i couldn't find any other topics on this so i decided to post for the heck of it.

Abortion
For or Against?
Why or Why not?
economics, moral issues, blah ,blah, blah

I'm undecided.

Against: If foetus is healthy.
For: If foetus has health problems and might suffer more after being born.

This is the heck answer I give.

i agree with meim on this one. but then there is the difficult decision of what is unhealthy...

I don't agree... I say if it's going to be born to a woman who considers abortion, it really shouldn't be born at all...
I know, sounds hateful. But I'm Pro- choice, and as far as a foetus is concerned, it's a minor, it has no choice...

I don't agree... I say if it's going to be born to a woman who considers abortion, it really shouldn't be born at all...
I know, sounds hateful. But I'm Pro- choice, and as far as a foetus is concerned, it's a minor, it has no choice...
My mom considered abortion with me bacause of rough times!

It depends: If the parents feels that the baby it selff will be better off if killed while fetus than born because they feel it will suffer A LOT thenI feel a tiny bit for it if it is a health issue maybe for it a little more. Otherwise I'm against it.

Politics:I say they should not make abortion illegal. It takes away a right for one. Two, rich people will go out of the country and get it done somewhere where it is legal. Poor people or average(money wise) people will get it done illegaly by a non-professional or someone who never studied how to do this and most likely die.

Poor people or average(money wise) people will get it done illegaly by a non-professional or someone who never studied how to do this and most likely die.
Here here!

But you also see that there alot of abortion related deaths to the mother. Not only does it kill the baby, but it puts out alot of health risks too.

I hate abortion. I believe it to be barbaric and sinful. Not only does it go against my beliefs, but I've looked into the procedures that doctors do when they abort a fetus. They'll do everything to ripping the baby to shreads, starving it in the womb, to delivering it partially, keeping the head inside, and then killing it.

What really gets on my nerves is when people claim they've been empregnated by rape. I know that happens and its a sad thing too, but the chance of that happening is very slim. I believe abortions were set up for convience.



These are my beliefs, if anyone wants to argue, scream and shout all you want but I'm not going to argue back. If you want to know why I believe what I do, ask nicely and I'll gladly explain myself. :)

im against abortion because it is the same thing as murdering some one. Except some how the law does not see this.

I believe that:

If it is a child of rape and the mother cannot support the child/would die while giving birth/had complications, yes, you have the choice.

If you are ill and it would endanger your life, yes.

If the child would not live for very long or die in the womb because it is ill/something wrong with it, yes.

They're WAY too young.

Or they're a victim of incest.

I believe you have the right then to choose to get an abortion or not.


HOWEVER (I have heard cases of this...) if you are married/with someone, financally well-off and happy with that person then, no.

You will either take care of the child or give it up to adoption, it would be WRONG to do so then.

I always tell people to look at from a young womans point of view, especially if it was rape: They're scared, alone, maybe/maybe not financially dependent, it could kill them, they're family (if it's a bad one) would scorn them, and the man who did it could still be out there.

Plus I think telling your child that they're rape child wouldn't be the best thing in the world to tell them when they started to get into their teens and started asking questions.

It is truly the choice of that particular woman.

However, I, unlike a lot of stupid girls my age nowdays(I've heard rumors about several girls at my school getting abortions, but they pretty much have sex with anything that moves >_<), I am going to wait until I am married to have sex, and then I'll see if I want a child. ^_^ Because at least I'll know I'll be happy with that person and we'll pretty well-off financial-wise.

Im on a big stump on this one. But im pro-choice. Just becuase you beleave that it isnt right doesnt give you any rights to inforce it onto others.

And its also true they are a minor. Parents have TOTAL controll over minors. But I dont beleave killing a minor is right. But then is this really killing? What is concidered killing? I know the fetus eats and stuff, but does it think like a real living, breathing human?

And if this is concidered murder, isnt drinking and smoking concidered murdering if your pregnant? Drinking and smoking when pregnant can kill the baby. And what about crack babies? They may not be 'dead', but when is a fetus concidered alive?

What is a living animal?

And how would it feel to be told that your not a baby of love?

I am undecided. I guess it depends on the situation.

Sondagger, you're right on!

I believe that the only person who has a right to take a human life is God, and since life begins at conception... well, you get the picture.

...Let the flaming begin.

Quit forcing your bias religious "opinions" on other people. Freedom is about the right to choose, not to preach your "opinions" on others!

He/She wasnt even inforcing his/her religion onto anyone. All Sugar said was it isnt right in his/her religion. Dont be so critical and bash people please.

I am undecided. I guess it depends on the situation.
i'm undecided to but i don't believe depending on the situation is a righteous way to allow or disallow abortion. But as maddox once said "Looking for a safe side on abortion?...me neither" :)

Okay, I was just trying to be honest about my own feelings.

well, i think it should be the woman choice only if she decides to have one given that she is not married or not in some form of a serious relationship. since if she is i think the husband or the enaged partner should have some say in it.

but if she is a single person that just "accidentally" had the baby or something due to some foolishness etc etc they it is just the woman's choice, sinec it is no one's business and even though one could argue that the baby is "alive". welll, it is "alive" in the sense that it still a bunch of tissue multipying, but in terms of cosciouness and congnitve developement no. this is however, only applys to very early detection. lol.

but seriously though, it is the woman's choice, since without a partner she is ultimately the one that is in charge to the baby anyway.

Thank you, Radical Dreamer... (and yes, it really is "she")

What I don't get is this sort of situation: say someone attacks a pregnant woman and she miscarries as a result. Her attacker will be tried for murder--even if he attacked her while she was on her way to get an abortion.

That says something, doesn't it?

Ok whatever, don't read the below I'm just going to break it down into fewer words. I beleive you should have the choice but you should be very scarce to use it.



I don't feel that there should be any dependencies whatsoever. I feel as though the fate of the baby does lie in the hands of the mother, but why not let that child experience life?
it's not so much that I am pro choice or pro life, but I'm not undecided. I think that you should want your child to live, but if you really want to destroy it then go ahead; it's the equivalent of killing a child in their latter years whether you are dissapointed of them, or just don't feel like taking care of them.

yeah.. i agree with seraph..
but the thing is.. what if the girl was raped? what if she was only 14yrs old and was raped and now she is carrying a baby! its not that easy for a 14yr old to give birth to a kid ya know...

The chances of that happening are slim to none--the female's body has a hard time conceiving if it's under such shock and stress--but even if she does become pregnant, she could still carry the child to term and give it up for adoption.

I personaly think religion should compleatly stay out of this. I beleave this is based on human morals and opinions, not what a god damn book tells you.

After a day of thinking, Im undecided. It depends on the situation. Like lets say theres a 13 year old who wasnt raped, but did through the heat of the momment. She concived and stuff. Giving brith would certianly ruin her life, even if she gave the baby up for adoption. The mental strain would be unbeleavable. In that case I dont care if she gives birth or aborts, because all that matters is the girl, not the baby. Its the life that is already living that is already in the world making a diffrence, not one that isnt even born yet.

But lets say that its a 29 year old whos filthy rich and just doesnt want a child. I say abortion is no answere there.

~

You guys speak like giving brith is easy. Just give brith and give the baby off for adoption. Well it isnt. Theres post birth depression, mental scaring for someone, even pre birth depression.

Actually i_lovelove_sugar, a girl at the age of 14 would have a HUGE chance of dieing during delivery, even now days and even if she didn't die, it would mess her up quite a bit. Giving birth is still dangerous, even with all the technology we have nowdays. There also a very high chance of the girl becoming ill, considering many girls who DO become pregnant, sadly, do not recive the checkups they should get.

There's a reason so many young girls died at early ages way back in the middle ages (not counting disease) and even up til about the end of the Civil War I believe.

It's because their bodies couldn't handle that kind of stress, so either it aborted the baby itself(many of them had many miscarriages), or the girl died trying to give birth because basicly, their uterus wasn't fully developed for that yet and it would cause her to bleed internally during delivery, or other complications would arise.

And I hate to say this and sound biased, but:

Until you've been in a 12 to 18 year old young woman's body who has been raped, you really have NO right to say wether an abortion is a good or bad thing. Because YOU do not know what they have been through.

Also, might I add, women kill a "life" every time they have their period. It's a wasted egg cell which is, technically, a living thing.

I mean, even if you eat meat and go hunting, you're killing a life. So really were all guilty for murder in an odd way. O_o; (unless your a vegitarian...)

Thats the major problem with people, they concider humans over animals. Now, I beleave humans are special, not in a godly way, but just how were geneticaly built. Other then that were are above nor below any other animals. Now, I am no vegitarian, but I am thinking about it. I dont think eating meat isnt wrong, its just food, but its just to make a point from one person to another I guess.

And if a period is concidered killing, every male past puberty kills every day for sperm dies all the time :)

*...yeah, I thought so...*

@ Radical Dreamer: Depression? Of course there is. But read the accounts of women who've had abortions... the emotions they experienced afterwards were completely hellish.

@ PockyBox RyoChan: I'm going to risk being flamed again and repeat myself: life begins at conception. Therefore, deciding when that life ends isn't up to us. An unfertilized egg cell is just that--an egg that has the potential to become a life if it's fertilized. Having a period isn't the same as having an abortion. And I'd go into the difference between a human life and an animal's, but I think enough people are angry at me as it is.

HA! Dont make me laugh. Those are all generlized reports, not everyone gets those after shocks. My mom got an abortion (for reason I dont think any of you need to know) and shes fine. If she got 'hellish' emotions, she would be more then a train wreck when thats built up on what happened to her as a child.

Dont push you and your generlized ideas onto me.

lol I just had a question but It was already answered... pretend like this was never here

Dont push you and your generlized ideas onto me.

I wasn't trying to force anything... I'm only trying to defend my views.

HA! Dont make me laugh. Those are all generlized reports, not everyone gets those after shocks. My mom got an abortion (for reason I dont think any of you need to know) and shes fine. If she got 'hellish' emotions, she would be more then a train wreck when thats built up on what happened to her as a child.

Dont push you and your generlized ideas onto me.
Lol that's kind of stupid. This is a general topic not your specific detailed life! It's meant for discussion of the people as a whole, not your mom!!!

Well, Sugar posted it like all people who get abortions end up getting hellish emotions. I was just offened because my mom got an abortioin before.

I wasn't taking a specific shot at your mother. I know I did generalize it a bit, but like Seraph said, I'm referring to most people as a whole.

Well, okay. Sorry if I bashed you a bit there, I just dont like generlizing as a whole O_o

Gotcha. Are we cool?

I personally think it just depends on the situation, as it has been said many times before... I won't repeat it.

