Poll on Abortion

[bvasgm]

The answer to all this is simple. Preferrably wait to your married t have sex and want a baby, but if you don't, Just be very careful. And if an accident happens (they usually do) just live with it.

So basically what you're telling us is to be like the Puritans or the Amish..Don't have sex untill you are married and then only when you want to have a kid...Yeah...that's not going to hold up in society today. :dozey: Also..If you're using a condom or some other method of birth control...they usually don't. Aside to RakuraiTenjin: No..no it's not.

That being will not get the chance at a life.

Basically what you're saying is that when a woman hits menopause..she's committed murder hundreds of times. Every time she loses an egg she's deprived it the chance at life, and by doing so is murdering it.

 

[Griz]

IMO, the discussion comes down to one point: If you kill something that cannot feel, see, think, hear, breathe, etc... basically, exhibits no signs of being a living human, is it murder? In my opinion, a "living" lump of cells with human DNA does not a human make. Should people that having miscarriages or still births be charged with involuntary manslaughter because it had a "potential future"? At conception an embryo is about as much a human as a tumor. They both start as a few cells and multiply into larger lumps of cells. At that point, neither of them has a brain... neither even remotely resembles a human. I say the turning point is when the fetus has a developed brain that is actually active. When it can first process input... when it can start to feel... when it can potentially be thinking... that's when I think abortion should stop being legal.

IMO, if you slaughter cows/chickens/etc by the billions for food when there are plenty of healthy alternatives just because you like they way they taste, support the death penalty because jails can't handle enough criminals, or think starting wars is the best way to peace... and still claim you believe in the sanctity of life you should rethink your views on all of the above.

I think that just might be the best written post i've seen on these forums for a long time - very well put and i couldn't agree more!! :thumbs:

edit - oops wrong quote!

 

[PickledGecko]

What about the guy in Egypt a few years ago that found out that he grew around his twin when they were in the womb. He had his twin brother, a living foetus, growing in his belly. He had it removed. Is that murder, or is that someone making a choice about his own body and health? Did he have the right to end the life of his brother just to make his life easier?

I say yes. Not because of any moral issues, but because a persons body is their own to make moral decisions over.

The thing about morals is that we all have an opinion. I for example (if I were a pregnant woman), would draw the line at aborting my foetus when the brain was connected to the senses, as I believe it takes more that a clump of cells with a certain definable DNA structure to call something "human". I believe "human" is in the mind, something that the human brain allows but is only created when it starts to receive signals from the senses.

Most Christians base their opinion on the idea that the soul enters the body at the point of conception. They therefore believe it immoral to abort any foetus, because it fits their definition of murder.

Now, why do I believe a woman should be able to make the choice, regardless of stage of development, even though I have clearly stated the limit I believe that it is moral?

Because I don't have the right to force people to follow my moral standards. In the same way, I don't believe in a God or a soul, so I don't see why I should be forced to make choices based on a Christians moral standard.

To me its all a matter of choice. Everybody has the final say when it comes to their body and health.

Heres another hypothetical situation for you. Lets say there's conjoined twins Karl and Joe. If they are separated Karl has 90% chance of survival and Joe has 40% chance. If Karl wants to take the chance but Joe does not, whats the moral choice? Well, Karl's choice is about what is best for him, even though there are risks involved. Joe's choice results in Karl being forced into a situation where his life, body and health are no longer his decision. Essentially, Karl is forced into a type of prison, where he no longer has the freedom to demand a choice in his own well being like you and I do.

So, should Karl have the right to decide?

Well, once again it depends on you're personal preference. Do you believe that a person should have full control of their health regardless of the consequences, or do you believe life is the most important thing and should be preserved at all costs.

I believe that the choice, and the moral choice, is Karl's to make. Karl's morals could tell him that the life of his brother should be protected, even if that means Karl has to give up all the dreams he had about the future. Or, his morals could tell him he is not culpable for Joe's fate. Either way, its got nothing to do with you or I. Nothing to do with your morals or mine.

If you were in this situation and your moral compass might point to saving your brother, that does not mean Karl should be forced to live by your morals. His love for his brother may be more than his desire for a "free" life, it may not. Its Karl's body, Karl's morals, Karl's choice. Your body, your morals, your choice. Not, Karl's body, your morals, your choice.

