it and against it.
thanks
if you scrolled down a bit then:
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-88982.html
A whole discussion. Wikipedia tends to be very good on controversial issues. Not sure if it's a good resource for your essay but it could at least provide background.
=/ Is it like a research paper or an editorial type paper? What are you trying to prove/argue? Who's your audience? What's the general purpose of the paper (inform or persuade)?
It's hard to help you with such a general topic if we have no clue where you're going with it.
I am personally pro-choice. I believe that abortion is wrong and I definitely don't approve of it, but I do not think that it should be banned. Banning it would be a bad idea because that's along the line of prohibition - which historically has never worked. For instance, when The United States tried prohibition about 80 years ago, it led to places called "Speakeasies" where illegal alcohol was sold. This alcohol was usually tainted and more dangerous than normal alcohol. Drugs are the same way. The United States has spent billions and billions of dollars fighting drugs yet seeing people smoking weed on the streets isn't uncommon. Drugs are commonly used, so this money being spent to fight it is just being wasted. I believe that abortion would be the same way. If they banned it, women would just use coat hangers (which I've heard can be used, but I'm not sure on the details of the procedure) or do cartwheels until they have a miscarriage. I don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or believe in abortion but I think that all of the previous should be legal.
I think it's hard to compare it to smoking, drinking or drugs as I don't think you'll get very addicted to abortion...
I think abortion should be legal, I don't see any reasons why not.
| catscratches wrote: |
I think it's hard to compare it to smoking, drinking or drugs as I don't think you'll get very addicted to abortion...
I think abortion should be legal, I don't see any reasons why not. |
It's not hard to compare it drugs, alcohol, and smoking when you're looking at the legal logistics of it. I don't think abortion should be done, because I feel that it's wrong, but it would be next to impossible to crack down on it legally. | Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| catscratches wrote: | I think it's hard to compare it to smoking, drinking or drugs as I don't think you'll get very addicted to abortion...
I think abortion should be legal, I don't see any reasons why not. |
It's not hard to compare it drugs, alcohol, and smoking when you're looking at the legal logistics of it. I don't think abortion should be done, because I feel that it's wrong, but it would be next to impossible to crack down on it legally. |
This argument is hard to maintain. You appear to be saying that anything which cannot effectively be policed should be legalised. Would that extend to things like speed limits? Most people break speed limits routinely so does this mean they should be abolished? I think that your argument is sort of on the right lines but needs to be modified. I would modify it to say that things which only effect the individual should not be legislated upon. Anti-abortion lobbyists maintain that the foetus is a 'person' and this is where the debate is - if you accept that reasoning then there is a case against abortion. Personally I do not accept that reasoning.good thinking batman!
Of course - when seeing things in the longer perspective:
to smoke is to make an elderly abortion! No difference! To smoke - well you can as easily hang your self today and the outcome will be the same!
Of course abortion can't be stopped! To set a law against abortion is just foolish. But the older the foster gets it gets mentally harder - I think we in Sweden have a timelimit - so it just wont seem like a murder.
Of course you can't stop smoking or abortion completely. But does that mean that prohibiting it doesn't help at all? Does it really make no difference at all?
But I think it should be legal since I can't see any reason why not. I don't think it's terrible to kill it as it has not lived, it doesn't have any social contacts or any connection in the real world, hence no one will miss it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | | catscratches wrote: | I think it's hard to compare it to smoking, drinking or drugs as I don't think you'll get very addicted to abortion...
