Abortions

[gisellebebegirl 0]

I personally think that abortion is wrong. If one isn?t ready for motherhood then one should protect themselves or stay abstinent, and if you do get pregnant, its your responsability to keep your kid, the kid did not ask to be made, you made it!. When one has an abortion it?s as if you are killing your baby because it?s still a living thing, its breathing, and struggling to survive. Imagine if you were 5 years old and told you were going to have a little sister and then your mom goes and gets an abortion but in your terms, your mom killed the baby. How would that make you feel? There are so many couples out there that cannot have children and try so hard and then the women who take having a child for granted, that are getting abortions? That?s just not right. I know in some cases a woman might get raped and may not want to have the child but majority of time women just aren?t being safe [not using protection and stuff]. Getting an abortion can also leave you emotionally scarred. Regretting or feeling guilty of what you have done whether it be after the procedure or over time. It will eventually leave you feeling guilty whether you wish to believe it or not. It could also cause you to have a miscarriage in the future with future pregnancies. I picked the topic abortion to scream about Xisto because it?s something that happens to young adults who don?t think about the things they?re doing and the consequences. I?m not saying that young adults are the only ones getting abortions, but still it?s wrong. Killing an innocent human being inside of you is just inhuman. Its murder. Some may say ?oh it?s not a baby yet? so then tell me what is it? A mass of cells still yet to form a living human being? People think that since it?s their body, that it?s their choice but their choice is deciding whether or not to let this living thing inside you live or die. It?s just like letting your parents decide whether you deserve life or not. It?s not any different whatsoever. If you think about it, its basically homicide, but this is actually legal.Which is just ridiculous if you ask me, i mean sure, you kill a guy, old ugly, watever, and go to jail for the rest of your lifeyet, when you kill an infant, an innocent baby, you just get a OH YOU DID THE RIGHT THING, wtf! just ok im mad. officially mad. if your not going to have the responsability to take care of your kidsjust get a pill, some condoms, or an operation, so you cant have any. seriously people

[tricky77puzzle 0]

And yet some people plan to have kids about 12 years after getting the abortion.

 

Sometimes the mother cannot support the baby either. Sometimes whatever protection you use fails. (I know the "pill" has a 92% success rate, so about 1 in 12 of mothers who use it actually get a baby. Condoms also only work about 92% of the time.) If the mother had an accident, she is completely unprepared, and will only get an abortion because she loves the unborn baby and would rather let it "die" before birth than live a cruel life and die anyway.

 

Have you ever heard of the violinist analogy, by Judith Thompson? Say one day you wake up in a hospital, strapped to a bed with a famous violinist on your back. He is unconscious. You then see a crowd of people around you, who explain your predicament. "The violinist you have strapped to your back currently has a fatal kidney ailment. We have looked through all records and you are the only person who has the right blood type to extract poisons from his blood. You must remain hooked up for 9 months, otherwise he will die."

 

Then you say, "But I don't want to be hooked up to this guy for 9 months!"

 

They pull out a long petition strip and reply, "And these 500,000 other people don't want the violinist to die. It's an army against one, so you either comply or we make you."

 

In this scenario, you are the pregnant mother, and the 500,000 people plus the committee are anti-abortionists. The violinist is the unborn fetus.

 

See, if you were to kill the baby when it is independent (as in, it doesn't require another body to support it directly), it would count as infanticide. But when the baby is in a womb, it is dependent on the mother. In essence, it is still part of her. You cannot force a mother to carry someone that is dependent on her. You can forbid her from killing someone who is independent (such as the old man in your example), but you cannot force her to act as a living dialysis for him just because she has the right blood type (such is the case with my violinist scenario).

[KansukeKojima 0]

Posted by me in a simmilar topic -->>

I'm a Christian so naturally I'm against it. I know that some of you, will not even consider the reasons I list because of what they imply or fail to imply. So here is my non-religion influenced reason so that those few of you will listen.
Why would you take away the chance of something to experience life? Why would you take away the chance to know love, hatred, fun, and everthing else in life? Why would you take away the chance for it to do something great to influence the way people think or act?

There these questions don't imply your killing a human life, they don't imply the fetus is to be considered human, and they don't imply there is a divine creator who wills the fetus doesn't die. Its just a simple question of why you would take the chance of life away from something.

I know I can't keep if from happening, and I understand people will make there own decisions. It is innevitable that abortions will continue. I will not run up to people at an abortion clinic shouting of fire and brimstone. I respect, though I don't agree with, their decisions, but I hope that they will come to understand what they are doing.

[truefusion 3]

See, if you were to kill the baby when it is independent (as in, it doesn't require another body to support it directly), it would count as infanticide. But when the baby is in a womb, it is dependent on the mother. In essence, it is still part of her. You cannot force a mother to carry someone that is dependent on her. You can forbid her from killing someone who is independent (such as the old man in your example), but you cannot force her to act as a living dialysis for him just because she has the right blood type (such is the case with my violinist scenario).

