Tchya it's an abortion debate topic.

So... state your thoughts.

Should abortions be legal? To what extent? Are there any sound arguments [i]against[i] the right to have an abortion?

wheeee.

I'm pretty much pro-choice if both parents did everything in their power to avoid having a child. Someone I don't particularly like told me he was concieved even though his mother was on birth control and the condom broke.
I said, "Oh, so you were never supposed to be here, you should've been aborted." He's an asshole and I hate him, he really should've been.
But if it's some dumb chick who sleeps around and doesn't use protection to any extent, I say she should have to deal with it to learn some responsibilty she lacked in the first place.

Ok, in all honesty, every case should be treated individually, because not every case is the same.

Wait. Why exactly is it not okay to use it instead of birth control?

I don't agree with abortion, mainly for the above given reasons. It isn't that hard to prevent conception, there are lots of options out there. And yes each case is unique. Me, I'm a Lifer. I think every baby is a miracle and it is shame more people don't think so. Maybe there would be less abuse if they did. Still, I don't want you to dictate my life to me, so in all fairness I also cannot dictate. (I can hope though)
Sorry, I forgot something. The other thing. Abortion is much more invasive and potentially damaging the woman in question. Obviously if you are getting an abortion you aren't worried about the baby, but their is the potential for permenant damage to the woman. And it is a shame to lose the option to later want kids.

but theyre not people yet, they have no conciousness, they can feel know pain. Of course you want to preserve the living, but these ARENT. Theyre just small bundles of cells. No brain, not even neurons.

And "there's alternatives" isn't a proper defense.

It's all in the definitons. A single-celled creature is alive. And strides in medical research have shown that the unborn do respond to all kinds of stimuli. It's like saying you can kick a dog because it can't say"stop, you are hurting me" Please before I go any further, realize I don't want a fight, that would be pointless. I am just expressing my own opinions here.

zOMG really! here I thought you were gonna suicide bomb me.


And it's not the same... at all. A dog is alive. A one celled organism is alive. The "unborn", in the time period in which it is legal to perform an abortion, do not have neurons. THat means they can not think or feel ANYTHING. That's why we have that time limit. The fetii in that experiment must have been past that point, so whether or not they can respond to stimuli is irrelevant.

Editing this bit in because I just noticed your edit:

Of course it's "potentially damaging", all medical procedures have that potential. It's a CHOICE, it's the risk they choose to take. If you want to ban procedures because theyre risky, why not also put a ban on open heart surgery?

I dont approve of it, but I dont believe in denying people the choice to so I wont stop ya, I'll just make a funny face at it

<3.

I still think that you should approve of it and would do so if you really understood it, but I think it's great that you can put the rights of others before your own preferences.

<3

To borrow from your own arguements, Open-heart surgery is life-saving medicine. I think a better example would be plastic surgery, a(mostly) convienance medicine. Which I think is silly. The idea one has to conform to some artificial standard of beauty. God, I seen all races(also funny 'cause we're all human), shapes, sizes that are beautiful. I think abortion has its place set firmly with convienance medicine(mostly).

hey, I dont make you have unwanted babies, dont make me attend the dead baby's funeral(or flushing)

I dont quite know what I wanted to get across there

>.< There is so much wrong with that post it's not worth bringing up (unless you want me to?) So do you want to ban all "conveniance" medicen then? And what do you mean "mostly".

First, I didn't say to ban it, I said I didn't agree with it. And no I don't want to ban convienance medicine, I just think it is a little silly. What's in, what's out. What's in will be what's out soon enough and then what?
And the other thing. Sometimes a person is so awfully damaged in any variaty of accidents, including fire, auto, mauling, etc. that plastic surgery is not a convienance but a neccessity for a kind of normal living. In the same way, sometimes one must choose between the death of the mother or the life of the child(and at much later stages I might add) so abortion too is sometimes neccessary.

well, it could be that your face is charred by a smoldering ember from an orphanage and you need to get it repaired, that would be a necessity cuz, burnt faces are not in this year. I dont think spyder wants to ban convieniences (wheelchairs sure are handy) just you know, abortions

So it's okay to kill when it will benefit someone else?

Either abortion is murder or it's not, you can't pick and choose when it is and isn't.