I think abortion should be legal, I don't see any reasons why not. |
It's not hard to compare it drugs, alcohol, and smoking when you're looking at the legal logistics of it. I don't think abortion should be done, because I feel that it's wrong, but it would be next to impossible to crack down on it legally. |
This argument is hard to maintain. You appear to be saying that anything which cannot effectively be policed should be legalised. Would that extend to things like speed limits? Most people break speed limits routinely so does this mean they should be abolished? I think that your argument is sort of on the right lines but needs to be modified. I would modify it to say that things which only effect the individual should not be legislated upon. Anti-abortion lobbyists maintain that the foetus is a 'person' and this is where the debate is - if you accept that reasoning then there is a case against abortion. Personally I do not accept that reasoning. |
Yeah, you're right. I should make it more clear that actions with personal consequences should not be illegal. My main point for this was for things like alcohol, drugs, and abortion anyways. I'm coming from the perspective that The United States spends billions of USD every year on their war on drugs, yet in high school I would see people smoking marijuana out in front of the school or even occasionally in class (our educational system really sucks). The same thing happened when they attempted prohibition in the 1920's and I believe the same thing would happen if abortion was illegal. Money would spent to stop this, yet it would be completely useless because girls would do it with a coat hanger anyways, which is probably more dangerous. Plus, our prisons are overcrowded anyways and seems like priority in prison space should be given to rapists over abortionist.I believe that while those who proclaim actions with only personal consequences and no external ramifications should be legalized, this still does not apply to abortion. I am pro-choice in this matter, however I can understand that while countless people will not be affected by a single individual's abortion, so many people are still generally affected by the idea murder is happening legally all around them. If you ask me, this 'problem' stems from the fact that we are all blessed with such individuality and differences of opinion. So, I would therefore conduct that the simplest 'answer' to the issue of abortion would be a utopia in which everyone agreed, thus demolishing the idea that there is no ultimate answer because people are programmed to think as individuals with a probability of differences in opinion. In the end, this leads me to believe that the most productive reasoning would be that people are left to their own devices without criticism.
I am really against abortion... for my religion and for life meaning. In case of taking one choice I would show this feeling of *not* to all people I meet.
As the human population is increasing exponantialy, the abortion should be legal atleast for the countries like India and China.Why to bring a child when we cannot provide him a proper environment to grow up? Moreover I beleive nobody goes for an abortion unless there is some kind of compulsion. This specificaly applies to the cases when a child is detected abnormal in the womb.There is no point in bringing an abnormal or unwanted child to earth.
| bukaida wrote: |
| As the human population is increasing exponantialy, the abortion should be legal atleast for the countries like India and China.Why to bring a child when we cannot provide him a proper environment to grow up? Moreover I beleive nobody goes for an abortion unless there is some kind of compulsion. This specificaly applies to the cases when a child is detected abnormal in the womb.There is no point in bringing an abnormal or unwanted child to earth. |
Then of course this brings a much interesting question. As technology improves we might be able to know more about the child. What kind of child would we abort and what child would we let live? Is eg. a homosexual child unwanted (not according to me, but some think of homosexuality as an abomination)?That presupposes that homosexuality is entirely genetic....
| Bikerman wrote: |
| That presupposes that homosexuality is entirely genetic.... |
Well, at least genetics has a lot to do with it. And it was just an example. | catscratches wrote: |
| Then of course this brings a much interesting question. As technology improves we might be able to know more about the child. What kind of child would we abort and what child would we let live? Is eg. a homosexual child unwanted (not according to me, but some think of homosexuality as an abomination)? |
That sounds perfectly horrible to me. Wonder whether people realize what a trauma it is to make a decision to abort. Some women never get over this decision in their lifetime. I believe that some basic tests are done in any pregnancy, and abortions are sometimes a choice when an abnormality is discovered, and that is usually very traumatic too. But to consciously go into genetic testing, I can imagine would have serious ethical as well as emotional ramifications. | catscratches wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: | | That presupposes that homosexuality is entirely genetic.... |
Well, at least genetics has a lot to do with it. And it was just an example. |
That conclusion is completely up for grabs still. Understand your point, but there's probably a better example.Man by default is not perfect. When he does any job it has imperfections. This includes abortions too. Most of the mentally and physically disabled children that I have met, I have made it a point to ask their mothers how did this happen. Did you try to abort the kid in the womb? The answers have almost always been 'yes'.
The special children are not special because of God's mistake. but of our own. Abortions that were done were not proper and the child is in the society a disabled one. Mauled by its own parents!
Do you want abortion? If you do not know how to do it perfect, then better don't do it.
One more point. Tell me, will you kill your own kid at home? Only mentally sick people will do that. That goes for abortion too! Only mentally sick person will do that.
If you are a planning and well meaning guy, then don't allow it to form. Donot create a child and then kill it. Don't create one, please!
And what if a couple plans for a child and in the womb itself found that they are going to give birth a mentaly or physicaly retarded child? Will the world be kind enough to give all the regular facilities and treat him/her as a normal? Even the parents will not be able to die peacefuly thinking about the future of the child in their absence.It is very easy to argue theoriticaly, but the practical scenario is quite different.
| rshanthakumar wrote: |
| If you are a planning and well meaning guy, then don't allow it to form. Donot create a child and then kill it. Don't create one, please! |
Er...