The analogy you presented does not fully consider what happens after the child is born, that is, out of the womb. The child after it is born still can't support itself—it is dependent on whoever is taking care of it. The analogy you presented implies that once the child is out, it is independent—this is not true; independence for the child comes years after the child is born. And according to your analogy, so long as the child is dependent on a "parent" (or as you put it, "body"), the child can be terminated. Why does it being inside or outside make a difference? Both are the same thing. Therefore, your analogy does not justify abortion.

 

Does the mother require to take care of the child? No, the mother can give her child away to those that will.

[blood&CLASSIQUE 0]

I agree with with the whole not being able to support the baby thing. I'm not sexually active...but I really don't believe in sex before marriage. No matter what, it's still THEIR responsibility! If they couldn't support the baby, I think they should of gave the sex thing a second thought. School nail the whole teen pregnancy blah blah blah stuff in our heads and yet we still keep doing whatever. So if you are not finacially/emotionall/physically ready, I don't think you should have sex. Whether abortion is right or wrong...I dont know, but I hate how (some) girls use it as an "easy exit". I mean, I know a girl who started having sex at 13. There are girls in grade 8-9 who've been (and ALMOST) pregnant. It's bad in that reason.Also theres a good reason for abortion too. I'm pretty sure there are cases where the baby might come out with a severe illness or disability. I don't think I would want to give birth to a baby with that severe ailment. Don't get me wrong, I'm just saying think about, if this baby is born and it's going to die or even worst, suffer years with tubes and treatments. I think as a mother, it would be hard for her to bear and it's unfair for the child to suffer through it.Pros, cons...

[tricky77puzzle 0]

The analogy you presented does not fully consider what happens after the child is born, that is, out of the womb. The child after it is born still can't support itself—it is dependent on whoever is taking care of it. The analogy you presented implies that once the child is out, it is independent—this is not true; independence for the child comes years after the child is born. And according to your analogy, so long as the child is dependent on a "parent" (or as you put it, "body"), the child can be terminated. Why does it being inside or outside make a difference? Both are the same thing. Therefore, your analogy does not justify abortion.

 

Does the mother require to take care of the child? No, the mother can give her child away to those that will.

I mean "independent" as in it does not need the direct support of the mother. Things like taking it out for a walk and breastfeeding are indirect support, because the baby is not physically connected to the mother. It's a scientific definition.

 

As well, if the mother does carry the baby to term and then realizes that she cannot support it (him/her), then she will have to try to look for an adoptive parent. Adoption of a human child can sometimes lower the self-esteem of the child, because his real parents shunned him.

 

According to my analogy, the baby shouldn't be directly terminated (as in the case of partial-birth abortion), but its support can be cut off, which would be indirect termination. The mother has no obligation to support the child before it is born. After it is born, however, is a different story.

 

(All my edits are red.)

Edited February 23, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

I mean "independent" as in it does not need the direct support of the mother. Things like taking it out for a walk and breastfeeding are indirect support, because the baby is not physically connected to the mother. It's a scientific definition.

You've given "direct" and "indirect" different definitions. Things like the mother helping the child walk or providing the child with milk is direct support, because indirect support would mean helping something else, which in turn helps the child out. And science doesn't define morality or parental responsibilities.

 

As well, if the mother does carry the baby to term and then realizes that she cannot support it (him/her), then she will have to try to look for an adoptive parent. Adoption of a human child can sometimes lower the self-esteem of the child, because his real parents shunned him.

There's a thing known as the "Baby Moses Law," so the parent does not need to look for someone who will adopt the child. And self-esteem can be easily and freely gained.

 

According to my analogy, the baby shouldn't be directly terminated (as in the case of partial-birth abortion), but its support can be cut off, which would be indirect termination. The mother has no obligation to support the child before it is born. After it is born, however, is a different story.

Indirect termination is equal to, if not worse than, direct termination. Cutting off the child's support is wrong. And the mother is obligated to find support for the child if she is not willing to support the child herself, for it was her actions that brought the child into existence. By saying they are not obiligated, you are supporting not taking responsibility for one's actions, which in turn allows more non-sense to occur. The child has the right to be supported—abortion takes away those rights; even in the case of rape, the child has the same rights; this is why abortion is not justified here. The only time i see that abortion is justified is when the child will die a natural death inside the mother's womb and is going to be taking the mother's life along with it. However, the doctors who made the decision must have no reasonable doubt whatsoever and must provide proof for their decision. I say doctors because one doctor should not be the only one that makes the decision.

[tricky77puzzle 0]

You've given "direct" and "indirect" different definitions. Things like the mother helping the child walk or providing the child with milk is direct support, because indirect support would mean helping something else, which in turn helps the child out. And science doesn't define morality or parental responsibilities.

There's a thing known as the "Baby Moses Law," so the parent does not need to look for someone who will adopt the child. And self-esteem can be easily and freely gained.

