What about abortion?? click dont be afraid

not true, the egg is actually already fertilized, but has not attached itself to the side of the uterus yet, but technically it's still a fetus. the morning after pill prevents implantation of the embryo, not fertilization of it
 
Actually, upon further research, I think we're both half right. The morning after pill will do EITHER - prevent ovulation, fertilization, OR implantation. And that leaves me unsure of how I feel about it. I was under the impression it was purely contraceptive and thus morally fine. Now....I need to think about this some more.

 
So do you think it's okay to kill mentally disabled people?  

Sometimes people talk to a pregnant women's stomach and tell the baby to kick or something, and it does...so how do you know fetuses aren't capable of independent thought?  And even if they aren't yet, they will be soon. 

And as far as what gives you or anyone else the right to life:  Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (international law), the Declaration of Independence, Declaration of Colonial Rights, etc., etc. It's like the most basic fundamental right there is.  

Drawing the line anywhere other than birth or conception is completely arbitrary, and most everyone agrees partial birth abortions are bad.
 
Agreed. I imagine it's similar to the grey area surrounding partial birth abortion from the pro-choice standpoint: it seems at first glance that the morning after pill should be perfectly moral, but to be consistent with my logic I might have to condemn it, and it seems at first glance that partial birth abortion is morally reprehensible but to be consistent with your logic you might have to endorse it. What's your take on that?

 
And if I'm not mistaken, your rhetorical question was meant to evoke the conclusion that rational thought makes life worth living. But I find that VERY problematic. The case of the mentally ill has already been raised ad nauseum, but additionally, aren't there degrees of rationality? And if so, what's "rational enough" thought?

 
BPA leeching perhaps?

And to these gems: "Would you if you woke up one morning attached to another person stay in

that bed for 9 months, or would you say I'm sorry I've got my life to

live? (or more appropriately would you condemn anyone for saying that

"i'm sorry I've got my life to live""

Have you ever met someone who was pregnant, and bedridden for 9 months? Because most people are able to function completely normally for 7-8 months of the entire ordeal, feel sick for a few weeks to a month, and then give birth. This whole "I have a life to live" selfishness doesn't really follow unless you'd rather think of you career or hobbies over human life. That doesn't require any sacrifice on your part, so that's why it's popular.

"I thought you might have me with the infants but then i realized: What

is your argument? That every human being has the exact same set of

rights? This just isn't the case, infants and children are not held to

the same expectations as 'adults' There are overlapping rights no

doubt, but to say that an infant a 30 year old and an 90 year old all

are to be held as equals just doesn't make sense to me."

Um, yeah it does. Not in terms of legal rights like say, to vote, to drive, to drink. But every single human being shares the same right to LIFE. In that sense, and that is the only sense being discussed, infants and adults are equals. That'd be an "overlapping right".
 
yes i did a poor job conveying my view-- abortion is active, however i support euthanasia (active and passive) in different cases, and i wanted to say abortion falls under the same category of perimissable types for killing.

and no you're still wrong, simply passive euthanasia has no requirement of consent, you are thinking of voluntary and involuntary euthanasia -- which can be either passive or active.

it is my view that abortion should not be used for situations of superficial inconvenience, but there are circumstances that allow for euthanasia. A mother has a right to make a decision about having a child, for those 9 months while it's still inside her she's got a choice. As time goes on and the closer you get to an actual baby, the greater the circumstances become for you to be allowed to abort a child.

Is abortion 'bad' -- yes, yes it is, but there are over riding circumstances that can allow for abortion to be permissible. If there are circumstances that abortion can be a good thing, then the mothers should be free to the abortion.

but you ask: Who has the right to say when the circumstance are permissible? I say namely the mother. She may need super science to get pregnant without a man, but she can pretty much carry a child and birth a child on her own. So while both parents have a part in the decision for abortion, the mother is by far holds the majority of the weight... Her body, her risks, her call.

Now does this system have problems? yes plenty of mothers make bad choices about the unjust killing of their child, but what becomes the alternative? Either a drastic change in our sex lives, or a drastic increase of infants. Realistically, both.

i hope you recognize that abortion is O.K. when the mother is in mortal danger-- even the church says it's ok if the mother needs medical surgery for example cervical cancer, the surgery might kill the child, this is acceptable. This is just one of many circumstances i'd say abortion can be justified, and is the most severe consequence which for me grants the mother pretty much whenever she damn pleases rights. Even if the child is 8 months 28 days, if the mother faces death, i'd rather we preserve the existing life than bring a motherless child into the world (again though this is the mother's choice, even if i judge her i won't restrict her) my view simply says that we grant moral freedom to the mothers. You can give them your own opinions, but you can't just go around imposing your view on others by means of law
 
