Abortion

[Llama]

I thought I should bring this topic back. Well I think most of you know my stance on this already. Pro-Life.

Could you add a little more information to this post? I know most people know what abortion is, but maybe you could mention your reasons for choosing pro-life? Or more information on abortion itself (when it's considered legal to abort a fetus, which states allow/deny it, etc.).

-FH

[Frosted Heart]

Abortion has always been a touchy subject for me. I do like pro-choice since a woman has a right to decide what happens to her own body. But having those babies aborted just seems wrong to me. No baby ever wishes to be born, and I believe it's the responsibility of the parent to take care of it. Yes, the parents might have screwed up, but still, that is a human life growing and it should be protected.

If the mother/father cannot raise the child (be it financial restraints or not mature enough) then there is always giving it up for adoption. Abortion is also quite traumatic to a mother's body, and can cause the woman to go sterile.

However if the baby had to be aborted in order to save the mother's life, than that's OK imo. It's necessary to save the mother, and those decisions are hard enough as it is.

[Llama]

Alright FH I'll post my reasons lol.

I believe it's murder. I believe life begins at conception. I believe that even rape babies should be saved. I believe that if the mother is going to die but the baby will live then the unborn baby should live. I give respect to those mothers that are this selfless, same with women who are raped. I only agree on abortion when both the mother and and unborn baby are going to die. No reason in having them both dead. I believe in adoption if you can't take care of it or if you don't want to take care of it. I believe murder is worse then suffering for you can always a chance of over coming suffering.

I've also heard that abortion will damage the woman permanently.

I think that's it, if I've forgotten any then I'll add them on.

If you really want to know: http://www.catholic.com/library/Abortion.asp

[Shannon]

Pro-life, thank you. :D
I have similar views like yours Llama. I believe that abortion is wrong, and it's just murder. Straight, flat out, murder. That's because that child should have the right to live, not the woman bearing the child having the right to kill the child. Well, if she does choose to abort the baby, it'd be committing murder to me, since as long as the being is a human, it's still murder nonetheless.

And the guilt would also pursue the woman that aborts. And it actually does harm the woman's body, but I'm not too sure.

I agree with the link here.
http://www.thatreligiousstudieswebsite.com/Articles/Ethics/Medical_ethics/abortion_christian.html

[Unicorn]

@ pwned?!, so it goes to show... what?
- Don't have sex outside marriage?
- The guy should have insisted that they kept the baby for him to look after?
- The guy should have insisted that the girl keeps the baby for her to look after?

I'm for pro-choice. It's my life, my body, and whatever decision I'll make - to abort or not - it's after analysing all factors (including medical and social).

I do not support abortion as a convenient form of 'garbage disposal' (eg. zomg I shouldn't have gotten drunk that weekend). However I do support abortion when the mother's mental or physical health is on the line.

[yahoosoda]

I'm anti abortion and pro-life.

I know about of people are saying that it's their body, its their choice but at the very start they have a choice to practice safe sex (which in many cases of unwanted pregnancies it doesn't happen). The choice was there from the very start, if they didn't do anything about it then they have to face the consequences. Just like everything in life all our actions have consequences, you can try to run from them (like in the case of abortion) but it doesn't really solve anything.

As for the thing being their bodies, medical science has yet to find out completely when the moment of actual conception begins. There is a moment wherein there is one cell in your body that is different in genetic material to the rest of the cells that you have...and at that moment I don't think it can be classified as 'your' body anymore.

I can go on and on about this but right now I'll leave it at being pro-choice. I'm married and my husband and I would love to have a baby soon and from a perspective of a woman like me, my heart breaks everytime I hear talk about women going on and on about being in control.

And it actually does harm the woman's body, but I'm not too sure.

Some abortive methods actually do harm a woman's body in such a way that it will be very difficult or impossible for her to concieve anymore.

This may be gross but I think you all should know some of the methods for abortion. I'm not sure if methods are standardized based on the states or location but there are several abortive methods.

Have you guys heard of one way they abort very small babies? One of the things they use is something similar to a small vacuum cleaner which sucks the fetus out. Of course, the fetus won't be intact anymore but remains a bloody mess. The woman doesn't see the remains of whatever has been sucked out. But if she did how would she have felt back then?

There are other methods more barbaric than this one. I'm not sure if pro-choice and pro-abortion supporters are aware about the 'inhumane' methods being used to exercise their freedom of choice.

How can these people live with themselves? How can they live knowing that 'thing' that they had sucked out of their bodies and ended up as a bloody pulp could one day have been their happy children running across their yards or hugging them back? How can they close their minds to the to possibility of of protecting the life of their child all in favor of their current mood or current choice?

[emoloz]

The only way i agree with aborption is if its a rape case or if the woman or child will die. If it just happens between a couple i think its unfair, you made that mistake, you pay the price. I mean yes its there choice and i have no right to object to someones choice. I don't disagree with contraception though, i think if a couple want to have sex and go about it prepared and have all the correct contreception that is completely fine. Its a persons choice. I think thats right because its not just to do with pregancy the amount of STI's around these days is unbelievable.

I can't understand how they can deal with it afterwards though. It must be on there mind 24/7. In rape i mean yes i think you ahve to get over it but like if it was healthy fine and you just zapped it. Its awful. Especially in the later stages. If its a cell its not too bad but then it begins to grow. How can you live from that?

[gab00n]

Abortion is a choice that every women should have. If you are against it then that is fine, don't have an abortion but you have no right to prevent others. I believe abortion should be legal at any age and any stage of birth, I'll use George Bush as an example.

Was that really necessary to get your point across? I took out your last two lines; edit others in if you want but please watch what you say and how you say it.

-FH

[Llama]

Well I wouldn't force anything on you but I find it kind of disturbing that you would say any stage of birth. Although I find abortion in general disturbing. And that was a bad example lol.

[hyiceme]

I am pro-choice. I believe a woman should have a say in what to do with her body. I am not saying every pregnant woman should get abortion, but that it should be an available choice to consider. Mistake happens, so if a couple/woman doesn't want or doesn't have the resource to raise a child, then they can decide either to have abortion or put up for adoption, although I personally don't really like the idea of adoption.

[Llama]

You like the idea of abortion but not adoption?

[hyiceme]

Not really... I think no matter how loving your adoptive parents are, you are always going to have some sort of psychological/emotional scar from the fact that your biological parents left you. (btw the "you" isn't directed to anyone, just people in general)
I think both abortion and adoption should be on the table, so people can weight out those two choices. I would probably choose abortion if I was ever in that situation.

[Llama]

I would never. Adoption to me is a much better choice than murder. And people over come suffering. And saying the kid will always have some psychological/emotional scar is false for you don't know that. My dad is handicapped. You think he's suffering or something. No, he's enjoying life. He's making the best of what he has. Which everyone should try to do.

Abortion survivor stories if you're interested: http://www.abortionfacts.com/survivors/survivors.asp

I really like these lines from both stories:

"I am the child that I have been writing about. My mother had no right to try and abort me, no matter what the circumstances were, no matter how inconvenient her pregnancy was. And if she was here with us today, I'm sure she would agree. Life is too precious to simply throw away. Now I can speak out against abortion from the baby's perspective. Any baby would choose life."

"I am happy to be alive. I almost died. Every day I thank God for life. I do not consider myself a by-product of conception, a clump of tissue, or any other of the titles given to a child in the womb. I do not consider any person conceived to be any of those things."

"I have met other survivors of abortion. They are all thankful for life. Only a few months ago I met another saline abortion survivor. Her name is Sarah. She is two years old. Sarah also has cerebral palsy, but her diagnosis is not good. She is blind and has severe seizures. The abortionist, besides injecting the mother with saline, also injects the baby victims. Sarah was injected in the head. I saw the place on her head where this was done. When I speak, I speak not only for myself, but for the other survivors, like Sarah, and also for those who cannot yet speak ..."

"Today, a baby is a baby when convenient. It is tissue or otherwise when the time is not right. A baby is a baby when miscarriage takes place at two, three, four months. A baby is called a tissue or clumps of cells when an abortion takes place at two, three, four months. Why is that? I see no difference. What are you seeing? Many close there eyes..."

And an interesting read for the pro-choice people: http://www.abortionfacts.com/life_or_choice/pro_choice.asp

[nightshift]

I can't believe this topic was revived on this forum...it's the never ending debate

Anyways, I've always been sickened by the idea of abortion; of course this has nothing to do with those posters those nuts wave around on my college campus that show aborted fetus...I've seen infinitely worse on the internet. It has to do with the idea that the unborn baby is like a body part for the woman, and that she has for some reason been given a choice as to whether the baby grows up or not.

What baffles me is that the woman's life is put before the baby's by those who promote abortion. You never know if that baby could grow up and do something amazing, like cure cancer or AIDS, unlikely yes, but the possibility does exist. Instead, the baby will get sucked out and trashed and the irresponsible woman who got herself into the situation would continue to live on.

Now that may seem harsh, but its the truth. Woman who get abortions for the sake of not wanting to raise a child because they don't to take responsibility for having sex are simply irresponsible and selfish. HOWEVER, despite my dislike for abortion, I understand that there are situations beyond a woman's control, such as in the case of rape or where both the woman and baby's life are in danger. In those cases, depending on the severity of the circumstances, I might be able to justify abortion.

Any other reason is just disrespectful to humanity as a whole.

Yet another note. This has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. I actually have quite a few disagreements with the Catholic Church, which has some of the most vocal protesters against abortion. Rather than basing my views on what any atheist could call vague ancient texts that may not apply, I'm basing them on the idea that human life is precious. That idea is universal to every religion and civil society. Just remember that abortion isn't just a medical operation. It's directly controlling life or death.

[Cara]

murder-

1. Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).

A fetus or embryo is not a person, nor is the mother killing it out of malice. It's not legally murder, so don't call it murder. Every woman has the right to decide what to do with her body, and no one has the right to take it away.

And please, no one drag religion into this, because some people (such as myself) don't really care. That's why I will not consider the arguments on abortionfacts.com, because the writers incorporate religion into their arguments, and therefore it's biased towards a Patriarchal religion that has opressed women for centuries.

And also, the fetus IS a part of the woman's body. It drains her blood, steals her energy and nutrients, and cause her hormones to flucuate and gives her morning sickness. Some woman just don't want to go through child birth, and would rather have an abortion for various reasons.

I still don't see why people have a problem with pro-choice. You don't like abortions? Fine. Don't have one. Easy as that.