You know... in the real world, accidents happen.
If they created the child deliberately, it probably wasn't unwanted. If it was unwanted, it was very likely not planned. | rshanthakumar wrote: |
One more point. Tell me, will you kill your own kid at home? Only mentally sick people will do that. That goes for abortion too! Only mentally sick person will do that.
If you are a planning and well meaning guy, then don't allow it to form. Donot create a child and then kill it. Don't create one, please! |
What if your child is born with some disease that will cause terrible pain and kill it in 3 years? Wouldn't it then be better to get some abortion?
Also killing a born child and doing abortion is not quite the same. | rshanthakumar wrote: |
One more point. Tell me, will you kill your own kid at home? Only mentally sick people will do that. That goes for abortion too! Only mentally sick person will do that.
If you are a planning and well meaning guy, then don't allow it to form. Donot create a child and then kill it. Don't create one, please! |
It's not a child up until a certain point. Your stance has very many holes in it...all of which can be addressed by reading past threads on this topic. | rshanthakumar wrote: |
| One more point. Tell me, will you kill your own kid at home? Only mentally sick people will do that. That goes for abortion too! Only mentally sick person will do that. |
LOL.
Define 'mentally sick'. (Don't bother - you can't - the only meaningful definitions refer to 'norms' of social behavior).
So what you are doing is taking a behaviour that is abnormal (parents killing children) and putting a label on it - mental sickness. That is, in a very real sense, a tautology. In some animal species, for example, eating the young is quite normal behaviour. Obviously those animals are not mentally sick because their behaviour is normal. Therefore what you are doing is describing a behaviour as 'mental illness' because it is not 'normal' and then taking a behaviour that is not 'normal' and describing it as a mental illness.....round and round she goes, where she stops nobody knows....
Anyway..having applied a tautological description to parents of live children who kill their offspring (ie people who behave in abnormal ways are mentally sick, killing children is abnormal, therefore killing children is mentally sick) you then seek to apply the same reasoning to abortion. Hmm. Very dodgy. using this mechanism we can describe any minority as mentally sick. It's better not to go down that road or we end up with all sorts of nonsenses.
Here's an example;
You assume that people see an embryo or foetus as a 'kid'. Describing an embryo, or even a 12 week foetus, as a 'kid' requires a large stretch of the imagination. Most people, when presented with an image of an embryo would not describe it as a 'kid'. Describing it as a 'kid' is therefore abnormal, and it follows that people who think an embryo is a 'kid' are mentally sick...
See the problem ?I guess we can then go the other way round. Some children with parents who should not have had children in the first place. Pity that children do not have the power to "abort" their parents. This is a tough one both ways but then we are taught that all of this is character building. Life! Think when I start to think about these things I would like to run straight upwards and away from this world. The world can be a terribly cruel place, but at the same time an infinintely beautiful place. There has to be an enormous collection of hurt, being passed on from generation to generation, surrounding decisions about abortions, actions following abortions, parents who were not fit to have children (I include here the extreme cases: the abusers, alcoholics, drug addicts, etc). This is probably responsible for a great percentage of society ills. Really sad and probably very difficult to solve. Almost impossible.
i would like to ask pro-abortion people here as to whether they will consider a fetus a human being or not.
also i would like to know how would you identify something that can be considered a human being.
and finally, i would also like to know your take about the inalienable rights of every human being.
i am pro-choice, but i will state my reason later after you guys answer my 3 simple questions
thanks!
| redhakaw wrote: |
i would like to ask pro-abortion people here as to whether they will consider a fetus a human being or not.
also i would like to know how would you identify something that can be considered a human being.
and finally, i would also like to know your take about the inalienable rights of every human being.
i am pro-choice, but i will state my reason later after you guys answer my 3 simple questions
thanks! |
No one else seems to be taking you up (and i suspect that part of the reason is that it looks like you might have made a typo... pro-choice and pro-abortion are the same thing, are they not? is that what you intended?), so i guess i will.
- i don't play that game, and the next answer (which will be quite a bit longer) will explain why.