For those who said that it was the same thing as murdering a child in their later years... it's kind of not. I think it's different because one, a child that's grown you would be attached to it (or not... whatever). So killing someone you actually know is harder than "killing" someone that's not even born. For people who eat meat, you are killing an animal. For vegetarians/vegans, you realize that every time you use paper, you are killing a tree. No matter what, we are always killing things. And if they make abortion illegal just because it's immoral to kill an unborn egg (what's it called...), I think that's just total hypocrisy of the government.

Definition of a Living Being(as said from biology POV) Everything alive has this and if doesn't have this, then it's not alive:

Growth - full development, maturity.

Metabolism - consuming, transforming and storing energy/mass; growing by absorbing and reorganizing mass; excreting waste.

Motion - either moving itself, or having internal motion.

Reproduction - the ability to create entities that are similar to, yet separate from itself.

Response to stimuli - the ability to measure properties of its surrounding environment, and act upon certain conditions. This property is also called homeostasis.

Got the info out of my good old Biology book. XD

So technically i_lovelove_sugar, an egg cell is alive, it shows all those properties and you do "kill" one every month (if you are a woman). And whoever said the thing about the sperm, you are right as well.

I'm not saying an abortion is a good thing, but I'm proving my point on an egg cell being alive, as well as other cells being alive.

And I'm not mad at you i_lovelove_sugar, I'm just proving my point ^-^.

I oppologize if I seemed rude, we all have are own beleifs and opinions.
I suppose I would feel different if I were able to conceive a child, but I can't so I couldn't say if I would have the same opinion or not.

Poxybox I have to disagree with you. A female Egg is not a living thing. There are more then five charesteristics to life. I don't know how old you are so I don't know if the book is out of date or it's just not specifically into the charecteristics of life but there are seven.

Growth and Develepment-Yes it does have grouth and development.
Matabolism-No The Human egg does not have a matabolism.
Responsiveness-Yes it does respond.
Reproduction-No yes no it doesn't produce more human eggs it produces humans it technicaly doesn't reproduce itself.
Homeostasis- Yes ut does have homeostasis

These are the five you listed

Cellular orginization-no it only has 23 cromozones and is not a full cell
Heredity-Yes it has genetics

There are the Two you are missing

So an Egg isn't really a living organism not until the sperm hit the egg is it a living organism. once the sperm hits the egg it then has 46 cromozones and will then have a metabolism. and of course (not for a while) it will then be able to reproduce.

So I dissagree with with abortion is fine it's okay but only if the pregnancy is highly endangering the life of the women. But really it has 46 cromozomes just like you and me, and it is alive inside the womens womb.

The problem with abortion due to rape is that if the government said, "Only if you were forcefully impregnated are you allowed to get an abortion." Then every woman that had sex and got pregnant that wanted an abortion would claim rape.

It is due to the unhonest world we all live in that a woman that made a bad choice and one who didn't make any choice get the same right to kill a child.

The problem with abortion due to rape is that if the government said, "Only if you were forcefully impregnated are you allowed to get an abortion." Then every woman that had sex and got pregnant would claim rape.

I find that shallow and stupid. Compleatly stupid to say such a thing because you dont like an idea.

Now, I have to bring up a question that was aroused in the last abortion thread: When is a featus alive?

Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo.

Isn't it always alive unless it is dead? Funny question to ask.

To me, abortion is like murder, that baby has a right to live, and ur taking it's life away because you made a mistake. In some cases, not to sound mean or anything, if people would keep their legs closed, things like this wouldn't happen.

Wait a second SenAsian, I need to tell you a story.

My friend knows of a woman who has just concived. When she was going through a check up they found she had cancer. The doctor said that if she doesnt abort, both the baby and the mom wont go on. If she does, she survives.

Now I beleave a being that has already lived a life and is already doing do has should live over a featus.

~

In some of your points of veiws, an egg or sperm isnt 'alive'. But a featus is. Where in the developing process does a sperm/egg become living?

Wait a second SenAsian, I need to tell you a story.

My friend knows of a woman who has just concived. When she was going through a check up they found she had cancer. The doctor said that if she doesnt abort, both the baby and the mom wont go on. If she does, she survives.

Now I beleave a being that has already lived a life and is already doing do has should live over a featus.

~

In some of your points of veiws, an egg or sperm isnt 'alive'. But a featus is. Where in the developing process does a sperm/egg become living?
Good scenario, I never even thought about that.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I still stick with my point of view. It should be a choice but it should be used scarcely

Where in the developing process does a sperm/egg become living?

It is more important in this topic that once a zygote is form, it is living. However, before there is implantation, the woman is not considered pregnant nor the destruction of this zygote considered abortion.

To me, abortion is like murder, that baby has a right to live, and ur taking it's life away because you made a mistake. In some cases, not to sound mean or anything, if people would keep their legs closed, things like this wouldn't happen.

Keep their legs closed? Why? If people want to have sex that's fine with me, and if they become pregnant they should be able to decide for themselves whether they keep the child or not. Of course, there are limits, but if the parents (or in many cases just the mother) can't take care of the child, I think abortion should be allowed.

Same with cases like rape of course.

I don't consider an embryo to be alive in a way grown humans are alive. Embryos don't think yet, they are still in a very early state of development.

@RD: i can understand that, i said in SOME cases

@angelic:that's just how i feel

Keep their legs closed? Why? If people want to have sex that's fine with me, and if they become pregnant they should be able to decide for themselves whether they keep the child or not. Of course, there are limits, but if the parents (or in many cases just the mother) can't take care of the child, I think abortion should be allowed.

Same with cases like rape of course.

I don't consider an embryo to be alive in a way grown humans are alive. Embryos don't think yet, they are still in a very early state of development.

I agree.

I didn't read EVERY post here, but I'll just say what I know:
The abortion debate isnt about whether it is right or wrong. The debate is about whether the government has the power to tell a citizen they cannot have an abortion.
I wrote an essay on it: (I doubt anyone'll read it though >_>;)



Taking “Life”?

A woman, simply minding her own business, walked down the street from the bus stop to her apartment after a tiring day at her second job, but she never made it home. The woman was abducted and raped. While the man who raped her was caught and sentenced to time in prison, the woman was still left with a problem: she had become pregnant. She proceeded to have an abortion.

There is an ongoing political (and moral and religious) debate in which Congress is trying to determine whether or not abortions should be legal. Those who are against abortions have arguments they feel can make abortions illegal. I myself have personally seen a woman decide to have an abortion (not ‘personally’ per say, but been relatively close to a situation where a woman wanted an abortion). Based on that experience, and my knowledge, I have concluded that abortions are processes that the government has no right to prevent and that only the woman in the situation has the right to choose.

Abortions are an act of murder. This is the main argument thrown out by anti-abortion groups. They claim that the mother kills off the unborn child because it has no voice of its own and it can do nothing to stop her. This is incorrect. The word “murder” is defined as “terminating life” and abortions do not accomplish that. The unborn child is not alive; this can be proven by scientific means. All forms of life undergo at least five of the life processes; a fetus/embryo (depending on the stage) only performs two: respiration (but even this is only by the aid of the mother) and movement. Simply, you cannot murder something that is not alive.

Abortions take away the unborn child’s free will. Another claim of the anti-abortionists is that an abortion takes away the unborn child’s will to live. This is not true, and it makes two incorrect assumptions. Firstly, ‘free will’ is something only attributed to forms of life. Anti-abortion groups calling it an “unborn” child even implies it isn’t alive. Since the fetus/embryo is not alive it cannot have a free will. Secondly, free will is the opinion. They assume that the unborn child would want to live, when they have nothing to prove that, making it a blind assertion.

If the child was unwanted pregnancy should have been prevented. One of the more supported arguments anti-abortion groups use is that if the woman did not want a child she should have never had sex. This is a naïve and ignorant statement. Whether they like (and accept) it or not does not matter, but society no longer holds any sacredness for sex. Studies show that compared to 1980, twenty percent more women in the age group of eighteen to twenty-one have children, and more than eighteen percent of them are not married. Sex is no longer what it was; it is now a part of everyday life. People have sex at younger ages every year. Their argument also blinds them to the fact that even when protection is used it is still possible. Condoms do break. It also does not acknowledge that, in cases of rape and forced sex, there was no way to prevent pregnancy.

The woman has no right to terminate a fetus/embryo. This argument is the worst of the four. The woman has every right to terminate it. When a child is born (normally) it goes to the mother of the child and is considered hers. Therefore, the fetus/embryo is the property of the woman carrying it. The constitution clearly states that the government has no right to tell any citizen what to do with their property. This is the same as when slaves existed in the 1800s, and it is the exact reason the government could not force people to free them.

Telling a woman she cannot have an abortion is unconstitutional. Forcing her to have a child she does not want to have undermines her fundamental right of free choice. The government has absolutely no right or authority to order a pregnant woman not to have an abortion. The government should not even be looking at the situation; it has no authority over it. If the government and anti-abortion groups want to talk about what is fair, they should think about this: who gives them the right to render a woman powerless to terminate something in her body that she does not want? If Congress plans on saying that, it might as well tell you it’s illegal to take medicine to kill viruses and bactera inside of you when you get sick.
---
(words in italics represent the opposing arguments of anti-abortionists)

in world war 2 the Nazi's killed thousands of mental and physicaly disabled people. why because they were inferior and therefor not human. would you kill peoply because they are inferior. Well is that nothing different from killing a fetus. just because it can not speek for itself.

I read through the report. there are seven proportys of life. cellular organization, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, heredity, responsiveness, and growth. which a fedus has all of these. it has organized cells, has ametabolism, it is able to make changes in the body to differ from the outside. it has a genetic code it responds to stimuli will grow. and once born and matured can reproduce.

and I know some people say that it can't reproduce and is therefor not alive. but neither can a two year old does that make it not alive.

therefor a child is alive. and there are law suits filed that a pregnant women got attacked and then had a miscarage do to the attack and the one who attacked her got charged with murder. how is this if it is not alive.

Fetus's have a genetic code. just like you and I. they will grow to be an adult if they are not killed. they have feeling they have emotions. one rather cruel yet to the point thing done was once the was a docter who opened up a womens womb and poke the baby. it started to cry while it was still in the womb. and supposedly it is not alive.

And if you would take the time to read the story of the 54 babys in the address below it pionts out that they really are human. fetus's can show the form of a human in weeks.

http://www.mpomerle.com/NoAbort/54-babies.shtml


and this most probably won't do but this has pictures in it's photo galary of aborted babies. how can they not be alive
http://www.antiabortion.net/

and now what if Albert einstien had been abortad as a fetus. what if J.S. bach had been aborted as a fetus. what if you your dad or your best friend had been aborted as a fetus really think who knows what masterminds knew technology we could have right now if those fetus weren't to have been aborted. I want to live you probably want to live. and I also like the people living around me. but I wouldn't have been given a choice if I wanted to live or not if my mom wanted an abortion with me. they should have free choice. if they really don't want to live then they can kill them selves. but why should it be left up to a mother to decide weather the child lives or not.


