Jump to content
Bear

Abortion

Recommended Posts

You're fine to think that, but...uh...we do not have the technology to colonize other planets yet!  We're working on it, yes...but it's likely at least a decade away from being ready.

"And in the meantime let's kill some babies!", no. Ten years isn't that long, and that is no reason we should kill humans.

 

That is your view. Not everyone shares it, and some day you or someone you love may find yourself in a position where abortion is the only sensible option. I wish you luck.

 

But don't try and impose your view on others. No-one here will make you have an abortion.

I think the whole point of this thread is to say what you think about abortion. I might find myself in that position, but since when has killing humans been sensible?

Edited by NixAyum

Share this post


Link to post

Yahoo Article

 

The sad thing is, policies like this, and anti-birth control, encourage abortions. If the coach had quietly gotten one, she may have kept her job. Now, she's in Texas which just defunded planned parenthood and stripped the state budget of women's health funding before that. Has no health insurance because no job because got pregnant. She has a sterling coaching record. But she's tossed out because there is proof she had sex outside of marriage.

Edited by Vhale

Share this post


Link to post
I think the whole point of this thread is to say what you think about abortion. I might find myself in that position, but since when has killing humans been sensible?

May I suggest looking up the development of a fetus? You will find that before the normal cut-off for abortions it bears very little resemblence to anything actualy human. At that point it could turn into a tumour, or a parasitic mass, just as easily as it could turn into a baby.

 

Most abortions are not late-term (when the fetus not only looks like a baby, but has a brain developing). The ones that *are* late-term are usually because the mother's life is in serious danger if she continues with the pregnancy, because the fetus has died, or because the fetus has some deformity that will not allow it to survive outside of the womb.

Share this post


Link to post
Being a person requires the ability to think. An early fetus does not have anything to think with. Thus, an early fetus is not a person.

Funny, becuase the articles seem to suggest otherwise:

 

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/brain-devel...t-in-fetus.html

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpre...evelopment1.htm

 

The brain also goes on to develop more after the baby is born, so because a newborn's brain isn't fully functional, does that mean they are not a person?

Also here is an interesting study that was conducted on a fetus to determine whether or not it could feel pain:

http://www.americanpregnancy.org/duringpre...evelopment1.htm

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that embryonic brain cells are developing does NOT mean a foetus can actually think. My niece had a "fully grown" brain and was PVS for 20 years. There was no evidence of brain activity of any kind. (She had regular scans.) She couldn't even swallow - thought was well out of the question.

 

As to the pain study - I think you have posted the wrong link. BUT - a mimosa plant reacts automatically to touch. That isn't the same thing as feeling.

Share this post


Link to post

Hi!

 

I am against abortion, but depending on the circumstances, I will recognize it as a viable or necessary option. If a girl was abused, is too young or old to safely have a baby, is sick, etc., then I have no problem with it. What I disagree with is people using abortion as a form of birth control. I find that irresponsible and unwilling to reap what you sow.

 

The one thing I find odd about this topic is that people try to define when a person is a human being and when they receive a soul. We don't know for sure when a person receives a soul, so no one has a truly valid argument (no offense intended). As for when a person is a person, We have neither the power nor the right to decide that. Why don't we focus on the millions of things in this world that we CAN decide?

 

Godspeed everyone! smile.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Hi!

 

I am against abortion, but depending on the circumstances, I will recognize it as a viable or necessary option. If a girl was abused, is too young or old to safely have a baby, is sick, etc., then I have no problem with it. What I disagree with is people using abortion as a form of birth control. I find that irresponsible and unwilling to reap what you sow.

 

The one thing I find odd about this topic is that people try to define when a person is a human being and when they receive a soul. We don't know for sure when a person receives a soul, so no one has a truly valid argument (no offense intended). As for when a person is a person, We have neither the power nor the right to decide that. Why don't we focus on the millions of things in this world that we CAN decide?

 

Godspeed everyone! smile.gif

Hey, I'm gonna blow up that house over there. I'm not sure if there's someone inside or not, I don't think there is... there could be... but I'm gonna blow it up anyways.

