Why I am against abortion

Technically speaking there can only be 2 extreme ends to this argument. Either dont even use protection or make it legal to kill a one year old child as he still doesnt have the sense of existing as adults do.

Technically speaking there can only be 2 extreme ends to this argument. Either dont even use protection or make it legal to kill a one year old child as he still doesnt have the sense of existing as adults do.

Stranger_4

WHY ARE yu arguing about this when there are babies, kids and adults in the world who need much, much more help and are by far more valuable(in the sense that they are fully concsious and think) than a clump of cells........

i hate the idea that yu people are making assumptions and choices for people OF WHOSE SITUATIONS YU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.Its their unborn baby, they get to chose wether the clump of cells will grow to be a baby.

I beleived that in this day and age people would have finally stopped telling other people how to live their lives. yu can advise them, but things such as that ridiculous law aginst suicide is just examples of the kind of BS some people have to deal with.

[QUOTE="Stranger_4"]

Technically speaking there can only be 2 extreme ends to this argument. Either dont even use protection or make it legal to kill a one year old child as he still doesnt have the sense of existing as adults do.

warbmxjohn

As far as I am concerned, I think it's the full right of their parents, whatever they decide.

[QUOTE="warbmxjohn"][QUOTE="Stranger_4"]

Technically speaking there can only be 2 extreme ends to this argument. Either dont even use protection or make it legal to kill a one year old child as he still doesnt have the sense of existing as adults do.

Stranger_4

As far as I am concerned, I think it's the full right of their parents, whatever they decide.

WHY ARE yu arguing about this when there are babies, kids and adults in the world who need much, much more help and are by far more valuable(in the sense that they are fully concsious and think) than a clump of cells........

i hate the idea that yu people are making assumptions and choices for people OF WHOSE SITUATIONS YU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.Its their unborn baby, they get to chose wether the clump of cells will grow to be a baby.

I beleived that in this day and age people would have finally stopped telling other people how to live their lives. yu can advise them, but things such as that ridiculous law aginst suicide is just examples of the kind of BS some people have to deal with.lukadragon

I think that the adults who need help, can help themselves, while babies that can't help themseelves need help from someone else. And by making this thread, how does that mean that I only care about the unborn and adults? Can't I have opinions on more than one subject?

Majority of abortion cases are from people who just couldn't keep their pants on. I just don't think it is create the most valuable thing in the world and kill it because that is not what you intended.

How is a law agaist suicide a bad thing. If someone tries to kill themself but fails, should that person just be allowed to go back home and continue with their life? Obviously not. He or she would just do it again. They need help and I don't see how you can see this as a bad thing.

Loved the first post, warbmxjohn. You hit the nail on the head, it's one group of individuals assuming the natural superiority of their values over everyone else's and their right to impose those values on everyone else. If you think it's wrong, fine, when it's a personal choice for you you can act however you want. When it's someone else's choice, though, I don't see how you can justify moral superiority, especially when there's plenty of science saying that life doesn't necessarily begin at coneption.

Another thing people don't realize is that criminalizing abortions doesn't do away with them, the number stays largely constant. When abortion is criminalized, women are forced underground and have to go through procedures that put them at increased risks.

theone86

Like I said before, I am not attempting to make myself morally supreme. I will listen to all sides of the argument openly.

Obviously criminizaling won't do away with it all together. Selling guns to people without a licence is illegal, but people still do it. This is what law enforcement agencies are for. There are 1.3 Million abortions per yer in the United States. I am pretty sure that number would drop if it were illegalized. Nobody is forcing women to get an abortion, you could always have the kid and give it up for adoption.

no one is for abortion but all i can say is if a woman wants a abortion do it at a few weeks old.... the only reason why this is such a hard topic is because there are women who get abortions in there 6th or 9th month of being pregnate. i personaly cant tell anyone what do to with there body but i stand by my statement. as for inveto fertalization i feel that a psychological evaluation needs to be lawed to do it. ( octo mom) is who im refering to

...there's plenty of science saying that life doesn't necessarily begin at coneption.theone86

What science would that be?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

...there's plenty of science saying that life doesn't necessarily begin at coneption.jimmyjammer69

What science would that be?

WHY ARE yu arguing about this when there are babies, kids and adults in the world who need much, much more help and are by far more valuable(in the sense that they are fully concsious and think) than a clump of cells........

i hate the idea that yu people are making assumptions and choices for people OF WHOSE SITUATIONS YU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT.Its their unborn baby, they get to chose wether the clump of cells will grow to be a baby.