When somebody finds themselves in a situation like this, such as considering an abortion, its up to them to base their decision on their morals and the consequences each option could have on their life. You and your beliefs do not enter into it.

 

[The Mullinator]

This is extremely unlikely, but think about. Pretend the person's potential is to bring world peace or end a war. Who are we to decide that that person doesn't deserve to get a chance at life?

I have been hit in the testicles several times in my life (all accidental). Do you know how many of my sperm cells would have been killed because of those kicks. Do you know how many eggs a woman will likely let go to waste before she finally gets pregnant?

All of those had the potential to grow up into a beautiful baby and help the world. However I don't see anyone calling a friend of mine who kicked a soccer ball at me a murderer, and I don't see anyone calling a woman who has her period someone who allows the death of a something that had the potential to become a human being.

Just because a woman has one abortion doesn't mean she will never be able to have a baby.

 

[MarcoPollo]

I think the main problem with abortions is that it is just the easy way out. I knew an 18 year old girl at my old highschool that was pregnant and even though nobody supported her (not even her parents or the father) she had the baby but didn't give it up for adoption. she said couldn't have dealed with he guilt that comes with an abortion and she is perfectly happy today and her child has a good life (she lives with her sister and has a husband now) but I guess not all people have a good sense of responsibility...as for early birth abortions...If she wants to she should be able to but I wish there was a way to add more consequences to it...it just seems such an easy way out.

 

[bliink]

I think the main problem with abortions is that it is just the easy way out.

Do you think it would be an easy choice to make if you were a pregnant girl? (use your imagination)

 

[Edcrab]

I'm probably more pro-choice than pro-life- but that's because I've got a varied selection of acquaintances from all manner of backgrounds.

I recall once that a 13 year old girl was raped and became pregnant, and the local priest did his best to alienate them from the community when her family even considered a termination.

That's stupidity. What do you tell a child in that situation- either of them? "You're going to have to have this baby and live with the fact that you couldn't care for them?" What do you tell the teenager's child, presuming they can cope with an unprepared juvenile for a mother or possible poverty? "You're unwanted, and your father was a rapist. Be happy!".

Even if the child somehow ended up with the world's most perfect foster family it doesn't do much for the emotionally maimed mother.

Abortion, for me, is acceptable, depending on the alternatives. Too many people oppose it vehemently without considering the consequences- the traumas for both the parents and the child itself.

 

[MarcoPollo]

No, I understand that either way it is a tough choice, but there are people that just think if they get pregnant they don't need to worry because they can get an abortion. Also I have known a girl that got an abortion and she said it was the hardest thing to do in her life.

Edit: I am totally in support of a girl that would consider or get an abortion if she was raped....I am actually very flexible on my stand on abortion under certain circumstances.

 

[Arathiel]

first of all, props to el chi and cybrman, for their convincing and well written posts that I have yet to have seen countered.

I'm somewhat divided on the issue. I don't think abortion should be used lightly, like a form of birth control or something. Ideally, women who don't want kids should be using birth control if they're sexually active. In the case of an accident, like a condom breaking or something, or a situation like rape, I think the morning after pill should be available over the counter. At this point, the egg has not even implanted and begun to divide, so it can hardly be considered a life. So ideally, abortion would never be necesary.

However, life is obviously not perfect or ideal by any stretch of the imagination. So we have to think about the consequences of outlawing abortion. Consider a woman who is scared to death of having a child, but she becomes pregnant by accident. Abortion is illegal, but she knows a friend who knows a guy that used to be a doctor of some sort, and for a few hundred bucks... her problems will go away. OR, she'll die from the unprofessional procedure. OR, she'll panic so much that she'll take a coat hanger and decide to deal with it herself. Of course, she'll end up puncturing her uterine wall, not telling anyone because she's ashamed of what she tried to do, and dying of infection.

long answer short: in an ideal world, abortions wouldn't be necesary. However, in a realistic world, the consequences of outlawing abortion could be worse than the actual abortions, so it should be legal under limited circumstances... something like what cybrman outlined (before the fetus is able to experience sensation or thought).