Share this post


Link to post
Hi!

 

I am against abortion, but depending on the circumstances, I will recognize it as a viable or necessary option. If a girl was abused, is too young or old to safely have a baby, is sick, etc., then I have no problem with it. What I disagree with is people using abortion as a form of birth control. I find that irresponsible and unwilling to reap what you sow.

 

The one thing I find odd about this topic is that people try to define when a person is a human being and when they receive a soul. We don't know for sure when a person receives a soul, so no one has a truly valid argument (no offense intended). As for when a person is a person, We have neither the power nor the right to decide that. Why don't we focus on the millions of things in this world that we CAN decide?

 

Godspeed everyone! smile.gif

...I don't understand. How is it being irresponsible to have an abortion? They are dealing with an unwanted fetus, just in a manner that you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post

At what point going back from the moment of birth does a baby cease to be a baby? Is it really appropriate for a law to declare a timeline upon which a baby ceases to be a baby? What is so different between a baby that is in the end of the first trimester and one that is in the first day of the second?

 

To me, abortion is murder. There is no question in my mind of it. The only places where I can even see abortion as being a slightly feasible option is in cases where the baby is either going to be born with significant crippling health issues, born of incest, or born of rape.

 

And even then I would argue against it: I have had relatives who are severely disabled and they enjoy their lives. If a person's life is going to be so wretched that death is better, than only that person alone can make that call. Let them be born, and then if they decide that life isn't worth living, they themselves can decide to end it.

 

The same applies to incest. While it is a disturbing thing, most babies born of it won't actually have health issues. They may have mental struggles related to the cause of their birth, but again, only they can decide if their life is still worth living or not. Such a truly life-or-death chocie should not be made when they can not speak at all in their own defense.

 

And then, of course, there is rape. Surely the worst of all of the three cases I've mentioned... primarily for the mother. The child is not at all at fault for what one sick person did to their mother. Why should a healthy child die because of their father's crime?

Will it be emotionally charging for the mother to carry through a pregnancy conceived with rape? Certainly. But the point is that you are still ending an innocent life just to spare the mother further emotional pain. Emotional pain does not justify the ending of innocent life. I will have all the pity in the world for the mother and they should be given all possible support, but they should not suddenly gain the right to kill an innocent infant.

 

The other primary arguement I have heard in the case of abortion is that it is the mother's right to control her body. However, I argue that in all cases but rape, which I have already discussed, this is not the case. She does have control over her body--but by choosing to abstain from or indulge in sex, rather than by choosing whether or not to end her infant's life.

 

Biologically speaking, sex exists to create children. While sex certainly doesn't have to result in children (and can most definitely be enjoyed for reasons other than that purpose!), at the end of the day that is its one true intended purpose. By having sex, you are taking a chance that a pregnancy will occur. I have no problem at all with people using birth control as an attempt to prevent pregnancy. However, I also believe that people must take responsibility if a pregnancy occurs despite their precautions. There are ways to surgically halt your ability to have children, if you wish to freely enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy... and if you simply don't want to be pregnant now but want to keep the option open for later, then you're simply going to have to accept the chance that you might get pregnant even while using birth control and be prepared to commit yourself to raising an unexpected child.

 

But while I can argue the finer details of abortion, my beliefs on it still arise primarily from what I said at the beginning at this post. A baby does not suddenly cease to be a baby simply because it's a few days farther away from birth than another baby. Abortion ends the life of a baby, and that is the cruelest form of murder.

Edited by angelicdragonpuppy

Share this post


Link to post
Firstly, we don't use abortion to stop overpopulation. Not in America, at least. However, if you have proof of this, then, please, don't be afraid to cite it and link it for all of us to see.

 

Secondly, if we can't prove that fetuses aren't human, then how can you prove that they are? Like I've said before, just because it appears human does not mean it IS human. Here it states when fetuses have brain activity. We've already had a big discussion a few pages back on brain activity and being sentient and what it means to be alive and be human. Keep in mind that there are a few states in the US who don't allow abortion after the 20 weeks... Well before a fetus has brain activity as discussed in the link provided. And, like others have said... Just because you have brain activity doesn't mean you can actually have thought.

