The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

[christoph]

In other words, we have no right to decide for the mother whether it is right or not. Instead of debating about whether it should be legal on moral grounds, we should let the individual make that decision.

That's ultimately the crux of many abortion debates. If you argue that abortion belongs in the realm of 'personal morality' then the government really has no right to intrude except through laws regulating the procedure.

 

[HotShot]

Still, as far as I'm concerned the debate regarding the foetus is null. Abortion to me is about the continued well being of the mother - an already existing human. We can debate forever as to whether a foetus is 'alive', whether it constitutes as 'human' etc, but seeing as how science will never definitively rule in favour of one or the other, it's merely a matter of opnion.

I am sure if the mother wasnt able to give birth then an abortion wouldnt be problem. That is up to the doctor to decide and not the mother though. :wave:

 

[MiTcHeLL4188]

One word - Choice

A womans choice to choose, make abortions illegal the choice will dissapear. Who are politicians? elected by us yes...but what gives them to critise the choice of women who get abortions?

 

[bshoc]

One word - Choice

A womans choice to choose, make abortions illegal the choice will dissapear. Who are politicians? elected by us yes...but what gives them to critise the choice of women who get abortions?

We don't give people choice in terms of things like murder, drugs, gun running etc. Why should this be any different?

Who are we/they to criticize? Well for starters people who aren't stupid enough to need an abortion in the first place.

 

[MiTcHeLL4188]

We don't give people choice in terms of things like murder, drugs, gun running etc. Why should this be any different?

Who are we/they to criticize? Well for starters people who aren't stupid enough to need an abortion in the first place.

people who arent stupid enough to need an abortion...so if a woman gets raped and falls pregnant shes stupid because she needs an abortion? why is someone stupid for getting and abortion?

 

[bshoc]

people who arent stupid enough to need an abortion...so if a woman gets raped and falls pregnant shes stupid because she needs an abortion? why is someone stupid for getting and abortion?

Because if you had bothered to read the thread you would know that 99% of abortions are done on women who were not raped and are not under any threat from their pregnancy.

 

[KFunk]

Secondly, the conversations regarding the unborn baby beeing alive or not will end here. It takes in oxygen, it feeds, it is human -this is enough evidence to lay this particular argument to rest.
...
END OF DISCUSSION.

Frankly, I don't think that you can end this debate so swiftly. I think one misconstrues the debate if they depict it as one which hinges on whether or not an unborn child is alive. That an unborn child is alive, biologically, is not really worth debating. We know that an unborn child is alive. However, this fact is not enough to end the debate. As I understand it, the debate is over whether or not an embryo/foetus is the kind of thing which possesses a right to life and whether or not this right superceeds any freedoms the mother might have a claim to. We have a huge number of flora and fauna on our Earth which, despite being alive, are regularly denied the kind of right to life which we award human beings. Why don't we protect the lives of gorillas like we do those of our neighbours, or of unborn foetuses? Are we being anthropocentric, or is there some fact of being human which places us 'above' other animal species? In any case, the more important questions which I have posed previously, and which I shall pose to you now, are:

What property do human beings possess which gives them a right to life, and why is it that this property gives them a right to life?

 

[dieburndie]

For example, we sticky tap a cross to the wall with a half naked man on it and most go to church hoping to earn a ticket into some magical world in the sky. By the way, this magical world is a place where we spend the rest of eternity bowing and serving some old guy with a beard yeah. You know why most people go to church or devote themselfs to some fairytale named Allah? -it's because they're affraid of death!

Now, these "for abortion" people who devote themselfs to the all-mighty one, don't think you're getting any tickets to the Golden-Gates -they don't welcome murderers.

But you just completely dismissed christianity as a construct used to alleviate the fear of death, now you are saying that this absurd fantasyland "doesn't accept murderers", and therefore it, and belief in it are completely valid.
What you are saying doesn't really make any sense.

 

[MiTcHeLL4188]

Now, these "for abortion" people who devote themselfs to the all-mighty one, don't think you're getting any tickets to the Golden-Gates -they don't welcome murderers.