On the contrary, that arguement leads to another. Is all killing murder? If you killed someone in self-defense would you be guilty of murder?

....can you answer my question?

pretty please with sugar on top.


and I don't think you understand how to use that phrase >>

In addition, I'll add my own conundrum. Why is it a crime to attack a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage, but not a crime for a women to end it herself? I've always wondered about that.

What wasn't clear? It isn't at all the same question after all.

T.T

Either stay on topic or just leave. It's not a sound debate if you start a new point without finishing the one in progress.

I'll try it a different way. A woman who chooses to have an abortion because it is inconveniant, I believe is wrong. A woman who is facing death has a right to her own life and not all choose to keep it, many choose to continue despite the risks.

I know that's what you meant, so I'm asking you to clarify.

You're saying it is always okay to kill someone if it will save another person?

And argument from emotional appeal isn't welcome in this topic >>

Emotional appeal? I'm afraid I need you to clarify. And yes, I do not believe I should die or in other ways be harmed by another. I do believe in self-defense. Motive determines guilt.

The fetus isn't intentionally setting up a dangerous situation for its mother, is it?

You're determining which of two equals should live, why does the mother get priority over the fetus?

And things like "some mothers are brave enoguh to die for their babies" and "I think we're all equal" are arguments from emotional appeal, theyre irrelevant to the debate but are things people can admire or strongly agree with.

How is the fetus's intentions relevant? The outcome is what is relevant. Many things happen unintentionally, but we must react to them. We live in a world where a crimanl can sue for unsafe conditons in YOUR home and earn money by reason of injury. Off topic, but an example of relevance. No think the fetus is out to kill the mother, yet the outcome is the same.

...then why did you say "motive determines guilt". That invalidates the post you just made.
Both the fetus and the mother have equal "motive" to kill eachother, if theyre both alive then youre arbitrarily deciding which one is fitting to live.

Let's say you have siamese twins that share a liver. The liver cannnot support them both as they grow older, and they will both die. Is it okay to kill one to preserve the other? Because that's what youre doing with the "fetuses are people but it's okay to kill it to save the mom" idea.

It happens. Often. Parents go to the doctor to perform the operation. The hope is both will live, yet both the doctors and the parents know it is more likely one or both will die. For hope alone do they proceed. Watch the medical channel. And the motive in question was the mothers. You asked whether she commited murder to save her life. In self-defense, my answer is no.

THat wasn't the scenario I gave you. Here we KNOW that one will die. You have to pick which one.

And can you answer the original question, not just the addon?

Realistically, it is the one with the greatest survival rate. It's not fair. It's triage. How would you choose? Would you try to save one who save a divine miracle will die or the one who might have a chance to live?

Abortion shouldn't be used as an alternative to contraception. That's the thing that really eats me. I hate to say it, but we're in a pretty screwed up world. In an ideal world? Yeah, no abortions.

That's a slippery slope you're resting on, my dear friend.

And let's say it's worked out that they have an equal chance of survival (every year the technology to preserve premie babies improves). How do you decide who lives then?



Are you saying abortions should be allowed for say, financial reasons, but not as an alternative to contraception?

Why?

But it isn't equal. My scenario was that the mother WOULD die or statistically SHOULD die if you proceeded.
Not that their chances were equal. In such a case I would NOT advocate abortion.
And about preemies, I know, and I thank GOD. My daughter came at 7 months and 5 days after a very troubled pregnacy. And she wasn't the tiniest.

Again, I'm working in an ideal world situation. I aknowledge that there are circumstances that call for it. I'm not blind to them. I don't particularly like it. If the only reason to get an abortion was as a form of contraceptive, I'd have to say no. Unfortunately, I'm not a doctor, so I can't really make the decision of who lives. I'd say it would have to be up to the parents or the doctor involved. It's a personal kind of decision. I'm a devout christian, and for religious reasons, I'm not going to particularly like abortion ever, but I don't think all medical circumstances in which people say, "but what if the mother's life was in danger" are the same. I'm going in to hospital chaplaincy, so I'll probably get to learn a buttload of this, but until then? Couldn't tell ya.


Way to pass the buck, Etoh.

Why? what gives the mother preference over the child, in both your scenario and mine?