[Llama]

By my beliefs it's murder. So it's murder. No one has the right to take the life of another, including the mother. And saying don't drag religion into this is stupid since this is a religious issue. But since you don't care about my opinion I won't care about yours.

[Unicorn]

While I appreciate that the abortionfacts website provides details about abortion and other issues, I do find it interesting that it has a link saying 'what the Bible says about abortion' but nothing on what the other religions say about it.

@ Nightshift, thank you for providing your honest personal opinion about abortion.

@ Llama, I personally don't think that abortion is a strictly religious issue (because don't have a religion but I am female). I believe that each person's background (including religion, family, friends and personal experiences) determine if they are pro-choice or pro-life.

[Axie]

These kind of debates never end. It's a persons personal preference as to whether they believe it's right or wrong.

Some say it's murder, some say it's not. It depends if you count an embryo as a person or not. Simple as that.

And no, this isn't a religous issue. This is an issue as to whether or not a woman has the right to do whatever she wants with her body... since that's what's creating the embryo in the first place.

[headspin]

I can respect anyone's religion and understand that it does influence people in these situations so yes to a point it has to be relevant. I am not religious so in my case it doesn't matter, I am only influenced by experiences and realities I have faced dealing with this subject personally.

I think the choice needs to be there no matter what. Even if I would not encourage an abortion, personally I have no idea what it involves having to choose myself or how that would affect me psychologically for the rest of my life. What I do know is that I have had friends faced with the decision, I know from their stories that it can be an agonizing and life ruining experience but it would have been more so for certain ones if that choice was not there.

Pro choice wins in my opinion, but like Axie said it really does come down to personal preference.

[minna]

Pro-choice for me.
How I view abortion is very situational, although I believe everyone has the right to live, I persoanlly think the mother's life comes before the unborn child. If having a baby will permanetly damage or kill the mother then abortion should be a legally and open choice for her. By damage I mean physical AND psychological. What's the point of bringing in a new life if you have to damage or kill an existing one? Especially one that will be the main guardian and care-giver. So yes call me mean but I do believe the womens life should be put before the unborn baby's. Why shouldn't it be?! Doesn't the woman have the same right as the baby to live? (A life is a life after all) Do keep in mind I mean the CHOICE of abortion, some woman might not choose to abort in those situations and it is their choice. I just think its important for that choice to be available.
I think there should be no need to remind people that woman can't fall pregnant themselves, you also need men. But it seems some people have forgotten. If you had no choice in falling falling pregnant (i.e rape or cultural reasons) then at least you should have the choice of deciding whether you want the unborn baby. And I think it is also very selfish to apply this pro-life view on a general basis. What about women in some developing nations? They do not have the luxuary we have, they dont have full control of their body, they cannot control how many children they have and whether or not they want to have children. This might be due to cultural reasons or the lack of contraceptives. In those cases the choice of abortion is not only about convennience or even health reasons, it is also about women's rights, not just for them but for generations of women to come. Maybe it also important to hear the stories of those women and see what the LACK of this choice could do to them?

ps. My first post! YAY!!!!

[Llama]

@ Llama, I personally don't think that abortion is a strictly religious issue (because don't have a religion but I am female). I believe that each person's background (including religion, family, friends and personal experiences) determine if they are pro-choice or pro-life.
I didn't say it was strictly religious. I was trying to point out that people can't deny that it isn't a religious issue.

[experimentchoco]

I agree with pro-choice. What I don't understand is that most of the time, abortion is disagreed on by men of very religious views. Honestly, I don't think abortion is murder. It is murder to kill an infant, not a cell.

[Llama]

What do you think an infant is made of? What do you think we are all made of? We're all just a bunch of cells. And a cell is a living thing. And I still don't get it, the courts make it a double homicide if the mother and unborn child are murdered. They are clearly saying the unborn child is human in this case. But when it comes to abortion, it's all of a sudden not human anymore and it's no longer murder.

[Cara]

@Llama

It's very simple, really. Abortion is not murder. It doesn't meet the legal murder standards. If it's not murder in the books, people cannot say it is.

What do you think grass is made of? Grass is a living thing. And people cut grass all the time. But people aren't getting up in arms about it.

"I believe that even rape babies should be saved. I believe that if the mother is going to die but the baby will live then the unborn baby should live. I give respect to those mothers that are this selfless, same with women who are raped."

That, I believe is very insensitive. (I don't want it to seem like I am dissing your personal beliefs, because I'm not. I'm disagreeing politely.) You have never been in that position, so how could you say what the woman should do?

Why are you asking people to care more about an unsentient fetus inside them than themselves, a living breathing person? I would definetely care more about an already born person than a potential life. Especially mothers who were raped. They already have been thorugh a horrific experience, and you want them to be perfectly selfless and bring the fetus to term? That is not right to me. To me, a person (as in thinking, breathing and already born) is so much more worth just a fetus (not a baby, not a person, doesn't feel).

Not that all raped/endangered mother should abort. It's all up to the individual because not everybody is the same. That is why I am pro-choice. A woman who was raped wants to kepp the fetus? Fine with me. Because every woman has authority over herself, body included, and that no one should force her to do anything she doesn't want to.

Sorry if that was rant-y. ^^;;; I don't mean to sound angry, because I'm not or anything. ^^ Sometimes I come off as angry because I'm really frank.

[Llama]

I really don't care about the law when it comes to abortion. I think the law is wrong. The law isn't always right you know. Sometimes you have to fight it. And since I believe abortion is murder then I'm willing to fight it. In a civilized way. And I really don't see how I am insensitive. I actually find you insensitive. But I guess it's because we've grown up with different views, so maybe it's only natural we view each other as such. But I hope this doesn't stop us from being friends and such.

[krompt]

I agree with you Llama, I see it as unfair the way people so easily change their mind when situations do not benefit them. Yes i admit it would be quite an experience to put a child through if you were to abandon them or give them up for adoption. But it would be better to have a less than perfect life than no life at all. Basically you have to give stuff a chance, an abortion is like a person not even entertaining a notion that has potential. I mean let them live god would not have created them if he did not have a place for them in the world.

[Riekie]

I see it as murder as well, and when people say: yeah..it's her body so she can do with it whatever she wants..is incorrect.

There are people who cannot live with their left leg..so they try to 'abort' that leg. If a doctor is involved in the operation then he can be fired..because it's illegal.

Now..Abortion is illegal in Ireland..because IIRC it's murder. If it wasn't seen as murder then there would be no such case as Dutch abortion ships going there and 'illegally' 'help' these women who want to abort..because otherwise they could've done it at their local abortion centre.

now..I could go on and on and on and give multiple sideviews..but I won't. Abortion is murder..no matter how you view it.

[Cara]

I don't view it as murder because a fetus is not a person nor is it as important as the mother. I don't think people have the right to force a woman to stay pregnant. it's not like she is effecting anyone but herself. It isn't anyone else's bussiness except the mother and possibly father.

[CrystalRaindrop]

Why are you asking people to care more about an unsentient fetus inside them than themselves, a living breathing person? I would definetely care more about an already born person than a potential life. Especially mothers who were raped. They already have been thorugh a horrific experience, and you want them to be perfectly selfless and bring the fetus to term? That is not right to me. To me, a person (as in thinking, breathing and already born) is so much more worth just a fetus (not a baby, not a person, doesn't feel).

I against abortion, and I don't mean to intrude here because I don't want to be a part of any discusions like this because they usually bother me a little, but I wanted to add something to the quote above.

The "Not a baby, not a person, doesn't feel" bothered me a whole lot. 24 days after conception, at which point, most mothers don't even know their pregnant, a baby's heart is beating. And I'll admit, the baby isn't formed all that well, but still, it's heart is beating just like yours. And it can feel.

Before two months, the baby has brain activity, can move, has blood flowing in it's viens, is moving in the womb, and the skeleton, mouth, nose, ears, spine and lips are fully formed. By two and a half months, the baby is alive, blinking, smiling, frowning, squinting, every single organ is present, the baby has unique fingerpirnts, will bend it's fingers around an object placed in it's palm, and is sucking it's finger.

How is that not a baby? By three months, the baby can kick, turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn the head, open the mouth, and press lips tightly together.

Most abortions are preformed at one-three months. By that time, a baby is a baby. I am fully against abortion, but if it puts the mother in danger, I think that she should have the right to an abortion if she wants. But besides that, if a mom doesn't want a kid, give it up for adoption! Lots of people who can't have kids want them.

And sorry for ranting, but that is my opinion. A baby is a baby, born or not.

[krompt]

I against abortion, and I don't mean to intrude here because I don't want to be a part of any discusions like this because they usually bother me a little, but I wanted to add something to the quote above.

The "Not a baby, not a person, doesn't feel" bothered me a whole lot. 24 days after conception, at which point, most mothers don't even know their pregnant, a baby's heart is beating. And I'll admit, the baby isn't formed all that well, but still, it's heart is beating just like yours. And it can feel.

Before two months, the baby has brain activity, can move, has blood flowing in it's viens, is moving in the womb, and the skeleton, mouth, nose, ears, spine and lips are fully formed. By two and a half months, the baby is alive, blinking, smiling, frowning, squinting, every single organ is present, the baby has unique fingerpirnts, will bend it's fingers around an object placed in it's palm, and is sucking it's finger.

How is that not a baby? By three months, the baby can kick, turn feet, curl and fan toes, make a fist, move thumbs, bend wrists, turn the head, open the mouth, and press lips tightly together.

Most abortions are preformed at one-three months. By that time, a baby is a baby. I am fully against abortion, but if it puts the mother in danger, I think that she should have the right to an abortion if she wants. But besides that, if a mom doesn't want a kid, give it up for adoption! Lots of people who can't have kids want them.

And sorry for ranting, but that is my opinion. A baby is a baby, born or not.


Dont say sorry for stating your opinion, the opinion that I side with. Like I sadi before people change their minds to quickly about a baby, one minute it a valuable life that must be preserved but the next it is an unwanted expense, "just a fetus all right to get rid of" It's not and sadly these things reflect on human behavior in life. So if someone was to think abortion they should imagine if they would have wanted their mother to abort them. Because whatever they call a fetus or a baby we were all there once.