- i don't use the term "human being" when i intend to speak clearly, because it is a vague and meaningless phrase. "Human" is clearly defined, and yes, a foetus is human... but then so is a corpse - more precisely, it's a "human foetus" and a "human corpse". i know something is human when a biologist tells me that it a member of homo sapiens sapiens.
But what is a "being"? That's just a pretentiously vague word used to describe entities that may or may not be intelligent. It's quite literally a "thing", so a "human being" is a "thing that is human" (where human is defined biologically). Am i a "human being"? Yes, i am a thing that is human. Is a foetus? Yes. Is a corpse? Yes.
The word i use is person. A person is an entity that is a discrete intelligence. Intelligence in this context has nothing to do with "smarts" - i am talking about the ability to reason, comprehend, self-identify, and so on, which are therefore the properties i use to identify persons (or people). If you can do those things, you are a person, and if you are also a human, you are a human person. So i would talk about "human persons", but since we've not yet met a person that isn't human, we can get away with shrinking it down to just "person".
So that's my answer: i use biology to determine what is human. i use the property of mind to determine what is a person.
And to go back to question 1: Is a foetus a human person? No. It is human, but it is not a person. It has less awareness of the universe than a fish.
- i subscribe to a very, very short list of inalienable rights, even shorter than "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Basically, i believe that the one and only inalienable right that people (any persons, not just humans) have is the right to self-determination, provided that does not infringe on that same basic right in others without just cause. In other words, you have the right to do whatever the hell you want to do... provided that in doing so you do not take away the rights of others to do the same, unless you have a really good reason.
If you're wondering how that applies here, consider that in order to "want to do" something, you have to be able to "want"... which means you need a mind. A foetus cannot think. It cannot "want to do" anything. Therefore, that inalienable right does not apply to a foetus. As so as the foetus has developed enough to think, then it counts as a person, and the inalienable right applies (which means you can't kill it without a really good reason).
I'm really and totally anti-abortion. I really think that women must have the right to elect how many children they want to conceive, it includes using condoms, birth control pill, refusing sex if necessary. But once conception has taken place, rights of the unborn are superior than women rights, because the unborn is in a natural defenseless state.
| iyepes wrote: |
| I'm really and totally anti-abortion. I really think that women must have the right to elect how many children they want to conceive, it includes using condoms, birth control pill, refusing sex if necessary. But once conception has taken place, rights of the unborn are superior than women rights, because the unborn is in a natural defenseless state. |
So the woman should be the one in the defenseless state if the fetus is threatening her life? And again, I bring up the situation where you know for a 100% fact that the baby will be born with Huntington's, cystic fibrosis, etc.....what do you do? Let it be born and watch it suffer through life or save it the trouble? | iyepes wrote: |
| I'm really and totally anti-abortion. I really think that women must have the right to elect how many children they want to conceive, it includes using condoms, birth control pill, refusing sex if necessary. But once conception has taken place, rights of the unborn are superior than women rights, because the unborn is in a natural defenseless state. |
So by this argument, of course, the rights of a sleeping person are superior to a waking person. The rights of a comatose patient are superior to both a sleeping and waking person (since a sleeping person could wake up to defend themselves). The more able bodied and physically fit you are, the fewer are your rights. Conversely the more disabled or unfit you are, the greater your rights.
Of course, since we are regarding a small bundle of cells as a 'person', with all the rights that entails, and those rights are superior to those of the mother, then it is logical that any newly pregnant woman should immediately be forced into hospital and restrained from anything that might cause miscarriage or spontaneous abortion. Maybe the best way would be to drug the woman and keep her on a special nutrient/drug mix for 9 months until the superior lifeform emerges.
This also raises some interesting questions about babies - since clearly babies are pretty defenceless. It follows (according to the above 'logic') that the baby has more rights than adults. Clearly one of the fundamental rights in a democracy is the right to elect your government, so we should obviously lower the voting age to 0 - in fact we should probably try to work out how we can get foetuses to cast a vote from the womb.im anti-abortion. if you are willing to have unprotected sex, you should know a baby is going to come out of it. i am only pro-abortion when the person has been raped or if the baby may cause certain dangers to the life of the mother.
Bringing a child in the world where parents don't have the proper situation in life, thus not ready to be parents, will hurt both parents and mostly the child. If child should come in to this world, it should be brought with love and meaning.