I need clarification. Are you saying abortions SHOULD be illegal in some cases but legal in others, or are just you saying that you morally don't agree with ones that are done instead of contraception.

Do you have a right to defend your own life? No questions on mothers or babies. If YOU were going to die because someone else was going to kill you, should you die?

=\ asking what I would do isn't an appropriate defense.

You're saying both fetii and mothers are people. Therefore, you can not say that mothers have legal preference over children, and that their lives are worth more.

Get back to the issue and stop using so many fallacies or leave the debate. I encourage the second choice.

Why? You ask me why I believe what I do and I answer. Or are you the only one with the right answers?
Obviously we do not agree, but I have not attacked you.
Again, I ask. To what right is the preference of your own life? Should you die because someone else will kill you?
Please I ask the readers. If I have said false, in fallicy, I will leave this debate. I invite all citations. I, I thought, only answered your questions as best I could.

=\ I'm not rejecting you because you disagree with me, I'm doing it because I don't think you're intellectually up to this.

What I would or would not do has no bearing on this debate. Youre essentially using argument ad hominem; it's NOT a defense. Either respond in a nonfallalical (totally made that word up xD) manner or don't respond at all, I'm getting annoyed.

You do a lot of responding. I haven't seen your view on the subject. What exactly are YOU looking for?
Something scientific with no bearing to culture, moral, or ideal?

My 2 cents;
- Until the unborn child can theoretically survive outside the womb, abortion should be the mothers choice. I figure, if it can't sustain life on it's own (or with hospital help, still iffy there) then it can't be classified as it's own living organism. More like a parasite.

We're NOT in an ideal world though, so let's not speak as though we were. There are 6 BILLION people in the world, and entire countries where only the aristocracy have a guaranteed meal every morning, and we're concerned about a couple devolping cells in the U.S. that will be ensured all the luxuries we take for granted?
I dunno, I just think we should be more concerned with people that are already here. It's us that will shape the future, for whichever embryos will be brought to term.
As a woman, I am wholly opposed to the idea of someone trying to rule over the going-ons of my body. And before we get any further into religious purposes, allow me to quote Numbers 12:12
"Do not let her be like a stillborn infant coming from its mother's womb with its flesh half eaten away."
Notice how it mentions flesh. Skin and tissue systems don't develop until two months or later after conception. If it hadn't begun to develop at all, whose to say it's "Half-eaten away"?

....T.T spyder. Please leave this topic. Your last post put me over the edge.

What I feel doesn't effect whether or not your argument is sound. Neither do emotions or cultures. If, in future, you wish to enter a debate such as this, I think that you should check out www.fallacyfiles.org . I do think it's a good thing that you want to get out there and defend your views, but right now you are not capable of doing so in a sound matter.

Ballscratch: what if theyre concious?

I stand by my discussions.
Other reasons I am against abortions(but haven't and won't advocate total banning).
-The reasons are sundry and the causes are not always known but statiscally many women who do perform an abortion later regret it and most experience some guilt, some crippling. Some end up on medication for depression as a result of the abortion conflict within themselves. Other contraceptive methods do not do this.
-Like any major life decision it should invovle council and a thorough understanding of all the risks both physical and pschological, I do not feel there is enough of this, before an abortion.

...those aren't called discussions, you're an idiot.

Whether or not they regret it is not a reason to make it illegal. Furthermore, can you show me any unbiased statistics that show this? Thirdly, surprise! Many mothers feel upset by having children when they didn't want to!
Next, whether or not there are methods you consider superior is irrelevant. Some people might be okay with having abortions; so why not let them? They apparently don't become upset by having them.
Contraceptives sometimes fail, so "you could have used a condom" doesn't work as an argument. Also, the government can't punish people for unprotected sex, so "contraceptives are superior" doesn't wrok.


The government can't force people to take council for things such as buying a car or undergoing major surgery, so this "discussion" doesn't work either.

Please leave now.

As far as anyone can tell, conciousness doesn't begin until a little while after birth, with the advent of sustainable memory. Of course, to suggest that conciousness is intrinsical to the possession of memory is in and of itself contriversial. I personally believe a memory/memories are required to be considered concious and, to a lesser extent, aware.