Indirect termination is equal to, if not worse than, direct termination. Cutting off the child's support is wrong. And the mother is obligated to find support for the child if she is not willing to support the child herself, for it was her actions that brought the child into existence. By saying they are not obiligated, you are supporting not taking responsibility for one's actions, which in turn allows more non-sense to occur. The child has the right to be supported—abortion takes away those rights; even in the case of rape, the child has the same rights; this is why abortion is not justified here. The only time i see that abortion is justified is when the child will die a natural death inside the mother's womb and is going to be taking the mother's life along with it. However, the doctors who made the decision must have no reasonable doubt whatsoever and must provide proof for their decision. I say doctors because one doctor should not be the only one that makes the decision.

You seem to be very anti-choice. (Well, of course. You limit the choices to one very rare cause.)

 

Cutting off the child's support is wrong. And the mother is obligated to find support for the child if she is not willing to support the child herself, for it was her actions that brought the child into existence. By saying they are not obiligated, you are supporting not taking responsibility for one's actions, which in turn allows more non-sense to occur.

And what of rape? It is not the mother's decision here. Are you saying that she has to wear a chastity belt wherever she goes so that on the off chance that someone wants to try to attack her sexually, he can't get to the part he wants? This seems ridiculous. Even if it was a wrong decision, there is also the case that the woman was not educated correctly about sex and contraception. This constitutes enough of the cases that the choice of abortion should be made available. If you want the mother to keep the baby after being a victim of rape, you are giving her a worse punishment than if the rapist got the death penalty. She doesn't want a reminder of something that scarred her for life.

 

I myself would never get an abortion for anything I was involved in with a girl, but I think the choice should be made available, for others who don't believe in that. Sure, it's morally wrong according to anti-abortionists, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be legal, because pro-choice people have different opinions. If you really are so pro-life, why don't you try abolishing the death penalty in the US? (If I'm offending you, or if what I'm saying is factually inaccurate, I'm sorry; it's just that I'm trying to make a point.)

 

(The following statement is not directed at anybody.) A lot of anti-abortionists actually support the death penalty for violation of abortion law, as well as other things. This seems kind of hyprocritical to me, since if one method of death is justified, why is another one not?

 

Indirect termination is equal to, if not worse than, direct termination. Cutting off the child's support is wrong.

So you're saying that murder is less bad than, say, seeing someone commit suicide and not calling 911. Although the fetus has a right to not be directly killed, it does not have the absolute right to se the woman's body.

 

You've given "direct" and "indirect" different definitions. Things like the mother helping the child walk or providing the child with milk is direct support, because indirect support would mean helping something else, which in turn helps the child out. And science doesn't define morality or parental responsibilities.

When I say "direct" and "indirect", I'm giving them scientific definitions. Indirect support is any type of support which does not directly connect the two bodies. So spoonfeeding a baby is still considered indirect support, althought it might be direct in non-scientific terms. Spoonfeeding the child, in this case, brings food to the child's mouth, which in turn nourishes him/her. Therefore it is "indirect".

It is true that science doesn't define moral or parental responsibilities. Just in the same way that religion doesn't really pinpoint when a baby becomes a living human being.

 

However, the doctors who made the decision must have no reasonable doubt whatsoever and must provide proof for their decision. I say doctors because one doctor should not be the only one that makes the decision.

If you want to require at least two doctors' permission to carry out an abortion, it will take an agonizingly long time, since the doctors have to formally agree and sign contracts and do everything. I believe your tactic is to try to delay the abortion as much as possible so that the mother will be sick of waiting and decide to cancel the decision. This method is even morally lower than carrying out an abortion without verification of the mother's situation, because it involves trying to hurt the mother so that the baby can survive.

 

The child has the right to be supported—abortion takes away those rights; even in the case of rape, the child has the same rights; this is why abortion is not justified here.

Even in the case of rape, the baby has the same rights. But does the mother have to do this? No; you could make the father do it. However, the woman still suffers for nine months, knowing that she's carrying a bit of the rapist inside of her. Don't you think that's just a little too much torment already?

 

Self-esteem can be easily and freely gained.

You'd be surprised. When kids find out they're adopted, they usually go and cry in a corner or something. I mean, come on. It's bad enough that your parents shun you. Some of these kids start to wich they were never born, which would be the case with abortion. And please, don't even think of raising the argument of not telling them. That's like telling the public that the moon landings were a hoax.

[Bluebear 0]

I think abortion is okey if the couple did not want the child, can not support it and raise it in a good way, or if the woman were raped. Is it better that a baby gets born and get born into a horrible life? Into a home that is cruel, can not support you or just have not got the time and effort to love the baby - like every baby should be? A baby should be wanted, it should be a love child. I am not saying that the parents should plan the baby, but they really need to have a good reason if they choose to remove the baby - have an abortion.

 

I just think it is much worse if a child gets born into a family that does not love him/her. That is horrible.

Edited February 25, 2008 by Bluebear (see edit history)

[tricky77puzzle 0]

The only time i see that abortion is justified is when the child will die a natural death inside the mother's womb and is going to be taking the mother's life along with it. However, the doctors who made the decision must have no reasonable doubt whatsoever and must provide proof for their decision. I say doctors because one doctor should not be the only one that makes the decision.