END OF DISCUSSION.

oh no god doesnt like me for having an opinion...oh no i wont go to heaven, lol, god if he is real, something that i seriously doubt, gave us a brain for a reason...to make independent decisions...take ur bible bashing somewhere else...

 

[withoutaface]

We don't give people choice in terms of things like murder,

Muder involves the right to life of someone who is universally considered a human being by science being intruded upon.

drugs, gun running etc. Why should this be any different?

Drugs and guns should be legal.

 

[dieburndie]

Yes, we’re ‘above’ animals; We are human because we are not animal, nor machine. Humans are the dominant specie on the planet so that makes us “GOD”.

The right to life may be nothing more than a cultural construct ok

Then why were you so quick to rule out any conflicting opinions with your high and mighty "END OF DISCUSSION"?
You aren't saying anything that leads anywhere, you are just typing a bunch of words which ends with a conclusion completely lacking adequate information.

 

[ur_inner_child]

I agree.

Secret, I've talked to you about this before; about this forum and its fairly strict but fair rules.

Converse, not preach.

 

[bshoc]

Muder involves the right to life of someone who is universally considered a human being by science being intruded upon.

No law is "universally" accepted, I'm sure a murderer would love to have those murder laws thrown out, so what, even if we go by the most pro-abortion veiws science and say "it may be alive," its our duty to take the conservative approach until that "may" turns into a definite. Common sense has to come in at some point.

Drugs and guns should be legal.

The second one is over-regulated, first one is fine.

 

[HotShot]

That somes up the crux of alot of abortion debates - is a foetus a living person. If so, when?

Does foetus need to be living person? It consists of a lot of cells that are living. Cells are made in the human body. So what?

Then point women shouldnt need to have an abortion in the first place. Its funny how you debate this - because at one point you say that its mother body etc etc. yet you dont accept that its the women's fault for being pregnant? After it is her body and she is responsible for it!

So if she becomes pregnant why should she have an abortion? Unless it is life-threatening in that case it is up to the doctors. Rapes preganancy are rare cases.
People know especially in Australia that there are contraceptives available and abstinence is A CHOICE!. And yet they take risk knowing that they wont be able to look after a baby? Isnt that StUpid?

Its bit like drivers who drink drive? Isnt it?They know they can get caught by the police, they may still stay within the legal alcohol limit - they also know alcohol reduces your reaction times -and then they crash - LOL isnt that stupid? So why drink drive?

 

[KFunk]

Yes, we’re ‘above’ animals; We are human because we are not animal, nor machine. Humans are the dominant species on the planet so that makes us “GOD”.

The right to life may be nothing more than a cultural construct ok, dependent on social mores, historical contexts, exegetic systems etc… however, this is my opinion and I will stand by my opinion. It is absurd to end the existence of a potential being. The mother has the power to control her sexual experiences' but yet, some may be so ignorant to void these controls thus falling pregnant and opting for a "hack attack" on the fetus.

Why is it that the property gives them a right? Because life is changing, and the world requires changing. Me and you wont be here forever so we require beings to take control and apply change. And I believe every human has a right to attempt to create change – this is enough.

So I take that you believe that: Humans have a right to life because they are alive, with the justification of this being that life is changing and the world requires changing. A few points I would like to make in response:

(1) I'd like to challenge your logic that 'the world requires changing, and humans can change it while alive, therefore all humans should be kept alive where possible' (or some variation on this... sorry if I've misunderstood you). Firstly I would question the moral importance of 'change', in and of itself, but even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the importance of change we run into problems. For one thing, our global population is growing as is and it would seem that we have more than enough individuals in this world to cause 'change'. Even without growth we have an influx of new individuals into the world, capable of using their new mindsets to alter their environment. This generates several questions, two of which are: 'Why is change of such great moral importance?' and 'How can you show that ending a human's life will cause less change to take place?'

(2) If we assume 'change' to be morally important then what of the mother's right to change? Is she not changing the world when she aborts a pregnancy? Also, what if her child had been destined to become a staunch conservative - would that have slowed the process of change (half jokingly)?

