PDA

View Full Version : Abortion



Ghost
December 4th, 2003, 02:38 PM
I know this topic is quite popular for debate, but I just want to see some of the other members opinions or ideas about the subject. I will jump in when I see a specific side leaning to one side of the issue.

Jordan
December 4th, 2003, 03:54 PM
I say no to it. I say that because you could be killing a future scientist, or a doctor who will cure cancer, a living thing that will be able to contribute to society. If you don't want your child, just put it up for adoption.

Apokalupsis
December 4th, 2003, 04:52 PM
Nowadays, adoption is very easy. In the state of CA for example, a mother can leave her infant at a hospital or firestation, no questions asked, no paperwork. It is to combat the increasing number of babies found abandoned in dumpsters and secluded areas. Instead of abortion, why not just "hand off" to a facility that will care for the baby, give it a chance...and you have NO responsibility or accountability?

While having the child is still preferable...being able to simply "give it up" w/o any hassle is far superior than abortion IMO.

mog
December 4th, 2003, 05:35 PM
It isn't as simple as that. The psychological impacts on both the adopted child and it's mother as they both grow older would be immense. There is inevitably a bond between them, there is no such thing as no responsibility or accountability for the mother (later in life perhaps), and it isn't a matter of 'just' putting it up for adoption.

With abortion these deep mental scars are avoided. It is performed so early that there is no such connection between mother and child. There are no life long burdens, just a memory of a mistake fortunately avoided.

Telex
December 4th, 2003, 06:04 PM
It isn't as simple as that. The psychological impacts on both the adopted child and it's mother as they both grow older would be immense. There is inevitably a bond between them, there is no such thing as no responsibility or accountability for the mother (later in life perhaps), and it isn't a matter of 'just' putting it up for adoption.

With abortion these deep mental scars are avoided. It is performed so early that there is no such connection between mother and child. There are no life long burdens, just a memory of a mistake fortunately avoided.

Yeah, killing someone is way easier than dealing with all that psychological crap.

Apokalupsis
December 4th, 2003, 07:22 PM
Abortion doesn't prevent deep emotional scars for anyone except the baby as it doesn't have a chance to feel anything.

Dr. Julius Fogel has personally performed more than 20,000 abortions. He is unique in that he is both a psychiatrist and obstetrician, and he insists that "every woman, whatever her background or sexuality, has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy....It is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist." (1)

In fact, there are more than 375 studies dealing with the psychological impact of abortion on women. All show that at least a minority of women, typically between 10 and 20 percent, have one or more negative reactions shortly after an abortion. Studies looking at long-term reactions indicate that the longer after an abortion one looks, the more negative reactions will be reported.

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

----

1.) McCarthy, C., "A Psychological View of Abortion," St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press, The Washington Post, March 7, 1971. Dr. Fogel reiterated the same view in a second interview with McCarthy in 1989, "The Real Anguish of Abortions," The Washington Post, Feb. 5, 1989.

2.) Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).

3.) Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services, 1977)pp.313-321.

4.) R. Somers, "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage," Dissertation Abstracts International, Public Health 2621-B, Order No. 7926066 (1979); H. David, et al., "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions," Family Planning Perspectives 13:88-91 (1981).

5.) Kent, et al., "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.

Homestar Runner
December 4th, 2003, 08:23 PM
I do not agree with abortion, unless in one condition, and that is if the mother WILL die if she has the child. That is the only case in which I believe abortion is an option. Giving the child up for adoption is a much better option IMO.

mog
December 5th, 2003, 01:06 AM
Abortion doesn't prevent deep emotional scars for anyone except the baby as it doesn't have a chance to feel anything.

Dr. Julius Fogel has personally performed more than 20,000 abortions. He is unique in that he is both a psychiatrist and obstetrician, and he insists that "every woman, whatever her background or sexuality, has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy....It is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the pro-abortion crowd insist." (1)

In fact, there are more than 375 studies dealing with the psychological impact of abortion on women. All show that at least a minority of women, typically between 10 and 20 percent, have one or more negative reactions shortly after an abortion. Studies looking at long-term reactions indicate that the longer after an abortion one looks, the more negative reactions will be reported.

