Abortion; Why?

Tell you what...
Your responses are rude and personal. I'm not going to discuss this issue with you if you are only capable of arguing on that level.

Also, despite how clear your own arguments seem to you, they may not always be clear to others which is why I asked you for clarification.

Please keep your comments relative to the topic at hand, personal insults do not help your credibility.


**Edit**
Actually, I think I'm not going to allow you to get away with your comments so easily.

How is a fetus not human? Can a fetus grow on a fetus tree? Perhaps one can grow from the ground? A fetus IS human as it requires direct human interaction to produce one. Nothing can produce a human fetus except the union of two humans, therefore a fetus is inherently, absolutely human.

If you are going to argue so steadfastly and so surely then you'd better have solid ground to stand on. At least your position requires a solid belief on your part, not this wishy washy sentiment.

That's a popular theory, not unique to you. This line of comparison is apples and oranges, the two things are not related whatsoever. Conveniently forgotten again is the victim and the family of the victim. Will you preach to them the immorality of killing? The death penalty is ethical. It's also fair and it is just in most cases. Some people have willingly and knowingly forfieted their own right to breathe by taking the freedom and/or life from another. You support the rights of the criminal on one hand, you're all warm and fuzzy for those who would rather slit your throat than look at you, then on the other hand you condemn a fetus to death: Give me a choice and I'll kill the criminal every time. The criminal made a choice, the fetus did not.

Unless of course someone chooses to abort you before you can make this choice.

Or if someone murders you (that someone still has a right to live, though, right, even though he took that life from another?)

It's cloudy at best since you don't have a clear opinion of when a fetus becomes human...to use your own words, of course.

First up: Pidzilla

Not necessarily. The things I'm saying don't require that you believe life begins at conception; they only require that you admit that you don't know for SURE.


I'm not saying it's a crime; I'm simply trying to illustrate why "I'm not a woman, so it's none of my business" is not an argument at all. You don't have to be a woman to have an opinion on this topic. Perhaps you weren't saying that you had to be...but that is easily one of the more common arguments I hear in favor of abortion, and frankly, it's ridiculous.


It only contradicts what I say if you ignore the difference I describe between an innocent infant and a convicted murderer.


That doesn't really matter. Killing someone quickly and painlessly, legally, is the same thing as torturing someone first. You'll just get a longer prison sentence for the latter, most likely. The issue is not about which is worse, but about whether or not you can draw a reasonable, legal line between killing born children, and unborn children. I'm demonstrating that there is no such logical line.


You're misunderstanding; first off, I'm not saying that a woman cannot do what she wants with her body. She can. I'm saying she cannot do what she want's with the baby's body. The baby is clearly NOT part of her body. It is seperate from her in many ways, even early in development.

As for valuing a fetus higher than a woman; no, you're just putting words in my mouth there, to be blunt. I don't value a fetus higher than a woman anymore than I value a little boy over a little girl. I don't have labels of value on them. They are both innocent human lives (unless the pregnant mother is a convicted murderer, basically) and they should both be protected as such.


The little right about "rightwing Christian men" was mud slinging, IMO, but that's not important.

Religion is NOT an issue here unless you make it one. I haven't mentioned God once, even though I strongly believe in Him. What I'm saying does not require belief in God...only believe in the value of human life.


I'm comparing them to illustrate a larger point. It doesn't mean I'm saying they are equal. Example: someone says there are too many laws. They should be allowed to smoke pot. They should get rid of all the laws. I say "what about murder?" Naturally, I'm not saying smoking pot is akin to murder...I'm merely using an example to demonstrate why their statements don't jibe.

So, the point here is this: why is the fact that some people will do it anyway an argument to keep it legal? Isn't that true of ANYTHING you make illegal?


There's nothing to consider in 99.9% of cases (at least). Assuming we're not talking about a child who's going to be born with a terminal disease, there really isn't any scenario where you can say that the child will grow up in a enough poverty, or something of the sort, to ever justify KILLING it outright.

I grew up in poverty. My father grew up under an abusive stepfather and an inattentive mother. The world, however, is a much better place with him in it, and he's as happy to be alive as I, or you, or anyone else is.