And I will agree with you that an unwanted pregnancy should have been avoided is a stupid argument.

but how does a women have the right to terminate a fetus. you said that the child is given to the mother. but she can't do what ever she wants with it. a women can not murder her newborn why should she be aloud to abort a fetus. it is not her life and therefor should not be hers to take.

I will agree with you that in some surcomestanses it is ok to abort a baby (like has a high probability in killing the mother) but very unofften should this happen.

"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love but to use violence to get what they want. This is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion."
-Mother Teresa

"I read through the report. there are seven proportys of life. cellular organization, reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis, heredity, responsiveness, and growth. which a fedus has all of these. it has organized cells, has ametabolism, it is able to make changes in the body to differ from the outside. it has a genetic code it responds to stimuli will grow. and once born and matured can reproduce. "

Wrong. It depends on the mother to survive. It's almost like a parasite. All it can do is undergo mitosis.

"therefor a child is alive. and there are law suits filed that a pregnant women got attacked and then had a miscarage do to the attack and the one who attacked her got charged with murder. how is this if it is not alive."

*shrugs* The government is stupid?


Think of it this way:
My birthday is July 7 1989. that makes me 16 years old. "X years old" is an expression to tell others your age. Age is how long you've been alive.

Your birthday isnt the day your mom got pregnant, it's the day you exited her bosy. That is when you are alive.

This is my take on abortion like it or leave it.


The unborn child is not alive; this can be proven by scientific means. All forms of life undergo at least five of the life processes; a fetus/embryo (depending on the stage) only performs two: respiration (but even this is only by the aid of the mother) and movement. Simply, you cannot murder something that is not alive.

Pregnant Definiton #1 :
Carrying or developing offspring within the body or being about to produce new life.

IF "IT" IS NOT ALIVE, IF "IT" IS NOT A CHILD, THEN YOU ARE NOT PREGNANT.

Ok! Thats all I have to say! Bye! ^_^

1 out of three babies are killed nowadays. That's crazy! It's kind of like saying that on a given street, 1 out of every 3 people who walk across it get hit by a car.

It's crazy that people chose to kill their babies. 6 MILLION people who request adoptions every year are turned down. That's far more than the number of babies killed.

Also, our tax dollars go into paying for abortions that cost thousands of dollars! If the government took all the money that is used in abortions, they could use it to help adoptions and scholarship programs to help teens who have had babies get their lives back on track. That sounds much better than just killing the babies to me.

Abortions are also just cruel. There is one form of abortion where you put salt in around the baby and the baby literally burns to death. It's nicknamed candy apple abortions because the babys come out shiny red from being burnt. The mothers can actually feel the baby go crazy and thrash around because of the pain.

Simple logic can tell us:
It is wrong to intentionally kill an innocent human being.
Abortion intentionally kills an innocent human being.
Therefore, abortion is wrong.

If you think that the unborn are not human, science can prove you wrong.

1-the genetic structure says it's human.
if you were to take a blood sample of anunborn child to a lab along with other random animals, without saying that it is and unborn child, the scientist could tell you that that DNA is without a doubt human.
2-The Law of Biogenisis says that each being reproduces after its own kind
if you look at the baby's parents, they would be human. therefore the baby has to be human as well. 2 human's couldn't produce anything that isn't human.

So I hope we can all agree that the unborn baby is human. But maybe now you're saying that the baby is not a person. What is the difference?

1-...it's too small to be a person right? no, the size of a person doesn't mean they're any less of a person that anyone else.
Yao Ming is alot taller than most people. does that mean he's more of a person than anyone else?
this is kindda stupid but in the movie Honey, I Shrunk The Kids, the kids get shrunk(go figure) but the dad still wants to save them. he wouldn't say something like,"well now that you're small you're less of a person so i don't really care about you anymore".
2-here's a big argument:...the baby isn't very developed so it's not a person. The stage of development doesn't mean anything.
Toddlers aren't as developed as adults. Does that mean that they're amy less of a person?
There are many disabled people who will never be able to develop like a normal adult. Would you be willing to walk up to a disabled child's parents and tell them that their child isn't really a person?
3-some people think that it isn't a person because it hasn't come out of the mother.
Does that mean that if the arm of a baby is hanging out of the mother that the arm is a person but the rest of the baby isn't?
On certain occations, the doctors actually take the baby out of the mother to operate on it and then place it back in the mother to continue development. Is the baby a person now or what?
4-The biggest argumnent is that the baby is dependent on the mother. The baby is hooked up to the mother by the umbilical chord and that is how it recieves nutrients.
Many people are dependant on medication for life, does that mean they aren't people?Diabetics depend on insulin and without it thay would die. But they are still people right?
Christopher Reeves(the actor who played superman) was depandant on a machine for life. He was hooked up to it be a chord. Hmmmmm....
Just because of that, woul you walk up to his young daughter and tell her that her father isn't really a person?


If women have the freedom abort their babies, should parents have the ability to molest their children?

Some people say:
...abortion is private-so can parents harm their children if they do it in private? Heck no!
...they can't afford it-if you have a 2yr old and you are in financial trouble, can you kill it? Heck no!
...they don't want it-many people are unwanted: homeless people, orphans; should we round up all the homeless and kill them? Heck no!
...they can do anything they want with their bodies-so can you strap powerful explosives to your body and set them off in the middle of the mall? Heck no! and another thing, THE BABY IS NOT HER BODY! it has its own DNA, its own organs and body systems, and sometimes the child is a male...does that mean the woman has both(you know)?
...the fetus doesn't look like a human-well there's a simple answer to that one: yes it does


Throughout history, people have tried to say that certain groups aren't people: blacks, indians, women, jews

in canada, the government passed a law saying an unborn child is not a person. Hello? they just acknowledged it as a child

check out some of these pics and tell me this is ok... *warning: very graphic*
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/10week/03_10.jpg -this was found in a dumpster outside an abortion clinic
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/freedom.jpg
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/22week/01_22.jpg
http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/abortionimages/08week/03_08.jpg
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/more5.jpg

What if the fetus is deformed, retarded or autistic, are you saying that the child should be born, even if its parents will have no ability no take care of it and if it is place for adoption, nobody would adopt it?

That's not true, there are plenty of loving people that would be happy to raise an autistic child. And besides, is it right to kill a person just because they are disadvantaged? Am I justified in killing some random boy on the street just because he has Doun's Syndrome? So what if he grows up and is dependant on another person? And besides, not all retarded people are anyways. There are many cases where they have gotten married to another person with the same condition as they and live by themselves in an apartment. Just because a person isn't entirely normal doesn't make them any less of a human.
And you can't take someone's life from them because there is a chance that they might not live a good one. And who are we to describe what a good life is anyways? I just don't beleive that it is morally correct to kill a person because we're afraid that there is a chance that someone might not want them.

And does that chance mean that someone should suffer the fate of those pictures above? And if you try and tell me that a child in the womb cannot feel pain you are sorely mistaken.

This is my take on abortion like it or leave it.



Pregnant Definiton #1 :
Carrying or developing offspring within the body or being about to produce new life.

IF "IT" IS NOT ALIVE, IF "IT" IS NOT A CHILD, THEN YOU ARE NOT PREGNANT.

Ok! Thats all I have to say! Bye! ^_^
The definiton is right, ABOUT to produce life, meaning it IS NOT alive YET. IT IS NOT TAKING LIFE AWAY.

So then what is life? Someone tell me? Because an unborn child inside the womb is eating pooing and peeing. It can feel and react to things happening to and around it. (Have you ever heard of the Silent Scream? Check it out if you don't beleive that she can feel while she's inside the womb.)
But If that's not alive then what is it? It's certainly not dead. Is there somewhere in between? If i shoot you and you are lying there bleeding to death you are still alive. You may be dying, but you aren't dead yet. Is this baby 'living?' On its way to be alive? That doesnt make any sense. Again, someone tell me what the definition of life is? Because according to some of the people here it has nothing to do with all of the normal bodily functions of any other person outside the womb. Then what could it mean? Being alive. Am I alive? Are any of us 'alive'?

x_x nobody is gonna reply to this? aww....so...i win? hahaha jk jk

lack of response doesnt define a win. :P

im nt sure about this, but a child is 'alive' fromn the moment of cenception, the point at which it is itself a new being. In resepect of it being alive it is never wrong. But then comes the idea of the soul... does and embryo have a 'soul'. This is far too religouse for my liking and dont want my morals created for me.
I think the wefare of both child and mother. If it is unsafe for the mother to have an abotion, then its not right. if a child is to be brought into the world, it must be bought into a situation or family where it is loved and cared for. bringing in child into the world purely because some religouse text tells you is wrong imaral and unfair on child and parents.

that made little sense but i'll shut up now

Here's my opinion. A woman should be allowed to choose if she can have an abortion or not. It isn't our right as human beings to judge. If what the woman that had the abortion did was wrong in the situation, then god should be the one to consider whether it was right or wrong.

And if there is no god? Why does god get to decide if its wrong or right? His word isnt absolute over the mothers for its the child of the mother, not gods.

But how can you say that a mother has the right to kill an innocent baby child who has done nothing wrong? Just because its growing inside of her? sure she has to live with it and stuff for a while but she should have looked at the consequences before she went sleeping around. And besides you can always put it up for adoption. I have a friend who is going to adopt a baby from a pregnant 16 year old girl who hasnt even had the baby yet. Its due any day now and when its born my friend will get him, not the 16-year old, because she cant support it.
Why is it that in America today we are letting the horrible rapists, murderers and sadists on death row live on for years and years and yet we are allowed to kill the innocent children just because they havent come out of the womb yet?

Kill? How can you kill somthing that isnt living (in a sense)?! You can think of it as a paracite, all it does is feed of the mother and do simple cell actions like mitosis. Its the mothers child, let her do what she wants. For god sake, its a lump of cells that has almost no functions that a plant cant do!!1!!! Let the mother choose, unless you want me to tell you what you can and cant do with your pets.

This is anime_freak's sister. Here's what i think: it is up to the mother of the unborn baby what is best for her and her child. I'm sick of listenin to guy say: it's wrong to have an abortion because she shouldn't have slept around. She didn't exactly get herself pregnant. Things happen: that's life. I'm not supporting abortions but I am supporting the women who have the courage and wisdom to make a decision of that magnitude. And to the people who are saying "it hasn't done anything wrong": has it done something right?

has it done something right?

Well, yes, if the mother chooses not to have her kid, then it saves her stress, money, and time of taking care of something she didn't want in the first place. If she had the kid she didn't want, the kid would end up growing up neglected and probably abused, as the mother would probably be angry for not wanting the child .

Pro-choice. We have freedom in America. It's inside her body - her property. Government has no say there.