 

[kirovman]

Well as a man or a priest it's easy to be against it, because you're not going to experience this, and you probably have a closed mind with respect to understanding women (believe it or not, they aren't toys you can just **** around with).
Another example of a male dominated society.

What would happen if the females were in the power seats? Would we even be having this debate?

I disapprove of getting knocked up at drunken parties, but that's a problem of culture in society, so don't you think we should be starting to solve the problem here, rather than getting moralistic about it?

If the females are treated right, abortions will be much less of an issue.

 

[MarcoPollo]

If the females are treated right, abortions will be much less of an issue.

hmmm...If they weren't pressured to have sex so much...THEN it would be much less of an issue.

 

[kirovman]

hmmm...If they weren't pressured to have sex so much...THEN it would be much less of an issue.

Yes, as I stated... a cultural thing.

 

[Apos]

I know a girl who had an abortion. She had sex at a party and decided she simply didn't want to deal with having to raise a child. Raising a child at her age (early twenties) surely would have been difficult. I’m certain giving the baby up for adoption would have been a difficult choice to make as well. But you know what? She decided to have unprotected sex knowing full well what the outcome of that could, and very likely would, end up being. She put herself into this position. She simply didn't want to deal with the consequences of her actions. So she had an abortion. Shirking off responsibilities or weaseling out of situations seems to be a popular trend in society today. Nobody wants to stand up and say "I did this, and I'll suffer the consequences for it".

So she should have the child as punishment for her stupidity? That's not exactly the greatest reason to become a parent.

Aborting a pregnancy simply because you don’t want to go through all the trouble of raising the child or the pain of giving birth is a copout, and a terrible copout at that.

I think whether or not it is a copout depends on the moral status of the fetus.

Because no matter how you may try to compare a fetus to a cluster of dried up skin cells which you scratch off and kill each day, a healthy fetus, if left alone, will grow into a fully functional human being.

"Left alone" is a pretty weak argument. If left alone, a fetus with spinal bifidia will die during or soon after birth. If surgically fixed in utero, it will likely live a full life.

If a skin cell receives the correct chemical triggers to turn it into a zygote (or if you take the DNA from a skin cell and stick it in a embryonic stem cell with no nucleus) and is then stuck to the side of a uterus, it will turn into a baby. That's not "left" alone, but in every case, particular triggers lead to the development of a fetus, so I don't see what the difference is until the fetus becomes developed enough to at the very least feel pain and have brain activity.

What's morally relevant is the status of th fetus as whatever level of development it's currently at (unlike us, fetuses have no past as convcious living beings with expectations).

And as I said in the other thread, and as someone else says here, even if you do feel that the fetus is being wrongly harmed, it's hard for me to see how someone could, for instance, eat meat and be against the killing of fetuses. Food animals are far more aware and fearful of death and suffering than any fetus, yet for some reason people are okay about killing one and horrified about killing the other. But in terms of the only things that matter: the actual capabilities of a particular creature to feel pain, fear its own death, suffer from maltreatment, and so on, cows, pigs, chickens, and so on come way out ahead from fetuses.

You may argue that they are just animals, but what sort of argument is that? We are animals too: we differ in some ways, but are similar in others. Animals certainly do not have the same mental and psychological capacities that we humans have, but then again, fetuses have even less than they so what do THEY have to brag about. Fetuses indeed MAY further develop into humans, with our superior capacities and moral interests, but that hasn't happened yet, so it's irrelevant to the question. And for all we know, with a little genetic engieering, we could make animals far more intelligent, meaning they have just as much "potential" as any other creature.

 

[Apos]

With 21 votes in, 2/3 (or 14) of the voters voted Yes that it is justified in this instance.

Now, just to get a new persepctive on it, I am going to add one more thing that I left out in the first post. All of the woman's reasons are the same. The only thing I failed to mention is that the child in question whom she wants "aborted" turned 1 yesterday. So for those of you who voted Yes, please explain if you would now change your answer, and your reasons for your decision.

Lol, but you also forgot to mention, the baby is the future Hitler! Also, it can shoot lazers from its eyez!!!

