Abortions

[tricky77puzzle 0]

Of course abortion should be a last option. But sometimes it is the only option.

 

I wouldn't advise anyone get an abortion, if it were up to me, but I'd say that it is an option.

 

Really, it all boils down to which is more important: the mother's right to her own body, or the "right" for the fetus to use the mother's body to reach full development. I'd say the former is.

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

[thorne 0]

Yikes...what a sticky issue!I definitely see abortion as one of those case-by-case things; that you cannot label is bad or good unless you are judging it in context. People who sleep around carelessly and then just go have abortions to undo their behavior: this I don't agree with. But a woman who is not financially, emotionally, or physically able to carry, give birth to, and raise a child, who knows this and takes precautions but still finds herself pregnant, should be allowed the option to abort it if that's really what she believes is best. It's not fair to the child to say "you have to live in a world where you won't be wanted," and it's not fair to the mother to force her into such a dramatically altered life.Everyone has their own vision of whether abortion is ethical or not, and I think everyone is, of course, entitled to their opinion. It's not "wrong" or "bad" to believe one way or the other if you can thoroughly justify it in a way that lines up with your beliefs. What is wrong, however, is to force your beliefs on other people who may not agree with you. This is the problem that I have with many of the "pro-life" people. If you think abortion is wrong, fine. But that doesn't mean that you have the right to tell another woman, who feels she needs an abortion, that she cannot have one. In most cases, when you try to force your beliefs on others, it's accepted as inappropriate and out of line. I don't see why abortion would be any different; yes, it's controversial, but I still think the option should always remain open. Whether you think abortion is ethical or not will govern YOUR choice, should you need to make it, of whether to have one or not.

[baphometslayer 0]

I think it's wrong when people try to control other people's lives.Here's a new concept that people need to accept; Mind your own damn business. If you think abortions are so damn wrong then I have a solution for you. Don't have one, it's that simple. I don't believe in abortions either, and thusly I will never be involved in one. But Miss Betty Sue down the street, she can do whatever the hell she wants with her body. It isn't my business, your business, or the government business. Why can't people accept that?

[tricky77puzzle 0]

I think it's wrong when people try to control other people's lives.Here's a new concept that people need to accept; Mind your own damn business. If you think abortions are so damn wrong then I have a solution for you. Don't have one, it's that simple.

I don't believe in abortions either, and thusly I will never be involved in one. But Miss Betty Sue down the street, she can do whatever the hell she wants with her body. It isn't my business, your business, or the government business. Why can't people accept that?

Exactly what I'm thinking. If she wants an abortion, why not let her?

And don't try to equate it to seeing someone planning to murder someone and not calling 911. It's her body, not someone else's, that she's controlling.

[truefusion 3]

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

M'k.

 

[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. [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?]

[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.

[...]

[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.

[...]

[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.)

[1]Although it's bound to be marked as "bad publicity" by pro-choicers, i won't do away with the possibility regardless. However, in order to create bad publicity, there would have to have been some form of previous action.

[2]Self-control only fails when the person wishes to act outside of self-control. I'm mostly against masturbation when the giver is the receiver and because of the effects it has on relationships of any kind because of it and of the thoughts that might go through a person's mind when doing it to themselves; it's a bad habit to pick up personally. I would lower my sex drive by doing either more productive things (e.g. exercising) or more time consuming things (e.g. playing video games). Rational thought may also come into play; you'd be surprised on how by just pausing to think can prevent many from doing something. But then again, i'm an INTj; however, the methods i provided can work for anyone.

[3]Although one doesn't have to be a Christian to promote basic (religious) principles (which you'd find else where), i promote what i find to be useful, even if it's found in other religions or areas. And in order for me to label something "useful", it first has to go through some kind of analysis. But, yes, it is called teaching both methods at the same time.

[6]For the first question: I think you're emphasizing on the fact that no one can be 100% certain. But wouldn't you say the certainty increases when you bring more people in for examination? That's why i said one doctor should not be enough to make the decision. However, i can state without a doubt that the fetus will die in the case of abortion. For the latter: You can pray regardless of what laws are in place. But in order to properly answer your question, i would have to research what were all the recorded causes of the mother dying due to the child and their occurences. For if not one were to show that the child took the mother's life without any outside interference, then yes, make abortion completely illegal.

