PDA

View Full Version : Abortion - Right Or Wrong?


barrington
20-07-2004, 06:28 PM
I had a lengthy pub discussion about this topic a few weeks back and thought i'd bring it to the boards as I haven't seen it discussed here yet.

By definition an abortion is the termination of a human foetus' life before it reaches maturity and is born a human baby.

Many people argue that it is wrong to terminate life, no matter how undeveloped. It is argued that unborn babies still have feelings in the same manner that the rest of us do. The defining moment of progression between fertilised ovum and sentient, environmentally-responsive human being obviously does not ocur at the instant of birth, but at some point before.


Consider a pregnancy aborted simply because the mother didn't want a baby. Not because the baby was malformed or crippled. Just because she didn't want to have it.

Now consider the apparent logic that it is fundementally wrong and unjust to end the life of what is essentially a human being without good cause... the foetus still feels, it is still being killed without reason.

End of argument so it would seem. Abortion is wrong and murderous.

But I ask you... do you remember being in the womb? Do you recall being self-aware or feeling before you were born... or even before you first, second, maybe third birthday? Unlikely, some may argue impossible.

The important combination of rationale and sentience is what differentiates our species from animals.

It is perfectly acceptable to control the development and birth of animals we keep as pets in our homes, yet apparently unjust to terminate the life of an unborn baby for whom rationale and sentience have no yet developed in its premature brain... something more closely resembling an animal than a human.

As for me, I don't have an ethical issue with the notion of terminating pregnancies. After all, a homo-sapien entity is not a qualified human until it gains those two qualities of sentience and rationale. Something that babies have none of until many weeks (months?) after birth...

The debate, I throw to the floor...

duckula
20-07-2004, 06:31 PM
I think so called 'social abortions' should be permisable until there is brain activity in the foetus. Past this there must be valid medical reasons for the abortion to proceed. It's not alive until it's thinking.

apoggy
20-07-2004, 06:36 PM
Deep, very deep.

My opinion is that more of ignorance than any deep feelings. On subjects like this I prefer usually to ignore the facts of the matter as they don't really affect me, or th epeople in my life.

If I was to give an answer on this topic I would probably say it depends entirely on the circumstances. But then again I would find it difficult to draw a boundary line between right and wrong.

Those who are strictly against it in all circumstances are wrong I feel, the human life is a very precious and special thing. People, whoever taint this idea and don't extend it to all forms of life. We may be the dominant species and most intelligent on the planet, but I dont thinkthat necessarily gives us the right to dictate matters. Why should abortion be wrong if they eat meat? In effect killing a calf for beef is more wrong than killing a foetus because that calf has been born and is well aware of it surroundings, unlike unborn children.

That said I dont mind killing animals to eat personally, just an example

Sarah
20-07-2004, 06:38 PM
I have mixed feelings on the subject.

I think abortion is wrong if a woman is just using it as a lazy form of contraception over and over again. For that it is just pathetic.

Now, if a woman gets pregnant and the baby is found to have some disease which will affect the child's life in really awful ways, then I think abortion is fine. It's up to the mother (and father)

I also agree with abortion if the mother cannot look after the baby, or is very very poor. Before anyone shouts ''adoption!'' let me stop you. If may seem simple enough, but mothers' end up bonding with their babies and then realise they can't let them go, which means they fall even further into poverty.

I also agree with abortion if the baby was a result of rape. I mean, sure, the baby didn't ask to be created, but I don't think any woman should have to go through with that.

Personally, if I became pregnant, through any means, I don't think I could have an abortion. I wouldn't be able to go through with it.

Pinkfairy
20-07-2004, 06:43 PM
Some argue that as long as it's alive, it's a human (rational or not). Catholicism will tell you that it was God's plan, and it's not up to us to terminate a life.
It's funny that you should bring that up cause I have a friend who is pregnant, and she's planning to have it. Fact: she had an abortion last year.
My thoughts on abortion: I don't like it, I would try to avoid it, but I won't discard it.
Given that I've never been in this position, I haven't made up my mind completely.
I'll get techinal now, this is something I read: ''Every month a woman's body produces an egg which has the potential to become a human being. Every month that this egg is produced and not fertilized, it dies''
This makes us believe that abstinence is sort of like murder, but when you think about it, the egg itself is not life.
Since the foetus is alive, abortion can be considered as murder.