Just a "new perspective" is all. Geez, and who said "Please don't unnecessicarily complicate it," hmmm? You gave people the situation, and called it abortion, which like it or not implies that we're talking about a fetus, not a 1 year old. Are you trying to give people a new perspective on what it's like to speak English as a second language?

 

[Apos]

Also, I don't understand the exception for rape (health of the mother at least makes some sense). The same arguments you sued before still apply: if the fetus is a precious beautiful full human being, then what difference does it make to its right to live that it was the product of rape? It's not its fault that it's mother was raped. Why is it suddenly okay to kill it now that it's somehow offensive?

 

[el Chi]

No, I understand that either way it is a tough choice, but there are people that just think if they get pregnant they don't need to worry because they can get an abortion. Also I have known a girl that got an abortion and she said it was the hardest thing to do in her life.

Edit: I am totally in support of a girl that would consider or get an abortion if she was raped....I am actually very flexible on my stand on abortion under certain circumstances.

It's perhaps an "easy way out" in as much as the girl doesn't have to go through the many many complications of pregnancy and child-birth with the constant thought at the back of her mind:
"I do not want this baby. At the end of this long, long development, I am going to have to give this baby away and possibly never see them ever again. I do not want this to happen. This possibility terrifies me."

More and more, I'm thinking that the legality, if not the morality, of this matter should be one left to women. Maybe we should all just shut the f*ck up and let the women have their say.

first of all, props to el chi and cybrman, for their convincing and well written posts that I have yet to have seen countered.

Merci beaucoups.

 

[MarcoPollo]

Read my other post ^

 

[gh0st]

I have been hit in the testicles several times in my life (all accidental). Do you know how many of my sperm cells would have been killed because of those kicks. Do you know how many eggs a woman will likely let go to waste before she finally gets pregnant?

Hehehehe. Yeah but those are natural events, they dont constitute potential of anything (especially given the fact that most people here will die as virgins ). When a zygote is made, life is there. Life is simply living. Its a living organism that will become a human, not unlike a parasite or other living entity. Of course, rectal worms dont grow up to be humans. Fact is, some of us (more than half the nation, in fact) disagree with abortion because they see the zygote as life - which I agree with. Anyone who says it isnt life is merely justifying murder, thats how I see it. Justify it however you want, doesnt change the fact that you just killed Steve.

All of those had the potential to grow up into a beautiful baby and help the world. However I don't see anyone calling a friend of mine who kicked a soccer ball at me a murderer, and I don't see anyone calling a woman who has her period someone who allows the death of a something that had the potential to become a human being.

Just because a woman has one abortion doesn't mean she will never be able to have a baby.

Those are natural events, and the possible sequences for those spermies become children are infinite. Once a zygote is formed there are 3 outcomes. Miscarriage, live birth, and destroying it. I cant believe how you people justify murder, its sick. Whats really sick is I hold life in greater esteem than the majority of people here.

Maybe we should all just shut the f*ck up and let the women have their say.

Absolutely not.

 

[el Chi]

Absolutely not.

Why not?

Wait a minute - didn't you say you were a girl?

 

[gh0st]

Why not?

Wait a minute - didn't you say you were a girl?

Because matters affecting society should not be left to 50% of the populace to decide.

I was just kidding about being a girl.

 

[PickledGecko]

Every abortion is the decision of 1 person as the consequences only affect 1 person. The woman having the abortion. A woman having an abortion does not, in any way shape or form, have any bearing on society. The only effect is on herself.

Defining "a person" as a full developed human, not a foetus, of course.

 

[Apos]

Hehehehe. Yeah but those are natural events, they dont constitute potential of anything (especially given the fact that most people here will die as virgins ). When a zygote is made, life is there. Life is simply living. Its a living organism that will become a human, not unlike a parasite or other living entity.

Again, so what? What it will "eventually" become is just a potential, not a reality. You can end that potential, but that is still no more murder of that future individual anymore than it is murder to simply not impregnate someone in the first place. The future individual is just as prevented from ever existing. So what's the difference?

Of course, rectal worms dont grow up to be humans.

Only because their cells don't recieve the correct chemical signals during development. Zygotes grows into human beings only because they receive very particular chemical signals from both the DNA and the mother's genes that tell them how to go about constructing a fetus. But building blocks and instructions are not the thing itself.

