O.J. da Juiceman
Well-Known Member
If abortion wasn't legal desperate women would be led to much more drastic and dangerous alternatives...
-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Abortion, Right or Wrong?
- Thread starter Rezon
- Start date
That is a win statement. Congrats. xD
Abortion is only right when it is a bundle of cells. I don't come from even a tiny bit religious family, and my mom had about 4 abortions before she had my brother and me. Of course, one was an ectopic pregnancy, and she almost died, but that's not the point; the other three were choice. I'm not going to say, however, after twenty weeks (when the child becomes aware), abortion should be legal, unless needed to save the mother's life. Cells are just cells.
Gallade324
Typhlosion Lover.
Yeah well some people don't beleive we have soul's, let's just say me. I do beleive children to bring great happiness to people, i know first hand since my sister is a single mother. But i still think that babies can bring trouble and if the parent can't handle it then send it to someone who can actually bring it up and care.
Pokemon-Dratini
cutes.u.2.death >: )
now out of anything this is a statement that pretty much is completely correct
Because we have a complex central nervous system that allows us to interpret the world around us, cause us pain, cause us emotions, and is how we are determined as living. Cells under twenty weeks are barely stem cells that just have a small idea how to organize themselves, and are not to be considered the same as human cells.
Starlight Aurate
Just a fallen star
They've got a soul. I beleive things have souls, so that may change it, but even if I didn't beleive in souls, I doubt it would make much of a difference because that thing WILL become a child. It will become a baby that has a life and a central nervous system and everything else you or I have.
RaZoR LeAf
Night Terror
It will not, 100% certain become a child. A bundle of cells clinging to the inside of the womb can easily die and be flushed out of the body during a heavy period. The woman would never know she was carrying anything. Happens all the time. If it had a soul, then there are lot of souls floating around in the sewers.
Determing when a fetus is alive can be reasoned on when you consider a person dead. If a person has no brain activity and must rely on machines to pump their blood, and fill their lungs, they are 'brain dead', a complete absense of any brain activity. A zygote has no brain cells, in fact it has no unique cells. It is nothing more than a bundle of cells that cling to the inside of the womb. A brain doesn't develop properly until 30 weeks into a pregnancy. It is no more alive than a cancerous tumor (which itself is a bundle of mutated cells, therefore making them unique within the body).
Obviouly I'm Pro-choice, and I also think that babies are being born too prematurely for their own good. Science may have made it possible, but babies shouldn't be born when they are barely developed.
It might or it might not. Chances are it will, but there is a chance it could die during the next weeks or die at birth and kill the mother as well.
Also... don't hate me for this, but didn't you say that other animals didn't have souls in another thread?
You can't prove that it will absolutely, 100% become a born child. The cells could die off. It happens quite often. It could become nothing more than a fetus.
Starlight Aurate
Just a fallen star
Except for the fact that souls will go to Heaven instead of hanging around on Earth. And if the woman didn't know, she wouldn't get an abortion, and an accident or something you didn't do on purpose or had no intention of doing is what it is.
And why not? They've got the right to keep on living and if science can make it possible for the child to make it, why shouldn't they?[/QUOTE]
And what right does the mother have to live that the child doesn't?
Then it'll be a mis-carriage, something my mother has experienced before and something that people have no control over. The baby will die, and the soul will go off to Heaven.
Well in sveral cases, women do have some sort of cotnrol over miscarriages. Tobacco, drugs, excercise and caffeine greatly increase the risk of a miscarriage.
Also, what's funny, medically speaking, abortion is defined as a pregnancy that ends in the death of a fetus, and miscarriage is included in that definition. Just thought it was funny. Women could be having abortions without going to doctors.
Starlight Aurate
Just a fallen star
I apologize, I did not know that. I thought abortion was intentionally having the baby killed. In that case, I think abortion is wrong if the woman chooses to kill it.
They increase the risk of a miscarriage. It doesn't mean it won't happen if they don't do it.
Nice to see a good debate here.