I have one more comment to that: it makes almost no sense. You're saying that the mother can die as long as the fetus is born into a baby? Don't you think that's taking the "responsibility" to carry the baby to term a bit too seriously?

 

In any case, the multiple-doctor scenario that you bring up, according to Wikipedia, was actually the case between 1967 and 1989. Between 1892 and 1967, abortion and even contraception were actually completely illegal.

Because the three-doctor committee scneario didn't work out too well, since it provided for too many flaws, considering that there was only one chain that had a lot of links, and one decision by a doctor could turn down the abortion entirely. In 1989, Canada completely gave up trying to legislate on abortion because the Senate turned down a penalty of 2 years in jail for any doctor who performed an abortion that was not under risk of death of the mother.

 

Here's the exact text from Wikipedia:

 

Abortion was completely banned in Canada in 1869. As in other countries, illegal abortions were still performed, leading to the deaths of many women every year. An early example received much attention during the abortion trial of Emily Stowe (1879). Another such case, Azoulay v. The Queen, reached the Supreme Court in 1952. In 1892, abortion and the advertisement and distribution of contraception were made illegal in Canada.

 

The movement to liberalize Canada's abortion laws began in the 1960s. Then Justice Minister Pierre Trudeau introduced a bill in 1967 (amendment to Section 251 of the Canadian Criminal Code). The bill passed and became law in 1969, and provided for abortions when the health of the woman was in danger as determined by a three-doctor hospital committee. However, abortion still remained in the Criminal Code of Canada, unlike the U.S. law where, after Roe v. Wade in early 1973, abortion was no longer illegal. This same bill also legalized homosexuality and contraception, and would be the subject of one of Trudeau's most famous quotations: "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation."

 

While many Canadians opposed the liberalization of abortion laws, others believed that the law did not go far enough, and that the rulings of the three-doctor committees were inconsistent and often untimely (taking perhaps several weeks). A Montreal doctor, Henry Morgentaler, not wanting to break the law, initially turned away women seeking abortions from his practice. Soon, however, the harsh circumstances he perceived such women as facing brought about a change of mind, and he began performing safe abortions in his clinic in contravention of the law. In 1973, Morgentaler stated publicly that he had performed 5,000 abortions without the permission of the three-doctor-committees, even going so far as to videotape himself performing operations.

 

The Quebec government took Morgentaler to court twice, and both times juries refused to convict him despite his outright admission that he had performed many abortions. The government appealed one acquittal, and the appeal court overturned the jury's verdict. Morgentaler was sentenced to 18 months in jail. Public outcry over the appeal court's decision caused the federal government to pass a law (commonly known as the Morgentaler Amendment) preventing appeal courts from overturning a jury's not-guilty verdict. Morgentaler was again acquitted at a third trial, causing the Quebec government to declare the law unenforceable.

 

Morgentaler's struggle prompted a nation-wide movement to reform Canada's abortion laws. In 1970, 35 women, chained themselves to the parliamentary gallery in the House of Commons, closing Parliament for the first time in Canadian history.

 

Upon his release from prison in Quebec, Morgentaler decided to challenge the law in other provinces. Over the next 15 years, he opened and operated private abortion clinics across the country in direct violation of the law. Following a fourth jury acquittal in 1984, the federal government appealed the decision, and the appeals court reversed the decision.

 

Morgentaler, in turn, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. In a landmark decision, the Court declared in 1988 the entirety of the country's abortion law to be unconstitutional. The court noted that "[f]orcing a woman, by threat of criminal sanction, to carry a foetus to term unless she meets certain criteria unrelated to her own priorities and aspirations" and that the law "asserts that the woman's capacity to reproduce is to be subject, not to her own control, but to that of the state" were essentially a breach of the woman's right to security of the person, which is guaranteed under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

The Court also found that the procedural requirements to obtain an abortion, as set forth in the law, were especially troublesome. Only accredited or approved hospitals could perform abortions, which imposed a barrier to local access. The law also specified that women wanting an abortion were required to consult a "Therapeutic abortion committee" (TAC), a committee of at least four physicians appointed by the hospital's board of members. The court found that the TAC was deeply flawed, in part because of the long delays caused by the TAC and that in many hospitals, the TAC were merely committees on paper and did not actually perform abortions.

 

In its decision (Morgentaler et. al. v. Her Majesty The Queen [1988] (1 S.C.R. 30) at 37), the Court stated:

 

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

 

A large part of why the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the abortion law in 1988 had to do with how amendments to the criminal code that allowed abortions (amendment to Section 251) worked. In order to have an abortion, a woman had to first have a doctor who was willing to give her information on the topic and refer her to another doctor, or to take the case him or herself. The abortion then had to be approved by a hospital's Therapeutic Abortion Committee (commonly known as a TAC), which was composed of three doctors. Pro-life groups attempted at times to have their members become the members of the TAC so that the hospital would no longer perform abortions.

