Your views on abortion

[Murky_Night]

I don't classify abortion as murder until it is 7 1/2 months old. i think abortion should be illegal to some agree. Drug addicts, rape victims, and extremely young woman (like age 12-16), and just parents that can't take care of a child.

If those rules weren't in place than it should just be the woman's choice.

And please stop talking about Hitler being aborted because the fact is he wasn't.

 

[Madame Helga]

To me abortion=evil, no matter what kind of a reason they have, killing a young baby, a life and mostly your own child which is your own blood is wrong! I'm against it big time!

What? no matter what reason? ok what about rape? do you even know what emotional mental trauma the woman will go through

 

[ShinySandshrew]

):< don't make me sound like that now!
stop putting words into my mouth.

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You did.

I have no idea why this argument goes on. It's obviously the woman's choice, and it's legal, so get over it.

Now do you see the problem with what you said?

TBH I don't give a crap if the thing is alive or not alive. All I'm saying is, the woman chooses what she does with it, while it's still inside HER own body.

and well obviously it's your future child. Which gives you a right to choose if you want it or not. Of course once it's outside the mother, killing it would be wrong, since it's know a fully born infant. But while it's inside the mother, attached to her, apart of her, she makes the calls.

Just because it's your future child does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. Same goes for attatched to you, and the other things you mentioned. What is being argued over here is whether the fetus is 1) alive 2) human and 3) deserving of the rights of humans. If the fetus is any one of those three things then, no, the mother does not have the right to just do whatever to it becuase it is inside her body. Could the same be said if it were any other critter? EDIT (Needed more explanation): Don't you think that PETA would have a say (and rightly so) if somehow a little puppy got inside a woman's body (Absurd, I know. Making a point.) and she wanted to kill it and extract it because she didn't want it in there? Wouldn't they be justified in getting involved?

Just saying, it isn't the point of government to legislate morality, only to protect the rights of the people. So long as the choice does not infringe on the rights of others, I see no reason why the government should try to prevent it; doing so could lead to a nanny state of opressive moral busybodies running everyone's lives, which would be bad.

In the case of abortion, though, the argument against it is that it infringes upon the rights of the child, so the above is mostly irrelevant.

Guess I shoulda' stated that better. I was speaking in legal terms. If abortion is wrong as the person I quoted thought, but that the mother should still have the choice of what she could do, why then should the option be left open legally for the mother to do wrong?

 

[J.T.]

Just because it's your future child does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. Same goes for attatched to you, and the other things you mentioned. What is being argued over here is whether the fetus is 1) alive 2) human and 3) deserving of the rights of humans. If the fetus is any one of those three things then, no, the mother does not have the right to just do whatever to it becuase it is inside her body.

Wrong. Just because something is alive does not make it necessarily wrong or illegal to kill it - an ant is alive, but no one goes to jail for stepping on one. So whether it's alive or not is irrelevant. Whether it's human is a bit more important, but again, your society clearly deems some people unworthy of living, as seen with the existence of the death penalty. So being human does not necessarily mean much. The big thing that should be argued here is whether the fetus is deserving of the same rights as currently living, sentient humans outside of the womb. That is what ultimately matters here.

So really, you'd have to argue that it's all three in order for abortion to be deemed bad, not just one out of those three. I'd say you should spend more time arguing about whether it deserves the same rights as humans outside of the womb.

 

[evolutionrex]

i agree with J.T

It's sort of like when some one is on the death bed and can't speak for themselves. The doctor will have to ask for a family member's decision. They may say to pull the plug, and that person will die. It is the same thing, The baby can't think for it's self.

 

[GhostAnime]

What is being argued over here is whether the fetus is 1) alive

Nobody is debating whether it is scientifically alive or not.

Could the same be said if it were any other critter? EDIT (Needed more explanation): Don't you think that PETA would have a say (and rightly so) if somehow a little puppy got inside a woman's body (Absurd, I know. Making a point.)

And your point does not work. Do we force ourselves to help the homeless?

You know a better example would probably be a tapeworm or virus. Both life forms. Both occupy our bodies and both bother us if they stay. We remove them.

If a puppy somehow ended in her body and she didn't want it there, they'd probably do the same thing. I don't see the point yet. These sentimental arguments are getting ridiculous by the day.

 

[ShinySandshrew]

Wrong. Just because something is alive does not make it necessarily wrong or illegal to kill it - an ant is alive, but no one goes to jail for stepping on one. So whether it's alive or not is irrelevant. Whether it's human is a bit more important, but again, your society clearly deems some people unworthy of living, as seen with the existence of the death penalty. So being human does not necessarily mean much. The big thing that should be argued here is whether the fetus is deserving of the same rights as currently living, sentient humans outside of the womb. That is what ultimately matters here.

