Abortion

[Nicksfix]

You'd rather them raise, or that might be too strong of a word, a child? I think an abortion is far more civil then years of neglect.

Put it up for adoption

 

[Joey D]

Put it up for adoption

Ya, let me know how that goes.

 

[Public'sTwin]

Especially if you're a dude.

Fixed.

 

[Nicksfix]

Ya, let me know how that goes.

Plenty of people out there willing to adopt.People who cannot concieve,or whatever.Their only choice is adoption.So yeah,It goes well.

 

[Public'sTwin]

So yeah,It goes well.

Ha!

This is all besides the point, though. Who are we to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies?

ONLY , if she can prove somehow that she was raped,molested,whatever the cause may be. The other would be,if the mothers life is in danger while pregnant.

If it is just plain outright legal for all , then No.Whats to stop the hussies,ho-bags,careless women from going out and getting knocked up,and then taking the attitude thats it's ok to abort ?

Great to know that being a victim and a morally up-standing person is your prerequisite. . .

 

[Sam48]

Who are we to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies?

It's not a question of what woman are aloud to do with their bodies, but a question of human rights. The mother may be keeping the child alive, but aborting the child is against human rights, or common law. It's no different from a person on life support. If someone is being kept alive by a machine, and can't speak, walk, and has lost all coordination, should he be killed by means of being cut off from the machine that keeps him alive? No.

 

[Joel]

Personally, I don't like abortions. If I were to get a girl pregnant, I would hate to see the child aborted. But do I think abortions should be illegal? No.



Who am I, as a man (ok, ok, a boy), to tell a woman what she can't do to her body? When you take away the "aww it's a cute baby" factor, what is a fetus? Nothing more than a parasite that sucks nutrients away from a woman, and lowers her quality of life for nine months.


To address the "hobags" argument, I know it sounds heartless, but why shouldn't they be able to get abortions? This is the problem with making laws based on emotional feelings. You have to detach your "heart" from the issue. Like I said, in my "heart", I think abortion is wrong. But in my "mind", I know I have no right to make that decision for another person, especially one of the opposite sex.


Let people make their own choice. To quote Public's Twin, "If you don't like abortions, don't get one."

 

[Public'sTwin]

It's not a question of what woman are aloud to do with their bodies, but a question of human rights.

Which, as defined by The Hague and numerous other member parties, fetuses are not subject to. One has to formally exist to enjoy those rights.

The mother may be keeping the child alive, but aborting the child is against human rights, or common law.

No, it's not. Certainly not in the majority of First-world nations, anyway.

It's no different from a person on life support. If someone is being kept alive by a machine, and can't speak, walk, and has lost all coordination, should he be killed by means of being cut off from the machine that keeps him alive? No.

Actually it's a fundamentally opposite philosohpical consideration; where they are typically at the end of a life—one now mired in pain, isolation, or indignity—a fetus' has yet to even begin. Moral quandaries aside, legal precedent has already been made in cases regarding "mercy killing", and it's been a de facto method of assisted suicide for millenia. Similarly, abortion too, is nothing new and has not stopped our race from proliferating at an extremely fast—and in some places, dangerous—rate. Yet, where one opposes abortion, they support sterilization. Fancy that.

 

[LizMcQueen]

I think a woman has the right to an abortion, ONLY , if she can prove somehow that she was raped,molested,whatever the cause may be. The other would be,if the mothers life is in danger while pregnant.

That is to say if she doesn't have evidence, she must to have the child, right? and worst if she is raped you say "may be".

Personally, I don't like abortions. If I were to get a girl pregnant, I would hate to see the child aborted.

Maybe if you were a pregnant teenager would think otherwise.

Teen pregnancies is another reason, do you see it justified in this case? (this question is for everyone).

After this thread fusion, I need read what was written four years ago.

 

[Sam48]

Which, as defined by The Hague and numerous other member parties, fetuses are not subject to. One has to formally exist to enjoy those rights.

But it wasn't the pre- born child's choice to have him/her self aborted, so that child won't even get a fair shot at enjoying those rights simply because it wasn't born.

 

[DK]

I live in Ireland where it is illegal to get an abortion, even in Northern Ireland. However it doesn't stop c.7,000 women every year from getting a flight/ferry crossing over to England where abortions are legal. Personally, since I'm a male, I should leave the women to debate this issue. But I just want to give my opinion. I think people should be given the choice whether to have an abortion or not. Although I was raised a Catholic, I don't pay much attention to my faith. It's why I got 50% in a religion test a few months ago. When it comes to issues like these I'd like to leave whatever little faith I have left behind when deciding whether to choose Option A or Option B on a ballot paper.

 

[TheCracker]

But it wasn't the pre- born child's choice to have him/her self aborted, so that child won't even get a fair shot at enjoying those rights simply because it wasn't born.

Whilst it's still part of the women's body it's totally the women's choice of what to do with it. It doesn't become a person with rights until it's born or is able to survive on it's own without direct connection with it's 'host'.