 

The court noted that it was mostly always men that were deciding if a woman should have an abortion. Also, because some pro-life doctors would not take any case to a TAC, or would only take a very severe case, and because some of these doctors would not even refer a women to a doctor who would present the case to the TAC, there were barriers to women who wanted to have their applications considered by a TAC. It could take a long time for a woman to find a doctor that would take her case to the TAC. Finally, the TAC had to decide on each request for an abortion. These factors resulted in a time lag that meant that abortions were being performed much later than they could have been.

 

The Court also recognized that the rules resulted in varying levels of abortion availability, depending on the city, province or territory. The law also resulted in middle class and affluent women having better chances to obtain an abortion. The existence of private clinics meant that women who had enough money could bypass the TAC system completely.

 

The court did, however, encourage the government to introduce a new and improved abortion law, which it attempted to do in 1989. This new bill, which threatened doctors with a two-year jail term if they approved an abortion when the woman's health was not in danger, was widely and loudly condemned by the country's doctors. While the bill was approved by the Canadian House of Commons, it was defeated in the Senate by a tie vote. This failure prompted the government to give up on legislating abortion entirely, leading to the unique situation of Canada having no abortion law whatsoever. Between the time the law was passed in the House of Commons and the time it was defeated in the senate, a 20-year-old student at the University of Waterloo bled to death after trying to perform an abortion on herself, the first such case in years.

 

Some of the private abortion clinics that have been set up by Morgentaler since the Supreme Court decision were opened to challenge provincial law on the medical financing of abortions in private clinics.

Edited February 27, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[Revan 0]

People are constantly saying that if people are having sex they have to accept the responsibility of having a kid. However, people don't and you, me, nor anyone else can change that. The choice to have sex is impulsive, people don't stop to think, "I bet unprotected sex is a bad decision." Given the fact that kids are sexually mature at the age of fourteen, they aren't ready to accept that responsibility. The first step is helping kids be aware of safe sex alternatives as well as contraception methods. The second, and hopefully not needed if the first is available, is abortion. To say that everything deserves a chance to live, you have obviously never heard a meth baby cry. My mom has been a social worker for a large portion of my life and her stories as well as me visiting her or simply hearing the babies crying on the phone makes you sick. Saying that all life is precious isn't fair when you consider how much pain this baby is probably in, or how many women would have their lives ruined without the option of abortion. It shouldn't be and isn't a common way to prevent an unwanted situations, but it most certainly should be available as a last resort.And what about rape? I don't care if the child deserves a right to live, the child isn't even self aware until the third trimester. You kill cells on your hand by accidentally scraping your finger against a wall, isn't that the same thing? What separates the two? If you're going to tell me that the baby has the potential to be a human being then why does it matter if this human being is the product of violence and terror. Think of the mother, you're going to force her to have the kid of a man who raped her in order to fit your ideals? Conservatism doesn't make sense sometimes >_<

[tricky77puzzle 0]

People are constantly saying that if people are having sex they have to accept the responsibility of having a kid. However, people don't and you, me, nor anyone else can change that. The choice to have sex is impulsive, people don't stop to think, "I bet unprotected sex is a bad decision." Given the fact that kids are sexually mature at the age of fourteen, they aren't ready to accept that responsibility. The first step is helping kids be aware of safe sex alternatives as well as contraception methods. The second, and hopefully not needed if the first is available, is abortion. To say that everything deserves a chance to live, you have obviously never heard a meth baby cry. My mom has been a social worker for a large portion of my life and her stories as well as me visiting her or simply hearing the babies crying on the phone makes you sick. Saying that all life is precious isn't fair when you consider how much pain this baby is probably in, or how many women would have their lives ruined without the option of abortion. It shouldn't be and isn't a common way to prevent an unwanted situations, but it most certainly should be available as a last resort.

 

And what about rape? I don't care if the child deserves a right to live, the child isn't even self aware until the third trimester. You kill cells on your hand by accidentally scraping your finger against a wall, isn't that the same thing? What separates the two? If you're going to tell me that the baby has the potential to be a human being then why does it matter if this human being is the product of violence and terror. Think of the mother, you're going to force her to have the kid of a man who raped her in order to fit your ideals? Conservatism doesn't make sense sometimes >_<

Excellently phrased. In America today, a lot of people only have abstinence-only education about sex, and can't fight between natural impulses and societal persuasions.

 

What is a "meth baby"?

 

I believe that abortion should be "rare, safe, and legal", like that guy... whatsitsface... okay, I don't remember who quoted that.

 

EDIT: As well, a lot of anti-abortionists are also against masturbation. How else do you lower your sex drive? Can they prescribe a pill, or is it just a "test of the human will to follow God instead of its body" according to Catholics?