You can never, ever, ever use poor living conditions like that to justify abortion. If you head down that road...where does it lead? If you take that concept to its logical conclusion, who decides what kind of poverty justifies it? What if the parents are ugly? Of below-average intelligence? Do you really want to bring an ugly, stupid kid into the world? He'll be teased in school!

You see what I'm getting at; there's no end to how far you could take that. It just doesn't hold.


Notice what you're saying, thoug; theft, murder and rape are different because, in your opinion, they are against the law for "obvious reasons." The obviousness of laws is a purely subjective standard. As disturbing as it is, some people have no problem with theft, rape, and murder. And we (rightly) force our morals against these things on those people.

That's what I'm saying; you're not against people forcing morality on others through laws...we do it every day, and thank goodness for it. You just don't agree with this particular bit of morality.


It IS as equally valuable. I said "part of me" felt that way, and then went on to explain why I didn't think it really mattered. I'm merely more sympathetic to the woman in the case of rape. But in the end, a child's a child, no matter the circumstances of conception.


Again; I never said it was "the same." Just that, legally, we have to treat them the same. That's a CRUCIAL distinction.


No, you don't think it's always wrong to kill. If someone were attacking your family with lethal force and the only way to stop them was through shooting them in the head, it wouldn't be wrong in the least to do so. But you're right, that isn't the topic here.


Wait a second; as soon as you're born? You don't have basic human rights if you've been in the women for 9 months and are just about to come out? What if your legs are dangling, but your head has yet to emerge? When do those rights begin?


Actually there was a landmark court case recently on this very topic. It's a very relevant issue, IMO.

If you say that the woman has the ultimate final say even if the man wants to keep the child, then logically you cannot support the issue of child support. To say that the man does not have a real, LEGAL say in the future of the child he helped create is to say it's not his ultimate responsibility. And if it's not his ultimate responsibility, why should the woman be allowed to extract money from him if she chooses to have the baby?

You can have one, or the other, logically. But many people support both.


Right, it's not crystal clear when life begins. I feel pretty strongly about it, but I'm not 100% sure, either.

So, here is my question to you: seeing as how you admit human life is highly valuable (especially that of a defenseless infant), if you don't know whether or not it is a human, how can you justify risking it? Why are you willing to gamble over a million of these lives a year?

Tough call. In general, I'd say it probably is wrong. At the very least, the person ought to acknowledge that they have no real logical reason to believe what they do. They shouldn't try to pass it off as debate, naturally.

That said, I don't believe in a cold, logical world. I think emotions are crucial...you can't even argue logically about things like abortion with what could be construed as an emotional basis (IE: the existence in a higher standard of right and wrong...a belief in morality).


Your wish is my command. The giant-o post is above.

The argument that they will do great things is probably true, but ultimately irrelevant. Abortion is not about the contribution the child makes to society...it's just about human rights and when they begin.

FYI, Silver: abortion is only an "opinion thing" by opinion. It's also a logical thing: if human life is valuable, why can you justify the risk? Perfectly logical question, outside of opinion on God. It only assumes a belief in the value of a human life.

Triple post. I'm sorry.

LordSlaytan

Goody.

I don't need you to believe that it is murder to believe that it should be illegal. You only need to recognize that it may be...and that it's a terrible risk as a result. I am not POSITIVE that life begins at conception. I think it does, but I'm not sure...and frankly, I don't have to be. We err on the side of caution when human life may be at stake.


The world is full of awful things, but that doesn't justify more of them. Most of the abortions (over 99%, literally) are not of the highly sympathetic kind you describe.

So, rather, I'd turn it around: do you really think the extreme examples justify allowing the overwhelming majority of cases, which you clearly disagree with?

And what of adoption? A girl has sex. She KNOWS it MAY produce a child. It does. She's too young to handle a child in her life. So give it up for adoption, for crying out loud!



Two things; why concern for the "poor woman" ahead of the poor child? You say it's alive, and yet you justify killing it anyway?

