Abortion

madanth said:
I might also add that it's perfectly logical to be against abortion except when the mother's life is in danger. That's self defense.
Click to expand...
The mother's life is in danger in all pregnancies.

Not to mention the physical damage, pain and suffering, that is inevitable.
madanth said:
If you believe abortion to be murder, it's not unreasonable government interference to protect innocent lives. It's only unreasonable if you don't believe it's a baby.
Click to expand...
I have met very few people - I think maybe none - who really believe that a ten day embryo is a baby.

That alleged belief is contradicted by every other related behavior and circumstance of the alleger's life, usually. Check out the cemetary at the local "pro-life" church, for the rows of tiny headstones for the early miscarriages. They should be at least 10% of the graves. Try to get a Catholic priest to give last rites to an early miscarriage fished out of the plumbing, and bury it in the Church cemetary. Try to get a murder, manslaughter, or even improper disposal of a body, conviction for someone who simply flushes an early miscarriage down the toilet - while it was alive!

A local Catholic hospital refuses to perform abortions. Early miscarriages ? Medical waste. They used to dispose of even fairly late stillbirths and such in the incinerator, until the pro-choicers pointed out the oddity, then they rethought their policies and established "respectful" treatment of such remains - but they didn't think of that themselves. Apparently they hadn't noticed that a baby is a baby is a baby when they had a dead one in their hands, for decades.

A baby who drowns in the toilet, on the other hand - - - much different story. I recall a town somewhere digging up a storm drain more than ten feet down to retrieve the body of a small child swept away in rainstorm.

So if anyone really believes that an early embryo is a baby, a human being like any walking around, then they can hold the indicated opinions. But the pro-lifers in general are up to something quite different.
 
angrybellsprout said:
I am a strong supporter of the concept of choice, and thus consider myself to be pro-choice.

I support the choice to have sex. That sex is a concious act that individuals take part in, and in doing so make a voluntary choice to do so, with the exception of rape. I also have enough knowledge of science to understand that upon making the choice to have sex, that I am also making the choice to run the risk of having my sperm mix with a woman's eggs to produce a separate and unique individual. Rape is when your right to choice has been violated, thus any obligation to future consequence is null and void.

I also support the choice to live or not. That if an individual wants to kill themselves for whatever reason, then they should be allowed to do as such. Thus if someone is so poor, or so unloved that their quality of life is to a point where their life is not worth living, then they should have the right to make the choice to continue living or not.

In support of the choice to live or not also follows that other individuals should not be allowed to force either of those conditions upon another individual, unless said individual has done something to forefit their rights. That a person who has made grievous crimes has forefitted their right to make their own choice about life or death, thus the state is allowed to make the choice for them. That an individual who has attempted to attack another and as such is attempting to take away that person's right to choice is in effect forefitting their own right to choice and as such the person being attacked has every right to choose to kill the attacker or not in the defense of their own personal right to choose.

When abortions take place there is no regard for choice, with exception to medical emergancies and sometimes rape. The child's right to decide if it lives or not is being violated, and the violators of said rights should be punished. Anyone who would do such a thing simply is proving that they oppose the very concept of choice, and are in effect anti-choice.
Click to expand...

So in essence, children who don't have a choice in whether they should be born, should be condemned to a life of suffering, even though they never made that choice ?
 
I don't think people's view on abortion has a thing to do with the baby. They say they are against it except in cases of rape or incest (not much difference is there?) So its not really about tthe baby is it? Its about the morther and how she got pregnant. If she is an irresponsible whore then she is also a murderer who killed her baby with an abortion. If she is a 15 yr old girl who was raped by her Dad, well then she shuold be allowed to kill her baby because having it would be to awful for her.
Abortion has nothing to do with the baby. If it was about the baby, no woman should be allowed to kill it no matter how she got pregnant.

I'm pro-choice.
 
What is all this "choice" language? It's baby-killing. You're either for or against. I'm against. Life begins at conception. No spinning.
 
sandy said:
What is all this "choice" language? It's baby-killing. You're either for or against. I'm against. Life begins at conception. No spinning.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the usual ham fisted either/or fallacy. You've just stated a conviction that is based in religious beliefs; there is no science to back it up. Legislation to enforce such a conviction would be enforcing a law derived from religion on many people who do not believe in that religion (or even any religion). If it were consistently enforced, in vitro fertilization would no longer be allowed, since it involves fertilizing many eggs, and the leftover ones are destroyed. Face it, you want a theocracy.

To a twelve year old pregnant as a result of being raped by her father: "Sorry little girl, you have to have the baby, even though at your young age it could easily kill you. My interpretation of a book of creation myths from a desert nomad tribe from thousands of years ago tells me that to do otherwise would anger my god."
 
Last edited:
sandy said:
What is all this "choice" language? It's baby-killing. You're either for or against. I'm against. Life begins at conception. No spinning.
Click to expand...

Catholics think that life should be given a fair chance of success from the point of ejaculation, 'Sandy', so is birth control wrong?

If as woman miscarries, has she committed murder? Should there be an investigation into her lifestyle, to make sure it was healthy?

What happens to the little souls of miscarried babies, do they go straight to God, or to 'Limbo'?
 
phlogistician said:
Catholics think that life should be given a fair chance of success from the point of ejaculation, 'Sandy', so is birth control wrong? If as woman miscarries, has she committed murder? Should there be an investigation into her lifestyle, to make sure it was healthy? What happens to the little souls of miscarried babies, do they go straight to God, or to 'Limbo'?
Click to expand...

You're confusing me with a Catholic. I'm a born-again Christian. NOT a Catholic. Of course I believe in birth control. I think Africa should try it for about 20 years to help get their poverty problem under control. Dead babies go straight back to God no matter who/what killed them. There is no limbo.
 
Yes, conception creates life, but at early stages in it's development, the foetus is first no more complex than a tree, later it is no more complex than the lab rats we kill in the pursuit of knowledge. The idea that a potential human should be given special rights comes from religion and the concept that only humans have souls. If the nascent human has no soul, it can be considered a growth on the body of the mother, and thus completely within her rights as a citizen to destroy. After all, she will have the responsibility to be it's mother for the rest of her life.

In a practical sense, women get pregnant for a variety of reasons, sometimes it's not planned, and of course every reasonable measure should ideally be taken to prevent unplanned pregnancies. But the cost for society of unwanted children is much higher than the moral cost of ending a potential human life. Ideally, it should never happen. Practically, it must, or desperate women will harm their own lives with illegal and unregulated abortions, as they have done in the past when moral idealists refused to acknowledge that giving birth in some cases can ruin a women's life.
 
I agree, which is why we should make sure, with surgery if necessary, to only raise children in the first place, that are wanted.
 
sandy said:
What is all this "choice" language? It's baby-killing. You're either for or against. I'm against. Life begins at conception. No spinning.
Click to expand...

your the one who is spinning an honest person will admit no one is pro abortion. some people like me think the CHOICE to get one should be allowed
 
sandy said:
You're confusing me with a Catholic. I'm a born-again Christian. NOT a Catholic. Of course I believe in birth control. I think Africa should try it for about 20 years to help get their poverty problem under control. Dead babies go straight back to God no matter who/what killed them. There is no limbo.
Click to expand...

Well the highest religious authority on the planet disagrees with you. You iron out the kinks in the doctrine with him and God, and get back to us.
 
iceaura said:
The mother's life is in danger in all pregnancies.
Click to expand...
Well, I guess she could get hit by a bus, if that's what you mean. Otherwise, that's complete an utter bullshit. The women's risk should be real and imminent. Just like any other self defense case.
Not to mention the physical damage, pain and suffering, that is inevitable.
Click to expand...
Sex, like other pleasurable activities, carries certain risks.
I have met very few people - I think maybe none - who really believe that a ten day embryo is a baby.
Click to expand...
Ok, sure. But once the embryo starts looking like a baby. Once it has all the right body parts in all the right places, and you can even see it on utrasound sucking its thumb, most would call it a baby.

If it were put to a vote, a referendum, I'm sure that abortion at 10 days would pass. But by 6 weeks the fetal brain is functioning with detectable brainwaves.

By 12 weeks, all the organs are functioning. The baby can move it's head, suck its thumb, and make facial expressions.

By 17 weeks the baby is experiencing REM sleep. By 20 it can recognize its mother's voice. If not killed (aborted) a baby has a 60% chance of survival if born at 24 weeks.

Now surely, at some point in the pregnancy, we should draw a line. At some point, it becomes infanticide. I'd say we should err on the side of life. I'd have no problem with a morning after pill that simply prevents implantation. But would absolutely oppose any abortions beyond 6-8 weeks perhaps even 4-6 weeks). Except in cases where the mother is in actual danger of dying, or severe fetal abnormalities,
 
Orleander said:
I think its a mass of cells, not a child.
Click to expand...
Does that hold for the full nine months? I'd say that description is only accurate for a few weeks. As I said above (post 34), by 6 weeks your mass of cells has a brain and detectable brain waves. By 12 weeks it can move, make facial expressions, suck its thumb. It's acting a lot like a newborn. By 20 weeks it can recognize its mother's voice.

Where do you draw the line? Surely you don't think something magical happens as the baby passes thru the birth canal? A nine month old "fetus" is different from a newborn only in its location.

I say you've got 4-6 weeks to decide whether or not to kill the kid for any reason. After that, you'd better have a damned good reason (life of mother, severe fetal abnormalities, etc)

PS My opinion is based entirely on the welfare of the child. At some point, it becomes a child. Once it is, you shouldn't kill it.
 
its not a baby unless it can be born with a reasonable lets say 70% chance of surviving with out a doctors help
 
sandy said:
You're confusing me with a Catholic. I'm a born-again Christian. NOT a Catholic. Of course I believe in birth control. I think Africa should try it for about 20 years to help get their poverty problem under control. Dead babies go straight back to God no matter who/what killed them. There is no limbo.
Click to expand...


Wait, but to a catholic using birth control is having an abortion, ohh but their views are different then yours so your views should apply to everyone.....I see. :rolleyes:
 
I think you should be able to abort 4-6 weeks after the thing is born. Just like the Spartans. It isn't a child untill you give it a name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top