(3) When I think about change, I'm not sure how it can be valued in and of itself. Consider that a relationship may change from loving to abusive, and that a sun like star in a lifeless solar system may change into a red giant. The former example shows that change may be a means through which things of 'negative moral worth' occur, while the latter shows that change may be a means through which things of (what appears to be) no moral worth occur. In fact, without change in any form it would appear that nothing can take place. In any case, as best as I can tell change as a force in itself is not what benefits us, but some of the new (or revisited) situations which are realised through change.

Do you wish to continue to defend 'change' or do you have some alternative jsutification for our right to life? Also, do have any goals towards change should be directed or is direction unimportant in your view?

 

[ElendilPeredhil]

Now, these "for abortion" people who devote themselfs to the all-mighty one, don't think you're getting any tickets to the Golden-Gates -they don't welcome murderers.


END OF DISCUSSION

If God were anti-abortion would he order his people to kill children and pregnant women?


Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.
Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT

Hosea 9:11-16 Hosea prays for God’s intervention. “Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, 0 Lord: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. . .Ephraim is smitten, their root is dried up, they shall bear no fruit: yea though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Clearly Hosea desires that the people of Ephraim can no longer have children. God of course obeys by making all their unborn children miscarry. Is not terminating a pregnancy unnaturally “abortion”?

Hosea 13:16 God promises to dash to pieces the infants of Samaria and the “their women with child shall be ripped up”. Once again this god kills the unborn, including their pregnant mothers.

 

[terces]

I will speak for secret.

Let me be serious without confusing you with non-understandable opinions.

So I take that you believe that: Humans have a right to life because they are alive, with the justification of this being that life is changing and the world requires changing.

I don't recall saying those words within the first paragraph. However, I will state why I believe people have a right to life, once again. In the world that we live in at this present time, requires change. I believe that all should have this oppotunity to make change in a world that so desperatly requires it. Of course, there will always be people who change things for the worst. But, there are also people who change things for the good. Now, having a world which requires change; why terminate the potential birth of an individual who could make this happen? What Im saying is simple, if you still don't get it then don't reply to it.

(1) I'd like to challenge your logic that 'the world requires changing, and humans can change it while alive, therefore all humans should be kept alive where possible' (or some variation on this... sorry if I've misunderstood you). Firstly I would question the moral importance of 'change', in and of itself, but even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the importance of change we run into problems. For one thing, our global population is growing as is and it would seem that we have more than enough individuals in this world to cause 'change'. Even without growth we have an influx of new individuals into the world, capable of using their new mindsets to alter their environment. This generates several questions, two of which are: 'Why is change of such great moral importance?' and 'How can you show that ending a human's life will cause less change to take place?

To answer the second question very quickly; individuals are born with certain advances; for example, I can sketch a face and you may be able to paint a picture. Therefore, one may be born with a talent to change the world. Of course not at a tender age, but when they feel they can acheive this. I personally am not out to make the world a better place, but many people have attempted with success (E.G. Martin Lutha King.Jr) -he may not of changed the world for you, but his speech made had me think twice before judging others in relation to the colour of their skin = CHANGE.

(2) If we assume 'change' to be morally important then what of the mother's right to change? Is she not changing the world when she aborts a pregnancy? Also, what if her child had been destined to become a staunch conservative - would that have slowed the process of change (half jokingly)?

She's terminating a 'potential beeing' - this is murder, in my eyes it is anyway because I know murder is wrong (their right to life has been taken away). But yes, you're right... however; the truth can't be smudged with well educated posts ok, the evidence is right here = abortions are undertaken to end the existence of a potential human.

(3) When I think about change, I'm not sure how it can be valued in and of itself. Consider that a relationship may change from loving to abusive, and that a sun like star in a lifeless solar system may change into a red giant. The former example shows that change may be a means through which things of 'negative moral worth' occur, while the latter shows that change may be a means through which things of (what appears to be) no moral worth occur. In fact, without change in any form it would appear that nothing can take place. In any case, as best as I can tell change as a force in itself is not what benefits us, but some of the new (or revisited) situations which are realised through change.

Ok.

Do you wish to continue to defend 'change' or do you have some alternative jsutification for our right to life? Also, do have any goals towards change should be directed or is direction unimportant in your view.

No, and direction is important but we've never had any direction - this is why I believe we require change.