In a study of post-abortion patients only 8 weeks after their abortion, researchers found that 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed psychotropic medicine by their family doctor. (2) A 5 year retrospective study in two Canadian provinces found significantly greater use of medical and psychiatric services among aborted women. Most significant was the finding that 25% of aborted women made visits to psychiatrists as compared to 3% of the control group. (3) Women who have had abortions are significantly more likely than others to subsequently require admission to a psychiatric hospital. At especially high risk are teenagers, separated or divorced women, and women with a history of more than one abortion. (4)

----

1.) McCarthy, C., "A Psychological View of Abortion," St. Paul Sunday Pioneer Press, The Washington Post, March 7, 1971. Dr. Fogel reiterated the same view in a second interview with McCarthy in 1989, "The Real Anguish of Abortions," The Washington Post, Feb. 5, 1989.

2.) Ashton,"They Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion", British Journal of Ob&Gyn., 87:1115-1122, (1980).

3.) Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services, 1977)pp.313-321.

4.) R. Somers, "Risk of Admission to Psychiatric Institutions Among Danish Women who Experienced Induced Abortion: An Analysis on National Record Linkage," Dissertation Abstracts International, Public Health 2621-B, Order No. 7926066 (1979); H. David, et al., "Postpartum and Postabortion Psychotic Reactions," Family Planning Perspectives 13:88-91 (1981).

5.) Kent, et al., "Bereavement in Post-Abortive Women: A Clinical Report", World Journal of Psychosynthesis (Autumn-Winter 1981), vol.13,nos.3-4.

Of course abortion isn't an easy thing to cope with. The real question is how many of those who abandoned their child on a doorstep had mental complaints, how many of them had to be admitted to mental faculties, how many of them regretted their decision.

If they regret their decision in the case of abortion, what can they do? Nothing, except get over it.

If they regret abandoning their child for adoption, they live knowing their child is out there with no chance to move on with their own lives. There is no sense of closure. If they find their child who has already grown up and try to gain custody they draw the adopting parents and the child into a life wrecking turmoil.


Yeah, killing someone is way easier than dealing with all that psychological crap.
Killing what?

Apokalupsis
December 5th, 2003, 06:58 AM
Of course abortion isn't an easy thing to cope with. The real question is how many of those who abandoned their child on a doorstep had mental complaints, how many of them had to be admitted to mental faculties, how many of them regretted their decision.

If they regret their decision in the case of abortion, what can they do? Nothing, except get over it.
Regret is regret. Whether it is from abortion or adoption, does not matter. To state that one is superior over the other with this argument, avoids the fact that the other is equitably regrettable. The exact case you made for abortion is made for adoption. Only with adoption there is less anxiety as you know 1) you haven't killed your baby, 2) you have been more responsible, 3) allowed your child to grow up in a home capable of caring for it.


If they regret abandoning their child for adoption, they live knowing their child is out there with no chance to move on with their own lives. There is no sense of closure.
The same is said for abortion, so this argument nullifies itself. In fact, I'd argue that it is a better argument against abortion than adoption, as in abortion, there is no hope, it is final. Adoption, you have given a chance to your child.


If they find their child who has already grown up and try to gain custody they draw the adopting parents and the child into a life wrecking turmoil.
Adoption laws prevent this from happening. The decision to give up the child is as final as the decision to abort.


Killing what?
The child.

bassix2004
December 5th, 2003, 08:09 AM
I agree with abortion but also disagee.

A lot of teens mothers and know a couple that rather keep there baby then give it up for adobtion. Most the time when a child is born to teen mother and/or father, they cannot always support and give propor care. Im stating this becuase if the next great sceinctist is born but not giving the right schooling or care they will not grow up to there protential.

The one circumstance i totally agree for abortions is rape., in a rape the woman does not agree to having sex and if she gets pregnet should not have to bare the child.