Fact is, some of us (more than half the nation, in fact) disagree with abortion because they see the zygote as life - which I agree with. Anyone who says it isnt life is merely justifying murder, thats how I see it.

Sperm are life, eggs are life, and thus this line of argument is pointless. Zygotes/embryos are alive, but then so are bacteria. And in many ways, bacteria have a lot more claim to be life than zygotes, because at least they can live on their own, without requiring external nourishment and chemical signaling. Even fetuses WITH nervous systems are a lot less aware than animals we thoughtlessly kill all the time, which is just ridiculously hypocritical. Sure, fetuses have the potential to become far more aware as human beings, but they are not there yet, and we have to deal with the present being before us when we decide whether such a being has moral interests or not.

Finally, if we charge someone with murder for killing a developing embryo, how many counts of murder should we charge them for? One? Or what about a million counts of murder? Because in the early stages of development, you can split off the developing cells into two, three, four, or any number of different embryos, and if you isolate stem cells you can do it indefinately. So how many "people" are you killing when you kill off an embryo? The very question shows how absurd it is to claim that killing a zygote is tantamount to murder.

Those are natural events, and the possible sequences for those spermies become children are infinite. Once a zygote is formed there are 3 outcomes. Miscarriage, live birth, and destroying it.

And the fact is, at least until there is some sort of nervous system there, none of those outcomes is any more morally relevant than any other. Before there is some actual feeling thing present, killing it harms no one, because there is no "one" there to harm.

 

[Calanen]

What about the guy in Egypt a few years ago that found out that he grew around his twin when they were in the womb. He had his twin brother, a living foetus, growing in his belly. He had it removed. Is that murder, or is that someone making a choice about his own body and health? Did he have the right to end the life of his brother just to make his life easier?

I say yes. Not because of any moral issues, but because a persons body is their own to make moral decisions over.

This is different. The twin inside his body perhaps could not be kept alive...i don't know. But it certainly was not the result of him engaging in casual sex.

 

[Apos]

But it certainly was not the result of him engaging in casual sex.

Again, what is with this jones people have for seeing the question of whether its okay to kill something in terms of punishing the person it's attached to!?! What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Calanen]

Again, what is with this jones people have for seeing the question of whether its okay to kill something in terms of punishing the person it's attached to!?! What does that have to do with anything?

Its about taking responsibility for your actions. And the actions that lead to what has occurred. Actions preceding occurrrences are very important in determining future actions. I've told you that I don't like abortion, hate it would be a better word. And I think its morally wrong most of the time, and ethically bankrupt. But to say that a guy who has a twin growing inside him is the moral equivalent of someone who has had unprotected sex of their own volition - is not accurate. It is like comparing the injuries of one who has picked a fight in a bar, to one who was bashed on the head from behind. One chose the consequences, the other just had to deal with them.

It seems that Jones is a reference to Jonestown and me being a follower of that cult or something or Reverand Jim Jones?. I am or was not nor am I in or have been in any cult. I think for myself and decide the issues by myself. Just because I do not believe what you believe does not make me some sort of cult member.

 

[Apos]

Its about taking responsibility for your actions.

What does that have to do with whether or not the fetus has moral interests that are violated by killing it? This "responsibility" argument seems to rest on the rather abhorrent premise that the right to life of some being rests on whether or not another being "deserves" to suffer for it or not! How can that possibly be?

And I think its morally wrong most of the time, and ethically bankrupt. But to say that a guy who has a twin growing inside him is the moral equivalent of someone who has had unprotected sex of their own volition - is not accurate.

It is morally equivalent, because nothing about the hosts' "deserving" to have to bear the fetus/twin around is morally relevant to the rights of the fetus/twin.

 

[PickledGecko]

Its about taking responsibility for your actions. And the actions that lead to what has occurred. Actions preceding occurrrences are very important in determining future actions. I've told you that I don't like abortion, hate it would be a better word. And I think its morally wrong most of the time, and ethically bankrupt. But to say that a guy who has a twin growing inside him is the moral equivalent of someone who has had unprotected sex of their own volition - is not accurate. It is like comparing the injuries of one who has picked a fight in a bar, to one who was bashed on the head from behind. One chose the consequences, the other just had to deal with them.

