Abortion - Should it be legal?

Should abortion be legal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 75 60.5%
  • No

    Votes: 20 16.1%
  • Yes in only certain cases (rape)

    Votes: 29 23.4%

  • Total voters
    124
RakuraiTenjin said:
See, personally I just find this train of thought disgusting and somewhat simply cold. Not insulting you personally or anything, or calling you a name, but that's just how it seems to me x.x I consider it a child. It's an unborn human.

So at what point is it a child? The sperm cell? When the sperm cell meets the egg cell? One week into the pregnancy? Two weeks? One month?

How can you determine at what exact point it stops being some a collection of cells and at what point it becomes a child? It seems mostly subjective to me.
 
Neutrino said:
So at what point is it a child? The sperm cell? When the sperm cell meets the egg cell? One week into the pregnancy? Two weeks? One month?

How can you determine at what exact point it stops being some a collection of cells and at what point it becomes a child? It seems mostly subjective to me.
Conception.
 
rakuraitenjin seems to believe that the mitotic cell is imbued with a soul?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
See, personally I just find this train of thought disgusting and somewhat simply cold. Not insulting you personally or anything, or calling you a name, but that's just how it seems to me x.x I consider it a child. It's an unborn human.

When I said a mass of cells, that's not what I think. I simply repeated what I've heard on that subject. If you find this disgusting, I agree. This way to see a future child is disgusting. Sorry for that
 
Neutrino said:
So at what point is it a child? The sperm cell? When the sperm cell meets the egg cell? One week into the pregnancy? Two weeks? One month?

How can you determine at what exact point it stops being some a collection of cells and at what point it becomes a child? It seems mostly subjective to me.

I say when the sperm meets the egg cell. Why? Because, if left without interference, it would develop into a child whether you call it a "child" or not at this stage. That's what I'd say against the "But what about sperm cells; we're not allowed to kill those?" arguments. Once the sperm meets the egg cell, a new life is developing, and I don't think it's right to end that just because you don't think of it as a "child" yet.
 
you should have made a thread about partial birth abortions, those are where the baby is basically delivered, except it's head stays in the vagina and they crack it's skull open and suck it's brain out with a vacuum, now that is a controversial subject.
 
ytinupmi said:
you should have made a thread about partial birth abortions, those are where the baby is basically delivered, except it's head stays in the vagina and they crack it's skull open and suck it's brain out with a vacuum, now that is a controversial subject.

Now that's really disgusting...
 
At the end of the day who are you to decide if its not your baby, if people dont want a baby it should be up to them to chose.
 
ytinupmi said:
you should have made a thread about partial birth abortions, those are where the baby is basically delivered, except it's head stays in the vagina and they crack it's skull open and suck it's brain out with a vacuum, now that is a controversial subject.

That happened to me when I was born!

Oh wait...
 
AntiAnto said:
Now that's really disgusting... I don't see the point in this post
What's sad is that it was only recently banned. And many groups like Planned Parenthood want it legalized again.

Something that REALLY sickened me about Planned Parenthood is that they encouraging being PROUD of abortions, not just fighting for it to be allowed. They sell T-Shirts that say in bold letters "I Had An Abortion."
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
What's sad is that it was only recently banned. And many groups like Planned Parenthood want it legalized again.

Something that REALLY sickened me about Planned Parenthood is that they encouraging being PROUD of abortions, not just fighting for it to be allowed. They sell T-Shirts that say in bold letters "I Had An Abortion."

Now that is sick.
 
i think it should be legal. but if there is an offer to save the baby and place it someone else's care, that it should be illegal for the woman to go against that and insist on the abortion.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
What's sad is that it was only recently banned. And many groups like Planned Parenthood want it legalized again.

Something that REALLY sickened me about Planned Parenthood is that they encouraging being PROUD of abortions, not just fighting for it to be allowed. They sell T-Shirts that say in bold letters "I Had An Abortion."

I did not know that. Where the hell are we going...
 
dfc05 said:
I say when the sperm meets the egg cell. Why? Because, if left without interference, it would develop into a child whether you call it a "child" or not at this stage. That's what I'd say against the "But what about sperm cells; we're not allowed to kill those?" arguments. Once the sperm meets the egg cell, a new life is developing, and I don't think it's right to end that just because you don't think of it as a "child" yet.

Ok, so if something is capable of developing into a human without interference then it is wrong to abort it, correct?

Well, by that definition shouldn't we ban condoms though? I mean if the sperm cells are traveling toward the egg cell then it stand to reason that in most cases a child will develop as long as the process is not interfered with. Correct? But wait! The condom just stopped the sperm cells on their journey. In other words it just interfered with a natural process that would have resulted in a child if it hadn't been interfered with. Right?