[Cara]

And? If my mother aborted me, I wouldn't be thinking about it because I wouldn't be alive. :) I trust in all the decisions my mother makes, and that she actually wanted me. If she didn't, then she didn't.
And a mother thinks very hard about this decision. It's not like she just gets an abortion on a whim.
I have a problem with people calling the fetus a baby, because it's not. I don't believe in abortions when the fetus is into the second trimester or more, simply because it's too developed by then. the kind of abortion I'm defending is the kind that takes place when the fetus is still the size of a kidney bean.
To me, it's not an actual person because it is inside the mother's womb and is part of her body. It couldn't survive without her. She should have the right to decide what to do with it.
You are arguing about the fetus's rights, but what about the mother's? I don't believe she should have to go through months of a unwanted pregnancy.
And about the adoption thing, there are thousands of children in foster care on any given day. Just last night I watched a program on the news about children who have been waiting to be adopted their whole lives. There is by no means a shortage of children. There is a shortage of parents. You can also adopt overseas, but that isn't neccesary considering the thousands of orphans in the U.S. instead of worrying about abortion, people should be more involved in getting homes for orphans.>>
I believe the government has more of an obligation to the people already living than the fetuses.

@CrystalRaindrop- I love your siggy!

[krompt]

I dont litsen to all that trimester stuff, yes i understand it but dont believe it should effect a decision of abortion. In that sense of saying a fetus is "Technically" not a baby or a life. But but we get "Technical" all the time, it's (sadly) normal for us to get "Technical" when it best fits us. But it is not fair, especially when a LIFE is at stake. I could easily say that "Technically" we as human are animal, and since we kill animals for fur it would be all right to kill a human for one of their vital organs. Now tell me is that fair?

[CrystalRaindrop]

I have a problem with people calling the fetus a baby, because it's not. I don't believe in abortions when the fetus is into the second trimester or more, simply because it's too developed by then. the kind of abortion I'm defending is the kind that takes place when the fetus is still the size of a kidney bean.

The only kind of abortion that I would support would be before the child's heart is beating, and if the mother's life was in danger. And about the 'size of a kidney bean' thing. When a child is fully developed in the womb, before it begins to grow, it is about that size. Smaller, even. But it is alive and moving around.

And babies can feel pain before their born. Someone I know well once watched a tape called "A silent scream". When the abortion was taking place, the baby was screaming inside the womb, but without air, no one could hear it. It's really sad that people kill babies all the time. A baby is a baby, born or not. I might be young, but I do know these things. My mom has been helping out on a 'right to life' thing since I was small, and I would read through all kinds of booklets, then learned it in school... it's wrong to kill a baby.

@Cara: Thanks for the comment on my siggie. :)

[ezxx]

I know both arguments well because i've had to wright on the subject(probably most have had to as well). I go for pro-life. I'm just that type of guy.

[aznxenocide]

Pro-choice.

Frankly, the government does NOT have the right to interfere in the decisions and private affairs of the citizens. The government we elect is to represent us, not live for us.

And just because I'm pro-choice doesn't mean that I'm calling for all the newly fertilized embryos of the world to be aborted...I just believe that the choice should be there for individuals who may or may not choose to abort.

[Primera Espada]

for one, I hate the term pro choice, pro life.

it's political correctness at it's worse.

But that's niether here nor there, I guess.

The thing that gets me, I mean REALLY gets me, is that people claim that you're not killing anything.

We all know it is. Every person who ever got an abortion knows exactly what they're doing. It's the same reason a mother feels loss at a miscarriage. It's a life, and it's gone now. Let's not pretend we don't ALL know it.

And honestly, that's how it should be viewed, as killing.

Why?

Cause killing is 95% bad, but 5% of the time, it's acceptable. If a mother might die in childbirth? Self defense killing. Even easier to let her go for that than other self defense killings cause here she has a doctor prove that she has reasonable concern for her life. Was she raped, and now pregnant, and can't figure out how she, as a young 15 year old girl with no job, and a single parent who already supports 5 kids can take care of it, and isn't even sure if she can handle carrying the term to pregnancy? Innocent by reason of insanity (you can VERY easily argue shattered mental state of a rape victim + chemical fluctuations of a pregnant woman = insanity). Keep in mind though, rape victims make up for LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of abortions. Them and incest COMBINED is barely 1%. Hardly even a number worth using in the argument, is it? I mean, to put it in perspective, that means there's less rape victims getting abortions than there was HALF the people at the last anime convention I was at.

So if you want to argue that a mother should have the right to kill a child for WHATEVER reason, go ahead and argue. If you feel that they should NEVER be allowed to kill a child, go ahead. If you want to argue that it's only okay to kill a child before it's brain properly forms, so it doesn't KNOW it's being killed, or feels any pain, or even understands that it's alive, go ahead. You all have your own opinions and reasons for believing that, which should be expressed.

But please, no one argue that it's not really a life. We all know better.

[Unicorn]

@ Primera, I get the feeling that you are pro-life. In your perfect world, there are no abortions and no murders. Am I right?

If a mother might die in childbirth? Self defense killing. Was she raped, and now pregnant, and can't figure out how she ... can take care of it, and isn't even sure if she can handle carrying the term to pregnancy? Innocent by reason of insanity (you can VERY easily argue shattered mental state of a rape victim + chemical fluctuations of a pregnant woman = insanity).

So women who wish to abort because their mental and / or physical health is in danger are all just insane cowards who hide behind medical opinions? How about the medical professionals who provide the diagnosis and the rapists, are they insane cowards as well?

Keep in mind though, rape victims make up for LESS THAN ONE PERCENT of abortions. Them and incest COMBINED is barely 1%. Hardly even a number worth using in the argument, is it? I mean, to put it in perspective, that means there's less rape victims getting abortions than there was HALF the people at the last anime convention I was at.

Therefore, in your perspective, they are just a tiny group of people, already partially insane and should just be ignored? Even though it is a problem?

But please, no one argue that it's not really a life. We all know better.

I'm not arguing that it is not a life. However I question at which stage it can be classified 'human' and have 'human rights'. Human rights that you seem not prepared to provide to pregnant victims of rape.

[Primera Espada]

Unicorn, please read my post closer. You are slurring together different statements of mine, like combining my comment about rape victims with my comment about self defense killing. 2 seperate examples of 2 different situations.

And I was saying rape victims cannot be used to levy the argument that we're discussing, because they are not anywhere near the main argument. They are exceptions to the rule, if you will. I mean, you can't say that because 1% of people can drive safely going 100 miles an hour that everyone can, right? You do not apply what is acceptable for a rediculous minority to the group as a whole.

I mean, I'm not talking on a socio-political level, I'm talking on a debate level. It has no real point in this argument, not that it has no place to be argued anywhere.

And what human right does a pregnant rape victim have? If it's a human right, it can't only be applied to 1% of all abortions, let alone the infintesimal fraction of a percent of all humans.

And the government certainly can step in and keep it's citizens from hurting themselves. You know it's illegal to attempt suicide? Drugs that can damage you severely are made illegal. I don't think anyone can argue that an abortion is NOT damaging. It needs to be, to work. It may not have enough lasting effects, often enough, to warrant making an exception, but that's splitting hairs really.

I mean, seriously, no one should try and play this off as a human rights issue. It may be a civil liberty, sure. Argue that until you're blue in the face, no one can say there's no grounds for it.

But Human Rights have to be applied across the board.

[Ametatsu]

Eeeeeeevil computer ate my post that I'd been writing ever since PrimeraEspada posted, so I'm writing it all out AGAIN :cry

I dont litsen to all that trimester stuff, yes i understand it but dont believe it should effect a decision of abortion. In that sense of saying a fetus is "Technically" not a baby or a life. But but we get "Technical" all the time, it's (sadly) normal for us to get "Technical" when it best fits us. But it is not fair, especially when a LIFE is at stake. I could easily say that "Technically" we as human are animal, and since we kill animals for fur it would be all right to kill a human for one of their vital organs. Now tell me is that fair?

Personally I don't think killing animals for fur is acceptable either ;)
Meat maybe.

I find the use of the word "life" interesting. Because we're not really discussing a life, here, are we? When someone says they disapprove of abortion because it's destroying a life, I don't think they mean a life, they mean a human life. Swatting a fly destroys a life, do you have a problem with that?

No, because in some way humans are seperate from other lifeforms. We're applying a value judgement that ignores the technicality that we're an animal like any other.

So, what makes humans different?

In my more cynical moments, I think possibly pure arrogance :p
But, what is it? Is the human species genetically superior? If so, I guess you have a human life from conception. Is there some sort of soul that arrives in the fetus at some point? In that case when the soul arrives determines when it becomes human. Or is the difference sentience? Intelligence? Or just the fact, that, well, a human being is...something like us?

I think it might, really, be the last one. Our understanding of humanity is subjective. We feel sympathy for things like us.

The way I see it, a fly, a lizard, a mouse, a dolphin, a chimp and a human are all equally alive. But I know my guilt about killing each one would increase moving up the list. They're equally alive, but they aren't equally human-like, and this is my subjective, emotional gut feeling at work here, not logic.

A debate like this is not about logic or scientific technicalities, although they are most definitely a very important factor. It's largely about morality, ethics, and moral codes are subjective and vary between people.

Everyone agrees killing the baby after it's born is murder. And when it's due, but not yet born, there's no difference, really, so that's clearly murder too.

And killing the sperm and the egg before they fuse is acceptable. How about after they've joined, but before they start to divide?

Somewhere in between it stops being alright. The difference is in where you draw the line.

Now, I don't think there's a line.
There's a...a...gradient. It shades from one extreme to the other, white to black. The grey area in between, well, none of it's completely acceptable, but there are degrees of unacceptability. I have a stance on this, but it's not definite. I'm not saying it varies, just that there's nothing clear-cut abut the issue.

I believe in shades of grey. I believe in subjectivity. I'm pro-choice, but that doens't mean I'm happy with abortion. I have an opinion, but anyone is free to try and change it.
Anyone is free to pick holes in what I say, but it's like picking holes in the mist, or possibly in a fishing net. I know there are holes in my logic, because...it isn't logic. It's just how I feel, and I know other people feel differently.


And I'm sorry I babble, I'm just never allowed to say everything I want to say when we discuss this in Philosophy & Ethics without everyone glazing over and either muttering or thinking very loudly "stfu, girl" :P

[neurofreez]

I have never really understood the need to cling to the terms pro-life and pro-choice because you can never label yourself as one thing and hold true to it no matter what... forever.