You cannot punish the parents for their mistakes, which they have recognized in the beginning of the pregnancy, by not allowing them to take the abortion. Just think how they would treat the child, when they later could have had a child when they were ready for it.
| leflauntique wrote: |
| im anti-abortion. if you are willing to have unprotected sex, you should know a baby is going to come out of it. i am only pro-abortion when the person has been raped or if the baby may cause certain dangers to the life of the mother. |
And if you have protected sex and a baby still comes from it? And once again, how/when do you distinguish a baby from a ball of developing cells (this is the question it always ultimately comes down to)?I, personally, am wholeheartedly against abortion.
Firtsly, it is murder - plain and simple. You are taking the life of a whole and unique creature, completely developed or not that embrio was intended to be a wonderful life all its own. It is not yours or mine to take. If murder is illegal, so too should be abortion.
Secondly, there are more people involved in the abortion than most would believe. It is not simply the mother and unborn child, but the father, the siblings, and even the extended family. My mother had an abortion, and I must live everyday with the knowledge that it is by pure luck that I made it into this world and my brother/sister did not. What gave my mother the right to make that decision? What if my brother was to be a wonderful doctor? What if my sister could have done better in this lifetime than I have? It is a scary thought.
Of course, abortion is a fickle topic. However, I do believe that one day it will become illegal. I think a smart individual will sit down and map out the laws of such a thing to assure that under certain and serious circumstances (dangers to the mother or the child during a troubled birth) will be covered.
| student2 wrote: |
Hey guys,
I m writing an essay about the abortions..dont really know how to start:? can you maybe share your ideas about arguments for it and against it.
thanks |
Abortions should be a matter of opinion, and it should be up to the mother on whether she should have the abortion or not in the first place. I don't think it's right how the government is going to try and control who has the say on who wants to keep the baby or not.
It's not right. =/abortion can be a really sticky subject. most people take quite a firm stance for or against it but what they dont realise is that they manage to contradict themselves quite often. if you happen to be anti abortion you've got to be pro life. i mean anti stem cell research , anti death penalty, anti enthanasia, etcetra. religion is quite often used as an excuse to be anti abortion. this is most infuriatintg. as for me.. i'm pro abotion.
Deffo add something like, abortion is considdered bad by many people, but if you think about it, It isn't always.. Imagine if your child has a disease ( and they found out about it very early, after like 2-3 months) You know your child would suffer if they don't abort it :<
It might seem tough but its in some cases best for everyone, imagine having a child that is constantly in pain... Or someone who got raped and carries a child of that man...
I gues that the abortion is wrong, because you or anybody dont/doesnt have a right to decide about life and death.
These people who say abortion is ok, because child may suffer are so wrong:
-First of all; Only about 8% of the abortions is done because of "hard" reasons like:
.-Drugs .-Prostitution ....
-Secondly; Its impossible to know is child really going to suffer.
-Its sayed that life matters in all forms, thats also why we are living.
-The abortion is not about killing an alien, its killing a human.
-If you dont want to have child, then give it away, if you cant do that then you cant do the abortion.
Thing about this:
-What if somedy is going to kill you, just because you are air to him, or he/she says you die sometime anyway.
You might thing that if you are over middle age, you wont "grow up", but thats not reality
because your brains "grow" and you like to live.
| neartimeprophecy wrote: |
| -First of all; Only about 8% of the abortions is done because of "hard" reasons |
Where does that statistic come from? Did you just make it up?Even if the child's life is not going to be good, the child still has hope. You can't take away that hope, for what you know the child could be raised by someone else. You can't assume that preventing the child from developing is for it's own good.
| Arty wrote: |
| Even if the child's life is not going to be good, the child still has hope. You can't take away that hope, for what you know the child could be raised by someone else. You can't assume that preventing the child from developing is for it's own good. |
*Sigh* Yet another person who uses language dishonestly.
Child is not the same as foetus. A child is generally someone after birth and before puberty (although we sometimes use the word for teenagers).
Before birth we use the word foetus. Defining the foetus as a child is an attempt at emotional manipulation. Most abortions are conducted before 12 weeks. To define a 12 week foetus as a child is dishonesty of a high order. | Arty wrote: |
| Even if the child's life is not going to be good, the child still has hope. You can't take away that hope, for what you know the child could be raised by someone else. You can't assume that preventing the child from developing is for it's own good. |
Not a child.