In conclusion i do not totally agree with normal case pregency getting aborted but there are some good circumstances where it is needed.

mog
December 5th, 2003, 02:27 PM
Regret is regret. Whether it is from abortion or adoption, does not matter. To state that one is superior over the other with this argument, avoids the fact that the other is equitably regrettable. The exact case you made for abortion is made for adoption. Only with adoption there is less anxiety as you know 1) you haven't killed your baby, 2) you have been more responsible, 3) allowed your child to grow up in a home capable of caring for it.

I'm saying one is superior over the other because in the case of adoption this regret fuels attempts to get their child back, drawing more people into it.



The same is said for abortion, so this argument nullifies itself. In fact, I'd argue that it is a better argument against abortion than adoption, as in abortion, there is no hope, it is final. Adoption, you have given a chance to your child.

I disagree, but I don't presume to comment further on something I have no experience in.



Adoption laws prevent this from happening. The decision to give up the child is as final as the decision to abort.

They prevent nothing except the mother regaining custody. The upending of lives still occurs if the mother were to seek the child.




The child.
Which is unconcious and unfeeling. Life nonetheless, but grown animals that are slaughtered for food have more awareness and are life as well.

Ghost
December 6th, 2003, 10:48 AM
The topic of abortion is one of a philosophical sense. You cannot effectively argue against abortion without gravitating to the notion of religion, immorally murdering and unborn child. The fact remains, that yes, you are allowed to believe WHATEVER you want. However, the fetus before abortion, (about 8 weeks I believe) has yet to reach any mature state. That is why there is a limit to how long you may bear a child before getting an abortion.

Consider this...

Some may argue that life begins when the sperm reaches the ovum, so may argue life doesn't begin until you die.
However, how could the premature fetus be considered living if it has not developed brain. Or even a heart for that matter. The fetus doesn't respond to stimuli, such as pain. What makes this fetus living? If this is true, than how could you "murder" something that isn't alive? I think a more appropriate statement would be ending its development for you cant murder what isn't alive.

Ghost
December 6th, 2003, 10:49 AM
Now, about giving the child up,

Anyone could abandon the child. That is what makes me positive on some aspects toward abortion. If the biological mother doesn't want the baby, then why should she be forced to conceive? The baby will not receive the love and caring of which it deserves. The mother might even hate the child for ruining her life and will eventually abandon it. A child which is not wanted, not wanted to point where the mother is willing to have an abortion, the child will not be loved.

I understand this is a quite a negative situation but it is very probable.

Homestar Runner
December 6th, 2003, 09:08 PM
The one circumstance i totally agree for abortions is rape., in a rape the woman does not agree to having sex and if she gets pregnet should not have to bare the child.Morning after pill. While not 100% at stopping a pregnancy, is still an option.


Which is unconcious and unfeeling. Life nonetheless, but grown animals that are slaughtered for food have more awareness and are life as well.I'm sure you mean mammals. Anyway, humans have a great potential for learning and Cause and Affect. A human will touch an electric fence and never do it again. They will avoid it, get around it, or go over it. A cow will touch that fence, get startled, and do it again the next day. It takes a very long time for a cow to have the fact that touching the fence will hurt them to sink in.

RTShatto
December 7th, 2003, 06:43 PM
That is what makes me positive on some aspects toward abortion. If the biological mother doesn't want the baby, then why should she be forced to conceive?
Exactly my thoughts, but then again the baby inside her is a genuine person, nobody is forcing anything on her, onless she was raped, then it is "forcing it on her", but thats not the babies fault, they should go after and punish the rapist not the innocent baby, comprende?

mog
December 7th, 2003, 07:17 PM
I'm sure you mean mammals. Anyway, humans have a great potential for learning and Cause and Affect. A human will touch an electric fence and never do it again. They will avoid it, get around it, or go over it. A cow will touch that fence, get startled, and do it again the next day. It takes a very long time for a cow to have the fact that touching the fence will hurt them to sink in.



Exactly my thoughts, but then again the baby inside her is a genuine person, nobody is forcing anything on her, onless she was raped, then it is "forcing it on her", but thats not the babies fault, they should go after and punish the rapist not the innocent baby, comprende?

I think Ghost is absolutely right, it is difficult to argue against abortion on moral grounds unless you look at it from a religious perspective.