[7]Your statement concerning the fetus implies that it is up to the fetus to decide whether it is alive or not; that is, within context of my statement. But you did not say anything that would convince me to think otherwise. You begging to differ means that you believe an unconscious person is dead. And yes, i have heard of her, but she was an already born person; but i would have decided in favor of her parents.

[10]Humm.. That doesn't make me see it any differently. Sorry.

[11]Who said all abortions are because of rape victims? Also, i don't see how you came up with that question concerning my response for number 11. You've must've been reading a more previous part of one of my posts. But you may attempt to prove to me that abortion isn't immoral, unjust and selfish, if you want.

[12]I meant to imply with my statement that he too is a conservatist, given its definition, so even if it is true what he said, i just find it weird that he would speak in a manner that sounds like he's speaking against himself.

 

It's her body, not someone else's, that she's controlling.

You do realize that the analogy you posted in the beginning of this topic deals with two separate bodies, of which you equated the unborn child to the violinist, right?

[Joshua 0]

Alright, this topic really gets to me, so prepare for a long, long rant.

I believe in a woman's right to choose, just as I support anyone's right to choose - just not to choose to harm others. Yeah it's a woman's body. So if she wants to use that body to go over and punch you in the face that's alright, right? It is her body you know. If she wants to walk around town naked it's her body, right?

The whole "it's her body" argument falls flat on its face. Obviously a person's "rights" and "freedoms" should stop when they infringe upon the rights and freedoms of others. Your "right" to throw a punch should stop where the other person's nose begins. The right to hit others or abort them infringes upon a person's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The right to public immodesty infringes upon a person's rights to not be visually or physically assaulted.

If a woman has the right to kill her children, I guess you'd better try to stay on your mom's good side, huh?

Some will say a baby is less human when in the womb, although from what I've heard Planned Parenthood abandoned that argument years ago. However, abortionists do not only defend the killing of unborn children, but live ones as well.

There is a practice called Partial Birth Abortion, or late term abortion. Children sometimes survived these late term abortions with the same effect as if being prematurely born, and if cared for could live to be normal adults. However, under the law, it was legal for these children to be left to starve to death in back rooms of hospitals, AFTER BEING BORN.

Nurse Jill Stanek famously testified in Congress about this horrible practice, and confronted Illinois Senator Barack Obama specifically on his notorious support for this abominable evil. Obama has consistently voted against bills to ban Partial Birth Abortion, but despite his best efforts a bill passed in 2003. However, thanks to furious opposition from the Pro-Choice movement, the courts refused to uphold it until this past year.

Obama also opposed efforts to stop those transporting minors across state lines for abortions without notifying the parents involved. So kids can't get drive without their parents permission but they can end a life inside of them without their parents' consent?

http://humanevents.com/2006/12/26/obama-more-prochoice-than-naral/

I've heard some defend abortion on grounds that women will just have coat-hanger abortions if abortion is made illegal and then end up killing themselves. My response is that it is their own fault for seeking to take another's life to avoid the consequences of their actions.

In doing so, I am not arguing for them to face the consequences of their actions or be punished, I want better education so women realize adoption is a better alternative and that such illegal methods are very dangerous. I am not arguing for women to suffer the consequences of their actions, but for them to not be able to end the lives of others to avoid said consequences.

It's like if a mother walks in the room and demands I kill her 10 year old daughter or else she'll jump out the window. Well, 2 wrongs don't make a right. If I do a wrong to keep her from doing a wrong to herself, it still takes a life and just makes me wrong as well. It multiplies wrongs so that even more people are in the wrong.

If she chooses to kill herself, that's her own fault but at least then she doesn't make others pay for her lifestyle choices (in both cases, including the hypothetical one). Again, I'm not making that choice because I want to see her die, I'm making that choice because I don't want her to kill someone else.