I beleived that in this day and age people would have finally stopped telling other people how to live their lives. yu can advise them, but things such as that ridiculous law aginst suicide is just examples of the kind of BS some people have to deal with.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

...there's plenty of science saying that life doesn't necessarily begin at coneption.

What science would that be?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="McJugga"] A baby isn't a meaningful member of society and its thoughts and functions are pretty pointless. But I would never put the life of an adult above a baby.McJugga

Actually, in most cases, I would. That said, a fetus is not the same as a baby...

Okay, how many times do I have to tell you this... imho, a fetus' life is less valuable than that of a baby, and, in general, a baby's life is less valuable than the life of an adult.

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"][QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"]

What science would that be?

jimmyjammer69

i hear conservatives on the news say we have scientific evidence that it is true.... bull crap cause 1. science and religion dont get along and 2nd. the s.o.b didnt show the proof.

[QUOTE="McJugga"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

Actually, in most cases, I would. That said, a fetus is not the same as a baby...

Okay, how many times do I have to tell you this... imho, a fetus' life is less valuable than that of a baby, and, in general, a baby's life is less valuable than the life of an adult.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Tazzmission187"] if life did start at conseption then i would say all us men are guilty for masterbation im suprised no religious nut even considered that to be murderTazzmission187

i hear conservatives on the news say we have scientific evidence that it is true.... bull crap cause 1. science and religion dont get along and 2nd. the s.o.b didnt show the proof.

[QUOTE="Tazzmission187"]

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"] Masturbation was considered a sin (maybe still is) by plenty of religious types, but conception is the fertilisation of the egg to produce a new organism. It's pretty much the only moment I can think of that could be called the beginning of a life.jimmyjammer69

i hear conservatives on the news say we have scientific evidence that it is true.... bull crap cause 1. science and religion dont get along and 2nd. the s.o.b didnt show the proof.

[QUOTE="jimmyjammer69"][QUOTE="Tazzmission187"]

somebody on msnbc (repub) said he had proof life starts at conseption scientific proof.... i knew the guy was bsing because if that were true how come he didnt show it on live tv?

i hear conservatives on the news say we have scientific evidence that it is true.... bull crap cause 1. science and religion dont get along and 2nd. the s.o.b didnt show the proof.

Tazzmission187

If you're going to comment on a quote, could you do it underneath because otherwise my comment looks like a complete non-sequitur. I don't think the guy on msnbc gave any proof because it's really not the kind of thing that is open to proof, it's rather about definition and he was silly to even use the word 'proof'. If you can find a definition which could contradict him, I'd be really interested to see it.

Okay, how many times do I have to tell you this... imho, a fetus' life is less valuable than that of a baby, and, in general, a baby's life is less valuable than the life of an adult.

chessmaster1989

Thats what the entire debate boils down to. We believe that, the other side dosn't.

I'm sorry if my wording offends you, but I do believe this is a case of moral superiority, at least from a legal standpoint. If you're going to assume the right to legislate on a position then you're also assuming the superiority of the morals that legislation is based on. This isn't a personal creedo or belief, this is saying, "I think I am completely right and there is no possibility the other side can be considered right." Granted, this isn't a debate about personal beliefs or morality, it's about a personal right to make one's own moral decisions. If pro-abortionists tried to pass legislation that forced women in certain conditions to have abortions that would be assuming the superiority of their morals. Passing legislation that restricts abortion, late-term excluded, is assuming the superiority of anti-abortionists' morals. The middle ground is realizing what a shaky thing morality can be and not assuming your beliefs to be superior to someone else's, at least to a point where you can accept the government leaving such a personal decision to the involved parties.

Most abortion cases are not so simple as that. Perhaps someone didn't realize the ins and outs of the pill and became pregnant despite safe sex practices, perhaps it's a teenager who's life might be completely ruined because of it, perhaps the male lied about having a vasectomy, perhaps the condom broke or was defective, perhaps there was a major falling out with the father that drastically changed the mother's circumstances, perhaps that one in one hundred chance that all the birth control that was used could fail just happened to occur, or perhaps the mother just doesn't share your views on what constitutes life. There are numerous reasons why people make these decisions, and I think if you did a survey and asked women who have had abortions if they did it because they couldn't keep it in their pants they'd be pretty offended at how easily you can twist what was such a major decision for them into such a simple blanket judgement.