There are tough circumstances, yes. But that is not justification. If you believe it really is alive, then what about killing an already-born child who is a serious financial burden on a single mother? Technically, that should be no different to you...except that in this case, you actually have to look the child in the eyes.

Ok, maybe my post was overly sarcastic. I spent over an hour writing the respond to Yoda and was annoyed when I got the same questions again. Sorry....

If a fetus grow on a fetus tree?? Well, biologically, yes of course it's human. You think it's a human as soon as the sperm reaches the egg. I think it's a human as soon as it can live without the support of the mother's body. I don't know when that is so please don't ask me again when in my opinion the fetus becomes a human.

Well, my friend, this ground is all but solid. Why do you think we are debating this matter? You think that it's human, no doubt about it. I think that it's a question that is very hard and complex and that's why I find it hard to give a straight answer to a very unstraight question. I don't see it as just black or white as you do.

You know I could start calling you names now, but I won't.

I would explain to the victim (if the victim is alive) and its family that the criminal is behind bars and will never hurt anybody again. The acts done to them can never be undone and killing another human being will not make things better.

And who are you to say when someone's has used up his or her right to live??

I'm support human rights, you got that right. And you're so childish saying that I'm all warm and fuzzy for criminals. Give me a break. So now it's a matter of choosing between killing a criminal or a fetus all of a sudden? Well, I bet you would kill a hard criminal any day, and enjoy it too. I on the other hand would not hesitate to accept an abortion over accetping an execution. And don't start asking "But what if your mother was killed by...." and stuff like that. This is about what the state should and should not do, not what I would want to do to someone that has hurt someone I love.

Yeah, right. Or if someone executes you before you can make this choice.... Come on now.

To me it's not so much about the murderer's right to live than it is about the state's right to kill.

Oh go ahead.

I would explain to the victim (if the victim is alive) and its family that the criminal is behind bars and will never hurt anybody again.

Early releases happen daily. I have police officer friends that complain that they take the killers off the street then see them again a few years later.

And who are you to say when someone's has used up his or her right to live??

Who are you to say that a fetus isn't human and therefore killing it is not murder?

I'm support human rights, you got that right. And you're so childish saying that I'm all warm and fuzzy for criminals. Give me a break.

Thank you for your assesment of my maturity. I will point out that it was you who began the mudslinging when asked to clarify your opinion.

So now it's a matter of choosing between killing a criminal or a fetus all of a sudden? Well, I bet you would kill a hard criminal any day, and enjoy it too.

YOU drew the similarity if you'll remember, not I.
(I would enjoy it too, BTW. )

I on the other hand would not hesitate to accept an abortion over accetping an execution. And don't start asking "But what if your mother was killed by...." and stuff like that. This is about what the state should and should not do, not what I would want to do to someone that has hurt someone I love.

You're entitled to believe what you wish. I'm entitled to believe that you are dead wrong.

Yeah, right. Or if someone executes you before you can make this choice.... Come on now.
To me it's not so much about the murderer's right to live than it is about the state's right to kill.

Voted into law by the majority as are abortions. By the way did you read my statements at the beginning? I said that abortions are wrong for me and for me only as I'm not qualified to make that choice for others. You can't figure me out, I promise you, so don't even try to put words in my mouth.

I'm ultra liberal on many issues, but I'm in the middle of the road on this one. Most pro-lifers think human life begins at conception while most pro-choicers think it begins at birth; I have always believed that the truth has to be somewhere in the middle of these two extremes. Where should the line be drawn? I don't know. I really wish more people could use that phrase more often. Does anyone really know?

The problem with not being on one side or the other on the abortion issue is that you get pounded by both sides. I've actually lost pro-life and pro-choice friends because I wasn't firmly in their camp. I guess it's understandable, since most pro-lifers are fighting against what they think is murder, and most pro-choicers are fighting for what they think is a fundamental right.

I'm especially against late-term abortions. Partial birth abortion is the most horrible operation I know of, and I was absolutely disgusted with Clinton when he vetoed a ban on partial birth abortions that had a life of the mother exception. That decision wasn't about supporting a liberal belief; it was about poilitical stance, and it made me sick to my stomach.