The questions of the ability to learn cause and effect and punishing a genuine person are irrelevant. Terminating a few week old fetus has no parallels with killing a person. A much more advanced life form is killed to make a hamburger.

The morality of abortion is a dead end. The pschological and social impacts of abortion vs adoption are debatable.

RTShatto
December 7th, 2003, 08:04 PM
The questions of the ability to learn cause and effect and punishing a genuine person are irrelevant.
It is not irrelevant, you say punishing a genuine person is irrelevant yet are you not killing a genuine person when you commit infanticide?


Terminating a few week old fetus has no parallels with killing a person.
Let me make this easy, if there were no "parallels" then why do you think we are having this discusion? just to argue like old men? :)


A much more advanced life form is killed to make a hamburger.
There is a difference, people consume animals, they dont consume babies. And there are those out there who refuse to eat animals.

mog
December 7th, 2003, 09:41 PM
It is not irrelevant, you say punishing a genuine person is irrelevant yet are you not killing a genuine person when you commit infanticide?
Thats my whole point, unless you look at it from a religious perspective a few week old fetus is not a genuine person.



Let me make this easy, if there were no "parallels" then why do you think we are having this discusion? just to argue like old men? :)
Again, unless you look at it from a religious perspective terminating a fetus of this age is nothing like murdering a person. And the morality of abortions is by no means the only subject of this discussion.


There is a difference, people consume animals, they dont consume babies. And there are those out there who refuse to eat animals.
What does it matter if they are consumed. There are reasons animals are slaughtered, just like there are reasons pregnancies are aborted.

Apokalupsis
December 7th, 2003, 10:06 PM
At what point does the fetus gain the rights of a human (as a child)? Also, why is it that even the earliest of pregnancies, if a pregnant woman were beaten or even killed and it resulted in the death of the fetus, the offender would be charged with the murder (of the fetus)?

Homestar Runner
December 7th, 2003, 10:08 PM
At what point does the fetus gain the rights of a human (as a child)? Also, why is it that even the earliest of pregnancies, if a pregnant woman were beaten or even killed and it resulted in the death of the fetus, the offender would be charged with the murder (of the fetus)?
Exactly, why is Scott Peterson being charged with murder of the unborn baby and an abortion doctor is not charged so?

mog
December 8th, 2003, 02:21 AM
At what point does the fetus gain the rights of a human (as a child)? Also, why is it that even the earliest of pregnancies, if a pregnant woman were beaten or even killed and it resulted in the death of the fetus, the offender would be charged with the murder (of the fetus)?

Presumably the law is written with christian values in mind, which is convenient for convicting assaulters. However when it comes to abortion the grounds of this definition come into question, otherwise abortions would always have been illegal.

Ghost
December 8th, 2003, 06:51 AM
The only instances where I would condone abortion is rape cases, and/or women who are actually too financially off to support the baby. In other cases, it was the couples irresponsibility which resulted in the birth of the baby.

RTShatto
December 8th, 2003, 12:04 PM
Thats my whole point, unless you look at it from a religious perspective a few week old fetus is not a genuine person.


Again, unless you look at it from a religious perspective terminating a fetus of this age is nothing like murdering a person. And the morality of abortions is by no means the only subject of this discussion.

What does it matter if they are consumed. There are reasons animals are slaughtered, just like there are reasons pregnancies are aborted.I dont want to be rude but where do you get the idea that im trying to speak with a Christian voice saying that abortion is wrong.

This is an issue on human life, not religion IMO, nothing I have stated so far has anything to do with religion, I can simply just be arguing for the sake of argument or I could be genuinly sympathetic to the unborn child.

I have yet to say that killing an unborn child will send you to eternal damnation. My argument is for life and well being, which has religious implications but then again religion speaks to the soul. But this isnt about religion. :)

mog
December 14th, 2003, 11:07 PM
If you aren't speaking from a religious perspective then you are saying a parasite should have the same rights as a human being.

RTShatto
December 15th, 2003, 03:24 PM
Dont tell me your one of those people who consider a fetus in a womb a parasite?