Well, yes, if the mother chooses not to have her kid, then it saves her stress, money, and time of taking care of something she didn't want in the first place. If she had the kid she didn't want, the kid would end up growing up neglected and probably abused, as the mother would probably be angry for not wanting the child .


adoption is always an option

How can you say its not alive? Again I'll ask what defines life? And how can you say that its not human? You can't be not human for a little while and then just become one. If it has horse parents then it is a horse. If it has human parents then it is a human the first second it begins to grow.

The unborn are no different than you or me. THe only difference is that they are less developed than us. Can i kill my little toddler just because hes less developed than me. Should we intitute a law that says we can murder retarded kids because they are less developed than us?
Yes they are smaller, that doesnt mean they are any less human. Is Shaq and any more of a human that Kelly Klarkson?
Simply because the unborn are located in a different place than the rest of us doesnt matter. Where you are has no bearing on who you are.
The unborn are dependant on their mother for life. You say it is a paracite? Then, is a little five-year old who can't take care of himself without with parents a paracite also? What about a kidney patient that is plugged into a dialysis macine?

So what defgines being a human? When it comes out of the womb? What about that one case where there was somthing wrong in the mother's womb and doctors had to open up her stomach and operate; when they opened her up the baby reached out and gripped the doctors finger with her tiny hand. That hand was out of the womb. Is only that hand human? They put it back into the womb, does that mean its not human anymore?

adoption is always an option

It would, but I, personally (the people I know that are adopted) haven't met someone who likes not knowing who their original parents are. And, if people were to adopt every single fetus that was going to be discarded anyways, there are not enough people in the world that are willing to.


You say it is a paracite

All humans and species on this earth is a parasite. End of story.

Edit: Perhaps not end of story, as I'll just clarify by what I previously meant:

Parasite: An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. (Think about it)

Organism: An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
(Yes, that would include earth)

How can you say its not alive? Again I'll ask what defines life? And how can you say that its not human? You can't be not human for a little while and then just become one. If it has horse parents then it is a horse. If it has human parents then it is a human the first second it begins to grow.

The unborn are no different than you or me. THe only difference is that they are less developed than us. Can i kill my little toddler just because hes less developed than me. Should we intitute a law that says we can murder retarded kids because they are less developed than us?
Yes they are smaller, that doesnt mean they are any less human. Is Shaq and any more of a human that Kelly Klarkson?
Simply because the unborn are located in a different place than the rest of us doesnt matter. Where you are has no bearing on who you are.
The unborn are dependant on their mother for life. You say it is a paracite? Then, is a little five-year old who can't take care of himself without with parents a paracite also? What about a kidney patient that is plugged into a dialysis macine?

So what defines being a human? When it comes out of the womb? What about that one case where there was somthing wrong in the mother's womb and doctors had to open up her stomach and operate; when they opened her up the baby reached out and gripped the doctors finger with her tiny hand. That hand was out of the womb. Is only that hand human? They put it back into the womb, does that mean its not human anymore?
Like this: It's not alive. Birth is the creation pof life. Your birthday is the day you exit your mother's body. You can't compare a human to a horse. All a fetus has is DNA. That makes it a homo sapien, not a human. Ask any DA, murder is one human killing another. Humans are defined by experience. Humans are humans because we are the only species with creativity. Creativity is developed from experience. Therefore, a fetus is not a human.

You said yourself right there that it is unborn. That means not alive. End of story.

I never said it was because they were smaller.

It is human then the umbilical cord is cut and it is it's own being. It is human when it uses it's senses to their capacity and through experience develops creativity.

We are a human defined by our expirience? No, all that does is determine our personality. We are always human. We are never not human. And an unborn baby is using its senses inside the womb. It can hear and move and go to the bathroom, all that good stuff.
How are we suddenly human when the chord is cut? That doesnt make any logical or scientific sense.

i agree, are argument shouldnt be about the point at which life begins or is defined, but wether life should be brought into this world at any cost

We are a human defined by our expirience? No, all that does is determine our personality. We are always human. We are never not human. And an unborn baby is using its senses inside the womb. It can hear and move and go to the bathroom, all that good stuff.
How are we suddenly human when the chord is cut? That doesnt make any logical or scientific sense.
There was a special on National Geographic, about the so-called pre-evolved forms of humans, homo erectus, neanderthals, etc. What separates them from humans it their creativity. Creativity defines humanity and separates humans from all other creatures. Creativity is developed through experience, you dont just start being creative the second you were born.

as you have just said, creativity defines 'humanity', the collective of human society. we are creative from the time we are born, just not in an easily defined way, our brains are making massive amounts of new connections. all part of learning, deciding what works well, just because it has been done before doesnt make it creative.
I know many humans who arent creative in the slightest acording to this definition. they are a nameless pack like animal, following the group with no sense of indipendant thought. there is nothing physicaly wrong with them, but they dont show a capacity to think for themselves. how can he be called human.

We are not creative from the time we are born. Creativity is an ability to do something in a different or unusual manner than the normal. Therefore you must first experience the normal to be creative, which a fetus/embryo does not do.

fine, i'll drop that,

but just being able to express creativity doesnt mean that we gain a right to life. How does creativity give or take away the right to abortion?

That defense is mostly to negate two pro-life views. The first being religious and that We are not supposed to take innocent human life. But because I have shown that it is not human, and the Book of Genesis states that humans were given dominion over all the other creatures of the world, the human carrying the 'creature' may do as she wishes with it. Secondly, it proves that it is not murder. Murder is a human killing another. You domt say you murdered an ant or a tiger or a lion or a bear, you kill them. There is a difference between killing and murder. Killing to ensure one's well being (and sometimes happiness) is allowed. If someone comes at you with a knife and you two struggle and you end up killing him, it isnt murder, and although you killed, you are not punished for it. If a woman terminates a fetus because she does not want to go through child labor or has a eason, she has the right to do so. The Constitution of the United States protects the property of all citizens in the US. The fetus is attached inside the woman's body, just as your bones and organs are. are those not your property? Thats why a fetus/embryo is your property as well.

Abortion... hmm, I think that it is wrong, but that is my own opinion. It all depends on where you believe life actually begins. I believe life begins right when the child is convieved. At any point after conception I think it becomes murder. Why would you have to choose abortion when there are so many other choices? I know several people who have, unfortunatly, gotten pregnant who are about my age, 15,16. None of them felt inclined to kill their children. Their parents and friends helped them through that hard time. I guess I could understand if you were 'all alone' or 'had no help'. But I think you will get what you find. If you don't seek another option out, it wont just come and find you.

But because I have shown that it is not human, and the Book of Genesis states that humans were given dominion over all the other creatures of the world, the human carrying the 'creature' may do as she wishes with it
because they are nt yet able to express creativity they arent human? thats because they havent been given the chance. you are removing a chance for creativity. Humanity is not just defined by creativity.
I can cope with mst bible quotes, but genesis is written like a story which has a moral to it. if you are taking rules and things said in the bible you must also believe in adam and evea. do you believe in adam and evea in the litteral sense?

Killing to ensure one's well being (and sometimes happiness) is allowed
this is a false moral we have created, to end life is to end life. Just bexause we stick a murder lable of killing something of our own species doesnt make it worse.
Killing to ensure ones happyness? that in itself is a brilliant concept. but you are pulling the great mental trick of denying what it is your doing. you are killing a human, nt yet developed but a human is also defined by its genetic code.

That's exactly my point. It's like saying crushing a seed is killing a plant because you never gave it a chance to grow. Fallacious argument.

It is not a false moral. Killing out of justice and murder are two totally different things and the Bible does differentiate between them.
Er, ok maybe that was poorly worded but I meant like people who hunt and stuff, they do it for pleasure.
Genetic code makes it a homo sapien, not a human.

crushing a seed is killing as it is alive.

how can you kill out of justace? that isn't justice.
p.s. were nt 'homo sapien', we are 'homo sapien sapien'

A seed is not alive. I seriously hope you aren't serious.

Killing out of justice, as in self-defense or the death penalty, is not murder. murder is unecessary killing, if you are in a struggle with someone trying to kill you and they are killed, it's self-defense not murder, you had to do it to survive.

And yes yes I know, I just wasnt sure if we were "homo homo sapiens" or "homo sapien sapiens" XD

we hit another standpoint, define alive

Look up Human in the dictionary folks.

A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens.
or
A bipedal primate mammal of the genus Homo (H. sapiens)

Our creativitvity does not make us human. Our genetic makeup does. How can you say it is not a human because it hasnt been creative yet? When a baby is born, when it out of the womb for a split second is it suddenly creative? No, its not, so then are you saying that its right to kill a baby who is a day old because its not creative?

i think it depends on the circumstances about the whole situation, e.g rape, assault, etc. mayb a woman can't cope with having a child and raising it, mayb better for the baby not to live.
it's not a black and white answer that can be given. i think freedom of choice for the pregnant woman. u don't know what she has been through.

Safeguard, would you support abortion in a situation where the child might endanger the woman's life?

Our creativity does not make us human. Our genetic makeup does.Are your skin cells human?

Are your skin cells human?

Yep, and so's my hair. Shaving is murder.

***

Edit: For those who didn't notice: This is a very silly (and probably not funny) joke.

Yep, and so's my hair. Shaving is murder.
or atleast its self mutilation on a grand scale ^_^

Why does it matter anyways. You realize every time people mow their lawns, according to the people that are on the con side, you are killing something that's "alive". Is that immoral? The grass is definitely alive and thriving and you're killing it. Should we not mow grass anymore?

we're human. everytime something bad happens to a human, every one's all shocked, horrified and angry. but then don't we humans go out and shoot other animals for fun? and to ensure we're still at the top of the food chain?

abortion is the woman's right of choice. it's hard on a woman to have an abortion, and for some it's even harder to let it live and attempt to supply a living for it. also the circumstances about how she conceived, the situation she's in and her family's views of the whole matter must be taken into account. it's not black or white, i.e right or wrong, it's a complicated situation where every view is based on emotions, principals and personal views, even mine.

Do you guys masturbate? If so, you are now "Mass Murderers". Congrats! ._.

it all depends on the situation for me. if the baby wouldn't live or suffer for the rest of it's life or if the parent(s) are not financially well off to take care of a child (cuz it does add up) then it's up to the parent(s). if they just don't want children because they don't like them then it's just wrong.

Okay, I guess I'll take a stab at this...

You must consider the differances between humans and animals. It is not creativity which detirmines if you are human but the capacity to be creative. Animals lack this.

One thing you must also consider is that you really don't know how an animal feels. All we can base our theories on is our own experiances and observations. We don't really know if an animal really has feelings in the sense that a human does, or if they only respond by instinct and a type of animal logic.

Therefore, there is a possibility that killing a human and killing an animal are completely differant issues.