I don't know whether some abortions should be legal or not, but I think we need to be more flexible and logical on the issue. Just acting like it is a woman's right to have any kind of abortion she wants is ridiculous in my opinion.

__________________
One of the biggest myths told is that being intelligent is the absence of the ability to do stupid things.

I admit that I don't know exactly when it starts, yes.

Ok, I don't think that's an argument either and, that's right, I didn't say that.

Ok. Honestly, I don't remember... I don't even remember what it was that I thought contradicted what.

Yes, I do think it matters since I don't think abortion involves killing. I don't think killing someone painlessly is the same thing as torturing someone first. You mean that it would be the same to poke out the eyes of the convicted before you put him in the electric char than to just put him in the electric chair? I also think it's absurd and frightening that you don't think there's a line between killing a fetus and an infant child. BUT, if that's how you feel, I understand that you're against abortions.

.

?????? Are you serious?? You really think that the fetus could live without and outside the mother's body from day one?? It's a part of her body until it can live without it. Which takes a long while before it can.

Ok, well, that's your opinion and I don't agree with it at all.

"Him"?? God's a black, lesbian woman, didn't you know?? All I'm saying is that issues like this would be easier to discuss if everybody agreed to leave religon out of it. Unfortunately that's impossible since a lot of people (not you) can't do anything without bringing religion into it.

That's not my argument to keep it legal, that people would do it anyway. Not at all. I think it should be legal because I think it's the women's right. I do however prefer safe legal abortions to unsafe illegal abortions.

I have never, ever, ever used poor living conditions to justify abortion. But unplanned pregnancies can lead to disastrous conditions for the child, wouldn't you agree? Do you think that I think that a lot of people would have been better off dead or aborted? That's absurd. And I didn't even think the word "poverty".

Well, I think it holds. Why do you think women have abortions in the first place? Because of all the love they are willing to give the child? Because of that they want the child too much? Abortion is a selfish thing, but it has to be. The woman doesn't have to think of anybody else than herself in that situation.

Well, the obviousness of laws against murder etc. isn't exactly a subjective standard. Is there any country in the world where murder is allowed? Find ten and they still don't represent the whole.

No, I don't and I don't see the similarity between forcing anti-democratic views on people and following laws that have been shaped in a democratic process.

Hmmmm.. Make up your mind.

Ok, than we have agreed on that a newborn baby isn't the same as a fetus. I think that settles a lot of questions, but you don't. Dead end.

You're right. I wouldn't hesitate in that situation, I think. So YES I don't think it's always wrong to kill.

Is this REALLY relevant to the discussion?? Are we talking about abortion of a 8½ months old baby or a 6 weeks old fetus?? It's a pretty big difference, don't you think?

Yeah, I wonder why that case was so recognized.

You're drifting further and further away from the topic... As soon as the man puts his penis inside the woman's vagina he has full responsibility of his actions. And if that lovemaking results in a baby he has full responsibility to take care of his child. Now, we all now that it's the mother who's going to bear the child and she has the right to decide on her own if she wants to bear it. If both men and women got pregnant it would be another thing.

Responsibility is one thing. Making the decision is another thing.

I can't believe you're making this a money issue...

Ok.

Listen, I know wether it's a human or not. It's exactly when it becomes a human I'm not sure of.

Finally, wouldn't it be better if we concentrated on the well-being of the millions of kids that actually were born than on the ones that never weren't?

Sorry...

You said it yourself, life is full of hard choices. If you're so hot on saving these unborn children, then go offer to adopt some of them. No disrespect intended.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Im a believer that abortion has both its rather negitive effects but in certain situations it can be needed. If I had a wife and there were complications I would order an abortion immediately, why risk two lives when one can survive. Silver (for once) I don’t believe is heartless and actually does have a valid point here, destiny (if it exsists) we wouldn’t be able to change because if you believe in destiny than you really don’t believe in free will, as our future OR the babies death would have already been "planned" but like matt said the baby isnt born with the cure of cancer he has to discover it in time.