Thats insulting to the human race.

mog
December 15th, 2003, 04:09 PM
Dont tell me your one of those people who consider a fetus in a womb a parasite?

Thats insulting to the human race.

Parasite.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


Without the christian ideas that humanity begins at conception, why do you think a few week old foetus should have the same rights as a born human?

RTShatto
December 15th, 2003, 05:39 PM
I feel we are going to be going in and out of a loop here, unless you can prove to me that I am speaking with a christian voice and not one of sincere respect for humanity.


Parasite.
Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
Oh and I would like to point out that last part of your first sentence, it does contribute to the survival of the host, the offspring of the host will carry on the genetic make-up of there parents, on top of that they will have better qualities to which they will pass on to there offspring.

Is this not a factor of evolution?

mog
December 15th, 2003, 10:24 PM
I'm not trying to force the idea that you are speaking with a Christian voice onto you, I am simply saying if you aren't then why do you think a few week old foetus should have the same rights as a born human?

While I think wether the foetus is a parasite or not is irrelevant, for the sake of argument I point out that evolution and natural selection do not contribute to the survival of the host. It is beneficial to the species but does not technically benefit the mother.

Apokalupsis
December 16th, 2003, 07:41 AM
I think the problem is, where one draws the line in development. And if in early development, it is not "advanced" enough to "earn" rights, then advancement is the key here (which I personally disagree w/ btw). And if advancement is the issue, then one could argue that someone who is severely mentally disabled could justly be "terminated" as they are not advanced as other lifeforms.

So the level of "advancement" or progress in growth IMO, is a bad argument when used as a basis to lend rights to an organism for survival.

Booger
December 16th, 2003, 11:41 AM
So the level of "advancement" or progress in growth IMO, is a bad argument when used as a basis to lend rights to an organism for survival.

So, do you believe that the morning after pill, which irritates the uterus lining to prevent a human zygote from attaching to the uterus, should be illegal? If so, do you believe the morning after pill should not be available to rape victims?

mog
December 16th, 2003, 01:35 PM
So the level of "advancement" or progress in growth IMO, is a bad argument when used as a basis to lend rights to an organism for survival.

It has to be put in context. The argument of many anti-abortionists is effectively saying that this foetus of minimal development has rights which outweigh that of the mother.

RTShatto
December 16th, 2003, 03:27 PM
I dont think of it as the rights of the fetus being outweighed by the mother, I think of it as the rights of the fetus to survive, one can look at it from the perspective that the mother might lose her life, but killing life for the protection of another life is rather barbaric dont you think?

Booger
December 16th, 2003, 05:41 PM
I think of it as the rights of the fetus to survive, one can look at it from the perspective that the mother might lose her life, but killing life for the protection of another life is rather barbaric dont you think?

Except that you just need to look at it conversely to see mog's argument. In other words, if a medical conclusion is reached that the mother has a severe likelihood of death if she delivers the child, then prohibiting that mother from aborting the fets is, in a sense, killing life (the mother's) for the protection of another life (the fetus). Accordingly, why should the protection of the fetus outweigh the protection of the mother's life? Make the argument.

RTShatto
December 16th, 2003, 08:30 PM
Cant really argue on with you on that, its like a paradox, your damned if you do and your damned if you dont. <--- wasnt intended to sound religious, though it may have seemed.

Booger
December 17th, 2003, 08:18 AM
Cant really argue on with you on that, its like a paradox, your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.

Except that this is real life we're talking about so you have to balance the mother's life with that of the fetus and come to a decision. Which way would you come out and why?

Apokalupsis
December 17th, 2003, 12:28 PM
Booger,

As I currently understand the Morning After Pill, I see no wrong with it (when taken w/i 72 hrs of intercourse). I see it as an alternative to other birth control methods. However, I do believe that it is only used currently for "emergencies"? And not as common practice to replace traditional birth control methods? Is this correct?

Also, I see it as a good solution if requested by rape victims.

mog,

But again, the qualifier is the amount of development of a being as the deciding factor if X is wrong or not.

mog
December 17th, 2003, 02:03 PM
Booger,

As I currently understand the Morning After Pill, I see no wrong with it (when taken w/i 72 hrs of intercourse). I see it as an alternative to other birth control methods. However, I do believe that it is only used currently for "emergencies"? And not as common practice to replace traditional birth control methods? Is this correct?

