Abortion

[Alpha1]

If the soul and going to heaven were true, why would you want to force a child to be born in a crappy life rather than going to heaven? I'd be pretty pi**ed.

I know! If you're born in this world, you may screw up and go to hell.

 

Abortion factories FTW!

[Slaskia]

Okay, my question is, which is the lesser evil: murder, or slavery? That aside, snuffing out a life is permanent. A woman's "slavery" to pregnancy only lasts months.

 

And, no, I don't believe that a fetus should trump in all situations. There are the rare cases where it is either the baby or the mother, in which case, it should be up to the parents. Not the doctors or the government.

Though other's have already responded, since I was the one you quoted I'll give my response as well.

 

There are worse things than death and slavery is often listed as one of those. If you are dead, you won't suffer anymore (the accuracy of this depends upon your beliefs when it comes to life 'after' death of course, but that's for another topic....).

 

Death is a release, not a punishment. Far better for a clump of cells that may not even become a baby be snuffed out than to make the possible resulting baby take its chances in our horrible adoption/foster care system (or face a likely abusive parent that never wanted it in the first place).

[Brite]

I know! If you're born in this world, you may screw up and go to hell.

 

I know! Why put them through such a thing! Unwanted babies FTW!

[Zephyrgirl]

What's the difference between those rare cases and a woman who knows she cannot care for a child in her current circumstances and seeks an abortion? Her reasoning?

The difference is that, when concerning health issues, it is a matter of either the mother's life, or the baby's. When it is merely someone wanting an abortion because of the inconvenience or they don't have the resources to care for a child, it doesn't make sense to me that one should die when both can live.

[NobleOwl]

The difference is that, when concerning health issues, it is a matter of either the mother's life, or the baby's. When it is merely someone wanting an abortion because of the inconvenience or they don't have the resources to care for a child, it doesn't make sense to me that one should die when both can live.

Never mind the hell you'd put them through

[Brite]

it doesn't make sense to me that one should die when both can live.

 

Because that's life and life sucks sometimes. One conscious will trump the other.

[NobleOwl]

It's a matter of what's more important-- quantity or quality of life.

[Kestra15]

How many people remember being in the womb of their mothers?

I don't remember anything prior to being about five/six years old, so that doesn't prove a thing.

The difference is that the fetus/fertilized egg is the woman's. If she doesn't want it, it's her choice.

In your opinion that may be. Remember though, some do not believe that the fetus is a woman's 'property' but in fact a life of it's own. Regardless, that does not stop us assigning value to it.

There should be consequences for intentionally trying to kill a woman's unborn.

Agreed.

Allowing animal abuse has consequences in society, and it's easy to show these animals can experience pain. Fishing for sport is allowed, but I've seen a few studies say they can feel pain. Kind of want to make an exception for this if true.  Didn't God know man would be using barbed hooks?

But different societies do have different values though - we wouldn't dream of eating dogs in the UK, and some cultures would never dare to cultivate cows for food. Your Mileage May Vary.

In my view, I wouldn't mind someone having an abortion right before it's born. If the child has been born, that's the cut off. Besides, most abortions would happen far earlier, so it's not really an issue.

Okay. But wouldn't it be fair on that child, literally a day before birth? Why would it be 'only' abortion, whereas if I killed that child a day later moments after it was born that would be 'murder?'

[skinst]

The difference is that, when concerning health issues, it is a matter of either the mother's life, or the baby's. When it is merely someone wanting an abortion because of the inconvenience or they don't have the resources to care for a child, it doesn't make sense to me that one should die when both can live.

How would you know the difference between a woman in your so called 'rare cases' and an 'ordinary' case if two woman walked into a clinic and two walked out? Fact is, you wouldn't unless you asked and personally found out.

 

Then what would you do? Condemn a woman for her choices? Do you really think you have the right to do that to a complete stranger?

 

Answer please.