This thread has gotten crazy! I've read most, but jeez reading it all would take a little while. The argument of when a fetus actually becomes a human life will always be a debate. My personal opinion is that it's human before it can actually survive outside of the mothers womb. Having an abortion anywhere after the first 10 weeks is killing something that resembles a human, has a heart beat, a brain, fingers & toes taking place etc. IF a girl were to get an abortion, it should definitely be done before the 8 week mark. She should have more than enough time to make a decision. And if a girl is put in a position of "Should I have an abortion or no?", she shouldn't have been having sex in the first place. If she has to think about it, she obviously isn't done living for herself, and isn't ready to start living for someone else. If girls (and boys!) were more educated on the major problems of unprotected sex, the debate on abortion wouldn't be so huge. Because less girls would be wanting them for reasons of "I'm simply not ready." (yeah? then close your legs). If the issue of TEENAGE PREGNANCY was worked on more than WHEN IS A FETUS A HUMAN, abortions would be more easily accepted and not frowned upon like they are.

I don't believe the whole, "live with the consequences of your actions" because that just produces children born to unfit mothers & fathers. Telling her to do that is telling her that she has to grow up before she's ready. And doesn't everyone deserve a second chance? Would you really want an 18 year old to be your mom? What on earth can she possibly teach you when she hasn't fully lived? How can she raise you when she's not done being raised....

Ok I've had a few cups of coffee so I'm done.
 
thanks for weighing in, it's nice to hear the opinion of someone who has actually gone through child birth -- knows a little bit more than most of us on how you might feel going through pregnancy.

+K
 
I think this is one situation where i am okay about abortion.

but snwbrdmilf. i dont believe, and find it hard to believe, as people do who say abortion are okay to a certain point, that a baby becomes a human being while in the womb.
 
LOL - I'm sorry. I might be reading this wrong. But did you just say a fetus doesn't become a human in the womb? What are you smoking, and can I have some?
 
Are you referring to The Milf?

I think she, out of all people on here, would understand this issue/situation a bit more than anyone else.
 
Ok, well I'll extend my apologies. I shouldn't have been rude. Anyway, to comment on your other post.

Maybe you need to understand pregnancy a little bit more. The development of the human inside the womb is the fastest during these weeks of pregnancy. And it tapers off after the 2nd trimester (about 12 weeks). At this point, this is where the fetus is actually becoming human. They have fingers and toes, elbows, eyes & eyelids, the breathing tubes of the throat take place, the torso is elongating, the spine is there. After this point, you have a baby inside of you. It may be small, but it's still a human. Not a kidney bean. Once you reach the 12 week mark, the baby is just growing bigger. Everything has already developed.
 
i see it more as the potential of life, the future experiences a fetus at 2 days, 2 weeks, and 2 months will all have once it gets out that gives its life value and meaning, and therefore is worth protecting.
 
Yes it is, because as the fetus inside the womb with no opinion on the matter, you have no choice. The mother on the other hand, does. And if she feels that she can't give a baby the right kind of life, then why should she? And if she were to go through with the pregnancy, and gave it up for adoption, she would spend the rest of her life wondering about it. There's a mentality factor that goes along with it. You don't know what it's like to be pregnant, or to give birth, or to raise a child, or to change your life more than you could ever imagine. So making that choice, deciding on whether or not you are capable of handling that change, is up to the mother herself.
 
i dont care that you've been through this. that does not mean that a mother gets comtrol over the choice when another beings life is at stake. we've said millions of times its not enough to say the mother gets control because the whole issue is if its another human being or just part of her body. what if a mother follows through with a baby and then looses her job, goes bankrupt, and has nowhere to turn. she cannot raise it right, does not want to go with adoption for the mental anguish and the unknowing of its whereabouts the rest of her life... she cant give it the right kind of life. can she kill it?
 
That's after the fact though. She made her choice to be a mom, and it's now her responsibility. But to someone who can make the choice before hand...should be able to.
 
*sigh*

I'm not gonna sit here and argue with you, which is what seems to be the case.

I believe a female has the right to choose whether or not she wants to be a mother. Given she makes that decision within the first few weeks of pregnancy.

 
thats great that thats your opinion and all. i cant argue with that. we were arguing about the moral permissibility of abortion, and unable to show it as morally permissible (i am also unable to prove that it is morally impermissible) you've backed out of an otherwise imo interesting discussion
 
If she makes her decision before the baby has developed all human qualities (IMO at 10 weeks), yes. At this point in time, it's her life.
 
This isn't so much an issue of understanding pregnancy as it is of defining "life," which is a necessary prerequisite to determining when a life is being taken. So the only thing that makes someone human is that they physically resemble an adult human?

