Abortion

Post Reply New Topic

Personally, I can't really say I'm "pro-life" or "pro-choice".

Though, if I was forced to choose one or the other, I would opt for "pro-choice" since as far as I'm concerned, choices are good, the more the merrier. However, a lot of the mentalities of the pro-choice argument seem to filled with people trying to nullify the responsibility of what they're doing.

Like for example, the expressions "Put the dog down", "She passed away", etc. are pretty ridiculous since one would be shunning any attempt at accepting the reality that one is murdering the dog, or that the woman is dead, it seems kind of pathetic to me that one has to use these soft words. At least admit what you are doing and try not to rationalise it as something less, this kind of behaviour is in tune with the kind of people that would rationalise destructive, violent behaviour as something casual. While I'm taking a shower, I'm killing all sorts of organisms. =P

As far as pro-life, I can't think of any of their arguments that stand up since I don't really consider humans, animals, plants, and bacteria all that different from one another. You don't hear about all of the dead people or extinct lifeforms preaching about the sacredness of life, do you? Why? Because they're dead. n_n;

From each side we have:

Pro-choice
1) My body and I can do what I want with it
2) It's not a human just a bunch of cells
3) It can't survive without the mother
4) A fetus doesn't feel pain
5) It doesn't effect anyone
6) Harvesting of stem cells

Counter argument
1) Hmm, true but doesn't that basically say that the law doesn't apply to you as well? The law tells you what you can and cannot do with your body, doesn't it? Basically the argument is of free will but this can not be used to justify an abortion since it would justify drugs, crime, and just about anything.

2) Then are you willing to say that at a time you weren't human? You were a bunch of cells once, weren't you? You disvalue your own existence by saying such. By agreeing, you agree that you were NOT always human.

3) Thus you don't consider parasites living organisms then. Most cannot survive without a host. Whether or not a parasite causes harm is not a factor what matters is that it needs a host to survive much like a fetus needs a mother for nutrients. Also can a baby survive on its own without the care of someone else? It's the same point dependence on another. On a side note adoption would be kind of like brood parasites considering the parents don't raise the young.

4) That's saying if I dope you up on pain killers to the point where you don't feel anything I can kill you. You don't feel it thus it isn't inhumane. The end of a life isn't a factor just the fact that you don't feel yourself die. Thanks for trying to legalise a type of murder.

5) That is a variable on who it effects since friends and family may disagree with it causing emotional harm. Maybe to the woman who has it if she doesn't fully agree a.k.a guilt. Whether they care is the factor. Of course this argument doesn't holds up if the woman doesn't care and doesn't tell anyone about her abortion

6) The ending of a life to save an existing life. I personally have no argument against stem cell research but to state the opposing is that you end one life to help an existing one. Of course most don't consider a fetus a living thing thus it's not murder to them.

Now for the other side of the argument

Pro-Life
1) Those group of cell are a living being
2) It has potential to become something
3) If they didn't want the kid they shouldn't have had sex
4) Religion
5) You don't give the fetus a chance

Counter argument
1) So is bacteria but you don't have a problem killing them. If you believe killing cells is murder then you are guilty of mass genocide on a microscopic level. If you believe it's murder because it's human however then that means you disvalue anything that isn't human. By doing so you must agree that abortion is okay on anything that isn't human which still doesn't change the fact you're still condoning abortion.

2) Potential isn't always good. You have the potential to be anything. To help and to hurt. That argument is a double-edged sword which destroys itself. You can't preach about the potential to be a doctor if you don't preach about the potential to become a drug dealer.

3) They have many ways to prevent pregnancy such as condoms and the morning after pill but what if a case of rape? They didn't want to have sex yet they still ended up pregnant then what? This argument doesn't hold up against when one is forced. You argue about personal responsibility yet you forget accidents happen. If they're responsibly used condoms, birth control pills, ect. and still end up pregnant then how are they irresponsible. They responsibly tried not to get pregnant but failed, then what?

4) Don't push your belief on other people. I don't believe in your god thus so why should I have to listen to your religious dogma? People have the freedom to think what they want and to have their own personal opinion on everything whether you are or not.

5) Neither do the animals or plants we kill for food. How about veil or the aborted fruits we eat? They don't get a say, we do as we please to them. They are living creatures and it is murder by all standards as it's an end of another life in every way. The food chain says we must kill to live... unless you're a plant then you can make you own food from sunlight. If you don't agree on killing an animal that has no say in its death then your argument is invalid.