Having said that, I am pro- abortion / life. Feel free to interpret that however you like. To me that means the choice to have an abortion should exist but used mainly for special and/or extreme circumstances. There are too many unknowns to blissfully say "Life Always." Admittedly, I shudder at the thought of having to make the choice of abortion myself or for someone close to me. And for those that such a choice would be easy to make... well, I leave that for everyone to discuss since you all have been doing an excellent job of that already :P

There have been many insightful comments in this thread. Some I agreed with partially. Mostly I disagreed. Just a few things I felt the need to point out:

For those asking "what about the rights of the child?", I find that to be a funny question. Perhaps it is just how I was brought up, but there is no such thing as "rights of the child", especially for an UNBORN child. This being, fetus, thing, however you wish to define it, relies on the mother/parents for its wellbeing; to include birth. Whether you like it or not, parents hold the choice to either positively or negatively affect the child before it is born, if at all.

What baffles me is that the woman's life is put before the baby's by those who promote abortion. You never know if that baby could grow up and do something amazing, like cure cancer or AIDS, unlikely yes, but the possibility does exist. Instead, the baby will get sucked out and trashed and the irresponsible woman who got herself into the situation would continue to live on.
I cannot understand this way of viewing life and the world. How do you accomplish anything if you second guess every decision with "oh, but what if...?" It is like asking what if Beethoven never composed music, how would the world be today? You don't know, and it is beyond your control and ability to know. You can guess though. Even if there was never a Beethoven, someone else would have come along to shape the music we know today. The music would be different, but you know what? The world would still be here.

A debate like this is not about logic or scientific technicalities, although they are most definitely a very important factor. It's largely about morality, ethics, and moral codes are subjective and vary between people.
QFT.

[Primera Espada]

Ametatsu, I think everyone assumes that we're discussing human life.

If sheep could make laws to govern themselves, I'm sure they would, and we would leave them be, but they can't, so we can.

Our intelligence as a species allows us to govern ourselves, to make rules that we impliment on ourselves for the benefit of ourselves.

Also, I was under the impression that cell division is almost instantaneous. Unless you're referring to the morning after pill as a way to abort a fertilized egg before it becomes anything more? I'm a little fuzzy on that.

But yes, the debate IS where to draw the line.

Some say you put the line at the moment that a human chromozone is made (therefore, fertilization) some say at the moment the entire body of a human is formed.

I wonder how much a human has to be in order to still be considered human in the eyes of the law. Even if you're on life support, if you have a brain, and a heart, and they're working (even with external help), you're alive and human, and granted rights.

At the very least we should apply that to abortion.

[Unicorn]

You are slurring together different statements of mine, like combining my comment about rape victims with my comment about self defense killing. 2 seperate examples of 2 different situations.
You did say that 'chemical fluctuations of a pregnant woman' is one of the factors that contribute to insanity. Therefore I combined your statements.

And I was saying rape victims cannot be used to levy the argument that we're discussing, because they are not anywhere near the main argument.
HUH? Believe it or not, they do consider abortion as well. Right alongside the kids who experiment with drunken weekend orgies and panic when they end up pregnant. I do not see how the 'majority wins' argument can be used here. IMO, it makes better sense to apply a 'these people deserve a choice because the situation is beyond their control' argument.

You do not apply what is acceptable for a rediculous minority to the group as a whole.
Society does it now. If people want to fly a plane, to operate a fishing boat, to scuba dive etc... they have to learn how to and get licensed. The choice is there if you want to or not.

And what human right does a pregnant rape victim have? If it's a human right, it can't only be applied to 1% of all abortions, let alone the infintesimal fraction of a percent of all humans.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean here. From what I understand, just because it affects only 1% of abortions, means that the opinions and choices of this group of people should be disregarded?

And the government certainly can step in and keep it's citizens from hurting themselves.
And who should step in from keeping its citizens from hurting each other (aka. rape)? Or do you mean dictatorship (aka my way or the highway)?

[Zhaska]

I dont think I would be able to choose abortion. This despite the fact I have quite a negative view on the world in general (no offence).
There is many things that you will need to protect a baby from, as well as many things that might not go the way you imagined. As the baby is another person, you dont know what they might end up at in the end. While most people want their babies to be good people, the fact is that the bad people out there have been babies too at one point.

Pro-choice:
As for protection, pills isnt 100% reliable, not even if you overdose on them (which have the horrible alternative of harming your body, I dont know the full fact about this, so if anyone knows a bit more, or have a link, that would be very welcome :) )

Condoms: Being a girl, I have no own experience about the... comfort... of these, but apparently they have a similar rate to the pills, meaning that even if you use condom, it still might be a baby, so the best is to either avoid 'making a baby' at all, or both parts using their safety measures.

Then we have the 'young/stupid/drunk quickies' and I dont know what to say about those guys. I dont really think they could be responsible parents, and when you say there is adoption, how exactly do you adopt away a kid, you dont put it in a basket with a note, knocks on someone's door, run and hope they take the kid in!
If they didnt had the sense to use protective 'gear' to begin with, how do you expect them to be able to adopt away the baby? What if they dont have a 'spare mother' to take care of it, or a local orphanage? What is the options then?

Then we have rape of course, but then it's not a pre-choice, from anyone but the rapist of course.

I will look for a link to an orphanage, or some site that have information about them, as well as for the information on how you adopt away a child.
I know I dont know much about this subject, so if anyone do know, feel free to let me know.

**********

My final result and opinion is- If youre raped and get pregnent, then abortion might be allowed.

If you get drunk and do a quickie, get help from family and friends, look for places that might be able to take care of your baby.

If you want to get rid of 'it' because it's inconvinient, you should have used protection. If your precautions didnt work... as in, you did take pills and used condom... and the girl still got pregnant... I have no idea.

Your'e allowed to have fun, but you have to consider the consequences. This is not only directed to the girls, but the guys too.
If you dont want to have a baby, either no 'fun' or proper protection. If it ruins the mood, imagine how much an abortion/crying baby might ruin the mood for you later.

Basically-
If you make a mistake, you have to live with it. Especially, if you had the option to avoid it to begin with.
If you are a 'victim' then you have the right to make a choice.
If you are one of the few who did everything you could but still became parents... take it as a sign, your baby might be someone important in the future?

[Asterisk Rolled]

Cogito ergo sum.
I think, therefore I am.

To become a complete human being, you must be able to think. And decide. Feti cannot think, therefore they are not complete human beings.
They are clumps of cell.

It is a widely known fact that women have conducted abortions all throughout history. They have used hangers, needles, etc to get rid of their babies. They risk the chance of death to forego this horrible procedure. If the woman has decided to risk THAT much, who are you to stop her.

So you are worried that we are letting her harm herself? Incorrect: if abortions stayed legal, then she wouldn't have to go to some shady alley and have done unsafely. She must do it in a hospital, safely. By making it illegal, you're not giving any choice to the woman. She will do it with a hanger.

Don't kid yourself to think that abortions will stop because it is made illegal. It will go on, as it always have been.

[Primera Espada]

Unicorn, seriously, I have a hard time understanding what points you are making, or how they are related to anything that I say o.O

First of all, you admit to combining my statements. That's always a bad thing when the 2 are talking about different scenarios.

Two, I have said time and time again that you can't use a group that makes up less than 1% of an argument as the MAIN PART of an argument. The main part has to be relating to the main problem. The main group of abortions are people who abort for convenience (money worries/bad timing). You could have side arguments of several other reasons, but seriously, you can't say "is abortion right or wrong" and then argue that in less than 1% of the time it's right, so it should be okay for ANYONE to do it for ANY reason. Making it against the rules, but allowing small exceptions is different than making it allowable.

ANd seriously, scubadiving? DId you just compare abortion to SCUBA DIVING?

The government HAS STEPPED IN to make Rape illegal. I don't understand your complaint there.

You're arguments are getting rather ridiculous. I hope you can be a bit more serious with your next reply, or I'll have to disregard it as trolling =/

[Unicorn]

You're arguments are getting rather ridiculous. I hope you can be a bit more serious with your next reply, or I'll have to disregard it as trolling =/
I am always serious with my replies, and I believe that I have never attacked you personally. This is the first time I'm accused of trolling, here or BF. When was I trolling?

First of all, you admit to combining my statements.
Again, because you mentioned that chemical imbalances of a pregnant woman is a factor that contributes to insanity. Why is that such a bad thing, to combine statements because the insanity factors are related? I wish to understand.

Two, I have said time and time again that you can't use a group that makes up less than 1% of an argument as the MAIN PART of an argument. The main part has to be relating to the main problem. The main group of abortions are people who abort for convenience (money worries/bad timing). You could have side arguments of several other reasons, but seriously, you can't say "is abortion right or wrong" and then argue that in less than 1% of the time it's right, so it should be okay for ANYONE to do it for ANY reason. Making it against the rules, but allowing small exceptions is different than making it allowable.

My counter on your 'ridiculous minority' stand is to point out that, in your own words, the "main group of abortions are people who abort for convenience". I have tried to point out that this minority should be granted much more consideration and care. However you have been saying that they're just a 'minority'.

Allowing small exceptions vs making it allowable... isn't it the same thing?

I doubt I have ever said that abortion is right or wrong, neither have I agreed that anyone can do it for any reason. My stand on this has always been clearly 'choice'. Whatever the mother / relatives of the mother decides, I will accept it (even though I disagree with it).

However, I disagree with people insisting to introduce laws to outright ban abortion. Why? Because it gives rise to back-alley surgeries, and this could lead to more deaths.

ANd seriously, scubadiving? DId you just compare abortion to SCUBA DIVING?
Yes I did, and also flying a plane and operating a fishing boat. Just to prove that choice exists for the 'ridiculous minority' and that the government does not need to ban everything that may cause death for the majority.

The government HAS STEPPED IN to make Rape illegal. I don't understand your complaint there.
Acknowledged. Bad example. I meant back-alley surgeries.
My complaint is against having a law in place to control women's choices. Seriously, it smells of dictatorship.

[Primera Espada]

I didn't accuse you of attacking me personally.

That's flaming.

I accused you of the potential for future trolling.

Trolling is making posts with the sole purpose of stirring up people, rather than making a legitimate point.

And combining 2 of my arguments into one is not acceptable since I presented 2 hypothetical situations with 2 different sets of rules applied to them, and you combined the 2 as though there was just the 1 set of rules. I mean, if you think there's something wrong with them, why don't you argue them separately instead of joining them?

Also, making abortions legal is not the same as allowing medical exceptions. We allow marijuana as medical exceptions in some states, while it's still illegal. So, no, the "making abortion legal" argument is not "making abortion legal for certain reasons" it's "Making abortion legal for any reason."

If you're only arguing that in 1% of the time, abortion should be okay, you won't really get much of an argument out of... anyone other than extreme conservatives.