[emeraldbunni]

im against abortion, but as many people said, if they are forced or something i guess it would be up to them, but to me killing a baby is such a sad thing... an innocent baby who could have done something good in thins world. GONE

[skinst]

im against abortion, but as many people said, if they are forced or something i guess it would be up to them, but to me killing a baby is such a sad thing... an innocent baby who could have done something good in thins world. GONE

It isn't a baby until it's born, and there's no guarentee it will be human until 31 weeks, well after the cutoff point for abortion, if that helps.

[elderberrysyrup]

My sister was deeply upset about aborting, even though the fetus was twelve weeks old. Many of my colleagues are into their second or third trimester and invest a lot of value into their unborn children. Some parents invest a lot of value in the potential of being pregnant, of being adamant of having children and instantly loving and caring for them the moment that they are certain of a pregnancy. So value is assigned from a very early phase by many people. So why is it that we should not value them? At what point should we all value them, and why that specific point?

The issue here is simply put, as much as other people may assign a belief of value to a fetus, those beliefs shouldn't be forced on a person who is unwilling to believe such things. Whatever a person's personal beliefs may be, they have no right on any standpoint to force it on someone else. I believe that, even if it has a soul, or a life of its own, a mother should be allowed to remove something she doesn't want in her body. Again, a man cannot force someone else to give him his kidney, what's so different about a woman not allowing someone else her nutrients?

Edited February 4, 2012 by soullesshuman

[Kestra15]

The issue here is simply put, as much as other people may assign a belief of value to a fetus, those beliefs shouldn't be forced on a person who is unwilling to believe such things. Whatever a person's personal beliefs may be, they have no right on any standpoint to force it on someone else. I believe that, even if it has a soul, or a life of its own, a mother should be allowed to remove something she doesn't want in her body. Again, a man cannot force someone else to give him his kidney, what's so different about a woman not allowing someone else her nutrients?

If Man A needs Man B's kidney, Man B is not directly killing Man A by denying him that kidney.

 

If a woman aborts a fetus, she is directly ending it's existence. If you believe that fetus is a life, then you are killing a person, but if you believe it is not a life, then it is nothing more than cutting your nails.

 

So in either circumstances your example doesn't really compare so well. Either you are comparing inaction that ends someone's life with something as non consequential as mole removal, or comparing someone who owes another man nothing to murder.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Kestra15

[philpot123]

It isn't a baby until it's born

Why? Inside/outside the womb... what's the difference?

[Dr. Paine]

 

If a woman aborts a fetus, she is directly ending it's existence. If you believe that fetus is a life, then you are killing a person, but if you believe it is not a life, then it is nothing more than cutting your nails.

Or, to take a third option... aborting a fetus is the same as removing a tumor- it's ending a form of human life, but not killing a person.

[7Deadly$ins]

Why? Inside/outside the womb... what's the difference?

It's a fetus in the womb.

[elderberrysyrup]

If Man A needs Man B's kidney, Man B is not directly killing Man A by denying him that kidney.

 

If a woman aborts a fetus, she is directly ending it's existence. If you believe that fetus is a life, then you are killing a person, but if you believe it is not a life, then it is nothing more than cutting your nails.

 

So in either circumstances your example doesn't really compare so well. Either you are comparing inaction that ends someone's life with something as non consequential as mole removal, or comparing someone who owes another man nothing to murder.

But Man A will die without Man B's kidney, much like Baby will die without Mother's nutrients. I don't see it as killing something as much as removing something from your body, and due to lack of nutrients it will die. It can't be murder, simply because a mother has a right to control over her own body, meaning that if someone is in her body and she doesn't like it, she has the right to do what is necessary to remove it. Even if the baby was considered a life, it /still/ has no right to be taking stuff from its mother without her consent. When that consent is removed, the life that is the baby is now violating the mother's right to bodily domain.

[Brite]

Why? Inside/outside the womb... what's the difference?

 

Huge difference. It can become a parasite, parasitic twin, tumor, calcium mass, or be reabsorbed. I don't see a newborn baby doing any of those things.