Sarah
20-07-2004, 06:47 PM
Aren't all religions against abortion? I know that an early christian documents states ''Tho shall not destroy the fruit of the womb''. (I put that in my R.E GCSE exam last year)

But still, like someone has said, I think it should depend on the circumstances.

ryan
20-07-2004, 07:40 PM
if the mother has no interest in going through with the pregnancy or caring for the baby once its born, why should it be brought into the world? it'll be an unloved child.
yes, you could give it up for adoption, but how pleasant to you think those kind of homes are for children?

if there is a disease in the mother or has already been detected in the child, it should be allowed.
also, if the child is the result of a rape, it should absolutely be allowed.

i'm for the woman's right to chose regarding abortions as long as it's not within the last 2 months or so of pregnancy. then it's getting a bit too late to decide to give up.

apoggy
20-07-2004, 07:44 PM
yes, you could give it up for adoption, but how pleasant to you think those kind of homes are for children?


That's a rather blinkered view. An adoptive family are just as likely to be a good family as a 'bad' family, but nothing governs who cant have a baby if the parents are fertile? People who are going to be bad parents arent more likely to be infertile

Sarah
20-07-2004, 08:07 PM
i'm for the woman's right to chose regarding abortions as long as it's not within the last 2 months or so of pregnancy. then it's getting a bit too late to decide to give up.

You can't even have abortions when you're in the last 2 months of pregnancy.

Actually, how many weeks can you go up to within the abortion limit?

apoggy
20-07-2004, 08:08 PM
21 weeks I think, but babies who were premature have survived when born before this point I think

DragonRat
20-07-2004, 08:09 PM
I would like to think that women abort their fetuses for good reasons, but instead, there are many who do so, simply to rid themselves of an unwanted child, while still having unprotected sex. As a Christian, I find that rather ignorant and selfish, destroying another life (that after all, is in one's charge), yet discarding it without a care or whim.

However, as I see it politically, I am pro-choice. The woman ultimately has the right to do what she wishes with her child. Hopefully, I hope that the woman would make the right decision, but I am not in a position to judge her in any way, shape, or form. Of course, in certain extreme circumstances (such as rape or incest), abortion is permissible. (I think, in some more liberal sects of the Catholic church, they do allow abortion strictly on those terms.)

Sarah
20-07-2004, 08:17 PM
21 weeks I think, but babies who were premature have survived when born before this point I think

21 weeks? My goodness, I thought it was less then that. But you are right. Thats like 5 months into the pregnacy! I've known babies born at about 5 months and lived to tell the tale (well, they can't tell it, but their parents can)

Did everyone see those pictures recently of babies at 18 weeks in the womb I think it was. They had their heads, arms, legs and so forth. Still, very tiny but you could make it out. I think those kind of pictures will deter women from having abortions. This could be good and bad, as some people could bully women into keeping the baby.

Spire
20-07-2004, 08:18 PM
Abortion is wrong.

I don't care if the person was raped, you murder the baby and then you're hurting two lives instead of one. Put it up for adoption or something, but don't vacuum it out of the mother in bloody chunks. What kind of bastard would promote that?

DragonRat
20-07-2004, 08:22 PM
But if the baby is unwanted, why would the mother go through another 9 months of carrying something that she does not want? Seems like a waste of three trimesters, all to give it up. If the mother is a 15 or 16-year-old, and a victim of rape or incest, you may not be in a position to understand why she would want to do such a thing, but I think it is a good reason to do so.

As for the time period when a fetus could be aborted, I'd say no more than the first trimester. I've read reports on the second and third trimester abortions, and how they are done, and it is none too pretty.

gracie
20-07-2004, 08:32 PM
I think abortion is disgusting and barbaric. It has nothing to do with the child's actual recollection of pregnancy or early childhood. Even in the first trimester it is a living human being. Just because it is dependant on its mother to live doesn't make it any less alive. In the first trimester it senses stimui to the womb like light and heat. It's not a blob of tissue its a human. America is one of the wealthiest and most advanced countries in the world and we find it acceptable to kill the weakest members of our society. Its disgusting.

acliff
20-07-2004, 09:03 PM
Wealthiest, and most advanced due to extreme capitalism. Unfortunately foetuses don't contribute money to developing the society.
Some arguments are that why subject unborn babies to a future terrible quality of life? Surely it would be better off not going through it?
Then the counter for that is at least if they go through the adoption/fostering system they have the chance to improve.

I am unbiased in this issue. Just making observations.

gracie
20-07-2004, 09:08 PM
Yeah I dont buy the save it from terrible life. When so many couples want children, giving it up for adoption after birth is a plausible option. You cant use abortion as a savior for kids living in ghettos. It doesnt work that way.

acliff
20-07-2004, 09:15 PM
Yeah I dont buy the save it from terrible life. When so many couples want children, giving it up for adoption after birth is a plausible option. You cant use abortion as a savior for kids living in ghettos. It doesnt work that way.