And no, you can't compare something you can get a liscense for with abortion. It's downright silly. The rediculous minority argument doesn't even hold water to that, since you're comparing something with no negative side effects to something that kills a life, and can potentially hurt the mother.

and...

I seriously don't think dictatorship is the word you're looking for, as "not having choices" has nothing to do with a government run by a single person. I think you're thinking of "facist government"

And all laws exist to hinder people from making a choice. You can't CHOSE to kill someone. You can't CHOSE to drive on the wrong side of the road. You can't CHOSE to smoke marijuana unless you are okay with the fact that if you get caught, you get in trouble for it.

complete freedom = complete anarchy. Government in it's very definition puts restrictions on the people to preserve order and saftey.

If you're issue is "I don't like the government telling me what I can, and cannot do with MY body, even if it DOES hurt an unborn fetus, or myself" well then all I can say is... you're going to be outnumbered, as most people want a government that will take care of them.

Also, even with your "back alley surgeries" correction, I still don't see the point you were trying to make. The government does it's best to protect people from themselves, and to protect them from others. How does back alley surgeries give the impression that the government isn't?
If your implication is that abortion being illegal forces someone to get a back alley abortion... well I just hope that isn't your argument, as obviously no one is forcing them to. Now, if they're going to force themselves to make a choice that is dangerous AND illegal, that's really their own fault. The only time that someone would be forced to is if they were in danger of dying, which is also a minute # of people which an exception could be made for.

The pro-life stance doesn't say "there's never a reason to get an abortion" just as the pro choice stance doesn't say "a woman should always be able to get an abortion"
Both sides understand lines must be drawn for certain shades of grey.

[Unicorn]

This IS a debate section, Primera. I am sad that you think I'm trolling and dismiss my counters as 'illegitimate responses'.

I mean, if you think there's something wrong with them, why don't you argue them separately instead of joining them?
I had and still have an issue with you claiming that chemical imbalances in pregnant women is a factor that causes insanity. Both your hypothetical situations involve pregnant women. If I should differentiate, how?

Also, making abortions legal is not the same as allowing medical exceptions. We allow marijuana as medical exceptions in some states, while it's still illegal. So, no, the "making abortion legal" argument is not "making abortion legal for certain reasons" it's "Making abortion legal for any reason.

Let's be clear here. Here are my interpretations:
- government-declared illegal abortion = no abortion allowed for any reason whatsoever.
- legal abortion = government controlled, and approved with related medical checks and balances (your version of allowing medical exceptions)
- back-alley abortion = uncontrolled and no medical checks and balances.

What I am trying to show is that with legalised abortion, the procedures can take place safely and in a controlled environment. There will be measures in place to ensure that each individual is screened and cared for properly, whether or not the abortion happens. In a controlled environment, the mother can even be offered alternative options (including adoption). I do not think that legalising abortion means that any and all women can walk in through the doors and order the surgery with the ease of buying a fast food burger.

Yes, I agree that perhaps some people will slip through the legalised cracks (even for marijuana). Isn't this method safer than declaring abortion illegal, thus driving the abortion process to the back-alleys where possibly people CAN order a surgery like they do at fast food restaurants (without the associated medical checks and balances?). If the government makes abortion illegal, leaving mothers with nowhere else to turn to but dangerous back-alley surgeries, can you really put the blame solely on the mother?

since you're comparing something with no negative side effects to something that kills a life.
The examples I stated can be dangerous, even fatal, in inexperienced hands.

you're going to be outnumbered, as most people want a government that will take care of them.
Oh I do want a government that takes care of me. Just not one that controls me so tightly and not give me a choice. There is a difference between babysitting and smothering.

[Primera Espada]

So you're arguing for abortion be be MOSTLY illegal, with exceptions ONLY for medical purposes?

Is that correct?

Also, I meant no negative side effects when done CORRECTLY. Even if an abortion is done CORRECTLY there's a risk to the mother, and more importantly it has a MAJOR negative side effect. It's just not to the mother.

And not letting you get an abortion is HARDLY a major form of control. It's not like there's not other viable options for almost every case.

[Unicorn]

So you're arguing for abortion be be MOSTLY illegal, with exceptions ONLY for medical purposes?

No I am not. I am arguing for abortion to be legalised.

With counselling of mothers and the assessment (simplistic) that 'yes she is mentally and physically ready to abort' OR 'she is being hysterical and needs more time before being assessed). With much more consideration and care provided to mothers who wish to abort for reasons beyond their control.

I do not like abortions done for convenience's sake, but I will not obstruct their decision and call them names.

And not letting you get an abortion is HARDLY a major form of control. It's not like there's not other viable options for almost every case.
For the majority of cases (in countries that legalise abortion), there are alternative viable options. For the minority of the cases, these options may not exist - thus IMO they, above all other people, require a choice.

[Primera Espada]

that's a very, VERY strange way of handling the legalization.

It sounds like you're saying it's only okay for them to do it if they're in totally sound mind about it.

That sits bad with me, cause that's saying a murder out of passion is wrong, but premeditated murder, now that's okay.

The psychological tests should be determining that the woman can't handle being pregnant, not that she can.

[Unicorn]

The psychological tests should be determining that the woman can't handle being pregnant, not that she can.
How do you propose that this particular aspect is handled? If the result shows that she can or cannot - what should be done then?

Also, as pregnancy can only result from males + females, should males undergo psychological testing to ensure that they are mature enough to start a family before being able to have sex?

[Primera Espada]

Just like when a mother's life is in danger, if her sanity is, then steps that are otherwise illegal can be allowed.

I mean, women already get away with claiming that pregnancy causes temporary insanity. If it's a situation with even more factors, and a woman with a history of mental illness, then FURTHER chemical imbalances caused by pregnancy could be determined to be a very, VERY bad thing for her mental state. Therefor, an abortion would be self defense killing.

And your psychological testing for males question is completely a moot point, as I have presented no such comment about women needing psychological testing to start a family.

It's to STOP a family that there is a problem for.

If you want to argue that men should be able to force a woman to get an abortion, go for it. I'll gladly oppose you on that.

[Unicorn]

Ahh thanks for clarifying. Sorry for the late edit, I had a big think about this.

Just like when a mother's life is in danger, if her sanity is, then steps that are otherwise illegal can be allowed.
How different is this assessment from the assessment that I proposed earlier... to ensure that the mother has been counselled on all options, has decided to abort, and is mentally prepared to abort?

I mean, women already get away with claiming that pregnancy causes temporary insanity.
I would like to see that website or article, please. Can you provide a link?

If it's a situation with even more factors, and a woman with a history of mental illness, then FURTHER chemical imbalances caused by pregnancy could be determined to be a very, VERY bad thing for her mental state.

So in your perfect world, how would doctors assess a perfectly sane woman (do they need to carry around certificates to prove this?) that suddenly suffered a traumatizing event (eg. was raped or being told that having a baby would kill either of them). From your statement, the perfectly sane mother is only mildly insane (pregnant), right? And if this event would only be very (note I only used one very) bad for her mental state, would she be allowed to abort?

The psychological tests should be determining that the woman can't handle being pregnant, not that she can.
I believe that I read your comment right. Women should be tested to see if they can or cannot handle pregnancy, right? In return, I asked if males should undergo the same testing to ensure that they can or cannot handle being a father before being allowed to have sex. I don't believe that it's a moot point, because in the long run, it will definitely reduce the need for abortions.

If you want to argue that men should be able to force a woman to get an abortion, go for it. I'll gladly oppose you on that.

Okay, I'll probably let the males of this forum answer that.
Scenario 1: if you are suddenly confronted with an 'Hey I'm pregnant" statement outside of marital status. What would you do?
Scenario 2: If your partner / relative is pregnant but the mum's physical or mental health is in danger. What would you do?

[Primera Espada]

1) I'll post a link when my mouse works again, it's too hard to do webcrawling without a mouse XD

2) If several psychiatrists can prove that the woman is in SERIOUS danger from the resulting mental damage, then it should be enough to grant permission (read : to allow her not to be prosecuted for a crime). What is "serious danger of damaging one's mental state"? I'm not a psychologist, I can't make that call. Obviously when there's people like andrea yates out there, some people are definately subject to fall under examination for that clause.

3) No, I am not saying women should be tested to see if they can or cannot handle pregnancy. I said women wanting an ABORTION would need testing to see if they have a legitimate claim that it's DANGEROUS for them. Again, the point of having anyone tested before having sex, or before being a parent is a moot point, as that is unrelated to my statement

4) Scenario 1 doesn't apply to me, so I won't answer it (it would be wrong of me to answer for a part of the population I do not represent)
Scenario 2, myself and my partner would both agree that it's worth the risk. I would not, however, judge someone poorly for having to decide between their own life and their child's as that can never be an easy decision.

[Unicorn]

1) Cool, I look forward to that link / information.

2) If several psychiatrists can prove that the woman is in SERIOUS danger from the resulting mental damage, then it should be enough to grant permission (read : to allow her not to be prosecuted for a crime).
And in your perfect abortion-is-illegal world, what is the meaning of 'serious mental danger' in layman everyday terms? Leave professional terms out of it. What should I assume it is.... that the mother has to be in a state of suicidal depression to be 'granted permission'? Or be dependent on prescribed sedatives / depression drugs? Or booze / sleeping pills?

3) I said women wanting an ABORTION would need testing to see if they have a legitimate claim that it's DANGEROUS for them. Again, the point of having anyone tested before having sex, or before being a parent is a moot point, as that is unrelated to my statement.

Okay, going along with your new improved clarified version. Are you really suggesting for traumatized rape victims being told:
a) they're not insane enough to be allowed to abort.
b) they're insane enough to be allowed to abort.

Nope, you previously said that the woman should be tested if they can handle pregnancy, thus my counter-question for males to be similarly tested was valid and related. In light of your new version, yeah I guess it is moot. However I find it quite disheartening that it is always the woman who gets accused of insanity and subjected to all sorts of tests. What about the father, if found that he's irresponsible and partially the cause of the abortion - does he get off scot-free? Cautioned? Jailed? Accused of insanity? Subject to further tests and approval before being let out into society again?

[Primera Espada]

Unicorn, I said the woman should be tested as a prerequisite for abortion.

The father isn't tested cause the father isn't giving birth. The father isn't the one that goes through chemical changes, the father isn't the one that carries the child for 9 months and has emotional attachments beyond that of mere genetics.

