Do you think abortion is wrong?

Post Reply New Topic

Doh, we are not talking about murder. We are talking about abortion, which is a health care choice.







Which you you have done, by calling abortion murder.

Murder is killing without just cause. In the case of the fetus vs. the mother, there is a just cause.

You say that as if everyone accepts that the unborn are part of their mother. I can just as easily reply, "doh, we are not talking about a health care choice. We are talking about abortion, which is murder." Unless all pro-choice people have performed abortions, I'm not calling them murderers, and even those who did I do not consider murderers because they did not believe they were killing a person.

All I'm trying to say is that pro-life people are trying to save innocent people from an early, avoidable death. Whether or not a fetus is part of a woman or a separate person is irrelevant. Even if it's hard, indisputable fact that the unborn are part of a woman and aborting them is completely ok, their intent is as pure as yours. They are not trying to get the government to make healthcare choices for women because they do not believe the choices they are referring to are about the woman! You people portray pro-life supporters like they are monsters. I know it goes both ways, but on this thread I have only seen it from the pro-choice side, so I'm focusing on that.

Last edited by UndeadToaster on 22 Nov 2013, 4:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Intent is irrelevant.

It's irrelevant when discussing the action itself, but it's not irrelevant when making judgements about that person's beliefs and character.

I think I might have posted earlier, but here is my take. Once it turns from a zygote / little nucleus to something recognizable as a living being (generally 3 weeks or so), I would oppose traditional abortion. As for other forms of abortion (such as herb or such), I don't think it is easy to regulate, and things should not be banned due to their potential. Having said that, the government should not pay for abortions, and we should focus on incubators and such that we could preserve the baby, but at the same time relieve mom of the burden of holding their child for several more months.

So because the offspring doesn't have any intent to harm the mother, she is of bad character if she aborts it? I don't agree.

If a mentally ill person comes at me with a knife, do I not have a right to defend myself? He may not of been of the mental capacity to form intent - so does that mean I should just stand there and let him stab me?

Then again if the penis was inside you voluntarily, you agreed to accept all responsibility that become of that action, including any STDs or pregnancies.

I don't agree to carrying and giving birth to a baby by having sex.

I don't think it's something that anyone wants to have, but as long as the only way to get the baby out of the womans body, when she wants it out, it has to remain legal. I think it can be wrong in certain instances, but I don't think it's always wrong. The instances I can think of are things that would be extremely rare, but could happen. I think we have to keep in mind the majority of women who have abortions and make that our factor in keeping it legal rather than focus on one or two rare instances.

The perfect solution for both sides would be to develop a type of incubator where they can remove the very young baby and let it mature in there, then give it to adoptive parents or back to the original mother if the reason she would have aborted was her own health (treating cancer, problems with carrying or birthing a baby, etc). I don't know why no one has funded research into something like that, except that by making abortion a moot point they won't have a big political card to play.

1. Why should we fund research like that? If they really want it, let the anti-abortion people fund it.

2. Who is going to adopt all these hundreds of millions of babies? Certainly not the rightwing anti-abortion people. Because they are just greedy bastards who could care less about the babies after they are born.

3. Without abortion, the world population would be twice what it is today. Where would all these extra people live? What would they eat? In case you didn't notice, we are living on a small, little planet, with a finite amount of resources.

Last edited by Max000 on 22 Nov 2013, 7:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wouldn't want to have an abortion, and I assume that only a very tiny percentage of the people who have them make the decision easily. That decision is up to them.

If you want to reduce the number of abortions, support free birth control for everyone. It's not perfect, but it reduces the number of abortions effectively. Legal restrictions do not reduce the number of abortions.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

I have no idea. We don't even know that half the babies that were aborted would have survived the pregnancy or even infancy. There's no telling. I'm just wondering why nobody wants to try and get rid of the issue altogether by getting rid of the need for it. Not only an incubation device, but also 100% effective birth control (that isn't abstinence).

The Chinese and Japanese .

Of course not. You should, however, recognize that he did not feel that it was wrong and forgive him for it.


Actually, that is (well, 2005 is the most recent thing I could find in a few minutes of research) being worked on. http://www.nytimes.com/1996/09/29/magaz ... all&src=pm http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2 ... cial-wombs

Last edited by UndeadToaster on 22 Nov 2013, 10:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sure, but that doesn't mean I have to carry him inside me for 9 months and give birth to him.