Another thing, how can we not bring religion into this? Religion in and of itself is what you believe about the world. Religion is not just about thinking that god/gods exist. The belief that there is no god is a religion. There is no possible way to not bring religion into this, ecspecailly since this is about morals.

I personally think abortion is wrong, based on my own religion.

There isn't really much I can add that hasn't already been said.

Keep in mind that this is what I believe and I am not forcing anything on anyone. What you believe is your own choice whether I agree with it or not.

Abortion is a national, political, moral, and religious issue that many have strong opinions for, and is undoubtedly one of (if not the) most heated and controversial subjects of debate. An abortion is the termination of an unborn child. Debaters on abortion are categorized into three schools of thought: pro-life; pro-choice; and the mushy middle.
Those who are pro-life are against abortions in any and all scenarios. Pro-lifers believe that an unborn child has all the rights of any other American citizen; therefore, it is protected by the Constitution which gives all citizens the fundamental right to live. Someone who is pro-life believes that the unborn child is alive, just in a smaller form than the mother, and being smaller is the reason people see nothing wrong with an abortion.
There are many flaws with this ideology. The assertion that the unborn child is alive and has the rights of any other citizen conflicts with the rights that we know the mother has. It is never right to deny the rights of one group, in this case, women, in order to supply another group, unborn children, with theirs. Every citizen is treated as equal under the Constitution: depriving some of their rights so others can gain them is no form of liberty.
“Murder” is a very powerful word. When people of the pro-life belief publicly state that abortions are an act of murder, the initial and immediate reaction of most listeners is to condemn abortions, as murder is morally wrong, so if abortions are murder, they must be morally wrong as well. But is it really murder? The law defines murder as one human being killing another human for a reason other than keeping the individual’s safety and livelihood. Therefore, if a woman has an abortion to save her life, it is not murder. We must also note that the wording of the law is very specific. The law protects a “person” or “people”. An unborn child, while its viability is debatable, is not a person, hence the name “unborn”. Only the mother gets the protection of the law.
Then, not exactly the polar opposite of pro-life, but its main public enemy, is the pro-choice school of thought. Those who take this side believe that the decision to carry or abort the unborn child belongs to the mother and only the mother. While the unborn child is comprised of living tissue, it is still part of the mother’s body. Similarly, if you decide to donate an organ, the government does not intervene simply because the organ is made of living tissue. Scientists often perform experimental work on deceased members of society. While the person itself is dead, the tissue is still considered living tissue: and the government does not intervene. Likewise, the government has no right to force a woman to keep living tissue in her body that she does not want. The unborn child is the property of the mother. The Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to do as they wish with their property. Therefore the government is out-of-bounds if it attempts to force a woman to carry an unborn child. However, when this ideology was last used, it was used to make logic out of slavery, and legalize it. Therefore it will have the same outcome as slavery and be overturned.
In order to properly understand the situation we must understand the time period the country was formed. When Thomas Jefferson wrote “All men are created equal” in the Declaration of Independence in the eighteenth century, it is illogical to say he considered unborn children as he wrote it. The issue of slavery is vital to the issue of abortion. Slavery was the first time that the Supreme Court defined a word in the law and then issued its ruling. Likewise, the Supreme Court must define “life” before it can make its decision. The scientific complexity of the issue indicates that the required definition cannot properly be made at this point in time. It would be a display of hypocrisy for the courts, elected officials, or a presidential administration to define life before scientists can. Because the definition of “life” is ambiguous, no interpretation is just. Currently, it is widely accepted that an unborn child shows signs of life during the second trimester. Legally this would allow just legislation against abortions during or after the second trimester. We must come to acknowledge and accept that in our modern and diverse society it is sometimes impossible to please everyone. Scientifically, it is a fact that the unborn child is alive at some point in the mother’s body. However, this does not justify using criminal law to protect the rights of the unborn. When the government attempts to legislate morality, it is overturned, because America is a country of freedom of thought, and morals are opinions: to impose morals as laws on everyone would undermine the purpose of our nation. This is historically evident, as with slavery, prohibition, and segregation. The rights of all are to be protected in a manner agreeable to all, or society itself becomes poorer. An outright ban on abortion creates a police state and does not make society richer. Efforts to use the power of the state must be abandoned: such power is persecution and not fitting for our government as we began as a nation of persecuted people. Our society becomes richer when people require no law or fear of punishment to avoid doing “bad” things.
The mushy middle is the logically sound stance on abortion because it combines the elements of pro-life and pro-choice in harmony. Pro-lifers are correct in their assessment that the rights of the unborn are to be protected, but their disregard for the rights of the woman poisons the argument. Likewise, pro-choice is correct that the woman has liberty, but their disregard for the rights of the unborn poisons their argument as well. The mushy middle does not enjoy the fact that abortions occur but is against the criminalization of it as well. As time progresses science proves more evidently than ever that the embryo does show signs of life. However, while both the mother and the unborn child have the right to live, only the mother has the right to liberty. The decision of the Supreme Court in the landmark case Roe v. Wade was the correct decision: to overturn it would only undermine federal authority. Even if the Supreme Court were to reverse its decision, abortions would still be legal in many places. How much law enforcement would be required in order to prevent abortions? An enormous amount, an amount so great that it would interfere with our right to privacy: the very basis of the Supreme Court’s decision.
The solution is to remove the incentives of abortion. Many teenage women are pressured by their family (and society) to abort the unborn child because it will hinder their education or career. This is true, but only because little or no help is offered to them. While the government should not use its federal power to stop abortions, it can and should use its influence. The creation of organizations to help and support women who keep the child would remove the stress of supporting it. Support in the form of day care, financial aid, and public acceptance will make it less likely for women to choose to have an abortion. The government should also require the teaching of contraceptives in high schools. Contraception is different from abortion because it prevents fertilization. Teaching “safe sex” as well as sexual abstinence will prevent pregnancies and thus prevent the option of an abortion.
Indeed, life is precious. The needs of the unborn are to be taken as seriously as the needs of the mother. A mutual agreement far exceeds the constant bickering between conservatives and liberals; between pro-life and pro-choice. Taking a side does not solve anything; rather it adds more fuel to the ravaging fire wee see in the debate on abortion. A truly pro-life society must respect the decision, the private decision that a woman has to make when she is faced with aborting her future child or going through with pregnancy.

it all depends on the situation and what the mother believes is best for her and that baby

I personaly think religion should compleatly stay out of this. I beleave this is based on human morals and opinions, not what a god damn book tells you.

After a day of thinking, Im undecided. It depends on the situation. Like lets say theres a 13 year old who wasnt raped, but did through the heat of the momment. She concived and stuff. Giving brith would certianly ruin her life, even if she gave the baby up for adoption. The mental strain would be unbeleavable. In that case I dont care if she gives birth or aborts, because all that matters is the girl, not the baby. Its the life that is already living that is already in the world making a diffrence, not one that isnt even born yet.

But lets say that its a 29 year old whos filthy rich and just doesnt want a child. I say abortion is no answere there.

~

You guys speak like giving brith is easy. Just give brith and give the baby off for adoption. Well it isnt. Theres post birth depression, mental scaring for someone, even pre birth depression.


i found it humerous that you called the bible a "god damn book".

i found it humerous that you called the bible a "god damn book".
XD hahaha

Well.... I'm going to put my two cents out there:

I hate abortion, with a passion. I can't stand the thought of some innocent living thing being aborted because of a woman's cowardice. That's exactly what it is, cowardice.


Keep their legs closed? Why? If people want to have sex that's fine with me, and if they become pregnant they should be able to decide for themselves whether they keep the child or not. Of course, there are limits, but if the parents (or in many cases just the mother) can't take care of the child, I think abortion should be allowed.

Let me ask you something. If, a woman cannot take care of a baby, should she really be having sex, especially when she knows that her only option would be abortion? What you're saying is people should be allowed to have sex whenever they want. That's not right. Sex has it's pleasures I'm sure, but it also has its consequences. If you're going to get down and "do the nasty," you better be ready for whatever's going tocome your way. That's what being responsible is about.


I don't consider an embryo to be alive in a way grown humans are alive. Embryos don't think yet, they are still in a very early state of development.

So, just because something doesn't think like a person, that means it isn't alive? What kind of stuff is that! What about the mentally dead? They can't do anything for themselves, not even think. Are they dead? I think not.


Secondly, free will is the opinion. They assume that the unborn child would want to live, when they have nothing to prove that, making it a blind assertion.

I havea question for you, too. What living thing doesn't want to live? Ok, exclude the suicidal people. All living things want to live, and it's wrong to assume they baby may not want to live. The baby can't decide for itself yet, so why make a decision for it?


One of the more supported arguments anti-abortion groups use is that if the woman did not want a child she should have never had sex. This is a naïve and ignorant statement.

No it's not. It's perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to go to jail, don't rob a bank. A woman who cannot support a baby should not have sex. Simple as that.


This argument is the worst of the four. The woman has every right to terminate it. When a child is born (normally) it goes to the mother of the child and is considered hers. Therefore, the fetus/embryo is the property of the woman carrying it.

Are you saying that a child is mere property? Are you property, somebody to be owned by another. That baby is the mother's child, not her "property." Property is a house, chair, computer, not life.


Wrong. It depends on the mother to survive. It's almost like a parasite. All it can do is undergo mitosis.

........ What? LMAO!!! Oh goodness! A parasite! Yeah, so I'm assuming you're still a teen. Don't you live with your parents? Don't you depend on them for housing, shelter, clothes, food, love, understanding? Sure you may have a job, but it's not going to support you. So.... Are you a parasite? You are, after all, undergoing mitosis too. Are you a parasite? LMAO! Oh yeah, that's rich. And then, are you going to have little parasites running around your house. Would you want somebody to say, "Oh, look at that adorable little parasite you have there." LAMO!!!
Look, it may have sounded harsh, but hey, it's what you're basically saying.


Its the mothers child, let her do what she wants.

Watch your words, because now you're condoning:
Incest
Abuse, both metally and physically
Neglect
Any unfair treatment the baby may receive.


For god sake, its a lump of cells that has almost no functions that a plant cant do!!1!!! Let the mother choose, unless you want me to tell you what you can and cant do with your pets.

Pets are animal that rely on instict the majority of the time. Instinct can be dangerous, so you have to control the. And you still can't do what you want to them, like abusing them, otherwise you'll go to jail for that. Animal cruelty is something you know.

Now, I know that there are rape victims and all, but the baby didn't tell bastard to go out and rape the woman, so why should it be suffering?

The only time I feel that the baby should be aborted is if the woman is in serious, and I mean SERIOUSLY at risk for dying.

Women who abort their children, I feel, are the cowards of the world. They want to take the easy way out. I can't stand it, it burns me up to know some woman killed her child because she didn't want to raise a baby. Adoption people, ADOPTION!!!

hate abortion, with a passion. I can't stand the thought of some innocent living thing being aborted because of a woman's cowardice. That's exactly what it is, cowardice.