 

Thirdly... Abortion being 'wrong' and 'evil' is your opinion, not a fact. The point of this thread is to state your opinion, yes, but it's to state it reasonably. The way you've stated your opinions so far have made you come off as quite... Well, rude and ignorant. So, instead of asking if you had found yourself in this position, let me ask you another question. Would you have everyone live by what you believe? Would you have women unable to receive an abortion on the premises that it's 'wrong' and 'evil' and have that be that?

I didn't say we used abortion as a population solution in the U.S. wink.gif

 

Thought does not equal a living human being.

 

No, I would not have everyone live by what I belive. Everyone has free will, and I don't want to force anyone to do what I think is right.

Share this post


Link to post
At what point going back from the moment of birth does a baby cease to be a baby? Is it really appropriate for a law to declare a timeline upon which a baby ceases to be a baby? What is so different between a baby that is in the end of the first trimester and one that is in the first day of the second?

 

To me, abortion is murder. There is no question in my mind of it. The only places where I can even see abortion as being a slightly feasible option is in cases where the baby is either going to be born with significant crippling health issues, born of incest, or born of rape.

 

And even then I would argue against it: I have had relatives who are severely disabled and they enjoy their lives. If a person's life is going to be so wretched that death is better, than only that person alone can make that call. Let them be born, and then if they decide that life isn't worth living, they themselves can decide to end it.

 

The same applies to incest. While it is a disturbing thing, most babies born of it won't actually have health issues. They may have mental struggles related to the cause of their birth, but again, only they can decide if their life is still worth living or not. Such a truly life-or-death chocie should not be made when they can not speak at all in their own defense.

 

And then, of course, there is rape. Surely the worst of all of the three cases I've mentioned... primarily for the mother. The child is not at all at fault for what one sick person did to their mother. Why should a healthy child die because of their father's crime?

Will it be emotionally charging for the mother to carry through a pregnancy conceived with rape? Certainly. But the point is that you are still ending an innocent life just to spare the mother further emotional pain. Emotional pain does not justify the ending of innocent life. I will have all the pity in the world for the mother and they should be given all possible support, but they should not suddenly gain the right to kill an innocent infant.

 

The other primary arguement I have heard in the case of abortion is that it is the mother's right to control her body. However, I argue that in all cases but rape, which I have already discussed, this is not the case. She does have control over her body--but by choosing to abstain from or indulge in sex, rather than by choosing whether or not to end her infant's life.

 

Biologically speaking, sex exists to create children. While sex certainly doesn't have to result in children (and can most definitely be enjoyed for reasons other than that purpose!), at the end of the day that is its one true intended purpose. By having sex, you are taking a chance that a pregnancy will occur. I have no problem at all with people using birth control as an attempt to prevent pregnancy. However, I also believe that people must take responsibility if a pregnancy occurs despite their precautions. There are ways to surgically halt your ability to have children, if you wish to freely enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy... and if you simply don't want to be pregnant now but want to keep the option open for later, then you're simply going to have to accept the chance that you might get pregnant even while using birth control and be prepared to commit yourself to raising an unexpected child.

 

But while I can argue the finer details of abortion, my beliefs on it still arise primarily from what I said at the beginning at this post. A baby does not suddenly cease to be a baby simply because it's a few days farther away from birth than another baby. Abortion ends the life of a baby, and that is the cruelest form of murder.

Oh lawdy. Can we please back away from the emotionally charged ranting for a moment? Okay.

 

Firstly, a mother has a right to control her body, and that means that if she doesn't want a fetus to be leeching off her nutrients then she should have the right to do what needs to be done so a fetus isn't using her body anymore. This results in the fetus's death. It's a lot like how you can't force a person to give you their kidney, even if you would die without it. It's just not right. A person is allowed to kill someone else if they need to respect their right to bodily domain, so why can this not apply to fetuses?