Some argue in favor of abortion because of poverty and women not being able to support their children. Well, adoption is an alternative. The problem then is poverty, and that needs to be fixed, but killing people is not the answer. Otherwise, you're arguing that we should send cops into poor neighborhoods to gun down all the poor people. Obviously that would be immoral, but it's the same argument in both cases.

Some argue in favor of abortion based on cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger. Well, even before Roe v. Wade (the legalization of abortion), abortions WERE allowed by many states in such rare circumstances. Therefore, those are non-issues, and so rare as to be bad support for abortions as a whole.

I will, however, say this: when a mother's life is in danger from a pregnancy, it is her life in danger as well as the child's, so that is the one case where I wholeheartedly agree that she should be given a choice to abort. That is the only time equal freedoms to life are at stake. To refuse her the choice to abort would be to infringe upon her right to life, just as the baby's right to life is at stake, so only then do I see it necessary for abortion to be an option.

Also, I have a sneaking suspicion that many of those telling people criticizing abortion to "mind their own business" fit into one of the following categories:

A - Performed an abortion.
B - Had an abortion.
C - Active member of the Pro-Abortion movement.
D - Guy sleeping around so women have abortions.

Edited March 6, 2008 by Joshua (see edit history)

[tricky77puzzle 0]

I believe in a woman's right to choose, just as I support anyone's right to choose - just not to choose to harm others. Yeah it's a woman's body. So if she wants to use that body to go over and punch you in the face that's alright, right? It is her body you know. If she wants to walk around town naked it's her body, right?

Well, it's her body that she's ridding the fetus of... the fetus itself isn't affected directly; only its support is cut off. Take the analogy of the violinist that I posted on page 2. Even if you do choose to hook yourself up, it's not like you've made a commitment. It's just like the Terri Schiavo case. You ever heard of that? They pulled out her feeding tube because she was hooked up to it for 10 years and didn't show any improvement.

 

There are such things as "wrongful euthanasia" and "wrongful abortion" where a decision was made on faulty information. I think you're seeking to prevent those.

 

If the woman wants to walk around town naked, well... that IS her choice, actually. It's just that people won't really care (save the odd person who goes strolling around with a -year-old beside him); otherwise they'll start wolf-whistling.

 

Yes, I know that partial-birth abortion is bad. I'd illegalize it myself if I were a member of the Senate. But that doesn't mean that other types of abortion aren't justified.

 

In doing so, I am not arguing for them to face the consequences of their actions or be punished, I want better education so women realize adoption is a better alternative and that such illegal methods are very dangerous. I am not arguing for women to suffer the consequences of their actions, but for them to not be able to end the lives of others to avoid said consequences.

First give the education out, and then take steps to illegalize it. You're not going to get a lot of followers if you do it the other way around. And please don't give me the "I don't care; it's the law and they have to follow it no matter what" argument. I'm pretty sure you'll be pretty unpopular with mothers who are deciding to abort.

 

Prevention is better than force.

Edited March 7, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[Joshua 0]

Well, it's her body that she's ridding the fetus of... the fetus itself isn't affected directly; only its support is cut off. Take the analogy of the violinist that I posted on page 2. Even if you do choose to hook yourself up, it's not like you've made a commitment. It's just like the Terri Schiavo case. You ever heard of that? They pulled out her feeding tube because she was hooked up to it for 10 years and didn't show any improvement.

Umm, the whole idea of abortion is ripping out the baby's brains with a hook or cutting off the head with giant scissors. That's what I'd call being "affected directly"... It's not a matter of cutting off the baby's support, it's often a matter of cutting off the baby's head. If the baby were simply delivered without its support it could live afterwards, and some when given the chance have.

 

There are such things as "wrongful euthanasia" and "wrongful abortion" where a decision was made on faulty information. I think you're seeking to prevent those.

True, but I happen to think all abortions are wrongful ones and that regardless of whether someone's information is faulty, they shouldn't be able to kill others.

 

If the woman wants to walk around town naked, well... that IS her choice, actually. It's just that people won't really care (save the odd person who goes strolling around with a -year-old beside him); otherwise they'll start wolf-whistling.