I think it has nothing to do with being a coward. Sometimes it just will never work. Would you rather have the child being born and be hated for the rest of his/her life? Or know he/she was just an accident?


Let me ask you something. If, a woman cannot take care of a baby, should she really be having sex, especially when she knows that her only option would be abortion? What you're saying is people should be allowed to have sex whenever they want. That's not right. Sex has it's pleasures I'm sure, but it also has its consequences. If you're going to get down and "do the nasty," you better be ready for whatever's going tocome your way. That's what being responsible is about.

And what about the people who have sex while using for example a condom but then the condom rips? It happens. They tried to prevent it but it failed, not their fault. It's like when you want a balcony, and to prevent you'll fall off you build a fence around it. Then, the fence breaks and you fall off and break both your legs. You tried to prevent falling off yet people still call you an idiot and say you should never have built the balcony in the first place. You say you had a fence around it but they still call you an idiot. How fair is that?


So, just because something doesn't think like a person, that means it isn't alive? What kind of stuff is that! What about the mentally dead? They can't do anything for themselves, not even think. Are they dead? I think not.

Mentally dead are what they are, mentally dead. They can't get back from that again. People who are in a coma for example aren't mentally dead, they still think, often still hear things, just can't react. It's something completely different. Something that doesn't think isn't alive but braindead, which is just as dead as dead is except for the fact that some body functions are still working because they don't need the brain to support them.


I havea question for you, too. What living thing doesn't want to live? Ok, exclude the suicidal people. All living things want to live, and it's wrong to assume they baby may not want to live. The baby can't decide for itself yet, so why make a decision for it?

A foetus doesn't think yet, so it doesn't have a will to live either. Compare it to a plant at this stage: if you're against abortion you also have to be against people stepping on grass.


No it's not. It's perfectly reasonable. If you don't want to go to jail, don't rob a bank. A woman who cannot support a baby should not have sex. Simple as that.

What I said before, as long as they tried to prevent pregnancy it's not their fault for having sex.


........ What? LMAO!!! Oh goodness! A parasite! Yeah, so I'm assuming you're still a teen. Don't you live with your parents? Don't you depend on them for housing, shelter, clothes, food, love, understanding? Sure you may have a job, but it's not going to support you. So.... Are you a parasite? You are, after all, undergoing mitosis too. Are you a parasite? LMAO! Oh yeah, that's rich. And then, are you going to have little parasites running around your house. Would you want somebody to say, "Oh, look at that adorable little parasite you have there." LAMO!!!


Look, it may have sounded harsh, but hey, it's what you're basically saying.

An unwanted child could be considered a parasite. A wanted child of course, is not. But who would perform an abortion on a child that's wanted?


Pets are animal that rely on instict the majority of the time. Instinct can be dangerous, so you have to control the. And you still can't do what you want to them, like abusing them, otherwise you'll go to jail for that. Animal cruelty is something you know.

Animals think, a foetus doesn't.


Now, I know that there are rape victims and all, but the baby didn't tell bastard to go out and rape the woman, so why should it be suffering?

Should the woman have her life ruined even more because of a child she got from a man she most likely hates to death? If you care so much for the child, go invent a way to get it moved to the womb of a woman willing to take it or something.


Women who abort their children, I feel, are the cowards of the world. They want to take the easy way out. I can't stand it, it burns me up to know some woman killed her child because she didn't want to raise a baby. Adoption people, ADOPTION!!!

Adoption? Pregnancy itself could ruin a woman's life you know? Cause her to lose her job, interfere with studies. You anti-adoption people never look at the mother while she's carrying an unwanted child around, only at the time after the child is born and the woman's life is already in shambles.

Would you rather have the child being born and be hated for the rest of his/her life? Or know he/she was just an accident?


How do you know the child will be hated? What if there's someone out there who would adopt the child? I still think think abortion is a coward's decision.


And what about the people who have sex while using for example a condom but then the condom rips?

Like I said, there are risks. Being man or woman enough to do the nasty means you've got to be man or woman enough to take on the consequences. If they use a condom, and the woman get's pregnant, and she(and he) can't support the child, then they made an irresponsible decision, and need to live with it. Adoption is a solution, and so is welfare. The government will help those who seek it and if you qualify. There's family members too who might help. Friends, the Church you belong to, organizations like the Salvation Army and Good Will help. The answers are out there, people are just to damn lazy to apply for them.


Mentally dead are what they are, mentally dead. They can't get back from that again.

But they are not DEAD though. Technically, they are still alive. So, we should kill all of them off too?


Compare it to a plant at this stage: if you're against abortion you also have to be against people stepping on grass.



*takes a deep breath* A baby is not a plant, it is a human being. Stepping on grass has nothing to do with anything. It's not even remotely as close as killing a fetus, know why?
Grass can grow back, that's why.
A baby, a unique individual, with nobdy in the world like him or her, can't.
Simple. Enough said.


What I said before, as long as they tried to prevent pregnancy it's not their fault for having sex.


Uhhh, yes it is. It's part of the package. What if someone contracts an STD? They have to live with it right? Why can't they live with a baby?


An unwanted child could be considered a parasite.

Not to somebody out there looking for one.


Should the woman have her life ruined even more because of a child she got from a man she most likely hates to death? If you care so much for the child, go invent a way to get it moved to the womb of a woman willing to take it or something.

Uh, there's something already like that, but it happens once the baby's born. Adoption. It's not the baby's fault, is it?



Adoption? Pregnancy itself could ruin a woman's life you know? Cause her to lose her job, interfere with studies. You anti-adoption people never look at the mother while she's carrying an unwanted child around, only at the time after the child is born and the woman's life is already in shambles.

Oh yeah! People like you always look at the mother and how she feels. She did the deed, she made the mistake, so SHE should have to live with it. She obviously wasn't THAT worried about her rep, because boys go and talk about who they bang all the time(I know, cause about 80% of my friends are guys). So now she's sleeping around, and is beginning to look like a whore. Bad rep. Now she's pregnant. Who's fault is it? HERS! Who should have to deal with it? HER, and of course, THE FATHER! If the father backs out,m he's as much of a punk as she is.

By the way, Angelic, thank you for responding to my views respectfully. I appreciate it. I thought I was gonna get flamed out of this world.

Like I said, there are risks. Being man or woman enough to do the nasty means you've got to be man or woman enough to take on the consequences. If they use a condom, and the woman get's pregnant, and she(and he) can't support the child, then they made an irresponsible decision, and need to live with it.


But they are not DEAD though. Technically, they are still alive. So, we should kill all of them off too?

Well, actually that's what happen when people are braindead. Maybe not in the US, but over here it happens. Europe is quite modern compared to the
Why would they need to live with it? If you protect yourself against something and still get it because you made a mistake I'm sure you'll say something different.


But they are not DEAD though. Technically, they are still alive. So, we should kill all of them off too?

Well, dead is dead, even if they are still breathing. But of course, if you're from the US or any other country that is controlled by religion, then you'll look at a matter like this in a whole different way than someone from a country where science is the more common thing to listen to.


A baby is not a plant, it is a human being. Stepping on grass has nothing to do with anything. It's not even remotely as close as killing a fetus, know why?
Grass can grow back, that's why.
A baby, a unique individual, with nobdy in the world like him or her, can't.
Simple. Enough said.

What about snapping a twig of a tree? The snapped off twig will die. There might grow a twig back, but it will look different. A unique twig has been killed and never come back.


Uhhh, yes it is. It's part of the package. What if someone contracts an STD? They have to live with it right? Why can't they live with a baby?

People don't choose to live with an STD, if something can be done about it they'll do something about it. You can do something about unwanted babies.


Not to somebody out there looking for one.

That's besides the point, now isn't it?


Uh, there's something already like that, but it happens once the baby's born. Adoption. It's not the baby's fault, is it?

Like I said, it could ruin the mother's life


Oh yeah! People like you always look at the mother and how she feels. She did the deed, she made the mistake, so SHE should have to live with it.

Of course, a lot of girls asked to be raped, don't they?


She obviously wasn't THAT worried about her rep, because boys go and talk about who they bang all the time(I know, cause about 80% of my friends are guys). So now she's sleeping around, and is beginning to look like a whore. Bad rep. Now she's pregnant. Who's fault is it? HERS! Who should have to deal with it? HER, and of course, THE FATHER! If the father backs out,m he's as much of a punk as she is.

And now you're becoming goddamn annoying and you show how fucking ignorant and stupid you are. You seem to think that every girl who gets pregnant by accident is a whore who sleeps around. Open your fucking eyes, it could also happen to a shy girl who never had sex before but on the first time gets pregnant because of a ripped condom. If you go as low as calling everyone who gets pregnant by accident a whore then I do not wish to discuss this matter with you anymore and in fact I'd like to ask you to refrain from posting in this topic at all; you're obviously too narrow minded to take part in a discussion, generalizing as you please.

If you protect yourself against something and still get it because you made a mistake I'm sure you'll say something different.



Ok, let's say that I were to have sex, and get pregnant. Now, of course I'd be scared and afraid, but I would know that I made the choice to do the act, so I should pay for it. I can't undergo an abortion, imagine the kind of guilt. There's a woman who was on the news who had an abortion years ago, and now she regrets doing it more than anything. Now she's fighting abortion. You don't understand, not only does the baby die, but the effects on the mother mentally are drastic.


Well, dead is dead, even if they are still breathing. But of course, if you're from the US or any other country that is controlled by religion, then you'll look at a matter like this in a whole different way than someone from a country where science is the more common thing to listen to.


.... Ok, so my definition is wrong. Tell me, what exactly is "dead?" What characteristic are there of a dead person?


What about snapping a twig of a tree? The snapped off twig will die. There might grow a twig back, but it will look different. A unique twig has been killed and never come back.


Well, if you're THAT concerned about them, then don't snap off twigs then. I'm THAT concerned about unborn babies, so I am against abortion. Simple, right?


That's besides the point, now isn't it?


...... I don't see how.


Of course, a lot of girls asked to be raped, don't they?

I did not know that you were talking about rape victims. I thought you were talking about everyday women and girls. Of course they don't ask to be raped! I'm simply saying that the baby shouldn't have to pay for it with its life. How fair is that? It's like you getting grounded for something your brother or sister did, only in the abortion's case, the punishment is more perminent.


And now you're becoming goddamn annoying and you show how fucking ignorant and stupid you are.

Wow.... I'm getting flamed by an Admin.... Not once have I insulted you in any way. I've only been defending my beliefs. How extrememly childish of you. You can't even take a little disagreement without insulting someone. I've noticed that around the forums, even though I've only been here awhile. I don't like being insulted because of my beliefs, and I have not insulted you once. Or hey, maybe I have, and I just don't know it. My apologies, but, I still don't take back what I said.