If God were anti-abortion would he order his people to kill children and pregnant women?

I am sorry, but the text is irrelevant. I don't know who wrote that nor do I know if it's true (And it wouldn't supprise me if the book is printed in china which is the same place they print the 'Big Friendly Giant'). And personally, I wouldn't know what GOD thinks or does, nor do I want to know.

 

[HotShot]

Tell that to a rape victim carrying the unborn child of a rapist you piece of shit.

How many rapes are there? ANd how many raped women become pregnant? Its such a minority that you can make exceptions. Other women dont have any excuse to have an abortion - U TARD!.

COndoms tear

SO shit, is that something that no-one knew!!! OMG Fucken god CONDOMS tear - duh anything can happen. If you are not prepared to have baby, then you shouldnt be having sex. If you are prepared for the worse - then there is no problem is there?

Drunkeness, peerpressure etc can all though that out.

...yeah But still its the women's fault for being in that situation. You take the donkey to the pond, but you cant make the donkey drink the water!.

And no it is not stupid. Abstainance in a teenage environment is almost non-existant - peer pressure alcohol etc all burn that theory to hell dont you think??

That doesnt mean it is the right thing to do. You must suffer the consequences its bit like, 'Teenage kids' smokin pot and saying thats acceptable because 'in a teenage environment it is envitable to occur' - yeah man nice argument there.
You are only giving reasons why women get pregnant rather than addressing the issue of having an abortion.

And what bout the drink drivers who get home withtout crashing or being court? Is that stupid? I dont see how it is relevent though

What about them? They are home and they are safer, but it is shown that drink drivers have a higher risk of being involved in a crash and that is why there are alcholol restrictions which I think are too lenient. It is relevent as it is a similar situation to how people in this thread are arguing.

 

[KFunk]

I don't recall saying those words within the first paragraph. However, I will state why I believe people have a right to life, once again. In the world that we live in at this present time, requires change. I believe that all should have this oppotunity to make change in a world that so desperatly requires it. Of course, there will always be people who change things for the worst. But, there are also people who change things for the good. Now, having a world which requires change; why terminate the potential birth of an individual who could make this happen? What Im saying is simple, if you still don't get it then don't reply to it.

As far as I know I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. In the following I'll try to explain why I take issue with the 'The World needs change, new beings might provide change, therefore we shouldn't allow abortions in order to facilitate change' argument:

(1) Bringing new people into the world seems, to me, to be only one of many avenues of change, and a haphazard one at that. Consider that you yourself could get involved in the political scene and put forward your views and goals for a better future, perhaps even initiating some form of positive change. This would seem to be a far more certain way of achieving the kind of change you seek. Similarly, you could get involved in education and help to foster and direct those minds which have the potential to cause such change.

(2) You seem to assume that some people are born with innate tendencies which may predispose them towards causing change (that how MLK thing). However, I would argue that upbringing plays perhaps a larger role in the shaping of an individual than their genetics (to the best of my knowledge, having looked at some of the literature on the early emotional development of children). If what I argue is right then bringing new children into the world will not be enough, for you would also have to bring them up in the appropriate manner i.e. that which predisposes them to generating change. Your beliefs would then seem to argue for a certain form of upbringing more strongly than they do for the elimination of abortion. Also many abortions take place due to a lack of income, or a lack of interest in child-rearing (perhaps the mother feels she isn't emotionally mature enough), or a lack of familial support etc... i.e. a lack of the kind of structures which play an important role in giving a child a stable upbringing. It is in these cases that I suspect your desired change would least likely result.

(3) In response to one of my questions you stated that "direction is important", i.e. you do not merely seek change of any sort, you seek positive change - change for the better. How do you know that the net amount of change is positive when you eliminate abortion? If more 'bad' people are born than 'good' people then isn't it possible that a higher birth rate might have a negative effect?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

As far as I know I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with it. In the following I'll try to explain why I take issue with the 'The World needs change, new beings might provide change, therefore we shouldn't allow abortions in order to facilitate change' argument:

Seems to me like the common argument that ends in "you just killed beethoven" a quite simple retort imo is that perhaps you just killed hitler.