Edited February 28, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[truefusion 3]

[1]And what of rape? It is not the mother's decision here. [2]Are you saying that she has to wear a chastity belt wherever she goes so that on the off chance that someone wants to try to attack her sexually, he can't get to the part he wants? This seems ridiculous. [3]Even if it was a wrong decision, there is also the case that the woman was not educated correctly about sex and contraception. This constitutes enough of the cases that the choice of abortion should be made available. [4]If you want the mother to keep the baby after being a victim of rape, you are giving her a worse punishment than if the rapist got the death penalty. She doesn't want a reminder of something that scarred her for life.

 

[...] [5]Sure, it's morally wrong according to anti-abortionists, but that doesn't mean that it shouldn't be legal, because pro-choice people have different opinions. [6]If you really are so pro-life, why don't you try abolishing the death penalty in the US? (If I'm offending you, or if what I'm saying is factually inaccurate, I'm sorry; it's just that I'm trying to make a point.)

[1]I let the context take care of that, which you have responded to later on in your post.

[2]No, but that's an interesting thought to consider. That would reduce a lot of rape cases. (By the way, "rape" is defined in many ways.)

[3]Not educated correctly? You mean, self taught? 'Cause that would be the case. Apparently, one does not need sex ed. to commit sexual intercourse.

[4]I don't believe i've said that i wanted the mother to keep the child. And giving a rapist the death penalty may actually be helping him out. And even if torture came before the death penalty, they'd be asking for the death penalty to hurry. Also, if the rapist is found, you could force them to pay child support. One more thing, regardless of her having a child or not, she would still be reminded by other means: when dating, looking at soap operas, even by just walking down the street.

[5]This is where we look at both sides to determine which one is more reasonable and objective.

[6]I don't get offended easily, and that doesn't offend me. I've been asked that question plenty of times, but my beliefs don't contradict each other. But to answer your question: i am pro-life when the being is not guilty of anything deserving death. My question is, what is the child guilty of deserving death? Nothing, therefore making abortion unjust.

 

(The following statement is not directed at anybody.) A lot of anti-abortionists actually support the death penalty for violation of abortion law, as well as other things. This seems kind of hyprocritical to me, since if one method of death is justified, why is another one not?

Ah, and i was about to ask how'd you guess i was in favor of the death penalty when done properly. And i have provided my reasoning—doesn't seem hypocritical to me.

 

[1]So you're saying that murder is less bad than, say, seeing someone commit suicide and not calling 911. [2]Although the fetus has a right to not be directly killed, it does not have the absolute right to be the woman's body.

 

[3]When I say "direct" and "indirect", I'm giving them scientific definitions. Indirect support is any type of support which does not directly connect the two bodies. So spoonfeeding a baby is still considered indirect support, althought it might be direct in non-scientific terms. [4]Spoonfeeding the child, in this case, brings food to the child's mouth, which in turn nourishes him/her. Therefore it is "indirect".

[...] [5]Just in the same way that religion doesn't really pinpoint when a baby becomes a living human being.

 

[...] [6]I believe your tactic is to try to delay the abortion as much as possible so that the mother will be sick of waiting and decide to cancel the decision. This method is even morally lower than carrying out an abortion without verification of the mother's situation, because it involves trying to hurt the mother so that the baby can survive.

[1]Only if the latter could have been prevented. But you're placing emphasis on "if not worse than."

[2]I would agree if the fetus asked to be the mother's body. However, the fetus is its own body.

[3]The "scientific" defintions you give "direct" and "indirect" basically come down to two things: physically and literally—both of which are also included in their ("direct" and "indirect") non-scientific definition. So is it really a scientific definition?

[4]Your original statement involved breastfeeding not spoonfeeding. But including spoonfeeding, after mentioning what i did in number 3, it is no longer "in this case."

[5]However, i don't believe i have been using any mainstream religious beliefs for my reasons, as abortion was not an option back then. But does it have to be considered human in order to be considered a living thing? Is it considered so insignificant that it is not living to others?

[6]The scenario i gave does not involve a case of rape nor a parent who chose abortion. But how does such hurt the mother?

 

[1]But does the mother have to do this? No; you could make the father do it. [2]However, the woman still suffers for nine months, knowing that she's carrying a bit of the rapist inside of her. Don't you think that's just a little too much torment already?

 

[3]You'd be surprised. When kids find out they're adopted, they usually go and cry in a corner or something. I mean, come on. It's bad enough that your parents shun you. Some of these kids start to wish they were never born, which would be the case with abortion. [...]

[1]By implying that the father is present, that means that if the father was the rapist, then he is being taken care of.

[2]After implying that the father is present, for your own sake i will consider the same scenario except without a father: Not if she believes she's doing the right thing.

[3]That doesn't mean self-esteem is not freely gainable.

 

[...] [1]You're saying that the mother can die as long as the fetus is born into a baby? Don't you think that's taking the "responsibility" to carry the baby to term a bit too seriously?

 

[2]In any case, the multiple-doctor scenario that you bring up, according to Wikipedia, was actually the case between 1967 and 1989. Between 1892 and 1967, abortion and even contraception were actually completely illegal.