You seem to think that every girl who gets pregnant by accident is a whore who sleeps around.

I don't. My very best friend in the world got pregnant at fifteen. She wasconsidering abortion, and you know what? She didn't. She said, "Girl, I'm not gonna do that shit. You know why? Cause I'll fucking hate myself. I'm gonna do this shit. Anybody who fucks around and backs out of a spot like I'm in, is a fucking coward. I made my bed, so I'm sleeping in it. You with me?" You kow what I said back. "Hell yeah, girl. I was only fourteen at the time. She's not a whore, not even close. She's one of those girls who found the boy she loved(at the time) and wanted to show her love for him. So, she slept with him. Now, she's got a baby, and she never regretted her decision. In fact, what she said to me that night, really influenced me to be against abortion. This girl came from nothing. She had a broken home, always some drama going on, no money, and she's making it. I kow she's only one girl, but if she can do it, why can't anybody else?


Open your fucking eyes, it could also happen to a shy girl who never had sex before but on the first time gets pregnant because of a ripped condom.

So the HELL what?! Girls who's life can relate to a damn Lifetime movie should not be exempted from responsibility! She had sex, and the condom ripped. Was that risk always there? Yes! Could she have decided to say no? Yes? Did she? No! So now what? She's gotta pay. I may sound really harsh, but that's how I feel. Don't tell me to open my eyes, cause yours are just as closed. You think nobody should have to be responsible for the mistakes they make! That's wrong! Would you let somebody off death row because somebody made the mistake of killing someone? To me, the same anology applies. People need to take responsibility for the choices they make, no matter what the cost.


If you go as low as calling everyone who gets pregnant by accident a whore then I do not wish to discuss this matter with you anymore and in fact I'd like to ask you to refrain from posting in this topic at all; you're obviously too narrow minded to take part in a discussion, generalizing as you please.

One thing, I never once called anybody a whore. I said they are cowards, not whores, if they undergo an abortion. Pregnant by accident? Then learn from your mistake, by having the baby. Nobody's saying keep the baby, give it up for an adoption! Family, friends, I listed so many things up there tat you could do! So why am I closed minded. I understand people want to have sex, I really do. But you have to take responsibility for what you create!
Angelic, what you basically said to me was that people don't need to be responsible. They can just have sex spontaniously, and say, "Oopsy! I'm pregnant! Time to get an abortion!" and get one. That is SICK! And that's what people do. I hope that abortion becomes illegal. There are so many health risks involved. Shit, even some of the doctors who do abortions don't go through with it! They don't want it on their conscience.
Angelic, I will keep posting here. You have no valid reason to stop me. I have not flamed anyone. I've been merely stating my opinion. I have not done anything directly to you, besides quoting your comments and debating them. So, I have no reason to leave. So, I'm annoying? Yeah, ok.

I said this somewhere before, but what the hell. In America, constitutionally you have the right to abortion. So don't give crap about religion controlling us and science being better than it - science is based on just as many if not more assumptions than religion. However, being allowed to do something doesn't mean we should do it. I wrote an essay on this previously. I'll dig it up in a while.

I do not value human life at all, and I think that the world would be a lot better off if people just stopped having babies. For this reason, I do support abortion.

And as for if the baby is actually alive or not when it is unborn, it all depends on what you mean by 'alive'. I believe, that being unborn, is basically like being in a persistent vegetative state, like Terri Schiavo was, and killed Terri Schiavo. I think killing an unborn baby would be exactly the same thing.

One thing, I never once called anybody a whore.


So now she's sleeping around, and is beginning to look like a whore.

And the reason I started flaming you is exactly that. I tried to have a normal discussion with you, but if you're too ignorant to say that people who have an abortion done always sleep around and are like whores, you just piss me off.

And you may call me childish, at least I'm not as narrowminded as you are.

And the reason I started flaming you is exactly that.

Oh shit! Did I really say that? *goes back to other posts* Crap, I did, didn't I. Look, sorry about that man. That was all me. My bad, for real. I really need to watch how I phrase things.

And, by the way, I thought flaming was against the rules. Why are you, of all people, allowed to do it? Aren't you supposed to be setting an example for everybody?


tried to have a normal discussion with you, but if you're too ignorant to say that people who have an abortion done always sleep around and are like whores, you just piss me off.


Well, that's not what I meant. In actuality, I saw how you said this:


Adoption? Pregnancy itself could ruin a woman's life you know? Cause her to lose her job, interfere with studies. You anti-adoption people never look at the mother while she's carrying an unwanted child around, only at the time after the child is born and the woman's life is already in shambles.

I thought this:
Well, people are going to say she's a whore now, so she obviously does not care about her rep. When you say, "pregnancy could ruin a woman's life," also can having sex. You cannot tell me that having sex one time does not get some people calling the girl a whore. You can't say that. It happens in real life, (hell, it's happening to a girl in my school now, cause her damn bf likes to brag) and it's portrayed in Lifetime movies(even though some of them can be slightly exagerrated). So, I wasn't meaning to call anyone who sleeps with someone for the first time and gets pregnant a whore. That's not what I believe. That's just what other people will say. Once people find out a girl has had sex, they blow it completely out of proportions, don't they, which would then ruin her rep. That's what I meant to say.

And actually, I was enjoying the conversation we were having. But I don't like being called ignorant, especially for a simple misunderstanding. So yeah, I typed the point I was tryng to get across wrong, and I apologize for that. So now, I'm done hearing you calling me ignorant, ok? Can you stop doing it now, now that I've apologized? I'm human, I make mistakes, and I certainly didn't mean to make that one.


And you may call me childish, at least I'm not as narrowminded as you are.

My friend, the way you handle things is VERY childish. Me, narrow-minded? That's your opinion. Just because I think responsibilty is important, I'm narrow-minded huh? Ok, yeah, sure. If I'm narrow-minded, then you are childish, because only a child would say responsibilty with big matters is not something to worry about. They like to rant and scream and insult people with legit points on an important matter. So yeah, if I'm narrow-minded, because I think that people need to be responsible, then you are certainly, childish. No offense to you at all, just, pointing something out.


I do not value human life at all, and I think that the world would be a lot better off if people just stopped having babies.

Ouch, so, you don't value your own life. I think that's kind of a sad way to feel about life.:(


So don't give crap about religion controlling us and science being better than it - science is based on just as many if not more assumptions than religion.

Exactly. A theory is just a good point that may have some truth to it, higher than a hypothesis. That's why there's the theory of evolution. It's just a guess, that will probably never be proven. In fact, my teacher told me the other day that gravity is just a theory also. I didn't know that.:huh:

Edit: Oh, Angelic, you still didn't tell me what makes something "dead." I still want to know.

Exactly. A theory is just a good point that may have some truth to it, higher than a hypothesis. That's why there's the theory of evolution. It's just a guess, that will probably never be proven. In fact, my teacher told me the other day that gravity is just a theory also. I didn't know that.:huh:

Every truth-claim in science is "just" a theory. That's the point of science. Scientists hope to replace a theory with a better theory. If scientific statements weren't just theories, there would be no progress in science.

Or in other words, the point of science isn't to be right; it's to be less wrong than all the others before you. The power of science lies in technology (applied science). Gravity may just be a theory, but it's applications in formulas allow for cars, elevetaors, aeroplanes, rockets, scales...

Yes, on the theoretical level (the theory behind science) science makes as many assumptions as religion. And, often, scientists believe in a philosophy called naturalism. They don't have to. Science is neutral. Naturalists can do science. Theists can do science. Nihilists can do science. And if they know what they're doing, they'll contribute to a growing knowledge stack.

Science cannot, can never, tell you what should be done. That's for religion or philosophy to decide. Right and Wrong in morals is not the same as right and wrong in science.

So, in the case of abortion, what science can do is describe the development stages of a fetus in the same terms that science describes a born being. Than these stages can be compared.

The decision when a fetus resembles a born child enough to make it's right to live outweigh the right of the mother to control what grows within her is a moral decision.

Many countries (including Austria, where I live) have a "three months" rule. Abortion up to month three = legal; abortion from month four onward = illegal. I quite like that rule (I looked into the biology specifics once and found the 3 months to be a decent balance; I forgot the specifics, though, so to really argue the limit I'd have to start from scratch. In any case, I consider the limit negotiable.)

I don't think abortion should be encouraged; but I think it should be legal. The exact terms should be negotiated; I'm quite happy with the 3-month-rule in place in Austria, for example, and I think abortion for the entire nine months is a bit radical. Makes me wonder why I can't just dump it into a dustbin after it comes out, if I can get rid of it up until birth...], but I'm open to arguments.

Science is a tool, nothing more. Science can help get a clearer idea about what constitutes "life" or a "person"; but it won't come up with a binding definition. That's the job of philosophers/priests/ethics comittees etc.

The theory of gravity may just be a theory. But it's a better theory than that a colony of super moles sit in the center of the earth and constantly suck air towards them, and that's why we don't fall off the earth, and why we have an atmosphere... That's what makes science useful: the ability to tell good theories from bad ones, without recourse to individual belief systems.

Wow, Dawnstorm, you're really intelligent. I learned something from reading your post.


Gravity may just be a theory, but it's applications in formulas allow for cars, elevetaors, aeroplanes, rockets, scales...


See, that makes a lot of sense. I never thought of it in that way, probably cause I'm not one for science...:sweat:

By the way, I'm not being sarcatic with this compliment. I really am impressed.

Every truth-claim in science is "just" a theory. That's the point of science. Scientists hope to replace a theory with a better theory. If scientific statements weren't just theories, there would be no progress in science

What of laws the dawnstorm? (e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion or Newton's laws of motion.)@_@

As for abortion. I believe it should be 100% legal and I also believe it is unatural, morally wrong and most of the time selfish.

As stated before the case is usually not as dramatic as a lifetime movie (though it sometimes is). What usually happens is that two individuals become curious of sex. It gets to the point where they find a secluded spot and...well...conception occurs. Now, this can happen at a party, a bathroom, school wherever, it doesn't matter. Then the sceniro ussually has a scared young man running form the amazing revalation that he is now a father. THe girl is left to deal with the problem.

I believe in free will, you are entilted to the option of abortion (hence it should be legal), but that does not make it right i any sense.

Let's tackle some misconceptions of abortion. The first being that many believe they are doing a favor for the newborn by killing it (which does not make much sense when you put it like that). I consider a baby alive the exact moment that the sperm cells combine with the egg (conception in other words) and believe that as a human being it deserves certain rights from the parents. Many believe that since they cannot take care of the baby it is better of dead since it is doomed to a life of misery any how. No, setting in up for adoption is a recommened option if you cannot care for the youth. As far as people claiming that the newborn is better off dead, whell let him decide that when he grows up.