There are laws against that you know. Parents do care about what their children are subjected to. Maybe the younger, more immature Americans might react that way but I'd hardly say the ones who don't would be the odd ones out. Our society's not that crazy yet.

 

Yes, I know that partial-birth abortion is bad. I'd illegalize it myself if I were a member of the Senate. But that doesn't mean that other types of abortion aren't justified.

 

But the fact that the abortion movement supports the practice so wholeheartedly should make one question the morality of their movement.

 

First give the education out, and then take steps to illegalize it. You're not going to get a lot of followers if you do it the other way around. And please don't give me the "I don't care; it's the law and they have to follow it no matter what" argument. I'm pretty sure you'll be pretty unpopular with mothers who are deciding to abort.

 

Prevention is better than force.

"What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." -Hippoparchus

 

I see it as unmistakeably wrong that human beings kill one another to cover up their sinful lifestyles and avoid the consequences such lifestyles bring. To save lives I may have to go against what is popular, and that's fine with me.

 

Abraham Lincoln didn't try educating all the slaveholders until everyone agreed slavery was wrong. He passed laws against slavery as soon as possible. Sure, education is a good thing, but you have to do what you can to stop present evil from occurring - everyone agreeing on everything is simply not going to happen.

Edited March 7, 2008 by Joshua (see edit history)

[salamangkero 0]

I see it as unmistakably wrong that human beings kill one another to cover up their sinful lifestyles and avoid the consequences such lifestyles bring. To save lives I may have to go against what is popular, and that's fine with me.

Consider this scenario: There was once a low-profile commercial model who was gifted with a slim and sexy figure. She's not on a special diet, she's not anorexic, she's not taking pills; the poor girl's just hungry. See, she's the eldest in a brood of nine. She's the sole bread winner (her dad died six months ago) for her ailing mom and her eight sibs: one infant, one toddler, two in grade school, two in high school and two in college. Her earnings are just enough for two meals a day and school fees.

All of a sudden, as she was going home one dark and rainy night, she was pulled into a dark alley and forced to inhale some chloroform. When she came to, she was in a sling and gang-banged by seven lusty men. They gave her something to sleep and when she woke up, the cocks were crowing (pardon the pun, will yah? And get yer minds outta the gutter while you're at it) and she was lying on the cold floor of an empty warehouse. It was 4AM and she manages to get back home without further incident.

She filed a report at the local police station in the soonest possible time but, for some mundane and perfectly normal reason, the seven rapists have managed to evade our less than perfect laws and our even less competent police force. She'd rather have fallen into depression but she has ten mouths to feed.

Within a month, she begins feeling nauseous and has cravings for food well beyond her budget. She feels heavy and, each morning, vomits uncontrollably. Consulting a doctor, she received a pleasant surprise from a cheerful, sunny nurse that she is soon going to be a mother to two bouncing baby boys! Wow, let's celebrate, huh? Isn't that nice?

What is she to do now?
1. Continue with her pregnancy. Get someone to adopt her kids but just continue with her term. Obviously, she cannot catwalk down the ramp, not with baby John and Joe kicking in her tummy so she has to pull out support from:
a. Her mom. The old hag's gonna die anyway.
b. Her college sibs. They can start flippin' burgers and rake some money in.
c. Her grade school or high school sibs. When her college sibs graduate, they can continue with their studies.
d. Her infant or toddler sib. What the heck, more babies? Will you two please go away?
2. Abort the babies. But no! Abortion is not the solution now, is it? A certain someone sees abortion as unmistakably wrong, that's for sure!
a. How awful! It certainly is her sinful lifestyle, huh? It is her choice to get raped, huh? If she didn't catwalk down the runway, her mom would have died and her sibs would have been ignorant illiterate idiots but, at least, she wouldn't have been raped, huh?
b. It's her fault for having eight sibs, huh? She could have advised her mom to get an abortion but did she? Oh, what am I thinking?!? She could have just barged in right when her mom and dad were "making babies" and yelled "STOP!" right? While she was sleeping, yes.
c. She's to blame for getting preggers! We all know that human females have the ability to spray spermicidal acid from their genitals in times of severe coercion. Why, y'know what, it's her fault for not fighting back! Seven men, bah! Xena would never get raped, that's for sure.