Very true, considering there are places far worse to live in than the ghetto anyway. Like draught and aids ridden Somalia.
However people who have a fairly comfortable lifestyle are overly compassionate about those who are less fortunate than them. And that extends to unborn babies. Poorer countries don't have easy access to abortion clinics. America does. Convenience factor also goes into it. So does Irresponsibility.

Hazzle
21-07-2004, 12:48 AM
First thing...abortion is more or less legal and viable up until the third trimester, but it's not quite as simple as that...but yeah, good rule of thumb is about that...

As for my own views...a few things.

1) Just because something is alive, doesn't mean killing it is murder (See killing chickens)

2) A foetus is not a human being until it is born...this is a FACT. This is because it hasn't developed all of the functions it needs to develop in order to be classed as a human being. It's a life, yes, but it's a living FOETUS, not a living PERSON.

3) Thus abortion is totally justified...whatever the reasons...you're killing a thing...something that's not quite a human life yet. I don't really give a rat's arse for blind catholics (and other anti-choice groups) and their idiotic views, but it's not a human life, thus it's not murder. It COULD be a sin against "God's plan" if you believe in a God, but then, surely that belief is individual choice?!

And no, the foetus in my view has no rights...it's not a human...it's sub-human (like me :D) and thus has no right to life (note again how we kill animals for food)...thank you and goodnight.

DragonRat
21-07-2004, 03:04 AM
Would we count animals as potentially becoming human beings, though? Part of what makes fetuses as human life is their potential to become human beings, and thus is their killing considered murderous.

Also, according to Christian belief, life begins not at birth, but at conception. So once the sperm cell penetrates and fertilizes the egg cell, a life is created. Of course, that might necessarily conflict with modern biological teaching, but it's science vs. religion.

Ashlyn
21-07-2004, 07:50 AM
i have had this debate so many times in religion classes at school and the same arguments come up every time. i'm still undecided on where i stand, i think it's an awful thing to do no matter what, however you must look at the circumstances before you judge a person because they had an abortion (i mean looking at things like the age of the mother, her circumstances, her health, the reason she got pregnant etc) two things i completely disagree with are having an abortion as a form of contraception and having an abortion because the child will have some sort of disability. as gracie said, there are so many couples who really want to have children but are unable - if you are having an abortion just because it's a bad time for you to be pregnant (for your job or something) i think it's very selfish and heartless.

alby
21-07-2004, 09:26 AM
Some arguments are that why subject unborn babies to a future terrible quality of life? Surely it would be better off not going through it?
Then the counter for that is at least if they go through the adoption/fostering system they have the chance to improve.

The orphanage is notorious for inadequately caring for children. Statistically, children who stay for a long time in orphanages end up worse. Placing someone in an orphanage is like sending your parents to a nursing home.

Some people don't really have a choice. It is said that the People's Republic of China forces women with more than one child already to have an abortion. It happens whether you want to believe it or not. "People's" is fucking ironic.

As for where I stand, I agree with barrington. One of my friends had an abortion because the child would have been born with severe mental deficiencies. I can only sympathize with the anguish and physical/emotional trauma that a woman must experience.

Lastly, a woman should not have to bear the child of her rapist. I find it difficult to think that many woman would chose to.

Nick
21-07-2004, 10:12 AM
It's not really a cut and dry matter, so you can't just simply say it's right or wrong. I think there are certain circumstances when it is acceptable and other circumstances when it is not acceptable. For instance the issue of rape which several people have brought up, I don't see why a woman shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion in this situation. However I do think there ought to be a certain time frame in which the mother should have to have it done if she is going to go through with it. I'd say as soon as the fetus begins to develop limbs it's getting a bit too late to go through with an abortion because if the fetus has arms and legs than it has also developed a nervous system and therefore it can infact feel pain. I'd say if something can feel pain than it is a living thing and aborting it would essentially be torturing it.

acliff
21-07-2004, 10:51 AM
The orphanage is notorious for inadequately caring for children. Statistically, children who stay for a long time in orphanages end up worse. Placing someone in an orphanage is like sending your parents to a nursing home.

End up worse in what respect? End up worse than not being quite human?
I believe in giving chances, and orphanages are the product of parents not giving their children a chance. Or are unable to. Surely it would be wrong to 'punish' the unborn child based on the 'sin's and mistakes of the mother?
Denying the chance for the kid to fuck up of their own accord?