Now, as far as reponsibilty goes... I'm not gonna get preachy, but if you do something you should always be responsible for the consequences. If nothing else you at least owe it the right of birth. Now lemme touch on a touchy subject. Rape. The abomniable act of rape in all forms, is completely Evil on all facets of life. Be that as it may though, two wrongs don't make a right and the baby is innocent. Please don't take yur grief ot on it. You may come to regret.

The only time abortion is EVER justified is when the mother's life is in IMMEADIATE danger and requires the surgery. Only when there are no othe rsolutions should abortion ever become an option.

What of laws the dawnstorm? (e.g. Kepler's laws of planetary motion or Newton's laws of motion.)@_@

They're theories, too. Nobody can say whether science won't come up with something that will replace those concepts.

It's a naming convention, mostly:

Young theories = hypothesis

middle aged theories = theories

old theories = laws

They're basically the same thing; the only difference is that law-theories have survived longer than theory-theories. A hypothesis-theory may not even have been tested yet.

(There are other factors about the naming; for example, the more comprehensive theories tend to be called theories, while the more specific theories tend to be called laws: the theory of thermodynamics, but the 1st, 2nd, 3rd law of thermodynamics.)

***

Btw, thanks Kitsune-Rose, for your nice compliments. ^_^

They're theories, too. Nobody can say whether science won't come up with something that will replace those concepts.

It's a naming convention, mostly:

Young theories = hypothesis

middle aged theories = theories

old theories = laws

:think: Ahhhhh...alright, thanks for clearing that up.

On a different note:

"If I were <deity>, people would have to fucking earn their genitals."

On a different note:

"If I were <deity>, people would have to fucking earn their genitals."
ROFL XD

Should we have abortion yes or no?

I think that if there is complications that would result in death to the mother or the baby then maybe abortion should be an option. Other reasons than this i would object abortions. Hmm maybe i would support abortion if a woman was raped in the first place but then again its not the baby's fault.

Tell us your opinoin

I think that once conceived that every child has the right to live.

Your signature on other hand, needs to be aborted. The Animation is annoying the hell outta me.

(Watch out, I am going to go semi-'preacher' on you)

Abortion is murder, either way... I don't know the circumstances, but I strongly disagree with abortion for whatever reason. Even rape isn't good enough for me. (>.<)

When a baby is conceived, that is already a life being formed. To take it away before it has a chance... Well, to me, that's just wrong. To throw it away just because you don't want it, or because it happened on terms you disagree with (I'm really generally generalizing, I know) doesn't really give you the right to stop it.

Yes, I know the world has so many orphans and homeless children already, but still... I'm going to come back to the murder issue. ^^; Ah, but I already see so many arguments down that road...

@_@ ...Well, I wasn't much help. >.< Good luck!

That bun in your oven has finger nails already!
If you fail to either stay protected or take the morning after pill then just have the baby and go for closed book adoption.

Jesus... <_<

Also, I highly recommend that you get rid of that ad in your signature...

Let's see... on one hand, I want to tell the ones getting an abortion to live up to their stupid decisions, however, if there are other factors involved (as mentioned, rape and such), then the decision should remain with the mother.

On another note, I wouldn't necessarily call abortion 'murder'. As far as I'm concerned, abortion is carried out extremely early on in pregnancy most of the times. The zygote has absolutely no consciousness yet, and the brain is not at all developed at that stage.

You'd not take out a fertilized chiken egg from the coop.

@Gotank: From the moment of conception, the baby is human and biologically and genetically separate from the mother. Murder can be defined as ending the life of another human who is biologically separate from yourself without cause. Pretty much the only case in which killing someone is not murder is killing in self-defense. Apart from causing morning sickness (which is not life-threatening by any stretch of the imagination) the baby has done nothing that would classify its death as "self-defense." So, since you cannot call abortion "self-defense" and still keep your sanity, the only choice left (logically, anyway) is murder (especially since there are other options, like giving the baby up for adoption).

I think this is very much one of these situations where you cant tell, until youre in the situation yourself.

Let the courts decide. What is the punishment nowadays for punching pregnant woman in the stomache to kill the fetus?

@Gotank: From the moment of conception, the baby is human and biologically and genetically separate from the mother. Murder can be defined as ending the life of another human who is biologically separate from yourself without cause.

The following is my assumption that you are referring to the American Constitutional Laws. If not, and you are referring to the laws of a different country, then please ignore the rest of my post.


Dude... no. That's the most bullshit definition of murder I've ever heard. Just because it can be defined as "ending the life of another human who is biologically separate from yourself without cause." doesn't mean that is the correct definition. Murder is ending the life of another human being/person. And the key word is person, which is defined differently by state. However, I don't think that any state has passed an amendment that defines a person at the moment of conception (correct me if I'm wrong). I know it got voted down in Colorado this year, it was Amendment 48 in Colorado, and this is how it read:

Section 31. Person defined. "AS USED IN SECTIONS 3, 6, AND 25 OF ARTICLE II OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION, THE TERMS "PERSON" OR "PERSONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY HUMAN BEING FROM THE MOMENT OF FERTILIZATION."

Anywho. I'm pro-choice all the way.

In the case of rape, should the victim be held responsible for the child?

Agreed with Whiplash in the definition part. If murder is defined so broadly, then the definition itself should be reexamined rather than actions that fall under it.

However, I'm not completely pro-choice, because I feel that would unnecessarily encourage reckless behavior... On another note, I do think the issue of rape induced pregnancy is brought up a bit too often in support of abortion freedom, considering how rare it actually is.

I think more often than not, it's a question of 'if the parents/mother feel they/she can't provide the child with a proper environment for growth, should they have the freedom to chose abortion'. Of course, what's considered a proper home is still up for debate.

Murder can be defined as ending the life of another human who is biologically separate from yourself without cause.
Yeah, or it can be defined another way. It's a word.

Pretty much the only case in which killing someone is not murder is killing in self-defense.
Says you.

Of course, I'm one of those "happy accidents." Maybe I should be a little more against abortion. XD
My feelings on abortion are pretty close to Gotank's, though.

But not all accidents are happy, some are very very very... bad. And then end up with miserable lives, left alone, rejected and hurt.

I myself, do support abortions though. I think its the mothers decision to have a baby or not. I mean shizzle, it comes out of her. Under normal situations its a couples choice to bring life into the world, and even if one of them disagrees, then that choice is negated. Only when two people really want a baby thats when a baby should be born.

So if u got raped, didnt use good protection or whatever, you should have the choice, of keeping the baby or not.

And for murder, pain part). As "Gotenks" says: "As far as I'm concerned, abortion is carried out extremely early on in pregnancy most of the times. The zygote has absolutely no consciousness yet, and the brain is not at all developed at that stage."

So if i was killed and i didnt know it, who cares, i never knew, never will.

Even the law of Canada supports abortion because of this very reason. That they do not recognize the egg inside a females womb as a "person" until certain parts are developed.

And lastly, for the morals part. If you are doin it and didnt use protection and go abort, then *shame on u* Maybe the law should be abortion only for uncontrolable cirumcstances *rape etc* but anything else can be avoided, as its a choice.

What if the mother was unable to care for the child and wasn't ready for one yet. The child would probably suffer because of this so maybe it would be better if they weren't given birth to. I mean to be aborted and not really know about it is better than growing up and leaving many years in some bad condition and without a proper mother's care. But then again, the child can always be placed for adoption.
However, really, i think whether or not the child is to be aborted or not is really the mother's decision and no one can really have a say on what she should do because the child is hers.
But i really feel sorry for people who has to carry out the process of abortion... scary:\

And lastly, for the morals part. If you are doin it and didnt use protection and go abort, then *shame on u* Maybe the law should be abortion only for uncontrolable cirumcstances *rape etc* but anything else can be avoided, as its a choice.

How exactly would that be enforced? Every abortion patient would just say "Oh, I got raped." There's no way to actually find out if the person was raped or not. If the police aren't investigating it, the person could just say they were too scared to tell the police. It's the honor system, and from my experience, there's not a whole lot of honorable people left in the world. <_<

Again people. Morning after pill would solve all of these pro choice arguments. You missed your window of opertunity so you'd rather the fetus be sliced up and pulled out part at a time?
Go on the normal birth control pills or just be ready to walk into your doctors and ask for the morning after pill.
Abortion is lazy and disgusting with little to no REAL excuse.
Think of those nice big boobs that you'll get too ^^

Emergency contraceptives for the win

Well, life is not always as simple as that. There are certain situations where you just cant make it in time for the morning pill. There's even cases where they dont even know they were raped. I know if i was a woman and for whatever x y or z reasons i didnt want a baby, i would want a "choice" to not have that baby. Raising a "good" child is hard work, and not everyone is ready for that, thats why theres so many f'ed up kids these days so ignorant and immature. Cuz they got parents that dont give a damn.


How exactly would that be enforced? Every abortion patient would just say "Oh, I got raped." There's no way to actually find out if the person was raped or not. If the police aren't investigating it, the person could just say they were too scared to tell the police. It's the honor system, and from my experience, there's not a whole lot of honorable people left in the world. <_<

yea i know, theres no really "true" way of doing that, i was just saying if somehow it were possible, then the accidents would be distinguished from the forced.

But you know, if a person really doesn't want a baby that badly, and the law prohibits them from having one, there are cases where people take extreme measures such as purposely killing the baby (punching the stomach, falling etc) So preventing abortion just because you dont think its right or its "murder" or whatever reason isnt gonna stop people from not having a child.

I mean, personally I totally agree that abortion is gross and bad too, not just morally but very very harmful to the mother's body as well. But people should still have a choice. Its not like everyone Wants an abortion or to take the morning pill everytime. If you haven't researched, the effects of abortions and those pills on a womans body is very harmful and could even lead to them not able to having anymore babies. And that alone would make me not ever want to get an abortion or take the morning pill.

Well you clearly don't want kids of your own so the pill's added effects wont matter anyway right?
By the time those date-raped people know they are pregnant it's a bit late for legal abortion anyway and only a few months until the baby comes so please accept that life is on it's way soon and suffer slightly for that life of yours. Please.

Well you clearly don't want kids of your own so the pill's added effects wont matter anyway right?
Yeah, because I'm sure every fifteen year old girl who doesn't want to get pregnant at the moment also wants to become barren for the rest of their lives. Durr.

Any idea what % of teens actually go on the pill already? At least in England it's rather high. Don't count out the emergency pill either, that is pretty safe and the statistics for bad things are low. If you really want to end the pregnancy it's a price you have to pay.

you've all forgotten the most important thing

no abortion= no more meat in mc donalds= mc donalds going out of business

when i look at it like that i am totally against abortion of any kind =P

Are you implying i eat dead babies? D:


*glad to be vegetablearian* oO