Abortion will always be one of those topics that not everyone will agree on, but me personally can see both sides of the fence and neither side is any better than the other. I hope never to be put in the position of choosing whether my baby lives above my wife/lover/whatever but should i have to play god, i would seriously consider terminating the pregancy.

Abortion: a double bladed sword

To Naisy...

You're right it is a tough and tragic situation in any case. But you should at least have the choice even if you know what you will choose.

I know when it comes to myself and my own feelings on an issue. It's clear cut to me. I can't tell others what to think and feel, I only know that I think it's wrong and I don't have any doubts about it.


I'm in a quandary as usual. I absolutely believe abortion is wrong so I'm pro life, right? I also absolutely believe that it's not my business or my place to make life altering decisions for others. If abortion became illegal then some women would do things illegal and unsafe and it's not fair to impose that on them either. So I'm pro choice...right?

I'll probably do what I always do when discussing weighty issues... head for the garage, crack open a cold one and shut the fukk up.

Lol. I hear you. I guess I feel pretty much the same way, except for late term abortions when the mother's life is not in danger. Absolutely repugnant.

Yeah, well I don't have to tell you how I feel about that.

I AM going to crack open a cold one tonite though. My grilling skillz have been called upon and I cannot roast the flesh of departed livestock without a good stout ale or two.

It's a human as soon as it has a human form, in my opinion. How do we know when it thinks? Just because it doesn't know what's going on, doesn't mean that we have a right to kill it. If you put a knoose around a toddler's head, it wouldn't know what's going on. Does that mean that we should kill it? No.

I'm tired. I'm back early, but I'm tired. I'll see everyone tommorow!

__________________
"I bet one legend that keeps reoccurring throughout history, in every culture, is the story of Popeye."

naturally you should (and you do) have the choice, but there is no point in arguing whether it is right or wrong, whether its murder or justified, because there will NEVER be a time when we will all agree on it. Its just a fact of life.

You decide in your own mind is it killing or not, i doubt anyone would feel 100% ok with aborting their own child but it still comes down to the 'parents/guardians' and thats all their is to it, this is a pointless arguement because neither side is wrong or right, the only point in this entire thread is to hear the ageless arguements or both sides. Nothing here will mean all that much.

Well, personally I think that when there's an issue with two so strong opposite views on that issue, that's when you really should discuss it. When someone think that abortion is murder I have to protest against that statement and speak my mind since I think it's outrageous to call it murder. And if my girflriend had to go through an abortion (which I know she would never do), with all the physical and mental pain that it brings with it, I promise you, I would punch the first person in the head that calls her a murderer.

Pointless argument? Uhuh... never...

Hello Grace
Good to see you back early. Good points you've made. I hold the unpopular opinion that a baby is a human at conception. To me it's as simple as that. It takes two humans to make one, therefore it's human, cut and dried. Anyone who says it's not is glossing over the truth to make themselves feel better. As I said before, much to my regret, I've been through the whole process. I've watched it with my own two eyes and felt the gravity and weight of my own actions over the course of years. Maybe some can gloss it over and convince themselves that what they've done by getting an abortion is the right thing. I only have sorrow in my heart over my own experiences.

I can hear Chris groaning but I have to say it. Unless you've been through it you don't really know. Most times I agree with him, one does not need experience in something to have an opinion. In this case though, I think it's necessary.

I don't know about that. Glossing over the truth to make myself feel better is something I don't think I do, yet I claim that human life does not begin at conception. I dunno. I think you're stretching a bit on that one.

Ok Fire.

You're a scientific and very intelligent guy. How can something that requires two humans to make not be human?

I'm not being facetious, I really don't understand the theory and I hear it voiced a lot.

In any part of science you would disagree with that. I think you would tell me that when 2 parts of hydrogen are mixed with 1 part of oxygen you have water... every time. I could go on but I think you will see what I'm getting at. I just can't get past the part that it's a human egg, fertilized by human sperm and is therefore inherently human. There's no waiting period, no suspended animation where this egg decides what it will or will not become. It's always going to be human...there's no chance it will become anything else.

BTW, I was probably talking about myself when I said:

"Anyone who says it's not is glossing over the truth to make themselves feel better."

It's what I did.