Okay, what now?

By the way, have you ever heard of therapeutic abortions? Oh, then again, I suppose you're the type of person who'd see it as "unmistakably" wrong. Better that both mother and child die of German Measles' complications than for a surgeon to actively kill the baby, right?

[Coolguy 0]

Well abortion should be carried out only if both the parents come to a join decision that they are not read to accept the responsibility of having a child yet..Which they should have thought of before having sex ...Well but if even one of them dont agree then I think they should should sit down and think and sort out the differences...Fighting during such a crucial situation is not what elders are expected to do...I think they should act more mature and do as I mentioned above..That's the only thing I can suggest in cases of abortion

[Joshua 0]

Consider this scenario: There was once a low-profile commercial model who was gifted with a slim and sexy figure. She's not on a special diet, she's not anorexic, she's not taking pills; the poor girl's just hungry. See, she's the eldest in a brood of nine. She's the sole bread winner (her dad died six months ago) for her ailing mom and her eight sibs: one infant, one toddler, two in grade school, two in high school and two in college. Her earnings are just enough for two meals a day and school fees.
All of a sudden, as she was going home one dark and rainy night, she was pulled into a dark alley and forced to inhale some chloroform. When she came to, she was in a sling and gang-banged by seven lusty men. They gave her something to sleep and when she woke up, the cocks were crowing (pardon the pun, will yah? And get yer minds outta the gutter while you're at it) and she was lying on the cold floor of an empty warehouse. It was 4AM and she manages to get back home without further incident.

She filed a report at the local police station in the soonest possible time but, for some mundane and perfectly normal reason, the seven rapists have managed to evade our less than perfect laws and our even less competent police force. She'd rather have fallen into depression but she has ten mouths to feed.

Within a month, she begins feeling nauseous and has cravings for food well beyond her budget. She feels heavy and, each morning, vomits uncontrollably. Consulting a doctor, she received a pleasant surprise from a cheerful, sunny nurse that she is soon going to be a mother to two bouncing baby boys! Wow, let's celebrate, huh? Isn't that nice?

What is she to do now?
1. Continue with her pregnancy. Get someone to adopt her kids but just continue with her term. Obviously, she cannot catwalk down the ramp, not with baby John and Joe kicking in her tummy so she has to pull out support from:
a. Her mom. The old hag's gonna die anyway.
b. Her college sibs. They can start flippin' burgers and rake some money in.
c. Her grade school or high school sibs. When her college sibs graduate, they can continue with their studies.
d. Her infant or toddler sib. What the heck, more babies? Will you two please go away?
2. Abort the babies. But no! Abortion is not the solution now, is it? A certain someone sees abortion as unmistakably wrong, that's for sure!
a. How awful! It certainly is her sinful lifestyle, huh? It is her choice to get raped, huh? If she didn't catwalk down the runway, her mom would have died and her sibs would have been ignorant illiterate idiots but, at least, she wouldn't have been raped, huh?
b. It's her fault for having eight sibs, huh? She could have advised her mom to get an abortion but did she? Oh, what am I thinking?!? She could have just barged in right when her mom and dad were "making babies" and yelled "STOP!" right? While she was sleeping, yes.
c. She's to blame for getting preggers! We all know that human females have the ability to spray spermicidal acid from their genitals in times of severe coercion. Why, y'know what, it's her fault for not fighting back! Seven men, bah! Xena would never get raped, that's for sure.

Okay, what now?

By the way, have you ever heard of therapeutic abortions? Oh, then again, I suppose you're the type of person who'd see it as "unmistakably" wrong. Better that both mother and child die of German Measles' complications than for a surgeon to actively kill the baby, right?

I suppose you never read my first post. Abortions were allowed in the case of rape or the mother's life being in danger even before Roe v. Wade. But personally, I don't see why the baby should deserve to die because of what the dad did. Why does abortion rather than adoption have to be the answer?