Because the three-doctor committee scneario didn't work out too well, since it provided for too many flaws, considering that there was only one chain that had a lot of links, and one decision by a doctor could turn down the abortion entirely. In 1989, Canada completely gave up trying to legislate on abortion because the Senate turned down a penalty of 2 years in jail for any doctor who performed an abortion that was not under risk of death of the mother.

[1]Although i can see where you got that impliciation, i just find it hard to believe that the mother would die from a natural birth (now-a-days). So, no, i don't think that's taking it too seriously.

[2]They dropped it 'cause their previous establishment was not well thought out. In my statement i did not include any outside groups or facilities, nor did i say the amount of doctors involved should be no less than three. A third doctor should be involved if the two making the decision can't mutually agree.

[hr=noshade] [/hr]

People are constantly saying that if people are having sex they have to accept the responsibility of having a kid. [1]However, people don't and you, me, nor anyone else can change that. [...] [2]Given the fact that kids are sexually mature at the age of fourteen, they aren't ready to accept that responsibility. [3]The first step is helping kids be aware of safe sex alternatives as well as contraception methods. [...] [4]To say that everything deserves a chance to live, you have obviously never heard a meth baby cry. My mom has been a social worker for a large portion of my life and her stories as well as me visiting her or simply hearing the babies crying on the phone makes you sick. [5]Saying that all life is precious isn't fair when you consider how much pain this baby is probably in, or how many women would have their lives ruined without the option of abortion. [6]It shouldn't be and isn't a common way to prevent an unwanted situations, but it most certainly should be available as a last resort.

 

[7]I don't care if the child deserves a right to live, the child isn't even self aware until the third trimester. [8]You kill cells on your hand by accidentally scraping your finger against a wall, isn't that the same thing? [9]What separates the two? [...] [10]why does it matter if this human being is the product of violence and terror. [11]Think of the mother, you're going to force her to have the kid of a man who raped her in order to fit your ideals? [12]Conservatism doesn't make sense sometimes >_<

[1]Only if you keep saying that and not act otherwise.

[2]Then they should have never acted. This is why self-control is useful.

[3]That's to promote sexual activity among the youth. It's better to teach self-control and to only mention sex alternatives and contraception methods within the context of marriage after teaching other methods of self-control. However, if one were to teach contraceptives, without self-control, those who are "in the moment" will not choose to use these contraceptives if it requires to put forth what they deem as "unnecessary effort."

[4]This sounds like you'd prefer the child to die just so you can gain some peace.

[5]For the former, babies cry for a lot of reasons, but how can you determine it's in pain? Let alone, in the womb? For the latter, do you really need to be educated to realize the side effects of their actions?

[6]True.

[7]Not being aware of itself doesn't make it any less alive.

[8]No.

[9]Size, development, potential, separation, etc.

[10]Isn't that our reasoning?

[11]Yeah, think of the mother, you're going to let her agree to an unjust, immoral and selfish act, which allows another being to probe around, to fit your ideals?

[12]Seriously.....

[tricky77puzzle 0]

[1]Only if you keep saying that and not act otherwise.

[2]Then they should have never acted. This is why self-control is useful.

[3]That's to promote sexual activity among the youth. It's better to teach self-control and to only mention sex alternatives and contraception methods within the context of marriage after teaching other methods of self-control. However, if one were to teach contraceptives, without self-control, those who are "in the moment" will not choose to use these contraceptives if it requires to put forth what they deem as "unnecessary effort."

[4]This sounds like you'd prefer the child to die just so you can gain some peace.

[5]For the former, babies cry for a lot of reasons, but how can you determine it's in pain? Let alone, in the womb? For the latter, do you really need to be educated to realize the side effects of their actions?

[6]True.

[7]Not being aware of itself doesn't make it any less alive.

[8]No.

[9]Size, development, potential, separation, etc.

[10]Isn't that our reasoning?

[11]Yeah, think of the mother, you're going to let her agree to an unjust, immoral and selfish act, which allows another being to probe around, to fit your ideals?

[12]Seriously.....

(Please keep in mind that while I am not personally supportive of abortion, I am pro-choice.)

 

[1]Only if 100,000,000 people in the anti-abortionist movement (pro-life to you) have already acted but have only created bad publicity.

[2]Then they should have lowered their sex drive in another way. Self-control can only go so far.

[3]Abstinence-only. So you're that kind of person. Only the Christian movement really teaches this explicitly; not to mention that only 40% of the world is Christian. It's called teaching both methods at the same time, and to tell children that they should never be coerced into having sex; that abstinence is a right that needs to be exercised; not a responsibility that must be enforced.

[4]Putting emphasis on "sounds": It sounds more like he'd (she'd?) rather let the child die so that both can gain some peace: one on Earth, the other near God or in the grave.

[5]Babies cry for a lot of reasons, but if you suspect something's wrong, or it's crying in a different way, you might want to take it to the doctor to see if it's in pain. For the latter, yes, you do need to be educated. You can't just say abortion is wrong because it hurts the mother as well as "killing" the baby before it's born. You need to know why.