So, a man who climbs an old rotten wooden ladder to clear out his gutter, the ladder breaks and he falls. He is rushed into hospital and the docter says, "These injuries are his own fault, I'm not treating him! Get him out of my hospital!"

Thats acceptable to you?

 

[KoreBolteR]

So, a man who climbs an old rotten wooden ladder to clear out his gutter, the ladder breaks and he falls. He is rushed into hospital and the docter says, "These injuries are his own fault, I'm not treating him! Get him out of my hospital!"

Thats acceptable to you?

its the ladders fault.

this is where the old wooden ladder and the contraceptives come in common.
both didnt do thier job.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

A 22 year old woman is single, just starting her career which requires her to work 60 hours a week, and they pay isn't great yet. Going out with her friends is a big part of her life. She is a constantly busy woman between her personal and professional life.

If she's Oooooh so Busy in her life, how can she manage to squeeze in a kid or two between lunch breaks at her 60 hours a week job?

I read the line, "going out with friends" very precariously.

Thats bullshit. Dont have unprotected sex if you've not intended, nor are prepared for the consequences. Dumb bitch, no cookie. (I voted no)

 

[Razor]

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.as...ortlive&ks=1&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en&ae=windows-1252

The highest ranked Catholic in England has likened the 6million Abortions that have happened to the extermination of 6million Jews in Germany during World War 2, and nothing but "legalised Extermination".

He also goes onto say that Embryonic research, such as Stem Cells is just as bad, is just as bad as Abortion, which i think it foolish. Embryonic Research does not kill any children and has huge possibilities to help millions of people with untreatable and awful diseases today, such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. Abortion is maily an excuse for 14 year old girls to have unprotected sex or career women to make mistakes and not live with them by flushing it out.

 

[Absinthe]

People talk about how those that have abortions aren't willing to take responsibility, but I don't see how this is so. I think wrapping both of your arms around this thing and getting an abortion is most certainly dealing with your problem.

 

[Razor]

People talk about how those that have abortions aren't willing to take responsibility, but I don't see how this is so. I think wrapping both of your arms around this thing and getting an abortion is most certainly dealing with your problem.

To me, abortion should only be acceptable when a problem has been found with the baby or going all the way to child birth will risk killing the baby, the mother or both. It shouldn't just be a quick fix...but then, when you see all these 14 year old slags with prams...perhaps.

 

[The Monkey]

I think abortion should be justified no matter what, it's the woman's body, and it's the woman's choise. The intresting point is when you think the baby is alive, I would say around the 7th or 8th months, beacause then I believe that it's aware that it exist, and that is, for me, the key point that seperates us from the animals. Therefore, at that point, it's alive and human, but before that, it's just a ball of flesh and fat in my opinion.

 

[Razor]

For everyone contemplating whether abortion is good or bad, imagine that you're mother was a drugged up, 14 year old slag who was busy boozing, partying and shagging anyone who paid enough through your pregnancy and after she gave birth to you. Now imagine, would you rather have gone through that when you were a baby, or would you rather have been killed, to never have experienced it?

 

[StardogChampion]

I vote yes, since no child should be brought into a world where they won't have a decent life.

 

[ríomhaire]

If god gave us the ability to kill unborn babies then i say its ok.

God gave us the ability to kill 5 year olds, is that ok?

Edit:

IMO, if you slaughter cows/chickens/etc by the billions for food when there are plenty of healthy alternatives just because you like they way they taste, support the death penalty because jails can't handle enough criminals, or think starting wars is the best way to peace... and still claim you believe in the sanctity of life you should rethink your views on all of the above.

There is a big difference in my opinion to killing something and putting it to good use ie. eating and killing something and throwing it into a bin to rot.

Edit 2:

Every abortion is the decision of 1 person as the consequences only affect 1 person. The woman having the abortion. A woman having an abortion does not, in any way shape or form, have any bearing on society. The only effect is on herself.