 

Also, are you really saying that a raped woman should have to go through the trauma of being impregnated by her rapist? I'm sorry, I have more care for the sanity and livelihood of an already living, breathing person over a fetus that isn't even capable of thinking, and most abortions are performed even before the fetus is capable of doing more the cell replication.

 

Also, a woman is able to refuse consent at any time. This is how the law works. If a woman is having sex with a man, at any time she can say 'nope, no, I'm stopping' and if he doesn't get out of her it then becomes rape. This should apply to a fetus using her body against her will, in which she is able to say 'no, I no longer provide consent for this fetus to use my body' and then remove the fetus appropriately. I don't agree that a woman suddenly has no right to be a human just because a fetus is involved.

Share this post


Link to post
The other primary arguement I have heard in the case of abortion is that it is the mother's right to control her body. However, I argue that in all cases but rape, which I have already discussed, this is not the case. She does have control over her body--but by choosing to abstain from or indulge in sex, rather than by choosing whether or not to end her infant's life.

 

Biologically speaking, sex exists to create children. While sex certainly doesn't have to result in children (and can most definitely be enjoyed for reasons other than that purpose!), at the end of the day that is its one true intended purpose. By having sex, you are taking a chance that a pregnancy will occur. I have no problem at all with people using birth control as an attempt to prevent pregnancy. However, I also believe that people must take responsibility if a pregnancy occurs despite their precautions. There are ways to surgically halt your ability to have children, if you wish to freely enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy... and if you simply don't want to be pregnant now but want to keep the option open for later, then you're simply going to have to accept the chance that you might get pregnant even while using birth control and be prepared to commit yourself to raising an unexpected child.

Whooo boy. Here we go again.

 

1) Not everyone that has an abortion is a single, unmarried girl. Many of them are married women. I would say it's rather unreasonable to expect a married woman not to have sex with her husband because the two of them are not in a position to raise children. Personaly I would see said couple as being *more* responsible than not if they were waiting to have children until they knew they could provide a good life for them

 

2) Sex does not only exist to create children. If it did, then there would be no such thing as an orgasm, and we would have regular mating cycles during our fertile periods. As it stands - sex is almost more about bonding between a couple than it is about procreation. Having children *is* a function of having sex, but it is most certainly not the only one.

 

3) Doctors will not sterelise women under a certain age, or who haven't already had children. Trust me, I know. You can practically beg them, and present all the evidence you like that you are never going to want children, but they just won't do it. Which means permanently halting your ability to have children actualy isn't in the realms of possibility for many women. Which leaves birth control - which, as we all know, fails.

Share this post


Link to post

 

2) Sex does not only exist to create children. If it did, then there would be no such thing as an orgasm, and we would have regular mating cycles during our fertile periods. As it stands - sex is almost more about bonding between a couple than it is about procreation. Having children *is* a function of having sex, but it is most certainly not the only one.

 

Actually the pleasure in sex is a survival method to make us want to procreate so the species can continue.

 

But anyway- in my opinion abortion is not wrong. It is the woman's body and what they do with it is their choice. The fetus doesn't think, it simply has the potential to. In my opinion there are thousands of children out there in pain, we should concentrate our efforts on them: the ones that exist in the here and now, not in the maybe, one-day.

Share this post


Link to post
Actually the pleasure in sex is a survival method to make us want to procreate so the species can continue.

Nope. Sex for cats is actualy painful, and it doesn't stop them procreating. Because they have mating cycles. If the sole reason for pleasure in sex was to encourage us to procreate then why would sex be pleasureable when we're not fertile?

 

The bonding it creates, though, that *is* a survival mechanism. Because pair-bonded humans are more likely to raise a child to adult-hood. It benefits the species if the parents stay together. Sex for pleasure and bonding helps keep couples together.

Share this post


Link to post

The fact that embryonic brain cells are developing does NOT mean a foetus can actually think. My niece had a "fully grown" brain and was PVS for 20 years. There was no evidence of brain activity of any kind. (She had regular scans.) She couldn't even swallow - thought was well out of the question.