ChocolateMoose
21-07-2004, 11:34 AM
They'vejust put the abortion time limit down in the UK from 24weeks to (I think) 12 weeks. I think thats justified as some babies have survived when born at 22/23 weeks.

I don't think you can talk about what cicumstances abortion is acceptable/not acceptable until you become pregnant and have the option of making that choice. Only then will you be able to understand the feelings which mothers have. I think this particulary applies in cases when the foetus is diagnosed as being mentally/physically handicaped.

deviljet88
21-07-2004, 11:59 AM
I support abortion. Having guilty parents, being in an orphanage, or having foster parents just doesn't seem right and wouldn't be exactly the best conditions for a child. And here's one for the religious: if it's true what DR said about as soon as sperm penetrates an egg it becomes a life, would that foetus go to heaven? With no time to do any sins, it's time in purgatory will be over in a flash and it'll live happily in the kingdom of God.

Elijahfan
21-07-2004, 02:31 PM
And here's one for the religious: if it's true what DR said about as soon as sperm penetrates an egg it becomes a life, would that foetus go to heaven? With no time to do any sins, it's time in purgatory will be over in a flash and it'll live happily in the kingdom of God.

techniquely in the catholic religion everyone is born with original sin, the baby would have to be baptised. or that since it didnt have time to be baptised it's assumed that it does go to heaven, or someone in the room can do the baptism, say when a baby is dying, it doesnt have to be a priest in those kinds of situations. i think it's stupid, the rules of the catholic religion or any for that matter, i spent all last year in religion class going over the sacraments and the history of the church. during class students would as completely hypothetical questions or stuff about sex and abortions to get at the teacher, until the point where he didnt have any answers, it was always funny everytime.

back on topic, every abortion is a different situation so i think it'd depend on the circumstances, so i'm pro choice.

barrington
21-07-2004, 03:55 PM
I think it's an issue of Ethics not Religion. The application of these two foundations can be considered independent of each other, despite their preferred symbiosis in modern life.

smelly_cat209
21-07-2004, 04:01 PM
I think its tottaly wrong i would be like killing your own child you couldnt live with it

Pete
21-07-2004, 05:14 PM
I think the saddest part of this is what happens to the now extracted foetus once its been removed....

i once heard that they are left to die on a sink... and that the poor mid wife just has to watch it die slowly.... apparently they do cry and stuff... if you must abort - id like to think you would either kill it before it comes out, or put a gun against its head and end it quick....

barrington
21-07-2004, 05:51 PM
I think you might've been mislead a bit.
The preferred method of termination is to administer the drugs methotrexate/mifepristone and misoprostol which retard the hormone progesterone; essential to maintain the development of the foetus. The pregnancy ends 24-96 hours later as something of a mess. I'm sure you can imagine the wonderful picture of decomposition in progress. :(

Sarah
21-07-2004, 05:54 PM
Yes, they were the pictures I was talking about.

deviljet88
22-07-2004, 11:49 AM
They're apparently yawning and walking. We also know they can do somersaults around the womb, do more feats than they could for the first few years after they're born. Point is they don't remember it, plus just because it knows how to move doesn't eliminate the argument that these foetuses would be born into unhappy, guilty or even no family at all. So Princess, those pics don't persuade me to change :)

Sarah
22-07-2004, 12:48 PM
The point is that those pictures could very well persuade a mother not to abort.

Elijahfan
22-07-2004, 03:33 PM
if the women do abort them, with all the new information and technology of how well the child is developed, i'd say do it quickly. best not delay. smells wrong when the child is developed, too human, my ethics is if it dont look like a human yet, it ain't. sad but i cant help it, besides it's all gross to me anyway.

Kyle_West
22-07-2004, 06:56 PM
When a person dies it is decided when Brainwaves are no longer detected. You can catch the babies brainwaves within the first Trimester, and if I am not mistaken you can get an abortion at anytime during your pregnancy. Whoa, what a shitty law. I say its murder for those reasons, and it that isn't good enough. Religiously it is wrong. I'm not getting into that so yeah.

barrington
22-07-2004, 07:08 PM
No, when ANYTHING dies it is decided by the lack of detectable brain activity - not just people. The point is that it is not murder to kill an animal - an unborn baby does not even classify physiologically as a human being until birth and psychologically well after that.

Abortion is not terminating a human or a person, it's just a non-sentient mess of not-even-animal bits.

DesignatedJerk
22-07-2004, 07:43 PM
to me abortion is just murder, but with no punishment for the outcome. you know. some @$$ holes in washington or what not decided that it's ok to kill an unborn child.

what it really boils down to is the simple fact that death is death.