So really, you'd have to argue that it's all three in order for abortion to be deemed bad, not just one out of those three. I'd say you should spend more time arguing about whether it deserves the same rights as humans outside of the womb.

Yes, being alive most certainly does matter. If it was no more than a zit, there would be no reason why the mother cannot do whatever she wants with it. To further clarify about being alive, I mean that is a living entity, (not alive like a hand) thus things do change.

But what you are forgetting about the death penalty is that those people have done something wrong. A fetus has not done anything that is illegal. Even if you want to say that is taking resources from the mother without her permission, death is harsher punishment than we give for criminals who do the same. For example, what do we when some is convicted of embezzlement? Fines and/or jail time. Now let's say that it becomes illegal for fetuses to take resources from the mother without her consent. What then? Do they have to repay their mother for the resources they used? They would then be in debt from the moment they were born. That would be involuntary servitude.

It's sort of like when some one is on the death bed and can't speak for themselves. The doctor will have to ask for a family member's decision. They may say to pull the plug, and that person will die. It is the same thing, The baby can't think for it's self.

No, there is a difference. Abortions can legally be done for any reason under the sun. But pulling the plug on someone is done becuase of their health and the quality of the life they might live if they recover would be poor.

Nobody is debating whether it is scientifically alive or not.

Actually, people in this thread are. There have been people who have said that it is just a lump of tissue so it doesn't matter.

You know a better example would probably be a tapeworm or virus. Both life forms. Both occupy our bodies and both bother us if they stay. We remove them.

No, those are not. Virus and tapeworms have no positive effects other than possibly helping you to lose weight. But fetuses are sometimes wanted and do have postive effects

If a puppy somehow ended in her body and she didn't want it there, they'd probably do the same thing. I don't see the point yet. These sentimental arguments are getting ridiculous by the day.

You know better than that. PETA would have a fit if she wanted to kill it. They most likely press charges on the grounds of animal cruelty. And just to make my point that they would get involved, remember the incident with President Obama and the fly?

 

[J.T.]

But what you are forgetting about the death penalty is that those people have done something wrong. A fetus has not done anything that is illegal. Even if you want to say that is taking resources from the mother without her permission, death is harsher punishment than we give for criminals who do the same. For example, what do we when some is convicted of embezzlement? Fines and/or jail time. Now let's say that it becomes illegal for fetuses to take resources from the mother without her consent. What then? Do they have to repay their mother for the resources they used? They would then be in debt from the moment they were born. That would be involuntary servitude.

If there is no other way to prevent someone from accessing your body without your permission (such as in the case of rape), and there is a risk to the mother, then potentially lethal force is allowed, isn't it? And there's a fairly significant difference between taking your money and taking your health.

No, there is a difference. Abortions can legally be done for any reason under the sun. But pulling the plug on someone is done becuase of their health and the quality of the life they might live if they recover would be poor.

What the hell is with you and throwing together irrelevant details to make two things look different in a way that really doesn't matter.

And hmm, what's this, "because of their health and quality of life"? You mean like the crap the kid might go through when a mother is forced to take care of them, or when they end up going into an adoption center and hope for someone to adopt them despite all the others that don't? Might want to reword that a bit.

[/B]Actually, people in this thread are. There have been people who have said that it is just a lump of tissue so it doesn't matter.

Nobody has bothered arguing whether it's alive, only whether it qualifies as a life. Maybe a bit confusing, but there's a difference.

No, those are not. Virus and tapeworms have no positive effects other than possibly helping you to lose weight. But fetuses are sometimes wanted and do have postive effects

"Sometimes wanted" so let those women keep them, what the **** is this. By this logic, if a bunch of PETA members got tapeworms and decided they wanted to keep them for the animals' sake, then killing tapeworms should be illegal too, because now they're "sometimes wanted".

And "positive effects"? Diets have some positive effects, but no one should be legally forced to go on one. And you apparently missed the link I gave a while back listing some of the negative effects of pregnancy.

You know better than that. PETA would have a fit if she wanted to kill it. They most likely press charges on the grounds of animal cruelty. And just to make my point that they would get involved, remember the incident with President Obama and the fly?

Question: What the hell do the thoughts of a group of radical animal rights activists have to do with anything here?

 

[GhostAnime]

Actually, people in this thread are. There have been people who have said that it is just a lump of tissue so it doesn't matter.

That isn't the same as 'it's not alive'. That's simply saying it's a lump of tissue. This has nothing to do with the state of it being alive.