 

As to the pain study - I think you have posted the wrong link. BUT - a mimosa plant reacts automatically to touch. That isn't the same thing as feeling.

Yep, I did post the wrong link. Sorry about that:

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/plubmed/7912391?=Abstract

 

The link is giving me a bit of trouble, so if it doesn't work go here:

http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/fetal_pain.html

And go to the #3 reference at the end. That should bring it up.

Edited by Zephyrgirl

Share this post


Link to post
Then what does equal a human being? Please, enlighten me. Is it looks? Is it because we have thumbs? Is it because we walk upright? Because, y'know, without thought, we're pretty much like every other damned animal on this planet.

So, people who are living and don't have any kind of brain waves or thought waves are not people? I don't know what would equal a human, but it CERTAINLY isn't thought, otherwise all the people I've met who don't have thought waves aren't human.

Share this post


Link to post
So, people who are living and don't have any kind of brain waves or thought waves are not people? I don't know what would equal a human, but it CERTAINLY isn't thought, otherwise all the people I've met who don't have thought waves aren't human.

If you didn't have brainwaves, you'd be dead. The organs can be kept going with life support, but there is no hope of revival after brain death.

Share this post


Link to post
So, people who are living and don't have any kind of brain waves or thought waves are not people? I don't know what would equal a human, but it CERTAINLY isn't thought, otherwise all the people I've met who don't have thought waves aren't human.

It may be human, in a strict biological sense, but if something can't think, then there really isn't a point in calling it a person.

 

And besides, even if an embryo was a person, that does NOT give it a right to live at the expense of another person. No one, no person, has the right to use another persons body, blood, organs, whatever, without explicit consent. No one can demand that you donate blood. No one can demand you donate plasma, or bone marrow, or a kidney. (And most of these are safer than pregnancy, I might add.) They can't even demand that you let your corpse be harvested for organs.

Share this post


Link to post

Also, let me just say, with gay-rights, this country's population will probably drop dramatically.

Oh, yeah, because treating all those homosexuals like they're people will suddenly make straight people stop breeding. You DO realise that some gay people have children, too, yes? And that plenty of straight people don't?

 

At what point going back from the moment of birth does a baby cease to be a baby?
Uhm, the point at which it becomes a zygote, blastocyst, embryo or fetus? This is basic human biology. A single cell=/= a baby. A clump of still-dividing cells=/= a baby. Something that looks like a tadpole=/=a baby. Even a late second/early third trimester fetus=/=a baby.

 

The same applies to incest. While it is a disturbing thing, most babies born of it won't actually have health issues. They may have mental struggles related to the cause of their birth, but again, only they can decide if their life is still worth living or not. Such a truly life-or-death chocie should not be made when they can not speak at all in their own defense.

 

And then, of course, there is rape. Surely the worst of all of the three cases I've mentioned... primarily for the mother. The child is not at all at fault for what one sick person did to their mother. Why should a healthy child die because of their father's crime?

Will it be emotionally charging for the mother to carry through a pregnancy conceived with rape? Certainly. But the point is that you are still ending an innocent life just to spare the mother further emotional pain. Emotional pain does not justify the ending of innocent life. I will have all the pity in the world for the mother and they should be given all possible support, but they should not suddenly gain the right to kill an innocent infant.

1. A fetus/blastocyst/zygote/embryo is not an infant. No-one is advocating infanticide. Abortion is usually done in the first or second trimester. The ONLY time third trimester abortions are generally done is when it is absolutely medically necessary, whether for the health of the mother or non-viability of the fetus.

 

2.Incest is "a disturbing thing"? No kidding. Guess what? It can be psychologically damaging enough without adding the complication of an unwanted pregnancy. If the victim is a child themself, there are a hell of a lot more problems than just mental/emotional ones. Just because a person can become pregnant doesn't mean their body would be able to support it. Had the person who molested me raped me, and had I become pregnant, would you seriously have told my eight-year-old self that the fetus was at least or more important than me and my physical or mental wellbeing, and I should have it because it probably wouldn't have health issues? Would you condemn the children who have actually been raped and whose parents or someone else have procured abortions for them? Many of the victims of incest are or were unable to speak in their defence either, when it comes/came to being abused, and they certainly didn't get a choice. Does that not factor in at all?