DragonRat
22-07-2004, 08:26 PM
It all comes down to the basic opinion, whether or not fetuses are living human beings or not. If you believe they are, then abortion is innately wrong, simply because you are murdering another human - perhaps premeditated and in cold blood, without care or whim of the fetus. If you believe they are not, then abortion is a free choice of the woman, whose fetus is her possession and hers to do with what she will. It really comes down to what you believe to be human life.

jadie
22-07-2004, 08:34 PM
Do not like abortion, isnt fair to the baby that hasnt been born, but also it is somewhat fair because the mother didnt want to go through with it.... It's a 50/50 opinion.

ChocolateMoose
23-07-2004, 12:26 AM
I am not mistaken you can get an abortion at anytime during your pregnancy. Whoa, what a shitty law.

Yes, that is true, however, the reasons have to be VERY specific. You ARE NOT allowed an abortion after 12 weeks for personal reasons, and for most medical reasons abortions can be done at 24 weeks. However, there are some tests which can detect abnormalities which may occur past the 24week barrier, and therefore an abortion may be allowed past this time.

The other thing I think is totally and utterly wrong is genetically engirneered babies. There was an article in The Times (London) today about the UK changing the law over it. Really hope they don't. The case study example they had was of this boy who had some rare blood disease where he could not make replacement red blood cells or something and needed a donor from a family member. So the parents wanted to find a matching embryo so that he could be cured. I think thats selfish on the new baby...it isn't really wanted, its just to cure the other child. They may be loved and stuff once they are born, but thats not why they were 'created'.

Kelsey
23-07-2004, 12:56 AM
The case study example they had was of this boy who had some rare blood disease where he could not make replacement red blood cells or something and needed a donor from a family member. So the parents wanted to find a matching embryo so that he could be cured. I think thats selfish on the new baby...it isn't really wanted, its just to cure the other child. They may be loved and stuff once they are born, but thats not why they were 'created'.

You wouldn't do that? If it meant the possibility of saving my child, I would do it and without hesitation. The new child would of course be loved, but I don't understand about it not being fair to them because that is the reason they were created. I would rather have been created to save my older sibling than just randomly being created as an accident. There's something heroic and special about that.

acliff
23-07-2004, 01:07 AM
You wouldn't do that? If it meant the possibility of saving my child, I would do it and without hesitation. The new child would of course be loved, but I don't understand about it not being fair to them because that is the reason they were created. I would rather have been created to save my older sibling than just randomly being created as an accident. There's something heroic and special about that.

I don't think it was just a simple blood transfusion Kels, it was more likely an organ replacement. Embryo grown to harvest the organs necessary to produce healthy blood cells. I doubt the newly grown baby could survive without...loved or not.

Hazzle
23-07-2004, 01:13 AM
Would we count animals as potentially becoming human beings, though? Part of what makes fetuses as human life is their potential to become human beings, and thus is their killing considered murderous.

Also, according to Christian belief, life begins not at birth, but at conception. So once the sperm cell penetrates and fertilizes the egg cell, a life is created. Of course, that might necessarily conflict with modern biological teaching, but it's science vs. religion.

Meh...a life, yes, a human, no. Let me explain...

A chicken egg is NOT a chicken, correct? It's not a chicken until it hatches. But it's still alive. That's why it contains nutrients.

However it's not a chicken until it hatches, a LIVING foetus is still not a human being until it's born. If it was, it'd have no need to wait to be born...ipso facto...not a human being.

No, when ANYTHING dies it is decided by the lack of detectable brain activity - not just people. The point is that it is not murder to kill an animal - an unborn baby does not even classify physiologically as a human being until birth and psychologically well after that.

Abortion is not terminating a human or a person, it's just a non-sentient mess of not-even-animal bits.

Glad someone agrees with my point :) I never said a foetus wasn't alive, just that it wasn't human, and thus it's death is nothing more than killing an animal...in fact one MIGHT argue it's less than that, but I shan't go that far.

You wouldn't do that? If it meant the possibility of saving my child, I would do it and without hesitation. The new child would of course be loved, but I don't understand about it not being fair to them because that is the reason they were created. I would rather have been created to save my older sibling than just randomly being created as an accident. There's something heroic and special about that.

I disagree. That baby is merely an appendage to the other child...they were not created to save the other child, they were created so they could be "farmed" for the benefit of the other child and then this unwanted "thing" is raised by the parents...hardly a heroic life at all. It's like creating a "thing", not a human being. They were created to serve a purpose, and once that purpose is served, their life is worthless, because they were not brought into this world to be loved and nurtured, but to be effectively "raped" of all the good they could give others. I have no doubt that that child would grow up continuously "giving" to other people and being used and abused by people around them, and consistently feeling like that was their role in life.