I am a supporter of Peter Singer's differentiating between "people" and "humans". A "person" is an individual that is self-aware, has the ability to percept past, present and future, and has an attitude towards its own future. Simply put, someone who is not very young, and is of average or better health (mentally). A human is simply anyone with the geneset of the human species. The former can also include animals and exclude humans - especially those that are very young (infant children), very ill (for example, those suffering from severe cases of Alzheimer's disease) and so on.
According to Peter Singer, the preferences of a person outweighs the preferences of a non-person, i.e. a human or an animal not cognitive enough to qualify as a person. An applied version if this statement in this case would look like this:
A person is pregnant with a foetus she - for one reason or another - is unwilling to give birth to. Her preference is to not go through with the pregnancy and the foetus' preference (assumed) is to go through with it and be born. The former's preference outweighs the latter's, simply because a foetus is not self-aware in the same manner as a person is. It is controlled simply by impulses, and even remains in the same mindset for some months after birth, i.e. the child's only preference is "survive".
The obvious conclusion drawn from the above is that while abortions might not be ethically right, they are not ethically wrong, according to Peter Singer.
As for my own personal stand-point, I'm pro-choice (though I don't approve of the term), simply because of the above and the fact that if abortions were illegal, women would go through with risky operations instead. By keeping it legal, there's always an amount of control over the system. A downside to this is that the system is being abused a bit here in Sweden, but then again, I'd say that that downside is manageable compared to the alternative.
One could bring in the entire religious debate, but using religion as a basis for law is not a pragmatic way to go about government, and I'm thankful they don't do that here.
I am a supporter of Peter Singer's differentiating between "people" and "humans". A "person" is an individual that is self-aware, has the ability to percept past, present and future, and has an attitude towards its own future. Simply put, someone who is not very young, and is of average or better health (mentally). A human is simply anyone with the geneset of the human species. The former can also include animals and exclude humans - especially those that are very young (infant children), very ill (for example, those suffering from severe cases of Alzheimer's disease) and so on.
According to Peter Singer, the preferences of a person outweighs the preferences of a non-person, i.e. a human or an animal not cognitive enough to qualify as a person. An applied version if this statement in this case would look like this:
A person is pregnant with a foetus she - for one reason or another - is unwilling to give birth to. Her preference is to not go through with the pregnancy and the foetus' preference (assumed) is to go through with it and be born. The former's preference outweighs the latter's, simply because a foetus is not self-aware in the same manner as a person is. It is controlled simply by impulses, and even remains in the same mindset for some months after birth, i.e. the child's only preference is "survive".
The obvious conclusion drawn from the above is that while abortions might not be ethically right, they are not ethically wrong, according to Peter Singer.
As for my own personal stand-point, I'm pro-choice (though I don't approve of the term), simply because of the above and the fact that if abortions were illegal, women would go through with risky operations instead. By keeping it legal, there's always an amount of control over the system. A downside to this is that the system is being abused a bit here in Sweden, but then again, I'd say that that downside is manageable compared to the alternative.
One could bring in the entire religious debate, but using religion as a basis for law is not a pragmatic way to go about government, and I'm thankful they don't do that here.
Excuse me. If I ever get pregnant (and the same goes for any woman who gets pregnant), I have the right to choose to abort this thing that is growing inside my stomach. It's in my body. It's not it's own yet. It has no rights. I know I don't have any authority to choose who gets rights. Honestly, everyone has rights. But I don't believe a fetus falls under the category of 'everyone', because in reality ..it isn't a person yet. It's a bunch of cells, which are only beginning to form into a human. Not yet though.
And think about it. When a girl considers abortion ..she obviously doesn't want a kid for whatever reason. The poor kid gets born, having to deal with the fact that their mother was considering aborting them ..because she never wanted them to begin with. Honestly, that'd kill me.
Dude, this is real life. Real life isn't a happy place for a lot of us. There's so many unwanted kids, that get abused and abandoned ..and they never get adopted. Do you really want more unwanted children in this world?