No, those are not. Virus and tapeworms have no positive effects other than possibly helping you to lose weight. But fetuses are sometimes wanted and do have postive effects

So.. what if the fetus isn't wanted? Where's the positive effect then?

PETA would have a fit if she wanted to kill it. They most likely press charges on the grounds of animal cruelty. And just to make my point that they would get involved, remember the incident with President Obama and the fly?

Lol who cares what PETA does. If an animal is occupying our space (and in this case, a dog REALLY WOULD endanger you if it was literally inside of your body), it's impossible to be trialed for something like that..

But the scenario is so ridiculous in the first place that I don't even know why you brought it up. Are you debating abortion or telling me to be scared of PETA?

 

[natie]

PETA

are a bunch of assholes.

'Nuff said.

 

[Mandi.]

I'm not putting words in your mouth. You did.

you over-analyze.

Now do you see the problem with what you said?

uhm no?

Just because it's your future child does not mean that you can do whatever you want with it. Same goes for attatched to you, and the other things you mentioned. What is being argued over here is whether the fetus is 1) alive 2) human and 3) deserving of the rights of humans. If the fetus is any one of those three things then, no, the mother does not have the right to just do whatever to it becuase it is inside her body. Could the same be said if it were any other critter? EDIT (Needed more explanation): Don't you think that PETA would have a say (and rightly so) if somehow a little puppy got inside a woman's body (Absurd, I know. Making a point.) and she wanted to kill it and extract it because she didn't want it in there? Wouldn't they be justified in getting involved?

like I said, it doesn't matter if the fetus is alive or not. It is not yet a born baby, therefore it is not capable to receive or use any rights.

What and WHAT WITH YOUR EXAMPLE?
yeah uhm, if a puppy got into anybody's body, I don't think it would live that long afterwards.
I think that goes along with, it's putting a risk to her life, so of course (i'm an animal lover, js too.) they'd choose the human's life over the puppy ..that somehow got into her body. It might not be right, but it's how the world is.

Guess I shoulda' stated that better. I was speaking in legal terms. If abortion is wrong as the person I quoted thought, but that the mother should still have the choice of what she could do, why then should the option be left open legally for the mother to do wrong?

cause she can?

No, those are not. Virus and tapeworms have no positive effects other than possibly helping you to lose weight. But fetuses are sometimes wanted and do have postive effects

well if the woman is considering abortion, the fetus isn't wanted really? And at the time, it isn't adding anything positive to her.

I know times change, and if the woman does end up having the child, she could love it. But think of the reasons why the woman was considering abortion in the first place. She probably is not ready for a kid, has no money, might be living in a craphole, ect.
Would you really want a child growing up, like millions already do?

not saying that would always happen, but think about it. What would you rather see? A child living in filth and not having anything. Or that child not even being born into the life, which it won't even know.

 

[Mayfan]

The ONLY exception for me is if they are raped or the mother is in danger of dying because to me

Person already alive with a family and friends's life > Small, barely thinking baby's life

Other than that, I believe it is absolutely immoral and it's exactly like killing a baby - oh wait - it is!

 

[GhostAnime]

Absolutely unrefutable logic.

 

[Antesomn]

I do not believe in abortion but I can't blame a person for aborting a baby when her own life is at risk or the mother has been raped only because I would not know what I would do if I was in those situations. Other then that though, I see no reason why a woman should abort.

 

[natie]

Other then that though, I see no reason why a woman should abort.

Accidents happen.

 

[Deku_Link]

Other than that, I believe it is absolutely immoral and it's exactly like killing a baby - oh wait - it is!

The ONLY exception for me is if they are raped or the mother is in danger of dying because to me

So what's your opinion on killing six-month-old babies who are also products of rape?

 

[Mayfan]

So what's your opinion on killing six-month-old babies who are also products of rape?

I'm assuming you mean unborn babies, so correct me if I'm wrong.
It depends, honestly. If she's emotionally wrecked and can't handle giving birth one bit, or her life is in danger, then she should.

 

[Yanappu]

The government has no right to say what a women can do with her own body.

However, I would like it if there were restrictions. For example, rape victims, incest victims, babies that will die upon birth, and so on should be allowed.

But some random rich girl who just doesn't want to stop partying shouldn't be able to.

 

[Tim the turtle]

I'm assuming you mean unborn babies, so correct me if I'm wrong.

he does not. If you equate abortion to simply murdering infants, and then you claim that abortion is okay in certain situations, you must accept that killing infants is also okay in those same situations.

 

[natie]

If she's emotionally wrecked and can't handle giving birth one bit, or her life is in danger, then she should.

I can't think of a woman being happy after having been raped and getting stuck with an unwanted pregnancy.

Also, what turtleboy said.