EDIT: After what Cliff's said I think my point's even stronger. To create a life to take its vital organs, thus killing it, IS murder. THAT is different to abortion as that is a CHILD, an actual human being.

Kelsey
24-07-2004, 07:49 AM
Never mind then. I thought it was like for bone marrow or blood or something (that's all we really hear about here), I've never heard of them just doing it for an organ. I wouldn't do that.

alby
25-07-2004, 05:45 AM
End up worse in what respect? End up worse than not being quite human? I believe in giving chances, and orphanages are the product of parents not giving their children a chance. Or are unable to. Surely it would be wrong to 'punish' the unborn child based on the 'sin's and mistakes of the mother? Denying the chance for the kid to fuck up of their own accord?

(I'm not aware of the condition of orphanages outside the US.)

End up worse intellectually, emotionally, and physically as compared to children born into a good family. There are simply not enough resources to replicate for those in orphanages the same kind of care good parents give to their children. Those abandoned to orphanages aren't given the choice of being "fuck up". It is something orphanages will most likely do to those children.

How the American public perceives an institution or policy determines the amount of funding the government will provide it. For example, funding for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children was once supported because the public believed it was helping widows. Later, funding dwindled and the program was eventually terminated because there was less sympathy for constituents who were deemed, more or less, lazy and immoral.

Likewise, orphanages appear to be receptacles for children of morally lax individuals. Hence, they receive less public sympathy, attention, and funding and are not as good as they should be. Adoption rates aren't particularly high while the process and costs of adopting can be prohibitive. Consequently, I don't believe in the prolife argument that orphanages are an acceptable place for abandoned children, and the prolife notion of giving children a chance however half-assed it may be is rather misguided given the existing circumstances.

acliff
25-07-2004, 08:31 AM
(I'm not aware of the condition of orphanages outside the US.)

End up worse intellectually, emotionally, and physically as compared to children born into a good family. There are simply not enough resources to replicate for those in orphanages the same kind of care good parents give to their children. Those abandoned to orphanages aren't given the choice of being "fuck up". It is something orphanages will most likely do to those children.

How the American public perceives an institution or policy determines the amount of funding the government will provide it. For example, funding for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children was once supported because the public believed it was helping widows. Later, funding dwindled and the program was eventually terminated because there was less sympathy for constituents who were deemed, more or less, lazy and immoral.

Likewise, orphanages appear to be receptacles for children of morally lax individuals. Hence, they receive less public sympathy, attention, and funding and are not as good as they should be. Adoption rates aren't particularly high while the process and costs of adopting can be prohibitive. Consequently, I don't believe in the prolife argument that orphanages are an acceptable place for abandoned children, and the prolife notion of giving children a chance however half-assed it may be is rather misguided given the existing circumstances.

Consider that statistically 50% of children born will be born with under average parents. Stating the obvious I know, but that scares me. So children have a pretty good chance of being born into a not so good family anyway. Not only can they get fucked up by their parents, they can fuck themselves up just as ably, without having to go through the orphanage, adoption system.
In fact even kids born into rich families get emotionally and mentally screwed up and become terrible people. Rich stuck up, arrogant people anyone?

Who are we to judge that someone's quality of life isn't worth living? Only those living it can decide. Even then, many people don't know or are misguided about how bad their lives are. To me, most people who commit suicide are not worthy of even a smidgen of respect. The only time I would even consider it, is if I was completely paralysed (and had no way of killing myself....) or if I had a national secret that needed safekeeping from the enemy, in order to save my country. Anything else is a cop out.

Life is a gift. Why stop someone from experiencing it, and deciding for themselves if they like it, they can keep it, or going back for a violent refund?

Hazzle
25-07-2004, 01:34 PM
Life is a gift. Why stop someone from experiencing it, and deciding for themselves if they like it, they can keep it, or going back for a violent refund?

Simply as foetuses, whilst alive, are not human and we don't give non-human living things the right to decide if they want to live or die. As Bazzle said, a foetus is just non-sentient genetic mass, not even animal...sub-animal. Living, yes, but not sentient life.

But the rest of what you say, about quality of life, is entirely right...one cannot justify abortion by saying "It saves them from a bad life"...but one can by saying "It's killing something that isn't human, and has no right to life". It's not for anyone to decide someone else's quality of life, and this is why I'm against Euthanasia where the decision is taken by a loved one, whilst I am in favour of living wills...because that way the person themself decides their quality of life.