 

[Famine]

I think a woman has the right to an abortion, ONLY , if she can prove somehow that she was raped,molested,whatever the cause may be. The other would be,if the mothers life is in danger while pregnant.

The mother's life is always in danger while pregnant. It's an astonishing stress on the body.

If it is just plain outright legal for all , then No.Whats to stop the hussies,ho-bags,careless women from going out and getting knocked up,and then taking the attitude thats it's ok to abort ?

Women who can conceive after undergoing an abortion are the exception rather than the rule.

It's not a question of what woman are aloud to do with their bodies, but a question of human rights. The mother may be keeping the child alive, but aborting the child is against human rights, or common law. It's no different from a person on life support. If someone is being kept alive by a machine, and can't speak, walk, and has lost all coordination, should he be killed by means of being cut off from the machine that keeps him alive? No.

Legally you're alive from the moment your birth certificate says until the moment your death certificate says. So legally a foetus isn't alive and your comparison with a PVS/life support machine is not appropriate.

Medically you're alive from the moment your brain starts functioning until the moment it stops. Since a foetus doesn't have any brain function until the 2nd trimester, it isn't medically alive before then.

Until a foetus can be classed as "alive" it has no human rights - and "common law" has no legislative basis.

 

[LizMcQueen]

I was reading old comments and I see people who are against abortion, they say it's wrong for different reasons, against life, human rights, religion... even they say it's a murder, but also they say that in some cases, as a rape they would understand it. What is the difference? if you think it's a murder, it's a murder in all cases.

 

[Famine]

I was reading old comments and I see people who are against abortion, they say it's wrong for different reasons, against life, human rights, religion... even they say it's a murder, but also they say that in some cases, as a rape they would understand it. What is the difference? if you think it's a murder, it's a murder in all cases.

While I agree to a level, I disagree with your conclusion. After all, killing a man may be murder, but killing a man before he kills you is self-defence...

But I agree that it does seem a bit inconsistent to say "Oh, it's okay to kill a baby* if the woman doesn't want it because it's a result of a crime against her".


*Not my personal choice of phrase

 

[analog]

Abortion should be legal. If you make it illegal you are probably going to end up doing more harm. Women who will do anything to terminate a pregnancy will end up doing "back alley" abortions, which are unsafe and unsanitary for the most part. Women who aren't so keen on back alley practices could very well drink excessively, do drugs, etc to terminate the pregnancy though other means. Women who aren't willing to go that far and end up having an unwanted child could very well neglect him/her making for a bad environment for the child.
Having legal abortions will give women a safe way to terminate their pregnancy by a trained professional in a medical setting.

This, whatever your objection may be abortions will take place whether they're illegal or not or whether you like it or not, making them legal is sensible from a healthcare perspective and setting clear rules of practice.
We don't live in an ideal world and can't just choose an ideal situation, the only thing we can do is try to make a painful situation ( the need to abort for whatever reason ) as safe and morally acceptable ( through clear laws ) as possible.
Just ignoring that it occurs and closing your eyes to the consequences of illegal practice is immoral in my opinion.

If it is just plain outright legal for all , then No.Whats to stop the hussies,ho-bags,careless women from going out and getting knocked up,and then taking the attitude thats it's ok to abort ?

Well, if these careless women have this attitude ( and I really believe they are a very small minority as abortion isn't the same as going to the hairdresser once a week, whatever your viewpoint regarding abortion ) they perhaps aren't going to be suitable mothers in the first place.

 

[daan]

After this thread fusion, I need read what was written four years ago.

Yeah, I merged the threads. Sorry for any confusion.

And now I shall leave the opinions forum as it's not for the likes of me...

 

[squishydk]

Isn't it just in US, and a few old middle-eastern/african countries its illegal overall? It's a stupid question. It's the same thing as discussing if the women have right to decide if they want sex or not. If they want piercings or not. If they want an operation or not that can change their lifes. Its their body - their choice. And don't start that discussion when its a "living person", then you would'nt be allowed to have your period either, or ejaculating outside a woman as a man. Rules work fine in the rest of the world, just a few countries that's a bit behind

 

[Sam48]

Medically you're alive from the moment your brain starts functioning until the moment it stops. Since a foetus doesn't have any brain function until the 2nd trimester, it isn't medically alive before then.

Until a foetus can be classed as "alive" it has no human rights - and "common law" has no legislative basis.

Shall we not get so technical as to say it's just a "being", and that it's not "living" yet.

To put it plain and simple, abortion is the discontinuation of a persons life. I don't care if some don't consider it to be "alive" because it is the taking of another's life. People simply consider it to not be "alive" because they want it to sound less evil or wrong.

 

[Famine]

Shall we not get so technical as to say it's just a "being", and that it's not "living" yet.

To put it plain and simple, abortion is the discontinuation of a persons life. I don't care if some don't consider it to be "alive" because it is the taking of another's life. People simply consider it to not be "alive" because they want it to sound less evil or wrong.