So we should ban condoms as well if we're going by this interference rule. Let's take a further looks at this. I mean really the purpose of a sperm cell and an egg cell is to unite and form a child. But what is stopping this? People, that's who. If they would just stop what they're doing and have sex then the two cells could be united and form a child. But instead the two people interfered with the process and got in the way of the natural process.

Thus it follows that we must ban not having sex as well I think. While, at first glance that is starting to sound like not such a bad thing after all :naughty:, I'm doubting it would really work all that well. ;)

See, the question of when human life begins is still entirely subjective.
 
Why don't you just let the unborn baby decide? :rolleyes:
 
Jmechy said:
If you care at all about this subject, and have never read the Thomson argument, i suggest you do so. It is a few pages long, but I have a feeling it will change the way you think about this issue.

http://www.utdallas.edu/~jfg021000/thomson.html
thanks for the link jmechy :) it's interesting to see a throrough deductive exploration of the issue.
User Name said:
Why don't you just let the unborn baby decide? :rolleyes:
i can never make out what they are saying..
 
Illegal all the way. what right does someone have to take anothers life. just because someone is a fetus doesn't make him/her not human. it is the mother who choose to get knocked up and not the child, so she should be willing to pay the consequences.
 
abconners said:
Illegal all the way. what right does someone have to take anothers life. just because someone is a fetus doesn't make him/her not human. it is the mother who choose to get knocked up and not the child, so she should be willing to pay the consequences.
what if you walk into a store and it's being robbed. the robber approaches you to kill you as he wants no witnessess. do you have the right to defend yourself? you are the one who chose to go into the store.. should you just lay down and take the consequences?
 
Lil' Timmy said:
what if you walk into a store and it's being robbed. the robber approaches you to kill you as he wants no witnessess. do you have the right to defend yourself? you are the one who chose to go into the store.. should you just lay down and take the consequences?
Defend yourself. How does this example even relate? I can't find a correlating thing in it.
 
Definitely legal... the stupid 14-year-old should not have to be forced into having a baby... not just for her sake, but for the kid's...
 
Lil' Timmy said:
what if you walk into a store and it's being robbed. the robber approaches you to kill you as he wants no witnessess. do you have the right to defend yourself? you are the one who chose to go into the store.. should you just lay down and take the consequences?

Sure, but being robbed at the store isn't a normal occurence. It's not like you went in the store thinking, "Hmm. The store. I think I'll get robbed today. Let's go shopping!!!" Whereas if you're going to have sex, it's pretty obvious (hopefully) that you've got a good chance of getting pregnant.
 
Letters said:
Definitely legal... the stupid 14-year-old should not have to be forced into having a baby... not just for her sake, but for the kid's...
What?

So you are saying for the baby's sake, we should kill it? That's just sickening to me x.x

It should be put up for adoption.
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
Defend yourself. How does this example even relate? WTFUX0RZ?? YOU DIE!
i didn't make my point, sorry. the point was that there are cases in which the life of the mother becomes threatened by the continued life of the fetus. so, what rights does the mother have in this case? are they any different than normal self-defense rights? this was a point in response to the claim that abortion should be unconditionally illegal (made by abconners, among others).
 
Murdering babies is still murder, so no. Rape is OK though.
 
Lil' Timmy said:
i didn't make my point, sorry. the point was that there are cases in which the life of the mother becomes threatened by the continued life of the fetus. so, what rights does the mother have in this case? are they any different than normal self-defense rights? this was a point in response to the claim that abortion should be unconditionally illegal (made by abconners, among others).
It depends on the situation. Partial birth abortions should ALWAYS be illegal, even in situations of the mother's health there. The baby is ****ing AWARE at that point, no more growth- and only a matter of 4 inches, delegates the difference there.. it's disgusting.

But if the mother knows early that it will affect her health- etc, that is one of the only cases (along with rape, and adoption is always better for rape, anyway)


And by mother's health I mean life or death. Not "oh no I got morning sickness and it hurt when giving birth"
 
Foxtrot said:
Murdering babies is still murder, so no. Rape is OK though.
it is? hmm.. i did not know that..
RakuraiTenjin said:
Partial birth abortions should ALWAYS be illegal, even in situations of the mother's health there. The baby is ****ing AWARE at that point, no more growth- and only a matter of 4 inches, delegates the difference there.. it's disgusting.
why is the baby's right to life greater than the mother's?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
It depends on the situation. Partial birth abortions should ALWAYS be illegal, even in situations of the mother's health there...And by mother's health I mean life or death.

So if the birth will result in the death of the mother, and the mother has the option to abort at that late stage, the mother should be forced to have the child? One way or the other someone is going to die? Why not let them choose who it shall be?
 
RakuraiTenjin said:
What?

So you are saying for the baby's sake, we should kill it? That's just sickening to me x.x

It should be put up for adoption.
Yeah, let's ruin the girl's life for the sake of something that's not even alive. And my other point was that if it did live, there's a high chance for a crappy life anyway.
 
Back
Top