The evidence of the first widespread criminalization of abortion, that's right, FIRST criminalization, shows that criminalization does not effect overall abortion ratio. Abortion was legal in the U.S. until the latter half of the 19th Century, when individual states started passing abortion laws. A very common method was ingesting fluids that aborted the fetus, and could be obtained by people with meager salaries. When states started criminalizing it, it became a matter of rich people having access to safer methods. This didn't stop those who couldn't afford proper abortions from having them, though, it simply forced them underground. It created class seperation in that the wealthy could have it done with relative ease for a price and the not so wealthy could risk infection, disease, and death. And through it all, abortion rates stayed pretty much constant.

Jimmy, if you're saying the argument isn't about evidence and it's about definition alone, what makes your definition superior to someone who believes abortion should be a viable option?

Jimmy, if you're saying the argument isn't about evidence and it's about definition alone, what makes your definition superior to someone who believes abortion should be a viable option?

theone86

I'm not taking issue with your claims of moral superiority, because that's your opinion and you're perfectly entitled to it, no matter how skewed it might seem. I'm asking where this "plenty of science" which suggests life doesn't begin at conception is, that's all. You can't claim that as a fact and then refuse to back it up with anything at all. Well... you can, but it doesn't give your argument much credibility.

If you've got a definition of life which you think superior to the commonly accepted biological one, then please share it.

Maybe the fact that cells replicate naturally in any number of examples without creating what we usually consider to be sentient life, and that even after the egg is fertilized the embryo is still just a collection of cells that has been catalyzed to self-replicate until it becomes something that we consider life. And you can drop the smug, self-righteous crap. I can call your argument skewed as well, it still doesn't reflect any worse on it than your accusation does on mine.

Maybe the fact that cells replicate naturally in any number of examples without creating what we usually consider to be sentient life, and that even after the egg is fertilized the embryo is still just a collection of cells that has been catalyzed to self-replicate until it becomes something that we consider life. And you can drop the smug, self-righteous crap. I can call your argument skewed as well, it still doesn't reflect any worse on it than your accusation does on mine.

theone86

How about life begins in the third trimester when significant development reaches its peak.

McJugga

Just so you know, she cheated on him. Are you still against it?

But in all seriousness. This is not reasons, if anything it's one reason. When I came in here I expected a well thought out argument, not a couple of pictures. Pictures do not convince me, well formed ideas do. I do not know where I stand on abortion, the only thing I DO know about abortion is that it is never going to change. It will always be here. And it is a ridiculous reason to be in the Republican party, OR the Democratic party SINGULARLY because of abortion. Bush had a Republican majority in Congress for a portion of his 8 year reign, did he do anything for Abortion? No, it's still legal. So, why would we base so much on something that will not change. There are more pressing issues for our leaders apparently. That being said, I go back to my original point, I don't know where I stand on abortion, but I DO know that pictures aren't the way to go, it's well thought out and well formed ideas based on facts, that convince me of something.

How about life begins in the third trimester when significant development reaches its peak.

theone86

Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. If I'm ever put in a situation where I have to be involved in that type of decision I literally have no clue how I'd handle it. I do know, though, that there is a good deal of dispute over when life begins, that's there's evidence that can help either side's argument, and that because of that pretending your own values supercedes someone else's is naive and petty. Like I said, I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing someone's right to legislate morality versus someone's right to determine their own morality, which is exactly what the whole legal issue boils down to. Jim-Bob asked for an alternative suggestion to when life begins, and I gave him a very common and medically-accepted answer.

Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. If I'm ever put in a situation where I have to be involved in that type of decision I literally have no clue how I'd handle it. I do know, though, that there is a good deal of dispute over when life begins, that's there's evidence that can help either side's argument, and that because of that pretending your own values supercedes someone else's is naive and petty. Like I said, I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing someone's right to legislate morality versus someone's right to determine their own morality, which is exactly what the whole legal issue boils down to. Jim-Bob asked for an alternative suggestion to when life begins, and I gave him a very common and medically-accepted answer.