So you think this would not emotionaly affect the farther? Not all men are f**kers who would say to a woman "deal with it yourself"
or would it not emotionaly affect her family aswell.
Saying that men could not understand it is a pill of s**t and a weak defence. The people saying that (those that are men) could have the same thing said to them. And also women who have not had this happen to them. So should we let the decision lie on only women who have had abortions?

 

[PickledGecko]

Every abortion is the decision of 1 person as the consequences only affect 1 person. The woman having the abortion. A woman having an abortion does not, in any way shape or form, have any bearing on society. The only effect is on herself.

So you think this would not emotionaly affect the farther? Not all men are f**kers who would say to a woman "deal with it yourself"
or would it not emotionaly affect her family aswell.
Saying that men could not understand it is a pill of s**t and a weak defence. The people saying that (those that are men) could have the same thing said to them. And also women who have not had this happen to them. So should we let the decision lie on only women who have had abortions?

My post was in response to gh0st, who posted:

Because matters affecting society should not be left to 50% of the populace to decide.

I was saying that the act of abortion does not affect society as a whole. What “Joan Public” does in a clinic, has no bearing on your, his, or my life. As far as the father/family is concerned, yes, I will agree that there could be emotion involved, it is possible that the father/parent wants the child/grandchild. But women are not merely breeding machines sent to fulfil her husband’s desires for a child or their parent’s desires for a grandchild.

When it comes to a person’s body, they get final say over their health. Just because there is a sick little boy who needs a kidney and can’t find a tissue match, does not mean you can force someone to have theirs removed. I don’t care how much the father will cry when he sees that little coffin lowered into the grave, if I’m a match and I don’t want to risk my health, I should not be forced by law to donate my kidney.

It’s the same with abortion. Just because the father may get upset does not mean a woman should be forced to go through with a pregnancy. It’s her body, her health, her decision is final.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a cold emotionless monster who laugh’s at other people’s tragedies. I feel sorry for all those people who lose a child. If I could wave a magic wand that would make the world’s pain go away I would. If I could make it so no child is ever in pain, dies before their parents or grows up in an unsuitable home I would.

But my health is my decision. I must have final say about what goes on with my body. If I then choose to use one of my organs to save a life, then fine throw me a party. But if I choose not to risk my own life for another, then don’t throw me in jail. Its my life that’s at risk, its my body that’s in question, its my f**king decision.

 

[KoreBolteR]

simple fact is, its the mothers decision, the thing she is getting rid of is still part of her body, once it is more than 4 months or so tho, i do believe its unnacceptable, because it has become more independant that it was when it was at the start of the pregnancy..

but when its not even formed tidy, you cant really class it as a real baby, i see it as another part in a womans body, and they can get rid of it if they want.

that religious guy...who does he think he is? let him be pregnant, see how he'd cope then.

dont get me started on some religious fanatics.. ugh

 

[dart321]

simple fact is, its the mothers decision, the thing she is getting rid of is still part of her body, once it is more than 4 months or so tho, i do believe its unnacceptable, because it has become more independant that it was when it was at the start of the pregnancy..

but when its not even formed tidy, you cant really class it as a real baby, i see it as another part in a womans body, and they can get rid of it if they want.

I have never understood this argument. I mean that "part of a womans body" you are talking about is going to be a full baby within a few months, completely separate of the mom. Killing "it" before "it" gets to a form that you feel guilty about is unacceptable IMO.

I think it's a very funny (and ironic) thing that abortion is advocated only by people who have themselves been born. (Ronald Reagan said this IIRC)

There are always exceptions, but most of the time, abortion should not happen.

 

[gcomeau]

I have never understood this argument. I mean that "part of a womans body" you are talking about is going to be a full baby within a few months, completely separate of the mom.

Only if she takes actions to make that happen. The same way your sperm will only become a baby in a few months if YOU take actions to make it happen. Therefore masturbation is mass murder!

Killing "it" before "it" gets to a form that you feel guilty about is unacceptable IMO.

I think it's a very funny (and ironic) thing that abortion is advocated only by people who have themselves been born. (Ronald Reagan said this IIRC)

Only in the sense that it's funny (and ironic) that logging is only advocated by those who aren't trees. I mean, sure... trees aren't CAPABLE of advocating anything... but isn't that funny (and ironic) anyway? :upstare: