Abortion

rjr6 said:
That morning after pill is an abortion with a clever name.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It prevents conception. Even the pro-lifers say that life begins at conception, not at ejaculation.

rjr6 said:
Means of contraception have been available for a long time. Would slicker forms make immoral people moral?
Click to expand...

Having sex isn't immoral. Having a baby you can't care for is. Most forms of contraception are problematic. There isn't, for instance, a male pill.
 
pjdude1219 said:
there is nothing wrong with abortion the only people i have found to be against it are people who are trying to push their religious beliefs on others
Click to expand...

When you say nothing "wrong" with abortion, what do you mean? Are you saying that it is "right"? How do you determine right from wrong? Do you think the decision to have an abortion comes about from people making "right" decisions?
 
rjr6 said:
When you say nothing "wrong" with abortion, what do you mean? Are you saying that it is "right"? How do you determine right from wrong? Do you think the decision to have an abortion comes about from people making "right" decisions?
Click to expand...

its not wrong since when compared to all the alternatives when you are already pregnant abortion is the one that makes you the least dickish
 
rjr6 said:
When you say nothing "wrong" with abortion, what do you mean? Are you saying that it is "right"? How do you determine right from wrong? Do you think the decision to have an abortion comes about from people making "right" decisions?
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you mean by the right decision. The choice also comes from a moral/societal/religious/personal standpoint. Whats a worse decision for a person who believes that life doesnt begin at fertilization, brining a child inot the world so that it can recieve less care than it requires and can live a life of poverty and struggle, or not bringing one into the world?

It all comes from the background of the women
 
Last edited:
Two hypothetical but realistic scenario's:

a) Through criminal misconduct Bill causes a miscarriage to Mary. Should he be charged with manslaughter, paid for parasitic removal, or nothing at all.


b) Mary decides to have an abortion to retaliate against her boyfriend. Is this a legal injustice? Though intent is hard to prove, imagine that it could be.
 
pjdude1219 said:
its not wrong since when compared to all the alternatives when you are already pregnant abortion is the one that makes you the least dickish
Click to expand...

You are talking about avoiding personal responsibility at the cost of a human life. That pretty dickish.
 
a. What are the damages? He should be forced to pay all hospital bills.
b. No, she has to carry it, it's her decision.
 
rjr6 said:
You are talking about avoiding personal responsibility at the cost of a human life. That pretty dickish.
Click to expand...

no because its not human life at the point when it get offed. plus it is better than bringing an unwanted child into the world and how the fuck is it avoiding personal responsibilty?
 
shichimenshyo said:
It really depends on what you mean by the right decision. The choice also comes from a moral/societal/religious/personal standpoint. Whats a worse decision for a person who believes that life doesnt begin at fertilization, brining a child inot the world so that it can recieve less care than it requires and can live a life of poverty and struggle, or not bringing one into the world?
Click to expand...

We as a country have enough resources to make Brittany Spears rich, yet we have to kill babies because no one can take care of them. haha
 
rjr6 said:
That morning after pill is an abortion with a clever name.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you. I would rather a young girl take this, if she was too careless to protect herself. Also what if a woman had been raped, and could prevent a pregnancy by this method.

I am not saying I think women should be careless, and use this as a method of birth control. They should be on the pill or using condoms if they don't want to get pregnant. But in some cases I can see this preventing alot of unplanned, unwanted babies.
 
Last edited:
rjr6 said:
We as a country have enough resources to make Brittany Spears rich, yet we have to kill babies because no one can take care of them. haha
Click to expand...

here is a amazing idea instead of running you mouth off on the internet why don't you go adopt one of these babies you don't want aborted
 
rjr6 said:
We as a country have enough resources to make Brittany Spears rich, yet we have to kill babies because no one can take care of them. haha
Click to expand...

Well, then maybe we as a country should re evaluate our priorities. :shrug:
 
shorty_37 said:
I disagree with you. I would rather a young girl take this, if she was too careless to protect herself. Also what if a woman had been raped, and could prevent a pregnancy by this method.

I am not saying I think women should be careless, and use this as a method of birth control. They should be on the pill or using condoms if they don't want to get pregnant. But in some cases I can see this preventing alot of unplanned, unwanted babies.
Click to expand...

What is the difference between the pill and the morning after pill to you? Is it the lesser of two evils? My assertion is that abortion is murder, so murder is acceptable if the morning after pill kills a conceived Human?

I will reassert my posistion that every reason for an abortion is circumstancial and that the conceived egg is a human being.


The problem that underlies this issue are the terms "unplanned and unwanted". Murder is not the solution to these choices.
 
spidergoat said:
No it isn't. It prevents conception. Even the pro-lifers say that life begins at conception, not at ejaculation.

I meant morning after pill

Having sex isn't immoral. Having a baby you can't care for is. Most forms of contraception are problematic. There isn't, for instance, a male pill.
Click to expand...

Having irresponsible sex is immoral, no? The outcome is a baby-why is killing the baby a justifiable answer to a bad decision?
 
Bells said:
A woman apparently becomes a murdering whore if she voluntarily gets an abortion. But if we drop a bomb on a pregnant woman in Iraq (for example) in the hope of killing one pesky terrorist, well that's not murder. That then becomes collateral damage and "unfortunate".
Click to expand...
Now this is getting really ridiculous. You're saying that unless one is a pacifist, you can't be against murder? You see no distinction between murder and war?

If you're a pacifist, fine, be a pacifist. But don't bring that into a discusion on abortion. The two issues are unrelated, and this thread is supposed to be about abortion.
 
rjr6 said:
Two hypothetical but realistic scenario's:

a) Through criminal misconduct Bill causes a miscarriage to Mary. Should he be charged with manslaughter, paid for parasitic removal, or nothing at all.


b) Mary decides to have an abortion to retaliate against her boyfriend. Is this a legal injustice? Though intent is hard to prove, imagine that it could be.
Click to expand...

spidergoat said:
a. What are the damages? He should be forced to pay all hospital bills.
b. No, she has to carry it, it's her decision.
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean in answer 'b'.
for answer 'a', Right now US laws state, I believe, that he could be charged with manslaughter. Who at that point makes the decision the fetus is now legally a baby, or it can be aborted if the female so chooses?
 
rjr6 said:
Having irresponsible sex is immoral, no? The outcome is a baby-why is killing the baby a justifiable answer to a bad decision?
Click to expand...

Because if you are unwilling to give a child everything they need, they will hate their own life. They will hate you. They will grow up to be criminals. They will be a burden on society. Why do we kill stray dogs and cats? It's not that we don't love dogs and cats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top