[Kestra15]

But Man A will die without Man B's kidney, much like Baby will die without Mother's nutrients. I don't see it as killing something as much as removing something from your body, and due to lack of nutrients it will die. It can't be murder, simply because a mother has a right to control over her own body, meaning that if someone is in her body and she doesn't like it, she has the right to do what is necessary to remove it. Even if the baby was considered a life, it /still/ has no right to be taking stuff from its mother without her consent. When that consent is removed, the life that is the baby is now violating the mother's right to bodily domain.

Man A is not biologically dependent on Man B - an unborn child is dependent on the mother. And there is a difference between inaction that ends in someone dying, and direct action to cause the end of life. And why would Man B owe Man A anything?

 

What about the child's right to life? Why does the mother's right supersede the child's?

Huge difference. It can become a parasite, parasitic twin, tumor, calcium mass, or be reabsorbed. I don't see a newborn baby doing any of those things.

But what about the point where the fetus is now for certain to be a human child? At 40wks I think we can be confident the unborn child is going to be a human life the moment it pops out, so why is not considered as such in that context? It certainly won't be any of the above.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Kestra15

[elderberrysyrup]

Man A is not biologically dependent on Man B - an unborn child is dependent on the mother. And there is a difference between inaction that ends in someone dying, and direct action to cause the end of life. And why would Man B owe Man A anything?

 

What about the child's right to life? Why does the mother's right supersede the child's?

No, I don't believe a child's right to life supersedes the mother's right to bodily domain. Isn't it that if person A rapes person B, then during the rape person A is allowed means to remove the violation on his/her bodily integrity, death included if it must come to that? Unfortunately in a situation about abortion, to remove a fetus from its mother and removing the violation on the mother's body, the fetus will die as a result of no longer stealing her nutrients.

[Brite]

What about the child's right to life? Why does the mother's right supersede the child's?

 

Because the mother already has a full running life, unlike the unborn who may never become a human life.

 

But what about the point where the fetus is now for certain to be a human child? At 40wks I think we can be confident the unborn child is going to be a human life the moment it pops out, so why is not considered as such in that context? It certainly won't be any of the above.

 

There's a reason why abortions have a cut off limit. Legal ones at least.

Edited February 5, 2012 by GhostChilli

[philpot123]

Specifically referencing this

 

It isn't a baby until it's born

 

 

 

 

 

 

Huge difference. It can become a parasite, parasitic twin, tumor, calcium mass, or be reabsorbed. I don't see a newborn baby doing any of those things.

 

 

By that reasoning, right until the moment of birth it is still a fetus and not a child, even though children in mid-20s weeks have been born and survived. If you say that it is not human until right when it is born, then abortions are okay whenever right? It would be feasibly justifiable to kill the child after the mother goes into labor. If you're going to be consistent here.

Edited February 5, 2012 by philpot123

[skinst]

What about the child's right to life? Why does the mother's right supersede the child's?

It is impossible to give both the mother and the fetus equal rights because then one's rights cannot superceed the other. Treating a fetus the same as a full grown adult human being is so dangerous in many respects when it comes to woman's rights.

[Brite]

By that reasoning, right until the moment of birth it is still a fetus and not a child, even though children in mid-20s weeks have been born and survived. If you say that it is not human until right when it is born, then abortions are okay whenever right? It would be feasibly justifiable to kill the child after the mother goes into labor. If you're going to be consistent here.

 

So what about the ones who can't survive out of the womb when too early? Remember, premature survive with critical care and help from machines used today. If there was none of that, a lot wouldn't survive.

 

Reword that, I'm pretty sure NONE would survive at that early stage.

Edited February 5, 2012 by GhostChilli

[Kestra15]

So what about the ones who can't survive out of the womb when too early? Remember, premature survive with critical care and help from machines. If there was none of that, a lot wouldn't survive.

Frankly, without medical intervention a lot of us wouldn't survive very long. Again though, what about when we get to the late stages where the child *can* survive. Would it be right to abort then? If it is right, why is it right? What makes it different to a child who is also forty weeks after conception, but now out of the room and alive?

 

And I'm not replying to the point about a mother's right over a baby's, since I'm satisfied with the responses to that one :~)