[6]It seems more to me that you want abortion to be completely illegalized except if the fetus would die anyway. Correct me if I'm wrong, but how do you know that the fetus (or the mother) will die? Would it not be more (religiously) prudent to completely illegalize abortion, and in these rare caes, pray for the best?

[7]I beg to differ, at least on how this affects the abortion argument. If the fetus does not have self-awareness, then it will not know that it was even alive. Some adults vegetate as well. You ever heard of Terri Schiavo? She was the one who was stuck on a feeding-tube and had it pulled out after a few years. The Bush Administration tried to pass a law against it, but Florida hammered it down because it was unconstitutional.

[8]Well, actually, I agree. But this is irrelevant.

[9]Also irrelevant.

[10]I think he (she?) means, "If you're going to tell me that this fetus has the potential to be a human being, then why does it matter whether the baby was a product of violence and terror? Shouldn't everyone have the same rights to the same situation?" (my own parts in dark red)

[11]Who said that the rapist was given any relief? As well, you're begging the question. We haven't established whether the act was immoral, unjust, or selfish. And he's (she's?) not fitting only his (her?) ideals, but the ideals of a few billions of people, just like you're trying to do.

[12]Yes, seriously. Conservatism doesn't make sense most of the time, actually. (Yes, I'm turning this light-hearted comment into a serious argument.)

 

Read the edit on my previous post as an additional argument to number 2.

[salamangkero 0]

I think abortion is not fundamentally wrong, which does not necessarily mean I also encourage it. In my opinion, abortion should be the last option ever considered by any rational (and practical) person not overcome by his or her philosophies, the consensus of the society or myth/religion.

 

For instance, if a couple undertaking consensual sexual intercourse took contraceptive measures to a sufficiently sane degree, I have no doubt that abortion is, quite possibly, the only way to, pardon my words, "clean up the mess"

 

Some would ask, "How about adoption?" This would mean carrying the baby to term. What if it was not in the context of a marriage? What alibi is the woman to provide when prodded with questions about her rapidly swelling beer belly? Suppose, too, the two are married, however, they are unable to provide financial support to the monster she is nurturing within her. Are they to be blamed, despite having used condoms and pills?

 

I would also like to ask, what of therapeutic abortion, that is, an abortion that is meant to save the mother? If the delivery of the baby is deemed dangerous, would you rather have both of them die by taking the passive stance of non-abortion? Would it not be more sensible to save at least the mother?

 

I've also read a novel that deals with therapeutic abortion. A surgeon asked his friend, the governor, "Would you rather I sent them away, to die at the hands of an amateur scraper, damaged and scarred beyond repair for life over an abortion they would have had anyway?" Indeed, I am also thinking, would you rather have the child die of starvation, dehydration, malaria, cholera, tuberculosis or malnutrition? In times of war, would you really, sincerely want to bring your child into such a dreadful world, only to grow up, running, fleeing in mortal fear? What parent would want his or her child to experience humiliation and jeers amongst its peers simply because the poor kid cannot count, has crossed eyes, thinks differently, cannot be separated from his pillow or just simply looks at you the wrong way?

 

A lot of people argue that legalizing abortion, along with the promotion of condoms and other contraceptives, will only incite other people to engage in pre-marital sex, which is wrong, evil and perfectly damnable! Oh good Lord, the horror! Look at it this way, I know we have surgeons in here, hospitals within ten minutes of each other, band aids, gauze, helmets, arm pads, knee pads and the like. Do you see me doing extreme skating? Oh, wait, there is a safety net! Is that good enough reason for me to throw away my life and engage in dangerous activity?

 

I don't think the problem lies in contraceptives or abortion, rather, we need to educate the people first. Majority of those with unwanted pregnancies are not the type who wear condoms, pop pills, use IUD's, diaphragms or spermicidal creams, no. Most of these people are poor families of farmers with not much entertainment in their huts at night, being out of reach of electricity to power their TV's. These are families bound by machismo, whose fathers are stuck in the thinking that condom lessens one's "manhood". Yarr! By gods, I shall have fifty children if I want to, for it is proof of my virility! Arrgh!

 

Maybe you'd want to see this comic, that says something about f*c<!ng like bunnies.

 

Oh, and another thing. If God, or whoever else is up there, meant sex to be solely for pro-creation, then why is it so )@mn pleasurable? No, seriously, anyone who says sex for pleasure is wrong is simply someone who wants something to lord over others. "I'm not getting laid not because the chicks don't dig me, it's my choice! I have self-control! Ha! Feed on that! I'm a better person that you!" Good grief! I'm being overly-critical here but I'd definitely group those people with those promoting soulful goods in an afterlife that may never come over practical needs in a present that is real and, more often than not, painful.

 

Oh by the way, don't get me started on rape. Anyone who thinks even a rape victim should carry her child to term, deliver it and nurture it into a living reminder of her violation can call me up and we could arrange a little... meeting, heheh.

 

Just kidding, of course