NearokA
08-09-2004, 04:24 AM
Here's a naive right to life argument generally held by most people pro life. It goes:

i. Every person has a right to life.
ii. The fetus is a person.
C1. Therefore, the fetus has a right to life.

iii. The fetus has a right to life.
iv. the right to life is more important than the right to control one's body.(that is, when they are in conflict, the right to life overrides the right to control one's body)
C2. Therefore, the fetus's right to life is more important than the right of the mother to control her body.

CFinal. Therefore, Abortion ought not to be permitted.

Now, Judith Jarvis Thompson writes in reply to pro lifers that she completely disagrees with pro lifers and states that the fetus's right to life does not conflict with the mother's right to choose abortion. You see, the right to life is a negative right (ie it's the right not to be killed unjustly such as cold blood murder). The right to life does not include sustaining one's right to live!!

Let me give an example: The unconscious violinist.

Suppose there is this unconscious violinist and he needs you and only you to be hooked up to him for 9 months so he can live. During these 9 months, you're likely to lose your job, your house, and your girlfriend. Very undesirable. Now, if you choose not to get hooked up to him, he will die. So pro lifers must choose that you must be hooked up to the unconscious violinist regardless of your circumstances because you believe the right to life is the most important thing. That is, you will scarifice your home, your money and your life, for this stranger. Now, Judiath Jarvis Thompson writes that the right to life does not include sustaining one's right to live. That means, the unconcious violin player can still have his right to life, but is not any one's responsibility to sustain his life. Thus if you choose not be linked up to the violinist, you cannot be held morally accountable. Likewise, the mother can choose abortion, and the doctors will just sever the link between the mother and the baby (instead of brutally slaughtering the baby). The baby still has a right to life. But it does not have the right for it's life to be sustained! You understand?

So you see that people can still have the right to live, but not the right to have their life sustained.

Here are some objections one may have to Thompson:
In the unconscious violinsit case, one is merely letting the person die. However, in the abortion case, one is killing the fetus. This is murder. And Thompson replies, there is no sharp, morally relevant distinction between killing and letting someone die. If you disconnect from the violinist, you are in fact, killing him. However, you are kiling him in a negative way. That is, you aren't taking his life away directly and you still respect his right to life. You just choose not to sustain his life.

The thing I like about Thompson is that she gives pro-lifers their strongest argument, that the fetus is a person (we could argue and argue whether that thing is really a person or not), and still finds a way to counter their claims.

I for one, am pro choice.

EmotionSickness
08-09-2004, 05:34 AM
I for one, am pro choice.

No shit. :icon_lol:

I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. Anyone here who knows me (Cliff, I'm looking in your general direction), most likely knows how I feel about the topic-at-hand.

Evangelion
08-09-2004, 09:18 AM
I'm for abortion, the aborted foetuses could be used for stem cell research or whatever, giving already living people who are say paraplegic the chance to walk.
Then there's the whole issue of whether the foetus is "alive" Yes its alive, but it isn't capable of indipendant thought or decision making and as Hazzle said we humans don't allow other beings who can't communicate with us to decide whether they are to live or die, we just kill them.

NearokA
08-09-2004, 01:49 PM
No shit. :icon_lol:

I'm not touching this with a ten-foot pole. Anyone here who knows me (Cliff, I'm looking in your general direction), most likely knows how I feel about the topic-at-hand.

I dont. :(

deviljet88
08-09-2004, 01:55 PM
That's because you're not included in "most likely" :P Go abortion. If the mother has the heart to kill the foetus, I don't think the foetus growing up would have a very good childhood phase.

Stormbringer
08-09-2004, 01:58 PM
I'm pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I'll leave it at that.

MarkOB
08-09-2004, 07:57 PM
My opinion:

The only thing worse than a dead baby is a baby born into a family that doesn't want it and a society where it will not be able to cope.

I think every termination decision should be judged upon by individual doctors, but they should be free to decide whether or not to abort - regardless of the state.

Why should an unwanted baby be forced upon an unprepared mother and required to live in an unhappy society?

If there is anything near to a straight choice between a child being brought up in a poor and unstable environment, or abortion, I know which one should be the sensible choice - even if it is seen by many to be something of an evil choice.

Narzys
08-09-2004, 10:17 PM
I would go further...

If a baby is already born, and then you discover that he/she will be leading a very painful live until +\- 10 or 12 max. For example decease in the bones, every move leads to very much pain.

Then... the doctors, the parents, en a special commission may decide a mercy killing. Euthanasia.