That's what I don't get about you pro-life people. You're all too stubborn to understand and get the fact that a child is better off being aborted when it's a fetus, than ending up to live a life it wishes it was never born. Poor kids suffering. If I was one of those up-for-adoption children ..I'd probably want to just die right there too. :x
But think about it: women who are pregnant and want to abort without getting what politics define as abortion (the intentionally killing of a fetus), they cans imply drink caffeine, smoke, do drugs, or exercise in excess, which make the chances of a "miscarriage" (notice the quotes) considerably greater.
Because, usually orphanages won't just give away a child to someone who wants one. You usually have to "buy" the child, even if that sounds immoral.
Starlight Aurate
Just a fallen star
Then that's bad too, since they're trying to kill it.
Why do you say that? It may be in your body, but it won't be your own life. Why should you have the right to kill something that never did anything intentionally harmful to you? Just because you don't want to suffer?
It's got just as much of a right to live as you or I do.
It may not be a fully deveolped human, and "just a bunch of cells" as you people put it, but it's got a soul and it at least has a chance to get its own life and right to live.
So, all children that don't get aborted are going to be sent to orphanages or will live on the streets like rats? Even if they will, would you still honestly rather kill the baby? If the child ends up on the street living off dirt then the parents are bad anyway, unless they haven't got the money.
How do you know it will be a pessimist? It may want life, everybody's different. Maybe the child is at least happy that it's alive, instead of angry and wished it had died long ago.
I hate seeing people on the streets too. It makes me sad. But at least the parents gave their kids a chance at living before they had to live on the streets and filth. And that's why people need to be kind, and care for others.
ironknight42
Well-Known Member
The reason they don't give them away is because they have to run backround checks on people so they know they are not being adopted to go work in a sweatshop or be a slave.
I find the concept of Aborting a life disgusting and morally improper.
Firstly, this may sound cruel but who decieded to have sex. Who wasn't on the pill, who didn't wear that condom, and what person decieded to have sex during a womans period with out the two above listed things. Girls you don't want to have a kid be on the pill I'm pretty sure it is at least 99% effective, and then just to top it off get the man to wear a condom or you their man just wear the condom, you don't want a kid do you. In cases of rape, I have one unfortunate retort were you on the pill, if you were and you still got pregnate I am sincerely sorry. Lets say the pill is 99% effective now 1 in 100 people on the pill who get raped should get pregnant assuming the very improbable odds that all get pregnant on the first shot. Now lets say that women can get pregnant three days a month give or take and would be most easily impregnated on the second day at least this is the way I learned it in health class back when I was a boy. Now there are roughly 30 days in a month so 1 in 10 days you can get pregnate now times that by 100 the number of people raped while on the pill and now 1-1000 rape victems are getting pregnate assuming that the pill is only 99% effective and that the rapists are 100% effective at impregnation when the pill doesn't work. That was long yeah.
Secondly to any women who would attempt to abort a fetus on your own using any of the methods listed by Fused the blood is on your hands, the child has a supreme right to life. Then I turn to the wonders of adoption...now the system is not perfect and should be improved but if you follow my outlined steps to avoid pregnancy an estimated 1-1000 times even when having sex during a period with out a condum while on the pill assuming 100% effective impregnation when the pill fails, there should not be alot of unwilling pregnancies and thus reduces weight on the adoption system and makes it more likely for your child to have a healthy and full life away from you with a foster family. On a side not if you believe the pill to be less than 99% effective please site two articles from credible sources stating other wise. If any of my information was incorrect please correct me. I should also not that fertilization is not 100% effective and that the if one in two times you have unprotected sex you have a kid then the odds would be 1-2000.
Last edited:
Because condoms are 100% effective, people won't have sex, and the typical American plans sex according to a woman's period, right?
Abortion is just one of those facts of like if you ask me. I don't see how the unborn can get more rights than gay people in some people's eyes. >_> Adoption clinics...yeah, maybe if you're a white and healthy child. You're unlikely to be adopted if you're black or another race, and have a disability. People deserve to have a life, they shouldn't be forced to endure a massive punishment just because of one mistake.