I would argue that an embryo is not a distinctly different being, it's a stage of development. And if we're going to define life by a stage of development, making the requisite stage "12 weeks past conception" is completely arbitrary. One could just as logically argue that life begins at birth, when the infant starts to live without the direct physical link to the mother's body, or that life begins at the point the child can walk upright (a major defining characteristic of homo sapiens), or that life begins sometime in the late 20s when brain development is complete.

 
but wait.. you said this earlier "Yes it is, because as the fetus inside the womb with no opinion on the matter, you have no choice"
 
I would agree that's the one case where abortion is morally permissible - when the mother's life is in danger.

My view simply says that we should protect the unalienable right to life of EVERY human, regardless of how old they are, how developed they are, or how inconvenient they are.

 
OK, so if you recognize that there are circumstances that can change the permissibility of abortion even for you who holds that life should NEVER be taken. Then why aren't others entitled to a similar freedom of discression?

Perhaps someone else thinks that abortion is ok only when the mother's life is in danger, or in the cases of rape, perhaps others think that abortion is also ok under circumstances of a mother's condition for provision (say an expectant mother loses her house and her husband in a fire, she was ready to have a kid, now she feels she can't provide anymore.) I can think of many instances where one might have an overriding circumstance allowing abortion.

We agree, abortion shouldn't be used as it is today -- simply as a shallow materialistic way of solving an 'inconvenience'-- but there ARE instances that the mother legitimately would 'deserve' the freedom to have an abortion if she wants. I can't figure out a way to limit this freedom so that those who are 'morally inept' aren't allowed to have an abortion and that those that are 'morally deservant' can get one. It is my feeling that because we live in a society that values 'freedom' more than anything, we shouldn't be so parietal in illegalizing abortion. We need to make it so that the Mother is the one who really gets the control of deciding what is permissible and what is not. We need to recognize that it won't be a perfect system, and that there will be people who have abortions for reasons we don't agree with, but to take away a mothers right to exercise her freedom to make a good moral decision because we don't agree with some of them just isn't something that is very 'American' to me.

I think it's important to understand a lot about the development of the child -- perhaps we can put laws into effect where after a certain amount of time, a mother may have to plead a case to a jury in order to be allowed to have an abortion (though we'd have to ensure that this wouldn't come at a cost-- every mother has a right to make this plea), that way we do have some limitations (which would be good for protecting well-developed unborn babies from 'abortion for convenience'
 
I think it can be solved way before that. The problem with todays society of pregnancy, is that it's filled with teenagers who are inept in understanding the real issue. Who aren't capable of understanding what they're doing.

Solve the dilemma of teenage pregnancy, you solve the problem of abortions because it's an inconvenience. Though, not all cases are exactly like this. I think instead of bringing it before a jury, it should be up to the gyno to decide if it's objectionable or not.
 
There's a huge difference between the scenario wherein the mother is endangered an any other scenario. The purpose of an abortion in that case is the preservation of a life. It's similar (though this a an imperfect analogy) to killing someone in self-defense. So I don't think people should be able to pick and choose other situations to kill their unborn child for the same reason I don't think people should be able to pick and choose other situations to kill a stranger walking down the street.

 
What if, for whatever reason, there was a cultural phenomenon where mothers killed their toddlers and a political push to get this legalized? Would you support their right to make a choice of what they do with their child? They're the mother, after all, so they should know best, right?

I say this in an attempt to bring the discussion back to the only issue that really matters here: when does life or personhood or humanness begin? Extenuating circumstances are irrelevant, this debate hinges completely on whether the unborn deserves the right to life and if so, when.

 
it is not your freedom to interfere and destroy the freedoms that that baby would have. it is not "paternalism" if it is protecting the rights of someone else! it seems like every-time you post i have to make this point. until there is proof that a fetus is merely a bunch of cells, your choice of abortion is prohibiting someone else's freedoms.
 
From an alien visitors perspective, I'd say that and opposable thumbs are the two main things that have allowed us to be the dominant species on this planet.
 
Well then how would you define consciousness? Do you mean it in the sense that differentiates animals from plants? If basic consciousness and opposable thumbs are the defining characteristics of humans, then we suddenly have a lot of new, hairy humans on our hands.
 
Also, the characteristics that make us human and the characteristics that make humans Earth's dominant species are not logically linked and thus not necessarily the same. I'm not saying there can't be any overlap there, but your answer doesn't really work, I don't think.
 
hairisabird.jpg

 
Without going into a long and lengthy explanation, consciousness, in simplest terms, is the realization of 'self', or "I". Its a defining characteristic of our species that has contributed to our ability to learn, think and process information like no other animal can. However, all this would be for naught unless our species had a way to manipulate its environment, and we just so happened to have hands that can easily do that.

I'm not saying that both of these are exclusive to humans. I'm just saying that they are the most clearly defined characteristics of our species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top