theone86

Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. If I'm ever put in a situation where I have to be involved in that type of decision I literally have no clue how I'd handle it. I do know, though, that there is a good deal of dispute over when life begins, that's there's evidence that can help either side's argument, and that because of that pretending your own values supercedes someone else's is naive and petty. Like I said, I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing someone's right to legislate morality versus someone's right to determine their own morality, which is exactly what the whole legal issue boils down to. Jim-Bob asked for an alternative suggestion to when life begins, and I gave him a very common and medically-accepted answer.

theone86

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Frankly, it really doesn't matter to me. If I'm ever put in a situation where I have to be involved in that type of decision I literally have no clue how I'd handle it. I do know, though, that there is a good deal of dispute over when life begins, that's there's evidence that can help either side's argument, and that because of that pretending your own values supercedes someone else's is naive and petty. Like I said, I'm not arguing morality, I'm arguing someone's right to legislate morality versus someone's right to determine their own morality, which is exactly what the whole legal issue boils down to. Jim-Bob asked for an alternative suggestion to when life begins, and I gave him a very common and medically-accepted answer.

McJugga

On a related note, though not in response to either MC or theone, most of you seem to be arguing about the definition of "life," yet no one is making it clear what we are discussing. Life exists when a few specific characteristics exist, including mobility, reproduction, energy consumption, and a few others (Wikipedia Biology for a complete list). When life begins isn't really a debate in the scientific community; how it begins at the molecular level and when a creature becomes sentient are up for discussion though, kind of. Sentience (in vague terms) begins with the existence of a developed nervous system in conjunction with a vertebra (in some cases, a simple notochord). This roughly begins during the third trimester for humans and other primates. It is important to note that during the majority of gestation, a large portion of the human genome is effectively "turned off." While the DNA exists (and thus, the RNA's ability to foster specific types of protein development), it is hard to make a correlation with sentience or the state of being "human" at this point.

To be precise, there is nothing beyond ideology and fallacious emotional appeals that support the pro-life position.

I may simply copy and paste my research paper (with citations and documented sources) for Cultural Anthropology here. I'll edit if I decide to....

How about life begins in the third trimester when significant development reaches its peak.

theone86

I'm against abortion but if having a baby could cause serious health problems(or death) to the woman/girl or if she was raped, then I think it's ok. Other than that... I don't see any reason to kill a child; should have used protection, pills, get some operation, or practice abstinence instead of making someone that's defenseless pay for one's irresponsibilities.

What if that 6 day old baby was a product of a 13 year old girl getting raped by her grandfather?
I'm not joking, there is a place for abortion in society.
It's not always so cut and dry.

One more thing: The people going for abortions have their reasons. If they were forced to raise a child against their will, you can change that picture of a happy bride to a crackhead in a jail uniform.

Conjuration

The law doesn't legislate ethics, it legislates cohesion. Do you know there's only one norm which is constant across every known society? Incest being morally objectionable. Laws are not necessarily a reflection of morals, in our case our system is supposed to respect anyone's individiual views. Most of our laws are aimed at a common goal, one socially agreed upon goal, of protecting individual sovereignty. Murder is cnosidered wrong because you are taking what is not yours to take, same with stealing. Assault is wrong becaue unfairly imposing harm on someone else. With these, everyone can agree on shared tenets, but the beginning of life is subject to intrepretation and therefore not a shared societal value that can be fairly legislated against without dictating values.

[QUOTE="Conjuration"]

What if that 6 day old baby was a product of a 13 year old girl getting raped by her grandfather?
I'm not joking, there is a place for abortion in society.
It's not always so cut and dry.

One more thing: The people going for abortions have their reasons. If they were forced to raise a child against their will, you can change that picture of a happy bride to a crackhead in a jail uniform.

pygmahia5

I'm not pro-life, but as others have pointed out, the "abortion is ok in some circumstances" argument just doesn't work.

If you say that abortions should be at all limited, that implies that you believe that abortion is wrong, and at some level murder. So murder is ok, despite the victim having done nothing to deserve being killed? It doesn't really work. It's all or nothing.

[QUOTE="pygmahia5"]

[QUOTE="Conjuration"]

What if that 6 day old baby was a product of a 13 year old girl getting raped by her grandfather?
I'm not joking, there is a place for abortion in society.
It's not always so cut and dry.

One more thing: The people going for abortions have their reasons. If they were forced to raise a child against their will, you can change that picture of a happy bride to a crackhead in a jail uniform.

Paladin_King

I'm not pro-life, but as others have pointed out, the "abortion is ok in some circumstances" argument just doesn't work.