And, no, it's not the "You're too insane" or "you're not insane enough" it's "keeping the pregnancy will make you insane" or "keeping the pregnancy won't make you insane"

WORLD of difference.

And I can't offer a layman's term for insanity, as every state has a different definition of that. Some say it means you cannot differentiate from right and wrong, others say that you can not consciously control yourself. Other states simply use it to mean that you were so far removed from normal mental functioning that you couldn't HELP but perform the action which you are being tried for.

I can't offer you a line of insanity that must be crossed before someone can be forgiven for abortion. I can only present that a line can be created, by those more informed about what insanity is than myself.

For your "father partially responsible for the abortion" statement, please give an example.

[Unicorn]

And, no, it's not the "You're too insane" or "you're not insane enough" it's "keeping the pregnancy will make you insane" or "keeping the pregnancy won't make you insane"
However you already said that all pregnant women are already somewhat insane, and are even going to provide me the link that says so. Therefore this test is useless because everyone will register 'insane' whether or not they plan to keep the pregnancy

I would like you to define "the level of 'dangerous insanity'", which leads me to the next point:

And I can't offer a layman's term for insanity, as every state has a different definition of that... I can't offer you a line of insanity that must be crossed before someone can be forgiven for abortion. I can only present that a line can be created, by those more informed about what insanity is than myself.
I don't recall asking for current state laws on insanity, because its not specifically related to abortion. All I want to know is, in your perfect abortion-is-illegal world, what situation should a mother be in for you to certify that she's dangerously insane enough to be given permission to abort? What is your line that can and should be created?

For your "father partially responsible for the abortion" statement, please give an example.
I can give you 2.
1) rape and the girl (let's assume that she's officially certified sane before the attack) is pregnant and traumatized.
2) Boyfriends who pressure the girl to sleep with them, only to get cold feet at the pregnancy (commitment) and pressure her to abort.

[Primera Espada]

Unicorn, I understand that you are trying to illustrate supposed flaws in my arguments, however you can't put words in my mouth or slur together statements of mine, or jump to conclusions about my points. In a proper debate, you can't argue what you think I might be meaning to convince people of, you can only argue what I say.

That being said, women go through chemical changes when they are pregnant. These chemical changes effect their brain. We all know this, I don't think I need to drum up some link to some research done on something like that, obviously. They're not insane. However, it can be a factor in a woman's sanity. Chemical imbalances in the brain ALWAYS have potential to be factors in insanity. It's sorta, ya know, the definition o.o.

So no, I'm not saying all pregnant women are crazy. But all pregnant woman go through a series of emotional changes which MAY help unhinge them. Any pregnant woman can vouch for that. Any father can vouch that the mother of their child went through that.

You want me to create a line of definition for what is insane and what is not? No.

Simply no.

It would be absolutely irresponsible of me to use my own opinion in such a debate, particularly due to the fact that I am of no position of authority to claim such an expertise on that subject.

In your 2 examples, 1) someone who rapes someone is ALREADY legally held responsible for it, because they are arrested for the rape, and sent to prison. It's hard to get child support from someone in jail, granted, but I don't see your point in that scenario.
2) the father, in this case, could not possibly use insanity as a defense unless they were in fact previously diagnosed as insane. In which case I'd have to wonder why a woman would listen to the logic of an insane person. Can they be criminalized for pressuring the girl into abortion? Well if they pressure her into illegal abortion, that would make them an accomplice, would it not? They would be jailed alongside the woman. If you are saying they pressured her into a legal abortion, in the scenario presented, that's an impossibility, as abortion isn't left up to a woman simply to chose, she has to qualify, and no amount of coercement could make her qualify.

[stifflersthedog]

Hmm i like the idea of the "test" sort of, but i'd prefer to call it counciling. And as far as i'm aware there already is this in place, although prehaps a greater support network is needed for it to be more effective.

I personally believe that a couple (if there is one) or the woman, should have to or at least be strongly advised to take Councilling with a Psychologist were they can discuss options, and the psycholgist can assess there states of mind on a more informal basis than a straight test.

Theres nothing wrong with the idea of test, simply the wording (in my mind at least) makes it sound as if the woman is on trial for wishing to have an abortion, which aint gonna win anyone over.

[Unicorn]

@ stifflersthedog - thank you, I love the analogy of a trial. It is a really suitable description for PE's suggestion of insanity tests.
...

In a proper debate, you can't argue what you think I might be meaning to convince people of, you can only argue what I say.
Why do you think I've been quoting your statements before I counter-debate?

We all know this, I don't think I need to drum up some link to some research done on something like that, obviously.
So in other words, you cannot provide me a link?

So no, I'm not saying all pregnant women are crazy. But all pregnant woman go through a series of emotional changes which MAY help unhinge them.
When comparing this statement to your earlier ones (pregnancy causes chemical imbalances in the brain), may I ask you to make up your mind if pregnancy causes emotional or chemical changes?

It would be absolutely irresponsible of me to use my own opinion in such a debate, particularly due to the fact that I am of no position of authority to claim such an expertise on that subject.
LOL I already said that I didn't want a professional opinion. I only wanted what you and your moral stance would accept or reject. No one is going to make laws on what you state here, nor persecute you. Do you not wish for me to have a clearer understanding of your thought processes? If not, why?

2 case example: you don't see my point or you don't want to see my point? I am simply asking... how would your insanity test / approval of abortion test factor in outside influences such as unwanted pregnancy by force (rape or partner pressure).

All you are telling me are that those people will be simply jailed if they
1) fail the test.
2) are the rapist or the guy who's responsible.

[Primera Espada]

only gonna respond to a couple things, cause it's 5:30 in the mornin, and I can't get to sleep. More to come later.

1) you're joking right? you're asking me to make up my mind between emotional changes and chemical changes... you know chemical changes are how emotions work, right? That's why the entire industry of psychiatry exists. When someone's chemical levels change, some of those chemical changes may happen in the brain. If so, you have different emotional responses than normal.

If I'm going to have to provide links so that people understand what pregnancy is and does to a person, I don't think this is the right group to even be discussing abortion with.

2) stiffler, the difference between counseling and a test is that in counsellings they pretty much make sure you are definitely deciding to get an abortion, and are not just being overemotional and all that. That, in my opinion, is the opposite of what should happen. If you are perfectly rational, and there's no medical problems, I don't see why ANYONE could justify an abortion over adoption. The implementation of a test is so that only those who TRULY have no other option other than putting themselves through such things they may not survive would be allowed to abort.

No one should be able to get an abortion just because they want to.

3)Unicorn, you quote one thing I say, then say things like "you said all pregnant women are already somewhat insane" which is not the case. I have been consistent in my comments. Also, you won't get any further definition of what insanity is out of me. It's rather irrelevant, isn't it? What possible use could you have for my personal definition as opposed to a legal one, especially since we're talking hypotheses, so even my personal definition wouldn't be used. Not to mention the fact that it has nothing to do with my morals o.O

And I was saying any rapist would already be jailed (after all, if you can prove he's the father, you can prove he's the rapist, etc), and if a woman gets an illegal abortion, and can prove she was coerced by her boyfriend, well guess what, she committed murder, and was coerced to commit murder. Anyone who coerces someone to kill someone ALSO gets jailed. Sometimes they even get worse sentences.

[stifflersthedog]

Thats not what coucilings for (or at least meant to be for) its meant to help the person or persons assess all the viable option whilst giving the psychologist a reasonable amount of time to assess there state of mind for amongst other thing "suicide risks".

Now its been over a year since i studied what councilling is all about, and even then it did focus mostly on Hiv Aids care and councilling (being South Africa). But as far as i'm aware/concerned they do not assume anything, in fact psychologists should never assume, they council and work with the patient to explore all viable options and are not there to judge there morals.

If you start insisting that ppl take tests to "justify" abortion you know what they gonna do, they gonna start finding other more dangerous ways of abortion (back street abortions) and these are likely to end up in the death of both the baby and the mother.

The only viable and effective method of handling abortion (for both pro life and pro choice) is to have a safe/caring/and welcoming system were people aren't "scared" to enter


"if you are in a rational state of mind there is no medical problems, then there should be no justification for abortion over adoption"

Never speak in absolutes mate: A black woman living in khaletsha (a massive urban shack settlement outside Cape Town, South Africa), who barely survives by herself becomes pregnant and wishes to have an abortion.

There are thousand and thousands of orphaned children in Africa starving/living on the streets, the area is already overpopulated and poor, no one is capable of caring for this child, and if he survives he is likely to live on the streets and possibly do drugs/crime/prostitution to survive.

What is the point? if all those woman were allowed to have there abortions as sick as it would sound the area would probably prosper. There'd be less people, more land, and thus more wealth, and more jobs.

I agree that in middle america were there are probably loads of couples without children who are perfectly willing to adopt, that provide the mother is happy there should be a "push" for adoption.

But the fact is not everywhere is middle america, and the places with the highest birth rates are usually the poorest, and to say that you must favor life over all else is unwise imo. Espicially when it is to the detriment of both the child and the community.

Basically i view at this: We are human, we were givin the power to choose, should we not be allowed to use it ?

[HinataFan]

The humans who cannot choose for themselves need a voice. Mommy is usually baby's voice but since some Mommies have put her choice first, poor baby is lost...

I do not believe in abortion. The only way I even consider it in my mind is when a woman has been raped, or if there is a chance that both mother and child would die.

After I saw the interview of a daughter whose mother had been raped and decided to still have her it gave me pause. Her mother, who was there also, was saying everyone was pushing her toward in abortion but she didn't do it.

She said that that little girl that she decided to keep was the only person who loved her unconditionally after what happened to her. That little girl never looked at her as a tainted woman.

After hearing their case, I am still pausing over what is right for child and mother. In a case of rape, giving up the child for adoption is a option. In most the cases adoption is an option.

But for ladies who go out and sleep around like they don't know that sex is for reproduction and then kill their baby because of their hangups and hide behind the banner of "It's my choice" is a murderess and the government should not be backing a person like that.

"How did this happen to me?" Maybe paying attention in 6th grade Biology class would answer that question.

I also want to stand behind a Daddy's choice. What if he wanted that baby? Why can't Daddy have a choice?

[Primera Espada]

Hinatafan summed up a lot of points I was getting ready to make when I read stiffler's last post XD.

But, in regards to the situation in africa. I think it's unfair for those who are able to make decisions to default to making them in their own interest. Not to mention selfish.

But, that's something I suppose we can argue until the sun comes down. Just how selfless should a person be REQUIRED to be. It sorta kills the selflessness of it.