If it's not living, how can it be killed? If it isn't alive, how can life be taken from it? How can it be "discontinuation" of something that hasn't even started yet?

People simply consider it not to be alive because it isn't. If you wish to prove that it is the taking/discontinuation of life, killing or murder you must prove it is alive. Do you have a better handle on what is alive and what is not than law and medicine do?

 

[Public'sTwin]

Shall we not get so technical as to say it's just a "being", and that it's not "living" yet.

To put it plain and simple, abortion is the discontinuation of a persons life. I don't care if some don't consider it to be "alive" because it is the taking of another's life. People simply consider it to not be "alive" because they want it to sound less evil or wrong.

Shall we start using all of your wacky definitions of things to form the bases of our arguments?

 

[Sam48]

If it's not living, how can it be killed? If it isn't alive, how can life be taken from it? How can it be "discontinuation" of something that hasn't even started yet?

People simply consider it not to be alive because it isn't. If you wish to prove that it is the taking/discontinuation of life, killing or murder you must prove it is alive. Do you have a better handle on what is alive and what is not than law and medicine do?

What do you mean? Are you saying it becomes "alive" only after it leaves the mother? Sure it's being kept alive, but that doesn't mean it's not alive, or dead.

 

[Famine]

What do you mean?

The words on the screen are not a convoluted, cryptic crossword clue that requires interpretation. They say exactly what they mean.

Are you saying it becomes "alive" only after it leaves the mother?

That's what the law says - as I in fact stated 10 posts ago. I also said that medical definitions mean no brain activity = no life, and there is no brain activity in a foetus under 12 weeks post-conception.

So for you to demonstrate that abortion is murder, killing, the discontinuation of life or in any way similar to throwing the switch on a life support machine, you must show that medical and legal definitions of "alive" are not correct and that your definition, whatever it may be, is in fact the correct one.

 

[Sam48]

That's what the law says - as I in fact stated 10 posts ago. I also said that medical definitions mean no brain activity = no life, and there is no brain activity in a foetus under 12 weeks post-conception.

So for you to demonstrate that abortion is murder, killing, the discontinuation of life or in any way similar to throwing the switch on a life support machine, you must show that medical and legal definitions of "alive" are not correct and that your definition, whatever it may be, is in fact the correct one.

Then abortion it is the discontinuation of a human in the making.

 

[Famine]

Then abortion it is the discontinuation of a human in the making.

Then it is also not murder or killing - since a "human in the making" has no protection under human rights legislation as it is not human.

 

[Sam48]

Then it is also not murder or killing - since a "human in the making" has no protection under human rights legislation as it is not human.

Would you say it's fair to stop this "human in the making" from becoming a full human. You may not consider it to be alive, but it's going to be a person nonetheless.

 

[dylansan]

Just to add something here, consider that even though it's not alive yet, that it would be in the future unless aborted. I understand this still has no legal basis, but could it be considered taking a life if the life exists somewhere in the future rather than the present?

Edit: Astonishingly tree'd

 

[corporatesteve]

This is all based on personal choice. If we started making choices for other people's so called wrong doings based on your beliefs to some extent, then that would be wrong. It's their choice, its their property. Our government is setup because of that line. Im pro-choice if you wanted to know but I still believe its up to the persons choice to make that decision up to a certain point ( birth ).

I think this is more of a philosophical question than anything. Because then you can go into questions about religion, when is a baby considered a human? what is a human? do people have free will? etc etc

 

[Famine]

Would you say it's fair to stop this "human in the making" from becoming a full human.

Would you say it's fair to force this decision onto someone else?

You may not consider it to be alive, but it's going to be a person nonetheless.

And? My spare MX-3 is going to be a supercharged track weapons, but right now it's a rusting hulk. I treat it based on what it is rather than what it's going to be.

And what I consider alive is irrelevant. Legally a foetus is not alive. Medically an embryo is not alive. My own definitions are irrelevant and not a basis to force someone else to do as I say without regard for their safety.

Just to add something here, consider that even though it's not alive yet, that it would be in the future unless aborted. I understand this still has no legal basis, but could it be considered taking a life if the life exists somewhere in the future rather than the present?

If you treat masturbation, contraception and menstruation as murder, then yes. Then again, the Catholic Church has this one pretty well covered too.

 

[squishydk]

Until a baby can live outside the mother by itself, it is in most contries not regarded as being a human. It's a never ending discussion, that have ground in religions, thus it will never end.

There is 1 thing im curious about though. In a country where its legal to run around with AK47, where you have death sentance, and the country in the post WW2 world, with most colateral dmg kills (from the wars where you want to push on democracy on other nations), how can you think this particular thing is soo much more violent, and hard to comprehend than those other things? Most of the westernworld (apart from US) have a hard time understanding these things, yet US strugle with things like abortion and gaymarraige etc, things that should be in a democracy? I just don't get it, so please enlighten me