 

 

3.The mother is not at fault either. Why should she be forced to bear a child she did not want to conceive? She is an innocent victim in the whole thing as well. Do you care at all about the serious, long-term psychological damage that being forced to carry the pregnancy to term-not willing choosing to continue it, but being FORCED, whether by law or through shaming- could cause? The woman is a living, breathing person with thoughts and feelings. The fetus is a POTENTIAL person, which could, up to a certain point, become something else entirely. Are the feelings and mental as well as physical wellbeing of the mother really irrelevant? (By the way, not everyone who might get pregnant through rape is a woman. Ever hear of transmen? Does the psychological harm a transman might go through matter enough that it would be okay for him to have an abortion, or should he just soldier on as well?) "Emotional damage" is not something to brush off or take lightly. It's certainly not something you can basically tell someone to buck up and get over.

BTW, a piece on effects of childbirth: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm

 

However, I also believe that people must take responsibility if a pregnancy occurs despite their precautions. There are ways to surgically halt your ability to have children, if you wish to freely enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy... and if you simply don't want to be pregnant now but want to keep the option open for later, then you're simply going to have to accept the chance that you might get pregnant even while using birth control and be prepared to commit yourself to raising an unexpected child.
Abortion is taking responsibility. It is being responsible enough to realise that you are not in a position to raise a child, or would not be a good parent, or to prevent the suffering and protracted, painful existence of a severely disabled child. Most women actually CANNOT have those surgical procedures. Women under a certain age who do not have children have extreme difficulty in finding a doctor who will sterilise them. There's this ridiculous attitude that women do not really know what we want, and that even the most adamantly child-free woman will someday "change her mind" and want babies, so of course they can't perform the procedure on her. Apparently, women who do have children are more able to be trusted to know what they really want (or something). A lot of women can't afford to be sterilised, either, even if they can find someone willing to do it. It is not as simple as waltzing into a clinic or hospital and asking for the procedure. Edited by LascielsShadow

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh, because people seem to be taking the "fetuses are tiny babies" route-

 

these are some pictures of fetuses. Guess which one's human. The rest are all animals.

 

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

user posted image

 

You say the world is over populated eh? Well then, COLONIZE OTHER PLANETS!!!! Go to Mars for petes sake! Don't just kill innocent human beings because the plannet is over populated! Killing people is a stupid solution to planet population

 

I didn't say we used abortion as a population solution in the U.S

 

You are ranting against the world. Since when was the U.S not a part of the world?

 

Other stuff that I don't agree with I won't post, since others have done a great job of doing this.

Edited by ylangylang

Share this post


Link to post

To me, abortion is murder.

 

Explain how it's murder

 

At what point going back from the moment of birth does a baby cease to be a baby?

 

Why don't you ask the republicans in the government that are trying to abolish abortion completely. To them, life starts at conception and ends at birth.

 

Biologically speaking, sex exists to create children.

Sex exists to bond a couple and it feels good and actually REDUCES stress and even headaches. Children are what can become of it. If it was just for kids, we would go into a mating season.

 

Adding to Ylangylang's point:

 

There are two pictures of fetuses. Guess which ones the tumor fetus without looking at the writing.

 

user posted image

 

user posted image

Edited by GhostChilli

Share this post


Link to post

I think abortion is wrong.  You say the world is over populated eh?  Well then, COLONIZE OTHER PLANETS!!!!  Go to Mars for petes sake!  Don't just kill innocent human beings because the plannet is over populated!  Killing people is a stupid solution to planet population.  You may say that the babies are not human in their mother's womb, but they are.  How could someone be an alien and then suddenly turn into a human the second they come out?  It's just not possible.  So, when you say "Oh I'm not killing a human." your wrong.  Abortion is wrong, and evil and I'm going to leave it at that for now.