But isn't the focus of the problem the debate? If a women was firm in her convictions and belief, and not forced to balance the moral dilemmas, would their be a problem? In short, if we were allowed to be shallow in our decisions, would there be as great a problem?

After reading this thread... y'all are all crazy. Soylent, I think you switched sides twice, though I'm not sure, and all you keep doing is bashing spyder's take on the situation. Sincew this is a debate, and your obviously taking the positive side, thats fine: it's up to Spyder to come up with reasons not to abort fetuses. But... still...

Look, has anyone ever wondered why it's called 'choice'? Yes, it's the mother's right to 'choose' whether or not to abort her child... but the child has the potential to become human being, complete with the right to make it's own choices. The mother, is in fact 'choosing' to deny her child that freedom.

Numerous points have been made for fetuses (feti?) not being capable of feeling pain or whatnot but... do you know how much you could be fined for crushing the eggs of an endangered species? There's no question of whether or not that egg can feel pain of suffering; you are treated as though you had killed an adult creature. And yet... the same standard obviously does not apply to humans. Wanna know why?

Humans are inherently worthless. Something like... I dunno, a horse or a dog or a cow... they have value (even if it is just as food). A doctor who allows a good racehorse to die, or kills a colt in the womb, may find himself in deep trouble with unpleasant people. But, if that same doctor slices open a human, and he suddenly flatlines, well he can just say, "Oh dear, act of God, that'll be $300." See what I mean? Humans are worthless.

That must be why we care more about saving endangered algae in South America (which definetly does not have the capacity to feel pain), while people are busy starving on the street here. Heck, people murder their kids, their exes, their wives... sure, we arrest em, send em to prison... BFD. People who rape little kids can get outta prison in twenty years anyway (of course, they've completely changed, right?), and since Lord knows we can't be cruel to serial killers, we like to abolish capital punishement wherever possible. It's way more humane to let em waste away in a cell their entire lives.

Abortion is a problem. Perhaps you have come to the conclusion that I don't like it much. This is entirely correct. I have way too many little bros and sisters to even think about it. I like kids, and can't wait to settle down and have a few (there's a whole 'wife' thing that needs to be taken care of first, but hey, I'm workin on it). But you know, there's just so much screwed up with society today, that the moral relativism inherent in the abortion debate is just so much white noise. Mankind has plenty of other problems, and instead of solving them, it's way easier to just keep making more. Every freakin day, soemthing else goes wrong, and there is nothing anyone WANTS to do about it. It's so much easier to sit in front of the TV and watch Heroes or CSI or Lost, or to sit in front of your computer and whine about how much society is screwed up. Infinitely lazy, selfish, and above all, hypocritical, mankind dances its way towards the end.

Now I gotta go. My roomie just sent me last weeks episode of Heroes.

(P.S. Soylent, for someone who advocated leaving emotion out of debate, calling your opponent an idiot makes you seem very childish)

Any major invasive surgery can have those side effects. Even medication can do the same thing. Do you want more depressed people commiting suicide because they've lost their muse due to their medication and decided they didn't want to take it anymore?
Saving lives doesn't have to do with the number of lives saved, but the quality of life of the survivors.

As for "major life decisions" why don't you go combat DIVORICE and teenage mothers who were influenced by people like you and end up giving away children THEY CAN'T TAKE CARE OF to an under-funded orphanage.

Edit: There's too many posts going on between when I start and finish my own... and Heroes has made my look foward to Mondays.

Shiosk, that was depressing.

True, and accurate, but still depressing.

Another point - What about rape?

This, I'm sure you will be happy, will be my last post on this forum. Council is required for all medical decisions. Doctors can be and have been sued for not explaining all the ramificaions of proceedures and medicines prescribed.

Life is depressing. Get used to it.

I still say the child should be put up for adoption. I can definetly understand the mother not wanting to take care of the kid, but it's really not the childs fault that his father was a bastard.

And convicted rapists should be castrated.

When it comes to rape, as long as it can be proven (such as the victim wasn't intoxicated nor knew her assulter) I think she should have every right to an abortion. This is probably one of the most glaring cases because she probably doesn't even know WHO the father would be! It would be immoral to force her to deal with this twist of fate.
Oh a lighter note, as fans of LFG, we all know how twisted and horrible orphanages really are...