Do you agree with abortion? Discuss

Post Reply New Topic

exactly

It still doesn't obligate me to the child in any way, shape, or form.

If parents of a sick child decided to sue me in court for the use of one of my organs, should I be legally required to give it to them?

We've covered this ground before. You've already given your organs/had them stolen. You are trying to take them back from someone who now depends on them temporarily, someone who had nothing to do with the original act/crime.

That doesn't negate the point of who has an inherent right to use my organs and why.

I do not give consent for anyone to use my organs, and I would not grant it on the basis that the person is "innocent." If we go down that road, then there is nothing to say that any individual could not sue me for use of my organs because 1.) they need it, and 2.) they haven't committed any crimes.

If someone steals my car and gives it to a poor family, am I obligated to let them keep it? Declaring that anyone who has their organs forcefully taken must relinquish them if the recipient "needs" it is announcing open war on healthy people everywhere.

Besides, if this idiot is allowed to keep my organ, and, later, one of my relatives needs my organs to live, why is this person more valuable than my relative.

I'm not convinced of this organ-free-for-all scenario. There's a legal concept in English property rights that says that even though land you own is absolutely yours, you do owe some duty of care to people who find themselves on it, whether by accident or illegal intrusion.

You can't just blow them away if they stumble or sneak onto your property. This seems pretty reasonable to me. Does it not to you?

To resolve the situation, you must appeal to authorities to have the situation resolved in a civilised manner. I don't think it then follows that people can then sue you for temporary or permanent use of land they have no claim of any kind over. The civilised, reasonable solution to the pregnancy problem seems to me to say ok you don't legally have to care for the child after it's born, but you can't just kill it with impunity either. Just like you can't kill people for trespassing.



Your property sustains life. You do understand that you can't murder (or have someone else murder) the poor family in the course of reclaiming your car right?

Edit: thanks for keeping this going, I have a new argument in my arsenal against abortion. Where else in law can you kill to protect property rights? I'm aware this may not be the case for our wayward American cousins across the pond.

I don't think I am anyone to decide what anyone else does.

In terms of rape, it's like this:

If I came over to your property, caused thousands of pounds worth of damage, would you not claim on your home insurance to have it fixed?

Also you can't compare property (inanimate objects which do not feel pain or have emotions) to a woman's body. Why would a woman want to spend 9 months carrying around a baby she doesn't want, who's father raped her? Why would she want to go through the emotional rollercoaster, the morning sickness, have to take maternity leave, go through the pain of labour etc?

Like you said, the authorities can remove people from your property. But it doesn't take them 9 months. And because it is usually done relatively fast (possibly a day or 2), the chance for these people to cause any lasting effects is minimised. It's not like they are going to make you vomit every morning for a month or 2, nor are they going to affect your hormones, nor make you be forced to take time off work etc.

I wouldn't normally but I keep having these friendly arguments with XFilesGeek every 6 months or so and the organ donation parallel keeps coming up (not introduced by me or my side of the debate, I'm the one who has to take it to pieces). We might finally have knocked it on the head after 2 years and 5 or so threads. Which, as always, takes us back to square one: the nature of the unborn, the true heart of this argument. If they are human, there are very very limited circumstances where abortion is moral. If they aren't human you don't even need a reason.



The right thing to do is almost never the easy thing to do. I've said before that these are all real concerns that should be taken seriously, I just don't think it's reason enough to terminate a human life.

I capture bugs and let them go free, so I don't have to kill them.

At some point, it's "alive" and I couldn't support terminating it.

And who decides it is the RIGHT thing to do? You? If you had a wife and she was raped, are you saying you would talk her into keeping the child? It's all well and good trying to be some moral compass until you are put into that situation yourself. There are plenty of people who are very self-righteous and claim to be the pinnacle of morality, but put them in some f****d up situation and 9 times out of 10 they will go back on their personal morals. In my opinion, it's fine for a number of reasons. Obviously health reasons and also criminal reasons. A woman should not be forced to carry a baby she never wanted or asked for, it affects her adversely, and whilst not the embryo/foetus's fault, it is not the woman's fault either so why should she have to suffer? Do you not think she will have suffered enough in the first place?

There is also the fact that contraception is never 100%. If someone takes every precaution and still ends up pregnant, I see no reason why they can't have an abortion. You can say that if they don't want to get pregnant don't have sex, but we are animals at the end of the day and we still have urges and instincts so yeah.....we aren't machines. Obviously I don't think a woman should be having abortions if she's just constantly having unprotected sex, that just seems idiotic and if anything is a drain on the NHS in the UK, and also a waste of money for them if they live in the US lol.

People are flawed, but if true, that has no bearing on whether it is right or wrong. Unless you are suggesting some kind of morality ad populum.



I like to believe I would retain my faculties and advise her to at least birth the child, if not keep it. It's true I can't know unless it happens. If I did give in to anger, that wouldn't make it right. There's a reason we delegate matters of justice to dispassionate judges, rather than the emotional mob.



This is pretty much the only reason that holds any water with me. If the mother's life is in truly mortal danger and there is good reason to believe she won't survive pregnancy - then it's likely justified.



I believe humans are humans from conception. Being a product of rape would not be accepted as a reason to kill an older human. If you are a "viability" nut, you wouldn't accept it as a reason to terminate beyond the legal limit either. The rest of your arguments have nothing in them that would make termination acceptable according to this belief. If it's human, these are not valid reasons.

As with all social issues, I don't completely agree with either side on this one(When you're all the way on one side or the other of a social issue, you tend to be guided by beliefs more than facts). I think its possible nowadays for a woman to know if she's pregnant 8 days after confession. So I think the deadline for abortion should be 1 month after conception. There's no excuse for a woman deciding halfway through that she doesn't want the baby. If it was even a question, they shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place and should've used birth control if they weren't intending to get pregnant. I think pro-choice is actually pro-female sexual irresponsibility. I know I'm gonna get flamed for this part but (at least in western society) its the woman who grants permission to have sex(unless of course she is raped), so since she is in control, she bares the responsibility that comes with being in control.