These are the basic arguments on both sides of the debate. I personally don't care about a fetus getting aborted even though I consider it murder. I'm self-centered and it doesn't affect me thus I ignore it. Humans, animals, plants, fungi, protists, and monerans die everyday. Life isn't sacred. Get used to it.

Something that interests me much more than whether or not abortion should be legal (I'm leaning toward it being legal since the less humans I have to deal with in the future, the better), would be the subject of parents who want to have a baby, but decide to kill the fetus because it isn't up to their standards. We're already doing it with Downs Syndrome babies, it'll only be a matter of time before people start aborting babies because they have a high likelihood to be homosexual or some other genetic divergence. Also, if it's all right to kill a fetus, would it then not be criminal to somehow construct something that kills all fetuses without the parent's knowledge or consent? '~'

the obvious solution to this issue is for someone to invent a mechanical human embryo/fetus incubator...and then all the excess babies could be sent to vatican city or something...they want 'em they got 'em

Pro-choice, but uneasy with late term abortions that aren't for medical reasons. The reason is that I'm not happy with the idea that a foetus can be aborted at an age where it could also be delivered prematurely and have a decent chance of surviving. For me, the cut-off point is that where survival outside the womb becomes possible.

However, I'm not a woman, and I've never had to deal with abortion personally. So both of these things make my opinion less valuable.

I think anything someone wants to do to an unborn child they ought to try on themselves first, just to make sure no harm is done.

In my beliefs pretaining to this, I have to be pro-life, because it is a waste of a perfectly good potential human. As many know, I am not religious. But, it is depriving people of their right to live a life, it is not murder persay. But it is still deprivation of a basic human right, the right to live. I do support stem cell research, since it is beneficial to society. Yeah giving women control of their own bodies, they already do. When they do that they are exercising control over someone elses body. And if this is a proper union (marriage, common-law, mongamus relationship) the male should get a say, because if she didnt want the child. Maybe he might want it. Think about the father's right, maybe he wants a child, how many fathers have been reduced to tears when the wife/girlfriend/common-law went ahead and did that. And on the issue of the father forcing the mother to do that, the mother has a choice in that situation.

Allow me to draw a conclusion from the data collected from the poll.

As many of the voters are aspies, I think it is reasonable to assume that we only grasp the issue in intellectual terms. The emotions involved are intense, and it is my belief that we don't feel them as strongly as someone who is NT. Emotion is not our greatest parlance, but reasoning intellectually is a strong suit of ours.

To the person who said this is a practical, not moral issue: If this were in the NCE forum, I would tend to agree. However, since this is in the PPR forum and the topic clearly asks for what you think i.e. your OPINION, I'll have to disagree on that one.

Ok I have read through all of the comments on this tread and I have a few things to say:

(1) I am Pro-life, and somewhat religious. I find it unfair that when someone says that they are so-so religion their credibility on something plummets. I think it racist, stereotypical and immature.

(2) The main argument for Pro-choice is that the fetus isn't alive. Their primary reason for beliveing this is the fact the fetus is incapable of surviving on its own. The ability to survive does not define life. Children under the age of seven are unable to survive on their own, if left alone without food or water readily available. Hell, some adults have difficulty surviving on their own without supplies readily available. The "their just a bunch of cells line" doesn't work on me, we are ALL just a bunch of cells. They are just less complex then you or me.

(3) Another argument is that the fetus is part of the womans body and thus she has full choice over what to do with it. This is true, but, it is an overexaggeration of how much a part of her body it is to say she has the right to remove it at will. Now when such factors as rape or risks to the womans life come into it, they obviously have to be taken into consideration. But just getting one done at the local clinic is not right. Listen, he/she is only in your womb for nine months he/she not doing any harm just have it and see where like takes him/her. If you don't want them then give them up for adoption, its not to hard.

(4) Another argument is that the parent would be unloving or abusive. Now listen here, there is a big difference to not loving what you think is a sack of flesh in your stomach to a baby lokking up at you. A lot of parents may not want the baby but if its born the majority would be willing to take care of him/her. After all before abortion ther was parents who had children they didn't originally want but looked after it and loved it in the end.

(5) There are several other arguments involving world population, crime and the like, but I think they aren't worth the point I have given them.

Well those are my arguments thank you for your time