Dead is sometimes a better lot than life. Parents want the best for their child (may I hope)

Fancyman
09-09-2004, 01:10 AM
As you can see, many people feel very strongly for both sides. For this reason I believe abortion should be legal. I feel it would be incredible arrogant of me to claim my moral values are more legitimate than anyone elses. I personally do not support abortion. I've discussed this with my girlfriend and we both feel very strongly about it, and if she gets pregnant we would have the child regardless of the situation. However, I do not feel that I have the right to deny anyone the choice. It is not as clear cut as murder.

As far as being completely the womens choice, I disagree. If my girl got preganant, I feel I have every right to have my baby. Now ideally this matter would be disscussed before a sexual relationship started, but I know in my relationship the talk didnt happen until our 1st scare. Luckily we agree, and luckily there is no little Fancyman.

In the end, this topic has been debated by many people for a long time. To me this demostrates that there is no right or wrong answer. Everyone has there own moral code. Now if one's morals regarding an action differs greatly from the vast majority of society, laws against those actions are exceptable. Since there is no such vast majority, it must be left up to the individuals (both the man and women) involved.

Dyce_Blue
09-09-2004, 01:25 AM
Call me a Texas Republican (which I probably am), but I oppose abortion. I can be swayed for abortions during the first trimester, but anytime after that, the fetus is (in my book) officially alive. I'm definitely pro-life, even though its not my place to assume the baby will have a fruitful life anyway.

All you have to do is see a picture of an aborted fetus to take the pro-life side. Trust me.

johnnyboy
09-09-2004, 08:38 PM
http://www.mttu.com/abort-pics/TX-baby%20parts.jpg - strong stomachs only please, incredibly strong. btw, this is publicly available

dyce, if you mean this you are mistaken/the smallest bit right.
This baby you see here is much more than likely a miscarriage of a woman several months along. In the RAREST of cases, and I mean the RAREST, their is an abortion this late. Most often, the abortion happens, and then you get a slightly heavier period at the end of the month.

I believe that abortion should be freely available to the masses, with or without parents at the age of 15 or higher. But then there should be a limit, only 2 should be allowed, or something along those lines, should a girl be using it as a method of contraception. Rape cases would be allowed indefinitley. Once you are married i don't believe it will of much of a problem.

Not to toot my country's own horn, but, in the Netherlands, this sort of thing is already in effect, and the rate of abortion is going down, fast, or so I believe (correct me if I'm wrong).

Now if their is discernible brain activity and it has a consciousness in the fetus, or near the end of the second trimester, I'd say if you don't want the baby, don't try abortion, just hope/pray for luck and give the baby the best life you can give it.

It's all the woman's choice, but discuss it with your spouse or partner (if one is included) should you be considering it. I cannot imagine what must go through a girl/woman's mind when they tear their mind in half to choose between a wonderful gift or their perhaps, promising future, I know I couldn't choose. In short, use the pill/condoms/cervical caps, etc, so you never have to go through this, like I said, I can't imagine what it would take.

And credit where credit is due, women, you rock

seventhson
10-09-2004, 03:39 AM
My belief is that human life begins at the very moment of conception and is sacred until the moment after natural death & beyond, be that eight weeks into gestation or eighty years after birth. Except in a very few cases, i.e. conception during rape and/or even at the 100% chance of mother's certain death upon delivery, human life should not be aborted. Exceptions do exist. Don't abort my 80 year old father's life. Don't abort the embryo's life to do research. Don't abort the disabled boy's life who will stay in a wheelchair for his whole life. Don't abort the ugly kid. Don't abort the fat kid. Don't abort anyone. When the sperm enters the egg & the cells begin to divide & multiply, that is 100% human being with a 100% holy soul...Don't abort him/her!
Could y'all tell I am a practicing Christian of the Catholic denomiation by this post? I took an interesting college course on ethics that dealt with this topic. Don't get me started on capital punishment or euthanasia.

May God bless y'all abundantly.
Peace,
(-: SeventhSon :-)

Ashley
10-09-2004, 06:34 PM
I'm not for abortion, I think it's a terrible thing. However, in certain circumstances it's acceptable. i.e. Rape, mother's life being in danger.
It should never be used as a contraceptive, which for some people I know, it was.
Do I think it should be illegal? No. Why? Because women will still have abortions even if they are illegal. It's the difference between a doctor and a hanger.
Pictures of aborted fetus don't make me feel any different on the issue. It's disturbing, but we have people come on campus and set up billboard size pictures of aborted fetus... it really just pisses people off.