Also, I see it as a good solution if requested by rape victims.

mog,

But again, the qualifier is the amount of development of a being as the deciding factor if X is wrong or not.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/10/nfoet10.xml

Personally I would draw the line where the foetus becomes conscious.

Before that point I can see no moral difference between abortion and a morning after pill.

Apokalupsis
December 17th, 2003, 02:51 PM
Good article. But what would you say to a parent who wants to terminate their child's life when their child is in a comma or has brain damage and no longer conscious? How is this different than your proposal above?

mog
December 17th, 2003, 04:13 PM
Good article. But what would you say to a parent who wants to terminate their child's life when their child is in a comma or has brain damage and no longer conscious? How is this different than your proposal above?

Often when damage is irreversible and a situation like that exists, a decision is come to between doctors and parents that the life support machine shall be turned off. This is a common practice.

It is a very rare occasion that the patient can keep themselves alive indefinitely. A mercy killing in this situation is different to abortion because the patient has worldly links to people including not just their parents. If it were satisfactorily proved that it was in everyone's interest, then I would support euthanasia.

ClearThinker
January 13th, 2004, 03:00 PM
mog,
I am an Atheist, but I still don't consider murder to be OK. The question is, is abortion murder? Let's say, some how we discover that a fetus is in fact a human life. Impossible, I know, but just a hypothetical. Wouldn't you agree that all the stuff you and others say about how it's better for the woman, it's a parasite, etc would be wrong headed, and that we should outlaw abortion? It's no longer a "You believe what you want, and I'll believe want I want" issue: murder is murder. Well, we obviously don't know that, so what are we left with? This is how I see it:

I believe late-term abortions are wrong because the doctor induces labor, but has to kill the baby before it is born. This is so he doesn't kill an independent infant.

Like I said, I have no loyalties to religion, but to me the physical location does not determine if something is human or not. If the doctor has to kill it because outside the womb it could be a viable human infant, then to me, it's the same damn thing if it's 6 inches further inside a womb.

I bring that up because I don't know when a fetus becomes a human. I know it's somewhere between a cell cluster and when the baby is born. My point is this, I'm not willing to risk murder because it's convenient for some irresponsible woman (and man).

So where does that leave me... I think the morning after pill is ok, and I'm OK with abortion in the first month or so (it should take less than 2 months to realize you might be pregnant). But after that I am dead set on NO ABORTION. And I hope we get to the point in the future when we have infallible birth control (pipedream) so we won't have to make the choice.

papasmurf
January 13th, 2004, 06:32 PM
well, after reading all this... i got a few things to say this is my opinion and alot of you will think im wrong.

first off,

dude shibby when you talked about human race being a parasite, lol you got mad, where in alot of people's minds the human race is nothing more than a plague and kills everything in some ways that is true, plus there is nothing that is evening the population its nothing but on the rise. yes, we are different from other animals but in alot of ways were are still a savage, in someways even worse than some speicies killing each other and everything else in this world.(im not saying some animals dont kill each other)

about abortions, i dont think you can mix religion in this its the United States, yes its alot based on christian but, considering others and the rising decline of christian believers there for it should not be illegal just b/c of the christian religion.

and the debate on the fetus, well its a body of cells now just developing systems it is not yet a funiconal organism there for a lower form of live.

my opinion on this is you can only have one if they get raped or its life threating. now if they want to give up the baby i think the baby should have 100% rights to medical history of that family, even in closed abortions, rape victims that give the baby up.

a good movie about this is called "Issai"(mis s/p)ita crack additct that adbandons her baby in a trash can. she gets cleaned up and wants her baby back after 6 years. she wins and the child never recovers from it, nightmares, and everything else, sometimes she will find him in a corner of the room in a fetus position.

i think this goes with this subject to SAFE SEX
if they arent smart enough to do this they got it coming and i feel sorry for the child. if the condom breaks and the pill doesnt work well thats sad to. but more and more girls are getting on the pill for dialy bases and can go into the doctors office and can get it free no quesitons asked atleast in the state of kansas even if the girl is only 12.