I deplore the notion that people should get away with murder just because it benefits society. Many cultures throughout history have adopted that philosophy at one point, and history always views those as the worst of the worst.

But, that's arguing ethics. I can't expect everyone to have my ethics. I can't expect everyone to be the sort of person that would raise someone else's kid if they could, if that kid was in need of it. Most human beings don't get that selfless for half their life. Some never do.

But I like to think we can draw the line somewhere. If you don't wanna raise the kid, you don't have to. That doesn't mean you have to kill it though.

[stifflersthedog]

Choice? its all about that aint it, You say we should talk as the voice of the unborn baby who naturally chooses life. The fact is the child doesn't have a voice at that age in fact it probably wouldn't be able to "voice" its opinion until at least 5-6 ? years old.

But you naturally assume that "we" should be its voice, but in truth the person who is closest to the child is the mother. It is part of her until it is born (its physically attached). Who are we to force her? what makes us so high and mighty?

Dont get me wrong like i said in an area were it is capable of supporting the child, then there should be a "push" towards adoption, but in the end all the state, and us should "rightly" do is advise. Its the choice of the sole voice of both mother and child to make the decision.

Your right lets not argue ethics (but for my sake, please dont automatically place you above me)

My main reason for posting in the 1st place was to counter your suggestions for the process of abortion, which i felt went against the basic notion of the human right to choose

The 2nd was because as you can probably guess i'm pro choice, and completly against other people forcing people into making choices.

I am interested in your justification for your views to be taken above that of the mother? assuming she is in a "capable" frame of mind.

lastly Hinta i appreciate that post, and it is a firm example of how it can go right, but if you'll notice the system wasn't working (she was being pushed for abortion, which shouldn't happen), and in the end it was HER choice to have the child, and the reason they got along so well was because it was her choice, and the child loved her for it. Now imagine how it'd go if she had wanted an abortion and she had been forced into having the child?

[Unicorn]

@ PE: then why suddenly mention emotional changes when you have been insisting on chemical imbalances?

If I'm going to have to provide links so that people understand what pregnancy is and does to a person, I don't think this is the right group to even be discussing abortion with.
So... you do not have a link to backup your claims that pregnancy causes / is a factor of insanity? (refer page 6, as well as earlier posts)

The implementation of a test is so that only those who TRULY have no other option other than putting themselves through such things they may not survive would be allowed to abort.
...
and if a woman gets an illegal abortion, and can prove she was coerced by her boyfriend, well guess what, she committed murder, and was coerced to commit murder. Anyone who coerces someone to kill someone ALSO gets jailed.
At last, a clarification. Thanks for that. So.... your test system again penalizes women who have already gone through a rape or an oppressive relationship? Unless of course these women drive themselves to a suicidal-depressive state (life or death) right?

My main reason for posting in the 1st place was to counter your suggestions for the process of abortion, which i felt went against the basic notion of the human right to choose.
Thank you, I also consider the implementation of 'abortion test' very unfair for a mother who had already undergone the trauma of rape or an oppressive relationship.

[Primera Espada]

Being a rape victim is not a free ticket to commit murder.

Emotions = Chemical changes in the brain. They're the same thing, interchanging their wording is perfectly acceptable.

It is proving difficult for me to continue the debate if I have to educate people on things I generally assume the public education system taught them already.

Edit: Since someone wasn't clear on this, I'd like to point out that the education comment I was discussing was directed at the education about the effects of pregnancy, and nothing to do with rape. I'm sorry that someone misunderstood this.

[neurofreez]

Being a rape victim is not a free ticket to commit murder.
I say "being a rape victim IS a free ticket to a life not wanted". Initially, at least -I find it very difficult to believe a rape victim would be jumping for joy when they discover they are now pregnant. And then to cope with the fact if they thought of or follow through with having an abortion it will put them in jail... geez. Victims just don't get a break, do they? No one should have fingers pointed at them, or called a murderer for having an abortion either. I'm sure it was already a difficult choice to make. No need to make them feel worse or suicidal.

Then again, I have an interesting set of morals. Murder is a-okay, given the right circumstances, and no two situations are ever the same. Such as self defense, beneficial to a great number of people (over half the world population), etc.

If people were perfectly rational, abortion would not even be an issue. People would realize and understand PRIOR to pregnancy, and acts involved with it, what must and must not be done. Measures would be implemented at that time. But since people are not perfectly rational... especially in large numbers

[Unicorn]

It is proving difficult for me to continue the debate if I have to educate people on things I generally assume the public education system taught them already.
Being a female myself, I have made it a point to pay attention during classes that discuss human females. I know all about the hormonal changes. However, never have I read anything that advises that human pregnancy is a cause / factor of insanity. This fascinates me enough to request for a link to the study where you learnt this from. I'm not sure why you continue to refuse to provide such a link.

@ Hinatafan and neurofreeze, thank you for your insights into abortion. I am glad that you both will consider being lenient to a victim of trauma.

@ Hinatafan, I also disrespect women who use abortion as a convenient form of garbage disposal. However, I understand that it's their choice and I'm not really entitled to step in and block their decision 'just because'.

[Primera Espada]

It's really quite simple

Pregnancy causes chemical changes (in the body in general, and the brain)

Mental Disorders are chemical changes in the brain that effect the way someone thinks on a semi permanent basis (i.e. it won't go away unless cured)

Insanity is a severe Mental Disorder (specified to some degree, based on context of legality, clinical, etc)

So, if someone with a mental disorder-

chemical change

Gets pregnant-

Chemical change

it can be a factor in insanity

severe Chemical change.

if you disagree that pregnancy causes chemical changes in women, please state so now

if you disagree that mental disorders are chemical changes, please state so now.

if you disagree that insanity is a severe mental disorder, please state so now.

If not... then there's no reason to disagree with me.

[stifflersthedog]

Eish baba, emotions are human, and are far more than just "chemical process's" you cant just reduce everything to animal qualities. Your just dehumanising it to make easy for you to justify.

"Being a rape victim is not a free ticket for murder"

Joining the army and killing someone (free ticket?)
Killing someone in self defense (free ticket?)
Killing a defenseless animal for sport (free ticket)
Neuturing your dog (free ticket?)

All of those (and i could think of many more) are killings with "no good reason" even self defense, what if he only wounded you and you survived, OMG you took away a life *hang*

No one is suggesting that you favor abortion above life, thats ludicrious , but it is equally ludicrious to favor life for the sake of life.

If you are good at debating and present your points in a clear and consice manner then people wont keep asking you to clarify. Insulting the other peoples intelligence, and dismissing there "worthyness" to debate with you, is not good debating.


I am curious why we are drawing the line here. If you were a condom you are preventing a potential life. I'm guessing this is taboo as well, so following that line everyone should have unprotected sex and transmit aids, and then we can all die.

Hmm you know we cull animals (note cull not kill >.>) when there are too many in the population, we neuter (ditto) our pets when we dont want little pets. No one seems to throw up there arms in horror at this, its just accepted. You know why? cause it has to be, there simply isn't enough space in the world for all the animals (including us).

Every other species on the planet either has a way of controling its birth rate, or natural enemy's that prevent overpopulation.

We as Humans are unique we have no natural enemy, because we are our own natural enemy. We kill each other, start wars, disease, etc. We control our birth rates via: society, contraceptions, and yes abortion.

I didn't want to go reduce things to animal qualites, because there is so much more that can be said for us that i cant put into words. But seeing as we were talking about chemical imbalances and such like, i thought it seemed fitting

(now i've got a headache)

[Unicorn]

PE, I am actually laughing right now.
The Gospel of Gynecology according to PE. I am actually thinking of asking you for your medical certification.

I clearly state, here and now, that yes, pregnancy causes a human female's body to change physically and hormonally (chemically).

I have been asking for evidence (not the Gospel according to PE) that pregnancy causes insanity, because I have never heard of such a thing.

All the weblinks I've read so far and all the textbooks I've studied so far indicates that pregnant women do occasionally suffer from depression / anxiety.

Y'know, schoolchildren taking exams / vaccinations suffer from the same. Jobseekers of any gender suffer from the same. Grandparents of any gender suffer from the same. Parents of any gender suffer from the same. Singles suffer from the same. I dare say my pet dog (male) suffers from the same too!

Edit: Zomg, I forgot the people who are undergoing puberty.

They are not, by any definition, labelled 'insane' or 'partially insane' or even 'temporarily insane'. So why then, do pregnant women have the honour of being labelled as such by you?

[Primera Espada]

Unicorn, did you forget that I said mentally unstable or disordered people could be PUSHED into insanity by pregnancy?

That was the only time I actually mentioned the notion of women being able to argue temporary insanity.

If you really don't want them to be considered insane if they were seriously unhinged due to being raped, and then finding out they are pregnant, and then on top of that the chemical changes of pregnancy, then sure, I'll say that's fine.

Then they can go to jail.

Happy now?

I wanted to keep them out of jail, but you seem dead set on otherwise, so I'll concede that they may NOT be able to be found to be temporarily insane.

As for stiffler... come on, stop being facetious, everyone knows those things aren't the same as abortion. Come up with a real argument, then I'll respond in kind.

[Unicorn]

I do remember that you kept on insisting that pregnancy is a contributing factor towards insanity from page 4. Page 6 was the clanker "I mean, women already get away with claiming that pregnancy causes temporary insanity.", and shortly after that I asked you for a link.

If you really wanted to prove that pregnancy is a factor in causing insanity, then all you had to do was post supporting evidence instead of demeaning everyone in this thread. I'm not dead-set against anything, and I've requested your supporting evidence many many times.

Of course you wanted to keep them out of jail (everyone say 'awwww'). I also seem to remember your earlier declaration that in your perfect world, where you refused to provide a definition of what is 'acceptable trauma-related insanity', and victims of trauma who are NOT "seriously unhinged" would still be thrown in jail if they dared to abort?

Oh, and stifflers came up with a legit argument "where do we draw the line", which IMHO relates to your abortion trial which does not show leniency to victims of trauma.

Instead of dismissing everyone else's posts as 'worthless' or 'not the right group to discuss it with', I would appreciate if you could respond.

[Primera Espada]

I said victims of trauma, who are undergoing serious mental disorders (post traumatic stress disorder counts) who then get an abortion would not be held accountable, as they can argue temporary insanity. Moreso, they can even get a doctor to sign off saying the likelihood of long lasting insanity

You want insanity?
http://www.4women.gov/FAQ/postpartum.htm#5

And that sometimes occurs in men to lesser degree, meaning the hormonal imbalance in a woman pushes it FURTHER

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokophobia

Fear of giving birth

Also there's the tendancy of women to experience a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder from the birth itself. Combine that with the post traumatic stress disorder from rape, and the depression over the pregnancy, and you have a seriously mentally ill woman on your hands.