Furthermore, as I stated in the first post, cases of rape or the mother's life being in danger are very rare and hardly fit any sizable percentage of abortion cases. The large majority of abortions are the result of women who want to avoid the consequences of a sexually promiscuous lifestyle.

But, let me turn this around on you: You want to focus solely on these very rare cases. Alright. Well then, would you be alright with abortions only being allowed in the rare cases where rape has occurred or the mother's life is in danger?

[tricky77puzzle 0]

Umm, the whole idea of abortion is ripping out the baby's brains with a hook or cutting off the head with giant scissors. That's what I'd call being "affected directly"... It's not a matter of cutting off the baby's support, it's often a matter of cutting off the baby's head. If the baby were simply delivered without its support it could live afterwards, and some when given the chance have.

I believe you are referring to partial-birth abortion, which I am also against myself. Not all types of abortion are like that. In fact, this type of abortion accounts for 0.17% flat of all abortions in the US. What kind of world do you live in... a world where partial-birth abortion is the only type practiced? You are seriously miseducated, my friend.

 

True, but I happen to think all abortions are wrongful ones and that regardless of whether someone's information is faulty, they shouldn't be able to kill others.

That's your opinion. Your opinion is not fact. It may be moreally right, but what is moral is not always just, and what is just is not always moral. (Just like your quote from Hippoparchus [Hipparchus?]. Not everything is mutually inclusive.)

 

There are laws against that you know. Parents do care about what their children are subjected to. Maybe the younger, more immature Americans might react that way but I'd hardly say the ones who don't would be the odd ones out. Our society's not that crazy yet.

But I'm not pro-abortion, per se, I'm pro-choice. Although no one would ever do that thing about running around naked, they will have that choice.

 

But the fact that the abortion movement supports the practice so wholeheartedly should make one question the morality of their movement.

A lot of people who are in the abortion movement are solely pro-choice, and would never have an abortion themselves.

 

"What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." -Hippoparchus

 

I see it as unmistakeably wrong that human beings kill one another to cover up their sinful lifestyles and avoid the consequences such lifestyles bring. To save lives I may have to go against what is popular, and that's fine with me.

 

Abraham Lincoln didn't try educating all the slaveholders until everyone agreed slavery was wrong. He passed laws against slavery as soon as possible. Sure, education is a good thing, but you have to do what you can to stop present evil from occurring - everyone agreeing on everything is simply not going to happen.

Did I say everyone? I only said to provide the education. If they don't accept it, fine, it's their problem. Bring it down on them as hard as you like, but give them the information first.

 

(Huh. The issue was resolved. Never mind.)

Edited March 21, 2008 by tricky77puzzle (see edit history)

[iGuest 3]

Breastfeeding is still bodily life support, in the sense that bone marrow donation is. Lactating women must eat even more calories. In fact, nine months of breastfeeding would be at least as burdensome as bone marrow donation. Only acknowledging the moral relevance of the intrinsic ordered-ness of the woman's body towards reproduction, pregnancy, and breastfeeding can allow the two to be distinguished.No, that does not mean she must get pregnant, but that choosing to engage in sex (designed for reproduction, which is why it is pleasurable) has consequences. It is designed to produce needy beings and one who engages in it must fulfill the sustenance obligations. -reply by Mike

[OHFIENA 0]

I agree with you.Abortion is wrong.The baby is so innocent.Why must you kill them?If you're not ready to be mother,Then why bother doing such thing.Then why must you punish an innocent soul for you and your partner's mistake.I find it horribly atrocious.I love babies,They are so adorable.And I don't understand why they want to end such adorable life of theirs.It's totally inhumane.

[innosia 1]

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.)

Hmm i dont know but i think abortions is rather convenient, like when someone is raped and she is pregnant, i dont think she should bring the burden in her whole life, dont you think so? I think abortions is needed so she can forget about what had happened and continue her life normally.

And also, like my country, which is a poor country, many people cannot afford to have more children so if they are not careful they can just abort the child, and its rather good.

But if the abortions is used as an excuse for freesex, i am pretty disagree about it.