also i think all couples should go to genetic counseling, so they can find out if they are carrying any gene disorders, i really dont know what my opinion is on down sydrone children or not. its very sad and other disorders

RTShatto
January 13th, 2004, 06:43 PM
dude shibby when you talked about human race being a parasite, lol you got mad, where in alot of people's minds the human race is nothing more than a plague and kills everything in some ways that is true, plus there is nothing that is evening the population its nothing but on the rise. yes, we are different from other animals but in alot of ways were are still a savage, in someways even worse than some speicies killing each other and everything else in this world.(im not saying some animals dont kill each other)
Forgive me for saying this but it sounds like your quoting Agent Smith from the Matrix. :)

IMHO if people really thought that way, then wouldnt the simple solution to that problem would be to just kill yourself because your disgust towards yourself and humanity?

mog
January 13th, 2004, 07:02 PM
mog,
So where does that leave me... I think the morning after pill is ok, and I'm OK with abortion in the first month or so (it should take less than 2 months to realize you might be pregnant). But after that I am dead set on NO ABORTION. And I hope we get to the point in the future when we have infallible birth control (pipedream) so we won't have to make the choice.

I see it the same way. I am strongly against the termination of a concious foetus. Taking Britain for example, abortions are allowed up to 24 week old foetuses. This is the age it is thought they become concious. Before this, I see no difference between abortion and a morning after pill. Others draw the line in different places, many Christian types at conception, and the Pope who thinks "every sperm is sacred" a la Monty Python and disallows any contraception. Personally I think it is only logical that terminating a foetus that is not yet concious cannot be considered murder.

Elwing
January 15th, 2004, 11:42 AM
There is a simple sulution to avoid both Abortion and odoption. Don't have sex. Duh. If you don't feel that you can handle the responsibility of a child, then you can't handle the responsibility of haveing sex. I know that may seem hard but its the only way to avoid the whold situation.

Eva
January 15th, 2004, 12:30 PM
There is a simple sulution to avoid both Abortion and odoption. Don't have sex. Duh. If you don't feel that you can handle the responsibility of a child, then you can't handle the responsibility of haveing sex. I know that may seem hard but its the only way to avoid the whold situation.

True; however, accidents do happen even in the most careful of relationships. I believe families should only have the amount of children they can afford. If birth control fails, they should have the option to protect their existing children from poverty. Your cut and dry solution requires married couples to not have sex once they have all the children they can afford. That's a very unrealistic expectation to have for husband and wife.

mask
February 8th, 2004, 09:53 AM
first let's make a distinction between legalization of abortion and morality of abortion.
of course the cases of rape and health problems are non debatable i wouldn't think that even the extreme right would attack abortion there.
other than that, do u think the argument that, abortion is done anyways, would help to answer whether it is moral or not?(let's leave legalization till later)
about conveniency of raising a child and that it is a basic freedom. do u think that justifies taking another life away??.by definition it wouldn't be basic freedom if it involves harm to another party. so again the debate comes down to is the fetus another human being and of course that's classical.
ur talking about choice and i'm with choice too. a woman makes a choice to have sex.that's the choice. it is essential that ppl who are free take responsibility for their acts, that's an essential logical condition. but to give oursleves all the freedom and expect others to pay for our choices is not basic freedom that's crime.
talking about choice here is like the choice of a surgeon to conitnue an operation after he already opened up the patient or a pilot to land a plane already in air.
again all that i said is based on the idea that a fetus is a "living human being"
to illustrate:
let's say a forensic team is to analyze body parts of victims of a suicide bomber attack. body parts are disfigured beyond recognition. they decide to use the very widely approved DNA analysis to find the identity of the victims.
don't u think that finding 23 pairs of chromosomes in any fragment makes it belong to a human being.scientifically it would.and would also distinct it from any other human because they would be specific to him.
in my analogy no scientific differentiation between a pregnant woman and a woman with a child can be made.
23 pairs of chromosomes in a living cell is a living human.