Some reasons for an abortion that don't even go near overpopulation:

  • Danger to the mother's life

  • The fetus is not going to have a life that is worth living if it was born (very sever defects, parents who will not be able to care for it because of those defects, etc.)

  • Parents who are unable to care for the child

  • Parents who do not want that child (would YOU want to grow up with parents who hated and resented you because you were unwanted? And possibly abused you because you had the nerve to be born?)

  • Victim of rape

  • Victim of incest

  • Victim of being coerced by a partner into a pregnancy

  • Victim of having their birth control sabotaged

  • Birth control failed (it DOES happen)

  • Mother is mentally/emotionally unable to safely handle the pregnancy

 

 

And there are others, I'm sure.

 

 

Also, just because it was conceived does NOT mean it is going to be a living human. Miscarriage happens, it can be stillborn, it could become a tumor, it could die and become a calcified mass.

 

 

Can you prove this? Can you with out the even the tiniest sliver of doubt say that a fetus is not a person? No one knows what truly defines a human as a person and I find it kind of scary that every one seems to have their own deffinition of when life starts.

Can you prove that a fetus is a human? Can you give solid, scientific prove of when life starts? Because until you can scientifically prove the point when a fetus becomes a person, your own argument that we CAN'T prove a fetus is not a person comes right back against you. (Also, I imagine this will be hard, since as you said we don't know what truly defines a human)

Share this post


Link to post
Also, let me just say, with gay-rights, this country's population will probably drop dramatically.

How do you figure that?

Share this post


Link to post
these are some pictures of fetuses. Guess which one's human. The rest are all animals.

My guess would definitely be the second one. (*waits to be told how wrong she is!!*)

 

All photos aside...

 

I wanted to get away from the politicized views on abortion, and so I went and read a lot of first-hand experience accounts, in the "I had an abortion" group of ExperienceProject.com. It's a website basically dedicated to letting everyone and anyone post their personal experiences for -- sharing, posterity, catharsis, pride, whatever. I read dozens of firsthand accounts. Those women came from all different positions in life, all different belief systems, with different views on their abortion experiences, and it gave me a much clearer picture than I had before of who is having abortions and why, and what sort of situations could arise if abortion were banned.

 

It seemed to me that in many cases, yes, some women weren't using birth control when they knew they should have been; and the majority of those women had a rough wake-up call, grieved over their abortions, but knew very well that their life wasn't conducive to raising a child or even to pregnancy -- they would lose a job, they had an abusive boyfriend, they were still in high school, etc. Many, many other women were using some form, maybe even two forms, of birth control, and either a condom broke, or it turned out the woman was resistant or allergic to one form, or she was being treated with an antibiotic that rendered her birth control useless, and she only found out about it when she got pregnant. Other women were pushed into an abortion by an abusive significant other on whom they were dependent, and knew that if they didn't have an abortion, they would be left without financial support or marketable skills, with a pregnancy and then a child to care for.

 

These are some awful situations, but they are common. I, for one, don't think it's my place to tell a woman that she *has* to bear a child, even if it means she will have no job, no education, no money, no support, and the child will be denied its basic needs. I strongly hope that all adoption and charity programs advance, and make these situations less dire, so that women have somewhere to turn. I hope that some of those women would find a way to make it work. But I know that not all of them can, and I don't want to condemn their children, especially those fervently-unwanted children, to an awful life -- or condemn those women to giving up their relationships, their futures or their personal safety. That's a choice that I can't make for them, and I don't think that random politicians in D.C. are in any position to make those choices for them, either.

Share this post


Link to post

Can you with out the even the tiniest sliver of doubt say that a fetus is not a person?

 

Because a fetus can be other things than a human. Closed and I am a winner.

 

Also, let me just say, with gay-rights, this country's population will probably drop dramatically.

 

Gay rights is for another thread. And MANY gay couples do have kids. They either adopt or get inserted whether if they're female or get a seregant mother if they're male. Argument debunked.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.