If you say that abortions should be at all limited, that implies that you believe that abortion is wrong, and at some level murder. So murder is ok, despite the victim having done nothing to deserve being killed? It doesn't really work. It's all or nothing.

It is a tricky one, but there are borderline cases for some people: I'm not a murderer, but if I had to choose between saving the life of somebody I love and somebody I don't know, then I know what my choice would be. Maybe that's why some people support abortion when the mother's life is at stake - it can be the lesser of two evils. But this, along with the rape example are bizarre cases, and I think that most pro-lifers are upset about the retrospective contraception scenario - that it's a kind of cheapening of life.

Same here. I don't like the idea of killing for convenience.

Dark_Knight6

At what point does 'it' become a human being? Does it stop being OK to kill 'it' at that point? Why? Is it now an independent human being? Are you sure?

A newborn infant cannot survive outside the mother's body without someone's help. It is no longer physically attached to its mother, but that does not mean that it is "independent".

A newborn infant will not scrounge for food, or create shelter for himself, or teach himself how to stay alive. Even after the infant is seperated from the mother's body, he is utterly dependent on other human beings, to the same degree that he was whilst inside the mother's body.

It is our basic moral obligation to care for our children.

Don't disassociate, don't obfuscate; a child is not an extension of the mother's body, it is a human being, dependent on the mother for life, before birth, and after birth.

You wish to have your child destroyed? Go ahead. But bear the full weight of your decision, and admit that you are killing your child, and refusing to honor your moral obligation to protect your child.

And if you are so morally bankrupt as to sit back and say "I have no obligation to protect and insure the well being of my child before birth (and they are just as dependent after birth, though able to depend on people other than their mothers) and I believe I should be allowed to kill my child if I wish to do so, for whatever reason" then I am done talking to you, and there isn't much left to be said.

Simply put, if that's how you feel about it, then I will fight you and your kind until there is nothing left of me.

At what point does 'it' become a human being? Does it stop being OK to kill 'it' at that point? Why? Is it now an independent human being? Are you sure?

A newborn infant cannot survive outside the mother's body without someone's help. It is no longer physically attached to its mother, but that does not mean that it is "independent".

A newborn infant will not scrounge for food, or create shelter for himself, or teach himself how to stay alive. Even after the infant is seperated from the mother's body, he is utterly dependent on other human beings, to the same degree that he was whilst inside the mother's body.

It is our basic moral obligation to care for our children.

Don't disassociate, don't obfuscate; a child is not an extension of the mother's body, it is a human being, dependent on the mother for life, before birth, and after birth.

You wish to have your child destroyed? Go ahead. But bear the full weight of your decision, and admit that you are killing your child, and refusing to honor your moral obligation to protect your child.

And if you are so morally bankrupt as to sit back and say "I have no obligation to protect and insure the well being of my child before birth (and they are just as dependent after birth, though able to depend on people other than their mothers) and I believe I should be allowed to kill my child if I wish to do so, for whatever reason" then I am done talking to you, and there isn't much left to be said.

Simply put, if that's how you feel about it, then I will fight you and your kind until there is nothing left of me.

I believe it's ok for rape, if the baby would have a bad life because the parents are ready, like... 13 year olds. etc like that. But as "birth control" or just because the people that had sex were being stupid then no.

I believe it's ok for rape, if the baby would have a bad life because the parents are ready, like... 13 year olds. etc like that. But as "birth control" or just because the people that had sex were being stupid then no.

SouL-Tak3R

I still have received no response as to what justifies anti-abortionists position of being able to dictate someone else's morals to them.

I perfectly understand the position of thinking of a fetus as a life and believing you personally have no right to abort it, I just don't understand what makes your point of view so special that you think it should dictate federal law.

What if that 6 day old baby was a product of a 13 year old girl getting raped by her grandfather?
I'm not joking, there is a place for abortion in society.
It's not always so cut and dry.

One more thing: The people going for abortions have their reasons. If they were forced to raise a child against their will, you can change that picture of a happy bride to a crackhead in a jail uniform.

Conjuration

I agree with this guy. Not every abortion case is the same and people should stop thinking that.

I still have received no response as to what justifies anti-abortionists position of being able to dictate someone else's morals to them.

theone86

"The fact that you don't see a foetus as a human or as conscious on some level doesn't mean that everyone will sympathise with your view or your ethics either."

So why does the same principle not apply to you?