I'm not saying 1 month is right, but I think its sensible and a fair compromise between the two sides.

Christians who are against abortion because religious reasons are slightly hypocritical because apparently in the bible it says that life begins 18 days after conception because that's when the fetus is infused with blood. So why don't they accept an 18 day deadline? Maybe 18 days should be the line. I'm cool with that.

The person who said abortion is a women only issue should try getting pregnant without a man. You're case and point regarding being guided more by beliefs than facts.

I wonder if being a father or father-to-be would make me more pro-life.

@LoveNoteHate: I don't kill bugs either. I accidentally killed a snail a few days ago and I feel really bad about it.

While everyone is free to have and express their own opinions on this subject, I believe that only women should be allowed to decide (1) if abortion should be a legally-recognized right for all women, and (2) whether or not to get an abortion.

No man should ever be allowed to decide what a woman's reproductive choices should be.

If someone invades my property, and I feel threatened, I can, in fact, kill them. I am also not legally required to place myself in physical danger just to save someone else just like I'm not legally required to provide my body to sustain another person's life.



You do understand that someone can't keep my car if a thief gives it to them just because they "need" it, right?

And you're welcome.

A Bottom Line 'HeaR' is Abortions are
Never Going Away as Long as Humans
Are Humans as Abortions are Part of Animal
Nature and Human Nature Still too as Nature
And God As Nature if ya wanna put a 'Theist'
in 'Realiest' too that is all that is Really Real True;

As Already Mentioned in the Discussion for Any Folks
With a Reasoning Mind who Pay attention to the Facts at
Hand; the topic of Abortion has Been Thoroughly Researched
By the World Health Organization; and yes, in those Third World
Countries; where so many Folks would wish upon 'A Star' of Religion
to come here too; where Yes, Abortion is Illegal in so-called Catholic
Countries like Mexico too; There are as many Abortions there as there are
here now too; only difference is they are Medically Unsafe and Many more Living
Beings; Both Fetus, and or Newly Born Child, and Mother too Suffer More Pain and
Misery in Both What comes Before Death And what Stays as Permanent Disability too.

Do More Harm
or Do Less Harm
is An only Question
And Answer that makes
Sense here; Fortunately, On
An International Basis for Folks
Who are Scientists, instead of Religious
Zealots Imposing Ignorance on those with
'Smaller Feathered Nests'; We Do Have the
World Health Organization and as the 'Dragnet'
And the 'Facts' Go; Just the Facts Sir/Ma'm Without Ignorance Still now:

It's Like Killing A Bug, when you have the 'Terminator' Folks Do IT; And IT is out of your purview.

It's Like Taking Away Health Care from the Poor Where over a 100K Folks Stand to Lose their Life;
And Millions More Fall to Lose their Health Care for Health and Well Being as Productive Citizens Now too;
And then 'by God', Taking that Action to Take the Health Care From the Poor And Give Welfare Tax Breaks to the Rich.

And yes, it's like IF the Catholic Church, and their Over 65 Demographic, and the other Parts of the Demographic
Who Want to See Abortion Go Away ever get their Ignorant Wish; The Abortions Will Still Happen in 'Back Alley Ways'
that are Medically Unsafe; And As Many or More Living Beings Will Likely Die and Suffer Much Greater Misery and
Suffering and Permanent
Disability too.

Out of Sight
Does Not Mean
Out of Reality; but
Humans who are 'too small'
to see a Bigger View out of Ignorance
of what Happens out of their Sight Kill; do Kill and Maim, 'the Innocent' still more.

If you Hire the 'Terminators' to Kill Your Bugs in all the ways Terminators
And Bugs Do Live and Die; You Still Kill the Bugs for the Reality of Now and
yes as
Far
as
Nature
and God
Goes you
Do Kill more
of Nature in Suffering
And Misery more too
Now as PArt of (GODALL) too.

It doesn't take a Math Major
to Figure that out; but it does help.

People Love Words
More than Reality
these days as
Emptier
Shells
still;
Square
One Root
Problem One Away from
Nature as Humans continue
to Become HeARTless Tools without
ReaSoN; More Than Just F iN Humans
With A Common Sense And Feel About Life That/Who Harms Folks Less.

Just my Opinion now; not directed at anything but the topic And "The You"
In General That and Who is no Name but You for the Entire F iN Human Species.

Yes; JusT
For F iN
Fun too..

Fortunately;
Fully SmART
Folks With
reaSON Vote too;
So, as Long as we do remain
A First World Country, 'Third World
Religions' Will Not Rule Ignorance 'HeaR'..

But i Will Not 'Tale' a Lie at 'the Top' now we are already a Third World
Country; And Worse Now for Humans who Cannot/Will Not Tell the Truth
are at
the
Very
Bottom
of Both Maslow's
Pyramid; Fowlers'
Pyramid of Not Only
Agape Love For all in
Honor and Integrity too;
but at the Lowest Pyramid Levels
For Critical Discussion for Rationality
No Different Than Ad Hominem Attacks
Away from the Topic and directed to a Person
in Particular That are Part and Parcel of Lies now too.

And the Fact that Religions/Churches are Still Against
Safe and Effective Contraceptives is A Whole Lot Worse
Than Not Believing in Evolution Now; and God
Yes More, in Just one Lifetime of Human too;
For it's
True
That
Anti-
Contraception
Policy Directly
Increases Harm
And Abortions and
Overall Human Misery and Suffering too
Away From F iN Surviving Thriving Life Now True, too.