What I have a hard time understanding is how you can argue that pregnancy can under no circumstance cause any level of temporary insanity. Do you really believe that, or are you just arguing because you feel I haven't given a link that specifically uses the word "insanity" and "pregnancy" in the same sentance?

The scenarios Stiffler presented has nothing to do with the topic. None involve human beings who do not have the ability to defend themselves. Compare something... comparable, then I'll respond.

[Unicorn]

1st link is not working. 2nd link discusses a phobia in Wikipedia, which IMO does not related to 'insanity'. I have a fear of spiders / heights / cows... am I temporarily insane?

'Insane' is such a strong term. Declaring that pregnancy is an insanity-causing factor that affects all pregnant women... this is extremely insulting and demeaning to almost half the human population.

Hormonal changes, chemical changes, emotional changes, depression, stress, anxiety? I agree to those. All genders are liable to experience those feelings. Some women breaking under the stress and trauma? Yes I agree. Some men break under the stress and trauma of these feelings too. However, you cannot deny that there's a whole heap of other factors to be considered besides insanity (eg. depression, stress, feeling isolated and unsupported). Why was pregnancy singled out?

Finally, you have clarified some situations (post traumatic stress disorder) in your proposed 'abortion trial'. Thank you. If you had explained this pages ago instead of demeaning fellow debaters, I would have understood your opinions a little better.

[Primera Espada]

I am sorry, but it does tend to feel as though you are downright *trying* to misinterpret what I say.

Like how you strangely cling to the notion that I say pregnancy = insanity, or that I "single out" pregancy.

I don't know how many times I can say pregnancy can be the "straw that broke the camel's back" in case of rape victim pregnancies before you understand I'm not saying that it's the ONLY factor. Just that it, as much as *ANY* major hormone change to a person can make a BAD situation WORSE, and that it would be GROUNDS for (not absolute permission for) not finding a woman who gets an abortion guilty.

Really, are we even arguing abortion anymore? It seems like the argument is over the semantics of how I explain a possible loophole that less than 1% of aborting women can take advantage of if abortion is made completely illegal.

I think I'll do what I should have done a page or two back, which is step out of this conversation until it gets back to the actual subject.

[stifflersthedog]

It appears someone read the 1st 3 lines of my post, and ignored everything else. *sigh*

Okay so if they can defend themselves then they can be killed free of guilt. Killing is killing aint it?

My point for that little bit of my post was that there are a lot of cases were murder becomes acceptable, regardless of wheter one can defend themselves it is still murder

secondly if we wish to argue solely over humans (which i assume means we are a special case) would it not be prudent to stop refering to everthing in simple animalistic biological terms?

I shall rep you for that last point, because it is a rather valid point "the baby cannot defend itself" but i still wish to know why you feel we should be its voice rather than the mother (dont mention the whole insane thing, i mean a normal mother)

I also wish to know why you choose to stop at that specific stage, or are you also against the use of condoms i.e. contraception?

Finally and this is because you argue from a biological perspective in most of your posts. I wish to know your views on the deaths of other species that are incapable of defense (i.e. hunting, neutering etc.) this is important, as as i said above you argue from a biological perspective, thus refering mostly to our animalistic qualities, and thus i would assume you are also against these forms of death. Please explain

In the end i would also assume that you are an advocate of life above all else, so i would then like to hear your views on solving problems such as overpopulation. This is a side topic of abortion, as pro life would eventually lead to overpopulation.

Oh well i enjoyed posting this, and its been a while since i got to "debate" even if no one responded

[Llama]

Looking upon human nature, I doubt we will ever have to worry about overpopulation on a global scale. I also advocate life above all els. I know my dreams will never come true. But I'm going to at least and try and make a difference in this world for the better.

[Unicorn]

I am sorry, but it does tend to feel as though you are downright *trying* to misinterpret what I say.
I'm trying to understand your arguments but its kinda hard without evidence supporting the theories that you use. Hope you understand my POV and not demean my education level.

I think I'll do what I should have done a page or two back, which is step out of this conversation until it gets back to the actual subject.
Okay c'ya. (that's funny I can swear that we were discussing about abortion and the rights of mothers for the last several pages...)
....

Okaaay another side of abortion... if you are a die-hard pro-lifer trying to shut down an abortion clinic. Would you see any of the following scenarios as going against your morals:
- killing the abortion doctor.
- physically hurting the abortion staff.
- insulting the mothers who are visiting the clinic for anything ranging from 1st-time consultation to surgery.

[stifflersthedog]

Looking upon human nature, I doubt we will ever have to worry about overpopulation on a global scale. I also advocate life above all els. I know my dreams will never come true. But I'm going to at least and try and make a difference in this world for the better.

Its already overpopulated, maybe not in your town or even america, but china, asia, quite alot of europe, and even africa, there are places were there are to many people to be naturally supported by the land. I think (dont quote me on it) that china even introduced a sort of "bonus" to families that had one child. The thing is every other species has a way of regulating its birth rate, so why not us? our system is more complex than most but thats cause we are more complex.

Now abstanence would work dandy if we only had sex purely for reproduction, but the fact of the matter is we also have sex for fun/enjoyment, and theres no way we all gonna abstane until we want a child , cause were all just to damn horny :P

I fail to see how mass overpopulation due to a lack of birth control will lead to a better world.

I also find it confusing how a certain stage of pregancy can be conciderd "worthy" of saving whilst another is completly "killable" . I feel that all stages of birth should be seen as equal, as they all have the potential for the same result (i.e a child)

I had something else i wanted to say, but my beer has stolen my thoughts (will edit later)

[HighSeraphShin]

:cool: *turns head left and right*
So foolish, none of you are addressing the actual issue , the fact that of which the life that could have been is KILLED because some lousy heartless ***** isnt ready to have a baby yet because shes not responsible yet, do you not see the total flaw in this whole issue, if you kill something, it is murder nomatter if it is born or not, abortion may be a "control of population", but thats why we have life and death, and besides our minds make emotions to validate their ventilation of the minds several "curves" so that it doesnt abrupt its own balance, the emotions from pregnacy are caused by how you control yourself, you cant go through pregnacy simply, it is a known fact, every mother would feel this way, also pregnacy can also be known as a "Super PMS" causing this wide range of emotions, kinda like a bipolar emo. either way, abortion is murder, nomatter what anyone says, if you allow something not to live, then that is ending a life before it starts, what if that child causes the cure for any discease possible, that would sure suck that we killed the worlds greatest genious just because someone wasnt ready to be a mother and live a life...sigh, all so foolish

Watch the swears please.

- FH

[LiquidTheBrit]

Murder is the killing of a separate life form. What stage is it that the foetus gains its "soul", so to speak?

THAT's the question we need to answer before we answer whether or not abortion is murder.

[Unicorn]

the fact that of which the life that could have been is KILLED because some lousy heartless bitch isnt ready to have a baby yet because shes not responsible yet

Would you also hold the lousy heartless ******* who fathered the child responsible too (eg. teenage drunken orgies, adultery)? If so, how?

How would you refer to women who got pregnant by force and through no consent of her own (eg. rape or oppressive relationships)?

You justify that maybe the baby could be the next Einstein. What about the next Hitler?

Kudos to you for being 13 years old and debating a serious issue. :D

Murder is the killing of a separate life form. What stage is it that the foetus gains its "soul", so to speak?
IMHO, the baby gains its 'soul' quite late in the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy, when it is fully formed.

Watch the swears please.

- FH

[stifflersthedog]

I rate a baby is only a "soul" once it has physical left the safety of its mother womb. The reason is, because no person is considering the outside world or developing thoughts and emotions whilst in the womb, only when it gets its first whack and takes its first gasp of air, does its "life" begin. Until then imo it is just a standard fetus.

[HighSeraphShin]

Would you also hold the lousy heartless ******* who fathered the child responsible too (eg. teenage drunken orgies, adultery)? If so, how?

How would you refer to women who got pregnant by force and through no consent of her own (eg. rape or oppressive relationships)?

You justify that maybe the baby could be the next Einstein. What about the next Hitler?

Kudos to you for being 13 years old and debating a serious issue. :D


IMHO, the baby gains its 'soul' quite late in the 3rd Trimester of pregnancy, when it is fully formed.

To clarify for you, The ******* would be held responsible as well, and about the rape thing, she may be refered to as an innocent person, if she had no wish to mother, but had sex without her own wishes of having it, she is innocent and I am sorry to admit this, but my information for rape is unknown .

Einstein or Hitler? Well, Hitler was raised in an insupportive family, and was jst mean. Einstein was insane though...so ya... If the mother has the baby instead of aborting it, the mother may just hav to support an unwanted child as all, i do not have supportive information for this either,

Wow Unicorn, you got me, this is....well...rather embarassing...I have the intellectal ability of someone that of which is surpassed further in the education system, ie, Bachelors Degree Above Average college student. *glasses make that anime-ish gleam* heheh...This isnt the last of me...

Edit: I knew something didnt sound right!

Watch the swears please!

- FH

[LiquidTheBrit]

(By the way, dude, there's college students with average IQs.)
......
(And my IQ is my mother's ideal weight, apparently. Whatever that may be. She won't tell me, and for a good reason, hah-hah)

And I'd agree with Stifflers here. If you don't have a world around to to provoke thought, then it's incredibly hard to think at all, isn't it? (This is reminding me of Immanuel Kant, for some reason.. huh.. O_o can't remember which writings of his I read, though.)

EDIT: *takes 2 cents out of wallet* I think that it's okay to abort if you have good reason for it. Good reason being you were raped, did not expect to be impregnated(If a condom broke or something), etc.

EDIT2: He's not the ONLY 13 year old that debates serious issues. I just don't do it here often. =/

[Unicorn]

EDIT2: He's not the ONLY 13 year old that debates serious issues. I just don't do it here often. =/

*hugz and repz for not calling women lousy heartless ******

@ HSS - so do you still think that 'all abortion is murder'? What should be done to / for them, then?

@ Stifflers - hmm so we're thinking in kind-of similar timelines for the baby's 'soul' to be 'installed' (stupid term, but I can't think of another word for it atm).

[HighSeraphShin]

*hugz and repz for not calli